| Author |
Message |
    
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 505
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 10:37 am: | 
|
I said this months ago but self-loathing Cos clones will stoop at nothing to run themselves down.
Read it and weep:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0432/coates.php
nation
Press Clips
by Ta-Nehisi Coates
Sex, Lies, Death
The irresistible pull of the down-low myth—uh, story—hooks reporters and their readers
August 11 - 17, 2004
f only to verify our existence, every so often media announce that the sky has fallen on black America. The latest cause célèbre for acolytes of Chicken Little is a reported rise in the "down low" lifestyle. Media outlets as diverse as The Advocate, USA Today, and The Oprah Winfrey Show have gathered their crack reporters to bring you the latest on this grave and gathering threat.
Outlet be damned, the blueprint of the down-low story is always the same: Black women are alleged to account for 72 percent of all reported cases of HIV between 1999 and 2002. The cause? The hordes of barebacking bisexual black men, driven underground by the black community's entrenched homophobia. For sure, HIV is a huge, disproportionate problem in the black community. But direct evidence exposing the down-low as the major causal factor is lacking.
Last month, Essence finished a two-part report with an article that carried this hand-wringing headline: "Do Black Men Still Want Us?" Answer—based on your covers, we crave Jill Scott like grits and gravy, but Mo'Nique will send us to rice cakes.
The down-low has all the makings of a sensation: Here is a tale of sex, lies, and death. Better still, here is a tale as old as America—the threat of Black Dick. In the olden days, the warlocks of lede, hed, and deck mostly saw the black phallus as a menace to white daisies. But in the era of equal opportunity, Black Dick has turned on its own.
The Washington Post headlined its down-low entry, last August, as "HIV Positive, Without a Clue," with the subhead of "Black Men's Hidden Sex Lives Imperiling Female Partners."
Turns out the logic behind the down-low is as creaky as the headlines are dramatic. "The down-low is being wildly reported, but it's a story without facts," says Phill Wilson, director of the Black AIDS Institute. "It doesn't help us with AIDS prevention to vilify black men or to disempower black women."
What drives activists like Wilson crazy is that despite the ink the down-low has generated, hard data is lacking. Researchers have no national count on how many men are living down-low, much less what down-low is. "If you answer research questions at a gay club, or if you're being interviewed in Essence by E. Lynn Harris, you ain't down-low anymore," says Dr. David Malebranche, an assistant professor at Emory University's Division of Medicine. "Everybody has different definitions and different perspectives on what this means."
The Times cited a study saying that one-third of all bisexual black men have HIV and another noting that in the Centers for Disease Control survey of a majority of the states, black women accounted for 72 percent of new HIV cases among women. "If you look at the numbers among black women and you look at how black women contract HIV, it's at least valid to talk about this as an issue," says Linda Villarosa, editor at large at Essence. Villarosa has had a few shots at the sordid tale—she authored a front-page Times article on the subject, and had a hand in the Essence version.
But the numbers are ambiguous. The oft-quoted figure about a third of all bisexual black men having HIV, according to Dr. Malebranche, was the result of research done in nightclubs in six major cities. "All you can say about those statistics," says Malebranche, "is that one out of three black men in those particular cities, who frequent those particular clubs, have HIV."
More questionable is the assertion about black women and new cases of HIV. The Times gets credit—unlike, say, Essence—for at least noting that its story is based on an amalgam of statistics from 29 out of50 states, as compiled by the CDC. Only half of the20 most populous states bothered to report. Large ones like California, New York, Illinois, and Texas—with almost a third of the country's population—aren't included.
The story's linchpin has been the accepted truth that the black community is acutely more homophobic than the rest of America. The down-low is stirring up emotions in "the often-homophobic black community," reported The Advocate. "Black men aren't allowed to have even the slightest feminine characteristics of the average metrosexual." Andre 3000, Prince, and Fonzworth Bentley apparently missed that memo. As did most of black America, whose rampant homophobia nonetheless puts it behind such bastions of tolerance as Bensonhurst, Hasidic Williamsburg, and the whole of Mississippi.
A study published last year in Public Opinion Quarterly concluded that "evidence that blacks are more homophobic than whites is quite limited." While blacks were significantly more likely to object to homosexuality, it found, they also were significantly more likely than whites to support laws against anti-gay discrimination.
What the down-low mythology demonstrates, more than anything, is an an adherence to the cult of black pathology. Black people are more homophobic, more misogynist, more anti-Semitic, more anti-intellectual, more violent, and generally a problem. The viewpoint persists despite facts on the ground.
