April 21, 2004

Dear Sir,

Over the past week a number of television programmes have dealt with a subject that has become a cause for growing concern in the United States. The term used for the behaviour exhibited is "Brothers on the Down-Low" or the "DL" and it refers to African-American men who, although they are married or in long-term relationships with women, enjoy occasional discreet sex with other men ? usually without a condom, as this implies intent on the part of the persons involved.

"Law & Order: SVU" handled it last week when a subject was found dead in his car. The victim was determined to have contracted the HIV virus from his male partner. Both men in this case were married men, who chose to engage in a same-sex relationship with a number of their 'buddies'. The partner had a really moving scene in which he had to confess to his wife not only about his lifestyle, but how he came to kill his male sex partner to protect his privacy ? the deceased wanted him to leave his wife and join his in an open relationship. The wife chose to stand by her husband and support him.

On Friday night, Oprah Winfrey's guest, J.L. King, discussed the reasons why he wrote the book, "Living on the Down-Low"; a book about his own experiences as a member of the DL fraternity. He stated that there were many brothers in American, like himself, who choose to live expected of them by society ? getting married, going to church every week, and having children ? but on the side they like to have sporadic sexual encounters with other men. King's reason for writing the book was because he was the father of a 29 year-old daughter who he did not want to marry a "man like himself". His daughter was present in the audience, and although at first hesitant to read her father's book, admitted it had opened her eyes to the issue and supported her father for writing the book.

On Sunday night, the Showtime series "Soul Food" briefly mentioned the subject when "Lem's" brother, who has often been a source of problems for the family, returns to town and tells Lem that he is HIV-positive. Lem and his wife talk about how he may have contracted the virus, and the possibility of him being on the DL is discussed, along with IV drug use. Lem and his wife eventually agree to support the brother, who admits he is scared knowing that he is HIV-positive.

While I am glad that television producers are addressing this subject, I have a few concerns about the messages they are sending out. I cannot negate that such behaviours are responsible for the increase in the number of infections caused especially in women, but it seemed to me that at least in the first two programmes mentioned above, the implication was that these new HIV infections were caused by MSM ? men who have sex with other men. I think it is important to note here that what determines if a person will contract HIV is not their sexual preference, but their sexual activities. Anyone who engages in unprotected sexual activity, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, increases the chances of transmission of a number of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV.

The subject of MSM has been a topic of conversation for a number of years at meetings I have attended in the Caribbean region, but due to unwavering negative opinions in many Caribbean countries on 'alternative' lifestyles, few effective programmes have been created to deal with the subject. MSM and brothers on the down-low do not consider themselves as homosexual ? just guys who like to 'kick it' with other guys on the odd occasion.

In communities where there is also a high prevalence of substance abuse, it is suggested that such behaviours are increased, as these men, who are determined to make a few extra dollars to support their habit, will often use sex as a tool to do so and do not care whether their partners are male or female. Recently, a local minister stated that "whenever the US sneezes, Bermuda catches a cold", referring to the fact that social situations prevalent in the United States often find an impact here on our shores. Certainly, such situations continue to occur in Bermuda, but there is no discussion about it here.

You may ask 'why don't these men use condoms?' Well, the reasoning is that by carrying condoms into such encounters it means that the parties involved intended to have sex, implying that the individuals 'knew' they were going to engage in such sexual activity with another man. Additionally, they don't want the hassle of applying and removing the condom before and after the encounter. They just want to get up and leave.

While some say that brothers on the DL are the growing cause of increased infections in heterosexual women, I believe that the real reason is dishonesty ? person. Whether you are in a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual relationship, it is important for both partners in the relationship to be honest with themselves ? and with each other ? about their previous or continuing sexual habits. I realise that, in most situation, people do not expect their partners to have been virgins before they hook up, but it is important to find the right time in a relationship ? prior to having sex ? to discuss sexual histories and inclinations. Very few of us tend to do this.

Transmission of STDs and HIV is caused by indiscretion, dishonesty and deceit on the part of one or both partners. There are no 'innocent victims' of HIV. More and more, our culture has become complacent about sex, relationships and therefore more complacent about HIV and STDs. Recently, I bumped into an old high-school friend. After exchanging the usual pleasantries, she asked: "What are you doing these days?" I told her of my involvement with HIV/AIDS work locally and regionally. Her response was "Well, I am so far removed from that so I don't have any worries about HIV and things like that."

