Gay sex health threat?
Is gay sex a health threat?
From MSNBC comes this this article that reports on using the internet to inform your sexual partner he/she probably has a sexually transmitted disease. (see here)
What really piqued my interest about this article was the following statement: "Some 2,400 new AIDS cases were reported in Los Angeles County in 2003, along with more than 8,000 new gonorrhea cases and 830 new syphilis cases - most of them among gay men."
Gay men are not just spreading HIV amongst themselves, for which there could be a logical explanation, but apparently they suffer from "ordinary" STDs in disproportionate numbers.
Perhaps I need to reexamine that which I consider to be logic? I thought I understood why gay men where disproportionately represented in HIV statistics. Within them was where HIV first reared its head powerfully so "of course" they would be over represented. They are just evidence of what is going to come for the rest of us.
But is this true? Why would gay men be disproportionately represented amongst "ordinary" sexual diseases? They are a minority within the population so why would they be a majority of the cases?
New conclusion. When it comes to sex men are dogs. As long as men, to satisfy their sexual urges, must include a woman in the act the woman serves as a dampening effect on the transmission of STDs. The woman is motivated to not drop her pants at every opportunity whether it is because of fear of pregnancy or desire for commitment. The woman wants emotion as well as the act itself to feel satisfied and that takes time. Whatever it is the facts speak for themselves. When a gay man wants sex he only has to find another dog. The object of the sexual desire is a dog just like he is. He'll be willing to drop his pants on the first date, and the "date" needs to only be one unfinished drink at a bar.
Why did HIV spread like wildfire within Africa but when it reached the shores of America it became a smolder except within the male gay community? Why do "ordinary" sexually transmitted diseases spread at a disproportionate rate amongst gays as when compared to heterosexuals? I think I know the answer, and the answer is that when it comes to sex men are dogs.
Gay men might be a health threat. Some of them are bisexual and their sexual practices might spread health threats to the community as a whole. Prostitution is already illegal because it also threatens the public health. The gay community needs to clean up their act or... what?
From MSNBC comes this this article that reports on using the internet to inform your sexual partner he/she probably has a sexually transmitted disease. (see here)
What really piqued my interest about this article was the following statement: "Some 2,400 new AIDS cases were reported in Los Angeles County in 2003, along with more than 8,000 new gonorrhea cases and 830 new syphilis cases - most of them among gay men."
Gay men are not just spreading HIV amongst themselves, for which there could be a logical explanation, but apparently they suffer from "ordinary" STDs in disproportionate numbers.
Perhaps I need to reexamine that which I consider to be logic? I thought I understood why gay men where disproportionately represented in HIV statistics. Within them was where HIV first reared its head powerfully so "of course" they would be over represented. They are just evidence of what is going to come for the rest of us.
But is this true? Why would gay men be disproportionately represented amongst "ordinary" sexual diseases? They are a minority within the population so why would they be a majority of the cases?
New conclusion. When it comes to sex men are dogs. As long as men, to satisfy their sexual urges, must include a woman in the act the woman serves as a dampening effect on the transmission of STDs. The woman is motivated to not drop her pants at every opportunity whether it is because of fear of pregnancy or desire for commitment. The woman wants emotion as well as the act itself to feel satisfied and that takes time. Whatever it is the facts speak for themselves. When a gay man wants sex he only has to find another dog. The object of the sexual desire is a dog just like he is. He'll be willing to drop his pants on the first date, and the "date" needs to only be one unfinished drink at a bar.
Why did HIV spread like wildfire within Africa but when it reached the shores of America it became a smolder except within the male gay community? Why do "ordinary" sexually transmitted diseases spread at a disproportionate rate amongst gays as when compared to heterosexuals? I think I know the answer, and the answer is that when it comes to sex men are dogs.
Gay men might be a health threat. Some of them are bisexual and their sexual practices might spread health threats to the community as a whole. Prostitution is already illegal because it also threatens the public health. The gay community needs to clean up their act or... what?
posted by Little David at 12/16/2005 03:46:00 PM
6 Comments:
Ok...
HIV is being spread in Africa not by gay men, but by philandering heterosexual men. The typical scenario are truckers who have unprotected sex with prostitutes on their "travels", thus spreading HIV (as well as other STDs) far and wide.
When they go back to their wives in their home town or village, these men bring HIV back with them. In some parts of Africa, the rates of HIV are absolutely devasting with up to 20% of the younger adult population infected.
HIV is "typically" spread among gay men in Western Europe and America for the reason you described, though the moralistic finger waving is particularly unproductive when it comes to trying to stop the problem. There are a small core of gay men who have frequent sex with many partners.
In SE Asia, HIV is typically spread by heterosexual encounters... again, a small core of people who having frequent unprotected sex with many partners (in this case, prostitutes).
Regards,
Michael Tam
I understand that HIV is spread in other parts of the world through heterosexual sexual conduct. Perhaps I should have added to my "conclusions" that one of the reasons (I feel) that it did not spread like wildfire here in America might also be explained by our still rather prudish societal viewpoints on sex.
Of course credit must also be given to steps taken to protect the blood supply and steps taken to limit transmission amongst intravenous drug users.
