Bob Leahy: Josh, thank you for agreeing to talk to PositiveLite.com. Now readers know you through your columns here on PositiveLite.com and I think we’ve got to know where you stand on some of the big issues of the day. But tell us first, for those who don’t know you so well, a little about who the real Josh Kruger is. How would you describe your personality?
JK: My personality today is one that's devoid of deception; I'm the same exact person in a bathhouse that I am volunteering with a local HIV service organization - just with clothes on. I have difficulty not bringing up awkward topics in public like sex, particularly when people feel ashamed of things out of social pressure, because I strenuously feel a sense that honesty, candor, and respect neutralize bullying and allow us to be who we are supposed to be. On a day to day basis, this means that I laugh a tremendous amount in a good natured way; I call things as I see them without being nasty or gossiping. If a friend of mine is into fisting, I will make jokes about Crisco now and then so long as he takes them as playful. If a politician was incarcerated at one time, I will ask a direct question about hypocrisy. But, I still identify the difference between tactlessness and candor; there's nothing to be gained by being mean-spirited, and there's tons to be gained by making folks come out of their comfort zones.
I hear you. But many would describe the way you write as controversial, as edgy. You sometimes sound like an angry person. Are you? What makes you angry?
JK: This is one of the most amusing, and frequent, criticisms I get. I just said recently to someone, "Please don't let people know that I love humanity and have such hope for our future. The 'being a dick' narrative keeps the idiots away." I tend to flatly point out what things mean in their broader context with little regard to massaging the message.
I do get angry just as often a I get happy; typically, you'll see my anger reach a fever pitch when I identify de facto social bullying or hypocrisy, common themes in my outrage. Having said that, edginess is a one trick pony if that's all you're about. If you look at what I write about, HIV stigma, sexual freedom, drug use, politics, these are things that the vast majority of people have a general private consensus on. I know increasingly smaller numbers of people who genuinely think, for instance, that getting high is not the same thing as getting drunk. It is! I know increasingly smaller numbers of people who genuinely judge and defame others who enjoy group sex or kink or, conversely, traditional marriage; people have incredibly savvy interpersonal instincts toward acceptance and a "live and let live" mentality. Saying these things publicly, however, shocks people.
I feel very little need to be polite when folks are blatantly lying; and, I feel very little need to act as though lying to the public, endangering lives and well-beings to promote an agenda, does not garner my moral outrage. How many 16-year old gay boys are going to pursue paths that are incredibly dangerous because they get stuck in the cycle of shame, risky behaviors, promises that they'll never do it again, and acting even more dangerously than if they simply felt okay with the fact that some of them have a natural inclination toward more subversive behaviors like bathhouses, drugs, kink, polyamory? How many people waste years of their incredibly short lives living lies out of social pressure and stigma toward their true identities causing irreparable damage to themselves and everyone else they bring along for the ride? Unhappy childhoods borne from loveless marriages, abusive relationships created out of resentment, alcoholism ignited because of self-loathing. How long are we going to allow society to impose this kabuki theater on entire generations before we say enough is enough?
It's a very curious situation that I can only conclude is based in social pressure and stigma toward very natural, and enjoyable, human behaviors.
But I’m guessing there is a laid back Josh Kruger there we don’t hear from so much. What’s he like?
JK: Very few people would call me laid back. My motor is in a constant top gear when I'm engaging with others because they energize me, their stories, their perspectives. This means, though, that there are large amounts of time that I need to spend by myself. I often sit in parks by myself and watch people. I've sat by the rivers here in Philadelphia at dawn and watched the few shift workers driving their trucks, I've gone on trips that nobody knows about and looked at the Atlantic Ocean and thought about the fishermen that have perished in storms and not said or written a word about these thoughts. I've contemplated the failures I've had and the loves I've enjoyed and the relationships I've messed up. It sounds sort of crazy, but I'd like to think that I have an incredibly close relationship with god as a direct result of the constant doubts I have about myself, my own motives, my own place in the world.
Interesting! Josh, at the same time you come across as a fairly sexualized person in that you often write about sex and barebacking and bathhouses and the like with some enthusiasm. How big is sex a part of your life?
JK: Oh, if I were only having as much sex as people thought I was based upon my writing! I think those of us who reach a certain sexual maturity reflect back on our experiences with more of a matter-of-fact mentality than a lurid curiosity. I find it particularly interesting that I might write something others would find incredibly embarrassing but arc it in the context of overcoming my own insecurity about my body and, of course, someone will respond with naked pictures in my inbox. To me, that individual is suffering greatly in early sexual development.
"If you're looking for a quantitative number, I'd say I have no idea how many men I've ever had sex with."
Sex isn't about ejaculation or sending GrindR pictures to people who say they once crossed the threshold of a bathhouse. And, it isn't about privacy and quietly doing your nasty, dirty things in a way that makes them shameful. It's another form of communication, of closeness, and engagement. When we keep our identities in sex, when we stay inside of ourselves, we are barely having sex. But, it's a component of the totality of our lives. I'm not having sex or thinking about sex when I'm with my family; and, I'm not having sex, masturbating, or thinking about seriously doing this while I'm thinking about answering this question. If you're looking for a quantitative number, I'd say I have no idea how many men I've ever had sex with. I go through periods of six partners in a week then nothing for two months. It all depends on my drive, the amount of men who find me attractive and whom I find attractive, the opportunity and the feasibility. I'm very logical about the whole thing; I think as men we tend to squander a great deal of time trying to get laid, so I tend to take the approach that, barring a handsome, dominant Puerto Rican running into me and saying his hotel room is right around the corner, I'll probably be focusing on other things like reading, writing, meeting friends for coffee, or meeting with one of my editors.
Let's talk more about sex then. Do you want to talk about your early sexual life? How did you find out you were gay, for instance, and when? And what did you do about it?
JK: I love this question. I first realized I was gay when my parents first got the internet. At the time, it was a dial up connection, and a $700 phone bill later (that was mercifully waived by the telephone company once my father explained that I was a 13-year old boy who had no idea what long-distance meant) I knew without one doubt that I was a homosexual. Being 13, scouring the internet for pornography, and getting incredibly turned on by the idea of seeing two men penetrate each other: even in my adolescent immaturity I had enough sense to know what the implications of that were.
I was one of the administrators of a gay chatroom for years on IRC, which was a platform through which people worldwide could chat. I think it's where I developed a knack for detecting lies; one of the things I had to do as a teenage administrator of the chatroom, for instance, was ban anyone I knew to be or suspected to be a pedophile or predator. We developed a lot of camaradie, the boys in that self-monitored chat-room. The one thing that united us was that we were all teenagers, we were all gay, and we all needed a place to gossip about our crushes and feel okay with the fact that we knew our fathers were queasy about us.
"I cannot remember his name, but I distinctly remember he was generously endowed and we both assumed the other had brought lubricant."
The first time I actually had sex was August 20, 2000. I remember the date distinctly because it was the eve of my 16th birthday, and my mother was outraged that I didn't get home until 2 AM but gave me a pass on my obvious teenage lie that I fell asleep watching a movie because it was my birthday. The boy I had sex with twice in the back of a farm truck was 17, I was 15 and just turning 16. We, too, had met in the chat-room. I cannot remember his name, but I distinctly remember he was generously endowed and we both assumed the other had brought lubricant.
And when did you first discover bathhouses?
JK: I always knew about bathhouses, but I did not begin to go to them or understand exactly the social navigation surrounding them until late last decade. During the dissolution of my long term relationship with my ex, I had been drinking heavily, I ruined the relationship with infidelity and drinking, and so I would stumble to the bathhouse and, more often than not, just pass out in bed and not have sex with anyone. Later when I became single, after my ex had enough of living with a tiresome drunk asshole, for that is what I really was, I started to go to seek out sex with others and learned a great deal about how men think in a sexual context.
During your bathhouse years you were also heavily into drugs and alcohol, right? You’ve talked about that in past columns. How do you view those days now?
JK: I'm incredibly thankful for the opportunity that sobering up gave me. Make no mistake, I have a particularly interesting view of recovery. For me, I have a serious alcohol problem, but I can take or leave the drugs I've used. I haven't had a drink since May 5, 2011 shortly after I was fired from my advocacy job for, of course, being drunk all the time. It was one of the best things to happen to me in that it compelled me to start this self-discovery and adhere to strict honesty in everything as much as possible.
I was incredibly close to killing myself for a long period of time. The times I told people I was planning to kill myself were the least serious thoughts I had; the times, however, when I was quietly depressed and despondent over the loss of my job, my partner, these were the times I was closest to killing myself. I had planned on jumping off the Benjamin Franklin Bridge here in Philadelphia, it's this huge suspension bridge like a mini-Golden Gate; there's pedestrian access and even though hitting water from that height is akin to hitting concrete, the idea of leaping into water did not frighten me whatsoever. It's tiresome to say "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem," but really, I'm glad that I didn't do that. I'm a writer, a bona fide writer doing my dream job, I've made a great many lives better based upon the emails and letters I get. My role was never meant to be dutiful husband and white collar advocate; only after I stopped drinking and wandered the earth following my seroconversion did I realize that my role is to do this.
I see. That leads me in to asking you whether you want to talk about how you seroconverted and what was your reaction then?
JK: The practical details of my seroconversion are irrelevant; whether or not I was raped, I barebacked with someone who didn't know his status, I used a dirty needle, I was involved in a fantastical medical accident, the conclusion is precisely the same. So, choose whichever narrative fits your feeling toward me because the outcome is the same: I'm HIV+ and probably felt the same hopelessness and sadness and irrational hysteria the nameless man diagnosed as I'm saying this is feeling at this moment.
My reaction was emotional, irrational, and childish: I made the decision that from that point forward I would "do whatever I want whenever I wanted." I would not waste time with internecine battles between egoes, I would not listen to what society was telling me to do because it led to loss of job, loss of relationship, dishonesty in almost every aspect of my life, alcoholism. Instead, I made the resolution to follow my gut. It led to some incredible personal insights, freedom, understanding, and I'd like to think a great deal of wisdom in that it's rather easy for me to see what's coming.
It is a wonderful thing, this freedom. It does not sustain relationships or marriages, however, so be advised. I do wonder sometimes if I'll ever meet the guy who becomes the catalyst for me to truly want to change that, though.
And how much regret if any do you have for seroconverting? Has being HIV positive been good for you in some ways or a major downer all the way?
JK: Nobody wants to be HIV+. People mistake my words often for endorsement. I'll say flatly that the idea of bug chasing is morally bankrupt and stupid. Anyone who seeks out HIV is moronic, dysfunctional, and suicidal (for untreated HIV will kill you). Then again, I'm at times moronic, dysfunctional, and have been suicidal, so I'm not exactly calling for their involuntary commitment.
HIV, like any trauma be it physical or emotional, is an opportunity. It's an opportunity for people to either rise to the occasion or let it destroy them. Some people succumb to the destruction, and this does not make them bad people. Others rise to the occasion, and this does not make them good people. It's simply an opportunity to engage yourself and your mortality and your place in the world or for you to continue on just going through the motions. We do things everyday that put us at risk for lung cancer, liver cancer, HIV, gonorrhea, getting hit by a bus, being mugged. We cannot eliminate risk from our lives, but anyone who seeks out these things has some degree of ambivalence toward human life. I smoke cigarettes; this means that I do, in fact, have some degree of ambivalence toward my life, but that I've made the adult decision that I enjoy my nicotine habit to the degree where I would rather accept this risk and its consequence instead of protect myself at this moment in time.
"I oftentimes seek out sexual release in places where being HIV+ is the expected norm, like a bathhouse (if you do not believe this, you are naive.)"
On a day to day level, HIV means little to me. It means that my romantic and sexual navigations are altered to a degree. It means that I oftentimes seek out sexual release in places where being HIV+ is the expected norm, like a bathhouse (if you do not believe this, you are naive.) It means that I take one pill, once a day with no side effects. It means that I was able to find my voice as a writer. Other than that, it's just another biologic detail along with my having blond hair and blue eyes.
OK, one of the things you’ve written about frequently is barebacking and in particular the ability of people adherent to their HIV medications to virtually eliminate, as you describe it, the possibility of HIV transmission. How comfortable are you in saying that, when some would argue that the jury is still out, that the evidence to support what you say is only applicable to heterosexuals, for instance?
JK: People oftentimes mistake me for the CDC or the FDA or a research scientist. I cannot say with scientific certainty that my claims are true. Similarly, I cannot say with scientific certainty that the sun did not just blow up and we'll know this in several minutes. I can, however, use all reasoning and logic and available evidence to make an assertion that is accepted by my physician, the researchers I've talked with, and others. I find it particularly amusing that claims I made in February of this year, claims that garnered emails calling me a "murderer" are now gaining in popularity and acceptance.
Do you think that some will interpret what you’ve been saying then to mean that for gay men there is zero risk of transmission with a well maintained undetectable viral load?
JK: There is not zero risk in anything. I will say that if we're going to be intellectually honest with each other that we need to acknowledge that there's no real risk of transmission under this scenario. Just as there's no real risk of my getting hit by a careening bus if I look both ways, there's still the scientific potential for one to portal out of another dimension and fall on top of my head. That latter scenario is as fantastical as the idea that someone who adheres to modern treatment with an undetectable viral load who never was treated for HIV before in the past has any risk of transmitting HIV to anyone. Let's not even get into the harm reduction techniques that make this scenario even more ridiculous like use of lubricant, if the HIV- partner was the top, or other key details and components.
I'm saying that just as I don't wander about the streets of Philadelphia telling everyone to look out for wormholes and buses falling out of them (even though this is technically a possibility), I don't feel the need to entertain every scenario no matter how low the risk.
Let’s talk more about barebacking then, Josh. Would you agree that the impact of undetectable viral load has put this activity on the table for a poz guy, whether his partners are positive or negative?
JK Absolutely.Though, I would make the argument that barebacking has always been on the table; people have every right and ability to protect themselves. Why are we concerned about what HIV+ people do with their anuses and penises so much when HIV- are the ones running around infecting themselves with HIV?
And where do you personally think there is a need to disclose your status if you are poz?
I think this is an incredibly personally decision. I will say that I have made the personal decision to disclose my status as much as possible and that particularly in settings like online dating, bars, polite society settings, I'll disclose before going on a date or sexual encounter with someone. In explicitly sexual encounters, however, I feel no need whatsoever to disclose that I'm HIV+. Going into a group sex setting where everyone is barebacking or to a bathhouse; if people do not understand that I have no moral, ethical, or legal responsibility to disclose my HIV status under that condition then they have a very whimsical concept of reality.
What about risk then? I think I know your answer to this, Josh, but for a neg guy, do you think he is at more risk of infection having sex with another neg guy, or with a poz guy who is undetectable?
You do know the answer to that question; HIV+ guys with undetectable viral loads who have access to and adhere to medication are a safer bet sexually than almost any other subgroup, particularly in the gay male population.
So is it your perception that there is more and more barebacking going on now, Josh? Why do you think this is – and does it worry you?
JK: This doesn't worry me. Straight people have been barebacking for some time now, I think the last tally was approximately 50,000 years. I do think there's some sense of fatigue surrounding tiresome "safer sex" campaigns. The idea of "safer sex" confounds me. How is sex at all safe? How can you guarantee the person on top of you calling you a slut and slapping your ass is not going to bludgeon you to death with your side table lamp? I suspect the AIDS Healthcare Foundation will soon put out a press release calling for Walmart to remove side table lamps from shelves now.
"Barebacking is a return to normality for gay men after thirty years of an aberration."
Barebacking is a return to normality for gay men after thirty years of an aberration. Gay men almost never wore condoms prior to HIV. Untreated HIV will kill people. So, condoms were necessary to literally save lives. Now, we have the tools to ensure that HIV does not develop into AIDS so no one need die any longer. Therefore, logically, gay men will increasingly bareback and sex-negative organizations like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, an organization that has trotted out pathetic looking people to warn everyone how terrible my life must be (it actually isn't) will get even more shrill and irrelevant. If their way worked, we'd not be seeing an increasing HIV infection rate amongst young gay men. We are. So, let's confront HIV on its terms, not the terms of our activist buddies who have made a healthy living off of scaring the living hell out of people.
How then do you think barebackers are viewed by those who don’t do it themselves? And have you experienced much criticism for your views?
JK: The harshest criticism I receive is birthed from maudlin sentimentality of people who misplace their heartache at having lost friends and loved ones to AIDS. Gay men over fifty with passing knowledge of HIV and AIDS but without research expertise or experience are the nastiest; I've been called a murderer, reckless, stupid. Instead of actually looking at the virus as what it is, a thoughtless virus without motive aside from its own preservation, they instead build it up into something that we should mobilize against and act as though this is a war.
This isn't a war. It's biology. It's science. We've reached a point in the history of HIV/AIDS where there's no need to talk about trenches but lots of need to talk about risk reduction therapies and long-term strategies for medical care.
The overwhelming majority of readers under 50, those HIV+, and those working HIV prevention are incredibly supportive. I've had executive directors of large scale ASOs contact me privately saying that what I'm saying is what they've wanted to say for a decade. I've had clinical researchers warily agree with me on a lot of my more provocative assertions. The response tells me that I'm correct, and that those who are unable or unwilling to divorce their unscientific emotions from the discussion, particularly those who don't even live with HIV themselves, have no valid opinion to air. I should not feel the need to address the willful ignorance of people obsessed with a movie-based vision of HIV that hasn't existed for the past decade.
So what do you think the role of HIV prevention experts and community organizations is in all this? Are they giving out the right kind of messages about condom use and risk these days or not?
JK: I think there are some organizations that are incredibly valuable, sex-positive, and on the right track. The Gay and Lesbian Latino AIDS Initiative (GALAEI) here in Philadelphia is the best example of how to do it right and still communicate an effective message, particularly with their Positivo campaign. The Stigma Project headed by Chris Richey and Scott McPherson is another example of precisely the kind of outreach we need to do; we need to destigmatize the process if we're going to really prevent HIV.
"If we say, "Here's how to have bareback sex and do it in a way that limits risk as much as possible," we're going to reach much more people, and prevent many new HIV infections."
After all, people feeling bad about the fact that they want to have bareback sex or use intravenous drugs leads to, paradoxically, worse risk behaviors making the situation even more perilous than had these individuals educated themselves on how to engage in sex or drug behaviors and protect themselves in the best way possible. If we say, "Here's how to have bareback sex and do it in a way that limits risk as much as possible," we're going to reach much more people, and prevent many new HIV infections, instead of shrilly screaming about dying and condoms.
So why, in a nutshell, are more and more gay men getting infected?
JK: More and more young gay men in particular are infecting themselves with HIV because the tiresome narrative does not apply to them. The pity-inducing faggot who went to a dirty bookstore and then subsequently dies with lesions all over skin: this 1990 archetype, the same one eliciting conservative bigots to call HIV god's death sentence as well as give well-meaning liberals the type of moral cover to wear AIDS ribbons, is completely divorced from reality for the vast majority of HIV+ people.
People know the latter point to the be true; we can't very well be appeasing the HIV+ with sentiments like "It's not a death sentence" while simultaneously insisting everyone wear condoms or they're going to suffer terrible consequences. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is not known as the Gonorrhea Healthcare Foundation; so, I must presume that when they go off the rails saying that pornographic actors must wear condoms or suffer dire consequences they are talking about HIV. Logically, then, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is living up to its name in thinking that AIDS is the eventual conclusion to an HIV infection. Today, it is not.
So, when the general public, and an already subjugated minority distrustful of authority like young gay men, suspects facts are different than what's being said, everyone begins to question every component to the argument, even the good ones.
So what would you do to change this?
JK: Honesty. Candor. Explaining that there is, from a practical standpoint, nothing to worry about by way of transmission for people who never were treated for HIV, are on medication and adhere to this medication. Acknowledging that fact that people only pull out in porn movies and rarely in the backseat of a Toyota. Acknowledging that there's teenagers begging their girlfriends to just put the tip in. Understanding that human nature just don't stop in the face of cold hard facts, and that part of public health means adding that very confusing X factor of human nature into the equation.
"I just sat there and felt sorry for the fellow; he probably hasn't had an enjoyable orgasm his entire life."
I was speaking at an HIV prevention summit a few months back and a physician very smugly retorted to me that we've changed human behavior in regard to smoking so we can do the same with condom use. I just sat there and felt sorry for the fellow; he probably hasn't had an enjoyable orgasm his entire life.
Ha! I want to move on to something else now, Josh. There seems to be some resistance from the HIV community to acknowledging that HIV is now a chronic manageable condition. Why do you think this is?
JK: This is going to be an incredibly unpopular opinion, but Out Magazine just did a story entitled, "The Men Who Want AIDS" answering this question. One of the best kept secrets in the HIV+ community is that, thanks to years of tireless work from organizations, activists, eventually governments, benefits were increased to such a high degree in some jurisdictions that it makes good sense, particularly in a terrible economic time like we've been experiencing since 2007, to obtain maximum benefit amounts. For instance, if I stop taking my medication, allow the virus to start overtaking my immune system, and go below 200 in my CD4 count, I automatically qualify for permanent disability here in Pennsylvania. This means that I'd be on a paltry state allowance, obtain housing benefits, medical care, and more for essentially doing nothing.
Nobody on disability lives a lavish lifestyle; most people struggle in poverty even with state assistance. Even so, if I communicate to the legislatures and bureaucrats of the world that HIV is a horrific disease, that I'm a threat to public health, that I'm fatigued and cannot work due to the virus that has killed millions of others before me, I can at least survive. If, however, I start making the case that HIV is a chronic, manageable condition, if I'm honest that a lot of the side effects of HIV nowadays have much more to do with the stress and anxiety and depression that occur with the infection more than the virus itself, I'm given none of these benefits.
Along with this, nobody wants to minimize the threat of HIV because then we'll see budgets slashed and taxpayer dollars go to whichever health condition is being screamed about the loudest. We all too often ignore the hard financial facts regarding emotional hot potatoes like HIV, and when we do this, we start disingenuously ignoring facts like the reality that HIV is very much manageable, that the vast majority of people diagnosed since modern therapies came about are doing quite well and will live into their 70s or 80s.
So, in come orgnanizations screaming on our behalf, and half of them probably don't even realize what they're sustaining in this regard. A weak AIDS patient raises money; a sexually active, strong, robust young man living with HIV who will never reach AIDS levels thanks to the past work of these and other organizations and activists and pharmaceutical companies garners a shrug, if that.
What do you think the reaction would be then from the HIV community, and in particular those infected, to the news of a cure?
JK: I think we do, in fact, have a cure for HIV already: a multipronged effort including PrEP, PEP, treating the newly diagnosed and compelling them through education to adhere to their medications, expanded state benefits for treatment first and foremost ahead of housing or anything else so treatment is free and widely available, access to condoms, sex and biology education in schools. If we continue to beat this drum of how all these moving parts will eradicate AIDS and, eventually, HIV itself, we'll not have to get bogged down in the whimsical idea that there's going to be a silver bullet.
Now, if tomorrow big pharma comes out with a silver bullet, there's going to be a serious problem. We've developed entire industries of bureaucrats, social workers, case managers, prevention specialists, marketing gurus, fundraising officers, and non-profit managers that will have no jobs whatsoever the minute that occurs. So, consider for a moment why a lot of them resist being honest with the public. So often, we have activists casting a cynical eye toward the pharmaceutical companies because they're for profit, greedy corporations (who happen to allow me to live thanks to their research teams.) Conversely, none of these activists seriously take on the fact that the HIV prevention and treatment industry is just as shrewd.
I'm not saying that all these executive directors are sitting around a table concocting a conspiracy; the reality is that, whether they know it or not, a lot of them are probably anxiously worrying about the day HIV/AIDS is no longer the boogeyman they can gladhand and raise money over.
I think with that vision of the future that’s probably a good place to end. Josh, we really appreciate your honesty and willingness to engage on difficult topics. Keep on writing and prodding and provoking us whenever you get the chance, won't you?
JK: I will. Thanks Bob.
You can follow Josh Kruger on his own blog here, on twitter at @jawshkruger or on Facebook here.
Photo credit: second photo of Josh by Natalie Hope McDonald