3 ms·

Transmission rates vary widely by sex act. 2/3 of transmissions in the US are between homosexual men. It's not homophobia to observe that some populations are a

Transmission rates vary widely by sex act. 2/3 of transmissions in the US are between homosexual men. It's not homophobia to observe that some populations are at more risk from HIV.

drewbug01 6y ago
You’re right. But the homophobia isn’t in the statistics (which the commenter didn’t provide, anyways). The homophobia was in the comments about “destructive lifestyles” and stating that it was because of rampant sexual partners. As I stated, you only have to have sex once (and I don’t believe that statement is controversial) to contract HIV. Please examine your own biases, because if your takeaway from the comment that I was addressing was “what, it’s true that gay guys are more likely to get it” then it would seem that you take the comment to readily describe “gays” writ large, which is also pretty homophobic.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  There's no need for the SJW act. Everything said in the previous comments was reported in the press of the day, and you can find stats on those topics. I suppose one lesson from then was that telling people how to behave doesn't work, even if their life is at stake. Having said that, the question is, "What can we learn from the AIDS epidemic to apply to corona today?" Sure, Reagan was slow in tackling AIDS, but it turned out that developing drugs for AIDS was really hard, and I'd estimate it took a decade to get major progress. So either we get lucky with corona, and it takes 18 months for an approved drug, or we don't find one. It's hard to make policy when you have 2 opposite answers like that. Corona is an airborne disease, and AIDS wasn't. That's a big difference, and I suspect for the US, where corona testing and tracing is a failure, that herd immunity is the best we'll get for an airborne virus with 95-98% non-fatal results. People are reluctant to accept that though. Speaking of behavior, California just made an edict today that everybody has to wear a mask outside home at all times. AFAIK the US doesn't have enough supply of masks, so I guess we're all reusing them daily?
  - drewbug01 6y ago
    > There's no need for the SJW act. It's not an act. It's not fake. An entire generation of people like me were wiped out and the attitudes displayed in the comments I'm replying to are the reasons why - homophobia. And it is 100% homophobic to imply that gay men are reckless and risking their life, and that they're having sex orgies, or sleeping around constantly. <- All things in the comments I've replied to (not yours, of course). And as I've said in other threads - no one is questioning that gay men are the majority of cases in the US. But that's not what I'm arguing about. It's everything else that gets said alongside that statistic - as though the one true statistic gives the rest a pass. So it's not an act, and I don't really feel like stopping. I don't want to let harmful, homophobic statements go unchallenged here. > Everything said in the previous comments was reported in the press of the day As a parting note, consider that the press reporting homophobic garbage had an impact on public opinion, and ultimately contributed to the crisis. Just because it was reported does not mean it was true, nor helpful, nor good.
foldr 6y ago
And in Africa most transmissions are between heterosexuals. But you never hear the same rhetoric about irresponsible promiscuous heteros.
- draugadrotten 6y ago
  It would be inappropriate for anyone outside Africa to say how people in Africa should behave or live. Your facts may need complementing, as only 30% of transmission in Africa is sexual "between heterosexuals". See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12665438/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12665438/
  - foldr 6y ago
    I am talking about sexual transmission, not transmission in general. The study you link to does not suggest that gay sex is responsible for the majority of instances of sexual HIV transmission in Africa. >It would be inappropriate for anyone outside Africa to say how people in Africa should behave or live. Here's a thought: it also might not be appropriate for straight people to tell gay people how to live.
- wsgeorge 6y ago
  >But you never hear the same rhetoric about irresponsible promiscuous heteros. We did. Sort of. Heterosexuals weren't singled out for caution about promiscuous sex, because most of the public messaging assumed heterosexual relations anyway. But the emphasis was always on promiscuity.
  - foldr 6y ago
    No, you did not see rhetoric accusing heterosexuals as a class of being prone to promiscuous behavior. Unfortunately, even in 2020, it seems to be necessary to spend paragraphs and paragraphs explaining what homophobia is until people get it. Here is an article from 1987 that does some of the work: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-07-20-me-2954-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-07-20-me-2954-s...

