rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/19/85)
RECENT ARTICLES
The December 1985 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN has an article by Jeffrey
Laurence on "The Immune System in AIDS", pages 84-93, the magazine's
first real coverage of the subject of AIDS. Up to now, it's neglected
AIDS, or carried short infrequent news items about it. The article's
bibliography cites papers dating from May-December 1984.
The current ADVOCATE (#433, 11/12/85) has a "travel piece" by Michael
Chaffee on Soviet Gays, in the USSR and US. (It contained an item I
found interesting: the Soviet movie director Paradjanov (sp?) was
imprisoned because he is gay. Years ago on PBS I'd seen his most
famous film, "Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors," a dreamlike tale
about the Gusuls (sp?), a Lapp-like hill tribe dwelling in the eastern
Carpathian mountains near Poland, the most beautiful Russian film I've
ever seen, but I knew nothing about the director.)
SEX & SCIENCE
The current GCN (11/23/85) has a good centerfold article by Scott Tucker,
"Sex & Science: Who Decides What's Good For Us?" which critically reviews
research on possible biological bases of sexual orientation and the often
homophobic presuppositions of researchers. Much of such "science" begins
with an assumption that homosexuality must be the result of a deviation
in a biological process (prenatal stress, hormone balance, etc.). So
what else is new? What's new is that biotechnologies capable of altering
the gender and sexual orientation of fetuses are now foreseeable in the
not-too-distant-future. The social implications of this were briefly but
sharply debated in net.motss months ago. To me it's the most intriguing
issue yet raised in this newsgroup, because it's so thorny.
Recently AIDS hysteria has revived not only old prejudices but their
accompanying superstitions about homosexuality. Even some scientists
have succumbed.
Given the current vogue in social biology and evolutionary styles of
explanation, I'm appending the following annotated bibliography of biology
essays that aim to demonstrate the naturalness of homosexuality. Like
Marxism and psychoanalysis, darwinism has often been used merely to
justify the status quo and is so broad an idea that it can be used to
support almost any hypothesis and prove incapable of refutation. Never-
theless, a number of scientists have made cogent use of it to examine
possible biological roles of "nonreproductive sexuality."
(Andre Gide's turn-of-the-century apologia for homosexuality, CORYDON,
is scientifically outdated, but it's devoted almost entirely to biological
considerations, and is well-written and thought-provoking.)
Below is a footnote (#9, page 9) from John Boswell's CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL
TOLERANCE & HOMOSEXUALITY (1980, U. Chicago Press, $9.95 pb):
[ Quoted without permission. ]
In the late nineteenth century, when the issue of homosexuality first
began to exercise the minds of scientists, most authorities assumed
that homosexual inclinations were congenital, and differed only on
whether they were a defect (Kraft-Ebbing) or a part of the normal range
of human variation (Hirschfeld). The triumph of psychoanalytical
approaches to human sexual phenomena resulted in general abandonment
of this approach in favor of psychological explanations, but in 1959
G. E. Hutchinson published a paper specualting on the possible genetic
significance of "nonreproductive" sexuality (which he labeled "para-
philia"), including homosexuality ("A Speculative Consideration of
Certain Possible Forms of Sexual Selection in Man," AMERICAN NATURALIST
93 [1959]: 81-91). In the 1970s a great deal of speculation has
followed on the evolutionary significance of homosexuality, much of it
agreeing on the essential likelihood of genetic viability for homo-
sexual feelings through one selection mechanism or another. A theory
based on parent-offspring conflict as a mechanism for producing homo-
sexuality was published in 1974 by R. L. Trivers ("Parent-Offspring
Conflict," AMERICAN ZOOLOGIST 14 [1974]: 249-64). In 1975 E. O. Wilson
(SOCIOBIOLOGY: THE NEW SYNTHESIS [Cambridge, Mass., 1975]) suggested
that homosexuality might involve a form of genetic altruism, through
which gay people benefit those closely related to them and offset
their lowered reproductivity (see pp. 22, 229-31, 281, 311, 343-44,
and esp. 555). This argument was expanded and simplified in "Human
Decency Is Animal," New York Times Magazine (October 12, 1975), pp.
