"Risky sex" does not, in any way, imply condom-less ass-pounding orgies. Any sex with any amount of risk, moreover, is not "risky sex", unless you're just dead set on being a semantic pedant. "Risky sex" means and implies sex where the risk accepted is disproportionately high in relation to the means available to mitigate that risk. Teenagers having sex without a condom is risky sex, using a condom is not, even though straight sex without a condom is not in the same category as orgies of risk, nor is straight sex with a condom entirely risk-free. The reason is that using a condom is easy and cheap, but vastly reduces risk even if it is not totally foolproof.
As to AIDS.. it's amusing that we can hear about how people think of it as a "faggot disease" and yet, in the same breath, hear about how prejudice against gays limited research into treatments for it. Is it a gay disease, or not?
The answer is that, at least back in the era the author is talking about, it was a gay disease. Not in the way that **** like Jerry Falwell claim, but in the sense that it was primarily prevalent among the gay population and gay anal sex spread it very, very easily. In that sense it's a "gay disease" just like breast cancer is a female disease even though men can get it. Prostate cancer is a male disease, receives far less attention than breast cancer, and yet is more likely to kill men than breast cancer is to kill women. Despite the supposed privileges males receive, this persists.
For exampleQuote:
People with prostate cancer generally encounter significant disparities in awareness, funding, media coverage, and research—and therefore, inferior treatment and poorer outcomes—compared to other cancers of equal prevalence.[148] In 2001, The Guardian noted that Britain had 3,000 nurses specializing in breast cancer, compared to only one for prostate cancer. It also discovered that the waiting time between referral and diagnosis was two weeks for breast cancer but three months for prostate cancer.[149] A 2007 report by the U.S.-based National Prostate Cancer Coalition stated that for every prostate cancer drug on the market, there were seven used to treat breast cancer. The Times also noted an "anti-male bias in cancer funding" with a four to one discrepancy in the United Kingdom by both the government and by cancer charities such as Cancer Research UK.[148][150] Equality campaigners such as author Warren Farrell cite such stark spending inequalities as a clear example of governments unfairly favouring women's health over men's health.[151]
Disparities also extend into areas such as detection, with governments failing to fund or mandate prostate cancer screening while fully supporting breast cancer programs. For example, a 2007 report found 49 U.S. states mandate insurance coverage for routine breast cancer screening, compared to 28 for prostate cancer.[148][152] Prostate cancer also experiences significantly less media coverage than other, equally prevalent cancers, with a study by Prostate Coalition showing 2.6 breast cancer stories for each one covering cancer of the prostate.[148]
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month takes place in September in a number of countries. A light blue ribbon is used to promote the cause.[153][154]
So yes, prejudice against gays did probably hurt government attention to the disease in the '80's, but the fact is that AIDS is not some airborne pathogen wiping out populations in hours, nor does it create zombies. There was no reason the government should have paid special attention to it once it was determined how easily it could be blocked from transmission.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
