Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Navigation |
Is The New York Times' latest health warning unfairly targeting/stigmatizing gay men?The 1/15/08 online edition of the New York Times reports of a new highly-drug resistant strain MRSA that is striking gay men. The coverage reminds me of early reports of a "gay cancer" in the early 1980s. I am not a scientist, but I was under the impression that it used to spread mostly in hospitals and especially among the elderly. In the past years I'd heard something about it ocurring in gyms with people needing to be more mindful of one another. Not fun but something that we could do something about. The above-referenced article seems to (at best) serve as a "warning" that I don't know how to assimilate in a healthy way other than as another "gay physicality = bad," message. There is no analysis or independent value-added by the newspaper. This is just my stream of cosciousness intepretation, which also makes me worry about how non-gay readers will react to this message, and whether smaller mainstream news sources will pump up the volume to feed/make money from existing homophobia. This should be followed as it could be tomorrow's political push button for those wanting to prove that who we are and do is bad.
Submitted by Guillermo Serri... (2949 points) (767 posts) on Tue, 2008-01-15 20:24. |
User login Recent comments
Recent blog posts
|
I agree that it gives
the impression to straights that gays live an unhealthy lifestyle. However, like the "gay cancer" headline from 1981 I believe (not the mid-80's I'm afraid), gays that are not looking after themselves should take this as a warning and do more research. At the risk of sounding like a "wet blanket", health problems are often based on choices people make (e.g. overeating leading to obesity and type 2 diabetes, smoking leading to lung cancer) not on things like sexual orientation. Perhaps there is some behaviour that some gay men are participating in that is leading to this trend.
In the 1970's before HIV came along there was an alarming rise in STD's among gay men which pointed to a cavalier attitude among some gay men about their health and well-being. Tragically their immune systems were already compromised when HIV hit.
Can you tell that I come from a family of doctors and nurses (lol)!
Cheers
JBE
I totally agree with you about personal accountability
....with regard to all issues pertaining to our health and that of others. Without preaching, most of us know what is "safer" and what is most dangerous when it comes to sexual behavior that can lead to the transmission of STDs and HIV. I do get pissed off when I see people/friends/unknown masses not acting in accordance with ideas that should be engrained our brains by now; however the article is not about HIV or STDs per se.
As I see it, The New York Times is putting worth undigested information about a study that has already gotten slammed by several members of the medical community in its scope and conclusions. You would not know it from this article as. Ultimately what I find most dangerous is the whole idea that it's a gay thing and it might get out to "others" via the most simple and almost unavoidable ways. It's not a gay thing.
Do I think that we need to do better with regard to how we treat sex and one another? Without a doubt, but homophobia and finger pointing about flesh eating bacteria is not going to help those at risk. It only seems to help those who want to marginalize us in broad terms by saying that even without having sex we are at risk. Even a freaking handshake from a gay man who may never have had anal sex could become the new leper.......
Even after reading the editor's
cautions, it is still a concern for sexually active gay men. The rate of 1 in 588 versus 1 in 3,800 in the general population is a bit alarming. I have heard similar concerns raised in the gay community in Toronto.
I agree that homophobes might take this and run with it, but considering how "liberal" the NY Times usually is, the fact it would produce a headline like this raises my eyebrows. Perhaps they are trying to raise awareness in the gay community.
I would rather raise awareness of a potentially serious issue among sexually active gays and risk some homophobia, then downplay the risks and let a potentially serious problem get a lot worse (that was part of the problem with AIDS initially, some gay people thought it was an attempt to demonize their lifestyle). Lets face it the homophobes are going to hate us regardless since they suffer from an irrational hatred of something they do not understand.
Cheers
JBE
It seems that the NYT may not even have read the study
You obviously stay on top of health matters, know that these tests and findings come out in masses every single day, and that what gets chosen as "news" is subjective. I think that the choice to pick this one and particularly the modality of presentation is lazy at best and beneath the general standards of a news media leader.
