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