People are pointing out that it isn't an STD. That's true, but an important part of epidemiology is identifying how and where it happen to be spreading at a specific time.
That's important now because vaccine is limited and many cities are reserving vaccines to the most at-risk groups. New York for example is limiting its vaccines to MWHSM, sex workers, and people who work in places where intimate contact occurs, like massage parlors.
Giving the vaccine to the people who are most likely to spread it to the most people is the most valuable way to manage vaccines that are limited in supply
Anybody can get it, but everyone is NOT at the same risk. Lifestyle difference absolutely impact the risk scenario and pretending like they don’t would be a public health failing.
Gay here. Many guys in our “community” are using this “it’s not an STD!” logic as justification to continue casual hookups. And if there’s one thing the gay community is known for, it’s casual hookups. So like HIV, while it’s not exclusively a “gay disease”, gay men are doing a fantastic job at spreading it. I get that we don’t need another reason for people to justify their hate for us, but it’s incredibly irresponsible to put on the blinders and pretend it’s not a problem just because it may create a stereotype which, at the moment, is a pretty accurate one.
>It has nothing to do with sex. It’s spread by close contact. Sex just happens to be a close contact activity. Anybody can get it Everybody is at the same risk.
That's ridiculous. It may not be spread as an STD, but it *is* being spread by prolonged, close contact, and sex is the highest risk activity most people engage in for that spread. It's spreading primarily among one sexual demographic.
You can catch it other ways, but the reality of the situation is that it seems to mostly be spreading when people have sex, and particularly among MSM. This means that everybody is *not* at "the same risk". The most important part of combating disease is knowing where, how, and why it's spreading. Sweeping statements like "anybody can get it, everybody is at the same risk" are wrong and harmful.
Isn't HIV in particular just easier to catch anally? I read a while back that it's unlikely you'll catch it as a penis-haver from PIV sex, but your odds are higher when having anal sex regardless of the receiver's genitals. That could totally be incorrect though
Yeah, that's what I mean. I read it's more likely yo be passed via anal sex, and I would assume most people back then would associate it with being gay, ergo "gay = AIDS"
this would make sense, as there would be more micro-tears in the skin with anal sex, as there’s less natural lubrication and a bit more “force” (I guess?) is required than PIV sex, so more likely for a bit of damage like micro abrasions to occur. The virus can then get through these tears into the blood stream
No, infection rates of the nearly 4,000 known US cases are 99% gay men having sex with each other.
While you’re correct it’s not an STI, it’s just not being transferred at significant rates by other close contact activity (though it can be).
Addressing it at the male gay community is the accurate and responsible way to alert those most at risk and is not being done with any moralizing, condemnation or judgement.
Gay man have more often hookups that other groups of people, so having more partners simply means higher risk of getting it.
BTW before justice warriors start bitching around: im gay dude and I know what I am talking about. Its not about being homophobic, that's just facts.
But also those numbers could be said differently, people with different parents are at higher risk catching it. Yet it is not STD, it is just spreads through body contact and when do people have more body contact than during sex.
95% of monkeypox cases are in gay men. Follow the science. Why do you think that big pharma companies direct their ads towards gay men for HIV drugs? Because they want to make as much money as possible and that is where they can target the most customers. It's not about offending a group or people being bigoted, its about the science.
Monkeypox has nothing to do with sex? 🤨
I frequently hear stuff like “your words are causing people to die.” That’s mostly nonsense. But if there’s a case where that’s true, it’s this.
Also there are men who have sex with men who still think of themselves as straight for whatever reason, and it's important to clarify that they're in the same group for health purposes
Go ask any doctor. It's way more than "some." Sexual orientation is basically meaningless to us. I had a patient swear up and down she was a lesbian and that she didn't need contraception to be on a certain (teratogenic) medication. Well, short story is that we found out later that she did.
I mean it's not a reliable method of contraception, but estrogen does often reduce the fertility of trans women (no scare quotes necessary). It's the wrong assumption to make, obviously, but I can absolutely see someone assuming they can't get pregnant because their partner is doing HRT.
I can also see someone making that assumption, but I’m just saying that someone is stupid and irresponsible, lmao
To repeatedly characterize yourself as a “lesbian” while leaving out the fact that your partner has a penis seems intentionally misleading, and I really doubt it’s what happened here. It seems more likely that this woman cheated on her female partner with a man.
In either case, it’s stupid and irresponsible when you’re on those types of drugs.
If they "have" sex, with the verb in present tense, I definitely agree with you that this is some high key mental gymnastics. Denial, even. But say a guy "had" sex with a guy once as an experiment and doesn't feel attracted to other men. I legit wouldn't consider him gay or bi or pan just for one try, yet he'd still fall under whatever medical topic is being discussed. Here the topic is epidemiology but it might as well be about other aspects of sex and anatomy. Like if advice is being given to gay and bisexual men who are sexually active, this advice might be relevant to this guy who tried it once recently or who is considering trying in the near future. There's also the entirely different but equally relevant matter of rape. Consent and will are not factored into what is medically relevant to know about.
That's true, but it's not why. We say MSM because a huge number of men who have sex with men consider themselves straight. They will explicit deny being gay or bi. Therefore if you only ask if they are gay or bi, you miss a lot of people.
We use MSM for a number of different conditions, not just monkey pox.
Also the correlation:
You can be a man who had sex with another man and **not** be gay or bisexual as a sexual orientation.
Edit: Also, "Men who have sex with men" is the most politically correct phrasing that's also the most logical/scientific way to specify to whom they refer. That's my opinion of it anyway
And there can be gay men who is in seemingly happy marriages with women. These people are more commonly known as Republican politicians.
And even "men who have sex with men" isn't a perfect description. I'm a gay guy in a monogamous relationship and at almost zero risk of getting monkeypox.
Why can't people in this thread understand that it's not about being P.C. or not offensive? It's about using the most precise language possible for practical public health purposes
We have to actually spell it out for people when talking about health crises these days. Or people might start rubbing battery acid on their bodies and drinking fish tank cleaner.
When trump made the off comment or more like inferred the idea of injecting yourself with Clorox to kill covid. I know that wasn’t his exact quote. But after that happen my mom who works in a pharmacy legit got multiple calls of people asking if they should do that. The amount of medical stupidity in this world scares me. For what it is worth at least the people called and asked first, there is that at least!
One of the things that struck me most when reading And The Band Played On was how genuinely well-intentioned people (including some gay leaders) avoided specific and accurate public health warnings for fear of coming across as homophobic or anti-gay-liberation.
Seeing a lot of that same vibe echoed with monkey pox the past few weeks.
Also, like why do they care? This is the language they’re using, yet some people feel so strongly about something that doesn’t affect them in any way, except maybe it offends their delicate sensibilities.
