Comments on Is HIV a Gay Disease?

Um. Sorry. It's NOT a gay disease.

Africa and India and the Carribean know it's not.

Would only be OK in the context of a bigger campaign: posters elsewhere saying "HIV is a straight disease," "HIV is a black disease," "HIV is a white disease," "HIV is a young/old, men's/women's, rich/poor disease."

Otherwise it's just not true.

In the US, HIV is a gay disease. Pointing to dirt poor countries around the worldn't doesn't change the nature of the beast back home.

Who else gets it? junkies? the sloppy ones that get the HIV aren't going to like long enough to spread it outside their scumbag circle.

This is similar to saying that sicle cell anemia is a black disease. And that adult onset diabetes is a fat people's disease. Not entirely true, but fairly accurate.

I think it's no big deal... if you read the text above "Own it, end it", you'll see that the headline is only a ploy to get people to pay attention... and I think it works. Really that's what's needed in the fight against HIV.

I'm pretty sure the LA Gay and Lesbian center knows it's not just a gay disease.

Ironically, I believe the group done the most disservice by this campaign is straight people. We gay people know HIV effects us, and it is common knowledge that it does so in predominantly higher numbers... however, there is still a large part of the populous (i.e. straight people) who *still* believe they don't have to worry about HIV because they don't practice gay sex or use needles. For them this campaign reinforces false notions of immunity- a mistake many will only learn the hard way.

John -- actually, according to the most recent surveillance report from LA County health dept. HIV/AIDS is pretty much a gay disease. As of 7/31/06 76% of the cases were among Men who have Sex with Men (MSM). If you add in MSM who also inject drugs, it goes up to 83%

For every racial/ethnic group MSM represent the majority of cases -- from a high of 84% for white MSM to a low of 64% for black MSM (but is probably much higher due to the stigma surrounding being gay in the black community).

Even though we tend to speak of the HIV/AIDS "epidemic" as if it was a single monolithic thing, the fact is that we have many, many localized epidemics. In certain parts of the US HIV is a gay disease, while in other parts it's heterosexual and in still others it's related to shooting drugs.

The same story holds true throughout the world.

oops -- the data I cited were for male cases only. but even when you add in women (only 8% of total cases), the largest single risk group is still MSM.

Hannah - not posting a legible copy of this ad OR posting the complete text is unhelpful AND makes people misinterpret the meaning of the ad.

Here is the full text:

HIV is a gay disease.

OK, diseases don't have sexual orientations, but in Los Angeles more than 75% of those living with HIV/AIDS are gay or bisexual men of all races and ethnicities. We know that HIV isn't just a gay disease, but in L.A., it's gay and bi men who have borne the brunt of it. The death and suffering have been monumental and we have been forever changed by it.

We are grateful to those outside our community who have come to our assistance - who have supported us and fought for us. But HIV has been and continues to be, our disease.

And it continues after 25 years because we haven't stoped it.

Own it. End it.

www.OwnItEndIt.org

Hannah - not posting a legible copy of this ad OR posting the complete text is unhelpful AND makes people misinterpret the meaning of the ad.

Shitty blogging.

Here is the full text:

HIV is a gay disease.

OK, diseases don't have sexual orientations, but in Los Angeles more than 75% of those living with HIV/AIDS are gay or bisexual men of all races and ethnicities. We know that HIV isn't just a gay disease, but in L.A., it's gay and bi men who have borne the brunt of it. The death and suffering have been monumental and we have been forever changed by it.

We are grateful to those outside our community who have come to our assistance - who have supported us and fought for us. But HIV has been and continues to be, our disease.

And it continues after 25 years because we haven't stoped it.

Own it. End it.

www.OwnItEndIt.org

Because Magic Johnson and Ryan White are SO GAY.

no, they were two photogenic outliers used to make the disease more "friendly" to straight folks (using straight in both sexual and drug using senses of the word).

Royal Wulf: Chill and utilize your mouse before you offer comment, please. The link in the body of my post goes to a very large image of the ad where the complete text is visible.

I thought the AIDS crisis was over. Somebody told me it was, anyway.

"Who else gets it? junkies? the sloppy ones that get the HIV aren't going to like long enough to spread it outside their scumbag circle."

Ignorant fuck. You are SO wrong.

If you need some sort of 'straight'/average American examples I can give you 3 off the top off my head:

Firefighters
Other Medical Professionals
Hemophiliacs

I might add, idiots that think it is a 'gay' or 'scumbag' disease.

Sometimes onset isn't for as many as 25 YEARS later, so you might want to start holding your breath, you or a partner may have had sex with someone who had sex with someone who had sex with someone...

