Anarchy: a journal of desire armed. #36, Spring 1993 anticopyright - Anarchy may be reprinted at will for non-profit purposes, except in the case of individual copyrighted contributions. THE SAD TRUTH -includes Out Of Control, Rap Cops, and Holes in Condom Theory @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ OUT OF CONTROL Recently the U.S. Coast Guard, flexing its regulatory muscles, proposed a new rule that life jackets must be worn by passengers on all boats, including canoes, kayaks and rafts. Obviously a take-off on the now well established seat belt laws requiring automobile passengers to buckle-up or face punitive fines, the Coast Guard ruling only looks out for our safety. However, it has also become obvious that the promulgation of new safety regulations is not moving fast enough to prevent thousands of needless deaths and injuries each year. Those excessively concerned with safety issues want to know why there has been as yet no rule requiring all swimmers to wear life jackets? Certainly such a measure would reduce drownings significantly, and anyway, those who drowned could at least be cited for their disrespect of the law. Motorcyclists have, for years been required by law to wear helmets in most states, even for two block trips travelling no more than 20 mph. Why are moped riders, bicyclists and roller skaters exempt from the same reasonable safety requirements? And for that matter, many fewer pedestrians would be killed if helmets and full body armor were required before crossing major streets. In related news the federal government has estimated that more than 25,000 people were injured by the explosive inflation of automobile air bags between 1988 and 1991. Injuries have included broken bones, third-degree burns, and eye and ear damage. It seems clear that these injuries could be reduced if air bags were inflated prior to the rapid decelerations otherwise known as car crashes. Surely some government agency is even at this moment studying the feasibility of issuing a new law requiring that all auto air bags be inflated while driving. Such a law would have the added benefit of easier enforcement than mandatory seat belt laws, since air bags should be visible from outside of most cars when inflated, making police observation effortless. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ RAP COPS Calling themselves The Slick Boys (after a street term for plainclothes pigs), three Chicago cops have declared war on anti-cop rap music by forming a rap group. Sporting baseball caps and typical rap gear, the trio has performed in dozens of elementary schools, recreational centers, and other venues, and on street corners in Cabrini-Green, the area they patrol. Their reper- toire includes "If You Kill a Cop" and "Ain't It a Shame," a song about joining a gang and getting put in jail. The cops come on with a soft-cop, social-worker spiel: "...If you give people jobs and a decent education, a lot of these problems will disappear." At the same time they are quite open about who they are: "We are the real police. We'll lock you up." "I think with our rap music, we place ourselves into the kids' worlds and now they can relate to us better," says Slick Boy member Randy Holcomb. "Before, it was a them-and-us thing. Now it's much more of an us-and-us situation." "We were judged and hung just for being the police," added member Eric Davis. The scam seems to be working to at least a certain extent, according to reactions quoted in an article about the trio in the New York Times. Andrew White, 21, said, "They're good cops, not like most of them that be up here. They rap pretty good, too." Burt Walker, 13, said, "I never knew that cops could rap like that. I really don't like the police. They be shooting and killing people. But I don't think the Slick Boys are like that." After a perfor- mance, 11-year-old Latanya Carter said, "I think they were really hot." When informed that the Slick Boys were cops, she added, "I think they're still hot, even if they are the police." Meanwhile, Ice-T's "Body Count" album containing "Cop Killer," the song which unleashed a national uproar, has now been withdrawn and reissued without the offending tune. The song contained the lyrics: I got my 12-gauge sawed off I got my headlights turned off I'm 'bout to bust some shots off I'm 'bout to dust some cops off ... I got my stereo bumpin' I'm 'bout to kill me something A pig stopped me for nothin' Cop killer, it's better you than me. In a related incident, Ronald Ray Howard, 19, is facing murder charges in the death of Texas highway patrolman Bill Davidson. Howard was allegedly listening to rapper Tupac Amuru Shakur's "2PACALYPSE NOW" album when he shot Davidson during a routine traffic stop. The album contains the lyrics: Cops on my tail, so I bail till I dodge them, They finally pull me over and I laugh, Remembering Rodney King And I blast his punk ass. Now I got a murder case ... What the fuck would you do? Drop them or let them drop you? I choose droppin' the cop! Davidson's widow, Linda Davidson, has filed civil charges against Shakur and his Interscope Records label, claiming negligence in manufacturing and distributing music that incites "lawless action". Adding a further twist, Ronald Howard's court-appointed defense attorney, Al Tanner, plans to argue that the "2PACALYPSE NOW" album caused his client to shoot Davidson. "Without the music riling him up," Tanner said, "I do not think that this incident would have oc- curred." -Michael William @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ HOLES IN CONDOM THEORY By R. Zack The gurus of public health have been shouting themselves hoarse in their efforts to protect all the ignorant members of society from the inclinations of their ids. Those who have taken it upon them- selves to shield us from AIDS are hawking condoms as vigorously as their predecessors sold youth extending and hair-growth ointments from the backs of their wagons. None of them seem aware, or at least eager to admit that the condom theory is riddled with holes. But research indicates that condoms are certainly not very effective in preventing many sexually transmitted