I can't opine on any awareness intent, but can report that the NYT's take on eaters of gay flesh is still one of their most emailed stories, even two days it went live. Also to simply say that homophobes are going to hate us due to irrational hatred does not cut it with me. There are different degrees of homophobia and there is ample documentation showing that "hatred" is not static by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe we can turn this negative into a positive.
The NY Times
probably picked this medical story because of the potential seriousness of this infection getting into the general population. Up until now it has mainly been isolated in hospitals. If it is spread widely across the population it could create significant harm. I agree that it is a bit sensationalized by using the term "flesh eating" disease up front. As far as I know the pneumonia is more likely to kill a person.
Actually the most interesting part of the scientific article was the Discussion section. It talks about a parallel rise in the use of recreational drugs, and increased STDs (including HIV) among sexually active gay males in big cities. All true I am afraid. Even in the last couple of days I have been on another web site typing into a forum and some guys try to IM me wanting to hook up. What part of the phrase "monogamous relationship" don't people understand? The point I am trying to make is some gay men are falling back into the bad habit of the 1970's in terms of sexual behaviour, and all evidence is pointing to this fact. Gay sex is not bad but you gotta be respectful of your health and your partner (s) health.
Finally, I was not trying to downplay the seriousness of homophobia. I was trying to make the point that I would rather be informed and alive and take my chances with homophobes, then be dead! I certainly don't see many warnings about this in the gay press, I have to get my information from my doctor's office or the AIDS Committee of Toronto. One advantage of being HIV+ is I have a lot of contact with gay medical professionals and health organizations so I am probably better informed then many.
Cheers
JBE
I get the informed and alive part, but........
As partial funder of the study, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has the deep pockets and marketing muscle to really give this study any type of exposure that it feels it warrants. I might even be able to argue that the NYT (among others) legitimized and served as a de facto publicist for this study.
With regard to the gay press comment, I can't put myself in your shoes, but I think that anyone wanting information can find it, esp. in gay newspapers. I am a resident of the DC in the US, but one need not live here to read the online edition of say The Washington Blade to see how many stories/warnings are issued every single week.
Some of the people who I know to be most at risk for HIV, also happen to be among the most informed people that I know when it comes to issues of trasmission. I am guessing the spike in HIV may have more to do with complacency or choosing to partake in behavior that is known to be risky. At this stage I'd sooner look at psychology than possibly passing the buck to our own media without hard-facts.
I agree it shouldn't
be an either or, but sadly with the media these days they are competing for readership and that means "sensationalizing" stories, and what is more sensational then gay sex and flesh-eating disease? You and I are better informed and don't hit the panic button without doing research but the straights hit the panic button, and the gays who should pay attention are partying hard! Nothing wrong with that, but you gotta be educated as well. My god, I was educated about safer sex and still got infected, I can't imagine what is going on now in the fast gay lifestyle.
My comment on the gay press was more to do with those mags you see in bars that have all the social stuff (e.g. what special events local bars are having) and usually have a half naked guy on the front (young and cute of course). Those are the mags that the young gays quite often pick up, not the "Washington Blade" or "The Advocate". They are usually too serious and political.
I now remember why I knew so much about this issue among gays in Toronto. I was asked to participate in a study last year trying to discover the frequency of it in the community. I was paid $20 to have a q-tip stuck up my nose!
Cheers
JBE
You know the content of the
You know the content of the study is not the problem, those kinds of limitations are common in this types of studies. The information suggestes it is fact, there is an incidense, so the info should be out there. The problem to me is the context that the article gave it, like it is a mainly gay issue.
I checked, the CDC reports 90,000 deaths a year by this type of bacteria, especifically related to a hospital infection and not with sexual behavior. There was little mention of that fact, and the link provided was for a list of NYT stories with the word hospital in it. I agree that the work for this story was lazy, it seems incomplete. As liberal as the NYT might be and as much interest to get the news of this new strain out there, which I belive was the intent, this was not a gay friendly piece of journalism. It is seems random.