I asked if she had children yet; she said she had two daughters ? one was 13 years old and the other eight. I asked if she would like to see her daughters grow up, get married and have children. Her eyes lit up and she said: "Yes, definitely." I suggested to her that in order for that to happen, her daughters would need to start having sex, and with the pressures on teenagers in our society these days, it was likely that they would experiment sexually prior to marriage. This time, her mouth opened in horror, and she said nothing. I told her that she is not as far removed from the issue as she thinks.

I encourage all parents to find the time to discuss sex and its implications with their teenagers ? and even with children of middle school age to ensure that they are confident in making the right choices when it comes to sex. I encourage all persons in the community to review their own sexual histories, and that of their partners, and endeavour to learn as much as possible about how HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases can affect their life. I encourage brothers who are on the DL to own up to their 'inclinations' ? as one friend puts it. It is not about telling someone, but being honest with oneself about who they are and how what they do behind closed doors can make an impact on someone else's life ? a wife, a girlfriend, a child.

MICHAEL FOX

April 14, 2004

Dear Sir,

I refer to a letter by Patricia Reams Perry of April 9, 2004 in which she was critical of Ms Lisa Kitson's opposition to the war on Iraq, which your readers know I am also. Anyone with even modest intellectual capacity, by now knows, or should know, that the reasons given for going to war were incorrect and in fact Iraq was not a threat to anyone but its own people. It was almost defenceless and its army easily overcome, as was witnessed. There is no connection whatever to al Qaeda and of course no weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Iran was probably more dangerous.

To associate 9/11, the USS Cole, or the Embassy bombings is comparing apples with oranges, there was no link to Iraq. The only country possibly in danger was Israel, who have the fourth largest army in the world so can defend itself. I was born long before you Mrs. Reams and recall that the second world war was well into its third year with Britain standing alone winning the battle or Britain before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and the US declared war, so while we appreciate the help, the US made a profit during the war and Britain was essentially ruined. I have many American relatives including my sister-in-law and have always felt close to the USA, but I think they have gone about this the wrong way.

Unless you have the gift of clairvoyance I cannot see how you can comment on whether or not Ms Kitson does or does not at present do any of the laudable deeds you advocate. I have the greatest sympathy for any member of the armed forces serving in Iraq and understand your concern as I lost a young many who would have been my brother-in-law, Jim Turnbull, you will find his name on the wall memorial in Washington DC killed in Vietnam at age 25, decorated posthumously for bravery in action. It is my sincere desire that a solution will be found to resolve the Mideast crisis. In the meantime may you and your family remain safe throughout this obviously stressful time.

BILL COOK

Paget

March 3, 2004

Dear Sir,

On a recent trip to London on British Airways I changed my return date, as I have done on occasion over many years, at no extra cost but this time there was a big difference. When I got to the Gatwick check-ins, after waiting in line, having my baggage labelled and being given my boarding card I was told that I owed British Airways more money and that I had to take myself and my baggage to another British Airways desk.

There, the clerk and later her supervisor informed me that by British Airways rules I had to pay an extra $200 for the privilege of changing my return date. I advised them that in this electronic age when you can change your own seat in the twinkling of an eye online, that this fee was extortionate as the cost to British Airways was miniscule especially as they already had over $1,200 of my money, when others were paying a lot less.

They advised me that rules are rules and furthermore that at least five other fare prices for similar seats, ranging from approximately $600 to $1,400 all enjoyed the same doubtful privilege! I then called the Customer Relations Departments and the clerk gave me the same "rules" speech and told me that I should have known there was rebooking charge.

I advised her that I had never been charged one before and that if they would not fly me home unless they kept my $200 then I promised her I would write a letter to The Royal Gazette to inform the Bermuda public of their "rule". Upon returning to the Island (poorer but wiser) I made some enquiries regarding British Airways rules. Apparently, this new rule was introduced in November 2003 and applies to both when you change a ticket before you leave the Island and if you change it before you come back.

Therefore, if you are not careful you could loose not just $200 but $400 a trip! Further, I have been advised that if an English person in England buys a ticket to fly to Bermuda and changes it he would be charged only ?50 (approx. $90) instead of the $200 Bermuda "special". If this is true then it is discrimination against Bermuda residents and British Airways needs to clean up their act! At the very least I hope this letter will prevent any of your readers from getting stranded abroad because they didn't have a spare $200 handy and at best that it might persuade British Airways to change their "rules" in the interests of customer satisfaction.

RIPPED OFF & OVER-RULED

Southampton