Now:

This study was brought to my attention by Dr Edward C Green of Harvard, who said to me, regarding the article's Conclusions:

"Whilst the importance of anal intercourse is by no means universal, for many men it occupies a central place"

Dr. Green: "only if 33% is 'many' "

Exactly!

What the article says is that ONLY 33% of the gay-identified males interviewed by SIGMA, which is a very AIDS-establishment group, saw anal as central to their sexual practice.

That's not "many" -- it's some.

It is an increase over the figures reported for the 1950s by Hyde, who said that more than 80% of gay-identified UK men of that era did NOT do anal.

Hyde, H. M. (1970). The love that dared not speak its name. Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown and Co.

But it's not a huge increase.

So -- let's say the increase was from 19% in the 1950s to 33% in the 1990s.

That's still not "many."

And it's still NOT a majority.

It's some.

Furthermore, most of those queried for the 1992 study did NOT view anal as pleasurable:

Only 16.2% cited "physical pleasures" as their reason for doing anal -- which is not surprising, given that there's no physical pleasure in bottoming.

Rather, what the people we would call analists cited were "intimacy, closeness, trust and commitment."

That too is not surprising, since that's what the 1997 study known to us as QIS II, which was American, and which I discuss in Multi-partnered Pansexualism or Heroic Love, pointed out:

Men in QIS II frequently described anal sex, and particularly anal sex without condoms, as a means to affirm their gay identity, experience intimacy, and feel a broader social and cultural connection.

In short, guys do anal because their culture tells them to do anal -- it tells them that anal is that best *gay* way of feeling close -- and therefore, of being "gay."

Because anal is defined as "gay sex."

And "gay sex" is defined as anal.

What's interesting about the SIGMA study, is that despite many, many years of such pro-anal propaganda, the majority of those queried in 1992 -- DIDN'T BUY IT.

36.1% "considered [anal] of no more importance than other sexual acts."

While: "23.1% regarded it as of no importance, or were wholly negative about it."

What's more,

49.5% of reasons given for avoiding AI were physical. Lack of relaxation, pain or discomfort, distaste and messiness were the most common. Absence of emotional feelings for the partner was often cited as a reason for non-engagement. 39.4% of all men mentioned HIV or AIDS in their response.

So -- a little less than half of those who didn't do anal -- said the reasons "were physical."

I wonder what the other 50.5% said.

Were they opposed, as many of us are, because they believe sex between Men should be about Phallus -- and not anus?

Were they opposed because they think sex between Men should be about Men -- and not pseudo-women?

We're not told.

The authors don't mention "lack of pleasure" -- though maybe that's considered covered by "pain or discomfort."

And avoidance of HIV was an important motivator:

39.4% of all men mentioned HIV or AIDS in their response.

[emphasis mine]

And there's more:

24.2% of those said that they did not like AI regardless of HIV, and some said HIV gave them a validation for avoiding it.

No kidding.

But notice they felt they needed "a validation" -- a reason -- to avoid anal.

That's another sign of cultural pressure to do anal.

So -- what we see is a study which points to large numbers of Men who either detest anal or say they can live without it -- that it's not important to them.

What's more, in the men studied, 80% had engaged in anal between 1987 and 1991, despite 23.1% detesting it and another 36% not real interested in it.

That's what I mean by a dominant culture.

A significant number of the guys who did anal in this study were FORCED into doing it --

by peer pressure; and, we can be sure, based on other studies,

by outright coercion.

So: A significant number of the Men -- indeed, the majority of the Men -- in this study -- don't like anal and/or and can live without it.

Yet -- the Conclusions section of the study -- TOTALLY IGNORES THOSE MEN.

Instead, as is usual in such studies, the conclusions are focused on the males who did anal:

CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the importance of AI is by no means universal, for many men it occupies a central place in their sexual repertoire (80% of men in this cohort had engaged in AI between 1987-91). Health education campaigns aimed at reducing the number of men engaging in AI have severe limitations. Acknowledging the emotional and interpersonal aspects of AI will encourage more relevant and sophisticated health education materials.

Let's parse that out:

• "Whilst the importance of AI is by no means universal, for many men it occupies a central place in their sexual repertoire (80% of men in this cohort had engaged in AI between 1987-91)."

  "by no means universal" is correct;

  but the authors then claim that anal occupies a central place in the sexual repertoire of "many men" --

  when actually what their own data revealed was that it wasn't "many" -- it was only some -- that is 33% -- for whom anal was "central."

  More than 59% said anal was either of no importance -- or that they detested it.

  But the authors insist that anal is central, bolstering that claim by saying that 80% of the men had engaged in anal between 1987 and 91.

  So what?

  According to their own data, and even within the "gay community," anal is a core practice among a minority.

  The fact that men outside of that minority sometimes engage in anal -- does not change the marginal nature of anal -- as revealed by this study.

  It's like saying that because 80% of Americans had a meatless meal sometime between 1987 and 1991, vegetarianism is core to the American diet.

  Not so.

