AIDS and Stigma
A CRC member raised some questions in our comments section this morning, which I think I will address here. I have edited the comments a little, mainly taking the personal stuff out and focusing on the questions:
That was the bread and butter of one comment. Here's the other:
Maybe these comments were submitted in the reverse order, this is how I received them.
OK, so the topic is that men-having-sex-with-men (MSM) comprise an important channel, in the US, for the spread of the AIDS virus. The accusation is that TeachThe Facts.org or some subset of us would like to deny or ignore some facts in order to protect gays from being stigmatized.
It seems weird that such as issue would even come up. I cannot think of any other case where anyone would want to "stigmatize" a group for getting sick. But that certainly is the case with AIDS and gay men.
This person has taken the most conservative estimates of the proportion of homosexuals in the country and divided them by a hundred -- they might have said 1-3 percent, not .01-.03. As this happened three times, I assume it was intentional.
The reason the CDC and others use the acronym "MSM" is that a lot of the men who have sex with men do not identify themselves as gay or homosexual. A recent CDC survey found that about 6.5 per cent of men have had oral or anal sex with another man. That doesn't mean they would describe themselves as gay, but this "MSM" category includes a lot of people. (Female percentages are higher.)
That same survey, which is apparently not online any more, found that 35-40 percent of Americans have had anal sex with a member of the opposite sex. That's a lot of people. The point is, anal sex is primarily a heterosexual behavior.
Another CDC report was recently sent to me by a different CRC member. The report, which can be seen HERE, notes that, in 2003, MSM accounted for 46 percent of new AIDS cases diagnosed. We'll figure the numbers contain some error, so we'll just say that "nearly half" of new AIDS cases were in MSM.
That means that more than half weren't. Though the number is disproportionate, HIV/AIDS is clearly not a "gay" disease.
The CDC report that the CRC member sent had a quote that is awkward but accurate: "Not using a condom during anal sex with someone other than a primary partner of known HIV status continues to be a significant threat to the health of MSM."
OK, there are three things there:
These are the risk factors for MSM, which is the subject of this document. For the other 93.5 percent of the population, there will be other risk factors.
But, OK, let's focus on MSM. It looks to me like this statement can be turned into advice about education. Given that some nontrivial percentage of boys will end up having sex with another male during their lifetime, they should know the risks -- I agree. And the risks are bulleted above. They should know how to use a condom correctly. They should know the risk of unprotected anal sex. And they should know the advantage of sexual exclusiveness.
The CRC has adamantly opposed two out of those three recommendations. They threw a fit over a video that showed how to use a condom correctly, vastly increasing its effectiveness. Their members have threatened to sue over the mention of "anal sex" in the video, saying that that was "teaching erotic techniques." Well, if you're serious about preventing AIDS, you've got to use the tell people how you get it.
The CDC isn't ambiguous about condom use. Look at this flyer, which came out last month: LINK. It says, "If MSM choose to have sex outside a steady relationship, they should always use a condom."
Now, the question of stigma.
There is no reason to believe that "homosexual behaviors" increase the probability of catching AIDS. Lisping, wearing eye makeup, and having a flair for interior decorating don't have anything to do with the spread of the virus, though most of us would identify these things, especially in combination, as "homosexual behaviors." And "homosexual behaviors" is not a good euphemism for "anal sex," because that act is overwhelmingly performed by heterosexual couples. Likewise, "being gay" is not a problem -- look at the recent discussion of gay priests. These guys are celibate, they are at no risk of getting the virus sexually.
As the CDC notes, a combination of things, in particular, unprotected anal sex with a nonexclusive partner, puts a guy who has sex with other guys at risk.
There is nothing, anywhere, about any "homosexual lifestyle," whatever that is. The mode of transmission is clearly identified, and it has nothing to do with anything resembling a lifestyle. There is a specific, well-defined act that passes the virus from one man to another. (And remember, we are ignoring the other half of the AIDS cases in this discussion.)