I noted you brought truckers and their sexual habits into discussion. Since I am a trucker I think I can speak with authority about trucker's sexual habits here in America. Yes male truckers are dogs too. Actually, those that engage in frequent, unprotected sex are a "small core" and most truckers refrain from it if only because they realize the danger. However when it comes to heterosexuals, the male must most often resort to prostitutes since the vast majority of female truckers seem to be reluctant to engage in a "free sex" lifestyle (there are exceptions). Prostitution is at least illegal, and through it being illegal society at least signals its displeasure. But what about the gay truckers? They are out there believe me. They are so vocal in advertising their presence on the CB that often heterosexual male truckers have to endure taunts of "all you truckers are gay" from society at large. Gay truckers, with great regularity, will advertise their presence and willingness to engage in sex on the CB. They are not charging for their encounters, they are giving their services away so it is not illegal. Nothing illegal about sex between consenting adults and they still have a right to privacy so unless they "do it" in public they need not fear arrest.
NPR (National Public Radio) typically reports on homosexual issues from the "gay viewpoint". Amongst their reporting is "what goes on" in the gay clubs and gay bathhouses. Please note that NPR is not a right wing network. The right wing condemns them as being extremely leftist. I myself view them as being... oh... perhaps left of center... but overall fairly fair and balanced in their reporting. What they report as "going on" in gay clubs and bathhouses is wanton, frequent, unprotected sex with multiple partners.
While those who frequent these type of establishments might most often be your "small core of gay men" I would imagine that at least a minority is the occasional "prudish" gay man or bisexual who is out for a "fling" and then returns home to his unsuspecting partner.
Whatever the explanation for it is, the fact is that HIV continues to spread at an alarming rate within the gay community. I would imagine (although I have never heard it reported upon) that this rate of spread probably is not true of lesbians. It would not surprise me if the rate of spread amongst lesbians was actually lower then the rate of society as a whole. Why? Because lesbians are not dogs when it comes to sex.
A male is still a male whether he is heterosexual or homosexual. Heterosexuals just enjoy the participation, and thus the dampening and civilizing effect, of the female in the sexual act. Homosexuals do not enjoy this benefit. If the male homosexual wants a fling he can always find a willing partner if he only knows where to look, and he does not have to look that hard.
The truth of this viewpoint is born out by the facts. The facts are that the spread of HIV amongst the gay community is matched by the spread of "ordinary" sexual diseases amongst the gay community.
"Prudish" gay men, and most certainly lesbians, should join with those who engage in "moralistic finger waving". As more and more STDs become drug resistant society is going to take steps to eliminate the threat to the public health. If homosexuals do not want homosexuality itself to be identified as the source of the threat they need to "clean up their act".
So what steps does the homosexual community suggest should be taken? How can society as a whole help you to help yourselves? The steps needed are going to have to come from the homosexual community because if suggestions come from the heterosexual community they are going to be automatically dismissed.
Homosexuals need to stop being bigots and start facing the facts. Society will be willing to help you, but first you must be willing to help yourselves.
I think you need to take a history lesson.
The public health campaigns on "safe sex" for gay men was particularly effective at reducing the rates of HIV transmission (as well as other STDs) in the 1980s and 1990s.
Somewhere in the last 5 or so years, the message was somewhat lost.
Regards,
Michael Tam
I do not think I need a history lesson, I think you need a lesson on the current reality.
As NPR reported, "safe sex" within the gay community is being abandoned. They no longer need to worry about HIV because the "drug cocktail" is available to treat the symptoms of the disease. The individual need not fear contracting HIV because help is available.
As a result, within the gay bars and gay bathhouses they no longer practice safe sex. They no longer need to. So they keep themselves busy spreading the disease so that some future date, when the cocktail is no longer effective, it will have a firm foothold within society.
By the way, reports are that even "safe sex" is unsafe. Condoms are only 85% effective in preventing the spread of sexual diseases.
Since I actually work in the field of medicine and you do not (and I assume from your other posts that you yourself aren't in the gay scene), it is perhaps you who need the dose of reality.
Sure, some gay men think that "it will not happen to me" but no one thinks that "catching HIV is okay because we can treat it". That is absurd and I challenge to to produce a single reputabable article where the author claims this is the case.
Condoms are extremely effective. They "fail" because of user error (i.e., people forget to use them or use them improperly).
Regards,
Michael Tam
While this link is not an "article" (it is an audio link) it is an example of where I get most of my information about the gay community. (see here)
Please note that the first guest speaker speaks of "consequence free environment" sexual practices within the gay community because of the availability of drug treatment. Please note that the speaker seems to discuss the issue in a reasonable, educated, frank and sensitive manner.
NPR's reputation is, in my opinion, ultimately reputable. (The right wing condemns them for slanted reporting however.) I would imagine (and let me emphasize this is purely conjecture) that the American gay community appreciates the fact that NPR is willing to report on "gay issues" in the manner that they do.
If you want to sample NPR's reporting on gay issues, go to their web site, www.npr.org and search their web site with anything including "gay" in the search criteria. I can say with a fair level of confidence that you too will consider them to be reputable.
Post a Comment
<< Home