Talk:Men who have sex with men

Template:Globalize tag

Equality 7-2522, regarding this, keep in mind what Template:Globalize states about whether or not there are other views on the topic in other countries. The terms men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women are mainly American (meaning United States) terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Unprotected anal sex is a risk factor for formation of antisperm antibodies

Human10.0 Hello! On request [1] , you can find the answer here [2]. --Путеец (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That did not help in verification of the sources you cited. You've linked me to a conversation on the Anal Sex talk page where it doesn't say what statement was added to the article, whether MSM were mentioned at all, what sources were used to back up what claim, etc. I do not wish to go through the entire history of your edits on that article or talk page. I just want the claims on this MSM article verified by other editors. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Verification needed for infertility claim

I have added a verification needed tag at the end of this statement. I would like fellow editors to check both the cited sources and verify if they do state that unprotected anal sex between MSM results in production of specifically anti-sperm antibodies and that this causes infertility in MSM. From my hurried reading of the cited study (Restrepo & Cardona-Maya, 2013), I could not find evidence to corroborate the claim that anal sex between men produces specifically anti-sperm antibodies, nor that those antibodies cause infertility in MSM. I will give the study a detailed reading later but I would like other editors to verify the sources too. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional confirmations: [3] [4] --Путеец (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Editors, kindly ping me when you respond so I may know that you have responded. Путеец, I do not need more sources that require verification, I need the sources already mentioned (by you I might add) here to be verified. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

About Restrepo & Cardona-Maya, 2013 see this [5] --Путеец (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Kindly ping me like I requested earlier. Путеец, I am not convinced by the conversation you linked to and I would still like evaluation of the sources cited here. For the record, the uppermost sentence quoted in the conversation you linked to is slightly edited. As is noted later in the conversation, the source Restrepo & Cardona-Maya (2013) state: "rectal administration of semen triggers the production of antibodies in serum of homosexual men and in genital secretions in rodents." But they do not state that specifically anti-sperm antibodies are formed, do not define what they mean by "administration" (was it even sexual?), nor do they indicate that infertility is caused in MSM this way.

Restrepo & Cardona-Maya (2013) cite Marshburn & Kutteh (1994) as the reference for their statement. Marshburn & Kutteh (1994) state the same sentence verbatim that is mentioned in Restrepo & Cardona-Maya (2013) but use Bronson et al. (1984) as their source. And Bronson et al (1984) use the vague term "exposure" instead of "administration" and back up the statement using "recent surveys" that they do not cite, nor mention in the References of their study, and go on to say that: "There was no correlation between the number of sexual partners, frequency of oral homosexual activity, or the practice of sodomy and the detection of antisperm antibodies." So what to make of all this?

The editors in the conversation you linked to did not determine what Marshburn & Kutteh (1994) said or what study they used as a source so they seem to have missed this. They also seem to have overlooked whether Restrepo & Cardona-Maya (2013) explicitly talked about anal sex or not, whether the studies said that anal sex causes anti-sperm antibody production which specifically causes infertility in MSM. The editors in the conversation you linked to also seem to be calling you out for using the term homosexuality dubiously and apparently wrongly presenting a source as a textbook, which is cause for concern to me.

Like I said, I will give the study (and now, the relevant studies cited therein) a more thorough read later. I would like editors to verify if the sources mentioned here state what the wiki article is saying. —Human10.0 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Human10.0 Do not worry about the textbook. This is a play on words. In Russian, the reference manual can be called a textbook. If you are confused by one source, you can use more fresh, and even more authoritative. In modern immunology, no one doubts the connection between anal sex and the formation of ASA. There are no serious refuting studies [6]. Autoimmune infertility in association with ASA is also an axiom. The main thing is to understand that the cause of the emergence of ASA is not homosexuality as such. But only oral and anal sex. --Путеец (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that homosexuality (a sexual orientation) does not cause ASA production. That was explained to you in the conversation you linked to (above), and it was not under dispute in this conversation. I am just interested in knowing if the two sources that were cited in the wiki article back up each and every part of the statements they were used as a citation for. —Human10.0 (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Anal intercourse and Fecal incontinence