38ff. and in ON HUMAN NATURE (Cambridge, Mass., 1978), pp. 142-47.
The most detailed and comprehensive study of this subject to date,
examining nearly all modern theories for the etiology of homosexual-
ity, is that of James D. Weinrich, "Human Reproductive Strategy:
The Importance of Income Unpredictability and the Evolution of Non-
Reproduction," pt. 2 "Homosexuality and Non-Reproduction: Some
Evolutionary Models" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1976). An
extraordinarily lucid and readable summary of previous biological
approaches, with provocative original speculations, appeared in John
Kirsch and James Rodman, "The Natural History of Homosexuality,"
Yale Scientific Magazine 51, no. 3 (1977): 7-13.
Cheers,
Ron Rizzo
"Humans are anmimals, but we are not rats."
-- Scott Tuckersdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (11/19/85)
DISCOVER, December 1985, is devoted to AIDS, and greets the reader with
the following cover phrase, a snippet of yellow journalism and homophobia
disguised as heartwarming news for the concerned straits:
"Contrary to what you you've heard, AIDS isn't a threat to the
vast majority of heterosexuals or a peril to humanity. It is --
and is likely to remain -- largely the fatal price one can pay
for anal intercourse."
Inside is a rather confused mishmash of more of the same, along with some
pretty good science writing on what is known about AIDS replication and
transmission which reads like it came out of a different article without
an axe to grind. There is a subtle homophobia here, no less repugnant than
the editorial page ravings of Cal Thomas and the Boston Globe's David Wilson.
It is a reformation of Pat Buchanan's pet phrase, "[gays] have transgressed
against nature, and now they're reaping the fatal price", clothed in a mantle
of bioscience rather than religion. But it was bad religion, and so far,
it remains bad science.
The claim is that the vagina is a good shield against AIDS virus infection
or dissemination due to its intact epithelial structure, as opposed to the
anus and the penile urethra which are far more vascular and open to viral
infection. These are interesting hypotheses, certainly worthy of continued
exploration, but they remain hypotheses, and no public health official has
ever made as strong a statement as DISCOVER, trying to pass this off as
established fact. It is interesting that this article comes out at the
same time that news reports have uncovered the extent of AIDS in sexually
active heterosexuals in Africa. This article discounts whatever earlier
had been reported as being wholly reducible to the practice of
scarification, a cosmetic procedure using unsanitized needles. Why
promiscuous heterosexual activity seems to be correlated with the incidence
of the disease in Africa certainly is unexplored by this article.
The fact is that AIDS need not be the fatal consequence of anal intercourse
and should not be identified as one and the same. It was safe for millions
of years, and though it may cause some Falwellians and science-backed
homophobes indigestion, one can presume that it (not to mention sex in
general) will once again be considered safe at some time in the future.
It's curious that "normal" sexual intercourse was never singled out as the
culprit when syphilis was considered a death sentence. Rather, the focus
was on the spirochete. Yet here we have a curious fascination with and
condemnation of a sexual practice favored by a minority of society. Right
now all sexual practices which are open to the interchange of blood and/or
semen between non-monogamous individuals should be considered potentially
dangerous. At this point, it is foolhardy for promiscuous heterosexuals or
gay people to take the DISCOVER report on face value to avoid taking
reasonable safe-sex precautions in all forms of sexual expression.
I am trying to make a very subtle point here, and I want to make sure I am
not being misinterpreted. My thesis is that there is a large political
component in the DISCOVER article which is intimately tied up with the
traditional revulsion of Western society towards homosexual activity in
general and anal intercourse in particular. Whatever data might have been
or might yet be collected regarding the role of anal sex in the etiology of
AIDS is being obscured by the force of this societal proscription, leading to
overeager conclusions as yet unsupported by firm data, and to a focus on the
act of anal sex itself, as it becomes transformed into an icon for the dreaded
syndrome. To anyone interested in seeing rationality drive a solution to the
AIDS problem, this is very frightening.