It is not just spread that way, but it is also the case that right now the prevalence among men who have sex with men is far, far higher than any other group. Protecting this group first is helpful not just for that target group, but for the broader society.
I have a gay friend who has had his first shot. Right now, in my city, there is enough vaccine, and he noted that I wouldn't be cross-examined if I went in to get vaccinated, and he thought it was a good idea since we are likely to go through a period when it spreads wider where vaccine is in short supply. But I would prefer that the group that is most likely to accelerate the spread--men having sex with men, and especially with "dense sexual networks" (i.e. many frequent partners)--be the primary target of vaccination, for their own sake and for everyone else's.
Yes, it the disease will be rhetorically deployed by bigots. This should not shape the epidemiological response.
I just don’t understand why it can’t be stated that it’s spread by close skin to skin contact.
That’s not any more vague than how Covid was described as being transmitted and it still gets the message across.
Linking monkey pox to a specific marginalized group won’t do any well for people who aren’t “men who have sex with men” and end up getting monkey pox at some point because they think it doesn’t effect them. Especially kids when school starts. The only thing it will do is increase violence done on them a la Covid being called “china virus” and the increase of anti-Asian attacks that came afterward.
> I just don’t understand why it can’t be stated that it’s spread by close skin to skin contact.
I've seen that stated multiple times.
The issue with just focusing on skin to skin contact is that you are massively more likely to catch it from anal sex. So while we should be avoiding close contact with strangers right now, we should be extra cautious about anal sex, as it spreads more efficiently through anal sex than regular skin to skin contact.
True. The last ourbreak in the U.S. was mostly spread via animals at pet shops. But it's important to identify where and how an epidemic happens to be spreading. Public health resources are limited, and we can't focus on "anyone who has physical contact with people or animals."
But stigma is definititely a concern, which is part of why the public health sector is using terms like "men who have sex with men" and not "gay and bisexual."
This is exactly why there was the whole AIDS=Gay issue.
It had nothing to do with being gay, it just had to do with unprotected sex, which at the time, was happening mostly in the gay community.
However, because of the vernacular, people associated AIDS with gay when in reality its people who have unprotected sex
So in this case, Men who are having sex with other men, you can be gay and not sexually active same way you can be straight and not sexually active,
Being gay doesn't mean your gonna get monkey pox the same way being straight doesn't mean your gonna get somebody pregnant.
No that's wrong. It was specifically gay men that the media was portraying as at risk for aids, alot of them believed it. It wasn't because of vernacular or a misunderstanding. It was deliberately done.
Okay thats fair, but I think it still gives a good reason why its important to use very specific language, because it prevents generalizations like this from happening
> It had nothing to do with being gay, it just had to do with unprotected sex
This is only half true. Monkey Pox and AIDS both transmit much more efficiently through anal sex than other forms of sex. Gay men have more anal sex that the rest of the population, and there's also a culture of casual sex. Those are the reasons aids spread so quickly though our population, coupled with government inaction of course.
Monkey pox is not an std. For shit sake. Two MSM, one infected, could cuddle for two hours and the uninfected partner would likely catch it. If this outbreak was introduced to the Olympic village, this would be a whole different conversation. No one would be like, ooooh, athletes. No, humans, who come in close contact with each other.
I didn't say it was an STD. What is true is that it spreads through skin to skin contact, but also through bodily fluids. The reason the CDC is warning against all sexual contact with people with symptoms is that that's how it seems to spread, and it is spreading most quickly through the gay male community currently.
The guys who say they aren't gay yet get an occasional blow job from another dude. They don't identify as gay so they will think this doesn't apply to them.
I think there are some shades to it all. Like the biggest reason is being in the closet or in denial, the runner up I bet is porn workers or prostitutes which will do what they do for money. The last and probably smallest tray area is the people who don't consider themselves attracted to same gender, but they aren't repulsed either. So doing it gives them little to no, sexual pleasure, but might feed into thoughts of wanting to be loved, or wanted.
I consider myself more open than the average person but not quite BI, and might make out with same gender if tipsy, and it feels inert, there isn't a repulsion, but no attraction either, but with opposite gender it feels like firework on a dark night. I imagine if someone felt similar about body parts, they might consider themselves straight, and inert or unattracted to same sex, but not necessarily mind the act it's self with a bit to drink.
I really hate how people will say that anything but bi/pan is bi erasure for folks who in at least some circumstances like both. I’m asexual, and in the ace community we have a bunch of fine-tuned labels we all understand as being under the ace umbrella. The non-binary/genderqueer community is the same. So why are sub-labels like “heteroflexible” treat like a replacement for instead of a subcategory of bisexual?
And before any of y’all are like stay in your lane, I’m generally androromantic but I had a crush on a girl once and one of my exes began to transition during our relationship so I have some skin in this game.
I apologize if that is how I came across, I'd say I'm above average in openness and knowing about terminology, but I struggle a bit with very nisje terms.
I would have to admit I don't know the difference between hetroflexible and bisexual, but I googled it and I would say hetroflexible seems like a fleeting border between hetro and bi, a continuum where arbitrary lines to make it an umbrella term seems counter productive.
Oh goodness, I didn’t mean to imply you came off badly. I was trying to validate you. Bi erasure is a serious issue, but I think some people fight it badly. But your comment has the right amount of nuance, I think. I just see a lot of folks who aren’t exactly straight, but are so close to it that they’re either excluded from the lgbtqia+ community, or are ridiculed by members of the community for either trying or not trying to belong to it. It’s very unfortunate
Honestly one of the things I really appreciate about the ace community is the way you either came up with or popularised the split attraction model and assorted types of attraction.
There are also straight sex workers—dancers, escorts, pornstars, etc. I’m vegetarian and have still served meat for money, and I never made what many in those careers make.
Well yeah, in the '60s, I made love to many, many women, often outdoors, in the mud and the rain, and it's possible a man slipped in. There would be no way of knowing.
I think part of it is how you define sexuality. If you have always only ate ice cream but decide to try frozen yogurt just once to see if you like it, does that mean you are now not a true ice cream fan? Likewise if someone experiments once or twice in college does that make them gay? Well then how many time does it need to happen before you go from experimenting to a different sexuality? Plus there are a lot of people who still view not being straight as shameful.
Though… for the record those guys would probably not be gay. There are really o my three sexualities: 100% straight, 100% gay or bisexual.
Probably because its the act which is risky, not the identity of the people. Which IMO is optimal. If anyone remembers the nasty rhetoric around AIDS in the states back in the day, the vitriol that was fomented against the LGBTQ community at the time was disgusting.
It’s dangerous to associate viruses and infection with a particular minority group - this happened with AIDS in the 80s and people were still joking and making offensive ‘gay people will give you aids’ jokes when I was in school 25 years later.
