Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!ST602662%BROWNVM.BITNET@oac.ucla.edu
From: ST602662%BROWNVM.BITNET@oac.ucla.edu (Bill Jesdale)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: (2630) Re: (2624) Not a high risk group?
Message-ID: <40265@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 90 17:40:30 GMT
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Lines: 23
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note:	Copyright 1990 by Daniel R. Greening.  Permission granted for
Note:	non-commercial reproduction.
Archive-number: 2653

Whether or not a person feels that the CDC definition of
it's homosexual/bisexual male risk categoryis reasonably
accurate, I think one must have one's head stuck deeply in
the sand if one is to argue that men who have lots of sex
with men are, on the whole, not at much higher risk of
acquiring HIV infectionthan men who do not have sex with
lots of men.

Also, if one is to use the extremely loose definition of 'gay'
which includes 70% of men (This figure, I assume, would include
all guys who fiddled around in adolescence, and probably many who
didn't even do this much), then this would account for 35% of the
population, not 70%.
  Therefore, even given the reckoning of the previous poster,
'gay' men would be overrepresented by a factor of two.
  When one considers that the majority of heterosexual adults
and presumably asexual infants and children did not get infected
through sex, doing this kind of analysis on the data becomes
even more ludicrous.
  Gay men have been hard hit by this disease. Let's not deny it.

Be Well,
Bill Jesdale