Please think about adding this risk to health. [7] --Путеец (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец, stop tying to make this article about anal sex. Fecal incontinence from anal sex can happen, but it does not appear to be very common. Also, it can happen to women as well. And this bit you added is WP:Undue weight, which is why I reverted. We are not going to prioritize one study over others, and that section is not about prevalence anyway. This article is not the article for prevalence of anal sex. We have the Anal sex and Gay sexual practices articles for that, and different sources have reported different percentages for the prevalence of anal sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I thank you for your participation. But, I do not understand why You deleted a very important source, and perhaps the most reliable of all. The fact that now the article is misleading, arguing that anal sex is not as common as other sexual practices in MSM. This study shows the following data: 95% used anal sex, 85% used it in the last year. Sexual practices with non-steady partners in the past 12 months (page 116): Mutual masturbation 89.8%, Suck a man's penis 96.2%, Get your penis sucked 96.6%, Lick a man's anus 64.6%, Have a man lick your anus 76.0%, 'Active' anal intercourse (you fucked a man) 74.4%, 'Passive' anal intercourse (you were fucked by a man) 72.5%, Put your hand into a man's rectum (fist-fucking a man) 17.1%, Have a man's hand in your rectum (being fist-fucked) 10.5%. Another study shows the use of anal sex in 99.7% MSM [8] see Figure 1. Since anal sex is the main epidemiological factor showing dangerous consequences, I think it is important to indicate the truth about its prevalence. I ask for my editing back, or better yet, to correct the article on this source [9]. Thank You! --Путеец (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец, again, I ask that you don't ping me to an article I am clearly watching. I reverted you on the aforementioned text for reasons I already explained. Prevalence on anal sex, including for MSM, varies. And you removed the fact that many gay men/MSM do not engage in anal sex and changed the text to "some" to prioritize specific mention of a single 2010 European men who have sex with men Internet survey. That was WP:Undue weight since other research states differently and since that section is not about the prevalence of anal sex. It simply mentions that many MSM do not engage in anal sex, despite the popular perception that all of them do. It then mentions some other sexual practices; it's why this source you removed from that section didn't need to be scientific. Most importantly, you were misleading with the source you added. You added that "95% MSM reported having had anal sex with a man, and 85% reported having had anal intercourse during the past 12 months." And? Having had anal sex before does not mean that 95% or 85% of MSM continue to have anal sex. And according to this 2012 "Sexual Health: A Public Health Perspective" source, from McGraw-Hill International, page 91, "the equation of 'homosexual' with 'anal' sex among men is common among lay and health professionals alike" and "yet an Internet survey of 180,000 MSM across Europe (EMIS, 2011) showed that oral sex was most commonly practised, followed by mutual masturbation, with anal intercourse in third place." From what I can see, this source (which also is not WP:PRIMARY) is reporting on the survey you added, although it states "2011" instead of "2010." So the very source you added, unless it's a different EMIS survey that also concerned "a total sample of over 180,000 men across Europe," shows that anal sex is the least popular sexual act among MSM, and yet you left this out. Your text focused solely on anal sex, despite the other sexual practices reported on by the source. And it's not the only source to show or state that anal sex is not as common as oral sex and mutual masturbation among gay men or other MSM. This 2016 "Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st century" source, from Cengage Learning, page 349, states that anal sex is less popular than oral sex and mutual masturbation among gay men. And this 2015 "Gender: Psychological Perspectives, Sixth Edition" source, from Psychology Press, page 484, when speaking of sexual practices among gay men, states that "anal intercourse was never as common an activity as either oral sex or manual stimulation."

As for including the fecal incontinence material, per what I stated above, I'm not sure it needs a mention in this article. But I'm not opposed to mentioning a bit on it in this article.

Pinging Rivertorch and Human10.0 for their thoughts on all of this. Also, since Jytdog and Doc James have addressed you on some of your anal sex, gay men and MSM material before, they might also have opinions on some of this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The first, second and third place according to frequency of use differ little among themselves. In any case, all three sexual practices are widely used. It can not be said that if anal sex is in third place, it is rarely used. 85% of MSM over the past year it is used. I suggest that you specify everything as in the 2010 survey. In any case, these data are almost unchanged from year to year. Used sources do not contradict each other. --Путеец (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

