hnewstrom@x102c.harris-atd.com (Harvey Newstrom) (10/15/90)
I am not sure that being gay is a so-called "high risk" group. I think
that there is a flaw in the statistical interpretation.
1. About 10% of the population is "gay".
2. One would expect about 10% of the AIDS patients to be "gay" by random
chance.
3. Actually, about 70% of the AIDS patients are "gay".
4. Therefore, "gays" account for more AIDS cases than would be statistically
expected. This means they have a higher rate than "non-gays".
I put "gays" in quotes, because I think the term is misapplied and is not
used consistently between point one and the other points.
I believe that the Center for Disease Control counts a male in the "homosexual"
category if he has had any homosexual experience in his entire life. This is
not the definition of "homosexual" used by Kinsey in when surveys showed that
about 10% of the general population is exclusively homosexual in orientation.
Since Kinsey found that about 70% of the adult male population admits having
at lease one homosexual experience, I think the above logic should be
reworded as follows.
1. About 70% of the population has had a homosexual experience.
2. One would expect about 70% of the AIDS patients to have had a
homosexual experience by random chance.
3. Actually, about 70% of the AIDS patients have had a homosexual
experience.
4. Therefore, those having homosexual experiences account for no more
AIDS cases than would be statistically expected. This means that they
do not have a higher rate than persons not having a homosexual
experience.
Does this make since, or is there a major flaw in my logic. I realize that
the exact percentages vary over time, but are roughly as I reported. Any
comments would be appreciated.
__
Harvey Newstrom hnewstrom@x102c.ess.harris.com uunet!x102c!hnewstrom
(407)727-5176 FAX:(407)727-5118 P.O.Box 37; M/S 15/8873; Melbourne, FL 32902GERRI@IBM.COM (Gerri Oppedisano) (10/16/90)
> 1. About 70% of the population has had a homosexual experience. > 2. One would expect about 70% of the AIDS patients to have had a > homosexual experience by random chance. > 3. Actually, about 70% of the AIDS patients have had a homosexual > experience. > 4. Therefore, those having homosexual experiences account for no more > AIDS cases than would be statistically expected. This means that they > do not have a higher rate than persons not having a homosexual > experience. > > Does this make since, or is there a major flaw in my logic. I realize that > the exact percentages vary over time, but are roughly as I reported. Any > comments would be appreciated. I think the significance of understanding "high risk behavior" brought about the phrase to begin with. A "homosexual experience" to me sounds too vague. Getting excited watching your friend of the same sex undress when you were both 13 years old might be considered a homosexual experience to the person who went through it. If two people of the same sex experimented by fondling each other and hugging that might be considered a homosexual experience but it wasn't high risk behavior. Further, people reading the statistics based on homosexual experiences will not know how to interpret the data. The only way to interpret that kind of data is to have clearly defined what's considered the risk behavior in homosexual experiences. Also, the point in identifying the risk behaviors is to clear up the idea that if you're not gay and you do this you're safe. I'm not against defining, based on statistics gathered about high risk behavior, what groups of people tend to be considered at the highest risk and why (very important). I do agree it's important to know what patterns were found in statistical data collected (like there's a high percentage of homosexual males living in Manhattan who engage in high risk behavior and who've tested HIV+, .. , of the people testing HIV+, some high percentage of them live in cities). Anyway, perhaps it is true that the 10% is not a good representation of that group of people at risk. There should be another percentage based on homosexual activities (bi-sexuals are not exclusively homosexual.. are they included in the 10% ? ). gerri
Hoffman.El_Segundo@xerox.com (10/17/90)
In article (2648), Jim Flare questions some of my assertions about the only
"high risk groups" being behavior based.
I made no claim for my behavior being typical or untypical of all gay men. I
do claim that my behavior puts me in a distinctly low risk group, despite my
being gay.
Perpetuating the myth of a high risk group such as "all gay men" is plain
wrong. It is also harmful in many ways. As Ward Chanley pointed out here
recently, it fosters denial (often unjustifiably) in people outside those
groups. Also, for all too many people, it justifies their hatred of and even
violence against those groups. It is also an argument used against gay rights.
I agree when Jim says, "a "high risk group" is a group which is both
describable and which is also statistically harder hit by a disease than their
relative proportion to the general population. By that definition, "gay men
who engage in unsafe sex" is a far, far riskier group than "all gay men."
Yes, "gay men who engage in unsafe sex" is even less quantifiable than "gay
men", making it perhaps less useful to statisticians. However, it is more
accurate, and, even more importantly, it is far MORE useful to the individuals
affected: With some effort, you can actually REMOVE yourself from that risk
group!