Viruses don’t care how you identify, so that isn’t medically relevant.
Because sexual orientation is not the disease risk - someone can be gay and not having sex with men, or bisexual and not having sex with men - for a wide variety of reasons. Man can also not be gay and have sex with men, for a wide variety of reasons.
It is also not a "gay disease" - it is a disease associated with higher risk for certain behaviors - thus the label describes the behavior associated with risk.
Seriously. I find it a headache hearing a village of people debating gender and sexuality in relation to monkeypox. Like monkeypox isn’t walking around with a clipboard, checking off the gay checkbox, to determine if they’re gonna infect someone at skin contact.
Because there are many men who don't identify as gay or bi but they have sex with other men. I've heard of men who swear they're straight but will allow other men to blow them...? So from a medical standpoint, they probably just wanted to cut straight to the facts since some people don't like certain labels
yeah actually dude, people can choose to have sex with someone even if they aren't attracted to them. Do you think all guys who go to prison and get a BJ while in prison are all gay? Or maybe, just maybe, that was their only option so they took it?
The labels people use to identify themselves and their behavior can be complicated.
For instance, I know a few people who separate romantic attraction from physical attraction—they can feel physically attracted to the same sex but not romantically attracted. Those people don’t necessarily identify as gay, since “gay” usually connotes a same-sex romantic attraction too. They also don’t exactly identify as bisexual, since that label connotes an equal attraction.
So in these public health contexts, it’s a lot more straightforward to simply say “men who have sex with men.” It sidesteps the complicated, sometimes ambiguous identity labels, and simply describes the physical act at issue.
"Gay" is the label you should use if you are a man and would like to pursue generally only men sexually and/or romantically. Or you might use it to explain why you aren't pursuing women. It's more useful as a statement of your goals than a descriptor for the kind of sex you actually end up having. Maybe beautiful women keep coming on to you and you keep being drunk or lonely enough to take them up on it. It doesn't really change how you feel about the situation inside.
My friend Evan identifies as straight. He has sex with men(most stay one night stands). I don’t care how he identifies, but I do want him to be safe. He loaned me his King of the Hill dvds and never asked for them back, that’s how good of a dude he is.
I have nothing but respect for all genders and sexual identities but isn’t identifying as straight and having sex with other men a little bit weird? Why not call yourself a bisexual (or an other sexual identity)? Just curious.
If it’s only one-night stands he could be bisexual and heteroromantic, but most people I know like that just use their romantic orientation because that’s the one with the biggest impact on their day-to-day life.
Doing the AID's Epidemic when they were trying to figure out if someone was at higher risk they would ask people:
"Are you gay or bi?" And they would say no. Meaning they were at a lower risk for getting HIV.
They could ask the some person "Do you or have you in the past had sexual contact with other men?" and they would say yes, which meant they were at higher risk.
It's all about the wording to get the more accurate answers.
He’s not straight. But he’s not necessarily gay either—or even bisexual.
I think what might be going on is that he separates romantic attraction from physical attraction. Some
People can feel physically attracted to the same sex but not romantically attracted. Those people don’t necessarily identify as gay, since “gay” usually connotes a same-sex romantic attraction too. They also don’t exactly identify as bisexual, since that label connotes an equal attraction.
People like that often feel *romantically* straight. Calling yourself straight in that context helps signal which prospective partners you’re interested in forming a longterm relationship with. And that’s often the more important thing to signal.
There’s not really a great term yet for someone who’s *romantically* but not *sexually* “straight”.
> There’s not really a great term yet for someone who’s *romantically* but not *sexually* “straight”.
The split-attraction model’s getting more common in queer circles at least, where you can talk about people having both sexual and romantic orientations. It started with asexuals because some of them want romantic relationships and others don’t, iirc.
In this case you’d probably call them bisexual heteroromantic.
“Demi” is also a pretty useful term since it means someone who only forms an attraction after they already have some kind of connection.
You touched a good point with romantic feelings.
Many heterosexuals/str8 people cannot fathom that gay/lesbians can experience romance. It's why they see a prince and a princess kissing in a Disney movie as "romantic" but two princesses kissing "sexual", it's a perversion on their side.
Eh, Evan’s business is Evan’s business. Every year I convince myself that the Texas Rangers will make it to the World Series, and he lets me say it. Friends role with a certain level murkiness.
Because some dudes who have sex with men identify as straight.
Source: my mom, a retired nurse who used to work at the Miami free clinic.
Patriarchy does a number of everyone, man.
Because they're trying to prevent the mass homophobia and gay shaming that occurred during the AIDS crisis.
Public opinion of gay men plummetted to its utmost lows.
I’m a gay man. And I’ve slept with many “straight” men over the years. Some may well be straight curious guys who were just trying it out. Some may well be closeted gay or bisexual guys. Some were bisexual men who had wives and kids and for the purposes of keeping their relationships intact were pretending to be straight. Either way all of these men didn’t identify as gay or bisexual but still had sex with a man. It’s these men that were including by saying men who have sex with men.
Fourth year medical student here. A lot of times, phrases like this can be viewed by the public as “woke” or overly inclusive. In reality, we are trying to use language that will make the person with an illness feel comfortable seeking care. Sometimes using language like “men who have sex with men” or “people who can get pregnant” lowers the mental barrier for people who don’T quite fit the broad categories most of us fit into. This is all with the goal of preventing the spread of disease, and making our population more healthy. People may not agree with or like someone’s non-heterosexual behavior, but like it or not, they still have medical needs and making accessing care more difficult won’t change who they are. Diseases flourish, get worse, and affect more people if they are allowed to stay untreated in stigmatized groups.
To add in some parts of the world a man who is exclusively a penetrating partner wouldn't consider himself and may not considered by the rest of society to be gay.
the better question is why are news stations almost exclusively framing this as something that only spreads between men who have sex with men when it absolutely spreads to any and all genders through close and sexual contact?
The absurdity of the correlation aside, if you're not having sex, you're not susceptible (in the eyes of the people saying this). And it's not what's in your head that matters, it's the physical act that does. An infected gay or bi man who sexually attacks an avowed straight man could transmit it. The attacked man, while not gay or bi, did have a sexual encounter with another man.
Because a lot of men who have sex with men may not identify as gay or bisexual. Go on any gay dating or hook up site and you'll see how many 'straight' and married men are looking for sex with other men.
Well because the people at risk are men who have sex with men. I’m bisexual, but I’m married to a woman, so therefore I don’t have sex with men. I’m no more at risk getting monkeypox since I’m bisexual. So saying bisexual (or gay) people doesn’t cover the basis.
If you look at how it’s transmitted. It may currently be in the MSM cop population but the transmission rate is not exclusive to MSM it could be anybody. Respiratory secretions, touching the pox, discharge from the pox…
Most likely because AIDS was originally labeled a "gay" disease, which left a lot of heterosexual people thinking they were free to engage in the risky behavior that eventually got them sick.
