Jump to content

Talk:Men who have sex with men: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
fix
Tijfo098 (talk | contribs)
Undid revision 393295719 by Ctjf83 (talk) Don't edit my posts
Line 160: Line 160:
:::::''I have [[WP:BLP]] issues.'' You said it, not him. [[User:Tbhotch|<font color="#4B0082">Tb</font><font color="#6082B6">hotch</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tbhotch|<font color="#0F0F0F">Ta</font><font color="#DAA520">lk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Tbhotch|<font color="#2C1608">C.</font>]]</sup> 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::''I have [[WP:BLP]] issues.'' You said it, not him. [[User:Tbhotch|<font color="#4B0082">Tb</font><font color="#6082B6">hotch</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tbhotch|<font color="#0F0F0F">Ta</font><font color="#DAA520">lk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Tbhotch|<font color="#2C1608">C.</font>]]</sup> 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Was just gonna remove part, cause I may have misread it, although not completely clear...yes I have issues with the image violating BLP. <font face="Kristen ITC">[[User:Ctjf83|<font color="#ff0000">C</font><font color="#ff6600">T</font><font color="#ffff00">J</font><font color="#009900">F</font><font color="#0000ff">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>]] [[User Talk:Ctjf83|chat]]</font> 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Was just gonna remove part, cause I may have misread it, although not completely clear...yes I have issues with the image violating BLP. <font face="Kristen ITC">[[User:Ctjf83|<font color="#ff0000">C</font><font color="#ff6600">T</font><font color="#ffff00">J</font><font color="#009900">F</font><font color="#0000ff">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>]] [[User Talk:Ctjf83|chat]]</font> 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
[[:File:Men of Israel dvd cover photo.jpg|thumb|right]]
[[File:Men of Israel dvd cover photo.jpg|thumb|right]]
{{outdent}}{{ec}} You have easily exhausted my good faith with your [[WP:TE|tendentious arguments]]. Note that the same actors appear in the cover image on [[Men of Israel]]. You should propose that for deletion as well because you "have BLP issues". [[User:Tijfo098|Tijfo098]] ([[User talk:Tijfo098|talk]]) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent}}{{ec}} You have easily exhausted my good faith with your [[WP:TE|tendentious arguments]]. Note that the same actors appear in the cover image on [[Men of Israel]]. You should propose that for deletion as well because you "have BLP issues". [[User:Tijfo098|Tijfo098]] ([[User talk:Tijfo098|talk]]) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)



Revision as of 21:34, 27 October 2010

pre-op transwomen

Note:pulled this into it's own section as discussion had previously been resolved.

@Benjiboi - For pre-op transwomen who have sex with men the HIV transmission rates actually *do* have something to do with their bodies. They don't have a vagina so they are more likely to engage in receptive anal sex than women (or heterosexual men) -- and so they are more likely to get HIV. And because they have a penis they are more likely to engage in insertive anal sex -- and so they are more likely to pass on HIV.

And yes, horrible discrimination does exist. But even if all the discrimination were to magically go away -- pre-op transwoman and MSM would be a relatively small and relatively sexually isolated group for which a relative high percentage engage in anal sex and role reversal. All adding up to a recipe for an HIV epidemic. What we're learning is that, as far as the underlying cause of HIV levels are concerned: a high percentage of anal sex and role reversal are the key differences when comparing MSM communities to most highly promiscuous heterosexual communities. Hoping To Help (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be true, however we need reliable sources to show that (i) pre-op transwomen are classified and studied for these statements. Because of systematic cultural biases including those of researchers this is a field that is largely mis-attributed and miscounted. I feel we can make broad generalized statements that remain accurate but need to be cautious about statements asserting transwomen or transmen are more or less likely to engage in certain activities or are more likely to vector diseases. Similar to the problems with using the blood data to show the MSM are X-times more likely to have HIV, well they got the MSM blood info from STD/HIV clinics. As there are very few transgender-focussed health centers and they are often catering to those who have no health insuance, we need to more cautiously before synthesizing statistics. -- Banjeboi 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


MSM Promiscuity

Currently the article states:

"A [perpetuated stereotype] is that MSM are more [sexually promiscuous] and engage in unprotected sex, but studies have largely discounted these assertions."

But the citations listed don't support the assertion. One citation states that MSM and heterosexuals have similar numbers of unprotected partners -- but says nothing about total partners (the traditional definition of sexually promiscuous).

The other citation calls both assertions into question where it states:

"Conclusions: The persistence of disparities in HIV between heterosexual individuals and MSM in the United States cannot be explained solely by differences in risky sexual behavior between these two populations."

This citation says MSM engage in more risky sexual behavior -- but that alone can't explain the greater HIV prevalence.

At the very least, the contention that MSM are on average no more promiscuous than heterosexuals needs to be removed -- unless several very well regarded studies show otherwise.

Yes, it's a stereotype -- and certainly doesn't apply to all MSM. But, the stereotype that men, on average, would have a lot more sexual partners -- if they weren't limited by women and societal norms, is an age old stereotype ... that is backed by many studies.

Chris Rock jokes that: "Men are as faithful as their opportunities." It's funny because there is more than a grain of truth to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoping To Help (talkcontribs) 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem is that the comparison is gay versus straight, not MSM and those who don't. There is a problem in that MSM on the down-low tend to have higher numbers of sex partners, but aren't counted in the number of partners gay men have. You need to see the number of partners MSM have, not gay men. Also, the source is only for the US, and doesn't include other countries. There used to be the following citation in the article: "A 1990 study called The Social Organization of Sexuality showed that men who had at least one male sexual partner in the previous 5 years had an average of 16.7 sexual partners during that time period, while men who only had sex with women had an average of 4.8 sexual partners during that time."[1] What happened to it? Also, what happened to this paragraph?
Anal sex can be an important risk factor for intestinal parasitism.[21] High rates of intestinal parasitism are found in MSM throughout the world.[22] The prevalence of amebiasis is approximately 4% overall in the United States, however the prevalence of E. historylitica or E. dispar in the gay population of New York City and San Francisco approached 40-50%.[23] Guardia lamblia and Entamoeba histolytica have long been regarded as 'exotic' organisms, but are 'hyperendemic' among gay men attending STD clinics with up to 20 excreting cysts."[24] In a controlled study 67.5% of 200 homosexual men but only sixteen percent of 100 heterosexual men were found to be infected with intestinal parasites"...These findings suggest that the male homosexual community may be an important reservoir of potentially pathogenic protozoa."[25] Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Sexual behaviour not sexuality is what spreads STIs. And ... research supports that non-homos also have butt sex - to be blunt. Wedge this novel synthesis in the oral sex and anal sex articles as appropriate. We should not be promoting that a sexual or social identity equates disease vector. It's all related to sexual activities. Down-low was shown in hindsight to be a cultural myth perpetuated by stigmatizing both being black and non-heterosexual and the same time. Recent studies related to same-sex couplings support that on a whole LGBT people show very similar rates in sexual activity, including sexual practices typically associate with gay men, - and disease rates, than everyone else. And those HIV rates in blood donor stats - they're shown to be flawed as well pulling stats for the gay men's blood from ... STD/HIV clinics. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a sexual behavior, not a sexual identity. MSM are the ONLY type of men who have receptive anal sex. Not all MSM have receptive anal sex, but ONLY MSM have it. To be blunt, having a man ejaculate semen into you butt is a health risk and MSM are the only men who experience that. You can explain away all you want, put the fact is that for whatever reason, there are health affects associated with MSM. Now it may be that is just because there is ignorance about safe sex practices, and once that gets perpetuated, the discrepancy will go away, but censoring the information is not the way to promote awareness. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Banjboi's comment about LGBT couples having the same number of sex partners as heterosexual partners is a trick of statistics. Yes, if you average the number of sex partners that lesbians have (low) with the number of sex partners that gay men have (high) it might average out to somewhere near the number of sex partners that heterosexuals have. And to say that MSM or gay men don't have higher rates of HIV is not supported by any reference in the article. The studies all show that on AVERAGE people who engage in MSM have more sex partners than people who don't engage in MSM -- AND they are WAY, WAY more likely to get HIV than men who only have sex with women. And when one argues against that reality, one is not only putting forth false and potentially deadly information -- one is buying into the idea that being promiscuous is bad or that choosing to take calculated risks (sexual or otherwise) is wrong. If that were an absolute truth then we should all only have sex with a total of one person our entire lives -- something that very few people (in the US at least) aspire to, much less achieve.
Hoping To Help (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshuajohanson -- I would vote for putting those two paragraphs back in. They seem very interesting and relevant. Currently much of the article reads like a watered down, Politically Correct safer sex pamphlet. Lots of telling you that everything is dangerous and one should use lots of barriers without actually giving you any concrete facts. If the MSM article is going to have a health or safer sex section at all it really should include the information about parasites.
Hoping To Help (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the subject of this thread ... myths and stereotypes, like that more married men cheat on their wives than married women cheat on their husbands, are routinely shown to be subject to various flaws in analyzing statistics, researcher bias, subject's unwillingness to fully disclose their activities etc. Promiscuous is a pejorative which generally means one more than I approve of. The latest best study was the Chicago study (15? years ago) which - because they couldn't find many bisexual people(?) simply folded all the data of LGBT folks together no matter what activities were involved or how someone identified. No, we really don't have any good numbers. And there was a great study about suburban housewives who had more anal sex than gay men, ergo having anal sex made you a housewife not gay. We need to move cautiously here and avoid implying things that are untrue or supported by faulty data. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about sexual identification. Men who have sex with men can include gay men, bisexual men or even straight men who have gay sex in prison. This is specifically talking about the sexual act between two men, regardless of the sexual identities of the men involved. We are not saying that having anal sex makes you gay. We are saying MSM are more likely to have anal sex, probably because when two men have sex together they can't have vaginal sex, because neither one of them has a vagina, so they are more likely to opt for another option. Logically it makes sense. Besides logic, the stats show that MSM are more likely than the general population to have diseases associated with anal sex. Either because they are more likely to participate in anal sex for the lack of an option for vaginal sex or because they have the ability to switch roles between insertive and receptive. We don't know all the causes. All we can do is report the facts. The statistic about surburban housewives having more anal sex than gay men is not the general population. First of all, this is about MSM, not gay men. Second, it doesn't negate the fact that gay men have anal sex more often than the general population. At most you can say that MSM have anal sex more often than the general population, but less often than surburban housewives. Like I said, all we can report is what the reliable sources report, and they report MSM have a higher liklihood to have diseases associated with anal sex than the average population. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more compelling to actually prove that MSM have more anal sex than women and men who never have sex with men. I doubt there is good research on that. And lots of women do have anal sex. Let's look at each study to see what they actually say and how it could be best used here to serve our readers. I have a hunch when it's broken down a bit the synthesis that seems to be morally motivated will be upended by hard data. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

transwomen

Some sources consider transwomen to be MSM,[3] others considering transwomen "along side" MSM
Very lousy and inaccurate phrasing. This implies being a transwoman means you have sex with men. Gender identify has nothing to do with determining who you have sex with. It should be revised like this "Some sources consider transwomen who are sexually active with men to be MSM, ... ". I would do the edit myself but I'm sure one of you editors will undo it as you always do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.121.92 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's lousy because the sources use that lousy language.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Homosexuality undergoing revision

The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you,


Pdorion (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pdorion, I'm really impressed with your vision for a truly encyclopedic article. Your sandbox talk page does a great job laying everything out.
I'm not sure where/how others are to contribute. If we've got ideas for the new outline where should those suggestions be left? Thanks. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MSM acronym

Why is it Men who have Sex with Men and not Men who Sodomize Men. Isn't the latter the same thing, just shorter?--TheAmericanizator (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical section needs rewrite or drastic cutting

Most of the text in the physical section is about sex and STI's in general -- without relating it to MSM. As such, most of it needs to be rewritten or eliminated. My plan is to be bold and remove that which doesn't tie in to MSM unless someone steps forward to rewrite it (or has a better suggestion). Hoping To Help (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly useful sources for updating the section:

  • http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/97/6/1076 - Trends in primary and secondary syphilis among men who have sex with men in the United States. "The overall rate increased 19% between 2000 and 2003, reflecting a 62% increase among men and a 53% decrease among women. In 2003, an estimated 62% of reported cases occurred among MSM. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing syphilis cases among MSM account for most of the recent overall increase in rates and may be a harbinger of increasing rates of HIV infection among MSM."
  • http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3102499.html - Condom Use and HIV Risk Behaviors Among U.S. Adults: Data from a National Survey - "In defining HIV risk categories of interest, we have relied on the relatively few exposure categories that account for the source of nearly all recently reported adult and adolescent AIDS cases and HIV infections. Roughly one-half of these reports are from men who have had sex with men, one-third are from injecting drug users and one-sixth have resulted from other sexual behavior."
  • http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/him/dlpaper-millettetal.pdf - Focusing “Down Low”: Bisexual Black Men, HIV Risk and Heterosexual Transmission - "A study of heterosexually identified black men in Los Angeles reported that approximately33% of HIV-positive men and 16% of HIV-negative men admitted to engaging in anal intercourse with men.19 Eight percent of black MSM recruited for an intervention study in Chicago identified as straight.34 Likewise, approximately 16% of homosexually active black men recruited for two separate multisite studies identified themselves as straight.12,17 However, identifying oneself as heterosexual and having sex with men is not unique to black men. Between 18% and 34% of heterosexual Latino men and between 18% and 46.5% of heterosexual white men reported anal or oral sex with a man in the past three months or during their lifetime in three of the studies. 12,17,25 One study reported that the level of agreement between heterosexual identity and behavior was highest among Asian men (78.4%) and lowest among white men (34.7%).25 In comparison, the level of agreement for black men was 43%."
  • http://www.annals.org/content/145/6/416.full - Discordance between Sexual Behavior and Self-Reported Sexual Identity: A Population-Based Survey of New York City Men - "Previous research has found discordance between self-reported sexual identity and sexual behavior in men (11–13). Several reports (14–22) have focused on risk behaviors among men who have sex with men and acknowledge having male sexual partners but do not report a gay identity. Compared with gay-identified men who have sex with men, these men were less likely to use condoms during anal intercourse with other men (21) and less likely to have been recently tested for HIV infection (17). Because of secrecy about their sexual identity, these men may be distanced from the gay community, where most activities that focus on HIV prevention in men who have sex with men occur; therefore, they may have an increased risk for acquiring HIV infection and other STDs."
  • http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=MmcMWpH847ScYfDhGvTv11n2TH5cDpSlKqM656YvKSfsHyp7DQnQ!-289140146!1566849592?docId=5001963414 - Sexual behavior among HIV-positive men who have sex with men: what's in a label? - "Self-labels also appear to be associated with medical and psychological variables. Bottoms may be more likely to be HIV-seropositive than tops because of their preference for RAI versus IAI (Caceres & van Griensven, 1994; Vittinghoff et al., 1999; Wegesin & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2000). Sexual roles also have been associated with masculinity and femininity; one study showed that adults who preferred RAI recalled more childhood gender nonconformity (Weinrich et al., 1992). Mixed evidence exists regarding an association between top or bottom self-labels and femininity in adulthood (Wegesin & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2000)."
  • http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/bisexuality.pdf - Sexual Arousal Patterns of Bisexual Men - "In general, bisexual men did not have strong genital arousal to both male and female sexual stimuli. Rather, most bisexual men appeared homosexual with respect to genital arousal, although some appeared heterosexual."

Hoping To Help (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion

What is the procedure to delete a page like this. This is an abstract term only a small group of people use and can/be deemed offensive. For instance, there isn't a men who have sex with women, women who have sex with women, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison312 (talkcontribs) 22:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done passes WP:N. TbhotchTalk C. 22:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_who_have_sex_with_women. But the article shows that the distinction between 'gay' and 'MSM' has a particular significance for health. Apalomita (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture brouhaha

The picture caption previously had a purpose, in that it stressed the difference between "gay" and "MSM." The current proposed caption is meaningless and could potentially confuse readers. I am restoring something akin to the older caption, because it was actually useful to the reader. SDY (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It's not showing men having sex, so there is no real usefulness to it. Plus I already brought up BLP issues saying any of these men have sex with men could be BLP and defamatory issues. CTJF83 chat 16:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "MSM" and "gay" is that the latter is a term of self-identification and the former is a research category that includes people who are not gay. I agree that the picture has minimal value, but at the very least it should attempt to help the reader's understanding of the article instead of just saying "here's some gay people" (which isn't what the article is about). I think that the idea that this is a BLP issue is kind of sad (i.e. that being gay is defamatory in some way), but given recent news items about suicides of people who were "exposed" it's a reality we should acknowledge. I wouldn't oppose removing the picture and caption entirely. SDY (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removal is probably best...esp since you brought up recent suicides, we don't wanna be a part of that with out pictures. CTJF83 chat 16:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pic of gay porn actors is irrelevant. Many MSM "choose not to accept" gay. This is a pic of gay actors. An appropriate pic would be someone who has sex with men and who doesn't identify as gay. And... to avoid BLP concerns this person(s) would have to self identify as MSM. Lionel (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all actors on the image identify themselves as gays. This actors does not include the woman, the boom manager (red shirt), the cameraman (yellow shirt) and the director (black shirt, who is also openly gay). All the other are gays and yes, they have sex with other men. TbhotchTalk C. 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me offer an example... The Black community is almost universally opposed to homosexual activity. (If you don't believe me just look at the demographics for Prop 8.) In that community MSMs are referred to as "on the down low." Even though it's an euphanism for homosexual, a Black man "on the down low" would vehemently deny he was a homosexual. Oprah did a show on this. So, find a pic of a Black guy who is "on the down low," find a source that "down low" = MSM and you're in business.Lionel (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You want a "down-low" I can say Ricky Martin, Tiziano Ferro and many other (came out gays) that identified theirselves as straight people and at the end of the day, they are not. TbhotchTalk C. 23:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if we went with a drawing? And, if so, what would it need to depict? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem are the pseudoBLP issues about gay people who has gay sex and they identify theirselves as that, an image which represents MSM conduct, even if they have sex with men or not, like go to gay clubs or other patrons. TbhotchTalk C. 23:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MSM was specifically coined to represent men who have homosexual sex but do not identify as gay. This was because early AIDS research was only counting gays and was thus undercounting men "on the down low." Someone who was in the closet and came out is a poor example of MSM. Closeted is different than MSM. Someone who engages in homosexual sex but denies being gay is the best representation of MSM. Lionel (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, "MSM and gay refer to different things." Using the pic of gay actors is at best confusing at worst misleading.Lionel (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Men who have sex with men (abbreviated as MSM, also known as males who have sex with males) are male persons who engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, ***regardless of how they identify themselves***; many men choose not to accept social identities of gay or bisexual TbhotchTalk C. 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gay is a subset of MSM. Now, what about the drawing idea? It would eliminate any WP:BLP issues. Thanks! 00:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
While technically true, a pic of gays fails to illustrate the concept behind MSM. Someone who might be a good candidate is Ed Schrock. He had sex with men and to my knowledge doesn't identify as gay. Can you draw a man who has sex with men and who doesn't identify as gay? Lionel (talk)
What about drawing prison sex? Lionel (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe like a comic: "Mr. X is 36 years old, he has a wife and two children, but he hides a secret life, he cheated his partner with another man. Mr. X does not identify himself as gay, but he likes to sleep with other men." ore something like that TbhotchTalk C. 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the classic situations for MSM is anonymous sex, and bathroom glory holes in particular. That'd be easy to illustrate.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a need for a picture, unless there is one of 2 men actually having sex, and at least one doesn't identify as gay. Or I suppose a picture of one of these anti-gay senators or priests (can't think of names off the top of my head) who sleep with men would possibly work.... CTJF83 chat 04:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Larry Craig....what about a pic of him, saying "Men who have sex with men may not self identify as gay"...or more BLP issues? I don't really think so, cause he admitted to having sex with men. CTJF83 chat 04:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a bunch of circular arguing. The image and caption are fine, we don't know how all these actors self-identify, the point is that researchers use the term even though these men pictured are men whose profession is to have sex with other men. These side digressions don't make any sense except to prove an article like this that explains labels are confusing is needed to explain why researchers need it. The image is fine because these are public figures who are known for having sex with other men, It would be wrong to say they were all gay unless you had a statement from each of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.15.151 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Men, such as these gay pornography actors on the set of Men of Israel, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours.

