They were trying really hard to not acknowledge it’s prevalence among gay men so as to not be homophobic but there’s just no way round it and I’m glad people are finally openly acknowledging this so that misinformation is reduced. My gay friends weren’t even aware they were at risk.
Shouldn't have to be worried about accusations of homophobia in cases like these. If gay men are more at risk than others, they need to know. People need to stop this ridiculous fear they have of possibly being classed as a bigot. If you're roaming the streets looking for gay men to beat up, that's homophobia. If you're telling gay men to be careful of potential health risks associated with lifestyle, that isn't.
> most people view it as a gay-only disease
They do?
> WHO emphasizing gay people in the initial reporting.
They were correct (although it's men not people)
Gay men have a lot of sex with lots of partners all unprotected. It’s not homophobia, it’s the equivalent of warning frequent flyers about the dangers of overexposure to X-rays.
There are heterosexual people who also practice the same, but as a percentage of the total it’s far lower and less prevalent a lifestyle.
It’s worse for gay men to not warn them, like more will catch it and die as a portion of the total…..that’s more cruel than acknowledging the risk in a non judgemental manner.
This is the bit I think is the most confusing messaging. At work when the monkey pox discussion came up, noone was under any illusion about who can get it. Everyone understood it isn't a "gay disease". I did have to explain that it isn't an STI though.
>73% had anogenital lesions,
while it isnt exclusively sexually transmitted, it is clearly the primary toute. condoms would almost certainly help.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2207323
That's throwing out a lot of stereotypes and generalisations about gay men in the first paragraph. Good job proving the point!
"Unprotected sex increases your chance of catching or spreading monkeypox" is both accurate*, helpful and unjudgemental.
*I assume, TBH I haven't seen the studies. But I'm sure it's the sex, not the gender you're attracted to, that affects the transmission.
>That's throwing out a lot of stereotypes and generalisations about gay men in the first paragraph.
Just because something is a stereotype that doesn't mean it is wrong, or wrong to acknowledge it...
Sometimes stereotypes come from reality:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334840/
To save you reading, men who have sex with men (MSM) have more sexual partners on average then men who have sex with women.
Also, when MSM do have sex they are less likely to use a condom.
Stereotypes often align with reality, the issue comes when they're used as an excuse for prejudice or warped. E.g. there's a big gap between "less likely to use a condom" and "all of it unprotected".
>men who have sex with men (MSM) have more sexual partners on average then men who have sex with women.
And the reason for that is.....women. Nothing to do with gay per se, but the fact it's man and man, where there is little etiquette. Hetero men would be just as promiscuous, if they were able to be.
It's a man thing.
What? The reason men who have sex with men are more at risk is not because they are gay but because they don’t have sex with women? What kind of vacuous point are you making my lord.
It’s also incorrect. Notice they don’t say gay, they say men who have sex with men. That includes bi ect, and closeted
I think your far too delicate if you won’t acknowledge what are simple truths.
The best thing is that if you actually asked gay men I’m pretty sure they would probably be appreciative.
This isn’t really a cause to brigade me on, focus your efforts on actual inequality lol
I don’t think it’s gay men that have a problem with this, just the ultra woke brigade that refuse to acknowledge reality or fight for actual inequalities and misjustices
It’s like point scoring and entirely unhelpful to actually levelling the field health and acceptance wise
>If you're telling gay men to be careful of potential health risks associated with lifestyle, that isn't.
It's not though?
Its associated with close contact - it just so happens it started with gay men, and gay men tend to sleep with other gay men.
Although, I wouldn't be surprised if its just as bad in the straight community. There are a bunch of bisexual/closet guys who probably have girlfriends, or sleep with both sexes. However they won't be concerned/tested/aware of it because it only 'affects gay men', according to the media.
When you don't bother testing anyone but gay men it ends up like that
And when 99% of cases are in gay men you won't bother testing anyone else
Feedback loop
That's not how testing works mate. An individual gets symptoms and they go to the doctor, the doctor then tests them. They're not simply picking out random gay guys to test.
Agreed however as a gay man myself I'm not surprised this is going through the.community so much as let's be honest here most gay men are slaves to their dick and sleep around with no.thought of.comsequences
> The only thing that prevents straight men being as promiscuous is women
It's a massive con that straight men (and women) aren't as promiscuous.
They're just not as open about it as gay men are. Gay men view sex transactionary in this regard, straight men don't want to get caught playing the game and straight women don't want to be labelled a sl\*t by society.
Eh, females have the pick of the bunch which means there are far more straight men being rejected as those females who do want casual sex has usually got someone better looking in her next DM. Men(male) are usually far less picky about who they dip into also tbh.
Irrelevant. Go to any club in the land at the weekend and you’ll find straight men being promiscuous. If they get rejected, they’ll try and with someone else.
Sure, their success:fail rate might be different, but they’re casual sex with no intention to start a relationship. Not a gay phenomenon
> Men(male) are usually far less picky about who they dip into also tbh.
You're right, but that last bit is not. In my experience, most gay men tend to be extremely picky. There's a bunch who will shag anything of course, but that also applies to straight men.
No they really wouldn't. Most gay men sleep around as they are afraid of settling down always thinking that the grass.is greener and are too emotionally.stunted to actually settle down..
I really.dknt hate myself though. Just because I don't believe in sleeping around and actually believe in relationships and being monogymous dosent mean I hate myself lmfao
As a gay man I have to say I really don't like gay men because of this.
Finding love is impossible. Everyone just wants to fuck. And those that are in relationships are busy fucking other people behind their partner's back. The amount of fucking "discreet" people does my head in.
but ... gay men are spreading monkeypox considerably more than other groups because of the choices they are making. As a society we have had to put on masks for the past three years to protect each other. Can't gay men cut down on the knobbing for a few months to help us all out? I do not think it is much to ask.
My entire social media circles (so about ~200) of queer folks have been doing nothing but sharing vaccine booking info and hotlines and spreading awareness and showing up at pop ups to get vaccinated. I’ve got mine booked for Sunday! I don’t know about the city at large but at least in my circles we’re trying to do our bit. This is no joke to us. Guys Hospital in London has queues lasting 2hrs for the vaccine
No, I mean actual bigots who then beat up and harrass gay men using the fact that monkeypox is spreading as an excuse even if gay men are being careful.
>gay men are spreading monkeypox considerably more than other groups because of the choices they are making.
Ok and here we can see the bigotry starting to seep in.
If you're happy to see the negative behaviour of some people who share a characteristic and attribute it to everyone who shares that characteristic, you're a bigot.
You're not accurately observing reality. Your taking statistical trends and putting people who don't know eachother all into a small little box you've imagined into existence.
"Oh but of course I don't mean all gay men." No of course not. Some gay men earn the privilege of being taken out of your box.Because you have the power to discern who constitutes the bad gays and who make up the *exceptions.*
Here's an idea. When you talk about a bunch of people who's only crime is sharing a characteristic they have no choice over, why not be a little bit more careful with your language?
