My name is Josh Kruger and I’m HIV-positive. The details of my seroconversion are irrelevant. Whether I was a needle drug user, the son of an HIV-positive mother, less than consistent with my condom use, or a medical professional exposed inadvertently to the virus, at the end of the day, I’m HIV-positive. Regardless of the reason or the background, I am living daily with the same virus other HIV-positive individuals do for many of these same reasons. 

That is perhaps the most interesting part about HIV. There is a culpability and a responsibility involved with it that does not exist with other chronic medical conditions. Have you ever asked a diabetic how he got it? Or, perhaps, asked someone with hypertension how long he had it and if he knew who gave it to him? Of course not, and it’s wrong to equate HIV with these conditions just as it’s wrong of me to act as though men should ignore my status and feel absolutely comfortable dating or having sex with me.

From a practical and medical standpoint, HIV is comparable to diabetes, and many would argue it is easier to live with HIV than diabetes – medically. Psychologically and socially, however, HIV is not on par with these and for us to lie to ourselves and our community and ignore the overarching moral and philosophical question surrounding HIV does a great disservice and impedes honest discussion.

This is most apparent in online profiles, the easiest and most accessible way to peer into the id of the modern homosexual. “Clean and want to stay that way.” This is a common and rather boringly typical statement in a profile you’d find on any app or website, one I myself thoughtlessly uttered once or twice in the past. But consider for a moment the logical implication of saying this. If being HIV-negative is clean, then conversely, as an HIV-positive man, I am dirty. And, I obviously deserve what I have because had I not acted recklessly or stupidly or taken unnecessary risk, I’d not be saddled with this tarnish and grime flowing through my bloodstream.

Obviously, I did not “want to stay that way” enough, you might think. But regardless of how fastidious about hygiene I may be, regardless of the fact that I volunteer or that I am a good man and a good neighbor or that I vote in every election or that I pay my taxes or that I’m an uncle to a lovely five-year-old boy, I am inherently unclean and therefore untouchable.

With the smug self-satisfaction of, so far, having avoided the virus, one can summarily dismiss and marginalize an entire population of human beings. And it’s happening. Yet, sometimes the negative reaction about being positive comes from the same individual barebacking “other neg guys” and who loves Gay Bingo, but he’ll delete my email without having read it because I’m one of “those.” The other. The unclean, irresponsible black sheep, the drunk uncle at Thanksgiving who has the inconvenient ability to remind people of failure.

I’m entirely too realistic and the issue too profound to think about during the search for sex or dates these days. And, what’s most intriguing is that some men will have sex with me so long as the topic isn’t even broached. Act like HIV does not exist, and the pool of sexual partners – including HIV-negative men – increases ten times over. But mention HIV the least bit in conversation or online, and you’ve become the asexual advocate.

And, no matter how physically strong or robust I am, no matter how healthy or professionally ambitious, once HIV is brought up, I’ll always be a cliché, a sick AIDS case, the walking embodiment of God’s divine judgment (I rather like that one, actually.)

But what’s perhaps most surprising about becoming HIV-positive is the amount of men who suddenly become HIV-positive the minute you are. That is, men in person and online – who for years insisted they were HIV-negative – are now quietly reaching out or implying that, perhaps, they were not as honest as they could be.

Why would they lie or conceal their status? Perhaps it’s the same reason I paused when I was asked to write this. Even now, I’m afraid. What exactly am I afraid of?

Well, I don’t date or have sex with anyone who isn’t aware of my status. Those I truly love in this world were all made aware of it the minute it happened. Legal protections are in place to ensure that I am not hurt financially or professionally because of my status. So, what is the reason I and these other men have such trepidation surrounding public affirmation, this second coming out, so to speak?

Your online profile – the one where you talk about being “clean” – might have something to do with it.

Publication of this piece earlier appeared in Josh’s own blog here and   in Philadelphia Magazine’s G Philly Blog on April 25, 2012 found here. 

The CBC this week reported Health Canada will allow men to donate blood if they haven't had sex with a man in the last five years, a change in policy that will go into effect in the coming weeks. Here is a statement from the Canadian AIDS Society received May 22. 

