Talk:Men who have sex with men/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Down-low

An editor has removed the link between this expression and the African-American community. From the article on down-low this appears to be mainly based on a political stance promoted conspicuously by the author Keith Boykin in his book Beyond The Down Low: Sex, Lies and Denial in Black America. If most US editors, I'm not one, feel that American culture empirically connotes this term to said ethnic/cultural community, I think the link should be reinstated. __meco 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The link is unnecessary. Down-low is MSM regardless of the ethnic or racial history of the individual. There being no need for the link to be explicit, I do not see a purpose in it being mentioned with a phrase such as "especially in African-Americans." African-Americans practicing down-low are no more or less MSM than a Caucasian practicing down-low. --Puellanivis 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to address the focus of my posting, this being whether the term, not the practice, is predominantly linked to African-American males. __meco 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question, the term itself is slang for "closeted homosexuality". The term evolved in inner-city black neighborhoods first as a word for "secret", and later used to describe closeted homosexual sex. It got picked up by the media and developed a kind of life of its own, but I don't think it should suggest that DL is some kind of unique phenomenon, just a slang term for something that that is as old as sexuality itself. Since closeted homosexuality is definitely a form of MSM, "downlow" should absolutely be linked. User:EyePhoenix|EyePhoenix]] (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

MSM and HIV/AIDS

I've removed or rewritten some of the material added by User:Chicken Wing. This is because the references were unreliable (mostly newspaper opinion pieces) and/or did not fully support the statements made. Trezatium 07:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• "In many developed countries AIDS is more prevalent among MSM than among the general population.[4]" the link to the pdf comes up as a 404 error. This also seems like a wingnut claim. I feel like this should be removed, edited, or proven to be a correct statement.

Ridiculous Article

This is the most pointless article I have ever seen. When the title of an article provides enough information to render reading the main body useless then said article serves little purpose. It is self evident that a man who has sex with men is gay, bisexual or straight and coerced or curious. This is not a topic which deserves consideration in an encyclopaedia further than perhaps brief mention in an article on homosexual sex. I also note that the expression 'on the down low', unless quoted, has no place in any serious text as it is quite clearly slang and requires further investigation to find out what it means. In conclusion I would suggest that this article be deleted and any useful information moved.

MSM is a behavioural category; gay, bisexual and straight are forms of self-identification. Lfh 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. "MSM" is just an euphemism for gay, and it's usually used by "MSM" who doesn't want to accept they're gay. There are gay & bisexual men, no "MSM", regardless that sex is "occassional" or rather frequent. Or there is also an article about "MSW" (Men who have sex with women)?. Pathetic... :( and maybe useful for the selfdeceivers.

No, MSM is not used by people who identify as heterosexual, yet have sex with other mens, as a euphemism for gay. The term is used by medical researchers to refer to individuals who would not otherwise identify themselves as gay. MSM has a greater risk of contracting HIV, regardless of the self-identification of that individual. Having a research questionnaire that asks only if someone is "gay or bisexual", but rather specifically asks, "do you engage in sex with men" will get more respondents, and better statistics. Yes, it may be used as a euphemism by some, however the intentions of the term are to ensure that a proper statistical group is not overlooked, due to an individual's personal biases. Thus, the reports address MSM, not gays and bisexuals, because there are MSM who do not identify as gay, or bisexual. You may say that they're "unwilling to accept that they're gay", but the term "gay" has a number of social constructions built up around it, and if they do not identify with that social construction, then they would refuse to identify as such in a medical context, even if the term "gay" is being used strictly as "a man who has sex with men".

