Much has been going on in the world of HIV, sex and drugs in the last month or so; the US marines recruiting at gay community centers, more mysteriously disappointing study outcomes for PrEP, encouraging news about the effect of microbicide gels against herpes, a new super-easy condom with a brand name that will put off anyone who cares about staying power.

I’ve ignored it all. That’s in part because I’ve discovered a site that really says everything that needs to be said about HIV prevention. Particularly insightful, in this post entitled “usefulness connected realizing hiv indicators”, is this gem:

“For that faculty your body gets very suasible to numerous germ infections and so the indicators are sure not e’er the HIV symptoms. The true unique method to aver that a soul is with HIV is the HIV checking.”

I don’t think I can add to that. Which is my polite way of saying that I’m taking a sabbatical from HIV and epidemiology. I plan to spend the next year or so travelling around Indonesia, eventually writing a book about this wonderful and mad land. Which has it’s own fair share of Bad English, as you can see over at my new blog, Portrait Indonesia.

I’ll be spending a lot of time out of range of wi-fi etc., but will try and post at least weekly. If you’d like to follow my progress, you can sign up here.

For now, on the subject of sex and drugs, it’s over and out. Thanks for taking an interest over the last four years.

Selling sex is an odd profession, full of fiercely independent mavericks who are happy with a very flexible life outside the mainstream, while equally happy to moan about marginalisation. And there’s a fair bit of moaning going on in Bonn at the moment, after the local government installed “pay and display” tax machines for people who sell sex on the streets.

The move has put the spotlight on something I’ve always been mildly irritated by: the voices that lobby for decriminalisation of sex work, while objecting to legalisation. For those that don’t spend their days splitting hairs over such issues, here’s the difference, as I understand it. Decriminalisation allows me to sell sex without fear of arrest or penalty, while still whining about being marginalised and having special needs. Legalisation means I can sell sex in the same way that I can sell software or plumbing services, which means doing a whole lot of paperwork, paying a whole lot of taxes, and being subject to whatever boring occupational health and safety regulations are appropriate to my trade. In other words, there’s nothing special about me at all.

Prostitution has been legal in Germany for nearly a decade. Rules, regulations and taxes are the downside of that. On the upside, some people can get sex on social security, to support their mental health. But even in Germany, there’s a gray market. People working in brothels are better at doing their paperwork than people who freelance on the streets, it seems. In a pre-emptive attempt to collect tax from cash-in-hand street workers, the Bonn government is collecting a flat €6 a night from each of them. Stick your debit card in the machine, get your ticket for the night and you’re off.

According to Der Speigel, the city government is hoping to earn €200,000 a year from this venture. That’s an average of around 90 permits a night — one paid-up street worker per 1,160 men aged 15-64 (I’m blithely assuming that most of the buyers are male, regardless of the gender of the seller). Predictably, a sex worker rights group is complaining that the flat-rate tax is unfair. Others pay income tax on a sliding scale depending on what they have earned — why should hookers have to pay up in advance, even if they don’t get any clients in a given night?

Well yes. At recessionarry prices of maybe €30 a trick, a €6 tax is a lot if you average one trick or fewer per working night. But with Germany’s base tax rate at 14%, if you average at least a trick and a half per worknight, you’re ahead of the game compared with sellers of software or plumbing.

Of course no-one likes to pay taxes. It’s just the price of not being marginalised.

Thanks to Jonathan Beard.

Last night, I was sitting in a Brooklyn restaurant chatting with a Famous Artist and his life-partner, the Respected Historian. In just about third bottle territory, a huge cheer went up from the table next to us, crowded with 20-something year-old straight hipsters. The cause of their excitement was an incoming Tweet: gay New Yorkers can now get married.

I was thrilled. I was also thrilled that these young New Yorkers were so thrilled, and so engaged. I thought it vaguely interesting that the Famous Artist and the Respected Historian were shruggy about the whole thing. I guess when you’ve lived in a same-sex partnership in New York for a couple of decades, you’ve outlived the marriages of many of your straight friends and you’ve fought to bring partner-rights into the workplace for fellow faculty members, it doesn’t seem so life-changing. But New York is an important voice in an important nation. It is high time that it raised that voice in recognition of the fact that no-body should, just because of who they choose to sleep with, be denied the right to agonise over prenuptual agreements, to spend an irrational amount of money on a symbolic ritual ahead of which one stresses about the guest list, the menu, the wardrobe, to argue about whether to file taxes jointly or separately, to wonder whether to get divorced before or after the kids graduate.

New York is has also finally passed a bill that ensures that no-one helping a drug user survive an overdose can be prosecuted for possession of drugs or works. Since overdose is one of the most important causes of “accidental” death in New York, and thinking you might wind up in jail is an important disincentive to call an ambulance for a struggling mate, that’s an important step. Now all we need is for the New York State Assembly to pass a bill that prohibits the use of condoms as evidence for prostitution. Apparently the New York Police Department are unhappy with the bill. Other police forces that have proven more enlightened on this issue include those nice cuddly boys in the Police Force of the Union of Myanmar (Burma, to the stubborn). Surely if they can swallow it, so can NYPD.

I’d write more about this but today happens to be New York Pride. I’m suspecting it will be a good party.

On the one hand, Canada bans Dire Straits. On the other, it fills the streets with posters aimed at extricating sex workers from social non-existence. Halifax group Stepping Stones is running an ad campaign reminding people that hookers are mothers, daughters, brothers, friends. They are also PhD students, civil servants, dental hygienists, actors and many other things when they’re not with a client, and shiatsu therapists, shrinks, grief counselors, actors and many other things when they are. Oh, and criminals (though it is my burning hope that this won’t be true in Canada by the end of the year).

It’s that criminalisation which creates stigma and the need for campaigns like this; the stigma in turn makes it hard to run these campaigns. The Chronicle Herald reports that ad agency Extreme Group‘s staff used their own grandmothers and Sepping Stones employees for the campaign because “regular” models didn’t want the job.

Also fighting invisibility are sex workers in Ottawa. There, Chris Bruckert and Frederique Chabot worked with members of prostitute group POWER to publish a synthesis of what sex professionals said about their work, and (perhaps more importantly) their work-life balance. Many of the comments reminded me just how hard it is to maintain that balance in any profession which society deems an identity rather than an occupation (film star, Royal, hooker). Here’s Janette, talking about how the police treat her when she’s not working:

“I was showing my new neighbour around, walking him up to the food bank. And as we were walking, one cop turned around and told the young man I was with ‘Do you know you are with a prostitute? You could get in trouble for that’. He yelled at the cop ‘She is my neighbour and I don’t care what she does for a living, she is helping me out. She is still a person’. I was so embarrassed. That did bring tears.”

You can read the whole (.pdf) report here. Stepping Stones have published a similar volume, which I haven’t yet read, called Sex Workers Talk Back.

The East London Borough of Hackney is trying to wipe lap dancing clubs and sex shops out of my back yard. I’m pleased to see men of the cloth joining me in pointing out that since the businesses are perfectly legal, it is not the goody-two-shoes local councilors’ job to abolish them.

The Vicar of St Leonards Shoreditch, says it is not for the local government to impose a moral code on its citizens. I agree with Paul Turp that it’s inappropriate for the council to decide which (absolutely legal) businesses may and may not operate in an area already desperately short of jobs. But I myself am especially infuriated at the way they are trying to do it.

I stumbled on the council’s clumsiness a couple of months ago, when I was responding to a call for opinions about a new one way system. There on the website was a “Consultation” asking for our opinions about a new sex shop licensing regime. Along with a paper telling us why they’ve already decided what they are going to do, there’s a draft of what they are planning to do, and a questionnaire.

Here’s the key paragraph from the planned policy:

1.5 The Council has considered the character of its wards and determined that the appropriate number of sex establishments for each ward is nil. It will not allow further licences to be granted where the appropriate number is exceeded. Please refer to paragraph 5 for more details.

There follows another nine pages of gumph before one gets to the critical paragraph 5. What that does is list the total number of lap dancing clubs, sex shops and erotic cinemas the council has deemed appropriate per ward:

…and so on, for all 19 wards. And then the coup de grace:
“5.1.4 There is no right of appeal against a decision based on this element of the Policy.”

So all that precedes and follows it, including the detailed description of the appeals process should your application get turned down, is null and void. It appears that the “consultation” itself may be null and void. Despite putting forms on its web site, the Good Governors of Hackney have decided that “Any unsolicited comments will not be taken into consideration”. And just to hedge their bets even more fully against undesirable opinions such as those of the highly respected vicar of one of the most socially engaged parishes in east London, we have this:

“2.4 The Licensing Authority will give due weight to the views of those consulted and amend the Policy where appropriate following responses received. In determining what weight to give particular representations, the factors to be taken into account will include:
• who is making the representation (what is their expertise or interest)
• what their motivation may be for their views
• how many other people have expressed the same or similar views
• how far representations relate to matters the Council should include in its Policy.”

Having spent many a long year living in countries where I am allowed to pay taxes but not allowed to vote, this is my first real experience of grass roots democracy at work. I’m looking forward to seeing whether our concern that men and women in Hackney ought to be allowed to do whatever work they please within the limits of the law is upheld in this process. Any readers who live in Hackney, or know anyone who does, are urged to respond to the consultation before December 13th.

The kerfuffle surrounding the Pope´s comments on condoms continues. As the gender of hookers allowed to use condoms switched in translation, the Pope´s spokesman was asked to clarify. Apparently, HIV-infected people can use condoms to protect their partners:

“Whether it’s a man or woman or a transsexual.”

Of all the men I know who regularly wear dresses, Benedict was the last I expected to be embracing the rights of transgenders to protect themselves and their partners from HIV infection.

Many people have commented that as long as reproduction´s not in the picture, he can say whatever he likes about condom use. I´ve yet to hear of a transgendered woman giving birth, so that might be part of the equation here (though note that women who sell sex to men are also encouraged to “take responsibility”). But I’m in an optimistic mood today, and I think the Vatican could be trying to ease open the door to a more rational existence. Miracles just might happen.

The New York Times has cottoned on to the unpredictable glories of Indonesia. But they’ve got it just that little bit wrong. Here’s what they have to say about US President Obama’s childhood minder:

“His nanny was an openly gay man who, in keeping with Indonesia’s relaxed attitudes toward homosexuality, carried on an affair with a local butcher, longtime residents said. The nanny later joined a group of transvestites called Fantastic Dolls, who, like the many transvestites who remain fixtures of Jakarta’s streetscape, entertained people by dancing and playing volleyball.”

If Obama’s nanny was playing volleyball on teams like those that now take on the cops behind the Melia hotel, he was not an openly gay man, she was a waria, or transgender. As you can see from the photo above, waria live as women — they even do the whole beauty pageant thing. She probably didn’t carry on an affair with a butcher — it’s more likely she was “married” to him. Indonesia’s attitude to homosexuality in the late sixties was not relaxed, it was unbelieving. Waria, on the other hand, are just a part of society; in some provinces, though not Jakarta, Waria is an accepted gender on the all-important national ID cards. Finally, transvestites don’t hang around the streets singing. They hang around the streets cruising for people who will pay them for sex.

Still, nice to see the Times ticking the “exotic diveristy” box as best it can.

Can you protect your nation from HIV by testing immigrants for the virus? Even the United States now thinks that’s a daft idea; it finally dropped its HIV testing requirements for immigrants earlier this year. Now South Korea has followed suit, sort of. The country will drop HIV testing for some, though it has announced different rules for teachers and entertainment industry workers.

Should the International Union of Sex Workers start girding their loins to fight for equal rights for hookers? No. Seoul has decided that people applying for entertainment industry visas do not need to be tested for HIV. People wanting to teach English do. An official of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology explained the decision thus: “Education is considered a very intimate relationship. According to an unofficial survey by the Prime Minister’s Office, the majority of parents wanted solid evidence of their children’s teachers’ HIV status.”

The implication — that English teachers from Wisconsin are more intimate with their clients that hookers from Vladivostock are with theirs — is clearly absurd, and the Korean authorities are squirming a bit about the silliness. But it reminds me of a piece of ancient history in the HIV industry’s cooking up of Stigma Soup.

Many years ago, we were trying to come up with ways of measuring HIV-related stigma in international surveys. We suggested three questions: Should HIV infected nurses be allowed to treat patients in hospital? Should HIV infected teachers be allowed to teach? Would you buy cooked food from someone with HIV? To everyone’s surprise, a lot of respondents in African surveys replied no, no, yes. So was HIV stigmatised, yes or no? A bit of qualitative work shed more light. HIV-infected nurses shouldn’t be allowed to treat patients because they had compromised immune systems and it was better for them not to be around sick people. Not all that stigmatising, then. Food sellers? What? Everyone knows you can’t pass on HIV in a pot of stew! No stigma there, either. But teachers, what about teachers? Well they’re always having affairs with the pupils; we don’t want our daughters to get anywhere near a positive teacher. It strikes me that’s stigmatising of teachers, though not necessarily of HIV.

While we’re on the subject of HIV and immigration, I do think it remains the great untouched subject of the UK HIV epidemic. A first glance at figures provided by the soon-to-be late and very much lamented Health Protection Agency shows us a great wave of heterosexual infections in the UK.

If you take away the infections that are diagnosed in people who were born in a sub-Saharan or Caribbean country with high HIV prevalence, the picture looks very different indeed:

The difference is assumed to be the infections that are “imported”. In fact, there may well be quite a bit of transmission within communties of African-born people in the UK. But there’s virtually no effective targeted prevention programmes for that group, because we’re all so scared of two things. [Note comment on this point] Firstly, the Daily Mail getting hold of the issue and beating up support for a “test the immigrants” campaign. Secondly, the idea that targeted prevention would be stigmatising. Imagine, it might engender a backlash from all those Pentacostal Churches in East London. And then we’d be in the same situation that so many African countries are in: community leaders choosing to deny a problem rather than help their people by dealing with it.

Apparently, I’m not the only gay man trapped in a straight woman’s body.

Thanks to RH for the tip.

SANGRAM has long worked constructively with sex workers, to the fury of Congressman Mark Souder who stomped on USAID until they shut down funding for SANGRAM. In a letter to USAID as bombastic, self-righteous and threatening as any I have seen, Souder pontificated about the Bush administration’s record in promoting family values and women’s rights.

“There is a tragic irony in the fact that this administration seeks to elevate women in the United States to some of the most important positions in the country…; yet, USAID has funded groups outside the United States that promote the ultimate degradation of women.”

Souder might know something about the degradation of women. Six weeks ago he resigned as congressman after 15 years, admitting to having an affair with a staffer. He started off on script, apologising for the pain he had caused his supporters. But then, with breathtaking arrogance, he stuck up for his own hypocrisy, saying “The ideas we advocate are still just and right.” I’m sure his wife agrees.

Here’s the pompous windbag being fake-interviewed by his girlfriend about the importance of abstinence-only education programmes.

Of course abstinence-only programmes are only meant to work until people get married. Since both Mark Souder and his squeeze Tracy Jackson are married, they hardly count as failures of morality-based sex ed, do they?

(Thanks to Paddy Woodburn for pointing out the Seshu profile and setting me off wondering whatever happened to that windbag Souder…)