BTW I know for a fact that the Nat'l Centers For Disease Control purposely skews it's numbers regarding infection rates of various disease through occupational hazards of medical professionals, so I'm a little skeptical of LA's numbers...

addendums:

-It's irresponsible of the ad campaign to use this tactic, some people will only see the large print.

-Before you jump down my throat about universal precautions and medical professionals, add incubation time, to practices of years ago...

sorry KXone, but I really have to disagree. Blood product transmission of HIV in the US hasn't been a factor for close to 20 years. Nor is any sort of occupational exposure -- then or now.

Now, if you're talking about hepatitis C, it's a whole nother story.

HIV is a relatively fragile virus.

Hannah, FYI, I couldn't read the text even clicking on the link you suggested. It was larger, but fuzzed out.

Sorry you couldn't see it, but I could view it clearly on both my office computer (a Mac) and my home PC. Not sure what to tell you...

The image may have been shrunk to fit his browser window, in which case it would appear to be illegible. The mouse cursor should turn into a magnifying glass over it where clicking will bring it to full size.

Thanks, Aexia.

My highly subjective and personal take on the ad (meaning don't jump on my shit) is that it's a brave, attention-getting ad that addresses our responsibility as gay men to stop the spread of HIV. About fucking time.

Its a good ad to the extent it is used in gay environments, and I'm sure that's its intended use. Its a provocative reality check that personal responsibility is still the best first defense against the spread of the disease.

But I think it rubs people the wrong way for a few legitimate reasons. First, in the global context, AIDS is much, much more complicated problem than a matter of gay men failing to exercise personal responsibility. Second, to the extent the ad is distributed more widely than to a gay audience, which it already has been, it somewhat undermines longstanding efforts to portray AIDS as an issue of import to all Americans and as a disease that should be looked upon with sympathy, rather than moral condemnation.

"AIDS" is primarily a gay phenomenon in the U.S.

It hasn't had the power to take hold of the minds of most heterosexual folks here. Maybe it would if they were suffering from malaria, tuberculosis, extreme poverty, lack of sanitation, fear, and an extremely malleable, weak definition for "AIDS", i.e., the Bangui definition.

Maybe "AIDS" hasn't taken the heterosexual world by storm because straight folks (except those with dark skin) aren't considered to be in a "risk group". Being in a "risk group" is much greater factor in determining "HIV positivity" than the actual "tests".

Being that the tests are both non-standardized and non-specific, and are not approved by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection, "risk group" (especially if you are not presenting any illnesses) is the way to determine a person's "HIV status".

The test inserts themselves claim that that HIV infection is a clinical diagnosis, and that the so-called "tests" are only an "aid" to diagnosis, and cannot be used to diagnose HIV infection.

Now, gay guys...ask yourselves some questions. We're in a "risk group", right? The tests are non-standardized and non-specific, and state that AIDS is a clinical diagnosis. It's beginning to smell a LOT like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and some circular logic to boot. Is our sexuality more prone to infection with a retrovirus?

Qualifying HIV as a gay disease makes heterosexual men (especially those who are young and/or with closeted bi-sexual tendencies) to pretend that they are not at risk. As far as the fine print is concerned, how many people who see this poster up are going to stop what they're doing to read the fine print? It typifies gay men as HIV positive and is pure fodder for conservatives.

BD said: "AIDS" is primarily a gay phenomenon in the U.S.
It hasn't had the power to take hold of the minds of most heterosexual folks here."

I respectfully disagree. It's been in the minds of heteros ever since we wondered if Linda Evans got AIDS by kissing Rock Hudson on Dynasty. I understand my knowledge of that trivia calls my sexuality into doubt, but heteros became worried about AIDS in the 80's, even while calling it a "Gay Disease". The worry was precisely because one didn't know if you could catch it from shaking hands, from a drinking fountain, or from mosquitos. I think EVERYONE, gays and heteros alike, became complacent once wonder drugs came out and prolonged the lives of those with HIV/AIDS.

AIDS *is* a gay disease insofar as it's predominantly gay. And this ad is good at addressing the younger generation of gays that doesn't remember the fear when the disease first came about, and only thinks that it's now a manageable disease. Certainly gay men are by far at greatest risk for contracting and communicating the disease. But just because it's now predominantly gay, doesn't mean that demographic can't change over time. 25% of the population of Botswana has HIV. http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/infectious_diseases/aids/africa.html . They aren't all gay. In the US, 25% of new cases are women. http://www.avert.org.uk/aroundworld.htm . So the ad is good at waking up complacent gay men, bad at accurately describing the epidemic.

Certainly gay men are by far at greatest risk for contracting and communicating the disease

"HIM", can you explain why?

Also, "AIDS" isn't a disease.

HIM -- "the ad is...bad at accurately describing the epidemic."