Ottawa, ON – The Canadian AIDS Society (CAS) acknowledges that Health Canada today approved a change to the blood donor deferral period currently imposed on men who have sex with men (MSM) from indefinite to five years from last MSM activity.

The Canadian AIDS Society has, along with other LGBT groups and patient groups, worked to support a proposal from Canadian Blood Services to Health Canada in December 2012 to change the MSM policy on blood donation. The proposal also calls for regular reviews based on scientific data to be collected.

CAS has been an active partner with Canadian Blood Services and others, working for many years to support the five-year time-based deferral as an incremental step towards a behaviour-based screening model for blood donation. Monique Doolittle-Romas, Chief Executive Officer of CAS said, “While a five-year deferral is still too long, we see it as an important step in the right direction. Ultimately, though, we’d like to see a model based on a donor’s behaviour rather than one based on sexual orientation and gender.”

With this important shift in the blood donation policy, CAS believes that there will be an opportunity to gather further evidence to create an even shorter time frame for the deferral in the future. However, Health Canada must continue their support through an increased commitment to research in this area.

“Protecting the safety of the blood supply in Canada has always been and will always be an important issue for the Canadian AIDS Society,” Doolittle-Romas reiterated

In June and July, CATIE is presenting four webinars that focus on new developments in HIV and hepatitis C (HCV) research, integrated approaches to HIV treatment and prevention, and the integration of HIV, HCV and other sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections in frontline work. 

These webinars are designed as a good orientation to the issues that will be discussed at the CATIE Forum: New Science, New Directions in HIV & HCV, September18-19, and CATIE recommends that all those planning to attend the Forum, or follow it via live-streaming, sign up for all four webinars.

These webinars will be of interest to many healthcare providers, community-based and public health workers, and program planners, so we encourage anyone who works in HIV and HCV frontline work to join us.

Register now to attend the CATIE Forum Webinars

***********************

Durant les mois de juin et juillet, CATIE présente quatre webinaires qui font le point sur les nouveaux développements en recherche sur le VIH et le VHC, les approches intégrées du traitement et de la prévention du VIH, ainsi que l’intégration du VIH, du VHC et des autres infections transmissibles sexuellement et par le sang dans la pratique de première ligne.

Ces webinaires ont pour but d’orienter les sujets qui seront discutés lors du Colloque de CATIE : Nouvelle science, Nouvelles orientations en matière de VIH et de VHC, qui se déroulera les 18 et 19 septembre; CATIE recommande à toutes les personnes qui ont l’intention d’assister au Colloque, ou de le suivre par l’entremise des webémissions en direct de s’inscrire à chacun des quatre webinaires.

Ces webinaires intéresseront de nombreux fournisseurs de soins de santé, des professionnels de la santé publique et communautaire et des responsables de l’élaboration de programmes;  nous incitons donc à se joindre à nous toute personne qui travaille dans la pratique de première ligne du VIH et du VHC.

Inscrivez-vous maintenant pour participer au webinaires du Colloque de CATIE.

As I write this, I am sitting on a train, making my way back to Toronto after spending two days at Concordia University (in Montréal), which housed the premiere (and potentially only) Beyond Failure! Symposium.

The purpose of the symposium was to provide a space to discuss the various areas within HIV which we have failed at, whether that be research, policy, activism, prevention or frontline services. The HIV and AIDS industry (and this is not exclusive to HIV) strives for success in all areas – in proposing projects, in the work done by AIDS service organizations (ASOs), in grant writing, etc. While striving for success and achievement can be viewed positively, the fixation placed on succeeding rarely provides the opportunity to reflect on challenges, shortcomings, or failures. 

Failure is uncomfortable. In evaluating failure, we are forced to examine our flaws, slip-ups, and transgressions under a microscope. Perhaps this is why many shy away from this kind of evaluation. Sometimes it’s easier to sweep our faux pas under the rug and move on. Unfortunately, in failing to address the failures, the opportunity to learn from these mistakes is lost and we run the risk of replicating our mistakes over and over again, never having learned the lesson in the first place.   

