The Conversation Starts Here

Using HIV panic to profit on a porno: Jackie Braxton of Detroit is no hero.

In stark contrast to the response of the vast majority of mainstream media outlets and criticism of their handling of the Jackie Braxton HIV YouTube Hoax, Darrell Dawsey at TIME Magazine’s blog deserves a huge kudo. He not only looked at the criticism of his blog praising the porno peddling hoax, he responded by admitting he made some errors.

That is a rare thing to find, and it is deeply appreciated.

However, it is noted that the misinformation about Michigan’s HIV disclosure law remains unchanged. For the record, here is the law:

333.5210 Sexual penetration as felony; definition.
Sec. 5210.
(1) A person who knows that he or she has or has been diagnosed as having acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome related complex, or who knows that he or she is HIV infected, and who engages in sexual penetration with another person without having first informed the other person that he or she has acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome related complex or is HIV infected, is guilty of a felony.
(2) As used in this section, “sexual penetration” means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any other intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body or of any object into the genital or anal openings of another person’s body, but emission of semen is not required.

There is nothing in there about protection or no protection. It is all about disclosing your status. Period. And only during sexual situations.

But in his response, he takes offense to having his praise of the porn star wanna-be seen as puritanical.

He writes:

IMO, he’s wrong when he suggests I take a “puritan” point of view on sex. Kinda hard to praise a porn star and be puritan at the same time, and as a guy who thinks that such “puritan” approaches to sex is precisely why our country has such major sexual hang ups, I’m annoyed by that. But in the grand scheme of things, my offense is worse so I won’t go on about this.

So why did we make that accusation? In the original post he wrote:

Thank you, for reminding so many of us men of that old Bell, Biv, Devoe adage that “you can’t trust a big butt and smile,” that careless promiscuity and multiple sexual conquests isn’t a measure of manhood — but rather like playing Russian Roulette with your private parts.

This kind of meaning laden and judgmental opinion IS puritanical.

First, it’s sexist. It presumes that somehow it is ONLY men who are promiscuous and sexual. That some how women are not capable of getting horny and hunting down a trick for the night.

Secondly, he identifies both promiscuity AND multiple sexual conquests in this statement. He is clearly stating that neither serial monogamy, nor out right sex for sex’s sake is OK. And you know what, that kind of language is EXACTLY what drives sexual behavior underground be creating a shroud of shame attached to it. It’s a value judgment, but it’s HIS value judgment he is forcing others to contextualize for themselves.

To better explain: If I am hyper sexual, under his premise I have to either reject his entire argument (that HIV is a reality and you need to protect yourself, period) or I have to feel guilty for not settling down with the girl of my choice and creating 2.5 kids in a holy matrimony.

Of course underlying this argument and presumptive language is also the context that everyone is heterosexual. Or has the option of a socially accepted long term committed relationship. This of course flies in the face the continued harassment of openly gay men, the lack of legal protections in the vast majority of the state to prevent discrimination, the historic condemnation of homosexuality in the Christian centered ideology of a large swath of America and the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage.

The puritanism displayed my not be conscious, but it is real nonetheless.

And before the mirror is flashed back, let’s be clear. The condemnation of Braxton’s porno peddling has nothing to do with her choice to produce porno. More power to her. The issue here is the exploitation of an irrational fear in order to drum up business. If a security agency created a video talking about the prevalence of black crime, and how crime is a black problem and then claim it was a piece of education on racism in modern America, that business would– rightfully– be condemned. It’s not OK to create misinformation campaigns built on ignorance and fear of HIV in order to promote your business. Worse, when you claim you did it to raise awareness about HIV, but your own porno site features condom-less sex, you are a hypocrite.