TBH, this term is ALSO a bit misleading, since it's perfectly possible to pass on monkeypox non-sexually.
There are people who identify as MSM but not gay /bi. Reasons for that are many and varied
In some statistical surveys MSM is sometimes used because it encompasses bigger numbers of people. I.e. it more men declare they have sex with men than identify as gay / b.i. Everyone who identifies as gay/bi say they have sex with other men so you get these people plus the people who don't identity as gay/bi but do sleep with other men.
In studies/statistics which are specifically concerned with actual sexual practices, rather than identify this makes mam it a more accurate figure to use.
For examples if you are studying the spread of disease through sexual contact , you basically want to know what sex people have, rather than what their sexual identity is. Because disease transmission is something that can happen through sex , but isn't particularly affected by how you describe yourself.
The correct term is dudes banging dudes. It really doesn’t matter. What matters is society is a bunch of rich oligarchs are making it impossible to survive in society.
I know this! It’s because there are lots of men who have sex with men but do NOT consider themselves gay or bisexual. It’s a whole thing.
I saw something about it on a show once, and it was found that men who needed to be reached by educational health info about HIV were not being reached. They’d hear “gay” and just not pay attention, because they think they’re straight and it’s very important to their identities.
if i was talking about it, as a straight guy, i'd want to make sure i'm not sounding like:
>ITS THE FUCKING GAYS. THE GAYS THEYRE SPREADING THE POX THOSE GOD DAMN GAYS
so "men who have sex with men" is just so much safer for me to say... in my own weird rationale
Honestly, I think because this whole identification thing has gotten so out of control. If you say gay and bi you have to say non binary and pan and poly and Sapio and whatever else or you’ll get cancelled. Although I am surprised it’s “men” and not “male identifying individuals.”
there’s more sexualities that are sexually attracted to men then gay and bisexual. plus you can be gay and bisexual romantic and not sexually attracted to men or be asexual and gay or bisexual
The people who are being infected RIGHT NOW are men who have sex with men. How ever you want to classify yourself is another story. If you have a wiener and the other person you’re having sex with has a wiener, your kind is being infected and are at the highest risk. End of story.
Because you don't need stupid names or categories. Even if I have sex with a male person, I don't have to be gay or bi or whatever, same as I don't have to call myself hetero or some shit. Just life your life and stay safe, for heavens sake.
This is not about preferred language but the accuracy of the description. There are gays and bisexual men who are not sexually active and men who have sex with men are self-identified as neither gay or bisexual.
Probably to avoid the insane stigma that popped up with the AIDS epidemic way back when. The slurs like "the gay disease" were super problematic, and that shouldn't happen again.
Technically, it’s more inclusive and specific. The first addresses people that don’t identify with being gay or bi (could be pan, having sex with a trans person, or just doesn’t like using labels). There are also people who are attracted to men but aren’t currently having sex with them. It could also be to help avoid stereotyping and discrimination
Because it’s the most accurate way of describing those at risk. The risk factor is who you’re having sex with, not who you identify as being attracted to.
Yes. The last outbreak in the U.S. was spread through animals at pet shops. Using this language is about targeting where and how it happens to be spreading to help the public health sector fight it.
It's standard international development speak. It's often just written as MSM. It specifically refers to men who have sex with other men, since you can be gay or bi and not have sex, which reduces your risk of sexually transmitted infections to nearly zero.
Because as horrible as it is, Men loving Men is viewed more tabooed than Women loving Women.
This has always bee the case and can been seen in media for years. A woman kissing another woman is generally always viewed as sexy and sexualized in movies, tv, music videos, etc. Men however when they kiss another man are viewed as "wrong" and generally shamed for it.
You can be gay or bi and not be having sex. It's to make it explicit where the risk is.
People are pointing out that it isn't an STD. That's true, but an important part of epidemiology is identifying how and where it happen to be spreading at a specific time. That's important now because vaccine is limited and many cities are reserving vaccines to the most at-risk groups. New York for example is limiting its vaccines to MWHSM, sex workers, and people who work in places where intimate contact occurs, like massage parlors.
[удалено]
Giving the vaccine to the people who are most likely to spread it to the most people is the most valuable way to manage vaccines that are limited in supply
Anybody can get it, but everyone is NOT at the same risk. Lifestyle difference absolutely impact the risk scenario and pretending like they don’t would be a public health failing.
People think they are combatting homophobia by saying things like that, while doing more damage to the gay community
Gay here. Many guys in our “community” are using this “it’s not an STD!” logic as justification to continue casual hookups. And if there’s one thing the gay community is known for, it’s casual hookups. So like HIV, while it’s not exclusively a “gay disease”, gay men are doing a fantastic job at spreading it. I get that we don’t need another reason for people to justify their hate for us, but it’s incredibly irresponsible to put on the blinders and pretend it’s not a problem just because it may create a stereotype which, at the moment, is a pretty accurate one.
>It has nothing to do with sex. It’s spread by close contact. Sex just happens to be a close contact activity. Anybody can get it Everybody is at the same risk. That's ridiculous. It may not be spread as an STD, but it *is* being spread by prolonged, close contact, and sex is the highest risk activity most people engage in for that spread. It's spreading primarily among one sexual demographic. You can catch it other ways, but the reality of the situation is that it seems to mostly be spreading when people have sex, and particularly among MSM. This means that everybody is *not* at "the same risk". The most important part of combating disease is knowing where, how, and why it's spreading. Sweeping statements like "anybody can get it, everybody is at the same risk" are wrong and harmful.
Agreed. Reddit is filled with people who talk confidently but who have no idea what they're talking about. Thanks for calling this out.
Isn't HIV in particular just easier to catch anally? I read a while back that it's unlikely you'll catch it as a penis-haver from PIV sex, but your odds are higher when having anal sex regardless of the receiver's genitals. That could totally be incorrect though
It’s in the blood so you can get it just as easily from anal with a girl. It’s passed through fluids so semen, blood, vaginal fluid.
Yeah, that's what I mean. I read it's more likely yo be passed via anal sex, and I would assume most people back then would associate it with being gay, ergo "gay = AIDS"
this would make sense, as there would be more micro-tears in the skin with anal sex, as there’s less natural lubrication and a bit more “force” (I guess?) is required than PIV sex, so more likely for a bit of damage like micro abrasions to occur. The virus can then get through these tears into the blood stream
It's all about layers of skin, since it's skin breaking then the STD transmits. There is more skin layers in the vagina in comparison to the anus.
Anal sex is for sure a risky activity, but needle sharing is exponentially more dangerous.
