31

Back in the early 1980s, AIDS was originally named Gay-related Immune Deficiency (GRID). Researchers renamed the disease as they became aware of the spread of the disease in other demographics. For the non-USA population that may not be aware of this long held belief, a gay organization in 2006 flip-flopped on their position.

The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease.”

Is AIDS primarily a homosexual-male disease in the USA today? if not,

Is AIDS disproportionately represented in the homosexal-male community in the USA today?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
user1873
  • 8,931
  • 42
  • 81
  • 1
    **One note**; one has to take into account the *historicity* of the data. It is a fact that among conservative circles the onset of HIV was a sign of condemnation of "*fags*" and "*junkies*" (sic), which were the most affected *groups* for many reasons. One now can see that indeed other people are also target, while the momentum gained earlier among these groups, mentioned before, continues or maybe even slows down (i think this is reflected in these statistics) – Nikos M. Jun 18 '14 at 00:26

1 Answers1

40

Yes, according to statistics (2010):

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available.

In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600).

The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall.

Estimated New HIV Infections in the United States, 2010, for the Most Affected Subpopulations:

enter image description here

IDU = injecting drug user
MSM = men who have sex with men

Source: aids.gov. HIV IN THE UNITED STATES: AT A GLANCE

Community
  • 1
Cornelius
  • 2,866
  • 23
  • 40
  • 23
    Purely out of fear that these numbers will be used for homophobic propaganda purposes (and to justify unsafe heterosexual sex), note that still leaves over a third of infections amongst non-MSM. While HIV does disproportionately affect MSM, it is by no means limited to that population. – Oddthinking Jun 13 '14 at 02:04
  • 4
    I would assume that the real risk factor is anal penetration and not necessarily if the receiving butt is male or female. – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Jun 13 '14 at 10:08
  • 3
    Worth noting that, whilst these numbers are true, HIV incidence in Homosexual men is on the decline, but between heterosexual couples, it is increasing. – Owen C. Jones Jun 13 '14 at 12:07
  • 1
    I'd like to see all of these groups split in 2 sub groups like "MSM using protection" and "MSM not using protection" and so forth. Since pregnancy is out of the equation for MSMs, the incentive for using protection is reduced. But other than that, I don't believe that anal sex is inherently more dangerous than vaginal sex... – Dungarth Jun 13 '14 at 12:20
  • 1
    Where are the numbers for "White Hetero Men"? – David Wilkins Jun 13 '14 at 12:26
  • 6
    @DavidWilkins: Presumably they didn't make the 2% mark as listed above. Using the statistics at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/men/index.html, they might be as high as 2000, but that's only if you assume that every white male who doesn't fit the MSM category is a whiter hetero man. – Sean Duggan Jun 13 '14 at 12:41
  • @SeanDuggan Whiter? I feel terrible for laughing at anything to do with AIDS. – David Wilkins Jun 13 '14 at 12:48
  • *facepalm* Missed that typo. – Sean Duggan Jun 13 '14 at 12:48
  • @Tor-Einar Jarnbjo So according to your hypothesis the graph really displays a hierarchy of preferences for anal sex? That simple? I imagine really interesting policies coming from that end... – pandita Jun 13 '14 at 13:13
  • 6
    @pandita: While anal sex is a more efficient vector, it isn't [that](http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/18/whats-the-probability-of-hiv-transmission/) [simple](http://www.aidsmap.com/Oral-sex/page/1044877/). – Oddthinking Jun 13 '14 at 15:23
  • 1
    @Dungarth: It is difficult to find exact numbers, since it is often or mostly not possible afterwards to identify which kind of sexual act caused an HIV infection. This study (http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/2002/01000/Reducing_the_Risk_of_Sexual_HIV_Transmission_.7.aspx) estimates the relative risk for HIV infection to be five times larger for anal sex than for vaginal sex when being the receptive partner. The relative risks for Insertive, Receptive, Vaginal and Anal sex are: IV=10, IA=13, RC=20, RA=100. – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Jun 13 '14 at 15:46
  • 2
    Note that the statistics presented is *not about gays*... Not every man who had sex with a man is gay. – Sklivvz Jun 13 '14 at 22:43
  • @Tor-EinarJarnbjo: Whilst it's true that anal sex is slightly more risky than oral or anal this does not explain the _huge_ difference in risk-factor between MSMs and the general sexual population. It likely that epidemiological factors relating to patterns of outbreak and promiscuity are more significant. – Jack Aidley Jun 14 '14 at 12:16
  • @JackAidley: It would also be interesting to see if the statistics change as homosexuality becomes more accepted by the general populace. Some of the reason for the risk-factor might be people unwilling to disclose their activities, thus impairing the ability to track the infections and/or properly warn partners. – Sean Duggan Jun 17 '14 at 15:25
  • **One note**; one has to take into account the *historicity* of the data. It is a fact that among conservative circles the onset of HIV was a sign of condemnation of "*fags*" and "*junkies*" (sic), which were the most affected *groups* for many reasons. One now can see that indeed other people are also target, while the momentum gained earlier among these groups, mentioned before, continues or maybe even slows down (i think this is reflected in these statistics) – Nikos M. Jun 18 '14 at 00:25
  • @Sklivvz, "Not every man who had sex with a man is gay." Depends on who you ask. All those prison sex/rapes would qualify as homosexual to a large percentage of the population. – user1873 Jun 19 '14 at 00:31
  • @user1873 sorry, I disagree: if someone is prison raped by men, how does that make him gay? – Sklivvz Jun 19 '14 at 07:02
  • @Sklivvz, if you **like to rape** men in prison, that makes you gay. Just like if you like to rape children, that makes you a pedophile. – user1873 Jun 19 '14 at 13:42
  • @user1873 But it can be a phase, or experimenting. A man might have sex with another man and not find it pleasurable, and not do it again. They would not be gay, but they still would have had sex with another man. Now, if a man is sexually attracted to other men and has sex with them, _then_ they are gay. – forest Dec 30 '18 at 09:08