From an early age I watched the evening news with my parents. It was part of our nightly routine - eating dinner and watching the news (sometimes at the same time). One distinct memory was watching Reagan's re-election campaign against Walter Mondale in '84 (I was 6). My parents were (and are) ardent Democrats, although they knew in this case that Mondale didn't have a chance. I remember watching coverage of the space program and local news of happenings around Austin, TX. I was on the local news once with my mom when news cameras came to our house for a story going on in our neighborhood. A brush with greatness.
But my exposure to the news had negative effects as well. For instance, throughout the 1980's and early 90's AIDS coverage was on just about every news broadcast that came on the air. People were absolutely freaked out about this epidemic, and the media never ceased to report on famous AIDS deaths, research towards vaccines/cures, controversy around homosexuality and prophylactics, and the general fear that this virus could overwhelm our nation and world. After exposure to these news stories I began to have my own paranoia about the disease. As a kid this kind of news coverage was scary. In fact, not being fully educated on what AIDS was, I thought I might have AIDS! It seemed like everyone else did! I suppose that's the danger of knowing only partial facts, as well as being too young to really understand what a sexually transmitted disease is.
I recently read a book called Epidemic: A Global History of AIDS by Jonathan Engel. I think it's a must-read for anyone interested in knowing more about the history of AIDS and the current crisis. It's a well-documented and carefully researched work that deals with AIDS' origins, a history since the late 1970's, as well as various specific topics such as the AIDS crisis in Africa.
There was one aspect of Engel's research that I found particularly interesting, and that was his perspective on the media coverage of AIDS, especially from the late 1980's to early 1990's - the time when I was a kid watching the news. His research shows that the way in which AIDS was presented to the average household in America was that of a potential pandemic that would eventually take over the world. However, the statistics even then demonstrated that very view average, middle class Americans with fewer than 6 sexual partners a year had AIDS or even, based on lifestyle choices, had a very good chance of contracting AIDS. However, my guess is that even moderately educated adults during this period of history would shutter at what seemed like the impending doom of life on earth. The reasons for this pandemic portrayal are complex, but to put it simply two factors were involved: First, at the early stages of AIDS there were simply many unknowns about how and when the disease was transmitted, not to mention the fact that it was clear early in the research process that finding a cure was going to be difficult, if not impossible. Secondly, there were many political factors in view. Due to prevalent homophobia that was completely out of control in many parts of the U.S., many fought to defend homosexuals against accusations of AIDS as a "gay disease" - and rightly so. AIDS isn't a "gay disease". However, in a effort at such a defense an inaccurate picture of the AIDS crisis was painted and sold to millions. The truth is that AIDS was relegated primarily to certain segments of society -drug users, highly promiscuous individuals (in the late seventies, early eighties this was primarily homosexuals, especially those involved in bath houses of large metropolitan areas), as well as recipients of blood transfusions. These demographics are not the demographics of a coming pandemic. Granted, heterosexual middle class Americas could contract AIDS - but they rarely did.
Engel's research is not a bash on the media, although irresponsible journalism was certainly a factor. His research simply shows a growing awareness of a terrifying virus that seemed to have no cure and no end to its ability to mutate RNA strands in uncontrollable ways.
However, despite the nature of AIDS in America as primarily relegated to certain groups of people, the story of AIDS in Africa is very different. Homosexuality, and promiscuity in homosexuality, seems almost non-existent in most of Africa. In Africa, middle class non-drug using, non-blood-transfusion-receiving people, were getting AIDS, beginning in the 1980's, and the disease spread, and continues to do so, like wildfire. Before reading the book my theory was that this was due to rape and prostitution. Although prostitution is a strong factor, the biggest factor is simply promiscuity. In many parts of Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, promiscuity is a way of life. Traditional sexual social mores which support the unquenchable sex drive of men, as well as accept the degrading of women in prostitution, rape, and abuse, serve as the standards for poor moral choices and the conduit for the spread of the deadly virus.
The book is obviously much more sophisticated and technical than can be covered in this post. And I'm not criticizing Africa as a continent (or the countries within it) - other countries, Thailand for instance, deal with their own sets of challenges with the disease. But it struck me as interesting, and sad, how multiple sexual partners (prostitution of course included) is, at it's root, the greatest challenge to defeating AIDS. Many of the individuals studied in Engel's work were recorded as having thousands of sexual partners per year on average. Those kinds of statistics make AIDS almost unconquerable. (Unfortunately, on another note, funding to find a cure for AIDS is becoming more scant. Combination therapy has allowed AIDS victims to live for many years, thus making the search for a cure optional, in the eyes of many.) We as Americans would do well to continue the fight against AIDS in Africa, because the death toll is reaching staggering numbers, and continues to climb.