Failure is threatening and often personal as we (occasionally) tie our successes to our identities and by default, our failures have the potential to negatively impact how we understand ourselves. When failure is conceptualized so closely to our identity or sense of self, it’s no wonder it has the potential to create considerable discomfort.

Beyond being uncomfortable and depending on your role and/or relationship to the HIV movement, failure can mean the loss of funds, the end of a research project or ASO or in a far more corporeal sense, the difference between life and death.   

As Tim McCaskell so eloquently stated in his keynote address at the symposium, “AIDS is like a lens: when you look through it, all of society’s problems are magnified.” From here, Tim provided an insightful way of re-framing the concept of failure within the context of HIV by asking: is the goal to destroy or break the lens? Or is the goal to challenge the social conditions that create HIV? The point? Failure can be determined by the perspective applied to the circumstance or scenario and the often imaginary line between failure and success is both arbitrary and subjective.  

A call for abstracts for the symposium was released in fall 2012; anyone interested in submitting an abstract was asked to briefly outline what aspect of failure they would like to discuss. Abstracts were categorized into small groups (5-7 people per stream) based on common themes including prevention, risk, community, and social policy & state. For those whose abstracts were accepted there was the expectation of completing a paper in advance of the symposium that would be distributed to other members of your group. The intention was for everyone to read the papers in advance of the symposium and come prepared to address commonalities, divergences, and of course, failures. This symposium format created the space and possibility to have rich meaningful dialogue, which allowed for a more nuanced engagement with other presenters’ work.   

I submitted an abstract which used my undergraduate and graduate experiences in international HIV research as a case study to highlight failure. Within my larger paper, I discussed how in both cases (undergraduate and graduate research), I felt unprepared, untrained and naïve yet I was situated as the research “expert” regardless of my inexperience both in HIV (particularly as an undergraduate) and in Namibian culture and history (where both my research projects took place). For more details on this work, check out my previous PositiveLite.com article here.  

I was grouped within the community stream along with another young female activist from Toronto, a delightful Parisian, and a post-doc from Montréal. The groups were facilitated by the symposium’s organizing committee (our group was lucky enough to have Viviane Namaste in it), which allowed for bilingual and cultural exchanges.   

Many important and critical reflections arose from our group discussion including who is “community” and who defines it? Can we belong to a community if you don’t share the same lived experiences as other members? In identifying competing definitions of community, do we inadvertently exclude people from various communities? And how do we negotiate multiple social locations and identities in the context of community? 

I found that my own work (using anecdotal experiences as a young researcher) drew close parallels to another group member who spoke about the role of allies in the HIV movement and encouraged people who might take up the identity of “ally” (both with the context of HIV and beyond) to critically reflect on what motivated them to engage in this work. Comparing the work of researchers and allies, I found many convergent points including: that the choice to do research or join a movement often starts from a place of “good intentions”; the failure to meaningfully involve and incorporate PLWHA creates situations of tokenism; the existence of the insider/outsider dilemma (who can be a researcher and/or ally?); and that often if advantages or benefits are up for grabs, it is usually the researcher (sometimes the ally) who is on the receiving end of them.   

As someone who identified both as a researcher and as an ally (in various movements), it was uncomfortable to put my failures on the table and bring into question my role as an ally. The more and more I engage in critical work, the more I relish in the circumstances which force me into those uncomfortable corners. I believe that when we’re in these places, we have the potential to radically re-vision ourselves, the work we do, how we show up in the world and how we engage with it.

I think one of the biggest learnings that came out of the symposium (and through engaging in thought-provoking conversations with other participants) was the re-realization that becoming an ally* (and a critical, ethical researcher) is a continuous process which requires of us that we always put ourselves uncomfortably under the microscope to examine our privileges, how much space we take up (physically, intellectually, verbally, etc.), how we are oppressed and how we oppress others.

Many of the same principles of doing ally work can easily transfer to the role of researcher, particularly when the researcher isn’t working within a community they immediately/wholly identify with. In addition to the constant assessment of social location and privilege, when locating yourself as ally or researcher, it’s important to recognize that that will usually mean not taking a leadership role in either the movement or the project, taking your cues from those community members with lived experience and working collaboratively. 

