The previous blog entry discussed the first article in a special section of the recent issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. The journal presents a number of articles devoted to the issues and complexities involved in Black male bisexuality and its connection with risk. As was noted previously, very little scientific research exists regarding the topic.
One article in this series by Darrell Wheeler and his colleagues compared Black men who have sex with both men and women (MSMW) to Black men who have sex only with men (MSM). The authors did not categorize the men in the study in terms of whether they identify as gay or bisexual, but rather only in terms of the types of sexual behaviors in which they engage. This is because of the complexity of the way in which people apply sexual identity labels to themselves; individuals may engage in behavior that is inconsistent with the label they ascribe to themselves without the behavior affecting the way they view themselves. Specifically, in this case, men may engage in sexual behavior with other men, but view themselves as largely or completely heterosexual. Furthermore, the authors were concerned about the occurrence of risky sexual behavior, such as unprotected penile-anal and penile-vaginal intercourse; this of course is sexual behavior in which a condom is not used, which dramatically increases the risk of infection by a sexually transmitted disease. Consequently, they instead identified men in terms of the sex of their partners and also asked them about the frequency of engaging in anal or vaginal sex when not using a condom.
The study involved a very large number of participants, 1154 men from New York City and Philadelphia; 822 of the men actually met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Of these, 226 were men who have sex with women and men, while 596 were men who have sex with men. They were recruited through a procedure called respondent-driven sampling, a strategy to overcome the challenge of locating men who engage in sexual behavior with other men (contrary to stereotypes, it is not possible to accurately identify such men based on easily observable characteristics). In the respondent driven procedure, an initial set of men who engaged in sex with other men was located through community organizations; these men were paid $15 for each eligible individual they recruited for the study, up to a maximum of three individuals. Those who participated were then paid to recruit up to three other men to participate. The process continued until the researchers obtained the targeted number of participants.
The results of the study were that men who have sex with men (MSM) were more likely to be at risk for HIV infection, to be HIV-positive based on tests conducted for this study, but to be unaware that they had been infected compared to men who have sex with both women and men (MSMW). The men who have sex with men were more likely to report that they had engaged in unprotected sex in which their partner inserted his penis in their anus (unprotected receptive anal intercourse). No difference was found between the two groups in inserting one’s penis in a partner’s anus (insertive anal intercourse). The findings for receptive and insertive anal intercourse have been found in other studies that have not focused exclusively on Black men. The authors propose that MSMW and MSM are equally willing to accept the risk associated with insertive anal intercourse because it involves less risk, but that the greater risk associated with receptive anal intercourse causes MSMW to be less willing to be receptive during anal intercourse.
Important differences were found between the two groups in terms of their economic well-being, with MSMW having lower income, less education, and more likely to be unemployed than MSM. MSMW were also more likely to have engaged in recent exchange sex, having anal sex with a casual partner for money, drugs, a place to stay, or to get other resources they needed. They were also more likely to report recent substance use, being arrested two or more times in their lives, and supporting more than one person with their income. This suggests that men who have sex with both women and men may tend to engage in anal intercourse for economic reasons, because they need money to support themselves and others or to obtain drugs or alcohol. In fact, the strongest factor related to engaging in either receptive or insertive anal intercourse common to both MSMW and MSM was engaging in exchange sex.
The next most influential factor related to engaging unprotected anal intercourse for both groups of men was having a gay identity, that is explicitly labeling themselves as being gay or homosexual. Gay identified men were more likely to engage in unprotected receptive anal sex, as the authors state “the riskiest behavior associated with HIV infection” (p. 705). Sexual orientation identity did not relate to the tendency to engage in unprotected insertive anal intercourse, again possibly because it is relatively less risky than receptive sex.
As it turned out, the majority of men reported sexual orientation identities that matched the types of sexual behavior in which they engaged. That is, most men in the group labeled MSMW identified as bisexual and most men in the MSM group identified as gay. Nonetheless, substantial proportions of men in the MSMW group identified as heterosexual (24%) and substantial proportions of MSM identified as bisexual (25%). These results strengthen the generally accepted conclusion among scientists that sexual orientation identity is not extremely accurate in understanding the types of sexual behavior in which individuals may engage.