There will be some debate among parents as to whether they want to "go there." But if we are going to discuss the risks of AIDS at all, and if the CRC wants to go into the risks of HIV for MSM (and they insist that they do), then I'm afraid you have to tell the whole story. Gay men should be encouraged to minimize the risks by forming long-term, stable relationships (e.g., marriages) and using condoms, especially when they have sex outside those relationships.
There doesn't need to be any stigma.
"The .01-.03% of the population that insists on spreading this diesase to the rest of us SHOULD be stigmatized and learn some restraint."
Okay, before anyone throws a fit about this comment I want to clarify.
What I believe [another commentor] is suggesting is HIDING FACTS. He is suggesting NOT GIVING KIDS THE MSM AIDS rates, NOT GIVING KIDS the TRUTH. He is suggesting taking all the data that the CDC gathers specific to increased health risks in a homo-sexual life style and HIDING IT - representing it to kids as either anal sex or vaginal sex, and making kids do the correlation themselves.
This is not stigmatizing, this is deliberating misrepresenting FACTs. Hiding facts about the homosexual disease rates from kids because of the risk of stigmatizing a section of the population. what next ? are we going to hide the effects of eating junk food from overweight folks because we don't want to stigmatize them ? or increased anemia rates from blacks ?
or increased risk of downs in over forty females? how about alcohol ? drugs ?
This is HIDING FACTS. NOT TEACHING THEM.
That was the bread and butter of one comment. Here's the other:
Male homosexuals overwhelming practice anal sex. I am sure you are not going to argue with that.
Hetereosexuals overwhelminging practice vaginal sex (show me a study that says otherwise).
Most of the new AIDS infections in the US can be traced to males having sex with males (HOMOSEXUAL MALE ACTIVITY).
So trying to reduce this issue to the mechanics is just trying to deliberately confuse the kids and in the process not alert them to the danges of the lifestyle (which of course was your whole point).
At the risk of stigmatizing .01-.03 % of the population versus the great risk of not alerting the 97% to the dangers of the behavior.
Again, flat out irresponsible and not looking out for the kids.
The .01-.03% of the population that insists on spreading this diesase to the rest of us SHOULD be stigmatized and learn some restraint.
Maybe these comments were submitted in the reverse order, this is how I received them.
OK, so the topic is that men-having-sex-with-men (MSM) comprise an important channel, in the US, for the spread of the AIDS virus. The accusation is that TeachThe Facts.org or some subset of us would like to deny or ignore some facts in order to protect gays from being stigmatized.
It seems weird that such as issue would even come up. I cannot think of any other case where anyone would want to "stigmatize" a group for getting sick. But that certainly is the case with AIDS and gay men.
This person has taken the most conservative estimates of the proportion of homosexuals in the country and divided them by a hundred -- they might have said 1-3 percent, not .01-.03. As this happened three times, I assume it was intentional.
The reason the CDC and others use the acronym "MSM" is that a lot of the men who have sex with men do not identify themselves as gay or homosexual. A recent CDC survey found that about 6.5 per cent of men have had oral or anal sex with another man. That doesn't mean they would describe themselves as gay, but this "MSM" category includes a lot of people. (Female percentages are higher.)
That same survey, which is apparently not online any more, found that 35-40 percent of Americans have had anal sex with a member of the opposite sex. That's a lot of people. The point is, anal sex is primarily a heterosexual behavior.
Another CDC report was recently sent to me by a different CRC member. The report, which can be seen HERE, notes that, in 2003, MSM accounted for 46 percent of new AIDS cases diagnosed. We'll figure the numbers contain some error, so we'll just say that "nearly half" of new AIDS cases were in MSM.
That means that more than half weren't. Though the number is disproportionate, HIV/AIDS is clearly not a "gay" disease.
The CDC report that the CRC member sent had a quote that is awkward but accurate: "Not using a condom during anal sex with someone other than a primary partner of known HIV status continues to be a significant threat to the health of MSM."
