I knew that gays had a maybe five or even ten times higher chance of getting AIDS and other STD’s than heterosexuals. I didn’t know the differential was actually more like 50.
Something like 20% of the US gay population (which makes up 3.5% of its total population) is HIV positive. It is 5% in the UK. But as of 2009, according to the CDC “male to male sexual contact” (see pp.58) accounted for about 57% of all HIV transmissions in the US (and of 75% of all HIV transmissions among men). “Heterosexual contact” among men accounted for a mere 8% of all HIV transmissions. Basically, if you’re gay, you should take far, far more precautions during sex than your straight counterparts – though in practice, it seems the precise opposite is taking place (“Carlos estimates that he has already had several hundred sex partners; he eagerly awaits the day when he tests HIV-positive – at which time his erotic interest, Carlos says, will then turn toward infecting another person – which is known as “gift-giving””).
The result is that back at the height of the epidemic in the 1990’s, life expectancy for gays was something like 20 years lower than for straights (those are risks far greater than for smoking). Assuming the gay population to be 3% of the male total, Canadian homosexuals had only a 32% chance of living from the age of 20 to the age of 65, far less than the 78% for the average Canadian man (or equivalent to a Canadian man in 1871). The study in question, however, was carried out at the very height of mortality from AIDS; since then, medical improvements have sharply reduced it, e.g. from more than 50,000 deaths in 1995 to a constant 20,000 or so from 1998 on. So I suppose the life expectancy penalty is now somewhat better than being a heavy smoker or an alcoholic (both about 10 years).
In other words, it’s a valid public health policy to make homosexuality culturally unattractive, as opposed to glamorizing it. And while it is certainly true that it does not apply to the vast majority of homosexuals, the statistics also destroy yet another liberal canard: That there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. In reality, studies indicate that 2-4 girls are abused for one boy, even though there are about 30 straights to every gay (the vast majority of sex abusers are of course male). Even allowing for necessary caveats – e.g., groups of male children are far more likely to be entrusted to males for supervision than groups of girls – that still strongly indicates that homosexuals are, on average, considerably more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.
A corollary is that I am quite okay with Russia’s new law banning propaganda of the homosexual lifestyle to minors, the mewlings of human rights organizations and other putative do-gooders regardless. Funny how an hour or so of Internet research can destroy so much mainstream liberal “wisdom.”
I am all for respecting each country’s sovereignty but I am not convinced these particular arguments hold up:
1) As with drugs or prostitution, acceptance of and formalization/equality of gay relationships makes the dangers of an “prohibited” existence less likely. This applies both to pedophilia-repression (I am convinced there is an extremely strong relationship between priesthoods’ chastity vows/homophobia and their pedophilia) and health risks (here the analogy with drugs is very strong).
2) There’s an assumption here that if something is socially repressed it will somehow be lesser or go away. Homosexuality has and always will exist. It is less visible in rural and conservative societies, but it crops up everywhere as soon as you urbanize (e.g. that like-minded people have a chance to get together). This being the case I would rather recognize this reality and create structures and openness to manage it, rather than repress it. I have seen no compelling evidence that homosexuality is “nurtured” into individuals by progressive attitudes. This is in addition to the argument for individual happiness, which I also find compelling.
This isn’t to say that all countries should be expected to have the same attitudes as “progressive” countries. On the contrary, each must develop at its own pace and in line with itself. This being said, I see nothing whatsoever showing that the total-equality states (Argentina, Canada, Spain, South Africa..) have any particular problems because of this (if anything I expect well-being to be greater than in repressive states). Life in Belgium, where I live and it is legal, continues as perfectly normal. In fact, I believe this is in line with the general motion of history towards well-being and happiness and I am personally quite proud that France will shortly be joining the vanguard.
South Africa is not a total equality state it is a black supremacist 3rd world shit hole where whites are discriminated against, raped, killed, robbed, everyday and the government supports this
This is about sexual lifestyle of many partners and the fact that anal intercourse is more traumatic, hence more likely to transmit the virus, than vaginal intercourse.
I wonder how is it with lesbians, is it a risky lifestyle for a woman or actually, a safer one than heterosexuality?
I don’t like Russian gay propaganda ban. Imo banning homosexual propaganda = making homosexual feel unwelcome and the society hostile towards them, will put Russian gay teenagers at risk of suicide.
In terms of AIDS, probably safer, I assume. Of course unlike with gays there are very, very few “true” lesbians.
LOL good I hope all the gay teenagers in Russia off themselves, Russia has too many perverts as it is
This assumes that homosexuality is a conscious choice, rather than a state of being (you don’t chose to be heterosexual do you? You just are). Promotion of homosexual equality is what you are talking about – you want an excuse to discriminate against them because they are gay…
Dick.