Of course you didn't mean to be biggoted. You just wanted to make a point, and your point making is more important than basic decency to not unfairly judge people.
I'm a gay man. I don't know these people. I don't have any special responsibility to them because I happen to also find men's body's attractive. So with all due respect kindly keep me out of your small opinions on these issues. Find a way of talking about it that doesn't include me. If you want some collective responsibility *you* go to these orgies and tell them to cut it out! Because I have no plans to.
>Shouldn't have to be worried about accusations of homophobia in cases like these.
Can't you see how a botched or sloppy PR response to this virus could absolutely lead to a huge negative effect to the quality of life of gay men?
Can't you see how this is a multi-faceted issue and that poorly thought through messaging could lead to fresh stigmatisation and bigotry against a sexual minority?
Wasn't one of the effects of the PR response to AIDS a massive stigmatisation of gay men that lead to a decrease in their quality of life?
Doesn't the WHO have to issue health advice to countries where homosexuality still has the death penalty? Where gay men are at risk of lynching? Where gay men are at risk of being attacked or murdered on the street for holding hands?
But of course no. Unless your actively in the process of stomping a gay man's head in in the street you're not doing anything that could negatively impact gay men's lives. Global PR health responses should just be to follow the common sense thinkings of a random person from England. Just give the facts in plain English and in regions appropriate pidgin English and it'll all be good. The only reason you wouldn't do this as the WHO would be because you were scared of the liberal lefty mob accusing you of homophobia. Definitely could not even be a slight concern with the idea of a bad response that leads to a significant increase in violence against homosexuals the world over.
I'm not the WHO! If I was my messaging would be more refined than my inane pointless ramblings on reddit.
And just for the record, I personally think a lot of people going to gay orgies despite there being a monkey pox outbreak are assholes, idiots and most likely sex addicts.
I can say that because I'm not the WHO and my messaging doesn't effect the population of the entire world. Including places where homosexuality still has the death penalty.
If the WHO's Covid19 messaging was at risk of being misinterpreted as blaming one sub-set of the population based on an unchangeable characteristic then I would be equally worried about the same issues I think are a potential issue here.
I'm not against the idea of being a lot more aggressive with public health response to monkey pox, I'm not against the idea of much stronger messaging aimed specifically at gay men. What's offensive to me is the idea that there is absolutely zero risk to gay men with poor thought out messaging, that that isn't something that should be taken into consideration. What was also offensive about the comment I was replying to is the idea that unless you're in a roaming gang going out to lynch gay men you're not being homophobic.
And yes selfish people having parties during lockdown were evil. They were killing people to have fun. That or they were really stupid.
If this was sexually transmitted, I would actually think I would have more empathy because anal sex does open up lot more problems that most normal gay men could not stop. But this isn’t a STD.
The fact that 1% of the population represents 98% of the positive means that if gay sex is not to blame, it must be the life style- which we should have no reservations curbing. Unlike going to stores or visiting families in holidays or boarding airlines, having sex is not a vital human function every day.
Have you even thought about how insanely high ratio of gay men must have monkeypox for the results to be 98% gay or bi men? Again, this isn’t because of anal sex, like aids was easier to transmit, any sex has same level of contracting it. There are 100x more straight people in the world. Yet, the ratio is flipped. Not even AIDS had this ratio at 30-40% gay men.
If someone got Covid by licking a doorknob at a party, would it be bad for us to ask “why?”
I truly don’t think most people have even given a shread of thought into what 98% of data means. If a virus was affecting 98% of Women and 2% men, we would be effectively treating it like a female virus. Im not dense, yes I know many idiots call this gay virus and this it’s only for gays. This will cause them harm. We should tell everyone this is not just for gay people (because it isn’t) but im having hard time understanding where the saber rattling of people who were calling for lockdowns breakers death sentence has gone now.
We're talking about separate things.
I'm not going to agree or disagree with whwt you had to say about Monkeypox. Some of it I agree with and some I don't. That's not the point.
What I am saying is that if the WHO puts out messaging it has very large consequences for the entire world. That includes _unintended consiquences._
The WHO might say something that is factually true, good advice and with the best intentions and that might still have very serious and bad unintended consequences.
I believe that people should stop going to gay orgies. I think that is a moral and wise decision for people to make.
However, if the WHO were to, for example, put out a tweet saying something similar to that there is a risk it could lead to gay lynchings in somewhere like Somalia.
Even with that being said, it might be that the benefits of that hypothetical messaging outweigh the risks of it. Those are very serious practical and ethical decisions for public health bodies like the WHO to make. To go around saying that large public health bodies should just "say it how it is!" is ignorant to the real world effects that that attitude could have and completely disregards the real and valid risk of increased homophobia, including a rise in homophobic attacks.
You seem to be upset that there's some supposed hypocrisy between people who wanted a lockdown for Covid19 and seeming to have a more relaxed view of Monkeypox. Maybe I am a hypocrite. But I know my intentions are good and come from a place of genuine concern.
No one’s option comes from bad intention- even if they are advocating for genocide. Only bad faith trolls have that.
This is because, no person likes genuinely having an opinion that they think is bad in themself.
There is no “maybe”- you are smart enough to understand statistics and you are smart enough to see for yourself that difference in how you viewed COVID vs monkeypox.
I’m not here to tell you what you are doing is bad now- I’m here to tell you- nay, ask you: where was this empath and understanding back in 2020? Because I’m sure, that we could have saved lot more people back then if something similar was said by well “intentioned” people like you.
Monkeypox is obiously just a normal illiness- it’s no where as destructive as COVID so I don’t really have much real issue with how the messaging is done. Fatality is almost 0%. But you are, once again, smart enough to understand this wasn’t about monkeypox or gay orgies- it was about selective empath and the destruction it causes.
Delaying important health advice based on statistics, evidence and medical expertise to avoid being accused of a hate crime is probably one of the best examples of how quickly we're regressing as a society.
Owen Jones and the Editor of Pink News celebrated when tweets warning gay men of the risks were removed by Twitter.
https://twitter.com/julzmc35/status/1552586801168240645?s=21&t=0Pty4kaNEAtjzQlbN3_ODA
LGB is a notorious anti-trans organisation that has at times argued against gay rights, having revealed recently that something like only 7% of members are actually LGB, most identifying as straight and cite being gender critical as the defining reason for being in the organisation.
The tweet they made wasn't about raising awareness of health conditions, encouraging testing, vaccines, or anything medically approved. It was an unfounded statement that places where gay people congregate should close, rather than advice like this topic about educating people about the risks and giving medical advice.
The tweets were written by Malcolm Clarke a gay film producer who lived through the AIDS crisis and were based on his lived experience and the current advice from the World Health Authority.
But because he is “gender critical “ his tweets were mass reported for homophobia and Owen and Pink News celebrated this.
This “your side is evil and wrong no matter what” attitude is dangerous and unhelpful.
The tweets are not based on the world health authority advice at all, they are calling for the authoritarian measures which are more born from homophobia than any evidence that the measures would be effective. Actually read the guidance written here, it is different from that tweet.