We follow what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight, and sources consistently state that anal sex is practiced less than oral sex and mutual masturbation (among both heterosexuals and same-sex pairings). Neither the section nor the sources state that anal sex is rarely used. I stand by what I stated above. This is not the Anal sex or Gay sexual practices article, and the section in question is not the place to go into detail about prevalence of certain sexual practices; we have the other aforementioned two articles for that. And to reiterate, going into extensive detail about that one survey would be undue weight. I await the opinions of others on this and your fecal incontinence proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Roughly half the article is about health issues, which already seems excessive, and this disputed content is over the top. It constitutes undue weight and so fails NPOV. On a side note, I note that the OP's contributions evince a pattern of POV-pushing on topics related to same-sex sexual activity and an evident fixation on anal sex. Some of this is may be due to ignorance and language/cultural factors, I guess, but it really doesn't matter; what I'm seeing is sources being cherry-picked to insert alarmist content into articles, and that's unacceptable. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that the dissemination of scientific data on the causes of human morbidity is unacceptable? --Путеец (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that selectively presenting content to show certain value-neutral human characteristics in a negative light is unacceptable. It's also against at least one of Wikipedia's core content policies, so knock it off. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, Rivertorch, about Путеец's editing. But I do want to go ahead and state that the term men who have sex with men is mainly used to study sexually transmitted infections/diseases and other sexually related health issues. The lead of the article also touches on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean a negative attitude towards a certain people. We must be neutral. But the Wikipedia article should reflect the truth, and not mislead readers. The truth cannot be negative or positive. Displaying the truth can save the health of MSM people and protect their rights. --Путеец (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Being neutral on Wikipedia means adhering to the WP:Due weight policy. You can see that WP:Due weight is a part of the WP:Neutral policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Truth is quite subjective. Humans have been arguing over it for millennia. What we're after is not something as elusive as truth but, rather, verifiable facts presented with a neutral point of view. Whether you mean to or not, you have been displaying a negative attitude towards certain people. We aren't here to save anyone's health or protect anyone's rights; we're here to build an encyclopedia. @ Flyer22 Reborn: yes, of course you're right. I overstated things a bit. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The source presented in the OP is a primary source in any case, and not one we should be using for content about health. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion is misplaced. It belongs on the talk pages of the two devoted articles, viz. Anal intercourse and Fecal incontinence, respectively. OP should take his/her business there instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.5.6 (talk • contribs)

IP, per WP:TALKCENT, it's best to keep a discussion centralized in cases like these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I checked out this survey that User Путеец wanted to add. I would first like to clarify that the results of this survey can only be applied to people in the US, since only they were included in the sample. The survey asked two questions from the 2,118 men in their sample:

1. "Have you ever had any kind of sex with a man, including oral or anal?"
2. "In your lifetime, with how many men have you had anal sex?"

Out of 2,118 men surveyed, a total of 101 men answered "Yes" to the first question, so it seems the number of MSM in the survey was 101. Out of these 101 men, 69 men positively responded to the second question (see pg. 5 of the survey). So it seems 69 out of 101 MSM in this survey engaged in anal sex, which would mean that the prevalence of anal sex in MSM in this sample is 68%. This percentage is significantly less than the 95% prevalence for anal sex found in the European survey that User Путеец cited. So it just goes to show that you cannot use prevalence rates for a sexual activity in one area and generalize it to MSM globally, the way User Путеец did in this edit. User Flyer22 Reborn was right to revert that edit.

And like Flyer22 Reborn said, fecal incontinence from anal sex is possible, but it is not very common; this is evidenced even in this survey. The survey found that among the men who had anal sex with men (n=69), only 11.3% (n=8) had fecal incontinence (FI). Which means 88.7% (n=61) of the men who had anal sex with men did not have FI. [And, correct me if I'm wrong, if you calculate what percentage the 'men who had anal sex with a man & had FI' (n=8) form of the 'men who had any kind of sex with a man' (i.e., MSM, n=101), the percentage with FI goes down further to 7.9%]. Either way, fecal incontinence seems to be a rare health issue in MSM, even in the survey cited by User Путеец. And let me repeat that the survey's results are only applicable to people in the US; they cannot be generalized to all MSM. I feel that the addition of FI info will place undue weight on it, so I oppose such an addition.

I also agree with the comments and explanations given by Users Flyer22 Reborn, Jytdog and Rivertorch. I especially agree with Rivertorch's observation of User Путеец's POV-pushing edits on wiki-pages related to same-sex sexual activity and LGBT-related topics. I've noticed him misrepresenting research before, to portray homosexual behavior in animals as unnatural. He's also stored and formatted a politically-motivated article (in his native Russian) that wrongly portrays potential negative outcomes of general sexual acts (that people of any sexual orientation may engage in) as negative outcomes of solely homosexual activity (and that too in another account's sandbox). It's clear from his editing history that he wants to portray homosexuality and homosexuals as health risks. I see that his new strategy to push his anti-homosexuality POV into articles is to portray himself as a pro-LGBT person who's concerned about LGBT people's well-being and who just wants them to know "the consequences of sexual practices", but he's not fooling anyone. —Human10.0 (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

For me, the more obvious reason not to mention fecal incontinence here is that the research is not secondary. Regarding the prevalence of anal sex, a European study gives more precise meanings. I had other data. There will be time, I will write it here. The article where I edited in the sandbox is a survey of research. Absolutely not being political. It is published in the Canadian journal. But it is not suitable for publication in Wikipedia. --Путеец (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"Regarding the prevalence of anal sex, a European study gives more precise meanings."