Wheeler, D. P., Lauby, J. L., Liu, K., Van Sluytman, L. G., & Murrill, C. (2008). A comparative analysis of sexual risk characteristics of Black men who have sex with men or with men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 697-707.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
I found this study to be interesting in that the findings showed that a persons sexual orientation did not matter based on the risks they were willing to take engaging in sexual activity with others. It just goes to show that your orientation will not determine whether or not a person is in greater risk of overlooking consequences with engaging in sex.
What stands out to me is that this study is focused on black men and in doing so, reveals a cultural bias that even science cannot escape from. The textbook suggests that most HIV research spotlights African Americans (p. 16). Also, in social interactions, people have said to me that when they think about somebody with AIDS, an image of women from Africa come to mind. What I find interesting is that when I think an AIDS victim or even a gay man, I picture a white collar European American, because of a movie I saw with Tom Hanks as a partner in a law firm who was firmed for having AIDS. If I were to have done this study, it would not have focused on black men because that’s not what comes to mind when I think of HIV/AIDS. In chapter 1 of the text, Dr. Hill states that even though the scientific method is based on logic and reason, supporting data “is not gathered in a vacuum” and is therefore prone to “assumptions” (p. 9). He says, “[t]heories are always based to some extent on assumptions, albeit assumptions based on logic and reason” (p. 9). If science cannot escape bias, then how do we expect the public to do so, as I have so commonly heard from activists and politicians?
I thought it was interesting how the researchers asked questions about the sex of the sexual partners and the type of sexual behavior (e.g. anal sex) to determine MSM and MSMW instead of simply asking the participants if they identified as gay or bisexual. Without this method, there would be more self-reported heterosexuals and bisexuals. It was also nice that they clarified the steretype that one can find a gay man by his outward appearance. Not all gay men are feminine just as not all straight men are typically masculine. It was also interesting to hear that gay men were more likely to be at risk for HIV than the MSMW. It was always my belief that the typical HIV case was that of a black woman who received it from a bisexual man. Therefore, MSMW would be more likely to be at risk.
The first thing that I found interesting is that the authors of this issue decided not to categorize the men in terms of whether they identified themselves as gay or bisexual because some men who may have engaged in sexual activity with other men categorized themselves as heterosexual. I found this interesting because I assumed that if these men, but definitely not heterosexual. I think they way that these men categorized themselves has a lot to do with how they would be viewed in the black community. Being a female member of the black community myself I know that it is extremely difficult for men who do categorize themselves as gay or bisexual because growing up these men are taught that they should be strong black men, and being gay or bisexual does not fit in to that title.
The issue here, in my opinion, is not the importance of someone's sexual orientation. It does not matter whether someone is labeling one's self in one orientation or not, but the real issue is the lack of personal protection. Regardless of engaging in sex with women, men, women and men, black, white, black and white, the problem is understanding the responsibility one has to protect themselves. People seem to be too caught up in their urges and the excitement of the moment to think of the potential risks (is it really a question of "potentially risky" these days?) of unprotected sexual behavior.
I found this study to be very interesting. The study seemed to target specific participants. It was not a random way in which the subjects and research were gathered. Participants were also given money in which to bring back other people until the target number was reached. A tell a friend type situation. I do not see how that would be representative of the general population. I also thought the article was interesting that it discussed mainly African American community giving the study not only a sexual orientation bias but also a cultural bias. The issue of Prison I am not going to lie seemed to be one of the first things that popped in my head when I read this article because of the pre conceived notion put upon the African American men. I do not think that men in prisons is the reason for the spread of HIV. Unprotected sex obviously is a huge issue here. Having Unprotected sex no matter sexual orientation in this day in age is not safe. People need to be educated on this matter no matter what the economic status and education level is. All the people being funded by the government for poverty should be getting educated on the issue anyways. Schools should be educating children. As for unprotected sex in the prisons maybe they should provide condoms with their commisary.It was interesting in the article where it discussed not knowing by dress. For the African American community to be homosexual is looked at as being almost taboo. And also isnt an individuals dress a pre conceived notion also.