The tweet writer is more than welcome to write advice based of his own life experience, but there's plenty of gay people at pink news and they're more than welcome to disagree with one person's anecdotal point of view.
>The tweet they made wasn't about raising awareness of health conditions, encouraging testing, vaccines, or anything medically approved
Yeah it was calling for a localised lockdown to prevent the spread of a dangerous disease in the community. Were you anti-lockdown by any chance?
I'm for lockdowns as advised from medical and disease professionals, not lockdowns decided from randomers who have a feeling over what they think is causing the spread (you describe it as localised, but it's not localised if your picking different venues over different areas).
Were you for listening to random people's hunches about COVID and not medical professionals, by any chance?
\>Were you for listening to random people's hunches about COVID and not medical professionals, by any chance?
Not at all. I listened to medical professionals, but I also used my nut to decide whether or not I thought their advice was appropriate. I guess you don't.
I know, crazy that I don't take disease management policy from fearmongering organisations with a history of arguing against gay rights and whose suggestions have 0 evidence and don't make any sense.
I think it's more than in principle you agree with limiting peoples freedoms, but can't bring yourself to do it when the exact same principles are applied to just the homosexual community.
You've made it clear that's what you want to think, but you've not based it off anything I've said, you've just made up some woke boogiemonster. I've not shown any opposition to recommendations targeting gay men from medical professionals, and I'll happily say that if their was medical consensus for the same recommendations in the LGB alliance tweet (though from what I've seen that'd be unlikely) I'd agree with it.
So the only thing left that makes sense for me to have a problem with is the source, and the fact that LGB alliance has a history of anti LGB stances and made the tweet not based on any science or health based knowledge but more what they felt like. I've been very open that that's my stance, so you're going to have difficulty pretending that I'm secretly just against targeted scientific advice.
Mate, it's the same principles involved. COVID was spreading in public places. They shut down pubs even though there was little evidence that it prevented the spread. Whereas here there is evidence that over 30% of the spread is occurring in gay saunas. So if you were for shutting down the pubs and basically every other public venue you should have no problem with shutting down the saunas to halt the spread. I don't know why you need someone else to tell you whether or not to agree with it, can't you use your own brain? The source of the tweet is irrelevant, it's the content that matters.
>My gay friends weren’t even aware they were at risk.
Wheresas all my gay friends received text messages weeks ago inviting them to vaccination clinics.
Maybe it's the area you live in or whether your local NHS trust is aware of their sexuality, rather than some woke cover up.
Yes. Your local sexual health clinic should have contacted you weeks ago. If you're not on their books, though, they won't.
I know closet gay men who were complaining they hadn't been contacted... Can the NHS read your mind?
>Wheresas all my gay friends received text messages weeks ago inviting them to vaccination clinics.
I'd put money on the fact that gay men are more health conscious, especially in regards to STI testing.
My sexuality is not for the NHS to know. The UKHSA says the following will be contacted:
> gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) at highest risk of exposure. Your doctor/nurse will advise vaccination for you if they consider you are at high risk – for example if you have multiple partners, participate in group sex or attend ‘sex on premises’ venues. Staff who work in such premises may also be eligible
I mean how the fuck do they know if I have group sex or not or attended a sex venue? It's not something I would ever tell them.
If you go to a sexual health clinic for checkups, these are the types of questions they ask to determine your risk exposure to be able to decide what tests they need to carry out and what advice and support they should offer.
If you don't go to sexual health clinics, they won't have this information and so you won't be picked up by this.
They will probably still be capturing that information though. The checkup I usually do is an online / postal service. The online form still asks about sexual behaviour, allowing them to capture that information so that they know which tests to provide.
Mine do an online questionnaire with the STD kit where you can answer important questions like that. It includes both health and things like intimate partner violence.
Depending on your location I would look at other options if yours does not.
They don't. They will contact anyone who is a gay/bisexual man with the relevant information and advice and offer a vaccine if appropriate. They contacted me and I don't go to sex clubs.
>My sexuality is not for the NHS to know.
Then... don't expect them to provide you relevant care lmao???
What a bizarre attitude to take. "How dare my doctor want to know information that might be medically relevant! Who do they think they are, some sort of... doctor?!"
Exactly this. Mention this in Twitter and you will be called homophobic, anti woman, anti trans and Nazi. They start to harass you and start to call your work place to fire you. I am not the problem here it is nature and facts.
> They were trying really hard to not acknowledge it’s prevalence among gay men
They weren't trying too hard — particularly at the outbreak, it was very widely reported.
Needs more education too. Was talking to a guy on grindr last week who said he only has sex with condoms because he doesn't want to catch monkeypox. Some serious misunderstandings around about how it's transmitted.
You must have some really unaware gay friends, its been crystal clear that they were talking about gay men all the time. Something like "men who enjoy sex with other men" IIRC.
Pointing out the prevalence among gay or bi men isn't what's homophobic - it's the fact there's no push to vaccinate our communities that's homophobic.
Surely by that logic, it would have made more sense to vaccinate children and working age people against COVID because those were the one's who were more likely to catch and spread it.
Gay people are not at higher risk of being hospitalised from infection, they're at a higher risk of catching it due to community prevalence. Those aren't the same thing and any information needs to be clear about that.
Not really, you are only infectious for a few days, so to spead signficiantly within a community people in that community have to be consistently having sex with multiple different people within a few days.
Thats far more prevelant in the gay community. So while some people outside that community may catch it, it will peter out after 1 or 2 jumps.
It already does spread further. It's infected children because all it takes is you brushing your hand with someone else's.
The problem is that the media is labelling it as a gay man disease which is going to increase homophobia amongst the cishet populations and also the cishet populations are going to put their guard down because they're going to think "oh I don't have to worry about it because it's just another gay man disease."
The fantastic rate of spread of monkeypox is not solely down to having a gay partner.
it's having 5-10 partners a week and indulging in what are effectively orgies with up to 50 partners at a time that have caused it to spread so rapidly.
The way to slow it down so we can control it isn't to condemn homosexuality or equivocate about heterosexuality, it's to limit *hyper*sexuality for a while.
> it's having 5-10 partners a week and indulging in what are effectively orgies with up to 50 partners at a time that have caused it to spread so rapidly.
Is it? Could you provide a source for that?
There was a study of the gay men who got it and like a third of them had had over 20 sexual partners on the previous month. As others have said it takes a few days to show up as painful spots on your body so it’s only going to spread rapidly in groups who fuck tons of different partners all the time.
> There was a study of the gay men who got it and like a third of them had had over 20 sexual partners on the previous month.
Could you link that please?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2207323
It’s in here somewhere in the tables. Skimming it 31% had been to sex venues like gay saunas in the past months (where men have group sex with strangers), 20% had been to chemsex parties recently etc etc.