Not gay friendly true
but I don't think they were trying to be deliberately gay unfriendly either. Newspapers and the media in general (TV is the worse) are notorious for sensationalizing medical stories which makes people very neurotic. I have stopped paying attention to most medical studies results because they are so misleading.
However, I think for sexually active gay men this study (not necessarily the NYT article) is important to pay attention to. Although still not in extremely high numbers, the fact that MSRA seemed to be more prevalent in men engaging in M/M sex over a period of years compared to the general population in two large urban centres is a "shot across the bow" so to speak. If I was a single, young, sexually active gay man I would certainly be paying attention.
Cheers
JBE
Yes I dont think that was
Yes I dont think that was their intention, but is a shame that it came out that way. I found this article that does a better job of delivering the info and expressing that there is prevalence with gays but this is not a gay only issue.
http://www.staphnews.com/mrsa/staph-strain-more-virulent-than-mrsa-infecting-gay-men/
An I agree 100 % with you that the results of this study are important to pay attention to, there is a reason why sismologist pay atention to litttle tremors so that they can see the big one coming. Especially since this thing in a lot more infectious than any STD and a lot more nasty.
Cheers back to you.
Thanks for the website
and since I am homebound with a lung infection, I have lots of time to surf the net and read!
Cheers
JBE
Sorry to hear about that,
Thanks
for the concern, it is not related to my HIV, I am healthy as a horse on that front. There is a very nasty bug going around my work that is taken out about 6 people. It lasts for up to 3 weeks. Fortunately I have a "husband" who is a good caregiver :)!
Cheers
JBE
Is The New York Times' latest health warning unfairly target....
"health problems are often based on choices people make (e.g. overeating leading to obesity and type 2 diabetes, smoking leading to lung cancer) not on things like sexual orientation. Perhaps there is some behaviour that some gay men are participating in that is leading to this trend."
I agree with you on this point. Yet I think you've described the very trouble. It is our so called "orientation" that is causing the trouble. The way in which we have sex is exactly what is causing these diseases to spring from us as a people, I mean. Yet I believe that these 'viruses' would have shown up regardless in who they have first come to mutate from. Nature, real nature isn't some fairy tale, like we're used to being told throughout our lives, it never stops from it's duty and that is to eradicate the living.
But the original writer of this is probably right, we as a community may be blamed for bringing MRSA to light. We will have to take a wait and see approach to this new trouble and hope for the best but of course, expect the worst!
Well the information in the
USE LYE-BASED SOAP!!!!!!!
Your chances of contracting an STD through ANAL SEX is much greater than vaginal or oral sex. USE PROTECTION ALWAYS.
Lye-based soap still protects against MRSA. Clean yourself with lye-based soap before and after having sex. When I mean clean yourself I mean everything including your penis, balls and ass.
EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE HAVING SEX.
A documentary about MRSA will air next week on PBS, check your local listings for show times.
Thanks Evan
about the PBS special heads-up. All I can say is I am glad I am in a monogamous relationship, lye-based soap is a good precaution, but yet another thing gays need to think about when having sex. I wonder if bathhouses provide this soap because that is where a significant amount of casual sex is taking place, not to mention other avenues such as circuit parties and dark rooms. Prevention is much better than trying to treat the disease though.
Cheers
JBE
The CDC speaks
And sets the record straight. The statement about MRSA:
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/2008/t080116.htm
Hopefully turning a negative into a positive
Great job netogeno! Anyone coming to this site will at least be able to find useful information and feel better about going on with their day. It will be interesting to see if the NYT (and others who took the same route) will write articles about the CDC's statement and, if so, how they will they frame them.
So men, let's continue to keep clean (I find cleanliness quite sexy if anybody cares) and not make this something that makes you feel bad or helpless about being gay or in danger everytime you shake hands or may be lucky enough to meet someone you may really want to cuddle with safely.