3 ms·

But after re-reading my comment, I see now that it could be read as me suggesting that censorship of STI prevention information could lead to less male-to-male

But after re-reading my comment, I see now that it could be read as me suggesting that censorship of STI prevention information could lead to less male-to-male sexual contact and thereby reduce STI infection rates and with it deaths. That wasn't what I intended to convey. I was referring to censorship of LGBT material in general potentially having that effect.

defrost 2y ago
Re-reading comments in the light of feedback is always interesting, we often project and appear to say what we don't actually intend - I'm prone to that more and more now that I'm getting older. I'm still not sold on the notion that limiting public infomation reduces the incidence of gay sex in a society; the Victorians famously did that and ended up with Polari, rent boys, Green Carnations, and generally no end of coded communication. It made the puritans feel better but did little good otherwise.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  I'm not sold on the idea either. But it's plausible enough to consider as a possibility in my opinion. Even with all sorts of work-arounds and coded language, the overall volume of male-to-male sexual contact and STI infection might decline with such censorship. Regardless, censorship is not the path to a healthy society and should be rejected on principle.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Looking at the data for my country, Australia, the greatest volume of STI infection by far is from Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea, and Syphilis which are in no way confined to male-to-male transmission. If a society is looking to decrease STI infection rates I don't see why they'd limit focus to LGBT material and expect any kind of useful result. When AIDs first appeared Australia made public health announcements addressing all forms of sex as AIDs wasn't limit to male-to-male sexual transmission either, that was merely the demographic pool that STI first appeared in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSmaWEK_rD4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSmaWEK_rD4
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      I agree that the focus shouldn't be solely on LGBT material, but there’s a strong public health case for giving disproportionate attention (not censorship) to MSM activity. The data consistently shows higher rates of STIs like HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc in MSM populations. Targeting resources toward high-risk groups increases public health policy efficacy. But as you point out, STIs aren’t confined to any one group, so focusing exclusively on MSM activity would be a mistake. With respect to HIV, its prevalence among MSM is 20 to 30 times higher than in the general population.
      - defrost 2y ago
        Data here shows that In 2022, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continued to experience significantly higher rates of STIs that non-Indigenous Australians. “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are diagnosed with chlamydia two times more frequently than non-Indigenous people. For gonorrhoea and syphilis, the rate is more than five times as high. Then gay men, higher than others but not so extremely high as ATSIC people. This all points to the need for better community outreach programs to better inform specific communities, etc.
        ETH_start 2y ago
        So I think we are in agreement that outreach programs to high risk communities are a good idea and that these outreach programs shouldn't be limited to one community.

defrost 2y ago

Re-reading comments in the light of feedback is always interesting, we often project and appear to say what we don't actually intend - I'm prone to that more and more now that I'm getting older. I'm still not sold on the notion that limiting public infomation reduces the incidence of gay sex in a society; the Victorians famously did that and ended up with Polari, rent boys, Green Carnations, and generally no end of coded communication. It made the puritans feel better but did little good otherwise.

ETH_start 2y ago
I'm not sold on the idea either. But it's plausible enough to consider as a possibility in my opinion. Even with all sorts of work-arounds and coded language, the overall volume of male-to-male sexual contact and STI infection might decline with such censorship. Regardless, censorship is not the path to a healthy society and should be rejected on principle.
- defrost 2y ago
  Looking at the data for my country, Australia, the greatest volume of STI infection by far is from Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea, and Syphilis which are in no way confined to male-to-male transmission. If a society is looking to decrease STI infection rates I don't see why they'd limit focus to LGBT material and expect any kind of useful result. When AIDs first appeared Australia made public health announcements addressing all forms of sex as AIDs wasn't limit to male-to-male sexual transmission either, that was merely the demographic pool that STI first appeared in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSmaWEK_rD4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSmaWEK_rD4
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    I agree that the focus shouldn't be solely on LGBT material, but there’s a strong public health case for giving disproportionate attention (not censorship) to MSM activity. The data consistently shows higher rates of STIs like HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc in MSM populations. Targeting resources toward high-risk groups increases public health policy efficacy. But as you point out, STIs aren’t confined to any one group, so focusing exclusively on MSM activity would be a mistake. With respect to HIV, its prevalence among MSM is 20 to 30 times higher than in the general population.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Data here shows that In 2022, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continued to experience significantly higher rates of STIs that non-Indigenous Australians. “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are diagnosed with chlamydia two times more frequently than non-Indigenous people. For gonorrhoea and syphilis, the rate is more than five times as high. Then gay men, higher than others but not so extremely high as ATSIC people. This all points to the need for better community outreach programs to better inform specific communities, etc.
      - ETH_start 2y ago
        So I think we are in agreement that outreach programs to high risk communities are a good idea and that these outreach programs shouldn't be limited to one community.