Finally, Jim wonders about my saying "it is a group which has diminished
drastically in both absolute and relative size in the past decade, thankfully."
First, this is NOT due to "all gay men" being a high risk group, but to "unsafe
sex" being a high risk behavior.
And, as for that word "thankfully": I apologize if I wasn't clear enough here;
I certainly hope most people interpreted me correctly: There are far fewer
"gay men who engage in unsafe sex" today than 10 years ago, both in absolute
numbers and as a percentage. OK, the group has been diminished by deaths which
I am not thankful for, but an overwhelming majority of the drop has been due
not to people leaving the group through death, but through people leaving the
group through behavior changes, and to younger gay men never joining that group
in the first place. I am sad beyond words about the 100,000+ deaths, but I am
happy about, even proud of, the behavior changes by many millions of
responsible gay men.
-- Rodneyflar@Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) (10/18/90)
Hoffman.El_Segundo@xerox.com writes that he believes that we shouldn't
publicize risk groups as that can foster denial in the people outside
these groups. He also writes that he believes that he is not in a high
risk group because, while he is gay, he is not having unsafe sex.
I agree that risk groups have the potential to induce denial in the
nonmembers, but it also stresses the need for safe sex in members.
Which is more important is hard to say since there will always be
people who deny the problem. I see most of my straight friends (and
even teenage straight friends - a group typically hard hit by denial...)
understanding that they should not be having safe sex even though they
aren't gay. In fact, in coming out to them, they all stressed that
they were so worried about AIDS that they wondered how I dealt with being
even more at risk then they were. In contrast, I see many gay men who
don't believe that they are in serious danger. (Luckily, this isn't
the majority of gay men.)
I don't agree that you should seek to redefine the risk groups to
pare them down any. They are already fairly specifically targetted
as they are and the more specific they are, the more nonmembers they
have, which just leads to more potential denial victims.
Why are you concerned with whether or not you are in a risk group?
Potential discrimination may validate that concern, but I can't see
any other reason other than wanting to feel that you are safe. But
why do you want to feel that you are safe? That may lead to the
lowering of your guard and unsafe behaviour. This statement is the
one that has me worried:
|> With some effort, you can actually REMOVE yourself from that risk group!
I don't think you should ever consider yourself outside of the risk group.
What you are doing is "having safe sex within a risk group", you are not
"exitting the risk group".
Thanks for setting me clear about your happiness in seeing fewer people
engage in unsafe acts.
...jimHoffman.El_Segundo@xerox.com (10/18/90)
Jim, OOPS. Sorry about mixing up your name with your email address in my earlier note! I do believe "that we shouldn't publicize risk groups as that can foster denial in the people outside these groups." (That was Ward Chanley's earlier point.) But you downplayed the other reasons I strongly object to the term "high risk group": for all too many people, it justifies their hatred of and even violence against those groups. I think that's pretty important, too. And, finally, I believe "risk group" is imprecise and unnecessary. I still fundamentally disagree with you when you want to call "all gay men" a "risk group". If I practice safe sex *exclusively*, I truly HAVE REMOVED myself from "people who engage in unsafe sex". I do not agree with you that I am now "having safe sex within a risk group". By my behaviorally-based definitions, if I am having safe sex, I am not at risk (for sexual transmission of AIDS) at all. You ask why I am concerned about whether or not I am at risk. Seems to me like a sensible thing to worry about. Equally important, I find knowing that I am in control of my own risk empowering. That is, I cannot (and do not wish to) remove myself from the group of "all gay men", but I CAN (and have) changed my sex behavior, removing that sort of AIDS risk from my life. Maybe that doesn't soothe you, but *I* like it. I don't understand your and others' insistence on the term "risk group" when "risk behavior" is so much more precise, and avoids all the denial and discrimination side effects of "risk group". I do not wish "to redefine the risk groups to pare them down". I don't want to talk about risk groups at all. I very much DO want to focus on risk behaviors, which, far from being a smaller number of people, is probably larger, unfortunately! Such talk would not foster unjustified denial in, for example, your or my straight friends, as talk about "gay risk groups" might. You can re-assure your teenage straight friends who wonder how you deal with "being even more at risk then they [are]". You're not! If you are practicing safe sex exclusively, you and they are equally FREE of (sexually-transmitted) risk. And, if you are practicing safe sex and they are NOT, they are the ones at risk, not you, despite their being straight and your being gay. I apologize to those who feel I'm repeating myself. I hope I've made my points sufficiently clear. Thanks to all for bearing with me. Stay well. -- Rodney Hoffman