The high percentage of gay and bisexual men who are livg wh HIV means that, as a group, they have a greater risk of beg exposed to HIV; browse lks here.
Contents:
- DISCRIMATN AND HOMOPHOBIA FUEL THE HIV EPIMIC GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN
- HIV/AIDS AND EDUTN: LSONS OM THE 1980S AND THE GAY MALE COMMUNY THE UNED STAT
- TOM HOLLAND’S GAY SEX SCENE 'THE CROWD ROOM' DEFEND BY FANS
DISCRIMATN AND HOMOPHOBIA FUEL THE HIV EPIMIC GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN
* why did gay men get aids *
Sce the HIV epimic started the 1980s gay men have been at a greater risk and reprented more of the new HIV s that we’ve known this untry and actually ternatnally as well. It’s bee we live a high HIV prevalent society among gay men and then also bee some of the behavrs that we engage may put more at risk for HIV.
HIV/AIDS AND EDUTN: LSONS OM THE 1980S AND THE GAY MALE COMMUNY THE UNED STAT
Perpetuatn of the HIV epimic gay and bisexual men is not directed solely by person-level behavrs but is fluenced by a range of ntextual factors, rooted cultural, historil and polil stctur this untry. * why did gay men get aids *
Addnally, lower e levels and higher rat of unemployment and rceratn may make harr for some gay and bisexual men to seek and receive high-qualy health re, cludg HIV ttg, treatment, and other preventn servic.
Over the last 30 years, efforts to prevent new HIV fectns among gay and bisexual men have been guid by paradigms that hold dividuals rponsible for their health behavrs. In fact, gay, bisexual, and other MSM acquire HIV at rat 44 tim greater than other men and 40 tim greater than women (CDC, 2011a). More recently, wh the game-changg breakthroughs the bmedil arena, attentn has shifted to the bmedil preventn strategi, which clu preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for gay, bisexual, and other MSM (Grant et al., 2010) and vagal microbicis for women (Abdool et al., 2010).
TOM HOLLAND’S GAY SEX SCENE 'THE CROWD ROOM' DEFEND BY FANS
Knowledge is power: If we learned anythg the gay male muny durg the early days of the HIV/AIDS epimic the Uned Stat, was that. No one knew what had h , and people were dyg huge numbers all around . The muny lost iends, lleagu, and timate partners. Inially mislabeled gay-related immune ficiency (GRID), valuable time was lost rpondg to the crisis bee most felt safe the belief that they were not at risk. Sce early victims were predomantly gay men, the stigma attached to homosexualy the medil, erng, law enforcement and eccliastil stutns beme a barrier to unrstandg, preventn, and treatment. * why did gay men get aids *
In rponse to the alarmg health dispari among gay and bisexual men, there has been a ll to broan the preventn lens to exame the fluence of multiple social and ntextual factors fluencg health behavrs (Halkis & Cahill, 2011).
Dpe clear evince for the social termants of HIV transmissn and the beneficial effects of stctural terventns (Adimora & Auerbach, 2010), there have been limed efforts targetg the social equali, which place gay and bisexual men at greater risk for the acquisn of HIV disease. Of particular relevance to HIV preventn among gay and bisexual men are the social ndns that place at heightened risk for acquirg HIV as pared to our heterosexual unterparts.
In this article, nsiratn is given to the manner through which discrimatn and homophobia, which may have been heightened bee of the AIDS epimic (Halkis, 1999), perpetuate HIV vulnerabili for gay and bisexual men.
Read rpons to myths that 'HIV is a gay disease' or a 'ath sentence,' and fd other important rmatn about gettg tted. * why did gay men get aids *
Such health vulnerabili driven by homophobia are often exacerbated for gay and bisexual men of lor, who are often further burned by the social circumstanc of racism and poverty. Sce discrimatn based on sexual inty is cril to the ias beg put forth, and sce the HIV preventn needs of gay and bisexual men differ wily om those of non-gay or bisexual MSM (Halkis, 2010b), the foc of this issue of the newsletter is on gay and bisexual men, and not MSM general. In the now historic document, which recently reached s 30th anniversary, the CDC (1981) reported five s of Pnmocystis rii pnmonia young gay men who otherwise should have been healthy.
Wh bewilrment and fear, I read Robert Altman’s (1981) acunt of “doctors New York and California [who] have diagnosed among homosexual men 41 s of a rare and often rapidly fatal form of ncer. ” In the followg years, I wnsed the eptn of the disease, which s early years was given the name GRID (gayrelated immunoficiency disease) bee of s omniprence the gay populatn (Shilts, 2007; Weeks & Almo, 2010).