| GMCarter 2004-09-30, 7:07 pm |
| On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:18:55 +0200, "Moira de Swardt"
<moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> wrote:
>cases,
>make
>consider
>already
>
>I'm told that there are a significant proportion of people who
>sometimes willingly have sex with someone of the same sex yet who
>identify as heterosexual, and whose primary sexual attraction is,
>indeed to the opposite sex. There are no studies that I know about
>detailing this, so second-hand empirical evidence is all I have to
>go on. But, if it is true, then it is obviously not simply PC
>fanatics that make this point.
Hey--I'm told that a man and a woman often times may decide to engage
in sexual relations and gosh, it's often consensual! Holy heck! (I'm
referring to Dimbulb's first irrelevant sentence.)
And yes, MANY cultures--from Jamaica to the Bronx to Nepal to Thailand
to Brazil have cultures of men having sex with men who do NOT identify
themselves as gay or homosexual. One broad class of "macho" guys are
the ones who figure as long as they're doing the mounting and not
being penetrated orally or anally, they're still the man. Lately, a
drive to refer to "males who have sex with males" has been undertaken.
The term "men" being loaded in many ways. Naz Foundation has had some
great articles about this in recent editions of Pukaar.
A fraction of humans find the whole notion of gender identity as
"male" or "female" to be absurdly limiting.
Then there are the priests, chassidics, imams and so forth who use it
as power trips or what have you due to psychosexual injuries induced
probably in the beginning during childhood and augmented by the arcane
and perverted thinking foisted upon them by some religious factions.
People like XXXXing. It's a great joy in life for many. And then a
virus gets in the middle, coitus interruptus. The virus just
perpetuates. It gets in where it can and then takes off. Women who
have sex with women tend to not have such penetrative insertive sex
and so it is a little difficult for the virus to take hold.
As Gary noted, disproportionately in many cultures, the HIV pandemic
has affected MSM. No one argues with that. So what? Dimbulb implies
subtly, like any xtian-homophobe playing at being gay while actually
probably being queer, that this means they deserve it. It is a clear
and invidious subtext of his posts. XXXX that. No one deserves HIV.
(Not even the very tiny fraction of people who are so psychologically
injured as to be "bug chasers".) In terms of public health and policy,
it is irrelevant to the need to provide treatment.
But the reality dimbulb ignores is that indeed, HIV works quite well
being passed from man to woman or woman to man. Well enough, for sure.
And in those cases, the acts are between men and women.
How many of these involve people who engage in same sex activity? Who
knows?
But clearly, the HIV pandemic is driven by sex and globally, most
often, heterosexual activity. So what?
I still want people cared for. Prevention programs need to be smart
and appropriate. Targeted to populations of higher incidence--and ALSO
general sexual education and prevention messages from early
educational stages (where kids actually can go to school) and so
forth.
George M. Carter
|