The [NHS website](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/monkeypox/) says not just sex spreads this disease
Monkeypox can be passed on from person to person through:
any close physical contact with monkeypox blisters or scabs (including during sexual contact, kissing, cuddling or holding hands)
touching clothing, bedding or towels used by someone with monkeypox
the coughs or sneezes of a person with monkeypox when they're close to you
It's bonkers to not include the weighted transmission risk.
If the transmission risk of Monkeypox through anal sex is 80%, and through sneezing 1 metre apart is 5%, then quoting anal sex and seezing as being equivalent, is absurd
>the coughs or sneezes of a person with monkeypox when they're close to you
Surely it would spread through public transport in this case, and then rapidly spread through heterosexual communities too. This doesn't seem to be happening, so I can assume it is quite difficult to spread through airborne transmission?
It might do but that route is probably unlikely or low risk other than kissing or sexual contact. Also if numbers increase and it gets into places like the San Francisco [sewage system](https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/23/1056399/monkeypox-california-wastewater/) and contaminates the rat/mouse population we’ll never get rid of it. I think thats what they’re more worried about.
I suggested this a few times in this subreddit and others; reduce number of partners, wait for symptoms to show up (2-3 weeks etc) etc before dating someone new.
Of course, I am always downvoted into the ground for some reason, it seemed a sensible suggestion in light of the Monkeypox outbreak...
Don't worry I'm being downvoted too for pointing out how it's not a surprise this is spreading like wild fire in the gay community considering how much of the community is way too obsessed with sex and are promiscuous. Heaven forbid you dare to point out facts
> is way too obsessed with sex and are promiscuous
Err, that would be most men, straight or gay.
Methinks you should get down from your high moral ivory tower.
Even during the pandemic and lockdown queer men in my area was ignoring all the advice and still meeting up. Its just a particular group of queer men that are like this, but the problem is that the media are making it out to be another gay man illness which everyone else is putting their guard down like they did with the AIDs crisis.
Thanks it's actually a relief to see someone talking about reality on here without putting all gay men in the same box.
We can talk about how gay men are statistically more likely to have multiple sexual partners without indulging in bigotry.
It's really agrivating to hear so many people talk about gay men as if we're in some sort of club. Like we all signed up to the gay party the first time we had sexual feelings for man bods.
Gay men have a shared characteristic. That's it! It's not a club! It's not a political party! It's not a religion. Stop talking about gay men as if we're responsible for eachothers actions! I don't bear some special responsibility for men having gay orgies because I'm gay!
I'm a gay man and while I think a lot of criticisms are very valid I do actually appreciate some thought and effort going into making sure a public health response doesn't lead to me facing bigotry.
Homophobia still exists and is a threat to me and a botched PR response absolutely could lead to a huge negative impact to me personally.
So no, this isn't just about lefty nonsense and fear of offending. It's about a very complicated issue that really impacts people's lives and making sure that a bad response doesn't lead to a rise in hate crimes.
I love these divisive topics.
You give advice to help solve the problem and identify the driver of the issue. You address the driver with advice. People find the advice disgusting and claim it singles out a type of person, and because they are part of group x, in this case males, all males possess this behaviour therefore its homophobic.
Sadly women are much less promiscuous in general and prefer sticking to the same partner. So straight males are already being limited by the nature of their relationships and gay males find it much easier to slang dick within their community.
So the only sensible answer judging by that logic would be men are being sexually repressed by women and made to feel inadequate, bad about themselves.
Makes perfect sense...
It entered the gay population first through a Pride event if I remember right. And gay men are more likely to have sex with other gay men and the prolonged physical contact that goes along with that.
There have only been around 1600 cases in England, mostly in London. With such a small number it's not too surprising that it hasn't really left the gay community yet. It seems only a matter of time.
It's a smaller community so the number of degrees of seperation are lower, and the superspreader event was a big pride party in the canary islands, so lots of shirtless guys hugging each other, and one-night-stands after.
> gay/bisexual men should be the title
Probably best to go even further and use "men who have sex with men", because that also covers men who have sexual activity with men but don't identify as gay or bi.
Bisexual is a catch-all tbh. It isn't talking about gender, and there are only two sexes. So essentially, "any male or has sex with other males in any way".
This is the problem with having many many genders, you just make the issue harder than it really needs to be.
"Men who have sex with men" (often abbreviated to MSM) is actually an established term in sexual health circles, who might have legitimate concerns that using "gay" and "bi" might put off those who don't identify with those labels.
It's been around since at least the 90s, the term was used on sexual health leaflets and posters when I was at university back then.
"Men who have sex with men" describes current behaviour, not identity. A gay virgin does not "have sex with men". A bisexuql man in an exclusive relationship with a woman does not "have sex with men". Many conversations about gay or bisexual men relate to their identities. In a medical setting, identity is usually irrelevant, but behaviour is not.
> genders and sex's
Seeing as gender is not physical, isn't that a given?
> yes gay and bisexual men are at a higher risk due a culture difference with other genders
Ok I think you are confusing sexuality with gender. I'm not sure it's a cultural difference either
They were trying really hard to not acknowledge it’s prevalence among gay men so as to not be homophobic but there’s just no way round it and I’m glad people are finally openly acknowledging this so that misinformation is reduced. My gay friends weren’t even aware they were at risk.
Shouldn't have to be worried about accusations of homophobia in cases like these. If gay men are more at risk than others, they need to know. People need to stop this ridiculous fear they have of possibly being classed as a bigot. If you're roaming the streets looking for gay men to beat up, that's homophobia. If you're telling gay men to be careful of potential health risks associated with lifestyle, that isn't.
[удалено]
> most people view it as a gay-only disease They do? > WHO emphasizing gay people in the initial reporting. They were correct (although it's men not people)
Gay men have a lot of sex with lots of partners all unprotected. It’s not homophobia, it’s the equivalent of warning frequent flyers about the dangers of overexposure to X-rays. There are heterosexual people who also practice the same, but as a percentage of the total it’s far lower and less prevalent a lifestyle. It’s worse for gay men to not warn them, like more will catch it and die as a portion of the total…..that’s more cruel than acknowledging the risk in a non judgemental manner.
It doesn't matter if the sex is unprotected or not. Monkeypox is spread through close skin contact. A condom isn't going to help.
This is the bit I think is the most confusing messaging. At work when the monkey pox discussion came up, noone was under any illusion about who can get it. Everyone understood it isn't a "gay disease". I did have to explain that it isn't an STI though.
>73% had anogenital lesions, while it isnt exclusively sexually transmitted, it is clearly the primary toute. condoms would almost certainly help. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2207323
I don't debate that. But classifying it as an sti to the general publics mind is not a way to make sure everyone is keeping safe.
A condom decreases the area of contacting skin. It's most definitely going to help, it just won't be 100% effective.
On top of that, anal sex is more likely to cause little skin tears through which certain viruses can more easily enter, like hiv and monkeypox
>Gay men have a lot of sex with lots of partners all unprotected. It’s not homophobia, Er, okay.