OK, there are three things there:
- Not using a condom
- Anal sex
- Not primary partner
These are the risk factors for MSM, which is the subject of this document. For the other 93.5 percent of the population, there will be other risk factors.
But, OK, let's focus on MSM. It looks to me like this statement can be turned into advice about education. Given that some nontrivial percentage of boys will end up having sex with another male during their lifetime, they should know the risks -- I agree. And the risks are bulleted above. They should know how to use a condom correctly. They should know the risk of unprotected anal sex. And they should know the advantage of sexual exclusiveness.
The CRC has adamantly opposed two out of those three recommendations. They threw a fit over a video that showed how to use a condom correctly, vastly increasing its effectiveness. Their members have threatened to sue over the mention of "anal sex" in the video, saying that that was "teaching erotic techniques." Well, if you're serious about preventing AIDS, you've got to use the tell people how you get it.
The CDC isn't ambiguous about condom use. Look at this flyer, which came out last month: LINK. It says, "If MSM choose to have sex outside a steady relationship, they should always use a condom."
Now, the question of stigma.
There is no reason to believe that "homosexual behaviors" increase the probability of catching AIDS. Lisping, wearing eye makeup, and having a flair for interior decorating don't have anything to do with the spread of the virus, though most of us would identify these things, especially in combination, as "homosexual behaviors." And "homosexual behaviors" is not a good euphemism for "anal sex," because that act is overwhelmingly performed by heterosexual couples. Likewise, "being gay" is not a problem -- look at the recent discussion of gay priests. These guys are celibate, they are at no risk of getting the virus sexually.
As the CDC notes, a combination of things, in particular, unprotected anal sex with a nonexclusive partner, puts a guy who has sex with other guys at risk.
There is nothing, anywhere, about any "homosexual lifestyle," whatever that is. The mode of transmission is clearly identified, and it has nothing to do with anything resembling a lifestyle. There is a specific, well-defined act that passes the virus from one man to another. (And remember, we are ignoring the other half of the AIDS cases in this discussion.)
There will be some debate among parents as to whether they want to "go there." But if we are going to discuss the risks of AIDS at all, and if the CRC wants to go into the risks of HIV for MSM (and they insist that they do), then I'm afraid you have to tell the whole story. Gay men should be encouraged to minimize the risks by forming long-term, stable relationships (e.g., marriages) and using condoms, especially when they have sex outside those relationships.
There doesn't need to be any stigma.
posted by JimK at 10:30 AM
41 Comments:
True: A male gay couple is more likely to practise anal sex than a heterosexual couple.
True: Promiscuous behaviour increases your chances of having sex with an infected person.
False: Male homosexual intercourse is inherently more dangerous than heterosexual intercourse.
True: The "homosexual lifestyle" is a stereotype.
True: A great deal of homosexuals are not promiscuous.
True: Homosexuals disproportionately account for the number of AIDS cases.
True: Not using a condom during anal sex with someone other than a primary partner of known HIV status is a threat to your health. The threat is greater for MSM due to the higher likelihood of meeting an infected person.
"The reason the CDC and others use the acronym "MSM" is that a lot of the men who have sex with men do not identify themselves as gay or homosexual. A recent CDC survey found that about 6.5 per cent of men have had oral or anal sex with another man. That doesn't mean they would describe themselves as gay, but this "MSM" category includes a lot of people."
This would seem to indicate that engaging in homosexual activity is a choice. Having made a choice, any choice, might lead to a conditioning to desire that behavior- the possibility raised by the authors of the pheronome study.
"I have gazed into the doorway of temptation's angry flame
now every time I pass that way
I always hear my name."
-Bob Dylan
This would seem to indicate that engaging in homosexual activity is a choice.
Garsh, "Y", that's a real insight, people choose what they do. Gee golly whiz, I never woulda thought a that.
JimK
Questions:
How many gays have you met who have not had multiple sexual partners?