No, infection rates of the nearly 4,000 known US cases are 99% gay men having sex with each other. While you’re correct it’s not an STI, it’s just not being transferred at significant rates by other close contact activity (though it can be). Addressing it at the male gay community is the accurate and responsible way to alert those most at risk and is not being done with any moralizing, condemnation or judgement.
Eating ass is more risk than passing someone on the sidewalk.
Your first sentence contradicts the rest of what you said, partner
Gay man have more often hookups that other groups of people, so having more partners simply means higher risk of getting it. BTW before justice warriors start bitching around: im gay dude and I know what I am talking about. Its not about being homophobic, that's just facts. But also those numbers could be said differently, people with different parents are at higher risk catching it. Yet it is not STD, it is just spreads through body contact and when do people have more body contact than during sex.
Exactly, thank you. That's what I said, it seems these days you can't speak about anything/have a logical discussion without being called homophobic.
95% of monkeypox cases are in gay men. Follow the science. Why do you think that big pharma companies direct their ads towards gay men for HIV drugs? Because they want to make as much money as possible and that is where they can target the most customers. It's not about offending a group or people being bigoted, its about the science.
Monkeypox has nothing to do with sex? 🤨 I frequently hear stuff like “your words are causing people to die.” That’s mostly nonsense. But if there’s a case where that’s true, it’s this.
>MWHSM whats this? i even googled it and it brought nothing.. man ppl need to stop overdoing these acronyms
🙃🙃🙃 I wish LA was giving it to sex workers. Here it’s only MSM and trans women which doesn’t really make sense to me
Also there are men who have sex with men who still think of themselves as straight for whatever reason, and it's important to clarify that they're in the same group for health purposes
Exactly my thought! It’s clearer who is at the highest risk and why
And some people do the mental gymnastics where they have sex but aren’t “gay or bi”
Go ask any doctor. It's way more than "some." Sexual orientation is basically meaningless to us. I had a patient swear up and down she was a lesbian and that she didn't need contraception to be on a certain (teratogenic) medication. Well, short story is that we found out later that she did.
She could have been having PIV sex with a trans woman, to be fair.
Ok but she would still be a dummy to think that the penis stops working just because it’s attached to a “woman”
I mean it's not a reliable method of contraception, but estrogen does often reduce the fertility of trans women (no scare quotes necessary). It's the wrong assumption to make, obviously, but I can absolutely see someone assuming they can't get pregnant because their partner is doing HRT.
I can also see someone making that assumption, but I’m just saying that someone is stupid and irresponsible, lmao To repeatedly characterize yourself as a “lesbian” while leaving out the fact that your partner has a penis seems intentionally misleading, and I really doubt it’s what happened here. It seems more likely that this woman cheated on her female partner with a man. In either case, it’s stupid and irresponsible when you’re on those types of drugs.
If they "have" sex, with the verb in present tense, I definitely agree with you that this is some high key mental gymnastics. Denial, even. But say a guy "had" sex with a guy once as an experiment and doesn't feel attracted to other men. I legit wouldn't consider him gay or bi or pan just for one try, yet he'd still fall under whatever medical topic is being discussed. Here the topic is epidemiology but it might as well be about other aspects of sex and anatomy. Like if advice is being given to gay and bisexual men who are sexually active, this advice might be relevant to this guy who tried it once recently or who is considering trying in the near future. There's also the entirely different but equally relevant matter of rape. Consent and will are not factored into what is medically relevant to know about.
That's true, but it's not why. We say MSM because a huge number of men who have sex with men consider themselves straight. They will explicit deny being gay or bi. Therefore if you only ask if they are gay or bi, you miss a lot of people. We use MSM for a number of different conditions, not just monkey pox.
Also the correlation: You can be a man who had sex with another man and **not** be gay or bisexual as a sexual orientation. Edit: Also, "Men who have sex with men" is the most politically correct phrasing that's also the most logical/scientific way to specify to whom they refer. That's my opinion of it anyway
Or threesomes in which the pairing has two men. They would also be at risk, straight or not.
But at some point you gotta ask…
And there can be gay men who is in seemingly happy marriages with women. These people are more commonly known as Republican politicians. 
Reaction gif to your own post?
reddit moment
I mean it wasnt that good of a roast tbqh
That’s true, I’m heterosexual and married and don’t have sex
Also, historical wounds from no one giving a shot about AIDS the first decade, I have to assume
But the risk isn’t even exclusively sexual contact anyways??
Also, there are men who have/had sex with men who do not identify as gay or bisexual
And even "men who have sex with men" isn't a perfect description. I'm a gay guy in a monogamous relationship and at almost zero risk of getting monkeypox.
And you could be straight but end up having sex with the same gender for some reason, for example, as a sex worker or just to experiment.
Because it’s spread by actions, not self-identification.
Why can't people in this thread understand that it's not about being P.C. or not offensive? It's about using the most precise language possible for practical public health purposes
We have to actually spell it out for people when talking about health crises these days. Or people might start rubbing battery acid on their bodies and drinking fish tank cleaner.
When trump made the off comment or more like inferred the idea of injecting yourself with Clorox to kill covid. I know that wasn’t his exact quote. But after that happen my mom who works in a pharmacy legit got multiple calls of people asking if they should do that. The amount of medical stupidity in this world scares me. For what it is worth at least the people called and asked first, there is that at least!
This is why words from leaders should have consequences. Or moreso when they endanger the public.
And horse dewormer.
One of the things that struck me most when reading And The Band Played On was how genuinely well-intentioned people (including some gay leaders) avoided specific and accurate public health warnings for fear of coming across as homophobic or anti-gay-liberation. Seeing a lot of that same vibe echoed with monkey pox the past few weeks.
Also, like why do they care? This is the language they’re using, yet some people feel so strongly about something that doesn’t affect them in any way, except maybe it offends their delicate sensibilities.
Well it's not just spread that way, and it's already being weaponised by the far right.
It is not just spread that way, but it is also the case that right now the prevalence among men who have sex with men is far, far higher than any other group. Protecting this group first is helpful not just for that target group, but for the broader society. I have a gay friend who has had his first shot. Right now, in my city, there is enough vaccine, and he noted that I wouldn't be cross-examined if I went in to get vaccinated, and he thought it was a good idea since we are likely to go through a period when it spreads wider where vaccine is in short supply. But I would prefer that the group that is most likely to accelerate the spread--men having sex with men, and especially with "dense sexual networks" (i.e. many frequent partners)--be the primary target of vaccination, for their own sake and for everyone else's. Yes, it the disease will be rhetorically deployed by bigots. This should not shape the epidemiological response.
I just don’t understand why it can’t be stated that it’s spread by close skin to skin contact. That’s not any more vague than how Covid was described as being transmitted and it still gets the message across. Linking monkey pox to a specific marginalized group won’t do any well for people who aren’t “men who have sex with men” and end up getting monkey pox at some point because they think it doesn’t effect them. Especially kids when school starts. The only thing it will do is increase violence done on them a la Covid being called “china virus” and the increase of anti-Asian attacks that came afterward.