Regardless, the term is a term applied in medical research, and for that reason it deserves notability. Regardless of your personal objections to the article, and your personal biases regarding this article, it does not change the fact that this article is about a notable research term. --Puellanivis 06:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

__________

I think the problem here is that nobody really has a firm grip on what 'gay' means, or rather that it means too many different things to too many different people, which is why it's a very foolish term to use if you don't know anything about someone's sexual self-concept. This is precisely the reason why researchers have adopted it; "gay" is unacceptably vague and ill-defined, and rests on unverifiable, unobservable criteria. If having sex with men were all it takes to make a man "gay", then you would be correct. But, unfortunately, the matter is not so beautifully black-and-white or so satisfyingly simple. There are considerations of sexual identity, self-labelling, cultural identification, romantic inclination, racial tension (some African American MSMs are alienated by a gay culture that they perceive as a "white men's club"), enactment of social role, and so forth. A male sex worker (or porn actor) who treats male-male encounters as 'all in a day's work' but only enjoys male-female encounters and only loves women is emphatically not gay -- but is most definitely an MSM. Some men enjoy sex with men as an occasional thing but have no emotional investment in it; it's just a passing physical pleasure. Others may love men exclusively but reject the "gay" label because they want no part of the cultural identification. This issue is simply far more complex than you or I or most of us would like, but we can't wish away the complexity of sexuality. --7Kim (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Promiscuity of MSMs

The necessity to indicate their promiscuity is pretty irrelevant for establishing their risk. Receptive anal intercourse is the most dangerous form of sex that you can have, whether you do it a lot or even just a little. Even a single receptive anal experience with another man bumps up your risk category immensely. In Africa AIDS and HIV is an everyone disease, the only reason it's relatively isolated here amoung MSMs? Because they engage in higher risk sex. --Puellanivis (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I take your point but "the most dangerous form of sex that you can have" is overstating the case more than a bit; erotic asphyxia comes to mind. Incidentally, HIV is not isolated to MSMs in Euro-American culture; in terms of community prevalence IV drug abusers are far, far more likely to be HIV+ than MSMs (and less likely to be on antiretrovirals, and more likely to be prostituting themselves). Speaking personally, if I had to have unprotected receptive anal sex and the choice was between an MSM and an IV drug user, I'd take the MSM in a heartbeat. I'd also have a lot of qualms about a man (whatever his professed sexual orientation) who had done time in prison.

MSMs, precisely because the category is so broadly inclusive, are no more promiscuous than the rest of the population. For every MSM who has 200+ sexual encounters with men a year (there are some, but not many) there are hundreds who might have one in a good week. It would be more accurate to say this: that because the odds of HIV transmission from the active partner to the passive partner in anal sex are higher than in vaginal sex or oral sex, promiscuous anal sex increases the risk of spreading the virus more than promiscuous vaginal or oral sex does (at least when the passive partner moves on to be the active partner in other encounters). --7Kim (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I take your point I clarify: "receptive sex is the most likely form of sex period to contract HIV" --Puellanivis (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oral sex is even less likely to be a risk factor than other forms. The odds of contracting HIV from giving oral sex requires an open sore in the mouth... someone with such a sore would likely not be interested in giving oral sex as it would need to be either an ulcerous sore, or bloody sore. As well, saliva is known to not carry HIV, and has some enzymes that actively works against the virus to reduce the risk of contracting. As such receiving oral sex is even less likely, because the fluid contributed from the person who has HIV is saliva. So, again unless they have a mouth with a bleeding sore, or a postulant ulcerous sore, then the HIV positive partner in the exchange is exchanging no more than saliva. I think most people would notice that someone is bleeding in their mouth (their red teeth give it away), or postulant in their mouth (pus-colored teeth give that away.) So, thus receiving oral sex is a near zero rate. As such, this keeps consistent with WSW statistics, where there has never been a documented, reported case of a woman contracting HIV when their only risk category is WSW. All reported cases of HIV contraction in WSW have at least one other risk group. The riskiest behavior that WSW can engage in is oral sex. So, oral sex likely has a statistically insignificant chance of transmitting HIV. I think the better phrasing would be that receptive sex no matter the promiscuity contains a greater chance of contracting HIV than any other form of sex to some non-specific point of promiscuity. --Puellanivis (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's better to put it that way (or even more mathematically). The increased rate of HIV transmission among MSMs is due more to the increased per-contact probability of transmission (at least for those who do anal sex) than to the promiscuity of the population as a whole. It's important to avoid perpetuating the false stereotype that MSMs are generally promiscuous, though not to ignore either the fact that some MSMs are promiscuous or the fact that MSMs, like everyone else, are in control of their sexual behaviour (unless they're being raped) and therefore responsible for it, and the increased rate of transmission raises grave consequences for promiscuity. --7Kim (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge MSM and WSW?