How many gays have you met that have not had random intercourse?
How many gays have you met that aren't more attracted to straights than gays?
"Garsh, "Y", that's a real insight, people choose what they do. Gee golly whiz, I never woulda thought a that."
I know you wouldn't. You also don't realize that choices lead to desires.
"And choices lead to desires? What planet do you live on?"
Try this experiment. Have a Jack Daniels on the rocks tonight. You'll find, at some time tomorrow, you'll have a craving for another one.
Works almost anywhere on Planet Earth.
Have you ever read Superman comic books? Are you from planet Bizarro?
Anonymous being the usual idiot.
freebird
I think Anon finally figured out his problem.
Let's hope he will find the inner strength to become an ex-Anon.
He is a piece of work, isn't he?
PB
You guys need to listen to what the scientists are trying to tell you.
Anonymous said:
"How many gays have you met who have not had multiple sexual partners?"
You expect one to actually know?
Anonymous said:
"How many gays have you met that have not had random intercourse?"
You really have to define "random intercourse". Regardless though, the answer is the same as the first.
Anonymous said:
"How many gays have you met that aren't more attracted to straights than gays?"
Whether they're straight or gay has nothing to with physical attraction.
Anonymous said:
"This would seem to indicate that engaging in homosexual activity is a choice. Having made a choice, any choice, might lead to a conditioning to desire that behavior- the possibility raised by the authors of the pheronome study."
You love that study don't you? You cling onto it so tight like it's your last hop. And you say "any choice", so really you're saying absolutely anything can lead to desiring homosexual behaviour. Why not forget the behaviour and concentrate on attraction first.
"Excuse me, Anon, but I don't drink. Jack Daniels makes me vomit. And people like you, who couldn't resist a second or third shot, are what we call "addicted.""
I can resist. But I do get a pang.
"It's a medical condition. Certain people are prone to addiction, so they can't afford to start with certain substances because they then lose control to the cravings."
Maybe that's the real difference between bi-s and gays.
"Will power, the Republican favorite, often does not suffice. Those of us who are not addicted can control ourselves quite nicely, thank you."
You might be addicted to something and not even know it. Your welcome.
"Y", you sound like you've had a few already this evening. You've gone from despicable to juvenile.
I'm gonna cut you off in a minute.
It's time to go home, dude.
JimK
"You love that study don't you? You cling onto it so tight like it's your last hop."
If it's my last hop, I'll make beer with it.
If you recall, I once asked for a scientific study that backs up TTF and Cilly offered this one up. After I read it, as she apparently hadn't, I found it didn't back up TTF at all.
After much discussion, I asked for another study to back TTF's claims. None other was offered.
"And you say "any choice", so really you're saying absolutely anything can lead to desiring homosexual behaviour. Why not forget the behaviour and concentrate on attraction first."
Because attraction last for a moment but a behavior lasts a lifetime.
What's the "Y" thing?
I got the "W" yesterday but I don't get this one.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Good night, Anon. No-tell motel time.
You don't have to go home but you can't stay here.
JimK
That does it, Jim. You'll now have to double my stipend before I provide any more commentary.
Jimk, excellent post, very well argued. Why can't more people be intelligent, like you?
As an aside, I don't know any gay men who are more attracted to "straights". *surprised* I also can't think of anyone who hasn't had multiple sexual partners. Maybe my grandma or something...
I love random sex! ^.^ Especially if it's with the man I love.
Theresa said Hey, I like Anon !
Tell ya what, Theresa, next time you're going to be over in Bethesda, send us a quick email and we'll give you his number. Maybe you two can get together and talk about the good old days. I'm sure Anon's supervisor won't mind if he takes a break from goofing off to visit with you, even during tax season.
JimK
"Tell ya what, Theresa, next time you're going to be over in Bethesda, send us a quick email and we'll give you his number. Maybe you two can get together and talk about the good old days. I'm sure Anon's supervisor won't mind if he takes a break from goofing off to visit with you, even during tax season."