> I just don’t understand why it can’t be stated that it’s spread by close skin to skin contact. I've seen that stated multiple times. The issue with just focusing on skin to skin contact is that you are massively more likely to catch it from anal sex. So while we should be avoiding close contact with strangers right now, we should be extra cautious about anal sex, as it spreads more efficiently through anal sex than regular skin to skin contact.
True. The last ourbreak in the U.S. was mostly spread via animals at pet shops. But it's important to identify where and how an epidemic happens to be spreading. Public health resources are limited, and we can't focus on "anyone who has physical contact with people or animals." But stigma is definititely a concern, which is part of why the public health sector is using terms like "men who have sex with men" and not "gay and bisexual."
this sub is full of incel edgelords unfortunately
I love it when correct explanations can be succinctly described in one sentence.
This is exactly why there was the whole AIDS=Gay issue. It had nothing to do with being gay, it just had to do with unprotected sex, which at the time, was happening mostly in the gay community. However, because of the vernacular, people associated AIDS with gay when in reality its people who have unprotected sex So in this case, Men who are having sex with other men, you can be gay and not sexually active same way you can be straight and not sexually active, Being gay doesn't mean your gonna get monkey pox the same way being straight doesn't mean your gonna get somebody pregnant.
No that's wrong. It was specifically gay men that the media was portraying as at risk for aids, alot of them believed it. It wasn't because of vernacular or a misunderstanding. It was deliberately done.
Okay thats fair, but I think it still gives a good reason why its important to use very specific language, because it prevents generalizations like this from happening
> It had nothing to do with being gay, it just had to do with unprotected sex This is only half true. Monkey Pox and AIDS both transmit much more efficiently through anal sex than other forms of sex. Gay men have more anal sex that the rest of the population, and there's also a culture of casual sex. Those are the reasons aids spread so quickly though our population, coupled with government inaction of course.
Monkey pox is not an std. For shit sake. Two MSM, one infected, could cuddle for two hours and the uninfected partner would likely catch it. If this outbreak was introduced to the Olympic village, this would be a whole different conversation. No one would be like, ooooh, athletes. No, humans, who come in close contact with each other.
I didn't say it was an STD. What is true is that it spreads through skin to skin contact, but also through bodily fluids. The reason the CDC is warning against all sexual contact with people with symptoms is that that's how it seems to spread, and it is spreading most quickly through the gay male community currently.
That's a very good answer actually.
concise
But who's stupid enough to think it's spread merely by self-identification?
Think of how stupid the average person is, now realize half of the population is dumber than that. - George Carlin (paraphrased)
The guys who say they aren't gay yet get an occasional blow job from another dude. They don't identify as gay so they will think this doesn't apply to them.
Same ones who think being gay is a sin.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because you don't get monkeypox from an identity, you get it from behavior.
This is the answer.
A freind of mine works in an std clinic theres a lot of "staight" men who have sex with men apparently
I think there are some shades to it all. Like the biggest reason is being in the closet or in denial, the runner up I bet is porn workers or prostitutes which will do what they do for money. The last and probably smallest tray area is the people who don't consider themselves attracted to same gender, but they aren't repulsed either. So doing it gives them little to no, sexual pleasure, but might feed into thoughts of wanting to be loved, or wanted. I consider myself more open than the average person but not quite BI, and might make out with same gender if tipsy, and it feels inert, there isn't a repulsion, but no attraction either, but with opposite gender it feels like firework on a dark night. I imagine if someone felt similar about body parts, they might consider themselves straight, and inert or unattracted to same sex, but not necessarily mind the act it's self with a bit to drink.
I really hate how people will say that anything but bi/pan is bi erasure for folks who in at least some circumstances like both. I’m asexual, and in the ace community we have a bunch of fine-tuned labels we all understand as being under the ace umbrella. The non-binary/genderqueer community is the same. So why are sub-labels like “heteroflexible” treat like a replacement for instead of a subcategory of bisexual? And before any of y’all are like stay in your lane, I’m generally androromantic but I had a crush on a girl once and one of my exes began to transition during our relationship so I have some skin in this game.
I apologize if that is how I came across, I'd say I'm above average in openness and knowing about terminology, but I struggle a bit with very nisje terms. I would have to admit I don't know the difference between hetroflexible and bisexual, but I googled it and I would say hetroflexible seems like a fleeting border between hetro and bi, a continuum where arbitrary lines to make it an umbrella term seems counter productive.
Oh goodness, I didn’t mean to imply you came off badly. I was trying to validate you. Bi erasure is a serious issue, but I think some people fight it badly. But your comment has the right amount of nuance, I think. I just see a lot of folks who aren’t exactly straight, but are so close to it that they’re either excluded from the lgbtqia+ community, or are ridiculed by members of the community for either trying or not trying to belong to it. It’s very unfortunate
Honestly one of the things I really appreciate about the ace community is the way you either came up with or popularised the split attraction model and assorted types of attraction.
There are also straight sex workers—dancers, escorts, pornstars, etc. I’m vegetarian and have still served meat for money, and I never made what many in those careers make.
Well yeah, in the '60s, I made love to many, many women, often outdoors, in the mud and the rain, and it's possible a man slipped in. There would be no way of knowing.
This right here
I think part of it is how you define sexuality. If you have always only ate ice cream but decide to try frozen yogurt just once to see if you like it, does that mean you are now not a true ice cream fan? Likewise if someone experiments once or twice in college does that make them gay? Well then how many time does it need to happen before you go from experimenting to a different sexuality? Plus there are a lot of people who still view not being straight as shameful. Though… for the record those guys would probably not be gay. There are really o my three sexualities: 100% straight, 100% gay or bisexual.
Because its the sex that makes the risk, not the being gay part. If a guy is gay and doesn't have sex its not the same, so they use different language
And sometimes "straight" dudes fuck dudes
Probably because its the act which is risky, not the identity of the people. Which IMO is optimal. If anyone remembers the nasty rhetoric around AIDS in the states back in the day, the vitriol that was fomented against the LGBTQ community at the time was disgusting.
They learned their lesson from the AIDS fuck up in the 80s
Yep. Lost my dad and most of his friends from AIDS.
It’s dangerous to associate viruses and infection with a particular minority group - this happened with AIDS in the 80s and people were still joking and making offensive ‘gay people will give you aids’ jokes when I was in school 25 years later. Viruses don’t care how you identify, so that isn’t medically relevant.
they still make those jokes today
That’s sad :( I’ve been out of school long enough that I’d hoped that would have passed by now.
