Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Just out. (Portland, OR) 1983-2013 | View Entire Issue (June 21, 1996)
4 T jun« 21, 190« ▼ just out 17 Years of Service to Our Community Jim Bean Scott Bottaro. GRI Crai); Everitt Donald Falk, GRI Cathy Martine Jan Martin letters Speaking from experience Ik-bo rah Betron CRB, GRI Broker/President Jude Watson, GRI Broker Chris Bonner, GRI Associate Broker Judy Carnahan CNHS Associate Broker Robin Grimm Gerry Federico, GRI Bill Galvin Associate Broker John Terrill, GRI Associate Broker Gary Sadleir Val Thorpe-Galvin, GRI Laurie SantaVlaria To the editor: I heartily welcome the discussions I have seen in your pages about using the “female condom” for man-to-man anal sex. I wanted to reply to Christo pher Cuttone’s letter offering his opinion that this condom “seem[s] a bit impractical.” The wording of his letter suggests to me that he is not speaking from experience. I can. I have used the Reality condom numerous times, and I will not choose a “regular” condom ever again, given the choice. This condom is a bit strange to put in the first time (as is a regular condom) but it has the definite advantage that it can be put in with or without an erection. It can also be put in ahead of time. Slippage seems to be the main concern of Mr. Cuttone. I am also concerned, but more for vaginal than the tighter anal use. There is plenty of anatomy to hold the inner ring inside. Having the outer ring slip in is a more real concern in practice, mainly on initial penetration. Holding this ring in place for a few seconds until it settles in takes care of this problem for me. The best part of using this condom is how great it feels for both partners. The friction (not the feel) is practically eliminated for the receptive partner, while the insertive partner gets all the friction where he wants it most. I believe this may also reduce tissue damage for the receptive partner. Information on the male-male use of these “female” condoms is indeed scarce. Why should we depend on hearsay and anecdotal evidence? I have talked to many men who have had similar pleasant results. Who is to say these opinions I have been getting are not biased? To this end, I am surveying men who have used the Reality condom for male anal sex. Any men with such experiences, good, bad or indifferent, may write to me to request a survey. Jeff Richard 535 SE 16th Ave. Portland, OR 97214-2613 Reality should be immediate priority Kathy Tysinger Robert Ambes Kathleen Ira Anita Trudeau Greg Washington Sandy Mort Philip Beausoleil Linda Welch Karen Bilsing Jay Pevney Bridgetown Realty For Those Who Appreciate Superior Service Portland Metro Office Clackamas County Office 503/287-9370 e-mail: brklgetown 1 @solnlogic.com 503/655-8015 e-mail: bridgetown2@solnlogic.com Red Lion Lloyd Center 1000 N.E, Multnomah Portland, OR 97232 Bolton Plaza 21570 Willamette Drive West Linn, OR 97068 To the Editor: Many thanks to Bob Roehr for raising some insightful questions in his recent guest editorial ‘Time for Reality” [Just Out, May 3, 1996], ad dressing the many roadblocks and benefits to the use of the Reality Female Condom as a method of HIV prevention. As Roehr points out, Reality offers substantial benefits over latex condoms for anal sex: The polyurethane’s strength and durability offer greater security than latex, and its natural conductivity of body heat provides increased sensation—some thing heat-insulating latex condoms tend to in hibit. Of equal importance, the “female condom” provides empowerment to the receptive partner in anal sex, allowing both participants to take per sonal responsibility. In fact, Wisconsin Pharmaceutical Company— the manufacturer of Reality—has done extensive investigational research on the use of the Reality (called Aegis Barrier Pouch when used for anal sex) for male-to-male sex. Whereas the Food and Drug Administration has made it virtually impos sible for WPC to market the Aegis for anal sex, the manufacturer has been very forthcoming and sup portive in providing this retailer with informa tional materials for educational purposes, includ ing a very useful instructional manual. Unfortunately, as Roehr points out in his edito rial, no information has yet come from the local organizations which were established to educate the public and help stop the spread of AIDS. While Seattle’s, San Francisco’s and Los Angeles’ AIDS groups all provide seminars on the proper use of the Reality/Aegis for man-to-man sex, nothing has been offered locally. We feel so strongly about the benefits of the Reality/Aegis (and conversely frustrated by the lack of response by local AIDS organizations) that we in turn have been providing this information directly to our customers and have gone so far as to provide the Reality/Aegis to customers at our cost. We can only hope the community will heed Roehr’s exhortation that “Reality must become an immediate priority of HIV prevention in the gay men’s community.” Gary Hopping Ron Pitt Owners, Condom Capers The cat’s patootie To the Editor: Notwithstanding all the “cool-headed rhetoric” about voting for [Bill] Clinton to avoid another conservative appointment to the Supreme Court, and about Clinton doing more than any other president for gay issues, I wonder if the so-called gay vote—left and right—might be better served by staying home or voting third party in 1996, for the better message it would send politicians about family values and individual values and human dignity. If the president has evidence that gay marriage is a real threat to our families, then he is obligated to present it, instead of pandering to the bigotry of the right. However, if you believe the so-called gay com munity should be made the Sister Soldier of 1996 by Clinton Inc. over the issue of same-sex mar riages, then perhaps you will find William Jefferson Clinton the cat’s patootie in 1996. Clinton will win without the gay vote, so why not take the opportu nity to tell politicians that family values and human dignity are not political chips to be toyed with in America. Hum? Rand Knox San Rafael, Calif. Core supporters left out in the cold To the Editor: Seattle City Council woman Tina Podlodowski ’ s recent resignation as state co-chair of the Clinton re-election campaign was an outcome of the con tinuing evolution of the Democratic Party into something indistinguishable from the Republican Party. By stepping down because of Clinton’s announcement that he would sign a bill limiting same-sex marriages, Podlodowski called attention to the latest example of the way the Democratic Party turns its back on its core supporters, because it is secure in its belief that they have nowhere else to go. Democratic politicians cynically use Dole as a specter to keep voters in line, while they pursue pro-corporate, anti-labor, anti-environment, anti gay, anti-poor policies that liberal Republicans of 20 years ago would never have dared suggest. Every time we elect a Democrat the victory is used as a mandate for a move further to the right, rather than an obligation to implement campaign prom ises. As a result, frustrated voters stop going to the polls and elections commonly are decided by about 20 percent of eligible voters. It is no wonder that more and more people are turning to third-party candidates. For disaffected Democrats, the presidential candidacy of Ralph Nader provides a serious alternative. When Nader was approached by the California Green Party about running for president, he accepted their invitation because, he said, “The Democrats and Republicans are both under the control of corpo rate America and no one is representing the aver age American.” His summary of our present elec tions as “a choice between the bad and the worse,” is getting harder to deny, even for party members. Even those Democrats who feel strongly that Clinton must win may well end up hoping that Nader will be a visible candidate. This is especially