Ok, this dispute over the image has to stop. Work it out here first. Once there is consensus, I (or another admin) will unprotect. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying but seems like Ctj do not want to add an image. TbhotchTalk C. 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read WP:BLP and see my clearly good rationale issue with images/captions. CTJF83 chat 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you understand first at all the topic? MSM are men who, regardless of how they identify themselves, have sex with men. The gay actors of the previous image, all self-identify as gay, the have sex with men so: a) they are MSM or b) they have sex with women. Stop using BLP as a shield of your disruptive editing. We are trying to have an image here and you still doing the same. Ed Schrock had sex with a man, he declared himself as gay? no, what's the problem with that. TbhotchTalk C. 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I see on my watchlist is a lot of reverts, and that has to stop. If there is need to some mediation or so, let me know. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Do you have a source the 2 men are gay? Have you heard of gay for pay...that is clearly where a BLP issue come in, calling these 2 guys gay, when they might not be. We don't really need an image to accompany this article, unless it is 2 men actually having sex CTJF83 chat 19:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can see their webpages, Lucas Entertainment profile or the film itself, I am not saying that they are gay per pay I AM saying that they are gays becuase they say that they are. Even you like it or not, THEY ARE HAVING SEX WITH ANOTHER MEN REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. TbhotchTalk C. 19:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, take a breath...source that they are both gay, and fix the caption, and I'm fine...the old caption "Men, such as these gay pornography actors on the set of Men of Israel, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours" I think is flawed. Clearly they are MSM, but it's whether they identify as gay, bi, or straight....not if they identify as MSM CTJF83 chat 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that gay porn actors ("gay for pay" or otherwise) qualify as MSM. So the picture is appropriate (unless you want an even more explicit one, do you?). The caption wording proposed by Ctjf83 seems fine to me, although "for a variety of reasons" is superfluous in the caption. That's what the article is for. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Caption wording? I was pointing out a flaw in the caption. What do you mean by a more explicit one? I don't think we want straight (no pun) up hard core sex. CTJF83 chat 20:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the flaw in the caption that made you edit war over the entire picture? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we were calling these guys MSM without a reference, I have WP:BLP issues. It started with this image which was even more BLP issues than porn stars, and with recent suicides, I didn't want Wikipedia responsible for another by outing someone in a gay bar, that didn't want to be outed. CTJF83 chat 21:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you "have" BLP issues? If you think the picture is not really from a gay porn movie set, then propose the picture itself for file deletion. Note that it has an WP:OTRS ticket, which almost certainly means it depicts what it claims to depict. You appear to be picture trolling; something I've often encountered in articles on sex... Tijfo098 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picture trolling doesn't sound like WP:AGF. If we use a picture we should have one with someone like Larry Craig having a sourced caption saying "MSM may not identify as gay"...which I think is the case with Larry. CTJF83 chat 21:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have WP:BLP issues. You said it, not him. TbhotchTalk C. 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was just gonna remove part, cause I may have misread it, although not completely clear...yes I have issues with the image violating BLP. CTJF83 chat 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You have easily exhausted my good faith with your tendentious arguments. Note that the same actors appear in the cover image on Men of Israel. You should propose that for deletion as well because you "have BLP issues". Tijfo098 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

The main article for anal sex should be at the top of Men_who_have_sex_with_men#Physical not in the middle. CTJF83 chat 20:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]