Though I didn’t necessarily encounter any earth-shattering revelations at this symposium, I did very much appreciate the fact that it took place and am grateful to have been able to participate in it. Creating space to talk about our collective and individual failures is rare but frankly, shouldn’t be. So many crucial lessons can be learned through failure and if we spend our time hiding/trying to forget where we went wrong, we’ll miss the important opportunity to learn how to do things differently –and hopefully better - next time.   

* If you’re interested in reading more about becoming an ally, check out Anne Bishop’s website here .

The title quote was written by George Bernard Shaw in ‘Saint Joan’ in 1923 but if ever a saying is timeless it’s this one.

The reason I’m dragging it out of the cliché locker is because I feel I have to take issue with a couple of articles that have appeared on PositiveLite.com recently.  

They are IS HIV TRANSMISSION POSSIBLE WHEN VIRAL LOAD IN THE BLOOD IS UNDETECTABLE? from CATIE and INFECTIOUSNESS coming from Aidsmap.com

I respect the work that people in HIV organisations put in to the struggle to control the virus and I appreciate the time and effort put in by writers who do their best to provide us with information – we’d be in a sorry state without them. I also know the perils of one article writer criticising another but I genuinely mean no disrespect. These two articles are pretty representative of what you will find all over the net and therefore my problem is more with the genre than the individual articles themselves.

The CATIE article addresses a question which is in the back of everybody’s mind. It’s crucial, both for positive and negative sex partners. The title suggests that the question will be answered but unfortunately that’s anything but the case. The first paragraph sums up what viral load actually is but hardly gives hard and fast rules which we can hang our hats on. It talks about the viral load being measured in the bodily fluids of a positive person. Surely it’s not. It’s measured in the blood and only very rarely in semen, saliva etc.

“Research shows that successful HIV treatment can reduce the viral load to “undetectable” levels and this can reduce the risk of HIV transmission. However, HIV transmission may be possible when the viral load is undetectable…The risk of HIV transmission when taking antiretroviral treatment may increase if sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are present…This risk may also be higher for anal sex than for vaginal sex.”

What do they mean, ‘can’ and ‘may’? We’re thirty years into the history of the virus. We should be hearing ‘does’ and ‘will’, not bet-hedging to cover all possibilities!

The following is something we’re all very aware of but what does a statement like this actually tell us?

“Viral load tests used in Canada cannot detect HIV in the blood if there are less than 40–50 copies/ml. Therefore, an undetectable viral load means the amount of virus in the blood is too low to detect, it does not mean that there is no virus present.”

First of all, we know the testing procedures are still limited but surely we’re entitled to ask why? Secondly, what the hell are we supposed to take from such a statement? Getting everybody to undetectable status is the universal aim but is pretty pointless if we don’t know how much of the virus has escaped detection because the procedures are lacking. Of course ‘undetectable’ suggests ‘less infectious’ but thirty years into the disease and its treatment and we still don’t know whether that’s entirely true. Until other bodily fluids are routinely tested we’re no closer to an answer and even then, the virus may be hiding in bone marrow, organs and brain tissue. Testing every susceptible piece of the body may never be possible but telling us we’re undetectable but maybe still dangerous, tells us almost nothing; we deserve better.

Another pretty meaningless statement is:

“Research shows that a lower amount of virus in the blood is usually associated with a lower risk of transmitting HIV to others, and a higher viral load is associated with a higher risk.”

Duh! And by the way, what research? We probably all accept the truth of this statement but what research proves that? Far too often the words ‘Research shows…’ are thrown at us in the expectation that we’ll accept that as gospel. Very often research is so small-scale and out of date that it is barely relevant. It is wrong to assume that the reader can’t cope with references to the exact piece of research and it should be expected that research is looked at with a critical eye but very often, ‘research shows…’ will back up a multitude of assumptions.

