The Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette (OR) has a site called Take Care Down There which apparently receives some Title X money (your money originally).
Goofy, if you ask me. Goofy enough to be chuckled at and ignored, which means I vote no.
Recently, a fuss arose over a quote regarding HIV and young men who have sex with men (MSM) from Regina Griggs in a OneNewsNow article regarding youth and sexual identity. She said (in context):
Research shows that individuals often go through periods of gender and sexual confusion as they grow from children to teenagers to adults. Griggs wonders why, then, would schools opt to send children along a dangerous path. “Why are we allowing people to tell them, ‘Try it — you might like it?’ Over 70 percent of young kids 13- to 24-years-old, men having sex with men, are now HIV-positive,” Griggs notes. (see editor’s note)
Griggs here is describing prevalence, which is the total number of people in a population with a certain disease at a given time. However, this is clearly incorrect, as other bloggers have pointed out.
She may have been referring to a fact sheet at the CDC called HIV/AIDS Among Men Who Have Sex with Men when she was quoted by ONN.
In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM.
The ONN editors recently added a note pointing out the 71% figure from the CDC fact sheet.
This simply says that men having sex with men accounted for 71% of infections among all males reporting infections in 2005. MSM was a large driver of infections reported in 2005. While this is a sobering statistic, it does not mean what Mrs. Griggs said it means.
I do not know what the actual prevalence of MSM aged 13-24 with HIV is but it would need to be over 800,000 cases in order for her statistic to be true. This does not seem possible.
I arrived at that number by looking US Census data for 2005 which pegged the number of males in the US between 15-24 at about 19.7 million. The CDC estimates 5-7% of this age group as being MSM which yields 1.2 million males. If 70% of this group was HIV positive, then that would mean Mrs. Griggs is claiming that about 840,000 young men have HIV. Of course, these numbers are estimates since I rounded figures and used the Census data starting with age 15 and not 13 as the CDC does.
According to the CDC fact sheet, there are not that many people living with AIDS at present:
At the end of 2005, an estimated 217,323 MSM (191,362 MSM and 25,961 MSM who inject drugs) were living with AIDS, representing 67% of male adults and adolescents living with AIDS and 52% of all people living with AIDS.
These numbers are staggering enough without exaggeration or misinterpretation. I commented here because many have asked about the validity of these numbers and the quote made me curious about the scope of the issue.
Could someone translate this for me?
“I dont blame our community for the fact that MSM [men who have sex with men] still account for nearly three quarters of men living with HIV. I hold our government accountable,” said Foreman.
First, Foreman says HIV is a gay disease and then he says this. Anyone care to interpret?
This is a question often debated among therapists in situations where an identifiable potential partner can be identified. For instance, here is a case where a husband’s sexual activities will be made a part of an action by an ex-wife where the husband may have (alleged by the ex-wife) infected her with the virus.
If you were a friend of this couple and you knew one of them had HIV, would you tell the other? If you were their marriage counselor? Recently, on the BoxTurtleBulletin blog, Daniel Gonzales said that HIV status should never be disclosed. His advice was in contrast to advice given on a gay dating website (although I don’t fully agree with the advice columnist either) Essentially, the question posed by the scenario was this: If a friend knows the HIV+ status of someone who might be a dating or sex partner, should the knowing friend warn the unsuspecting friend? The gay dating website published advice suggesting that the friend should be warned. Daniel said the unknowing friend should not have been told.
I disagree with Daniel. I would probably inform a friend about much less, if I knew it. And certainly in this case, I believe that such disclosures should be made where there is a clearly identified partner. I sometimes link to Box Turtle Bulletin when Jim and the gang discuss research since he often provides thoughtful commentary and analysis of research on gay related issues. However, I strongly disagree here. While I do not think that HIV status should always be disclosed, and I am sensitive to the issue of stigma, but, in a case like this, I cannot understand why privacy should trump safety. I do not believe it does.
UPDATE: Jim Burroway posted a lengthy response to the dust-up over the advice on his blog regarding HIV+ disclosure. I still disagree and left a comment about it there:
Bottom line, if I knew two friends who might hook up and I knew one of them had a disease that could be spread via intimate contact, I would tell my unsuspecting friend as well as the friend who had the condition that I was going to do so. Sure, I might have to deal with fall out; but I believe I might have to deal with a different kind of fall out if I say nothing.
David Miller, former ACT-UP leader relates aspects of his conversion to Christ in this interview with Dan Wooding. The article begins,
David Miller has long been on of the most controversial AIDS activist in the world, but now there has been an incredible turn-around in his life – he has found Christ as his personal savior.
Miller surprised many at the recent Third Annual Global Summit on AIDS and the Church at Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California, when Pastor Rick Warren asked him to be a keynote speaker at the event attended by about 1,700 delegates from around the world.
I am impressed with the boldness of the Warrens and Saddleback Community Church. Rev. Warren has used his considerable success in ministry to show compassion and do good.
H/t Ann
Focus helping AIDS benefit
Group a sponsor of Springs ride
By Electa Draper Denver Post Staff WriterFocus on the Family - the Christian media ministry and gay-rights opponent - has surprised many in its home base of Colorado Springs by lending its name to a local bike race raising money for AIDS relief.
The ministry paid the $1,000 sponsorship fee, reserved a booth and registered two riders for Sunday’s Pikes Peak Classic.
The 100-mile race raises money for the Southern Colorado AIDS Project.
“We are all thrilled to death,” said Linda Boedeker, executive director of the AIDS project. “We were also a little bit surprised.”
The Christian group - which broadcasts in 26 languages around the world - was founded by James Dobson to dispense child-rearing advice in accord with Christian values.
The organization has worked hard to counter what Dobson has called “the homosexual agenda.”
“There seems to be the perception that (because) AIDS is seen as typically associated with the gay community, that Focus on the Family wouldn’t care for these people,” said Devin Knuckles, a spokesman for Focus on the Family.
“It’s kind of hurtful,” Knuckles said. “It’s our mission to help people who need help.”
Boedeker said that Focus on the Family’s participation belies its local reputation for not supporting the gay community or many local events.
“We have had some complaints,” Boedeker said. “There are a lot of people (who) think that Focus on Family must have an agenda. … I think they are trying to do what’s right in their community.”
I commend Focus for this effort. Read the rest of the article here…
Recently, I took some exception to the outdated article, “Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?” by Kathleen Melonakos. It was posted on the NARTH website and reprinted at Lifesite News but has now been pulled from the site. You can still read it at the Lifesite News page. I commend Dave Pruden and the NARTH leaders who are taking seriously these concerns for accuracy.
UPDATE: 1/5/06 - A commenter pointed out that the Melonakos article has now been pulled from the Lifesite News site. So this link does not work. For future reference, one can find it on other sites around the web.