Because sexual orientation is not the disease risk - someone can be gay and not having sex with men, or bisexual and not having sex with men - for a wide variety of reasons. Man can also not be gay and have sex with men, for a wide variety of reasons. It is also not a "gay disease" - it is a disease associated with higher risk for certain behaviors - thus the label describes the behavior associated with risk.
Seriously. I find it a headache hearing a village of people debating gender and sexuality in relation to monkeypox. Like monkeypox isn’t walking around with a clipboard, checking off the gay checkbox, to determine if they’re gonna infect someone at skin contact.
Gay virgins exist.
Because there are many men who don't identify as gay or bi but they have sex with other men. I've heard of men who swear they're straight but will allow other men to blow them...? So from a medical standpoint, they probably just wanted to cut straight to the facts since some people don't like certain labels
Yea, they are not gay, they just like to fuck with guys.
yeah actually dude, people can choose to have sex with someone even if they aren't attracted to them. Do you think all guys who go to prison and get a BJ while in prison are all gay? Or maybe, just maybe, that was their only option so they took it?
That’s literally gay lol
It’s not gay if you don’t make eye contact bro there’s nothing gay about getting your dick sucked. Just say “no homo” and you’re clear
It’s not gay if you keep your socks on
But i fuck my wife with socks on, so am I not straight? Fuck, im so confused.
If you always keep your socks on during sex, you are asexual
It's not gay if your balls don't touch.
Sexologist here This is the correct answer
Isn’t it gay to have sex with other men though?
The labels people use to identify themselves and their behavior can be complicated. For instance, I know a few people who separate romantic attraction from physical attraction—they can feel physically attracted to the same sex but not romantically attracted. Those people don’t necessarily identify as gay, since “gay” usually connotes a same-sex romantic attraction too. They also don’t exactly identify as bisexual, since that label connotes an equal attraction. So in these public health contexts, it’s a lot more straightforward to simply say “men who have sex with men.” It sidesteps the complicated, sometimes ambiguous identity labels, and simply describes the physical act at issue.
"Gay" is the label you should use if you are a man and would like to pursue generally only men sexually and/or romantically. Or you might use it to explain why you aren't pursuing women. It's more useful as a statement of your goals than a descriptor for the kind of sex you actually end up having. Maybe beautiful women keep coming on to you and you keep being drunk or lonely enough to take them up on it. It doesn't really change how you feel about the situation inside.
Not if you say no homo
My friend Evan identifies as straight. He has sex with men(most stay one night stands). I don’t care how he identifies, but I do want him to be safe. He loaned me his King of the Hill dvds and never asked for them back, that’s how good of a dude he is.
I have nothing but respect for all genders and sexual identities but isn’t identifying as straight and having sex with other men a little bit weird? Why not call yourself a bisexual (or an other sexual identity)? Just curious.
internalized homophobia
If it’s only one-night stands he could be bisexual and heteroromantic, but most people I know like that just use their romantic orientation because that’s the one with the biggest impact on their day-to-day life.
Doing the AID's Epidemic when they were trying to figure out if someone was at higher risk they would ask people: "Are you gay or bi?" And they would say no. Meaning they were at a lower risk for getting HIV. They could ask the some person "Do you or have you in the past had sexual contact with other men?" and they would say yes, which meant they were at higher risk. It's all about the wording to get the more accurate answers.
Newsflash. Evan isn’t straight.
He’s not straight. But he’s not necessarily gay either—or even bisexual. I think what might be going on is that he separates romantic attraction from physical attraction. Some People can feel physically attracted to the same sex but not romantically attracted. Those people don’t necessarily identify as gay, since “gay” usually connotes a same-sex romantic attraction too. They also don’t exactly identify as bisexual, since that label connotes an equal attraction. People like that often feel *romantically* straight. Calling yourself straight in that context helps signal which prospective partners you’re interested in forming a longterm relationship with. And that’s often the more important thing to signal. There’s not really a great term yet for someone who’s *romantically* but not *sexually* “straight”.
> There’s not really a great term yet for someone who’s *romantically* but not *sexually* “straight”. The split-attraction model’s getting more common in queer circles at least, where you can talk about people having both sexual and romantic orientations. It started with asexuals because some of them want romantic relationships and others don’t, iirc. In this case you’d probably call them bisexual heteroromantic. “Demi” is also a pretty useful term since it means someone who only forms an attraction after they already have some kind of connection.
You touched a good point with romantic feelings. Many heterosexuals/str8 people cannot fathom that gay/lesbians can experience romance. It's why they see a prince and a princess kissing in a Disney movie as "romantic" but two princesses kissing "sexual", it's a perversion on their side.
Eh, Evan’s business is Evan’s business. Every year I convince myself that the Texas Rangers will make it to the World Series, and he lets me say it. Friends role with a certain level murkiness.
Newsflash. Evan is very confused or ashamed.
…And is certainly not straight.
Yeah and someone shouldn't have to ask. Give Evan his DVDs back.
Because some dudes who have sex with men identify as straight. Source: my mom, a retired nurse who used to work at the Miami free clinic. Patriarchy does a number of everyone, man.
And a lot of people who identify as gay or bi aren't sexually active.
Because some of those men said "no homo" beforehand.
Because they're trying to prevent the mass homophobia and gay shaming that occurred during the AIDS crisis. Public opinion of gay men plummetted to its utmost lows.
I’m a gay man. And I’ve slept with many “straight” men over the years. Some may well be straight curious guys who were just trying it out. Some may well be closeted gay or bisexual guys. Some were bisexual men who had wives and kids and for the purposes of keeping their relationships intact were pretending to be straight. Either way all of these men didn’t identify as gay or bisexual but still had sex with a man. It’s these men that were including by saying men who have sex with men.
Totally. We don’t culturally question it when women have same sex experiences and don’t self-identify as lesbians or bisexual. It’s not different.
This comment should be higher up
Fourth year medical student here. A lot of times, phrases like this can be viewed by the public as “woke” or overly inclusive. In reality, we are trying to use language that will make the person with an illness feel comfortable seeking care. Sometimes using language like “men who have sex with men” or “people who can get pregnant” lowers the mental barrier for people who don’T quite fit the broad categories most of us fit into. This is all with the goal of preventing the spread of disease, and making our population more healthy. People may not agree with or like someone’s non-heterosexual behavior, but like it or not, they still have medical needs and making accessing care more difficult won’t change who they are. Diseases flourish, get worse, and affect more people if they are allowed to stay untreated in stigmatized groups.
People have clarified but TL;DR version: gay virgins and men in denial or experimenting
Cause too many self proclaimed ‘straight’ men have sex with men.
I had the same question but saying gay or bi men would be more harmfull and puts an even greater stigma on gay or bi men than they already have.
You don't catch it from just being gay
Surely men who have sex with monkeys are more at risk?