Would it be possible to merge this article with Women who have sex with women somehow? Not sure what the merged article would be called, but it does seem kind of unnecessary to have two articles that basically cover the same thing, but with different genders. (not to mention that the WSW article is only a stub). - Koweja (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The two are fundamentally distinct and disjoint categories of humans. According to the CDC female same-sex sexual acts have yet to produce a single case of HIV infection in the USA. They're quick to state that it is possible. But WSW acts do not result in any realistic increase of risk factors. In fact, it appears that if females, who don't use drugs, who don't have any other risk factors, and who only sleep with other women,are the statistically unlikeliest group of people to contract HIV. WSW acts are apparently literally the HIV-safest sex possible. --Puellanivis (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also add the it's MSM that are seen as more taboo are more controversial thus this article gets more attention. Benjiboi 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that typically in America MSM are "more taboo" than WSW, however the point still remains... there has never been a documented transmission of AIDS due exclusively to WSW, while simply-MSM is a large part of the HIV population. WSW don't get as much attention because their HIV transmission rates are negligible to non-existent, that they're "less taboo" has nothing to do with it. Regardless of being taboo or not, if WSW was a significant HIV vector, the CDC would consider it, and people would use it as a statistical category. Certainly, while "People who eat waffles" is technically a statistical group of the HIV population, it is a non-sequitur to really even discuss them as an HIV risk group... just because WSW parallels to MSM does not make it in any way any more or less relevant than it already was as a non-risk-factor grouping of the HIV-population. --Puellanivis (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-commercial sexworkers?

The initial bullet list in the article includes the item "Male sex workers (commercial or not) with male clients". What exactly is meant by a "sex worker who is not commercial"? My understanding is that the term sex worker includes hustlers, phone sex operators, strippers, porn actors, professional BDSM players, etc, all of whom engage in eroticized acts for money.

So there are two problems. One "sex work" is inherently commercial, becuase otherwise it would simply be sexual behavior. Second, "sex worker" is more than a sex-positive euphemism for "prostitute"; many kinds of erotic labor don't involve actual sex (stripping, phonesexing, posing for non-hardcore pictures) and these workers can't classify as MSM.

I propose re-writing it to say something like "men who perform sex acts for money, including escorts, hustlers, and porn actors".Ajasen (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm only somewhat familiar with all the issues but I believe there is some nuancing of language that has to do with someone who technically is a sex-worker but didn't intent to be, gets compensated for sex and possibly sex-slaves who technicaly are treated as such whether they would have chosen to do so or not. Also escorts, hustlers and porn actors don't necessarily perform sex acts for money although many do. Benjiboi 19:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that there exist sex-workers who work solely for the sex itself. The term "or not" is simply there as a catch all so that the argument cannot be made that we're limited in imagination. Likewise, your suggested phrasing does not guarantee that the man would be MSM... any heterosexual man who does sex acts for money classifies under your presented change. --Puellanivis (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Male rape of males

Unfortunately, while reviewing the article, a man being raped (sexually penetrated anally) by another man is a significant risk factor. I'd love to keep them on the list of exclusions, however, they are much more likely to have contracted HIV than a man who has never engaged in any sexual acts with another man. I think it seems, at least to me, harsh to classify them as MSM as they never had any intentions to become MSM, however, they are in that risk group, and if they were to contract HIV without any other risk factors, then they would still be classified as MSM. --Puellanivis (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your position. No one says that the sex has to be voluntary. Many instances of prostitution aren't necessarily fully voluntary. This term seems to be intended to cover every male who has sex with other males, regardless of the circumstances. I think we should rely on what our osurces say about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• The cultural understanding of rape involves the act of penetration. The law on rape in India and Bangladesh as it stands in their penal codes also reinforces this belief. It also pertains specifically penile-vaginal rape, with anal or oral rape relegated to Section 377 of both codes, which deals with “acts against the order of nature”. There is neither a concept of, nor any law to deal with male on male rape. However, in popular understanding amongst MSM, rape means anal penetration without consent. Other sexual assault might not involve anal penetration, but might still cause psychological and/or physical harm.
• http://www.nfi.net/NFI%20Publications/Pukaar/2006/January_2006_Pukaar.pdf

