This Is What Pisses Me Off.

In the comments of my most recent Stranger post on King County's new drug-resistant strain of HIV, commenter "BD" makes some good points about the need for personal responsibility, but then writes:

Here's the problem...

We go on witch hunts in the gay community...looking for "patient zero".

When we hear about a new "upward trend" or "superstrain", we respond with hysteria, and create a hollow "Manifesto"...whose purpose is to only shame and punish a community that's been shamed and punished for decades.

I'm sorry, but this confused line of thinking needs to be knocked down. And it needs to be knocked down forcefully, "BD," because it's extremely harmful (never mind that it's also a great example of what you describe in your comment as gay men being "their own worst enemies").

Not all shame is the same, "BD," and not all shame is worth rejecting out of hand. Here's how I dealt with your (all too common) brand of confusion in the piece that I'm working on now:

For a long time gay men have fought, correctly, to be free from shame for who we are sexually. But some gay men have gone further, conflating their morally-neutral identity with certain morally unjustifiable actions, and incorrectly asserting that they have some right to be free from shame no matter what sexual decisions they make as gay men, and no matter how adversely some of those decisions affect their own health or the health of their community. Woe to the writer who suggests that some gay men—particularly some "core group" members—should have a little more shame about their actions (not their identity), or at least be a little more ashamed about the unhealthiness their actions are perpetuating.

And here's how I dealt with the same type of shame confusion back in 2003:

Joseph Sonnabend, a doctor treating people with AIDS at the beginning of the AIDS crisis, had this to say in 1982 about the gay men's health leadership: "A desire to appear non-judgmental, a desire to remain untinged by moralism, fear of provoking ire, have all fostered a conspiracy of silence. For years no clear message about the danger of promiscuity has emanated from those in whom gay men have entrusted their well-being."

Then, as now, the roots of the gay leadership's reflexive refusal to be judgmental, or moralistic, or directive, are fairly obvious. Gay men have been persecuted by moralists, judged unfairly, blamed improperly, shamed unnecessarily, told the behaviors that define us are unnatural. It has harmed us tremendously, and continues to harm us. It keeps us in closets, it destroys our self-worth. But in response, many of us--including many gay men's health leaders--seem to have completely rejected all morality, all forms of judgment, all blame, all shame, all suggestions of proper behavior. These people seem to think it is possible to build a healthy community without such things, though much of human history--not to mention the current state of the gay community--argues against this proposition. Theirs is an understandable, but unsophisticated, response to persecution. And it is also dangerous. It ends up giving license to the immoral minority; the people in our community who are harming themselves and others by doing things that are undeniably wrong, irresponsible, and shamelessly reckless.

Take your pick, "BD," but I wish you would listen.