CATIE quotes HPTN 052 research to back up theories that a lower viral load reduces risk but that research was conducted amongst tiny groups of sero-discordant heterosexual partners in Africa and Thailand. The research is ongoing but trials to measure the same risk reduction when it comes to homosexual, anal sex…well you can whistle for that one! A lot of people hang a lot of credence on HPTN 052 but for HIV+ gay people, it suggests absolutely nothing and proves even less. To be fair, the CATIE article does point this out and even questions the relevance of the research but still draws conclusions that say we can reasonably assume that the same applies to anal sex. Uhm sorry, no it doesn’t!

When a paragraph begins with:

“Successful antiretroviral treatment can lower the viral load in the blood and other bodily fluids to undetectable levels and this can reduce the risk of sexual HIV transmission...Antiretroviral treatment may be much less effective than 96% when these conditions are not met.”

You know that it means very little. We want to know that in the majority of cases, ‘it will’!

More woolly information follows:

“A higher level of HIV in the semen, vaginal fluid, and rectal fluid may increase the risk of transmission when the blood viral load is undetectable. However, it is unclear how often this happens and how significant it is in terms of HIV transmission. Research shows it may be more common if a person has an STI, but can also happen in the absence of STIs.”

There they are again: ‘may’ and ‘can’, plus a ‘research shows’ and an ‘unclear’. How exactly is this useful information? The fact is that the research in all areas of HIV is still shockingly lacking and in the meantime we have to put up with guesswork. That's not good enough in 2013. If there’s no more money for  extensive and indisputable research; or no plans are on the table; or government and scientific bodies are standing in the way; or moral objections are blocking funds it’s the responsibility of HIV sites and organisations to say so and tell their readers the truth. “We just don’t know and this is why we don’t know,” is far more acceptable than ‘cans and maybes’. At least then we know where we stand.

Doesn’t this next sentence just sum it up?

“Although there have been no studies among gay men and other MSM, there has been one report of HIV transmission occurring between two men when the HIV-positive partner had an undetectable viral load.”

Pitiful, really! Are we going to have to take to the streets again to demand efficient and relevant research which will end up saving the state millions in health care and why aren’t our large HIV organisations leading the charge?

The second article comes from aidsmap.com, which is generally regarded (just like CATIE) as a reliable and up-to-date source of information. The introduction is as follows:

“Aidsmap.com reports about 10% of gay men taking antiretroviral treatment have low levels of HIV detectable in their semen, according to new research. Whether or not this level of HIV in semen is associated with transmission is unknown.”

Now I thought this was interesting and went in search of this new research. It stemmed from a University of California study into the effect of the herpes virus on HIV transmission (read more here.) It involved 46 people, split between so-called HIV transmitters and non-transmitters and could hardly be called ‘large scale’. The Aidsmap article refers to 114 men in the study but even that’s hardly a significant research group. The point is that Aidsmap presents this as fact, based on ‘a US study’ when in fact it’s a little more complex than that and to state that 10% of men on HART have low levels of HIV in their semen seems pretty conclusive, yet it is based on a small study concentrating on the Herpes virus. Again, the statement may be true; it may be relevant and important but we need more evidence to back up global statements like that. (Editorial comment. PositiveLite.com says: even more important is whether such low levels of virus have any significance, i.e the ability to result in transmission. Is in fact the semen issue a complete red herring? We suspect yes, given the transmission history -  or lack of it -  in people with undetectable viral load in their blood.)

PositiveLite.com has quite rightly questioned the accuracy of aidsmap's references to the HPTN052 research, which is trundled out yet again yet proves practically nothing for gay men.  (Editorial comment; PositiveLite.com has since received acknowledgement from aidsmap that the aidsmap information was incorrect and that a retraction (apology?)  will be issued shortly. The moral is, as Dave says, question EVERYTHING you read.)

The article then goes on to say:

“But there have been rare case reports of HIV transmissions in the presence of an undetectable viral load”.

What rare case reports? How many? Why isn’t this being investigated right now, on a large scale, to actually establish some facts? It’s almost as if HIV organisations and sites have become so accustomed to writing generalised pieces that repeat the same old suspicions and assumptions, that it has become a new truth of its own. Why aren’t they screaming out for new research and not settling for worn out cliché responses?