Barack Obama rails against the stigma that brands a black kid with a book white—and yet on 125th Street seemingly a third of the vendors are selling books. Bill Cosby attacks black girls for popping out babies and being bad parents—even as the pregnancy rate among black girls falls precipitously. Ditto for the down-low. Corner pundits aren't particularly known for nuance. But when reporters start drinking the Kool-Aid, we've got trouble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pardon the lack of enthusiasm
Watching ESPN these days immediately sends me into spasms of geezerdom: "Bring back Irv Cross! Dick Schaap, why did you leave us?" The best I can say about Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser's Pardon the Interruption is that they make me forget what channel I'm watching.
With great horror last week I tuned into PTI and found Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith subbing. As any sports nut knows, Wilbon and Kornheiser's shtick was honed over two decades—not with prodding from producers, but in the newsroom of The Washington Post. Smith and Bayless are also print journalists (The Philadelphia Inquirer and The San Jose Mercury News, respectively), but the two have about as much chemistry as a tombstone. Jokes fall dead on arrival, debates are transparently staged as the duo tries to patent the art of scowling. The only thing worse than the festival of argument that's starting to define ESPN and cable news is a fake festival of arguments. Wilbon. Kornheiser. Hurry home. Can't hold on . . . much longer . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black on white on black
Favorite attempts by white people to convince themselves Barack Obama isn't black:
Christopher Buckley in The New York Times calling Obama "the new Tiger Woods of American politics"—ditto for NYT columnist David Brooks on PBS. Who was the old Tiger Woods?
William Saletan—whose stuff I love—noting in Slate, "Obama isn't exactly black. His mother is white and came from Kansas. His father came from Kenya." Now they tell us. That sort of thinking would have done more for the race than the Emancipation Proclamation. "Wait, he's not really black. His mother's from the Gold Coast and his father is the lecherous overseer. Release those chains!"
Scott L. Malcomson, also in the NYT: Obama "is not the direct product of generations of black life in America: he is not black in the usual way." True. But try that one on Abner Louima, or better yet, Amadou Diallo.
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 687
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Chris,
We have been here before. But okay...
I agree that this DL phenomenon may be 'overblown' (which, BTW, might also describe guys who truly live the DL life...hehe!). But as long as the incident of HIV infection spiralS out of control within the Black community and there remains even a remote link between that and men surreptitiously/irresponsibly secking other dudes; the conjecture, suspicious and hysteria - real/imaginary - will burgeon. Thus, the reality of whether the proportions of DL Black men are great or minimal will, for all practical purpose, continue be irrelevant.
I MUST, however, exclaim this: Sisters! I don't care WHAT sweettalk those @#$%ers out there try to feed you. PULEASE! STOP having unprotected secks! PULEASE!
And if you must ride rawdawg with someone (though really, WHY the @#$% would you do THAT?), at least make sure he (or even 'she', I guess) SHOWS you the unquestionably "NEGATIVE" results of a authentic/certified HIV test he(she) has taken within the last 3 - 6 months!
Because ain't NO #*<{ (or %@$$~) so good that it is worth dying for! |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 450
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:02 am: |
|
Abm here's the thing, unless you live with the man, hell really ain't no guarantees if he Does live with you really, but let's say he takes the test, its negative, then right after he takes the tests he gives in that day/night and rawdogs it with some chick who convinces him "that's what it's made for"(hey if we gonna use clips from usher songs, we may as well take it all the way there ) the test is NIL! right? anyway, my point is it is NEVER safe to have unprotected sex, cuz that's the world we live in! a lotta Dudes, and girls, just still think they can look at a person and say if they dressed down and their gear is tight from head to toe, then they MUST be clean!! That's what's up! So until they realize that you can't judge a person "clean" cause they dress clean, and until men quit creepin with other men, Houston, we got illzz!!
But my question then becomes, if a man says he's straight, ,(cuz that's a whole nother issue right there!) why does a man want to do another man???????? I don't get it. What is it that a man can get from another man?
Does it have to do with roughness, aggression and hostility??
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 714
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:32 am: |
|
A_womon,
You are of course correct. But to live a good/productive life, one must play certain odds. Yes, what I offer does not completely prevent a woman from becoming infected. What I've suggested simply lessens the chances of one getting sick.
Well, I am not gay (nor do a play one on TV...sorry, old joke), so there is only so much I can offer here. But there is an element within ALL men who would rather engage in the sex acts sans all the responsibilities imposed upon us by women (e.g., dating, romance, foreplay, marriage, children, myriad trinkets, etc.). That, of course, is not an original concept to any female pass the age of about 14 years old. So I think that what we have going on here is to some degree is men being so consumed by their desire to bone-up whenever/however they want to, they are willing to engage in 'atypical' behavior.