I think that's sufficient to include raped males as "MSM". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether they intended to or not they had sex with a man. Benjiboi 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rape is an act of violence, it is not the same as sex, and should not be confused with MSM. I move to adjust the definition. MSM should state "men who make a choice to engage in sex with other men". Rape is not the equivilant of sex. EyePhoenix (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Rape is a form of sexual assault. Without the sex it would be simple assault. We generally think of rape as being a single act, but the term "prison rape" apears to cover the phenomenon of long term sexual relationships in which one of the partners is an unwilling participant. Of course, if you have a source saying that sexual assault does not involve sex then that help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are no sources that would indicate sexual assault doesn't involve sex, because it does. But you've mischaracterized what I said, so let me clarify: Sexual assault is not the equivalent of sex. To suggest that someone who was raped had "sex" with another man is totally misleading. While sexual assault includes a sexual component, it is a violent act in which a victim is forced into sexual contact. The idea and spirit of 'Men Who Have Sex With Men' is about men who choose to engage in homosexual sex regardless of self-identification. Rape victims make no choice to be assaulted sexually, and more importantly; rape is not sex. I think you might make argument the men who choose to rape other men could fall under the category, but calling rape victims "Men who have sex with men" is misleading. MSM should not include victims of rape. EyePhoenix (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you define "sex". Let's take a slightly different example. So a virginal woman is raped and becomes pregnant. Would we say that she's never had sex with a man? Do rapes result in virgin births? Obviously not. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question; absolutely not, she did not have sex, she was raped. Her getting pregnant doesnt really have anything to do with it. I mean, "virgin births", what are you talking about? Again you've mischaracterized what I wrote. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be having a hard time separating the concept of sex from rape. They are not the same thing. EyePhoenix (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please define "sex". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean? You're already engaged in an all out debate about the issue, but you don't appear to understand the distinction between sex and rape. Now your asking me to do research for you and define sex? I'm sorry but I dont' have the time to go down that road with you. But if you can get it together enough to learn the difference, we can talk some more another time. Good luck! EyePhoenix (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of my statement was to say, that even if the man does not make a choice, he still enters a risk category equivalent to MSM. While the first assumption, and the most sympathetic thing to do would be to say "they didn't consent, so it doesn't count against them", unfortunately, that's not how nature works. They have involuntarily been placed into a risk group higher than they would have of their own choice, but many of us do this all the time, coming into contact with someone who has the flu. Infections are non-biased, and they don't care if you consented to the sex or not... they will infect you if they can. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then it should be clarified further that the only purpose of this term derives from HIV politics. A man who contracts HIV through a rape does not fall under the definition of a "Man Who Has Sex With Men". On it's basic and fundamental meaning the term "Men Who Have Sex With Men" suggests "Men Who CHOOSE To Have Sex With Men" regardless of identification. If the politics of HIV are such that researchers etc. need a term to describe men who contract HIV through rape, then it should be distinguishable, there is no need to lump rape victims in with men who choose to engage in sexual activity. If the term MSM is designed to include rape victims, (and I haven't seen any evidence so far that it is) it should be clarified that this term is specifically for use with HIV social politics. Otherwise it is very misleading, and potentially damaging to those men who have been raped and/or contracted HIV through rape. Who has decided that MSM needs to include victims of rape, what reason is there that a distinction can't be made? EyePhoenix (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This term is about "behavior" not about social classification or whatever. If a man contracts HIV through rape, he has contracted HIV by having sex with a man, consensual or not. This term is not "euphemism" for gay/homosexual/whatever. It is an HIV risk group that includes unwilling participants. It's cruel, it's heartless, I agree, and I sympathize, read my initial comment that says that I would love to find a loophole. But if someone contracts HIV through male-male sexual contact, regardless of it being voluntary or not, has contracted it as an MSM. The term should not be meant to be derogatory, it is not a social classification, it's not saying that someone is gay, or straight. What it is describing is precisely that. As you said, the only purpose of this term is in HIV research... and it's been made abundantly clear in the article, however if you disagree, please, I invite you to add further explanation for peer review. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Labelling rape as "having (unconsensual) sex", regardless of the genders of the parties involved, is certainly both semantically and morally wrong, not to mention professionally irresponsible. So, I take it the previous contributor to this topic has made a serious unconscious linguistic error unless, that is, there is some language abuse through the convenience of laxity. "Sexual assault" is the real notion and term. As for "risk groups", given that the statistical notion has no bearing on a particular individual's behaviour, the notion in itself is discriminatory toward LGBT people and straight people alike. For example, an HIV-negative gay man who only ever kisses and has mutal masturbation with another man (gay-identified or not, HIV-positive, negative, status unknown) has a ZERO percent chance of contracting HIV, regardless of what many "specialists" say about the "risk group" he "belongs to". The same would hold true for a truly monogamous gay male couple, both members being HIV negative, who have condomless anal sex. What's more, the "risk group" of "gay males" is based on the fallacy that all gay (-identified?) men will have penetrative sex and can and do take risks. Equating being a gay male and having penetrative sex and thereby forming a "gay male risk group" has to do with heterosexism, not research. The prime example of this discrimination on the basis of "risk groups" is the Canadian Blood Services's ban on gay men donors for being gay, or more precisely, for having or having had ANY type of sex with another man, not for actually having practiced unsafe penetrative sex or having been raped or committed rape with another male, or for being unaware of one's own HIV status [1], [2]. By the way, the focus only on "risk behaviours", i.e. penetrative sex, instead of also finding out one's HIV status has been a major contributor to the failure of safer-sex campaigns in the gay "community" particularly among gay male youth.--CJ Withers (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, legal definition of rape in the state of Washington is:

(1) "Sexual intercourse" (a) has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight, and
    (b) Also means any penetration of the vagina or anus however slight, by an object, when committed on one person by another, whether such persons are of the same or opposite sex, except when such penetration is accomplished for medically recognized treatment or diagnostic purposes, and
    (c) Also means any act of sexual contact between persons involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another whether such persons are of the same or opposite sex."

Rape is any penetrative sex of any form, without concent, no matter how slight the penetration in the state of Washington.

If you feel that this MSM risk category is flawed, then find citable criticism and add it to the mainspace article. Until then, the CDC uses the term "MSM" to refer to a man who has contracted HIV/AIDS by male-male sexual contract. Using it as a "statistic" against "gay prevelance" is stupid, because not all MSM are gay. The entire purpose of the MSM risk category is to provide a label for a group of Americans that are at a higher level of risk, regardless of their identitification. If you have contracted AIDS by male-male sexual contact, then the CDC will report it in their statistics as "MSM", not as "high-risk heterosexual intercourse" or "intraveneous drug use". The fact, the fact is that in the microcosm of the United States of America, MSM are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS. It is not guarenteed that someone who is MSM is going to be exposed to HIV/AIDS, one-off examples of committed monogamous relationships between gay men alter the statistical prevalence but what you end up with, with all that statistical prevalence added together, is that MSM is a significant risk category. MSM expands beyond gay/bisexual/homosexual issues, and deals with individuals, who by nature of not considering themselves gay are not ideal targets for safe male-male sexual contact education. Each group of MSM need find the best way to reach their own people to increase awareness about prevalence. When a man "on the down low" is confronted with literature from a doctor or anyone else, about how to have safe gay sex, they will immediately toss it out as "it does not apply to me, because I am not gay."

I have had to contend with people coming onto this page claiming that it's just another euphemism for "gay", which it is not. Now I have to deal with people within the gay community who object to what MSM as an HIV/AIDS statistical category says about them, making the same exact assumption, that all MSM are gay, and all gays are MSM, thus equating the two to be equal. Let me attempt to make this as clear as possible for the gay community: "MSM is a group that comprises more than simply 'gay' individuals. As such, it contains prevalence and statistical data which is not 1:1 mappable to gay culture alone. The gay culture is getting a lot better at spreading information about how to avoid the risks of HIV/AIDS, but the other cultures included in the MSM category are not doing as well. Thus, MSM remains a high-risk category, while 'gay' itself is no longer a statistically significant risk category." --Puellanivis (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems you've missed the point a few times. I did not, even once, mention the term MSM (the term -- not notion behind it). I wrote about rape and about discrimination against gay men based on the whole notion of so-called risk groups. Please read my text. As for rape, one irrelevant state government law does not support your case the more so in that it mentions nothing about consent. It was you who added the word "concent" [sic]. Plus, that portion of legal text is a red herring in your specious argumentation. Now, back to the orignal matter, using "having (unconsensual) sex" to refer to rape in your orignal comment remains semantically incorrect and professionally irresponsible, and I take it that it was a simple, albeit egregious, slip. Lastly, please modify your tone, for everyone's sake since phrases such as "Unfortunately for you" are not a part of the Wikipedia spirit, as we can all agree. From what I've seen so far here, this discussion page spun out of control a while back due to someone's or some people's over-zealous fascination with penetrative (anal?) sex and statistics conjecture. I suggest a new discussion page be launched with point by point examples minus the reification of "risk groups". And remember, HIV negative gay men who never engage in sexual risk behaviours or never have sex at all have a ZERO percent chance of contracting HIV. Being a gay male does not in itself mean a person "has a chance" of contracting HIV. Let's stop the heterosexism, AIDS stigma, and anti-gay group labelling. --CJ Withers (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you could marshal some sources to support your position it would help. The opinions of editors don't count for much around here. FYI, here's an interesting study about the topic: "Many Straight Men Have Gay Sex: Nearly 10% of Self-Proclaimed 'Straight' Men Only Have Sex With Men". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also this explanation:

• Human sexual practice is diverse. In response to the need to better understand that diversity in the face of the HIV epidemic, a fact became widely known that had previously been understood by few: a significant population of men who do not self-identify as “gay” or “bisexual” sometimes have sexual contact with other men. It was recognised that a descriptor for behaviour, rather than an assertion of social identity, was needed, and the term “men who have sex with men”, and its acronym MSM, came into being.[3]

Whether the sex is consensual or not is beside the point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(reseting quote level, please do not "reindent" this text) Ok, fine, I'll reference something else, like Rape: "Rape is a form of assault where a person has sexual intercourse with another person without their consent."

Next, this article deals with MSM, if you are only here to get riled up about gays, and gay bias, this page is not the ideal place to do so, because MSM is not gay. If you are not discussing this article (and thereforce MSM) then your arguments are irrelevant. As well, there is not a ZERO percent chance of HIV/AIDS contraction from mutual masterbation. Should one's ejaculate into an open wound of the other, either intentionally, accidently, or even unknowingly, it increases their risk above zero. Granted, the chance of contracting HIV/AIDS is extremely low in such a case, but it is not zero (just like WSW isn't a zero percent chance, as it's hypothetically possible, even though there has never been one documented case where WSW is the only risk factor EVER). --Puellanivis (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree as no one can say that a person who has been drugged and raped or a person who has fallen unconscious due to their own intake of drugs and then raped can be said to "have had sex". Yet the same must be said about the blatant shortcut "had sexual intercourse". No one should be surprised as you use much further above the moral-related and biased term "promiscuity" instead of the well-established academic and outreach work term "multiple partners". As for HIV transmission, open sores or wounds are an exception, i.e. a separate factor, and do not count as a given activity itself. As for being on-topic, please reread my contribution. I did not refer to the term whereas I did refer to the notion behind it, which is what I clearly stated. In fact, the bone of contention concerning this article and the talk page is the notion behind the term. So, you clearly see I am right on the mark and not off-topic. Also, just because someone whose sexual orientation is homosexual yet does not identify as gay does not mean that that individual is not gay. That is the whole problem with this discussion page and the term MSM: linguistic laziness and fuzzy terms with flip-flop notions behind them. "Gays", as you put it, includes the subset of those who are not out of the closet and those who do not identify possibly even to themselves that their sexual orientation is homosexual. Therefore, among MSMs there certainly are "gays". Hence the major misunderstandings on this page, once again. To help you grasp the difference between "term" and "concept"/"notion", I suggest you consult the Wikipedia article on terminology. --CJ Withers (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You're playing games with semantics here. Like someone insisting that they "make love" not "have sex". There are a number of biological conditions that constitute sexual behavior and thus "sex" as a whole, and none of those conditions depend upon consent. (Actually, sex among felines is extremely unpleasant for the female, as the male has sharp barbs that cut the sensitive skin of the females as they implant their semen. The female's response to this is to ovulate. No matter how you look at it, female cats do not willingly EVER have sex, because the male's actions always take the form of forced sex upon the female, or rape.) I'm more than happy to change the text of the main article from "promiscuity" to "multiple partners", yet I was simply unaware of the availablity of such a term, because I am not involved in gay outreach, or the gay culture. The discussion of potential infection from open sources while masturbating another person is pretty much moot, as it is contained in no statistical parts of the CDC's groupings. However, were a man to be infected from an open-sore from seminal fluid of another, then that would would be considered transmission through a sexual act, and thus MSM.