It goes on:

“Untreated bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as chlamydia and gonorrhoea may cause viral load to increase in genital fluids, even if a person is taking effective antiretroviral treatment.”

‘May’! Why don’t we know for sure?

Finally, statistics are rolled out:

“They also found that 36% of study participants with a detectable viral load were shedding HIV in semen compared to 6% of participants with an undetectable viral load…A urethral bacterial STI was diagnosed in 4% of men, but these untreated infections were not associated with the presence of HIV in semen.”

Okay, let’s assume that the study involved 114 men and not 46. 36% of 114 is 41. Is it really valid to come to wide-reaching conclusions based on the results of 41 people? The urethral bacteria numbers are even less relevant: 5 people out of 114!

The point is that readers take headlines and believe them to be true, when in fact they’re often based on such small-scale studies that they barely merit a mention. Of course, all these studies may be revealing vital information and should be reported but if one (small) study suggests a trend then it should be replicated on a wide scale across the HIV community in order to establish whether it is more than just a medical soundbite. It’s the responsibility of authors and their organisations to look at these things more critically and if necessary make readers aware of the scale and validity of studies, statistics and suppositions.

The reader also needs to question anything that’s not clear, or seems to be stated as fact when it’s not proven. The problem is that life’s just too short to take the time to do that. So the promulgation of half-truths and loaded headlines becomes the easy way out, eventually leading to mistrust and suspicion.

This article of mine may seem like an attack on two highly regarded HIV information sources; it’s not meant to be. I have used them as examples of what we see every day in articles and discussions throughout the HIV community. We really do deserve better than to be fed meaningless conclusions based on ‘maybes’ and ‘possibilities’ but it’s not the fault of the authors. News has to be reported, no matter how tenuous the facts.

Unfortunately, it looks like the HIV community has to start demanding again. Demanding proper, well, funded and large scale research at home and abroad. The World Health Organisation has a responsibility (and the finances), as does the pharmaceutical industry and every other research or research-funding facility across the globe, including the major philanthropists like Bill Gates etc.

I’m fed up with endless arguments as to whether an undetectable status is safe or not, or whether TASP, PrEP, PEP and various other acronyms are the way forward, or whether the viral load in your blood reflects the true levels in your body. Just how safe is condomless sex between sero-positive people on HART? The questions are endless but I would like answers and soon. Some people and organisations are dragging their feet in providing them. It’s a question of having the political will to do the necessary research and damn well prove things once and for all and if the ‘climate’ makes it difficult to instigate the discussion and find the evidence, then we’ll just have to scream and shout until that changes. If it doesn’t happen then confusion drives apathy and stigma grows.

When you next read an article about the latest theory concerning HIV treatment and transmission; count up the number of ‘statistics, if’s, may’s, possibly’s and researches show’ and ask yourself if you are being presented with new facts and are you learning anything new. If the answer is negative then you may well be being short-changed!

I’m fully aware that some people will be irritated by this article but then I hope they’ll respond and widen the discussion. If I’m talking out of my backside, I hope you will say so  - but you’re going to have to prove it! 

Me and my mate Kent. | Photo credit: Tux Hika, Express 

I used to shy away from physical affection. Outside of my family, things like hugging and kissing simply weren’t done.

When I first started socializing with groups of other gay men in my late teens, I was shocked when I saw them greeting each other with hugs and kisses. Kisses on the lips, even! That sort of thing is reserved for one’s partner for life, I tutted to myself.

I was very standoffish around other gay men. A handshake will do for an introduction, thank you. None of this hugging shit – you don’t know me well enough, and as for kissing? I’m a man, not a woman. That is not how men greet each other.

Social conditioning is a wonderful thing, isn’t it? A lot of men in general feel like this, and I think as gay men we often over-compensate if we’re not secure in our own masculinity. And how could we not be, with the constant messages we’re bombarded with that tell us we’re not “real” men?

My discovery of the bear community coincided with a time in my life when I was a lot more comfortable with myself, and ready to accept affection. I realized that I actually enjoyed being hugged, or being in a social situation and having an arm around a friend.