I felt it extremely interesting that the researchers decided to note on the economic well-being of the participants. First and foremost, it examines the stereotypes typically pushed upon the African American community. I wonder if the same questions and topics would have been discussed if the participants were caucasian males.
Also to note on economic reasoning for the participants actions, I feel as though it is truly sad that one must use their body as a way to produce income. I believe that it would result in a larger HIV risk, due to the fact that the individual would possibly be doing it more often and with multiple partners to earn the more money, drugs, alcohol, etc... It is also possible that some people with HIV could be full of vengeance. Therefore, these men could unknowingly be involved with someone who has the intention of spreading the disease and hurting others as they themselves have been hurt. Nonetheless, I am still impressed that the researchers examined these facts while conducting the study.
I felt it extremely interesting that the researchers decided to note on the economic well-being of the participants. First and foremost, it examines the stereotypes typically pushed upon the African American community. I wonder if the same questions and topics would have been discussed if the participants were caucasian males.
Also to note on economic reasoning for the participants actions, I feel as though it is truly sad that one must use their body as a way to produce income. I believe that it would result in a larger HIV risk, due to the fact that the individual would possibly be doing it more often and with multiple partners to earn the more money, drugs, alcohol, etc... It is also possible that some people with HIV could be full of vengeance. Therefore, these men could unknowingly be involved with someone who has the intention of spreading the disease and hurting others as they themselves have been hurt. Nonetheless, I am still impressed that the researchers examined these facts while conducting the study.
What I found particularly interesting about this article was that MSMW were at considerable cultural disadvantages. What I mean by this is their inferior incomes, education, etc. I am curious as to why this may be as opposed to MSM. Also, I found the proportions of men in each group who identified themselves contrary to the rest of their groups interesting. Could this be because they have some latent resentment for their lifestyle choices?
The first thing that caught my interest was the fact that the researchers chose the participants based on their sexual behaviors and not their self-imposed sexual orientation. It intrigues me that a man can have sexual encounters with other men and consider himself to be heterosexual. This brings up the psychology aspect in the ways in which he thinks about themselves, despite his actions. It also surprised me that the number of men who had sex with other men without the use of a condom was so much higher than those of the men that had sex with both men and women. This makes me think that those that had sex with women also may have hidden it in order to not negatively affect the women, or chose to not do it to further respect and protect the women.
This study was interesting but may have a few flaws in the way it was conducted. One issue I saw was that the participants were asked to recruit other men to engage in the study. Even though the initial gathering of participants was random, having the current participants to ask people they know could create repetition and certain biases. I also thought it was interesting how the study focused on race.
I thought it was interesting how the study focused on 2 different sexual orientation styles. I thought it would have been also interesting if they would have conducted the study with men who just have sex with women also. The one issue I have with the study is that participants were asked to recruit other members to participant. This could create inaccurant repetition among the results since people tend to interact with people of similar views. Meaning the people they recruited probably had similar risk taking behaviors.
According to the survey conducted with Black men who have sex with both men and women (MSMW) to Black men who have sex only with men (MSM) was proven that there is no correlation between their sexual orientation identity and their sexual behavior engagement. Although it would be fairly expected to find that (MSMW) would have higher risks of HIV infection but the studies proved the opposite being that (MSM) have the higher risk of HIV infection. Between the two groups it seem that (MSMW) tend to be people with more financial problems, lower education to be engage on exchange sex for their needs.
I found this study to be very interesting. I actually had to read it a couple of times to fully understand some of the things that were being stated. The one thing I found the most interesting was the way the researchers went about getting their subjects. In all my years in school I have never heard of respondent driven sampling. From the sounds of it, it sounded like it might biased or you would only be finding men out of the same group or economic status, friends are finding friends to participate in the study. Also like the study stated a lot of the men had sex to pay rent, for drugs, etc. they would be more willing and likely to participate because of the money offer of finding other participants.
I wonder if the statement, “individuals may engage in behavior that is inconsistent with the label they ascribe to themselves without the behavior affecting the way they view themselves,” is targeted only at men, or if it is a blanket statement that includes women too. If it just applies to men, I am wondering if maybe this statement is true because of the way that men are able to compartmentalize certain aspects of their life-that the act of sex is more of a physical release and not experienced as an emotional connection. Maybe because these men do not have an emotional attachment to the person they are with, they do not view themselves as being homosexual.