Reading Engel's work and reviewing AIDS statistics and history, reminds me of the power of monogamy. Unfortunately many view monogamy not as powerful, but as confining. But it's the exclusive nature of monogamy that provides safety, comfort, trust, and health - not to mention true sexual fulfillment. A world living by these standards may only be possible in a Utopian society (or the future society with Christ as reigning king), but at the very least we need to fight for the sanctity of commitment, purity, and the gift of marriage.
But my exposure to the news had negative effects as well. For instance, throughout the 1980's and early 90's AIDS coverage was on just about every news broadcast that came on the air. People were absolutely freaked out about this epidemic, and the media never ceased to report on famous AIDS deaths, research towards vaccines/cures, controversy around homosexuality and prophylactics, and the general fear that this virus could overwhelm our nation and world. After exposure to these news stories I began to have my own paranoia about the disease. As a kid this kind of news coverage was scary. In fact, not being fully educated on what AIDS was, I thought I might have AIDS! It seemed like everyone else did! I suppose that's the danger of knowing only partial facts, as well as being too young to really understand what a sexually transmitted disease is.
I recently read a book called Epidemic: A Global History of AIDS by Jonathan Engel. I think it's a must-read for anyone interested in knowing more about the history of AIDS and the current crisis. It's a well-documented and carefully researched work that deals with AIDS' origins, a history since the late 1970's, as well as various specific topics such as the AIDS crisis in Africa.
There was one aspect of Engel's research that I found particularly interesting, and that was his perspective on the media coverage of AIDS, especially from the late 1980's to early 1990's - the time when I was a kid watching the news. His research shows that the way in which AIDS was presented to the average household in America was that of a potential pandemic that would eventually take over the world. However, the statistics even then demonstrated that very view average, middle class Americans with fewer than 6 sexual partners a year had AIDS or even, based on lifestyle choices, had a very good chance of contracting AIDS. However, my guess is that even moderately educated adults during this period of history would shutter at what seemed like the impending doom of life on earth. The reasons for this pandemic portrayal are complex, but to put it simply two factors were involved: First, at the early stages of AIDS there were simply many unknowns about how and when the disease was transmitted, not to mention the fact that it was clear early in the research process that finding a cure was going to be difficult, if not impossible. Secondly, there were many political factors in view. Due to prevalent homophobia that was completely out of control in many parts of the U.S., many fought to defend homosexuals against accusations of AIDS as a "gay disease" - and rightly so. AIDS isn't a "gay disease". However, in a effort at such a defense an inaccurate picture of the AIDS crisis was painted and sold to millions. The truth is that AIDS was relegated primarily to certain segments of society -drug users, highly promiscuous individuals (in the late seventies, early eighties this was primarily homosexuals, especially those involved in bath houses of large metropolitan areas), as well as recipients of blood transfusions. These demographics are not the demographics of a coming pandemic. Granted, heterosexual middle class Americas could contract AIDS - but they rarely did.
Engel's research is not a bash on the media, although irresponsible journalism was certainly a factor. His research simply shows a growing awareness of a terrifying virus that seemed to have no cure and no end to its ability to mutate RNA strands in uncontrollable ways.
However, despite the nature of AIDS in America as primarily relegated to certain groups of people, the story of AIDS in Africa is very different. Homosexuality, and promiscuity in homosexuality, seems almost non-existent in most of Africa. In Africa, middle class non-drug using, non-blood-transfusion-receiving people, were getting AIDS, beginning in the 1980's, and the disease spread, and continues to do so, like wildfire. Before reading the book my theory was that this was due to rape and prostitution. Although prostitution is a strong factor, the biggest factor is simply promiscuity. In many parts of Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, promiscuity is a way of life. Traditional sexual social mores which support the unquenchable sex drive of men, as well as accept the degrading of women in prostitution, rape, and abuse, serve as the standards for poor moral choices and the conduit for the spread of the deadly virus.
The book is obviously much more sophisticated and technical than can be covered in this post. And I'm not criticizing Africa as a continent (or the countries within it) - other countries, Thailand for instance, deal with their own sets of challenges with the disease. But it struck me as interesting, and sad, how multiple sexual partners (prostitution of course included) is, at it's root, the greatest challenge to defeating AIDS. Many of the individuals studied in Engel's work were recorded as having thousands of sexual partners per year on average. Those kinds of statistics make AIDS almost unconquerable. (Unfortunately, on another note, funding to find a cure for AIDS is becoming more scant. Combination therapy has allowed AIDS victims to live for many years, thus making the search for a cure optional, in the eyes of many.) We as Americans would do well to continue the fight against AIDS in Africa, because the death toll is reaching staggering numbers, and continues to climb.
Reading Engel's work and reviewing AIDS statistics and history, reminds me of the power of monogamy. Unfortunately many view monogamy not as powerful, but as confining. But it's the exclusive nature of monogamy that provides safety, comfort, trust, and health - not to mention true sexual fulfillment. A world living by these standards may only be possible in a Utopian society (or the future society with Christ as reigning king), but at the very least we need to fight for the sanctity of commitment, purity, and the gift of marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment