If you read any gay blog, you're bound to have heard that Amazon.com has stripped the vast majority of LGBT-related books of their sales rankings. Here's the story from author Craig Seymour, who has been complaining since February about this issue. (Incidentally, I'll have a review of his book up soon -- I just finished reading it. In the meantime, buy it -- it's wonderful -- but not from Amazon!!!):

In the last couple of days, people have been blogging about how Amazon has been labeling gay and lesbian books as "adult" and removing the books from their search engine. I'm glad the issue is FINALLY getting attention (see links below), because I have been complaining about it since February.

Here's my story: I'm the author of a memoir, All I Could Bare: My Life in the Strip Clubs of Gay Washington, D.C. (Atria/Simon & Schuster), which is about my journey from grad student to stripper to entertainment journalist to college professor. (I'm currently Associate Professor of Journalism at Northern Illinois University.) Like many authors, I frequently check my sales status on Amazon, so imagine my shock, back in early February when the "Amazon.com Sales Rank" completely disappeared from the Product Details of my book. The book also disappeared from the search listings, so that if a customer looked up "All I Could Bare by Craig Seymour" on the Amazon home page, nothing came up.

Of course, I immediately sent emails to Amazon asking about this situation. I also placed several phone calls. But I could never get a straight answer, until February 25, when I received an email stating that "the sales rank was not displayed for the following reasons: The ISBN #1416542051 was classified as an Adult product."

The LA Times has picked it up. For instance, of the 20 or so Queer Studies books sitting on my coffee table, here are some of the texts that have been stripped of their rankings:

Michael Warner's, "The Trouble with Normal"
Michael Warner's edited collection, "Fear of a Queer Planet"
Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality: Volume One" (Curiously, not volumes two or three)
Steven Seidman's edited collection, "Queer Theory / Sociology"
David Halperin's "What Do Gay Men Want?"
Heather Love's "Feeling Backward: Loss and the Politics of Queer Politics"
D'Emilio and Freedman's "Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America"
Allan Berube's "Coming Out Under Fire"
Kennedy and Davis' "Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold."

As Craig also notes:

Memoirs by gay porn stars Blue Blake (Out of the Blue: Confessions of an Unlikely Porn Star) and Bobby Blake (My Life in Porn: The Bobby Blake Story) didn't have a sales ranking, but memoirs by straight porn stars Ron Jeremy (Ron Jeremy: The Hardest (Working) Man in Showbiz) and Jenna Jameson (How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale) did. Clearly, there seemed to be a double-standard.

Just a few examples. Based on this evidence. I advise three things:

1. Sign the petition opposing this policy.
2. Contact Amazon and demand they repeal the policy.
3. Boycott Amazon.com until they repeal this blatantly homophobic censorship policy.

1) The most obvious -- bareback. What does it mean that "natural" is being equated with sex without condoms? Particularly in the face of a religious rhetoric that pits anal sex between men as "unnatural"? Is this a point of resistance? To whom? Public Health? Fundies? In either case, men are proclaiming not just a desire for sex without condoms, but using this framing to justify unprotected sex as fundamentally BETTER than sex with condoms -- and framing sex with condoms as pathetic / unnatural / gross / less desirable / boring / etc. We need to seriously take stock here.

2) Concurrent with the sex without condoms framing has been a rise of "natural" used by men to refer to their masculinity. Actually, to be more precise I think it's most often in reference to their amount of body hair (and lack of trimming practices) -- but it also may reference their lack of general "primping". No cologne, no deodorant, etc. The claim is often made that by not engaging in these practices, they present a kind of masculinity that is "natural." What makes me uncomfortable about this claim is not just that these guys have different kinds of self-styling practices. That's wonderful and I totally support that. But many guys who present this kind of self aren't just claiming that their practices are sexy -- but that "natural" masculinity is BETTER than / the RIGHT way to be a man. And they're of course setting it against the backdrop of the clean-shaven, twink faggot. Indeed, many times MAN is in all-caps in these ads, suggesting that a person with a penis is not sufficient -- you must meet their qualifications for an all-caps MAN. I think this is disgustingly masculinist and something we need to not just resist, but outright attack. After all, what they're really up to here is denigrating sissy guys and telling us faggots who shave that we're not good enough for their manly cocks. They're doing to us what straight guys did in high school: making us feel less valuable, unworthy, and "unnatural." Being hairy and not wearing deodorant is great, guys. But please, that doesn't make you more of a man or a better person. Understanding that is critical.

Just a few thoughts for the day!

Yesterday I submitted three workshop proposals to the LGBTI Health Summit team! Let's hope for the best! Here they are:

UPDATE: Erik reminded me that -- oh yea -- we also submitted a "Bottom Monologues" proposal. It's added below now!

Title: Circuits of Power, Circuits of Pleasure: Sexual Scripting in Gay Men's Bottom Narratives
Presenters: Trevor Hoppe

Public health scholarship on same-sex male sexualities has tended to focus on the acultural category of "men who have sex with men," and their abilities (or lack thereof) to make rational decisions to prevent HIV transmission. But what about identity? In abandoning the use of identity categories as sites of inquiry, I argue that Public Health has evacuated a critical site of social meaning from their research. This presentation explores the meanings gay male participants attributed to their identity as "bottom." Based on focus group and interview data with 18 HIV-negative self-identified gay male bottoms living in San Francisco, this paper explores two dominant “sexual scripts” attributed to bottoms: first, that bottoms are men who desire to produce pleasure for their partners; and second, that bottoms are men who desire to submit sexually to their partners. I will conclude with a discussion concerning a minority of participants for whom these pleasure/power scripts for bottoms conflicted directly with public health scripts concerning safer sex behavior -- what I term "pleasure/risk dilemmas."

Title: P-Values, Regressions, and Correlations, Oh My!: How to Read, Interpret, and Critique Scientific Research on LGBT Populations
Presenters: Trevor Hoppe & Jason Mitchell

Our newspapers are filled with new reports on scientific studies that claim to have discovered something new about LGBT people’s health. Gay men are spreading MRSA. Lesbians are more likely to get breast cancer. LGBT teenagers are suicidal. But rarely do newspaper reports interrogate or reflect critically on the science behind these claims, and too often they misrepresent or overstate the researchers’ findings. In this interactive “how to” workshop, two Gay Men’s Health scholars will present first an overview of typical research methods and their potential pitfalls, as well as a glossary of the often confusing terms used to report new findings. Participants will then split up into small groups to analyze and critique some recent LGBT health journal articles.

Title: Destroying Public Health for the Good of LGBT Health: Critique. Alternatives. Discussion.
Presenters: Trevor Hoppe & Bill Jesdale

In the words of the late civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired." We are desperately need in a radical restructuring of Public Health, the kind of change that rejects and reformulates the very basic assumptions that underlie the way Public Health frames the social world. What are those assumptions, and how do we want them to change? And when the dust settles, after we have successfully destroyed Public Health as we know it, what do we want to be left? In this workshop, Gay Men's Health activist-researchers Trevor Hoppe and Bill Jesdale will briefly present their critique of Public Health and methods for resistance, leaving the bulk of the time to facilitate a discussion on the pain inflicted on LGBT people by Public Health and how we might envision its reshaping to our needs. Various viewpoints are welcome, but we will begin with one key assumption: Public Health as we know it needs to go. Now.

Title:Tales from the Backside: Bringing “The Bottom Monologues” to Life
Presenters: Trevor Hoppe & Erik Libey

Inspired by conversations and work presented at the 2008 National Gay Men’s Health Summit in Seattle, “The Bottom Monologues” is a play, in the spirit of Eve Ensler’s “The Vagina Monologues,” that will use the narratives of gay/bi/trans/queer men to explore the complexities of bottom identity. This workshop will give a brief overview of the development of the project, which is still in progress…and then offer participants a “sneak peek” of the show through a dramatic reading of excerpts from the draft script. Participants will then have an opportunity to share their own reactions and thoughts through a facilitated exploration of questions that will touch on issues like stigma, choices, power & identity. Join us for this entertaining and interactive session as we address our core question: What does it really mean to be a bottom?

God bless middle. He has a lovely post over at Lifelube with tips for those of you out there who might be interested in holding a masturbation party. My favorite tip:

Since everyone may not desire to or be able to reach a climax, knowing when to bring the masturbation phase of the circle to a close can be tricky. We ask our fellow masturbators to signify when they are finished by ritually choosing a piece of fruit and taking a bite. The group doesn’t move on until all have done so.

Read the rest here!

That one brings a hearty laugh, and it's queer through-and-through. I like it!

Here's the transcript, via PHB:

Thom Hartmann: Welcome back to the second hour of our show. Thom Hartmann here with us -- with you. And Brian Brown is with us. He is the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage. NOM.org is their website. And their California version is NOMCalifornia.org. And leading the charge in favor of Proposition 8 and uh -- and in uh -- in opposition, I would say, correct me if I'm wrong, to uh -- in the hopes that the court will not grant gays the right to marry in the state of California. Do I have that right, Brian?

Brian Brown: Right, uh. We want the people's vote to -- to stand and be counted and we're confident that's going to happen.

Thom Hartmann: Okay. As, uh. You know, over on your website, you have a list of frequently asked questions and answers and um... One of the questions is that -- that you put out is, uh "Are you a bigot? Why do you want to take people's rights?" And uh, y'know, your answer to that is essentially uh -- well, I'll let you give the answer.

Brian Brown: Well, we hear this question time and again when people stand up and say they -- they understand that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Well, y'know (?) immediate response from those that want to redefine marriage, "well, that's just bigoted". But, uh. Y'know. We -- We need to take this argument seriously. If... the entire history of California... and of this country's understanding of marriage is bigoted, what does that mean? Well, it means that, alright, the majority in California -- uh, if we take this too seri- seriously (cough cough), is the power of the law would be used to suppress, marginalize, and punish the majority that understands what marriage is -- so we shouldn't see- be surprised when we see the rights of those of us that believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman attacked and underlined (?) in states that move in the direction of same-sex marriage.

Thom Hartmann: No, I understand. I absolutely understand. Y'know, I think that when the majority of us believed that it was perfectly appropriate that African Americans be slaves. And we had laws to that effect and we voted on that, even wrote it into the constitution, and uh, that -- that was the right thing, right?

Brian Brown: Well, your history's just plain wrong. What we did was we wrote into the constitution, uh, the fourteenth amendment, which -- which ended up freeing the slaves --

Thom Hartmann: Uh, that got writ into the constitution, sir, a hundred years after the constitution was written.

Brian Brown: The fact of the matter is... that the African American community is tired. And many of us are tired at the -- of these false comparisons- Thom Hartmann: Are you African American, Brian Brown?

Brian Brown: No, I'm not. But the fact of the matter is that --

Thom Hartmann: You -- You're speaking for an entire community?

Brian Brown: ...seventy percent of African Americans in the exit (?) polling supported Proposition 8. Many of the people that worked to pass Proposition 8, stood up, and were leaders in their churches: African American, Hispanic Churches -- people who have suffered -- suffered under the... the... the... the evils of uh... uh... uh... the... the priests of a Rights era. They stood up and said, "Enough is enough."

Thom Hartmann: So you're saying that the justification of your bigotry is that within the African American community, there are also bigots?

Brian Brown: (Stammers) That's absolutely absurd. It is NOT bigotry to believe in this simple, plain idea that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. And again, when you're say that (sic) -- when you start using that -- that hammer on those of us that believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, don't be surprised when the state of Massachussets, for example, forces Catholic charities out of adopting uh, children because its religious beliefs say that it can't adopt children to same-sex children so the state comes in and says, "Well, your- your very religion is bigoted and that's why you cannot do the good that you're doing anymore-"

Read the rest after the jump!

I wonder if real Americans will actually respond to this outrageously melodramatic ad spot? "A Storm is Gathering"? A bit too fire and brimstone for most of us, I think.

Everybody's crazy for gayface Adam Lambert. He's certainly got a beautiful voice, and a kind of emo-twink-jock appeal that makes me a bit weak. Delicious! I don't watch Idol, but I think I'd probably like to hear more of Lambert's voice in my future. So if you do watch, give the gay a vote!

P.S.: He's not openly gay, but he might as well be. "Sports, not so much" in above clip. Or this series of clips to demonstrate it.

Statistics wizard Nate Silver has crunched his magical numbers and predicted when same-sex marriage bans will crumble in every state. He came up with the numbers like this:

It turns out that you can build a very effective model by including just three variables:

1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon;
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.

These variables collectively account for about three-quarters of the variance in the performance of marriage bans in different states. The model predicts, for example, that a marriage ban in California in 2008 would have passed with 52.1 percent of the vote, almost exactly the fraction actually received by Proposition 8.