diseases, there is no firm evidence that they can protect from HIV, their extensive use is extremely unlikely, and that other preventative measures may exist that are more effective. Why is condom the only word they seem to know? I suspect the reason is rooted in sexism. This essay will explore the comparative efficacy and efficiency of condoms as well as the sexism behind their promotion as the exclusive preventative against HIV. Of course, there is some basis for the argument that condoms might work. A handful of laboratory studies on which condoms were filled with solution containing HIV revealed no leakage (in most, but not all, cases). In some of the studies they were put through motions of artificial sex, yet under very different conditions than what exists during live sexual intercourse. The spermicide nonoxynol 9 has also been shown to enhance the efficacy of condoms in the laboratory setting. No studies, however, have been done that have evaluated the risk of unprotected vs. condom-protected sex with HIV. Some retrospective investigations involving prostitutes have been inconclusive and often misleading. There is, however, a great deal of data available concerning the efficacy of condoms in other situations and none of it is too encouraging. For instance, condoms haven't done so great preventing pregnancy - studies report failure rates of 7-28%, most averaging about 15%. A recent study found that the likelihood of a women contracting gonorrhea is only 34% lower while using a condom than while using nothing; for trichomonas condoms were only 30% effective, and against chlamydia only 3%. In this study, contraceptive sponges or diaphragms were more effective than condoms in preventing gonorrhea, trichomonas, and chlamydia. Another study found only a 13% reduction in gonorrhea with condoms, while a diaphragm with spermicide offered 55% protection. Yet another study found that condoms did not significantly protect against gonorrhea and chlamydia while diaphragms offered 64% (against gonorrhea) and 97% (against chlamydia) protection. In view of the fact that condoms are relatively ineffective against pregnancy and most sexually transmission is any different from these others, it is curious that the AIDS prevention community has remained so steadfast in their claims that condom use is the only hope aside from abstinence. (Granted that partner selection, number of partners, and type of sexual activity are included in many educational programs). Anyone who has worked in population control programs can attest to the fact that no matter how available condoms are made, they are not used to any great extent. One study found that over 97% of couples in Africa and Latin America using birth control rely on fe- maleþdependent methods. The most effective family planning programs are those that stress the femaleþdependent methods. There are many reasons for this, most involving the dynamics of maleþfemale relationships that go beyond the scope of this paper. But while use of condoms among homosexual males may be increasing, heterosexual couples seem not to be following suit. So why are other methods ignored? Why are condoms, which are not necessarily very effective in preventing transmission, especially among heterosexuals, presented as the only means of protection available? Zena Stein of the HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies points out "that the HIV epidemic restored to men the locus of control over the consequences of sexual behavior." And the condom keeps the ball on the male side of the court. A.A. Ehrhardt wrote, "The threat of HIV infection dramatically reduces women's control. Use of a condom...requires the cooperation of a male partner." In heterosexual relationships HIV had returned sexual control to the male and condoms assure that control remains with the male. The fact that the FDA is withholding approval of the female condom is an example of the power that is being exercised. It is time for the scientific community to examine these issues. Studies need to be done to investigate the femaleþdependent barrier methods, not only for their efficacy in preventing STD's (including HIV) in females, but how effective they are in protecting the male partners. And our teaching programs need to include, even emphasize, femaleþdependent barriers. Most STD's, including HIV, are far more efficiently transmitted maleþtoþfemale than femaleþtoþmale. Furthermore, the incidence of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and most other STD's is much higher than that of HIV, especially among women. It makes good sense then, that women be able to protect themselves. To do this they deserve to be given the facts about what works, rather than being taught the condom mantra. Maybe it is time we started listening a little more carefully to those who claim to be looking out for us. References Austin, H. et al., "A caseþcontrolled study of spermicides and gonorrhea." JAMA, 1984, 251, 2822þ2824. Bradbeer, C.S., et al., "Prophylaxis against infection in Singaporean women." Genitourin Med, 1988, 64, 52þ52. Centers for Disease Control, "Condoms for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases." MMWR, 1988, 37, 133þ137. Conant, M.A., "Condoms and the prevention of AIDS." JAMA, 1986, 256, 1442þ1443. Ehrhardt, A.A., "Preventing and treating AIDS: the expertise of the behavioral sciences." Bull NY Acad Med 1988, 64, 513þ519. Lazar, A., "Trichomonas vaginalis infection: incidence with use of various contraceptive methods." J Med Soc NJ, 1970, 67, 225þ226. Reitmeiler, C.A.M., et al., "Condoms as physical and chemical barriers against human immunodeficiency virus." JAMA, 1988 259(12), 1351þ1353. Rosenberg, M.J., et al., "Barrier contraceptives and sexually transmitted diseases in women: a comparison of femaleþdependent methods and condoms." Am J Public Health, 1992, 82(5), 669-674. Ryder, N., "Contraceptive failure in the United States." Family Planning Perspectives, 1973, 5(3). Stein, Z.A., "HIV prevention: the need for methods women can use." Am J Public Health, 1990, 80, 460þ462. Zito, G.V., Population and its Problems, 1979, New York: Human Services Press.