No, none of that is not correct.
There is no such assumption. What is a fact is that homosexuality is a continuum, not a set of discrete sets. E.g., bisexuals. In fact they (and homos who say they are gay but are in fact bi) are more dangerous than ordinary homosexuals because they spread STD’s to women and the general population. So it is patently in society’s interests to minimize their proclivities via various disincentives e.g. by making it clear that it views male-on-male sex as a deviance or at least as “uncool” by measures such as forbidding gay pride marches (which are more about public debauchery than rights nowadays anyway) and propagandizing of the gay lifestyle to children in schools. (And not banning parents from trying to fix their child’s sexual orientation).
As regards “discrimination”, well, I guess it’s all relative. I certainly don’t think it should be illegalized. I am not even against gay civil unions albeit with fewer privileges than traditional marriages. Certainly that would qualify me as fairly liberal by Russian standards, or for that matter, American 1970’s standards.
Also while you’re allowed to insult me on Mark’s Facebook that does not apply here (see Rule 1). This is your first and last warning.
You are right that sexuality is a continuum but it does have to very distict poles were most humans are. They or highly perfer women or they highly perfer man. In fact most bi’s i know are just gays who don’t want to admit that they are gay.
A society in which is less of a taboo on homesexuality is also a society in which there are less gays sleeping with women.
Having sex with the sex of your preference is somewhat high on the list of needs. Making them “uncool” with public hanging like they do in Iran doesn’t seem to work so i doubt that forbidding gay pride marches will have any effect
Which privileges would you remove from gay marriages?
Having sex with sex of your preference is one thing, another thing is promiscuity which often seems to go and in hand with being gay, – a very risky lifestyle, and gay culture where AIDS is considered a “gift” is just suicidal. I’m against gay propaganda ban, but should this lifestyle be actively encouraged… ? Most bi’s I know just fancy experimenting with sex…
My bet is that gifting is just as common under gays as swingers are under strait people
Which privileges would you remove from gay marriages?
Various financial bonuses which are designed in view of a marriage’s traditional function i.e. to provide a nest for children.
I don’t see why Lesbian couples can’t have children but marriage isn’t only to provide a nest for children but also to have stable relationships. Problem with gay culture is that it formed in an environment in which stable relationships were made nearly impossible which lead to a very promiscuous culture. But with gay marriage homosexual culture will become less promiscuous.
Has straight marriage made straight people less promiscuous?
Your comment is a very ignorant and stupid one.
I live in Canada where gay marriage is legal, and the queers here are disgusting, extremely promiscuous and flamboyant as ever, I wish they were gone forever seriously.
Marriage, as in cohabitation, has obviously made people less promiscuous.
Marriage, as in legal abstract, makes people also less promiscuous but its effect is much smaller.
AK: Another option is to target bisexual people and their behaviour and thinking through doctors or hospitals rather than homosexual culture itself. A lot of bisexual people don’t think of themselves as gay, especially if they’re the “dominant” partner in a homosexual relationship.
It might be better also to distinguish sexual practices such as anal sex which in itself isn’t homosexual – I believe some ancient societies favoured anal sex as a form of birth control – and target those instead, either by emphasising protection and hygiene, substituting a safer practice or making that practice illegal if one of the partners is under-age or does not give consent. At some stage in the past a lot of what we call male-on-male sex was practised in heterosexual cultures, if not within marriage, then certainly in prostitute-client encounters.
The problem in talking about “gay culture” or “gay lifestyles” is that everyone has different ideas of what those mean and there’s no clear boundary between what’s gay and what’s not; it depends very much on the cultural context in which the issue arises. In some countries, certain occupations or activities might be stigmatised as gay: even playing piano, practising ballet or certain other styles of dancing can be seen as gay. In some societies, people can’t even conceive that some people might prefer the company of their own sex.
Also I wonder if the ban on promoting gay lifestyles to children in Russia might have something to do with suspicion of Western identity politics and a fear that LBGT groups in Russia might be infiltrated by people or organisations outside the country with an anti-Putin agenda.
Living in the Bay area and posting this – very brave of you!
Research all suggests that sexual orientation in males is basically biological in nature; thus homosexuality is not the choice of perverse individuals but something innate, like a birth defect (there is less evidence for this for females, although the AIDS promiscuity problems are mostly male homosexual problems). It probably has something to do with testosterone level during pregnancy, making it a congenital birth defect (I do not mean to use this term pejoratively). Treating homosexuals as morally perverse monsters because of their sexual orientation is akin to treating the mentally ill as demon-possessed evil people – backward and inhumane.