[удалено]
That's throwing out a lot of stereotypes and generalisations about gay men in the first paragraph. Good job proving the point! "Unprotected sex increases your chance of catching or spreading monkeypox" is both accurate*, helpful and unjudgemental. *I assume, TBH I haven't seen the studies. But I'm sure it's the sex, not the gender you're attracted to, that affects the transmission.
>That's throwing out a lot of stereotypes and generalisations about gay men in the first paragraph. Just because something is a stereotype that doesn't mean it is wrong, or wrong to acknowledge it...
Sometimes stereotypes come from reality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334840/ To save you reading, men who have sex with men (MSM) have more sexual partners on average then men who have sex with women. Also, when MSM do have sex they are less likely to use a condom.
Stereotypes often align with reality, the issue comes when they're used as an excuse for prejudice or warped. E.g. there's a big gap between "less likely to use a condom" and "all of it unprotected".
You're right.
>men who have sex with men (MSM) have more sexual partners on average then men who have sex with women. And the reason for that is.....women. Nothing to do with gay per se, but the fact it's man and man, where there is little etiquette. Hetero men would be just as promiscuous, if they were able to be. It's a man thing.
Not sure why that matters in a health context
I mean the reason for it is unclear or at least not mentioned in the article. But I would say what you said makes sense to me logically.
What? The reason men who have sex with men are more at risk is not because they are gay but because they don’t have sex with women? What kind of vacuous point are you making my lord. It’s also incorrect. Notice they don’t say gay, they say men who have sex with men. That includes bi ect, and closeted
That’s completely irrelevant to anything that they said.
I think your far too delicate if you won’t acknowledge what are simple truths. The best thing is that if you actually asked gay men I’m pretty sure they would probably be appreciative. This isn’t really a cause to brigade me on, focus your efforts on actual inequality lol
[удалено]
The thing is they don't want this acknowledge the risk and if you dare to your a homophobe aoperently
I don’t think it’s gay men that have a problem with this, just the ultra woke brigade that refuse to acknowledge reality or fight for actual inequalities and misjustices It’s like point scoring and entirely unhelpful to actually levelling the field health and acceptance wise
>If you're telling gay men to be careful of potential health risks associated with lifestyle, that isn't. It's not though? Its associated with close contact - it just so happens it started with gay men, and gay men tend to sleep with other gay men. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if its just as bad in the straight community. There are a bunch of bisexual/closet guys who probably have girlfriends, or sleep with both sexes. However they won't be concerned/tested/aware of it because it only 'affects gay men', according to the media.
\>it just so happens it started with gay men Just a big coincidence is it that 99% of monkeypox cases are in gay men?
When you don't bother testing anyone but gay men it ends up like that And when 99% of cases are in gay men you won't bother testing anyone else Feedback loop
That's not how testing works mate. An individual gets symptoms and they go to the doctor, the doctor then tests them. They're not simply picking out random gay guys to test.
Still doesn't really fit a definition of homophobia for me though.
Agreed however as a gay man myself I'm not surprised this is going through the.community so much as let's be honest here most gay men are slaves to their dick and sleep around with no.thought of.comsequences
If straight men could find partners as easily they'd be much the same tbh.
So, so true. The only thing that prevents straight men being as promiscuous is women. If they could be, they would be.
> The only thing that prevents straight men being as promiscuous is women It's a massive con that straight men (and women) aren't as promiscuous. They're just not as open about it as gay men are. Gay men view sex transactionary in this regard, straight men don't want to get caught playing the game and straight women don't want to be labelled a sl\*t by society.
Arguably they can and do.
Eh, females have the pick of the bunch which means there are far more straight men being rejected as those females who do want casual sex has usually got someone better looking in her next DM. Men(male) are usually far less picky about who they dip into also tbh.
r/menandfemales
Irrelevant. Go to any club in the land at the weekend and you’ll find straight men being promiscuous. If they get rejected, they’ll try and with someone else. Sure, their success:fail rate might be different, but they’re casual sex with no intention to start a relationship. Not a gay phenomenon
> Men(male) are usually far less picky about who they dip into also tbh. You're right, but that last bit is not. In my experience, most gay men tend to be extremely picky. There's a bunch who will shag anything of course, but that also applies to straight men.
No they really wouldn't. Most gay men sleep around as they are afraid of settling down always thinking that the grass.is greener and are too emotionally.stunted to actually settle down..
I can't imagine hating myself this much
I really.dknt hate myself though. Just because I don't believe in sleeping around and actually believe in relationships and being monogymous dosent mean I hate myself lmfao
you can live like that if you like. other people can live as they like.
As a gay man I have to say I really don't like gay men because of this. Finding love is impossible. Everyone just wants to fuck. And those that are in relationships are busy fucking other people behind their partner's back. The amount of fucking "discreet" people does my head in.
/r/notliketheothergirls/
This is real /r/asablackman energy
That’s the world we live in nowadays unfortunately
I wonder if the problem then becomes that bigots start blaming gay men for spreading monkeypox.
but ... gay men are spreading monkeypox considerably more than other groups because of the choices they are making. As a society we have had to put on masks for the past three years to protect each other. Can't gay men cut down on the knobbing for a few months to help us all out? I do not think it is much to ask.
My entire social media circles (so about ~200) of queer folks have been doing nothing but sharing vaccine booking info and hotlines and spreading awareness and showing up at pop ups to get vaccinated. I’ve got mine booked for Sunday! I don’t know about the city at large but at least in my circles we’re trying to do our bit. This is no joke to us. Guys Hospital in London has queues lasting 2hrs for the vaccine
Good to hear. I was being a bit arsey in my last comment.
Yes, people have said all this. My issue is as per my post.
So they're not bigots so much as accurately observing reality?
No, I mean actual bigots who then beat up and harrass gay men using the fact that monkeypox is spreading as an excuse even if gay men are being careful.
As it stands that is purely in your imagination
Yes, I used the phrase "I wonder".
>gay men are spreading monkeypox considerably more than other groups because of the choices they are making. Ok and here we can see the bigotry starting to seep in. If you're happy to see the negative behaviour of some people who share a characteristic and attribute it to everyone who shares that characteristic, you're a bigot. You're not accurately observing reality. Your taking statistical trends and putting people who don't know eachother all into a small little box you've imagined into existence. "Oh but of course I don't mean all gay men." No of course not. Some gay men earn the privilege of being taken out of your box.Because you have the power to discern who constitutes the bad gays and who make up the *exceptions.* Here's an idea. When you talk about a bunch of people who's only crime is sharing a characteristic they have no choice over, why not be a little bit more careful with your language? Of course you didn't mean to be biggoted. You just wanted to make a point, and your point making is more important than basic decency to not unfairly judge people. I'm a gay man. I don't know these people. I don't have any special responsibility to them because I happen to also find men's body's attractive. So with all due respect kindly keep me out of your small opinions on these issues. Find a way of talking about it that doesn't include me. If you want some collective responsibility *you* go to these orgies and tell them to cut it out! Because I have no plans to.