As for the risky behavior, such as unprotected sex, I am wondering if their thinking is that unprotected sex will be o.k. just this one time-that they won’t get infected just this one time, or if their desire surpasses their sense of caution. The use of drugs and alcohol only serves to lessen inhibitions and common sense thinking. If their goal is to get drugs in exchange for sex, their craving for the drug may be more important than protecting themselves.
If I correctly understand one of the results of this study, the claim was made that men who have sex with men were more likely to report that they had unprotected receptive anal intercourse compared to the men who have sex with both men and women. I am wondering if this could be attributed to the women who are having sex with these men. That maybe the women are engaging in safe sex practices and this is being modeled to the men they are having sex with.
I think the final statement that, “the generally accepted conclusion among scientist that sexual orientation identity is not extremely accurate in understanding the types of sexual behavior in which individual may engage,” supports my feelings that you cannot attach a consistent behavior to a person who is given a label because then it would be called stereotyping.
I found this study very interesting. There have not been a lot of research on homosexuals/bisexuals especially African-American homsexuals/bisexuals. I found it interesting in the new technique being used to recruit homosexual/bisexual men by having people already recruited go out and get more participants and compensating them for doing so. It is hard to recruit participants for this because one cannot assume someone is gay and there is no way of being positive that someone is. I also did not know that the person who is the inserter during anal sex is less likely to contract AIDS as the receptive person. I always had thought both were equally dangerous. The research also showed that men who identify as gay are more likely to engage in sex without condoms. I wonder if the research were to show how "out' these men were and how this might impact their behavior. Men that are more "out" might be in open relationship were they feel comfortable not wearing a condom, where as someone who is hiding there sexuality might have partners who are aquaintences and might be more cautious and use a condom.
I find it interesting that when a married Black man engages in bisexual activity it is called “the down low.” I would be interested in knowing what other Black men think about that term; whether or not they feel that it is sinister. I have to wonder, though, if it really is an attempt to further demonize Black male sexuality. I have noticed that some of the Black men and women who I work with have their own way of talking to one another, and then speaking to me using different words. It is the same with my teenager. He has a way of talking with his friends and a different way of speaking to my husband and me. Sometimes it seems like they are speaking another language. When I was younger, my friends and I had a way of speaking to one another too. An example, “Billy and I are going together.” My mom would wonder where we were going. So I am wondering if the term “down low” is being used for the black man because, according to the article, the term came from the African-American culture. I mean, the article claimed that the term is used to demonize Black male sexuality. Is that truly the case? Or is it simply being used for them because it is a cultural way of describing what they are doing? And who does the author think is doing the demonizing?
Before reading about this study, I had assumed that MSMW choose their sexual partners based on attraction. Basically, I believed that MSMW were attracted to both men and women, and engaged in sexual relationships with both genders because of this desire. I find it extremely interesting that MSMW are more likely to engage in exchange sex. However, the fact by itself would lead me to believe that maybe the MSMW are not having sex with men because of a sexual attraction to them, but to receive some kind of compensation.
I also find it interesting that the strongest factor leading to both MSMW and MSM engaging in receptive or insertive anal intercourse is exchange sex. This leads me to believe that maybe I was mistaken in the first paragraph. If MSM are engaging in exchange sex, maybe the issue of sexual attraction is involved. After all, if they were only engaging in sex with men for some kind of compensation and had no sexual attraction toward men, there should be no reason why they would not engage in sex with women also.
Therefore, considering both facts, I wonder if it is not possible that MSMW and MSM engaging in receptive and intercertive anal sex is related to both compensation and attraction. While it is possible that MSM are only having anal sex for compensation, it does not make sense that they would abstain from sex with women unless there was no attraction toward women.
It may be that compensation is only correlated with MSMW having sex with men for compensation. I think a study of MSMW having non-exchange sex would need to be examined to draw stronger conclusions as to whether or not the same-gender sexual behavior is primarily the result of the compensation, or attraction.