What do you mean by this? And if you thought that this American survey was not precise, why did you want it added on Wikipedia then?

I hope that when you say "I had other data. There will be time, I will write it here", you do not mean that you will quote prevalence rates of anal sex from other surveys. That would be missing the point I was making regarding anal sex. My point was that prevalence rates of anal sex vary. Consequently, if a study says the prevalence rate of a sexual activity among MSM in a specific area was 'x', you cannot portray that rate as representative of all MSM in wiki-articles (the way you did in your edit).

If anyone actually translates (e.g., google translates) and reads the article you had copy-pasted and were formatting in User Shamash's sandbox, they will notice that the article's conclusion literally argues against the acceptance of same-sex relationships in society. It is political. That article mentions a sexual act (that people of any sexual orientation may engage in), then it mentions the (potential) negative outcomes of that sexual act. Then it cherry-picks studies where some percentage of "homosexuals confessed" to have engaged in such acts (often without mentioning the sample size of the study, the region it occurred in, etc. It just generalizes the results of any study, even if it wasn't representative, to all homosexuals worldwide) and then after portraying homosexuality and homosexuals as health risks to society in this specious way, the article ultimately argues against "social acceptance and recognition" of LGBT people and their relationships. It is definitely a politically-motivated article. And the "Canadian journal" it was published in is very obscure; I couldn't find much about it (i.e., "MAYFEB Journal of Medicine," part of "MAYFEB Technology Development") on the internet, much less its impact factor or the like.

I would also like to mention an important point that I did not mention in my previous comment: The American FI survey that User Путеец wanted to add (in order to portray fecal incontinence as a "consequence" of anal sex) states: "When using cross-sectional data sets, such as NHANES, we are not able to prove causality between the outcome of interest (FI) and the exposure variables." So, correct me if I'm wrong but, the survey did not find that anal intercourse (an exposure variable) actually caused the fecal incontinence. This would explain why the survey's Abstract supports further "assessment of anal sex as a contributing factor for fecal incontinence" and does not actually state that anal sex is a contributing factor for FI. —Human10.0 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Health issues section

Requests are at the beginning of this topic. I propose to consider this article as a source. It describes well the health problems and the protection of LGBT rights. Sample: "In the United States, LGBTQ persons experience barriers to accessing health insurance coverage and may forgo care because of costs (some insurers do not cover domestic partners, and most do not cover mental health services, hormone therapy, or gender affirmation surgery). LGBTQ patients are more likely to remain silent about important health issues they fear may lead to stigmatization. Despite the critical need for health care in the LGBTQ community, structural (eg, cost) barriers to health care information and treatment significantly contribute to the avoidance or delay of seeking health care. Many health care professionals lack knowledge of LGBTQ persons’ health care needs, and some have negative attitudes toward them.13 Studies report a lack of trust and understanding in physician‐patient relationships because the patient fears substandard care or confidentiality issues if they disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity." "The American Medical Association recently updated their policies on LGBT issues and noted that not obtaining sexual orientation and gender identity from patients was akin to a failure to screen or diagnose. This underscores the professional duty of clinicians to create safe environments for disclosure of and attention to this important aspect of a patient's social history." Etc. --Путеец (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The source itself may be acceptable. It really depends on what you use it for. I've only read the abstract thus far, but I would note that this article isn't about LGBTQ people's barriers to receiving health care; it is about men who have sex with men. If the source has something to say about that, it may be acceptable, mostly depending on how you present it but also depending on whether there are other sources. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The source mentions MSM. This is a review, not an original study. I could quote from it, but it's better for English-speaking colleagues to do the retelling. --Путеец (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

those having thoughts about sex with another man.........

many a male has had thoughts about sex with another man. many read such sights as Literotica and others and most find the passion surreal and like nothing they have had before..... which does nothing more that inflame those thoughts and in some degree takes their thought to even higher levels.