Transmission rates vary widely by sex act. 2/3 of transmissions in the US are between homosexual men. It's not homophobia to observe that some populations are at more risk from HIV.

drewbug01 6y ago

You’re right. But the homophobia isn’t in the statistics (which the commenter didn’t provide, anyways). The homophobia was in the comments about “destructive lifestyles” and stating that it was because of rampant sexual partners. As I stated, you only have to have sex once (and I don’t believe that statement is controversial) to contract HIV. Please examine your own biases, because if your takeaway from the comment that I was addressing was “what, it’s true that gay guys are more likely to get it” then it would seem that you take the comment to readily describe “gays” writ large, which is also pretty homophobic.

redis_mlc 6y ago
There's no need for the SJW act. Everything said in the previous comments was reported in the press of the day, and you can find stats on those topics. I suppose one lesson from then was that telling people how to behave doesn't work, even if their life is at stake. Having said that, the question is, "What can we learn from the AIDS epidemic to apply to corona today?" Sure, Reagan was slow in tackling AIDS, but it turned out that developing drugs for AIDS was really hard, and I'd estimate it took a decade to get major progress. So either we get lucky with corona, and it takes 18 months for an approved drug, or we don't find one. It's hard to make policy when you have 2 opposite answers like that. Corona is an airborne disease, and AIDS wasn't. That's a big difference, and I suspect for the US, where corona testing and tracing is a failure, that herd immunity is the best we'll get for an airborne virus with 95-98% non-fatal results. People are reluctant to accept that though. Speaking of behavior, California just made an edict today that everybody has to wear a mask outside home at all times. AFAIK the US doesn't have enough supply of masks, so I guess we're all reusing them daily?
- drewbug01 6y ago
  > There's no need for the SJW act. It's not an act. It's not fake. An entire generation of people like me were wiped out and the attitudes displayed in the comments I'm replying to are the reasons why - homophobia. And it is 100% homophobic to imply that gay men are reckless and risking their life, and that they're having sex orgies, or sleeping around constantly. <- All things in the comments I've replied to (not yours, of course). And as I've said in other threads - no one is questioning that gay men are the majority of cases in the US. But that's not what I'm arguing about. It's everything else that gets said alongside that statistic - as though the one true statistic gives the rest a pass. So it's not an act, and I don't really feel like stopping. I don't want to let harmful, homophobic statements go unchallenged here. > Everything said in the previous comments was reported in the press of the day As a parting note, consider that the press reporting homophobic garbage had an impact on public opinion, and ultimately contributed to the crisis. Just because it was reported does not mean it was true, nor helpful, nor good.

foldr 6y ago

And in Africa most transmissions are between heterosexuals. But you never hear the same rhetoric about irresponsible promiscuous heteros.

draugadrotten 6y ago
It would be inappropriate for anyone outside Africa to say how people in Africa should behave or live. Your facts may need complementing, as only 30% of transmission in Africa is sexual "between heterosexuals". See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12665438/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12665438/
- foldr 6y ago
  I am talking about sexual transmission, not transmission in general. The study you link to does not suggest that gay sex is responsible for the majority of instances of sexual HIV transmission in Africa. >It would be inappropriate for anyone outside Africa to say how people in Africa should behave or live. Here's a thought: it also might not be appropriate for straight people to tell gay people how to live.
wsgeorge 6y ago
>But you never hear the same rhetoric about irresponsible promiscuous heteros. We did. Sort of. Heterosexuals weren't singled out for caution about promiscuous sex, because most of the public messaging assumed heterosexual relations anyway. But the emphasis was always on promiscuity.
- foldr 6y ago
  No, you did not see rhetoric accusing heterosexuals as a class of being prone to promiscuous behavior. Unfortunately, even in 2020, it seems to be necessary to spend paragraphs and paragraphs explaining what homophobia is until people get it. Here is an article from 1987 that does some of the work: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-07-20-me-2954-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-07-20-me-2954-s...