  In this study, anal was a marginal and minority practice -- even among gay-identified males in the UK.

• "Health education campaigns aimed at reducing the number of men engaging in AI have severe limitations."

  Why?

  23% + 36% = 59% of guys who aren't real interested in anal.

  Why not build on that?

  And thus strengthen the resolve of those men who aren't inclined to do anal and can live without it.

  Why not tell Men that there are better ways to be "intimate" and show "commitment" than risking their lives by getting fucked up the butt?

  I said "risking their lives."

  Even today, that's true.

  But it was especially and heartbreakingly true in 1992, when this study was presented at the International AIDS conference.

  Remember that in 1992, when this study was released, there were NO effective anti-virals.

  HIV infection was a death sentence.

  Indeed, the peak year for deaths from HIV / AIDS in the US was 1993.

  Yet the authors, writing in 1992, as tens of thousands of "men who have sex with men" die all around them, insist that NOTHING can be done that dares undermine anal.

  There's something wrong with that.

  And not just intellectually, but morally.

  It was universally agreed at that time that dying from AIDS was the worst way to die.

  And yet the researchers say NOTHING about encouraging the 59% of gay-identified males who aren't interested in anal -- to remain UNinterested in anal.

  NOTHING.

  That's wrong.

  DEAD wrong.

  And a truly incredible MORAL failing.

• "Acknowledging the emotional and interpersonal aspects of AI will encourage more relevant and sophisticated health education materials."

  No it won't.

  But acknowledging the physical discomfort and moral and aesthetic distaste mentioned by the responders would again strengthen the resolve of those who reject anal and -- I believe -- encourage some of the analists themselves -- to give it up.

The study confirms what Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky says about dissent:

That in any society, there are

• the true-believers -- in this case, the analists;

• the dissidents -- in this case, the 23% who detest anal; and

• the double-thinkers -- in this case, the 59% who don't like or can live without anal, but go along to get along.

The group you want to reach, says Sharansky, is the double-thinkers.

You want to make them aware of the pressure and coercion to do anal -- and strengthen their resolve not to be pushed into doing it.

Especially given that it's so dangerous.

That's what Dr Green has been saying about HIV prevention in Africa.

That given that "multi-partnering" aka promsicuity is what spreads HIV in Africa, what makes sense is to build upon the MAJORITY of Africans who aren't promiscuous, and reinforce and reward that behavior, ie, Fidelity.

Instead what's been done is that "AIDS activists," most of whom are European or American, have insisted that "Africans are promiscuous by nature and culture" -- and have used condom campaigns almost exclusively, despite the very negative results.

Which are to be expected, given all the drawbacks of condoms and condom campaigns.

So -- there's enormous pro-anal and pro-promiscuity bias built into AIDS prevention, just as it's built into the "gay community."

For example, in the SIGMA study, the authors didn't ask what sorts of sex the MAJORITY who either detested anal or could take it or leave it -- were doing.

As though -- if it's not anal, it doesn't matter.

But it does matter -- a LOT!

What were these guys doing that they found MORE pleasurable than anal?

And more intimate?

FROT maybe?

Why is that NEVER discussed?

Instead, those guys and their sexual practices were completely written out of the study's Conclusions.

Only males into anal mattered.

That's wrong.

It was wrong in 1992.

And it's wrong now.

And it's part of a pervasive bias that makes your life miserable on a daily basis.

A bias that we of the Man2Man Alliance are sworn to overthrow and overcome.

JOIN US.

Don't let these analist dopes tell you how to live.

Look at how they ignored their own data -- to effectively write you out of AIDS prevention --

and History.

While literally hundreds of thousands in the US and EU -- died.

And this is hardly the only study in the AIDS arena which censors and distorts in this way.

As I point out on the MSM HIV Timeline.

For example, when a 1995 study out of Johns Hopkins in Baltimore found no differences in STI rates among those who reported using condoms 100 percent of the time versus zero percent of the time -- its conclusions were dismissed out of hand:

Zenilman, JM, Weisman, CS, Rompalo, AM, Ellish, N, Upchurch, DM, Hook, EW, et al. (1995). Condom use to prevent incident STDs: The validity of self-reported condom use. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 22, 15-21.

Yet ten years later Buchbinder et al reported little difference in risk between anal with a condom or without a condom:

Having a large number of male sex partners, nitrite inhalant use, and engaging in receptive anal sex explained the majority of infections in this cohort and should be targeted in prevention strategies for MSM.

Buchbinder et al. Sexual Risk, Nitrite Inhalant Use, and Lack of Circumcision Associated With HIV Seroconversion in Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Volume 39, Number 1, May 1 2005.

"Sexual risk" -- it's the anal which puts these guys at risk.

Not the lack of condoms.

It's the anal.

But that conclusion is always swept under the rug.

Left in the trash heap.

As not worthy of further discussion.

As are you.

FIGHT BACK.

SAVE YOUR LIFE.

Bill Weintraub

September 24, 2009

© All material Copyright 2009 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.