Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bbncc5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.bio
Subject: Re: Recent articles; homosex & science
Message-ID: <20@bbncc5.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 01:42:50 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncc5.20
Posted: Tue Nov 19 01:42:50 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Nov-85 22:11:55 EST
References: <1612@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 70
Xref: linus net.motss:2021 net.bio:175

DISCOVER, December 1985, is devoted to AIDS, and greets the reader with
the following cover phrase, a snippet of yellow journalism and homophobia
disguised as heartwarming news for the concerned straits:

	"Contrary to what you you've heard, AIDS isn't a threat to the
	 vast majority of heterosexuals or a peril to humanity.  It is --
	 and is likely to remain -- largely the fatal price one can pay
	 for anal intercourse."

Inside is a rather confused mishmash of more of the same, along with some
pretty good science writing on what is known about AIDS replication and
transmission which reads like it came out of a different article without
an axe to grind.  There is a subtle homophobia here, no less repugnant than
the editorial page ravings of Cal Thomas and the Boston Globe's David Wilson.
It is a reformation of Pat Buchanan's pet phrase, "[gays] have transgressed
against nature, and now they're reaping the fatal price", clothed in a mantle
of bioscience rather than religion.  But it was bad religion, and so far,
it remains bad science.

The claim is that the vagina is a good shield against AIDS virus infection
or dissemination due to its intact epithelial structure, as opposed to the
anus and the penile urethra which are far more vascular and open to viral
infection.  These are interesting hypotheses, certainly worthy of continued
exploration, but they remain hypotheses, and no public health official has
ever made as strong a statement as DISCOVER, trying to pass this off as
established fact.  It is interesting that this article comes out at the
same time that news reports have uncovered the extent of AIDS in sexually
active heterosexuals in Africa.  This article discounts whatever earlier
had been reported as being wholly reducible to the practice of
scarification, a cosmetic procedure using unsanitized needles.  Why
promiscuous heterosexual activity seems to be correlated with the incidence
of the disease in Africa certainly is unexplored by this article.

The fact is that AIDS need not be the fatal consequence of anal intercourse
and should not be identified as one and the same.  It was safe for millions
of years, and though it may cause some Falwellians and science-backed
homophobes indigestion, one can presume that it (not to mention sex in
general) will once again be considered safe at some time in the future.
It's curious that "normal" sexual intercourse was never singled out as the
culprit when syphilis was considered a death sentence.  Rather, the focus
was on the spirochete.  Yet here we have a curious fascination with and
condemnation of a sexual practice favored by a minority of society.  Right
now all sexual practices which are open to the interchange of blood and/or
semen between non-monogamous individuals should be considered potentially
dangerous.  At this point, it is foolhardy for promiscuous heterosexuals or
gay people to take the DISCOVER report on face value to avoid taking
reasonable safe-sex precautions in all forms of sexual expression.

I am trying to make a very subtle point here, and I want to make sure I am
not being misinterpreted.  My thesis is that there is a large political
component in the DISCOVER article which is intimately tied up with the
traditional revulsion of Western society towards homosexual activity in
general and anal intercourse in particular.  Whatever data might have been
or might yet be collected regarding the role of anal sex in the etiology of
AIDS is being obscured by the force of this societal proscription, leading to
overeager conclusions as yet unsupported by firm data, and to a focus on the
act of anal sex itself, as it becomes transformed into an icon for the dreaded
syndrome.  To anyone interested in seeing rationality drive a solution to the
AIDS problem, this is very frightening.

With that said, I must also admit that any AIDS research which focuses on
the role of particular sexual practices is necessarily BOUND to be
controversial since it encroaches on the larger societal ambivalence
towards them.  But for me, this argues for even more careful reporting
and an attention to conclusions unfettered by non-scientific mores
and morals.  The DISCOVER report, shamefully, fell far short of this goal.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA