Bye!

I've had a great time writing Ickaprick & Ironpussy but it's time for me to move on now. Thanks for reading and thanks so much to everyone who has got in touch with me with feedback. See you around!

❤❤ Nico

Ickaprixtape #6: We're just gonna run some tests

A last Ickaprixtape, this one for the indomitable yet devastatingly pteromerhanophobic ♥♥R. Causton♥♥

Love from,
Ickaprick & Ironpussy

Click here to listen to more Ickaprixtapes.

I'm a lover, not a fighter hooker

A while back I posted a letter I found on an advice column blog where the readers themselves answer the letter writer's question. In Falling in love with a hooker, a guy explains "i decided to pay a prostitute just to let my inner beast loose" and, while " I know I’m not supposed to fall for a whore", "I got feelings for this girl….i know i can do much better…..i have a lot of female friends that i could fuck anytime i want…..i tried not to get involved with anyone but i ended up so much worse."

Damn.

Last summer I re-posted a piece written by an Australian hooker friend. In Can sex workers have genuine relationships?, Jessie Abraham argues that sex workers might even make superior partners since their job is an endless training camp for managing expectations, setting boundaries and stretching your empathy muscles. That said, sex workers are no less capable than anyone else of being low life, back-stabbing, emotional train wreck creeps -- but ok, point taken.

Recently, advice columnist and ex-stripper-after-my-own-heart Sasha also gave the perennial question a go:

Dear Sasha,

I think I'm in love with an escort. Yes, I am prone to blind, romantic flights of fancy, but she isn't the first escort I've seen, and I didn't feel like this the other times. I am depressed and heartbroken, wrestling with the fact that I met such an incredible person under such impossible circumstances. Is there any hope of getting a "normal" date with an escort?

Frank

Click here for Sasha's answer.


[via Rabble]

Canadian cop says, "All drugs should be legal and regulated"

David Bratzer is an active police officer in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. In his off-duty time, he volunteers for LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), a volunteer organization of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities opposed to the War on Drugs.


Bratzer joined LEAP in 2008, largely in reaction, he says, to the 2007 murder trial of Robert Pickton, who is accused of killing dozens of sex workers from Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and is already convicted for six of the murders. Bratzer claims that "if this country had sensible drug laws, some or all of these women might still be alive. Women should not have to resort to street prostitution - and all of the risk that entails - in order to fund a drug addiction."

Recently, Maui Time newspaper interviewed Bratzer about drug prohibition and why Canada should abandon the War on Drugs. It's worth reading the interview in full. I've posted a couple of thoughtful quotes below.


OK, let's run through a few classic anti-legalization arguments. First, legalization will make it easier for kids and teens to get pot.

I disagree. Look at a place like the Netherlands. They have decriminalized marijuana, meaning that small quantities are legal for the end-user to purchase. Their population has a lifetime usage rate of marijuana that is half that of the United States. That is [based on] data from the World Mental Health Surveys, as compiled by the World Health Organization. So why is this? First, the Netherlands has managed to make drug use boring for young people. There is nothing rebellious about smoking a joint in Amsterdam. Second, the Netherlands uses regulatory measures to control the sale of marijuana to consumers. For example, the cannabis coffee shops have age minimums, alcohol is banned and advertising is prohibited. It's not a perfect system but it's far more effective than what we're doing in the United States and Canada.

Second, marijuana use will erode the moral character of people and communities.

The moral position here would be a compassionate drug policy based on scientific evidence. Consider this: the United States has some of the harshest penalties in the world for drug offenders and yet its lifetime incidence of marijuana use is among the highest in the world. If that is an indicator of moral character then the United States is behind Nigeria, Lebanon, France, Germany, Mexico and Italy and many other nations. However, I don't think that's the case. I've traveled throughout the United States and I believe this is a great country with strong values. We need to move away from framing the debate around the morality of drug use. Drug use may be moral or immoral but that's not an argument for criminalization. It would be like saying that cheating on your spouse should be an arrestable offence. We know that behavior is wrong but a police officer doesn't throw someone in jail for it. Instead, we should be asking ourselves questions like these: what is an effective drug policy? What actually works? How do we minimize the potential harm from drug abuse?

Finally, and most famously, marijuana is a "gateway drug" that opens the door to other, harder drugs.

The gateway theory of drug use was discredited ages ago. I don't even want to talk about it. However, the gateway theory of drug trafficking is very much alive. That is, teenagers begin selling marijuana in high school. It's a lucrative job and it guarantees them money, friends and dating opportunities. As they get older they start trafficking more dangerous drugs and in larger quantities. They become entrenched in a criminal lifestyle as professional drug dealers. Eventually they wind up dead or in prison. But consider what would happen if all drugs were legal and regulated for adult use. One might still see the occasional adolescent marijuana dealer, but the career option of becoming a mid- or high-level criminal drug dealer simply wouldn't exist. Being a teenage pot dealer would be a dead-end job rather than an entry point for gang membership and a life of organized crime.

So what is LEAP's stance on harder drugs?

[LEAP] believes that all drugs should be legal and regulated. The argument in favor of regulating these drugs is not that they're harmless, but rather that they're so dangerous they should be controlled by the government. Remember that under prohibition the government has no control. It's the violent drug dealer who decides the price, purity, cutting agents, advertising methods, business location and hours of operation. And these drug dealers certainly are not asking kids for ID, or encouraging their customers to seek addiction treatment. We need to move away from prohibition and begin considering models that give the government control over the market for these drugs


[via Transform]

UK drug adviser: "Alcohol is worse than drugs"

In my last post I wrote about how the UK government fired its chief drug adviser, David Nutt, when he advised the government to base its drug laws on evidence instead of fear.

Last week, Metro interviewed Nutt about why he lost his post, what's wrong with UK drug laws and whether or not politicians should admit to being drug users themselves.

David Nutt:
'Alcohol is worse than drugs'

Metro - John Higginson - January 14 2010

Professor David Nutt, 58, was forced to resign as the government’s chief drugs adviser after he said tobacco and alcohol were more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis. His new Independent Council on Drug Harms meets for the first time today

You have equated drug taking with the risks of alcohol and even horse riding. Do politicians treat the public like fools?

The Home Office had data on what the public thought, especially on cannabis, and two-thirds wanted the penalty for possession for personal use to be two years or less; a quarter didn’t want any prison sentence. That was a Mori poll, so was representative of the population. There’s no doubt the government has misled the public about drugs.

Why do you think you were sacked as the government’s drug adviser?

Because I continued to emphasise that by making a lot of noise about less problematic drugs such as ecstasy and cannabis they had taken their eye off alcohol. Alcohol is a drug that is most worrying to most parents and it is the drug that is most likely to damage young teenagers. One a day dies of alcohol poisoning and one or two a day die in a road traffic or other accident relating to alcohol – that’s why it is the most dangerous drug. We should be focusing our efforts on that, not pretending that other drugs are worse.

Alan Johnson said you were sacked because you campaigned against government policy while being a government adviser. Did you?

It depends if you believe that repeating scientific evidence is campaigning. I am continuing to make a case that drug laws, to be fair and just, should properly reflect the harm to the person using and to society, and if they don’t do that then injustice will occur. More innocent non-drug-using people die from road traffic accidents and other damage from alcohol than any other drug.

How are you carrying out that campaigning?

By giving lectures and setting up an independent council on drug harms to provide an unbiased scientific perspective on drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, for the general public, the media and even – if they want to use it – politicians. The new council meets for the first time this month and will be stronger on the science of drugs harms than the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) as it has more scientists with broader expertise.

Do you think government policy on drugs causes more problems, not less?

Yes. The government has ‘a head in the sand’ attitude.

Should drugs that are illegal now be legalised?

We need to have a complete rethink. I’m not in favour of legalisation if that means active marketing of drugs but a form of regulated use for some drugs such as cannabis, as happens in Holland, should be considered.

Are you still in contact with others from the ACMD?

All but one of those who have resigned are going to sit on the new council and a third of those on the existing council have expressed an interest in working with the new council.

What about legal highs such as meow meow (mephedrone)?

The ACMD suggested the government could create a new Class D for over-18s to act as a kind of holding category; this has been successful in New Zealand. There will always be new drugs being made so having a holding category until you know more about these would be sensible. For instance, meow meow is sold as plant food so we have no idea of its content. We also proposed a testing system, like in the Netherlands, where people can check what’s in their drugs without fear of prosecution.

Should MPs confess to youthful drug taking?

A lot of MPs have experience of drugs. They are lucky they did not get punished when they had their experiences as they probably wouldn’t be where they are today. The lottery of whether you get caught and the effect that has on you for the rest of your life is deeply unfair and unjust.

Legalizing drugs wouldn't work because legalizing drugs wouldn't work

Last summer Transform Drug Policy Foundation met with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to ask the Government to compare and contrast the impacts of the current prohibition approach to drugs with alternatives, including legal regulation and control.

Gordon Brown has just responded to Transform with a letter, refusing their request. His response includes:

We do not intend to undertake an impact assessment comparing the costs and benefits of different legislative options for domestic drug policy. We see no merit in embarking upon such an undertaking in view of our longstanding position that we do not accept that legalisation and regulation are now, or will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs.

Basically, Gordon Brown sees no point in assessing whether alternatives to prohibition would work -- alternatives like the regulated legalisation of alcohol and tobacco -- because he has decided that no alternatives would work. He doesn't need to collect any evidence because he has already made up his mind.

This doesn't come as a massive surprise though. Just a couple months ago the UK government's own drugs adviser lost his job for suggesting that the drug laws should be based on evidence.

Gordon Brown's on one seriously paranoid trip.

[via Transform]

I fuck nicely, more than half an hour. How much deeply, no problem.

The other day someone left a comment on one of my blog posts that said:

any female want have vaginal sex call me 00971xxxxxxx8. i am in dubai

I'm not female and I don't have a vagina but I do have a phone so I thought I'd give it a go.

LISTEN TO THE PHONE CALL:
I fuck nicely, more than half an hour. How much deeply, no problem.

All in all, that went pretty well, I thought.

While booking my flight to Dubai, I decided to google his phone number just to see what would come up. Quite a bit came up, actually. So I decided to call him back.

LISTEN TO THE PHONE CALL:
Nokia phones, kitchen equipment, tourist visas & call girls

I might have actually gone to see him had he just fessed up to being a bisexual pimp with a backstock of Braun hand mixers. Anyway, all in a day's work. If any of you are looking for anal sex with a male, leave your number in the comments section below, please.

Witchhunting is the new barebacking

A great Q&A with three UK HIV charities appeared in the Dec 10-16 2009 issue of Time Out London. I can't find the transcript online so I've copied it out here. If anyone can find a link to the article on Time Out's site, I'd be happy to direct folks there. In the meantime:

Back to bareback?
The HIV charities state their position on 'barebacking'.

Two weeks ago, in the run-up to World AIDS Day, Time Out's Gay & Lesbian Editor Paul Burston called for clearer safer sex messages to help stem the rise in HIV infection rates among gay men. One concern was that bareback porn videos and websites were helping to normalise and even fetishise unprotected anal sex, and that younger gay men in particular were often woefully misinformed about HIV. It was also suggested that HIV organisations weren't clear enough about 'barebacking'. This week, we let the charities have their say. Our questions were: Does your organisation have an explicit view on barebacking? How do you get this message across, and do you think it's adequate? Here are their answers...

GMFA

'Bareback sex is the most common way that gay men pass on HIV, which is why condom use is at the heart of our HIV prevention work. Our position, as stated on our website, is that condoms are the surest way to protect against HIV infection.

'Some gay men who have bareback sex try to reduce their risk of catching HIV with other methods, such as only being a top (ie. active) or only sleeping with men whom they believe have the same HIV status. It's important to provide accurate information about such strategies, however our position is that these methods are not enough to prevent exposure to HIV and we do not recommend them as a strategy for staying HIV negative.

'Condom use is clearly advocated throughout our work, which includes our website, booklets, postcards, groupwork, and our magazine for gay men. Our aim is to provide accurate, honest and accessible information and we work with some 200 volunteers, most of whom are gay men, to achieve this. However there is no single campaign or message that will work equally for all gay men. We continue to explore new ways of reaching gay men, in particular young gay men, and communicating the seriousness of HIV infection and the importance of maintaining safer sex.'

Nationals AIDS Trust

'Bareback sex carries significant risk of HIV, so at NAT we always recommend using a condom. With 1 in 20 gay men in the UK living with HIV (1 in 10 in London), the chances are that most gay men will have sex with someone with HIV at some point and condoms remain the best way to protect yourself and your partner. As a policy and campaigning charity, we don't run health promotion campaigns ourselves, but we do campaign for more effective HIV prevention and we believe condom use must be a central part of that.

'One of our partnerships is with Men at Play, an adult website that always promotes safer sex and condom use. What is great about Men at Play is that they show how using condoms can still be sexy.

'HIV is preventable, but with over 2,700 gay men diagnosed last year, it's clear more needs to be done. There's a real need to step-up education about HIV and the importance of condoms, especially among young gay men.'

Terrence Higgins Trust

'People who bareback need to know the risks, even if both partners have HIV. Hepatitis C rates are rising fast amongst positive gay men, as is syphilis. If you're positive, Hep C can be as devastating as HIV, and hard to treat. At THT we talk constantly with gay men about the risks of Hep C and other STIs. We've run campaigns reminding them not to make assumptions about whether someone has HIV. We work with saunas to help them provide information, as well as condoms. And for 25 years, in as many different ways as we can, we've been reminding people that using a condom is the best way to prevent HIV.

'But we know we need to do more. Young gay men in particular, who've been let down by sex education in schools, need and deserve better information. We need to talk across the community about barebacking and risk. Getting HIV or Hep C is not "hot". But it's not just about HIV organisations. We all have a responsibility - bar owners, the gay press, people who make porn, and every one of us - in working to beat the virus. So thank you for starting this debate. We welcome it.'

I'm really curious to know what folks think about these answers. People who work at gay or HIV organisations, regular gay dudes like me and others looking in on the situation from outside. I'd love to read some responses in the comments section below.

A few of my own thoughts, for whatever they're worth:

1. HIV transmission rates are higher among young guys in some places, but not in all places. In some cities, the highest new infection rates are among an older cohort. Plus, this can change over time, even within a span of a year or two. It's also not consistent across ethnicities. For example, click on the graph below showing age breakdowns of new infections among White, Black and Hispanic men who have sex with men in the US: (Source: CDC Fact Sheet - HIV and AIDS Among Gay and Bisexual Men, Aug 2009)


2. By focusing on the public education system, Terrence Higgins Trust is (surprisingly) the only one of the three charities to consider structural factors that might be impacting condom usage and transmission rates among gay men.
   


3. These three agencies seem to shy away from explicitly adding homophobia to the equation. Being afraid to even hold hands in the street, murder, relentless bullying at school, having to hide your same-sex love or HIV+ status on a daily basis...
   


4. If the type of porn you fantasize and get off with necessarily translated into reality, I'd qualify as a fairly kinky heterosexual guy with a reputation for attending group orgies at college fraternities and sororities. We can't censor people out of their fantasies and into the behaviour change that Public Health wants. Of course I crave, fantasize about and even fetishize condom-less sex. Find me a human on the planet who doesn't.


5. No mention of viral load? Extremely effective though condoms are, convincing a certain minority of guys to consistently use them is proving harder than we'd hoped and will likely never happen. Somewhat easier, it would seem, would be to make HIV and STI testing services extremely efficient and then work with these higher risk guys to offer services such that they'll actually want to access them - followed up by universal medications coverage to keep everyone's viral load low. Is it ideal? No. Will it reduce transmission? Yes. Is it a magic bullet solution? No. Is it better than simply throwing more pamphlets at this crowd? Yes.
   

But then, those are just my loud-mouth opinions, many of which I'll no doubt disagree with by tomorrow. I'm also not seeking to devalue the achievements of these three great organisations. I refer frequently to GMFA's online resources myself and admire how much further ahead the UK seems to be in terms of making testing accessible to gay guys and providing quality services to folks who test positive. As the Terrence Higgins Trust spokesperson notes: the debate itself is what is needed. I'm just throwing in my off-the-cuff two cents in an irreverent bloggy kind of way.

More importantly, what do you think?

It's ok (on intravenous demerol)

I'm still basking in Vic Chesnutt-ness since his death on Christmas Day. His songs sound a bit different lately when you listen to them knowing that he was partially paralyzed following a drunken car accident as a teenager, that he tried several times to take his own life and that he was only 45 when he overdosed on muscle relaxants last month.




One song that sounds different is Flirted With You All of My Life, a cheery love song to death itself in which he sings...

I've flirted with you all of my life
I've even kissed you once or twice
And to this day I swear it was nice
But clearly I was not ready

When my Mom was cancer sick
She fought but then succumb to it
But, oh, you made her beg for it:
"Lord Jesus, please I'm ready!"

But, oh, death - I am not ready!

It's also nice to hear him duet with Liz Durrett on Somewhere from West Side Story.

But what I've enjoyed listening to most lately is Vic reassuring himself and anyone like him that it's all going to be ok on You Are Never Alone. I mean, the dude's singing about herpes medication and harm reduction, what's not to love??

It's ok... you can take a condom
It's ok... you can take a Valtrex
It's ok... you can get an abortion
And then keep on keepin' on
And then keep on keepin' on

It's ok... you can take a Prilosec
It's ok... you can take Vioxx
It's ok... you can get a quadruple bypass
And then keep on keepin' on
And then keep on keepin' on

You are never alone
You are never alone
You are never alone

It's ok... in moderation
It's ok... cuttin' down
It's ok... you can quit tomorrow
But for now, keep on keepin' on
But for now, keep on keepin' on

It's ok... you can take the bible
It's ok... you can be saved
It's ok... you can be forgiven
And for now keep on keepin' on
For now keep on keepin' on

You are never alone
You are never alone
You are never alone

Divergence Movie Night: Graphic Sexual Horror

Divergence Movie Night presents...
"Graphic Sexual Horror" (2009; 86 minutes)
Tuesday, January 12
Doors 7pm, movie 7:30pm
Club SAW, 67 Nicholas Street
Free admission, $5 suggested donation




By the time controversial bondage website Insex.com was shut down by the government, it had 35,000 members. Graphic Sexual Horror takes a peek into the most notorious of “violent porn” websites, with original footage, behind-the-scenes interactions, and interviews with the creator and staff. As the membership grew, so did the pressure to perform. The line between consent and non-consent blurred.

WARNING: Very graphic and potentially upsetting.