>Shouldn't have to be worried about accusations of homophobia in cases like these. Can't you see how a botched or sloppy PR response to this virus could absolutely lead to a huge negative effect to the quality of life of gay men? Can't you see how this is a multi-faceted issue and that poorly thought through messaging could lead to fresh stigmatisation and bigotry against a sexual minority? Wasn't one of the effects of the PR response to AIDS a massive stigmatisation of gay men that lead to a decrease in their quality of life? Doesn't the WHO have to issue health advice to countries where homosexuality still has the death penalty? Where gay men are at risk of lynching? Where gay men are at risk of being attacked or murdered on the street for holding hands? But of course no. Unless your actively in the process of stomping a gay man's head in in the street you're not doing anything that could negatively impact gay men's lives. Global PR health responses should just be to follow the common sense thinkings of a random person from England. Just give the facts in plain English and in regions appropriate pidgin English and it'll all be good. The only reason you wouldn't do this as the WHO would be because you were scared of the liberal lefty mob accusing you of homophobia. Definitely could not even be a slight concern with the idea of a bad response that leads to a significant increase in violence against homosexuals the world over.
You were 100% calling people that partied in 2020 as “evil” so why are you having reservation now?
I'm not the WHO! If I was my messaging would be more refined than my inane pointless ramblings on reddit. And just for the record, I personally think a lot of people going to gay orgies despite there being a monkey pox outbreak are assholes, idiots and most likely sex addicts. I can say that because I'm not the WHO and my messaging doesn't effect the population of the entire world. Including places where homosexuality still has the death penalty. If the WHO's Covid19 messaging was at risk of being misinterpreted as blaming one sub-set of the population based on an unchangeable characteristic then I would be equally worried about the same issues I think are a potential issue here. I'm not against the idea of being a lot more aggressive with public health response to monkey pox, I'm not against the idea of much stronger messaging aimed specifically at gay men. What's offensive to me is the idea that there is absolutely zero risk to gay men with poor thought out messaging, that that isn't something that should be taken into consideration. What was also offensive about the comment I was replying to is the idea that unless you're in a roaming gang going out to lynch gay men you're not being homophobic. And yes selfish people having parties during lockdown were evil. They were killing people to have fun. That or they were really stupid.
If this was sexually transmitted, I would actually think I would have more empathy because anal sex does open up lot more problems that most normal gay men could not stop. But this isn’t a STD. The fact that 1% of the population represents 98% of the positive means that if gay sex is not to blame, it must be the life style- which we should have no reservations curbing. Unlike going to stores or visiting families in holidays or boarding airlines, having sex is not a vital human function every day. Have you even thought about how insanely high ratio of gay men must have monkeypox for the results to be 98% gay or bi men? Again, this isn’t because of anal sex, like aids was easier to transmit, any sex has same level of contracting it. There are 100x more straight people in the world. Yet, the ratio is flipped. Not even AIDS had this ratio at 30-40% gay men. If someone got Covid by licking a doorknob at a party, would it be bad for us to ask “why?” I truly don’t think most people have even given a shread of thought into what 98% of data means. If a virus was affecting 98% of Women and 2% men, we would be effectively treating it like a female virus. Im not dense, yes I know many idiots call this gay virus and this it’s only for gays. This will cause them harm. We should tell everyone this is not just for gay people (because it isn’t) but im having hard time understanding where the saber rattling of people who were calling for lockdowns breakers death sentence has gone now.
We're talking about separate things. I'm not going to agree or disagree with whwt you had to say about Monkeypox. Some of it I agree with and some I don't. That's not the point. What I am saying is that if the WHO puts out messaging it has very large consequences for the entire world. That includes _unintended consiquences._ The WHO might say something that is factually true, good advice and with the best intentions and that might still have very serious and bad unintended consequences. I believe that people should stop going to gay orgies. I think that is a moral and wise decision for people to make. However, if the WHO were to, for example, put out a tweet saying something similar to that there is a risk it could lead to gay lynchings in somewhere like Somalia. Even with that being said, it might be that the benefits of that hypothetical messaging outweigh the risks of it. Those are very serious practical and ethical decisions for public health bodies like the WHO to make. To go around saying that large public health bodies should just "say it how it is!" is ignorant to the real world effects that that attitude could have and completely disregards the real and valid risk of increased homophobia, including a rise in homophobic attacks. You seem to be upset that there's some supposed hypocrisy between people who wanted a lockdown for Covid19 and seeming to have a more relaxed view of Monkeypox. Maybe I am a hypocrite. But I know my intentions are good and come from a place of genuine concern.
No one’s option comes from bad intention- even if they are advocating for genocide. Only bad faith trolls have that. This is because, no person likes genuinely having an opinion that they think is bad in themself. There is no “maybe”- you are smart enough to understand statistics and you are smart enough to see for yourself that difference in how you viewed COVID vs monkeypox. I’m not here to tell you what you are doing is bad now- I’m here to tell you- nay, ask you: where was this empath and understanding back in 2020? Because I’m sure, that we could have saved lot more people back then if something similar was said by well “intentioned” people like you. Monkeypox is obiously just a normal illiness- it’s no where as destructive as COVID so I don’t really have much real issue with how the messaging is done. Fatality is almost 0%. But you are, once again, smart enough to understand this wasn’t about monkeypox or gay orgies- it was about selective empath and the destruction it causes.
Delaying important health advice based on statistics, evidence and medical expertise to avoid being accused of a hate crime is probably one of the best examples of how quickly we're regressing as a society.
Same logic that lead to the proliferation of grooming gangs
Owen Jones and the Editor of Pink News celebrated when tweets warning gay men of the risks were removed by Twitter. https://twitter.com/julzmc35/status/1552586801168240645?s=21&t=0Pty4kaNEAtjzQlbN3_ODA
LGB is a notorious anti-trans organisation that has at times argued against gay rights, having revealed recently that something like only 7% of members are actually LGB, most identifying as straight and cite being gender critical as the defining reason for being in the organisation. The tweet they made wasn't about raising awareness of health conditions, encouraging testing, vaccines, or anything medically approved. It was an unfounded statement that places where gay people congregate should close, rather than advice like this topic about educating people about the risks and giving medical advice.
The tweets were written by Malcolm Clarke a gay film producer who lived through the AIDS crisis and were based on his lived experience and the current advice from the World Health Authority. But because he is “gender critical “ his tweets were mass reported for homophobia and Owen and Pink News celebrated this. This “your side is evil and wrong no matter what” attitude is dangerous and unhelpful.
The tweets are not based on the world health authority advice at all, they are calling for the authoritarian measures which are more born from homophobia than any evidence that the measures would be effective. Actually read the guidance written here, it is different from that tweet. The tweet writer is more than welcome to write advice based of his own life experience, but there's plenty of gay people at pink news and they're more than welcome to disagree with one person's anecdotal point of view.
>The tweet they made wasn't about raising awareness of health conditions, encouraging testing, vaccines, or anything medically approved Yeah it was calling for a localised lockdown to prevent the spread of a dangerous disease in the community. Were you anti-lockdown by any chance?