For the US as a whole, yes that's true. But this is a highly localized ad campaign focusing on local epidemiology.

One of the peculiarities of HIV/AIDS in the US is that the urban West Coast (LA, SF, Portland, and Seattle), have not followed the patterns of the rest of the country. For a whole host of reasons the epidemic here has remained concentrated in the gay community. Yes, breeders and injection drug users are being infected in increasing numbers, but not nearly at the rate that has happened elsewhere.

25% of new cases are women.

Uh, yeah, but women make up 52 percent of the population.

Read the following, then report back:

* Cities on a Hill, Frances FitzGerald
* And the Band Played On, Shilts
* Dragon Within the Gates, Stephen Joseph, MD

@BD: because % of gays with HIV/AIDS is quite a bit higher than the % of heteros with HIV/AIDS, and anal sex is better at transmitting the disease than vaginal sex, so if a gay male has unprotected (anal) intercourse with another, randomly chosen gay male, he's more likely to get HIV than a hetero male who has unprotected (vaginal) intercourse with a randomly chosen hetero female.

@Gnossos and Keshmeshi: yes, the infection rates among gay men are far higher than heteros on the W coast. And 25% of new cases doesn't = the 52% population. I'm just saying that (1) it's not *exclusively* a gay male thing, and (2) the current trends (ie, mostly gay males have it) will change over time as it becomes more prevailent in the general population. Thus, the ad is good insofar as it's aimed at gay men (ie, it's predominantly among them) but bad insofar as accuracy (ie, the demographics of those with HIV/AIDS is slowly changing).

Funny thing about "And the Band Played On"...

Don Francis' focus on an infectious agent at work that was causing gay men to get sick was centered on a Canadian airline steward named Gaetan Dugas...so-called "patient zero".

Does everybody remember Gaetan Dugas? Supposedly the ONE person a whole host of gay men had sex with, and all those men were sick? Does everybody remember the fantastical stories of Dugas going to Africa and having sex with green monkeys, then bringing whatever "bug" he supposedly caught from them and giving it to gay men?

Ok, folks. Go to NIAID and see if they credit Dugas as the beginning of the "AIDS epidemic" in the U.S. Report back, and let us know.

So, Don Francis' whole theory about a lone pathogen being responsible for this new "epidemic" was based on the sexual contacts of Gaetan Dugas. And if you did your homework, you'll find that the CDC and NIAID aren't involved in that particular flight of fancy.

What's good about "And the Band Played On" is showing us the mass hysteria that was happening in the early 80's. That hysteria continues today, although mostly centered in the gay population and in South Africa.

Ok, folks, more homework. Here are some questions.

Is HIV-infection a clinical diagnosis? Yes or No.

Are HIV tests specific to HIV? In other words, do they cross-react? Yes or No.

Are HIV tests standardized? Yes or No.

Is there any test approved by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection? Yes or No.

If "yes", please provide a link for us to the test insert, so that we may read the words "approved by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection". "Aid in/to diagnosis, doesn't count".

@BD: because % of gays with HIV/AIDS is quite a bit higher than the % of heteros with HIV/AIDS, and anal sex is better at transmitting the disease...

First, get your terminology straight. HIV/AIDS isn't a disease. HIV is supposedly a pathogen, and AIDS is a syndrome. And there's no such thing as "HIV disease". HIV doesn't cause a disease.

Please supply us with a reference that shows how much more effectively "HIV" is transmitted anally as opposed to vaginally. I'm giving you some leeway here as you insist that a disease is transmitted anally. Remember...it's "HIV" that's supposedly transmitted, not a disease. Thanks.

@BD: because % of gays with HIV/AIDS is quite a bit higher than the % of heteros with HIV/AIDS, and anal sex is better at transmitting the disease...

Hmm. How does that theory work for Africa, where the vast, vast majority of "AIDS" cases are heterosexual? Get back to us on that one, ok?

Hannah,
since you're blogging about this subject, would you care to step up to the plate and answer these questions?

Is HIV-infection a clinical diagnosis? Yes or No.

Are HIV tests specific to HIV? In other words, do they cross-react? Yes or No.

Are HIV tests standardized? Yes or No.

Is there any test approved by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection? Yes or No.

@BD: re: HIV through anal sex...
http://www.albany.edu/AIDS/aids101_2.html

"5. Why is anal sex a high risk activity for HIV infection?