And I realized the reason I’d been rejecting this for so many years was not just because I wanted to ensure that I was seen as a real man (not like those “other gays”), but because I felt I didn’t deserve to have people behave affectionately toward me.

Physical contact is such an important part of our wellbeing, and I’m not even talking about sex here. Sometimes I don’t think we’re aware of how important it is until it’s taken away from us. Ask an HIV-positive person who was in hospital during the late 80s/90s and treated as if they were radioactive. Or even some of the older men in our community, who have said to me that sometimes it’s just nice to be touched.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to believe that it’s healthy for physical affection to be expressed in a number of different ways, and it doesn’t have to be reserved for someone that you’re married to.

I started to think about the concept of “cuddle buddies” – friends that you’d be happy to snuggle up on the couch with and watch a movie together, share a drink or a catch-up.

I’ve found myself in situations where I’ve wanted to express this kind of affection just because it feels right to do so, not because I want something sexual, but just because I want to feel a bit of warmth and connection with a friend. I’ve had friends who have rejected this, guys who are close and intimate with me in every other way in terms of sharing aspects of their lives, deepest fears, insecurities and secrets.  And it’s hurt me. 

Of course, at the same time I respect that everyone has the right to set their own personal boundaries. This is not about emotional blackmail.  But I decided to reach out to a few of my peers and ask them how they felt about cuddle buddies. I got a range of responses:

James

“One of the biggest issues I had when I was first introduced to the bear community is their tendency to be very tactile. I had to educate several people about where my boundaries were and while I lost the respect of some people, I would like to think that if they couldn’t respect my decisions about who touches my body and who doesn’t then they aren’t really the kind of people that I want in my life.”

However:

“As far as “cuddle buddies” go I can be very affectionate, once I know the person and I’m comfortable around them. And I usually make sure that people are comfortable with me being physical (even hugging) before I just go ahead and do it…”

Some gay men feel comfortable with their physical affection crossing gender boundaries.

Calvin:

“My closest of friends for many years, other than my magnificent partner, is my Laura. We often used to go to galleries together, and she’s one of those people who has little personal space, but in a great way.

“She always wants to hug, and in public will basically hold herself against me, or if we’re sitting, effectively sit on me. I love that we can be so beautifully close without any need for it be anything sexual. Indeed in recent years she moved from straight to lesbian, but nothing has ever changed. It’s innocent, lovely and feels great.”

And finally, from a couple I spoke with, Rex and Pete.  Rex picks up the story:

“As anyone who has ever met me knows, I am a cuddler. I always have been but because I didn’t come out till I was nearly 40, I never got the kind of affectionate man to man hugs I craved. And I do mean craved. There were times when I just ached to hold and be held by a man – but with the way my sex life was structured (beats, casual hook ups, no names no strings no complications) I never got them.

Perhaps I’ve made up for that since coming out. I love to hug, to cuddle, to touch, to be affectionate with people I like and care for. I do it un-self-consciously and I am happy to hug random strangers (and have)

The boundaries can get a bit blurry, especially where there is a deeper connection with someone. But honesty about that and acknowledging them keeps you aware of the boundaries. I don’t want to have sex with every man I cuddle or hug; some of them are just friends who I feel great affection for.

Others it is more complicated because there is a sexual attraction, at least on my part, but I can separate that from my desire to be affectionate. I can cuddle, want to fuck your brains out, and not do it.

Pete and I laugh about a recent incident where friends of mine who I am happy to kiss hello and hug, came up to Pete, who they didn’t know well.  One friend leaned in to give him a kiss and a hug. Pete tensed, his lips tightened, and he told them he didn’t kiss hello, and the other friend leaned in and said ‘well we do’ and proceeded to give him a kiss and a hug.

Pete’s face was pure terror and discomfort. He has since gotten to know them better and will hug and kiss hello but he is still somewhat awkward since he really only feels comfortable being affectionate with people he knows quite well. Once he is comfortable with someone though he is very cuddly.”

So what about you?  How do you feel about cuddle buddies, and where do your boundaries lie when it comes to expressing non-sexual physical affection with other men?

This article first appeared on Chistoprher’s own blog bipolearbear in April 2012 here.