Moreover, I too think that part of what going in is about the "roughness" and "aggression" you cite. I suspect that some of these guys are doing things to each other that many (good/decent) women would dread and utterly reject.
And, as I have said before, I think the exorbitant incarceration rate among Black men has created a growing subculture of homoerotic activity, which is (not so subtlety) being perpetuated by certain elements of hip/hop music/videos.
Lastly, the American (and much of the industrialized World) is going more accepting of homosexuality. So perhaps what is going is in but a manifestation of broader human 'evolution'. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 452
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:31 pm: |
|
ABM
Well, how did I know hip hop was going to get dragged in here?
Anyway, here are my thoughts on the subject: yes thugosexuals do exist! And yes, I agree with you abm, that the vast number of our men being locked up and being expected to go sexless for years and then finding that (no matter how they may try to resist it) they find that they can't fight their god-given urge to merge and therefore are forced to some degree to quell that urge on each other.
Then once they form an affinity to it, I think they continue to seek it out once they get back on the outside. But therein lies the problem of the down low brother, how to reconcile his newfound love of black men's booty without considering himself a punk or gay? create a new term, re-invent himself and present it this way,
I'm straight, but I like to hit that azz too. It makes no sense to us outsiders lookin in, but that's why I think it happens, and it is also why I think that down low numbers directly correlate to brothers time on lock down, and time back on the streets! |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 976
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:56 pm: |
|
There are probably just as many upscale down-low guys who have never been to prison as there are ex-offenders. Also, according the article in Essence, these guys are not necessarily into rough sex. They just like the idea of intimacy without committment. Down-low sex is regarded by many of them as a diversion, - a form of recreational sex. And, who knows? Maybe the human species is slowly evolving into a bi-sexual one because there are also a lot of down-low women out there experimenting with same-sex activity. Could be this is Nature's way of neutralizing the population explosion that threatens the planet. Same-sex indulgence really is a form of birth control because lovemaking between 2 people of the same sex doesn't produce babies, and sterility can be a side-effect of the STDs that this type of behavior spawns. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 721
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 01:52 pm: |
|
Cynique,
I agree plenty of the Black Jet Set engaged in such behavior. But the fact is there are MANY more brothers who are doing time than are graduating college and scoring 6-figure jobs on Wall Street. So the issue of incarceration is having a more acute affect on our community.
And yeah, there are many women on the DL. But, again, HIV/AIDS and the scarcity of 'eligible' Black men (fairly/unfairly) exaggerate the issue.
Simply, if there are - because of incarceration, rampant unemployment, illiteracy, exorbitant high school truancy/dropout rates - few brothah eligible available to begin with and some(many?) of them are sexually flip-flopping to a degree/manner that puts women at risk for disease, then the issue transcends that of sexuality...its really more about love, life and death.
I have NEVER bought the whole "population explosion" argument. Frankly, I consider the whole notion of such to be an EXTREMELY dangerous concept that is loaded with very loathsome racial/ethnic overtones. But that is probably a discussion that warrants a separate Topic.
A_womon,
It's interesting. I KNEW you would pounce on my tossing hip-hop into the basket. But okay, I will TRY to explain.
First, I probably love hip-hop as much as you do. I play it ALL the time. (At this very moment I am listening to the Black Eyed Peas' "The Boogie The Be".) Actually, I probably love it more than you because I have lived long enuff to more fully see/appreciate the genre.
But that love does not obscure my ability to objectively view certain aspects of the music and how they may be negatively influencing our culture, including sexuality.
For example, I remember when the music/videos were more inclined to emphasize appreciation for the beauty of Black women. Before, videos might focus on one woman, to highlite feminine beauty. But now, you often see a 100's pretty girls being treated as playthings seemly to be discarded whenever/however some playah chooses.
I think that serves to diminish the value of feminine beauty and, indirectly, elevate/exaggerate appreciation for masculinity. And I think that this subtlety effect how some guys are viewing females and themselves to the point of effecting their sexuality.
Simply: Is a woman the object of manly dreams and aspiration...or is a man? Before you decry my comments as being simply some generational polemic of hip-hop, do me a favor: Try to listen/observe the music/videos free of your youthful biases. You might be disturbed by what messages are REALLY being communicated.
I am NOT saying hip-hop is the primary influence. And I certainly don't think that ALL of hip-hop effects such imagery. But I do think that some of hip/hop contributes to what we are discussing here
I agree with you that allot brothahs are using a lot of demagoguery to obscure the fact that they enjoy having other men's @#$%s in their mouths. |
|
Email This Page