With that said, I must also admit that any AIDS research which focuses on
the role of particular sexual practices is necessarily BOUND to be
controversial since it encroaches on the larger societal ambivalence
towards them. But for me, this argues for even more careful reporting
and an attention to conclusions unfettered by non-scientific mores
and morals. The DISCOVER report, shamefully, fell far short of this goal.
--
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPArrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/20/85)
Re the derogated practice of anal intercourse: I remember hearing a physician claim that the rectum is so hostile an environment for microbes that the only STD pathogens which can survive in it are gonococci. Of course, hepatitis can also be transmitted via anal intercourse through microsopic cuts in the penis or rectal wall. (And amoebas and other pathogens lurk in excrement, but are trans- mitted only through ingestion. Yet the urethra, vagina, and anus are fairly close to each other, and some of the same dangers lurk there.) Condoms should reduce the risk of transmission by blood. If the above claim is true, then only gonorrhea can actually reside in the rectum, while hepatitis and AIDS depend on immediate injection into the blood stream. Thus, a case can be made for the rectum being "naturally" a healthier sexual receptacle than the vagina, or the mouth for that matter. Some rectal and colonic cancers may originate sexually, but whether viruses cause them is not (I think) either known or clear. On the other hand, the variety of cancers (of the cervix, vagina, etc.) and other serious or chronic diseases or damage resulting from missionary-position heterosexual intercourse are legion and rela- tively well-known (but suffered by women, not men). I've always marvelled at the fact that these facts are never adduced to con- clude that heterosexuality, or a sexist use of it, is "contra naturam," unnatural and punished by an avenging Nature. If the fixation on anal intercourse as culprit is a coded belief that AIDS is intrinsically a "homosexual disease," then it should be noted that the preferred homosexual practice of a prototypical period such as classical Athens was intercrural (between the thighs) intercourse, while throughout for example Persian history, anal intercourse was highly rated and frequently practiced among both straights and gays. Finally, even NBC's post-Early Frost news program, "AIDS Fears, AIDS Facts" solicited a disclaimer from one of the interviewees that AIDS will remain primarily a disease of "high-risk groups" for the foreseeable future, even though the upshot of the rest of the program was to warn everyone that it now threatens all. Dream on! Cheers, Ron Rizzo
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/20/85)
In article <20@bbncc5.UUCP> sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: >The claim is that the vagina is a good shield against AIDS virus infection >or dissemination due to its intact epithelial structure, as opposed to the >anus and the penile urethra which are far more vascular and open to viral >infection. These are interesting hypotheses, certainly worthy of continued >exploration, but they remain hypotheses, and no public health official has >ever made as strong a statement as DISCOVER, trying to pass this off as >established fact. It is interesting that this article comes out at the >same time that news reports have uncovered the extent of AIDS in sexually >active heterosexuals in Africa. This article discounts whatever earlier >had been reported as being wholly reducible to the practice of >scarification, a cosmetic procedure using unsanitized needles. Why >promiscuous heterosexual activity seems to be correlated with the incidence >of the disease in Africa certainly is unexplored by this article. It would seem to me that "promiscuous heterosexual activity" would include anal intercourse. It certainly is popular currently in American heterosexual pornography, and, unless it could be shown that it is unlikely to happen in Africa, due to some cultural differences, I would assume it to be just as common amongst the promiscuous there as here. This does not mean I believe or support any position on the subject -- I know far too little to do so. But, until I was shown otherwise, I would expect that any human being who could be described as "promiscuous" would indulge in any possible sexual activity, and we would have to rule OUT the possibility that some one or combination of those practices would be the vector or cause in some sexually-transmitted disease. I'm not sure about the statement that "discounts" scarification. Was it proven that AIDS was not trnsmitted in this fashion? It sure seems in line with the "dirty needle" transmission vector amongst Haitians and intravenous drug abusers. Why wouldn't it be a factor? (This host no longer allows access to net.motss, so I am restricting distribution to net.bio. Please perpetuate discussion here.) Will