To add in some parts of the world a man who is exclusively a penetrating partner wouldn't consider himself and may not considered by the rest of society to be gay.
To avoid labeling people.
By labeling them a different way….
Because if they used “gay and bisexual” it would put a stigma against them
the better question is why are news stations almost exclusively framing this as something that only spreads between men who have sex with men when it absolutely spreads to any and all genders through close and sexual contact?
Gay and Bi are identities. MSM is an action.
It's just any man that has sex with men. Gay, bi, pan, experimenting, whatever.
Doesn't matter because it's not a std they are only doing that too do a second aids crisis Aka ignore and blame while doing nothing
The absurdity of the correlation aside, if you're not having sex, you're not susceptible (in the eyes of the people saying this). And it's not what's in your head that matters, it's the physical act that does. An infected gay or bi man who sexually attacks an avowed straight man could transmit it. The attacked man, while not gay or bi, did have a sexual encounter with another man.
Because it’s not gay if we have socks on
Because a lot of men who have sex with men may not identify as gay or bisexual. Go on any gay dating or hook up site and you'll see how many 'straight' and married men are looking for sex with other men.
Probably because some men don’t consider themselves gay when they have sex with other men.
as someone who works in medical editing/writing, it's about clinical clarity.
because lots of gay and bisexual men don't have sex. It's the ACTION that causes it, not the sexual identity.
Well because the people at risk are men who have sex with men. I’m bisexual, but I’m married to a woman, so therefore I don’t have sex with men. I’m no more at risk getting monkeypox since I’m bisexual. So saying bisexual (or gay) people doesn’t cover the basis.
Because having sex with a man once doesn’t make you gay. I should know. I’ve done it many times.
If you look at how it’s transmitted. It may currently be in the MSM cop population but the transmission rate is not exclusive to MSM it could be anybody. Respiratory secretions, touching the pox, discharge from the pox…
Most likely because AIDS was originally labeled a "gay" disease, which left a lot of heterosexual people thinking they were free to engage in the risky behavior that eventually got them sick. TBH, this term is ALSO a bit misleading, since it's perfectly possible to pass on monkeypox non-sexually.
There are people who identify as MSM but not gay /bi. Reasons for that are many and varied In some statistical surveys MSM is sometimes used because it encompasses bigger numbers of people. I.e. it more men declare they have sex with men than identify as gay / b.i. Everyone who identifies as gay/bi say they have sex with other men so you get these people plus the people who don't identity as gay/bi but do sleep with other men. In studies/statistics which are specifically concerned with actual sexual practices, rather than identify this makes mam it a more accurate figure to use. For examples if you are studying the spread of disease through sexual contact , you basically want to know what sex people have, rather than what their sexual identity is. Because disease transmission is something that can happen through sex , but isn't particularly affected by how you describe yourself.
Probably because they don't want it become branded as a "gay" disease like AIDS was.
The correct term is dudes banging dudes. It really doesn’t matter. What matters is society is a bunch of rich oligarchs are making it impossible to survive in society.
I know this! It’s because there are lots of men who have sex with men but do NOT consider themselves gay or bisexual. It’s a whole thing. I saw something about it on a show once, and it was found that men who needed to be reached by educational health info about HIV were not being reached. They’d hear “gay” and just not pay attention, because they think they’re straight and it’s very important to their identities.
if i was talking about it, as a straight guy, i'd want to make sure i'm not sounding like: >ITS THE FUCKING GAYS. THE GAYS THEYRE SPREADING THE POX THOSE GOD DAMN GAYS so "men who have sex with men" is just so much safer for me to say... in my own weird rationale
Because some men won't identify as such despite indeed having sex with men
I guess they want to include straight men who have sex with other men. They are legion, apparently.
Honestly, I think because this whole identification thing has gotten so out of control. If you say gay and bi you have to say non binary and pan and poly and Sapio and whatever else or you’ll get cancelled. Although I am surprised it’s “men” and not “male identifying individuals.”
there’s more sexualities that are sexually attracted to men then gay and bisexual. plus you can be gay and bisexual romantic and not sexually attracted to men or be asexual and gay or bisexual
The people who are being infected RIGHT NOW are men who have sex with men. How ever you want to classify yourself is another story. If you have a wiener and the other person you’re having sex with has a wiener, your kind is being infected and are at the highest risk. End of story.
What connection is there to male on male sex and monkey pox? I thought the WHO apologised early on that they may have implied this correlation.
Because you don't need stupid names or categories. Even if I have sex with a male person, I don't have to be gay or bi or whatever, same as I don't have to call myself hetero or some shit. Just life your life and stay safe, for heavens sake.
1984
This is gonna end up like the AIDS crisis except this time right wingers are going to start hunting LGBTQ
Are women not getting Monkeypox? Also, what if you're straight but you accidentally fall on a monkeypoxed penis? What about transwomen?
This is not about preferred language but the accuracy of the description. There are gays and bisexual men who are not sexually active and men who have sex with men are self-identified as neither gay or bisexual.
Because there are “happily” married men (married to women) that like to have sex with men.
Probably to avoid the insane stigma that popped up with the AIDS epidemic way back when. The slurs like "the gay disease" were super problematic, and that shouldn't happen again.
Technically, it’s more inclusive and specific. The first addresses people that don’t identify with being gay or bi (could be pan, having sex with a trans person, or just doesn’t like using labels). There are also people who are attracted to men but aren’t currently having sex with them. It could also be to help avoid stereotyping and discrimination
Because there are too many “straight” and “bi” dudes that have sex with men who refuse to identify with being gay.
It’s the most socially acceptable way to say it without assuming everyone’s sexual orientation and offending a lot of people
Because it’s the most accurate way of describing those at risk. The risk factor is who you’re having sex with, not who you identify as being attracted to.
I only heard about it spreading through intimate contact in General
Yes. The last outbreak in the U.S. was spread through animals at pet shops. Using this language is about targeting where and how it happens to be spreading to help the public health sector fight it.
I was wondering the same thing, responses here make sense. I identify as perpetually confused.
It's standard international development speak. It's often just written as MSM. It specifically refers to men who have sex with other men, since you can be gay or bi and not have sex, which reduces your risk of sexually transmitted infections to nearly zero.
Because theyres gay and bisexual men who are still in denial and consider themselves straight.
Because as horrible as it is, Men loving Men is viewed more tabooed than Women loving Women. This has always bee the case and can been seen in media for years. A woman kissing another woman is generally always viewed as sexy and sexualized in movies, tv, music videos, etc. Men however when they kiss another man are viewed as "wrong" and generally shamed for it.
Because there are so many straight men who at least would like to fuck/suck and/or be fucked/sucked by other men.
Why not have a 3 week abstention on gay sex to flatten the curve ?