And while you continue to argue that MSM is equivalent to gays, "gay" carries numerous sociological meanings in addition to simply "participates in homosexual activities". While the term "gay" does include the group of people that you say in part, it does not include people who actively reject that term despite all knowledge of what "gay" is, and what "gay" constitutes. Christian fundamentalist society would put transwomen in the term "gay" even after her surgery, so who are we to trust to define "gay" for us to use as a statistical model? Hm? I cannot trust you, because you would include people who vehemently insist that they are not gay, and I cannot take the Christian fundamentalist view because they would declare some women to be gay. No less, they would define certain men as not gay, even though those men may participate in receptive anal sex with multiple partners, simply because they were born female. We cannot rely upon anyone to define "gay", and that's why the CDC uses "men who have sex with men", because it is applicable to non-gays, people who refuse to identify as gay despite participating in homosexual activity, and effectively removes all the ambiguous grey areas of transgendered, transsexual and intersexual, unless the activity can pretty confidently be stated to be between "men". --Puellanivis (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another non-sequitur, but this time with animals. What you call semantics is extremely important as it has major repercussions as to how humans react and behave, particularly with such obviously sex-negative, if not anti-gay, terms as "promiscuous". Also, in some of the literature that you cite, another term "casual partners" is used. I have also seen it commonly used in both English and French. Btw, you're off track. I stated that a _portion_ of MSMs are gay, i.e. have a homosexual orientation, yet do not identify as gay. This portion is gay, which is what I have always maintained and stated. Let's face it: statistics conjecture via reification of risk groups leads to discrimination, to more so in that such reification is often in itself discrimination, positive or negative. --CJ Withers (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me gentlemen but I feel this discussion has strayed far from where it was when I brought up this issue. And though it is a fascinating discussion with many good points, I hope that we can do our best to simplify and focus. My point was simple: Rape is not Sex. While some rape may include a kind of sexual intercourse, it is not sex and does not involve choice. "Men Who Have Sex With Men" suggests "Men Who Choose To Have Sex With Men". As I said before, if the term MSM was created for use in HIV politics for funding and research purposes, and it was designed to include male rape, then that definition, in the very first paragraph, should clarify its nature: As a political term invented to be used for funding and political purposes, and includes 'male rape' only for that reason. This is not at all clear in the current definition, in fact the way it's written now doesn't make a lot of sense. I believe it is an egregious error to include rape as being part of the same phenomenon as men who have sex with men. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, on all of your points. I think the issue you bring up is caused by certain parties' linguistic laxity, i.e. the type of irresponsible laxity I mention in my first comment under this rubric, and resistance to acknowledging your serious contribution. --CJ Withers (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)