I found this study extremely interesting. I guess I never thought about a study showing that it is difficult to label us into three categories as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. It makes sense that it is difficult, because indeed every person is different and situations that are sexually relevant are defined by our own understanding and interpretation of said situation. The fact they chose black men made me really curious as to what the results would be with different races and sexes. Would the same results occur? I was shocked when this article discussed why some black men did engage in sexual behavior with other men is for the economic reasons, in order to obtain such things as drugs or alcohol. I had previously held the view that men who are heterosexual would never have sex with another man, even if it were for some economic gain. Again, is this just found among black men or other races as well? And what about women who claim they are heterosexual. Would they too engage in sexual behaviors in order to obtain economic needs? I feel like women would be more inclined to do so than men would. Further studies done on this topic would be truly interesting.
The main point of this article seems to be that sexual identity varies in large part depending upon the individual who is identifying themselves. This is interesting as it causes me to think about how other people might attribute varying meanings to these terms. It makes me wonder, though, whether or not these people would apply the same criteria to others as well. What I mean is, do they consider themselves heterosexual/bisexual simply because they view the two terms differently, or do they view themselves this way out of some fear of calling themselves completely homosexual/bisexual? Would they see others who perform these same sexual actions and apply the same meaning that they apply to themselves, or would they be stricter in how they term other individuals?
Another interesting point that I saw in this article is that many who consider themselves to be heterosexual but have had male-male sexual relations only did so for favors, as this shows that many don’t simply use the sexual acts they have performed to describe their sexual identities, but also consider the circumstances in which the actions took place. Reading through these points made me realize the biases that I have in regards to sexual orientation, as I never consider the situation or the view of the person involved.
One last interesting point that I noticed was that men who simply have sexual contact with other men do not use condoms while those who have sex with both women and men do. It seems that those who have sex with both genders understand better the implications of exchanging sexual fluids beyond the risk, or gift, of having children. It may also be, though, that because many of the MSMW participants had been performing sexual favors they were more cautious because it wasn’t intimate partners that they had been with.
I think that this study says a lot about how we view ourselves and others. It also shows the impact of so called "titles." How they label themselves has little to do with what they are willing to do as to what they prefer, and that the risks involved with the sexual behaivor does not always follow what their label portrays. Something specific about this study that strikes me, is that they focus on black men. Why only on black men? Do they have more of an occurance with HIV than others or is it just a stereotype?
Prior to reading this article I had no prior awareness or had given thought to the issues and complexities involved in black male bisexuality and its connection with risk. The article states that there is very little scientific research regarding the topic. This leads me to wonder why? Is it because they are a minority group? I did not entertain differences in ethnicity to affect statistics of risk characteristics based on sexual behavior. I am now aware of diversity in scientific study and possible implications due to differences in economic status.
I have definitely acquired knowledge from the supply of information (collected facts and data) about this specific subject presented in the article. I do not perceive that coercion was used as a method to influence the participants.
Based on the information gathered I can assume this information to be true without proof.
Exposure to this article made me aware of the limitations of my own sexual behavioral experiences upon receiving new knowledge of overt sexual behavior activities/ actions that I do not have exposure to.
This article absolutely stimulated cognitive experiences of sexual thoughts, expectations, judgments, plans – simply by sticking my head outside of the “box”.
I found this article interesting and alarming. The interesting part is in how people perceive their sexual identity in a way that doesn't fit their actual sexual actions. Is this because they relate more to the sex that they enjoy or actively pursue more often or is it because they are scared to admit their actual orientation because of social biases. Perhaps it's because it is too complicated to deal with feelings as the sexual identity becomes more complex. The alarming part is that these people engage in these sex acts without protection. It is obvious that many of them have multiple partners especially if they are having sex for trade. Why wouldn't they care enough about themselves and others to use protection. If these men knew the results of this study would they take better precautions? I sure hope that people begin to wisen up!
It isn’t surprising to me that some men who have sex with men and women do not identify themselves as bisexual, or even bi-curious. Most men who have sex with women do not want the stigma attached to the gay community. I think that men who have sex with women feel that they are not gay or even bisexual because they have sex with women, so it doesn’t really count that they have sex with men as well.
It also isn’t surprising that MSM were more likely than MSWM to be at risk for HIV. MSM are less likely to use protection and to engage in riskier behavior than MSWM.