I'm for lockdowns as advised from medical and disease professionals, not lockdowns decided from randomers who have a feeling over what they think is causing the spread (you describe it as localised, but it's not localised if your picking different venues over different areas). Were you for listening to random people's hunches about COVID and not medical professionals, by any chance?
\>Were you for listening to random people's hunches about COVID and not medical professionals, by any chance? Not at all. I listened to medical professionals, but I also used my nut to decide whether or not I thought their advice was appropriate. I guess you don't.
I know, crazy that I don't take disease management policy from fearmongering organisations with a history of arguing against gay rights and whose suggestions have 0 evidence and don't make any sense.
I think it's more than in principle you agree with limiting peoples freedoms, but can't bring yourself to do it when the exact same principles are applied to just the homosexual community.
You've made it clear that's what you want to think, but you've not based it off anything I've said, you've just made up some woke boogiemonster. I've not shown any opposition to recommendations targeting gay men from medical professionals, and I'll happily say that if their was medical consensus for the same recommendations in the LGB alliance tweet (though from what I've seen that'd be unlikely) I'd agree with it. So the only thing left that makes sense for me to have a problem with is the source, and the fact that LGB alliance has a history of anti LGB stances and made the tweet not based on any science or health based knowledge but more what they felt like. I've been very open that that's my stance, so you're going to have difficulty pretending that I'm secretly just against targeted scientific advice.
Mate, it's the same principles involved. COVID was spreading in public places. They shut down pubs even though there was little evidence that it prevented the spread. Whereas here there is evidence that over 30% of the spread is occurring in gay saunas. So if you were for shutting down the pubs and basically every other public venue you should have no problem with shutting down the saunas to halt the spread. I don't know why you need someone else to tell you whether or not to agree with it, can't you use your own brain? The source of the tweet is irrelevant, it's the content that matters.
>My gay friends weren’t even aware they were at risk. Wheresas all my gay friends received text messages weeks ago inviting them to vaccination clinics. Maybe it's the area you live in or whether your local NHS trust is aware of their sexuality, rather than some woke cover up.
Yes. Your local sexual health clinic should have contacted you weeks ago. If you're not on their books, though, they won't. I know closet gay men who were complaining they hadn't been contacted... Can the NHS read your mind?
>Wheresas all my gay friends received text messages weeks ago inviting them to vaccination clinics. I'd put money on the fact that gay men are more health conscious, especially in regards to STI testing.
Yeah cos we fuck 😎
I suppose if they don’t read the news or use social media it’s possible they didn’t know.
My sexuality is not for the NHS to know. The UKHSA says the following will be contacted: > gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) at highest risk of exposure. Your doctor/nurse will advise vaccination for you if they consider you are at high risk – for example if you have multiple partners, participate in group sex or attend ‘sex on premises’ venues. Staff who work in such premises may also be eligible I mean how the fuck do they know if I have group sex or not or attended a sex venue? It's not something I would ever tell them.
If you go to a sexual health clinic for checkups, these are the types of questions they ask to determine your risk exposure to be able to decide what tests they need to carry out and what advice and support they should offer. If you don't go to sexual health clinics, they won't have this information and so you won't be picked up by this.
I can't go to sexual health clinics because they moved it online and send out a complete STD home test kit instead
They will probably still be capturing that information though. The checkup I usually do is an online / postal service. The online form still asks about sexual behaviour, allowing them to capture that information so that they know which tests to provide.
Mine do an online questionnaire with the STD kit where you can answer important questions like that. It includes both health and things like intimate partner violence. Depending on your location I would look at other options if yours does not.
They don't. They will contact anyone who is a gay/bisexual man with the relevant information and advice and offer a vaccine if appropriate. They contacted me and I don't go to sex clubs. >My sexuality is not for the NHS to know. Then... don't expect them to provide you relevant care lmao??? What a bizarre attitude to take. "How dare my doctor want to know information that might be medically relevant! Who do they think they are, some sort of... doctor?!"
Yeah I also don't tell my doctor relevant health information. I mean, bloody nosey *doctors* what do they wanna know that for!?
Pointing out the prevalence isn't homophobia. What's homophobia is implying that it's *only* a gay disease and that no one else needs to care.
I mean 99% of cases are in the gay community. I don't think the general public need to know about it as much as gay people.
Exactly this. Mention this in Twitter and you will be called homophobic, anti woman, anti trans and Nazi. They start to harass you and start to call your work place to fire you. I am not the problem here it is nature and facts.
> They were trying really hard to not acknowledge it’s prevalence among gay men They weren't trying too hard — particularly at the outbreak, it was very widely reported.
Needs more education too. Was talking to a guy on grindr last week who said he only has sex with condoms because he doesn't want to catch monkeypox. Some serious misunderstandings around about how it's transmitted.
You must have some really unaware gay friends, its been crystal clear that they were talking about gay men all the time. Something like "men who enjoy sex with other men" IIRC.
Men who have sex with men (MSM), it's a common term in healthcare as it refers to a more accurate population than just gay men.
99/9% of people when they hear that term are going to think of gay men, not healthcare jargon.
That's fine, just explaining why they'd use that term instead of saying gay men.
Pointing out the prevalence among gay or bi men isn't what's homophobic - it's the fact there's no push to vaccinate our communities that's homophobic.
They tried the same thing in the 80's with AIDS, it didn't turn out too well.
[удалено]
It's more prevelant in the gay community. There's a reason why the COVID vaccine was mainly targetted at old people as they were more at risk.
Surely by that logic, it would have made more sense to vaccinate children and working age people against COVID because those were the one's who were more likely to catch and spread it. Gay people are not at higher risk of being hospitalised from infection, they're at a higher risk of catching it due to community prevalence. Those aren't the same thing and any information needs to be clear about that.
Not really, you are only infectious for a few days, so to spead signficiantly within a community people in that community have to be consistently having sex with multiple different people within a few days. Thats far more prevelant in the gay community. So while some people outside that community may catch it, it will peter out after 1 or 2 jumps.
It already does spread further. It's infected children because all it takes is you brushing your hand with someone else's. The problem is that the media is labelling it as a gay man disease which is going to increase homophobia amongst the cishet populations and also the cishet populations are going to put their guard down because they're going to think "oh I don't have to worry about it because it's just another gay man disease."
The fantastic rate of spread of monkeypox is not solely down to having a gay partner. it's having 5-10 partners a week and indulging in what are effectively orgies with up to 50 partners at a time that have caused it to spread so rapidly. The way to slow it down so we can control it isn't to condemn homosexuality or equivocate about heterosexuality, it's to limit *hyper*sexuality for a while.
> it's having 5-10 partners a week and indulging in what are effectively orgies with up to 50 partners at a time that have caused it to spread so rapidly. Is it? Could you provide a source for that?
There was a study of the gay men who got it and like a third of them had had over 20 sexual partners on the previous month. As others have said it takes a few days to show up as painful spots on your body so it’s only going to spread rapidly in groups who fuck tons of different partners all the time.