The walls of the anus and rectum are thin and richly supplied with blood vessels which can be injured during anal sex. HIV infected semen can be easily absorbed through these thin walls and into the bloodstream. Injured tissue in the anus and rectum can expose the penis to blood containing HIV, as well. Unprotected anal sex with a partner who is infected or whose HIV status is unknown is the most risky sexual activity for both men and women. While latex condoms provide protection, their failure rate during anal sex is greater than that for vaginal or oral sex."

re: %gays w/ HIV > %heteros w/ HIV...
Here in the US, HIV is more prevalent in gays than heteros. That's why I said the ad was effective in addressing complacent gay men. But did you read the part where I said the ad is not so accurate because the demographics are changing (ie, more heteros are/will be contracting HIV/AIDS, ala Africa)?

"HIM",
here's what I asked: Please supply us with a reference that shows how much more effectively "HIV" is transmitted anally as opposed to vaginally. Oops, you didn't actually do that.

I don't really care what you said about the ad.

So, how is "HIV" more effectively transmitted anally as opposed to vaginally? And how do you explain the heterosexual "epidemic" in Africa? Careful, you could be stepping into some racism.

"HIM",
what we need from you is an actual study that shows us the difference in "HIV infection" rates from vaginal sex and anal sex. Can you find the study that will support your claim?

HIV and AIDS is not a gay disease. It is not something that only gay people get, this is obvious. This concept of owning AIDS by the gay community to perpetuate being victimized and continuing the victimization by producing slick fashionable posters just compounds the ownership of HIV and AIDS. The real gay problem is wanting to be a fashionable victim and perpetuating being a victim by internalizing the AIDS issue. It is perfect situation for everyone else that does not consider themselves as "Gay" or people that have not come to terms with it. If they do not call themselves gay then they are not as much at risk for catching the virus because gay people have claimed it. The poster can be interpreted as being something gay people have to constantly live with and address. But that is overshadowed by the stronger simpler statement that some people want to see in the poster and that is "it is not their problem it is someone else's".
These add campaigns come right from the source of Americanized gay culture which constantly plays up the victim of a tragedy, then that trend ripples down into other cities that perpetuate an American gay life style like they do here in Canada nothing here is truly Canadian about being gay is is all copied from an American styles and culture like much of our culture is. We then believe this is what being gay is all about because they do this in LA so lets do the same poster campaigns so we can be like LA gay community or San Francisco. Gay culture is founded on being a victim and not just any victim but a fashionable victim then owning it and and doing it bigger and better than anyone. It is called shooting yourself in the foot.
AIDS is not our disease, it physically can't be because we are not made up differently. If you make gay people look different or even suggest it by giving them ownership of a disease then you polarize and perpetuate a gay/straight difference.
Just because there is a higher level of infection in gay men in one area of the world does not mean that others can not get the disease, it is not something that is brought about from being gay just like a higher percentage of infection in hetro couples of some other disease does not make that disease a hetro disease. But then people that have homophobic views might be able to spin this so that they can distance themselves from the "Gay disease". Anyone wanting to have something different can reevaluate and define their virus and call it something different so that they do not have to be associated with the gay ownership of AIDS. After all it is a virus why not have a mutated version be something that has also mutated away from the so called "GAY virus". The second you own it is the second you give certain groups fodder for more condemning of gay people.
The poster at first glance offers ownership then goes on to say in smaller text "well we really do not own it" but the problem is the damage is done the second you read the larger text (many do not read smaller text in posters) the Larger Text is to get the attention and that is all some people will remember. Typically it uses 2 men suggesting they are naked (nothing new or original there). I think the poster would be more effective if it was a heterosexual couple and it said "HIV is YOUR disease TOO" but then it seems to me that typically whom ever designed the poster had to have the homo erotic slant a Greg Gorman feel to the black and white photo. The posters main text at first glance does not give gay men anything positive to live for it is more of the miserable victim approach perpetuating an overwhelming battle and burden that gay men want to carry. I don't carry that burden I have so much to live for not die for. AIDS is not just my desease. The poster the way it is misleading and irresponsible.

Great observations, Brian.

To all the comments regarding Africa - have you ever been there? have you seen the effects of "AIDS" in the various African countries? do you really think that they spend $200 per person to test for HIV when they dont have $50 per year to feed people? dont you think that people are just dying of the same things in Africa that they used to die from before "AIDS"?

It is so easy for gay Americans to say "Look at Africa - straight people get it there, so we shouldn't have to examine why it is a gay disease here?"

It is a variation of the old straw man argument. Build an argument out of straw so that you can knock it over.

Dont be concerned with the Africans, worry about the problems here and in the gay community.

Personally, when I have seen the studies it is clear that the researchers and/or the people collecting the data rely on self-reporting re: denial of drug usage. Coke and Meth are hugely popular and huge immosuppressors.

http://www.washblade.com/2006/7-14/news/national/cdc.cfm

And Lesbians? Shouldn't it be a "gay Mans" Disease rather than a Gay disease...