I just cannot believe the amount of people unwilling to use protection considering the great number of risks they are putting themselves in. It seems as thought people would rather experience greater pleasure than a longer and healthier life.
This article was quite shocking to me. It was surprising to me the number of individuals having unprotected sex. With all that we know now about how HIV/ AIDS is contracted and the affects of it, it surprised me that there are still that many people willing to take the risk of contracting a disease. To help stop the spread of disease it is vital that children are being taught about them and educated about the effects of them. Classes should start at a young age and should continue every year to really instill the potential risks and how these diseases are contracted. I also feel that it is important to inform those individuals in jail since this is where disease is widely spread.
I found it interesting that gay men were more susceptible to AIDS/HIV then bisexual men. The article made is sound like men who have self with both men and women have more sexual partners and therefore it would seem that a disease would be spread faster and to more individuals.
These men that are risking their lives knowing they can get a disease or even AIDs/HIV are not being too smart. Yes it is their choice and their life, but that is why the ‘gays’ get a bad name because they are not responsible. It is too dangerous to risk getting AIDs and living with the disease for the rest of your life. Why does this only focus on black males, and not an equal random group of different ethnicities? It is also surprising that men who have sex with men are more susceptible to getting AIDs then a man who has sex with both men and women. One would think that having sex with both sexes would have a greater chance because you are not just having sex with one gender. Overall, this blog was very interesting, and I agree with part of it, but some of it I just can not correlate with.
These men that are risking their lives knowing they can get a disease or even AIDs/HIV are not being too smart. Yes it is their choice and their life, but that is why the ‘gays’ get a bad name because they are not responsible. It is too dangerous to risk getting AIDs and living with the disease for the rest of your life. Why does this only focus on black males, and not an equal random group of different ethnicities? It is also surprising that men who have sex with men are more susceptible to getting AIDs then a man who has sex with both men and women. One would think that having sex with both sexes would have a greater chance because you are not just having sex with one gender. Overall, this blog was very interesting, and I agree with part of it, but some of it I just can not correlate with.
This was a very interesting read, but I can easily bring up a couple of different points regarding it. To me, it seemed like there weren't enough "other sides" to this argument. What about other races? Why weren't white men, Hispanic men, Asian men, etc. involved in this experiment? It seems a little strange to just focus on the African American men when the entire topic (that of AIDS) is such a widely discussed thing.
I did find it interesting that men who have sex with both men and women tend to be the ones that label themselves at heterosexual, but they partake in such acts in order to get something in exchange, such as money, food, shelter, etc. This boggles my mind as so many "straight" men are so quick to jump on the bandwagon and mock homosexual men for the sexual acts that they do, when in reality, a good number also do the same things, according to the results of the experiment.
Overall, a good read, but in my opinion, other ethnicities could have been brought into it as well in order to get a wider sense of the experiment.
I found this to be an interesting article and also a bit of an eye-opener. I was a bit shocked at the number of black males who openly considered themselves MSMW or MSM. Over the years, I have always heard that within the Black community any type of homosexual behavior isn't tolerated much. Which could possibly be the reason that there were a good amount of MSWM who classify themselves at heterosexual and MSM who considered themselves bisexual. But I would have expected that percentage to be a bit higher. From reading some of the other comments, I too thought it was interesting the Black MSM were at more risk for acquiring HIV/AIDS than Black MSWM because of how I've always heard that Black women are the highest carriers of HIV/AIDS. I also noticed people wondering why the study was limited to just Black males and not other races as well. I think this is because of the fact that studying multiple races would make the study too broad. It might be understandable if you were interested in just a general comparison between bisexual risks and homosexual risks. But you would have a lot of differences because between each persons cultural heritage. I'm sure there are narrowed down studies on other races as well. One thing I am curious though however is why heterosexual Black males were not studied as well and what their likelihood of participating in exchange sex and risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS would be.