Sounds like Jim's been googling someone. To no avail. My demands don't change: increased compensation or no more thought-provoking insights.
Anon said, "If you recall, I once asked for a scientific study that backs up TTF and Cilly offered this one up. After I read it, as she apparently hadn't, I found it didn't back up TTF at all."
Misconstrual, as usual. Anon has been working for months to try to make the pheromone study mean what he wants it to mean.
Anon looked at one paragraph from the pheromone study, this one:
"The difference between HoM (homosexual males) and HeM (heterosexual males) could reflect a variant differentiation of the anterior hypothalamus in HoM, leading to an altered response pattern. Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND (testosterone – male pheromone) stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men (35). A third possibility is that HeW (heterosexual women) and HoM associated AND with sex, whereas HeM made a similar association with EST (estrogen – female pheromone). These tentative mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be discriminated on the basis of the present PET data."
and decided that only this sentence mattered:
"Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND (testosterone – male pheromone) stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men."
Anon insists that this single sentence negates the two other possibilities stated in the same paragraph and ignores other studies, such as this one mentioned in this FOX NEWS story about the pheromone study:
"In a separate study looking at people's response to the body odors of others, researchers in Philadelphia found sharp differences between gay and straight men and women.
"Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study.
In particular, he said, finding differences in body odors between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference.
It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said."
Anon's lack of scientific understanding is as obvious as his desire to change reality to fit his own biased perceptions.
Christine
Anonymous said:
"Because attraction last for a moment but a behavior lasts a lifetime."
I don't mean that brief period of finding a person attractive; I mean the gender you are attracted to in general -- that lasts much longer than behaviour.
Most (the extreme majority) of homosexuals out there realise their attractions before any sexual behaviour occurs.
It appears that you don't even believe a homosexual virgin can die of old age.
Theresa said, "That post about creating a TTF over in Saudia Arabia - that was truly hysterical."
______
No more hysterical that CRC'rs saying they represent the mainstream.
Now that is truly hilarious!!!!!!
freebird
No surprise there for your statement Theresa. Bigots using religion to justify what they do and want/demand others to do never ever think they are religious bigots.
freebird
Theresa said, " don't think religion is applicable to a discussion of sex ed in a public school - except that clearly a public school shouldn't be criticizing religions (as the old curriculum did) or promoting them."
Old curriculum did not do that. Teacher reference materials not to be shared with kids (not curriculum) in "proposed" had that but never curriculum.
freebird
Theresa said, " I don't think that because public schools can't teach a position on God that this means they have to give up on right and wrong as well. And I think they have, in favor of "we must show tolerance for everything"."
Now are you saying we should think homosexuality is one of the "wrongs?" You will not get that support here and you know that. Tolerance for gays, lesbians and transgendered human beings is NEVER WRONG.
We all tolerate you Theresa.
freebird
Glad you guys seem to have come up with a name for me.
In addition to my prior demands, I also will not jazz up your blog with provocative comments unless Jim agrees to stop deleting my posts. He's now doing it without putting up a notice.
We'll see if this one gets through.
"Wyatt, however, revels in projecting himself as a religiously inspired bigot. I accept that is who he is."
I assume you're talking about me, Dr D. Let's just clear up what you're saying: this is sexual orientation bigotry, am I correct? Any other type of bigotry involved?
Tell your buddy, Jimbo, no more comments until he stops deleting what he doesn't like. Had a couple of great comments yesterday. Very appropos.
"I think there is more of a liberal bent to the schools than perhaps you may realize."
Read yesterday's Wall Street Journal op-ed page. Explains how PTA has become the TA, controlled by the teachers' union, NEA. PTA membership half what it was twenty years ago. Mentions pro-gay sex ed and opposition to school vouchers, among many other examples, of how PTA no longer represents parents' desires.
Theresa said,"I was referring to the general attitude of "we must try and understand why little Johnny is behaving that way" when little Johnny is being RUDE. Teacher should be free to tell Johnny so.
