An article in Reuters Health News has left me scratching my head in puzzlement. It describes a report produced by H. Fisher Raymond and Willi McFarland of the San Francisco Department of Public Health and published in the journal “AIDS and Behavior.”
New research hints that the social and sexual networks of black gay men, constrained by the preferences and attitudes of non-black gay men, may explain the risk of more rapid spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and higher sustained prevalence of HIV infection in black gay men.
They found that black gay men were three times more likely to have sexual partners that were also black, than would be expected by chance alone.
So these public health officials seem surprised that gay black men prefer the company of other black men at a rate above what would be expected by chance. But why would you expect a totally random choice of sexual partner? Don’t most relationships depend upon proximity, socio-economic level, shared cultures and common interests? Unless Raymond and McFarland subscribe to the stereotype of homosexual men as “random anonymous sex machines.” And yet, they are employed by the city of San Francisco, so perhaps they know more about it than I do.
In addition, black gay men were the least preferred of sexual partners by other races and were believed to be riskier to have sex with, which can lead to men of other races avoiding black men as sexual partners.
Well, that’s just unfair. Why on earth would non-black homosexuals believe that sex with black men would be especially risky?
According to Raymond, it’s because it is:
…black gay men [are forced by discrimination to push] closer together in smaller social and sexual networks – “networks that are already at higher risk for HIV infection merely because the background prevalence of HIV is higher than in other groups.”
So white, hispanic, and asian homosexuals avoid sexual contact with black homosexuals “merely” because they are more likely to carry the AIDS virus? Outrageous!
What’s to be done?
…raising awareness that personal preferences may be shaped by underlying negative racial stereotypes or history isn’t without merit,” [Raymond said.]
“The racial disparity in HIV observed for more than a decade,” Raymond and McFarland conclude in their report, “will not disappear until the challenges posed by a legacy of racism toward blacks in the U.S. are addressed.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that the solution to the disparity between the races in HIV infections is to encourage other races to have homosexual sex with higher risk partners. Once all races have a higher incidence of the disease, the unjust stigma that blacks carry will disappear.
Remember, this comes from San Francisco’s public health officials.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
When PC meets science, science gets its ass handed to it.
Yes Mike,
I will correct you because you are wrong. Your conclusion is obviously faulty. The solution is more openness with the gay population within the black culture. It would NOT mean that black society would have to fling their arms wide open and embrace their brothers (although it would be nice), but that it should lift the taboo of being a homosexual. This relates to the phrase “background prevalence” which is the stigma that they carry for being both black and gay. If black society would be more accepting then black, gay men would not try to mask themselves and take appropriate steps to having safer sex and reducing the higher risk for HIV infection.
I may be wrong, but if I am it’s not about what you claim.
“Background prevalence” refers to the incidence of HIV infection in the gay black community. The public health professionals think the solution is to break down barriers between the races within the homosexual community, not between hetero- and homosexuals in the black community.
Perhaps I was unclear when I said “it appears the solution…” I could have said “it appears that their solution…”
Mike, just be glad the Ninth Circuit isn’t involved, or you could see an order demanding “gay-sex affirmative action.” As I see it, that would either require the state to make gay-prostitutes available, or they would have to start requiring people to choose their partners randomly, from a big bowl of names.
Equality of outcome!
You know it! I think this plan can work. . . in crazy town.
This is absolutely baffling. This has to be my favorite line: “merely because the background prevalence of HIV is higher than in other groups.”
Merely? HIV will kill you. This sort of downplaying of the seriousness of the disease is part of the problem. Yes treatment has progressed greatly since research first started in AIDS but it is not equivalent to the common cold! The attitude to numb the larger society to the deadly consequences of HIV infection, because gay rights activists believe people use this as a reason for “H8” only causes more gay men to die of AIDS. I mean, these yahoo’s in this article actually sound as if it is a larger problem that gay black men are excluded from the non-black gay reindeer games than them dying!
BarryO’s non-argument proves this point: “… gay men would not try to mask themselves and take appropriate steps to having safer sex….” Excuse me, what? If you buy a condom do you have to take a written test and check down if you are gay or not? Shouldn’t your safety and the safety of your sexual partner take precedence?
This whole thing sounds like either sexual-racism, or racial-sexism. Either way, there is a definite plan at play to make this all sound like some sort of normal behavior with little or no consequence.
If you don’t want sand in your shoes, stay out of the sandbox!