Unsurprisingly, there is a very strong correspondence between the religiosity of a state and its propensity to ban gay marriage, with a particular "bonus" effect depending on the number of white evangelicals in the state.

Marriage bans, however, are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we'd project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year.

I'm not sold -- he pegs North Carolina as not crumbling until 2019, but my experiences there tell me this state is moving on gay issues at a surprisingly fast pace. Perhaps a more useful read on this data may just be generally a scale of likelihood over the coming years, rather than taking these dates at face value.

(Via JMG)

The CDC announced Tuesday their first national HIV communication campaign in almost 20 years. And this "Every 9 1/2 minutes" totally uninteresting, trite, and utterly boring campaign was all they could come up with? As Lifelube notes, the campaign's website mentions very little about the gays, and of course gives a shout out to abstinence (sigh). As Jim also notes, this is the first half of the campaign, with a probably more targeted second phase to come.

But still: "Every Nine and a Half Minutes"? This is the problem with those sanitized public health-heads. They can only imagine to think in bland statistics, with no real meaning or lived experience reflected in their cold, calculating numbers. It's all about probabilities, correlations, and p-values. Anyone actually dealing with the possibility of becoming HIV-positive can't relate to this tripe. They're better off putting their $45 million towards housing for HIV-positive people or treatment.

In short, my message back to the CDC is clear: EARTH TO PUBLIC HEALTH! TALK ABOUT SEX! OR REAL PEOPLE! OR OUR EXPERIENCES! OR SOMETHING THAT MATTERS!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus H Christ. This crap just pissed me off more than I can express. You can find the campaign website here. Here's the 411 via Out in America:

Every 9 ½ minutes another person in America becomes infected with HIV. Officials from the White House, Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced today a new five-year national communication campaign, Act Against AIDS, which highlights this alarming statistic and aims to combat complacency about the HIV/AIDS crisis in the United States.

[snip]

“Act Against AIDS seeks to put the HIV crisis back on the national radar screen,” said Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. “Our goal is to remind Americans that HIV/AIDS continues to pose a serious health threat in the United States and encourage them to get the facts they need to take action for themselves and their communities.”

The campaign will feature public service announcements (PSAs) and online communications, as well as targeted messages and outreach to the populations most severely affected by HIV/AIDS, beginning with African-Americans, with subsequent phases focusing on Latinos and other communities disproportionately impacted.

To help achieve widespread use of the campaign messages within African-American communities, the Obama Administration also announced today the Act Against AIDS Leadership Initiative (AAALI), a partnership with 14 of the nation’s leading African-American civic organizations to integrate HIV prevention into each organization’s outreach programs.

The NY Times reflects on Iowa and Vermont's newfound same-sex marriage rights, and looks to the future of marriage equality...

Gay porn icon Jack Wrangler is dead. Here's the preview to a documentary about him that I saw last year:

CNN covers the trend towards locking teenagers away for life in prison without parole...

Pam Spaulding recounts her experience at Equality North Carolina's Day of Actiong (their annual LGBT lobby day) with Mandy Carter, and I sigh and miss my home...

A new DNA test is much better at finding advanced cervical cancer than the traditional pap smear...

A new ad campaign bets that gay men are the key to reviving NYC's ailing tourism industry...

And that's all for this morning! Off to the gym, and then lunch with the lovely Heather Love, who's visiting Michigan from Penn to do a few lectures on her new project interrogating Erving Goffman's 1963 classic study, Stigma. She's helping us think about the development of a conference for 2010 or 2011 on the 20th anniversary of queer theory.

A fellow Sociology grad posted this amusing story on the perils of relying on Microsoft Word's spell-check to solve your problems:

One edition of the Brigham Young University student newspaper has been pulled from newsstands because of a typo in a caption that referred to Mormon leaders as apostates instead of apostles.

An apostate is someone who has abandoned religious faith.

A photo in Monday's Daily Universe showed members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which owns the university.

The caption called the group the ''Quorum of the Twelve Apostates.''

University spokeswoman Carri Jenkins says it was an honest mistake that happened when an editor was doing a computerized spell check.

Most copies of the press run of 18,000 were picked up. A corrected version was distributed later Monday.

Amazing.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

It's now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

In other news, the Iowa Senate Majority Leader, Mike Gronstal, had some amazing things to say in his very public refusal to co-sponsor a bill that would amend the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. Just listen!

Jeebus! What a day!