The private schools my kids are now back in have a certain standard of behavior expected. Cross the line, you hear about it fast.I don't think you see the same behavior codes in the public schools... and some of this is definitely related to this constant liberal mindset on discipline..."
___________
Theresa this blog is about sex ed etc. not about school behavior or for that matter equating chosen behavior to homosexuality. Now that your children are safely tucked away in private schools..AGAIN..will you still be telling the rest of us what our children should learn about in sex ed in public schools?
Discipline is a problem all over even in private schools but let's just say that no one should stand for intolerance displayed and heaped on those in same sex groupings/families, etc. whether private or public.
freebird
anonymous said," Read yesterday's Wall Street Journal op-ed page. Explains how PTA has become the TA, controlled by the teachers' union, NEA. PTA membership half what it was twenty years ago. Mentions pro-gay sex ed and opposition to school vouchers, among many other examples, of how PTA no longer represents parents' desires."
Okay Anonymous post the link and who authored what you are talking about. We will then get to the gist of this whole thing and who wrote it and why.
freebird
Theresa said, " I feel like I am even more entitled to "tell the rest of you" what your kids should be learning about sex ed."
___________
Nope..NADA..you surely do not. Your "choice" was to place your kids where you write that check. Parent your own children and quit feeling entitled to parent others children that are actually none of your business.
Enjoy the private school and let the rest of us decide for our own kids.
If you as a bigot had problems with "the infestation of the gay and liberal agenda attempting to mold my kids." in public schools...
I say TOUGH. Now enjoy your private school(we are so glad you outed yourself). Go tell them what to do in sex ed.
But you will not be telling me what to do with mine in public schools ever.
freebird
"Enjoy the private school and let the rest of us decide for our own kids."
Sure. As soon as you start paying for it.
"Too many wingers think they can opt out of societal responsibilities because they don't like this or that policy."
Not right-wingers. They want to accept their responsibility and give the kids a quality and accurate education. Pumping the kids full of a liberal agenda is setting them up for failure.
"Actually, it is my responsibility whether or not I have children and regardless of their age."
Responsibility is the key failure of TTF. They want to teach false ideas to kids that are potentially harmful to the kids and invariably harmful to society.
Liberals who oppose school choice are the most hypocritcial. Siding with the teachers' union, they deny disadvantaged kids the option of a choice out of the dangerous and failing schools they're stuck in. If government is unable, they need to get out of the way.
anonymous said, "Responsibility is the key failure of TTF. They want to teach false ideas to kids that are potentially harmful to the kids and invariably harmful to society."
Yeah man teaching a full comprehensive sex education in public schools is just so irresponsible of TTF to support in anonymous's world and even Theresa's. Yes sirree teaching kids who are having sex or thinking about it how to keep themselves safe is just so horrible...NOT.
Both of you enjoy those private schools.
freebird
"Yeah man teaching a full comprehensive sex education in public schools is just so irresponsible of TTF"
You can say that again! Comp sex ed started in the 70s and has had horrific societal consequences. Those consequences only began to ameliorate with the introduction of abstinence programs in the 90s.
Anonymous said...
"Yeah man teaching a full comprehensive sex education in public schools is just so irresponsible of TTF"
You can say that again! Comp sex ed started in the 70s and has had horrific societal consequences. Those consequences only began to ameliorate with the introduction of abstinence programs in the 90s.
__________
Anonymous keep living in that "perfect world" with your rose colored glasses on. May your children never have sex until they reach the age of 27 or you say it is okay ...or they get married.
For the rest that choose differently.....may they know the wisdom of how to protect themselves through a full comprehensive sex education being taught in public schools. TTF and a multitude of others...keep on trucking with the support to help the children of those hiding their heads in the sand like anonymous.
Anonymous has not figured out how irresponsible they are in keeping their children so naive way past their time for such.
freebird
Post a Comment
<< Home