Probably anything that channels homosexuals into healthier behavior patterns, such as acceptance (which cuts down on closeted gays giving AIDS to their wives), and marriage (which discourages promiscuity), is a good thing. Moreover it seems cruel to deny people the right to marry with all of its benefits simply because of something that was not their choice.
That being said, under certain conditions biological gays may live heterosexual lifestyles, just as, in prisons, or in ancient Greece, or in other cultures or subcultures biological straights engage in homosexual behavior. People may transcend their biological nature and behave differently than in the way they are wired to behave. It’s a difference between people and animals. So an argument can be made that aggressive promotion of homosexuality may be harmful, given the difficulties faced by people with gay orientations, if such promotion results in a few more people living gay lifestyles. But tolerance, marriage equality, laws against discrimination don’t fall into the category of aggressive promotion or propaganda.
Let’s take your reasoning further. Which country has the highest HIV rate among non-Sub-Saharan African countries? Which country is the #1 producer of child porn? In which country the life expectancy for men is something like 20 years lower than in other industrialized countries? We all know the answer, so what should we say about your other blog?
You can say whatever you want, but I don’t see how any of this is particularly germane to the points I raised here.
Anyway as regards Russia the vast majority of new HIV infections are from intravenous drug use, with the remainder coming from fucking said IDUs (a fairly recent development). No need to add male-on-male transmission to the mix.
No, what I meant was that if homosexual lifestyle (if it is such) is more prone to HIV-infections, early death and sexual child abuse, then, according to your argumentation, it is okay to have laws that ban propraganda of that lifestyle.
According to statistics, lifestyle in Putin’s Russia causes much more HIV, child pornography and early death than practically any other lifestyle. Shouldn’t we then ban all propaganda that promotes such lifestyle? Like your blog Da Russophile?
My blog Da Russophile does not “promote” Russian and specifically drug injecting lifestyles, it factually and statistically documents myths about Russia.
First. Second, the blog’s audience aren’t children, for that matter.
Finally if you really want HIV and early death then the ideal lifestyle to promote is sub-Saharan African. By far.
Ugh. Anatoly, this is sloppy stuff. No offense, but this reads like you’re letting your conclusions guide your research, not the other way ’round.
Not going to fisk the whole thing, but here’s a single example: “the statistics also destroy yet another liberal canard: That there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia” Well, no. There’s actually been research on this. Quite a lot of research. Some goes back to the 1970s, but it really got going in the late 1980s. You’d expect so, right? That was when gay rights really began to be a thing. So the question “is there a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia” really began to become pressing.
Short answer: No, there isn’t. I’m going to compress 25 years of intense research into two bullets. (1) A significant number of pedophiles don’t map onto the gay-straight spectrum. They’re sexually attracted to *children*, without much regard for the gender of the child. Weird but true: as far as the research can tell, they’re not wired to distinguish among gender. — Note that “a significant number” isn’t “all”. Pedophiles come in different flavors, and some of them are only attracted to one gender of child. But a lot of them aren’t. (2) Yes, it really does seem to be an access issue. It’s just much, much easier for an adult male to get access to boys than to girls. Coaches, teachers, Boy Scout troop leaders, hobby instructors, the guy who runs the boys choir at the church… it’s trivially easy for an adult male to get access to boys. This isn’t speculation; it’s based both on research and on a disturbingly tall stack of testimony from actual pedophiles. These guys actively seek out these roles. A significant number of them choose to become teachers or priests or sports coaches because that’s where the kids are. Even the ones that don’t let it shape their career choices are much more likely to sign up for Boy Scouts or the Big Brother program, or to become active in gender-differentiated social activities like Little League. That’s known, and it’s why (for instance) Big Brother does a fair amount of screening on its would-be mentors. (It’s also why people are suing the Boy Scouts: because they knew this, should have screened, and didn’t.)
Fifteen seconds with google gave me a survey article on this: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html. It’s a bit dated, but it looks like a decent introduction; since it was my first hit, let’s go with it. If that doesn’t suit you, another fifteen seconds gave me a dozen more. I know you can do as well. If you dig a bit, you’ll find that the overwhelming preponderance of actual research seems to be showing that there isn’t a connection.
Doug M.
Interesting article about this from the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
In fact, paedophilia might be another kind of sexual orientation, completely separate from homo/hetero.
I live in BC and all the Eastern Europeans I know undertsand that homosexuality is unhealthy psychologically and physically, and we laugh at Canadians and Anglos who think its OK, and good to tolerate it. Muslims, Slavs, Jews, Catholics, and many Asians have the right idea when it comes to homosexuality, it does not belong in parades on the street and out in the open.