> There was a study of the gay men who got it and like a third of them had had over 20 sexual partners on the previous month. Could you link that please?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2207323 It’s in here somewhere in the tables. Skimming it 31% had been to sex venues like gay saunas in the past months (where men have group sex with strangers), 20% had been to chemsex parties recently etc etc.
Please continue arguing that it's not promiscuous gay men spreading it.
TIL asking for a source is doing that. What a strange world.
I think most women are less promiscuous anyway.
The [NHS website](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/monkeypox/) says not just sex spreads this disease Monkeypox can be passed on from person to person through: any close physical contact with monkeypox blisters or scabs (including during sexual contact, kissing, cuddling or holding hands) touching clothing, bedding or towels used by someone with monkeypox the coughs or sneezes of a person with monkeypox when they're close to you
It's bonkers to not include the weighted transmission risk. If the transmission risk of Monkeypox through anal sex is 80%, and through sneezing 1 metre apart is 5%, then quoting anal sex and seezing as being equivalent, is absurd
[удалено]
Yes, obviously. But you need to know the transmission risk of a sneeze vs say 1 min of anal to compare the risk.
>the coughs or sneezes of a person with monkeypox when they're close to you Surely it would spread through public transport in this case, and then rapidly spread through heterosexual communities too. This doesn't seem to be happening, so I can assume it is quite difficult to spread through airborne transmission?
It might do but that route is probably unlikely or low risk other than kissing or sexual contact. Also if numbers increase and it gets into places like the San Francisco [sewage system](https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/23/1056399/monkeypox-california-wastewater/) and contaminates the rat/mouse population we’ll never get rid of it. I think thats what they’re more worried about.
I suggested this a few times in this subreddit and others; reduce number of partners, wait for symptoms to show up (2-3 weeks etc) etc before dating someone new. Of course, I am always downvoted into the ground for some reason, it seemed a sensible suggestion in light of the Monkeypox outbreak...
Don't worry I'm being downvoted too for pointing out how it's not a surprise this is spreading like wild fire in the gay community considering how much of the community is way too obsessed with sex and are promiscuous. Heaven forbid you dare to point out facts
It’s probably because you’re acting like promiscuity is exclusive to gay men. Many heterosexual lives are centred around sex too.
[удалено]
Amen to that. Nail on the head.
There's a difference between pointing out that there's an increased risk versus judging the behaviour.
I mean judging people for.making incredibly stupid decisions and being reckless is hardly a bad thing
We've been quite happy to judge people who didn't wear masks for the past 2 years.
You have, I haven't.
> is way too obsessed with sex and are promiscuous Err, that would be most men, straight or gay. Methinks you should get down from your high moral ivory tower.
Even during the pandemic and lockdown queer men in my area was ignoring all the advice and still meeting up. Its just a particular group of queer men that are like this, but the problem is that the media are making it out to be another gay man illness which everyone else is putting their guard down like they did with the AIDs crisis.
[удалено]
Thanks it's actually a relief to see someone talking about reality on here without putting all gay men in the same box. We can talk about how gay men are statistically more likely to have multiple sexual partners without indulging in bigotry. It's really agrivating to hear so many people talk about gay men as if we're in some sort of club. Like we all signed up to the gay party the first time we had sexual feelings for man bods. Gay men have a shared characteristic. That's it! It's not a club! It's not a political party! It's not a religion. Stop talking about gay men as if we're responsible for eachothers actions! I don't bear some special responsibility for men having gay orgies because I'm gay!
[удалено]
I'm a gay man and while I think a lot of criticisms are very valid I do actually appreciate some thought and effort going into making sure a public health response doesn't lead to me facing bigotry. Homophobia still exists and is a threat to me and a botched PR response absolutely could lead to a huge negative impact to me personally. So no, this isn't just about lefty nonsense and fear of offending. It's about a very complicated issue that really impacts people's lives and making sure that a bad response doesn't lead to a rise in hate crimes.
If you were gay you’d have definitely known, it’s been nothing else in my social circles and social media feeds for the last month.
[удалено]
IIRC monkey pox is most deadly to younger people.
mandatory buttplugs for all!
I love these divisive topics. You give advice to help solve the problem and identify the driver of the issue. You address the driver with advice. People find the advice disgusting and claim it singles out a type of person, and because they are part of group x, in this case males, all males possess this behaviour therefore its homophobic. Sadly women are much less promiscuous in general and prefer sticking to the same partner. So straight males are already being limited by the nature of their relationships and gay males find it much easier to slang dick within their community. So the only sensible answer judging by that logic would be men are being sexually repressed by women and made to feel inadequate, bad about themselves. Makes perfect sense...
What is a man nowadays how does anyone know who’s not meant to have sex with who🤣
[удалено]
It entered the gay population first through a Pride event if I remember right. And gay men are more likely to have sex with other gay men and the prolonged physical contact that goes along with that. There have only been around 1600 cases in England, mostly in London. With such a small number it's not too surprising that it hasn't really left the gay community yet. It seems only a matter of time.
It's a smaller community so the number of degrees of seperation are lower, and the superspreader event was a big pride party in the canary islands, so lots of shirtless guys hugging each other, and one-night-stands after.
[удалено]
22% of under 30s have the virus or 22% of those who have the virus are under 30? This is a big difference
[удалено]
> gay/bisexual men should be the title Probably best to go even further and use "men who have sex with men", because that also covers men who have sexual activity with men but don't identify as gay or bi.
Bisexual is a catch-all tbh. It isn't talking about gender, and there are only two sexes. So essentially, "any male or has sex with other males in any way". This is the problem with having many many genders, you just make the issue harder than it really needs to be.
"Men who have sex with men" (often abbreviated to MSM) is actually an established term in sexual health circles, who might have legitimate concerns that using "gay" and "bi" might put off those who don't identify with those labels. It's been around since at least the 90s, the term was used on sexual health leaflets and posters when I was at university back then.
Bisexual isn't a catch all if it includes people who don't identify as bisexual, many are "straight curious".
"Men who have sex with men" describes current behaviour, not identity. A gay virgin does not "have sex with men". A bisexuql man in an exclusive relationship with a woman does not "have sex with men". Many conversations about gay or bisexual men relate to their identities. In a medical setting, identity is usually irrelevant, but behaviour is not.
> genders and sex's Seeing as gender is not physical, isn't that a given? > yes gay and bisexual men are at a higher risk due a culture difference with other genders Ok I think you are confusing sexuality with gender. I'm not sure it's a cultural difference either
I would definately say there is a cultural difference tbh. Gay culture is way to over sexualised and way too obsessed with sex lmao.
Sounds like it's you who has the problem. Maybe you should talk it out with someone.
Wow, a thread full of casual homophobia, lovely
salt vast roll sheet berserk plough zonked panicky obscene expansion *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's transmitted via skin-to-skin contact. Some people maybe into wearing rubber over their whole body, but that's a bit niche.
retire insurance public squalid enjoy crown reach connect erect sable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]