From what I've seen in the corporate media, the reporting on the homosexual men angle has not been outwardly condemnatory, although there is a decided undercurrent of what could be described as homophobia.
There is an historical irony in misperceiving monkeypox as an STI. Smallpox was often contrasted with the "great pox" of syphilis, whi…
From what I've seen in the corporate media, the reporting on the homosexual men angle has not been outwardly condemnatory, although there is a decided undercurrent of what could be described as homophobia.
There is an historical irony in misperceiving monkeypox as an STI. Smallpox was often contrasted with the "great pox" of syphilis, which IS an STI.
Right, I find it far more plausible that a group of men who notice changes to their genitalia would first assume STI rather than pox, especially because we assume it to be eradicated.
I just find it rather jarring how quickly many people on Substack went the route of making this out to be a gay disease. So much for a nuanced discussion I suppose.
I haven't seen that, personally. I find it truthful to say that "this is where there is a current outbreak"--especially to alert gay men leading up to Pride month that there is a new risk to be aware of. I understand the sensitivity around connecting monkeypox and homosexuality, but I think reasonable people understand what an outbreak is. I think people can understand this is a disease that anyone can catch, but there is a current outbreak among gay men. It would make no sense to hide this information from gay men, either. I haven't seen anyone saying "it's a gay disease", but rather, attempting to evaluate his or her own level of risk according to the facts available right now.
My question is when did "men who have sex with men" become the style guide option over "gay men"?
It's not happening to the extent that I am making it out to be- I will admit it may be rather hyperbolic in language. Nonetheless, I do see it happening, such that somehow a disease that never really was transmitted predominately through sex is now being claimed as being a sex only disease targeting gay men i.e. "a gay disease".
There's a large difference between saying that this is a disease predominately spreading through the gay community (of which they should be alerted) as well as say this is a disease only affecting gay men. I don't appreciate the level to which a mischaracterization is occurring with respect to how this disease transmits if it depends on some biases.
As to the question, it's probably because it includes bisexual men. I suppose it's a difference between behavior and sexual orientation. But I do think "gay sex" would actually be an accurate depiction.
From what I've seen in the corporate media, the reporting on the homosexual men angle has not been outwardly condemnatory, although there is a decided undercurrent of what could be described as homophobia.
There is an historical irony in misperceiving monkeypox as an STI. Smallpox was often contrasted with the "great pox" of syphilis, which IS an STI.
https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01494.x
Right, I find it far more plausible that a group of men who notice changes to their genitalia would first assume STI rather than pox, especially because we assume it to be eradicated.
I just find it rather jarring how quickly many people on Substack went the route of making this out to be a gay disease. So much for a nuanced discussion I suppose.
I haven't seen that, personally. I find it truthful to say that "this is where there is a current outbreak"--especially to alert gay men leading up to Pride month that there is a new risk to be aware of. I understand the sensitivity around connecting monkeypox and homosexuality, but I think reasonable people understand what an outbreak is. I think people can understand this is a disease that anyone can catch, but there is a current outbreak among gay men. It would make no sense to hide this information from gay men, either. I haven't seen anyone saying "it's a gay disease", but rather, attempting to evaluate his or her own level of risk according to the facts available right now.
My question is when did "men who have sex with men" become the style guide option over "gay men"?
It's not happening to the extent that I am making it out to be- I will admit it may be rather hyperbolic in language. Nonetheless, I do see it happening, such that somehow a disease that never really was transmitted predominately through sex is now being claimed as being a sex only disease targeting gay men i.e. "a gay disease".
There's a large difference between saying that this is a disease predominately spreading through the gay community (of which they should be alerted) as well as say this is a disease only affecting gay men. I don't appreciate the level to which a mischaracterization is occurring with respect to how this disease transmits if it depends on some biases.
As to the question, it's probably because it includes bisexual men. I suppose it's a difference between behavior and sexual orientation. But I do think "gay sex" would actually be an accurate depiction.