I read the blog and i feel that the term used in this society is viewed in many ways however i feel everyone should know the term based upon what the individual is referencing it to. Our society is so large and everyone has there own views and thoughts about something. So with a reference to Black Men that are bysexual have the highest HIV rating is actually not what i would think of honestly in todays world i would think it is White Males who are bysexual that have the highest HIV rating. But everyone is at risk with contracting HIV if they are not careful and i feel it's how we educate our society and the children of today to beaware because tomorrow it could be white females that are straight, who knows everyday there is some new study out and just what was found yesterday to be the highest or whatever doesn't mean that that's the same result for tomorrows study.
The first thing that one must consider when entertaining the validity of this study is the fact that the participants were recruited and offered money for their participation. I fear that this could be detrimental to accurate reporting. The statement that a high proportion those men that engaged in receptive or insertive anal sex did so for exchange sex (in other words for money; prostitution). A successful strategy in exchange sex may be to depict a sexual attraction or satisfaction with the sexual encounter that does not exist in order to give the client more bang for his buck, or telling him what the provider feels the client wants to hear. This potential for reporting bias can be extended to the study. The participants may have given inaccurate information that they felt the interviewers wanted to hear in order to repay their compensators. This occurrence of exchange sex goes a long way in explaining the phenomenon that 25% of the MSMW in the survey reported their sexual identity as strictly heterosexual. They may well have had a strict preference for women but engaged in male to male insertive or receptive anal sex strictly for the purpose of monetary or other compensation. In this instance, sexual activity may be kept separate from actual sexual identity and preference of partner. Also the high coincidence of unprotected sex may result from the correlation between high sensation seeking in substance abuse and risky sexual activity. However, the correlation between drug abuse and exchange sex confounds the conventional application of the research pertaining to high sensation seeking personalities presented by Kalichman, et al. This risky sexual behavior may be the result of desire for monetary gain to obtain drugs and may have little to do with sensation seeking being directly fulfilled by sexual activity.
I found this article very interesting in the way in which the researchers conducted their research. They were selective in their sampling. Some men would not categorize themselves as bisexual because they feel as if their sexual acts or favors are not at all homosexual but just an act for their current economic circumstances. They feel as if they are in a relationship with a woman but participate in these sexual acts with other men as a source of survival such as, gaining money for survival methods or just to treat their habits of being addicted to some type of substance. Not putting labels or categories to choose the sample but to base it off of questions was an excellent technique to obtain reliable results because many Black men are ashamed or do not consider what they are doing to be homosexual/ (bi-sexual) acts. Paying money as an incentive was also an excellent way to recruit a big enough sample size. When there is a reward involved many people tend to become more interested in participating. I wonder within this reward did some participate in this research to receive the money or did they offer the money after they participated in this research? I also found it interesting that MSM was more likely to have unprotected sex but as I began to think about it I wondered if these men were in long monogamist relationships and this is the reason to why they went more unprotected or if they just had multiple partners and just did not practice safe sex? Is it that the MSMW are in relationships with women so when they tend to participate in these acts, they tend to protect themselves more?
Ruby Do
Blog assignment #2
First of all, I was not surprised about the fact that unprotected anal intercourse sex is considered risky to infection or inflammation which makes a person more susceptible to bacterial infection around the anus and rectum, and therefore, person is at high risk of getting STD. However, I found it is interesting when the researchers stated that MSMW has lower income and less educated than MSM. I have read some articles about men who are willing to have sex with either men or women for money, for their promotion, and for emotional bonding, and most of them are either college students or rich people.
I found this study to be a little bit disturbing. I feel like men who are having unprotected sex with men and then turn around and have unprotected sex with women are playing with fire. It is not fair if they are with their wife/girlfriend having risky sex and then are secretly having risky sex with a man, they could unknownly be spreading disease amongst these people. It kills me when you have a man who is with a women but likes having sex with a man say that he is not gay, well what would you call it? I think that alot of men in this situation be in denail or have some kind of identity crisis that they are not ready to deal with.
Majority of men in this study were able to accurately describe their sexual behavior and match it with their sexual orientation identity. However, 24% of the men that slept with both men and women identified as heterosexual. When I read about men that sleep with other men, but refuse to identify as bisexual, it reminds me of alcoholics in the denial stage. Like homosexuality and bisexuality, alcoholism carries with it negative connotations. Even if a person meets all the behavioral criteria for alcoholism (i.e. number of drinks and frequency), they may still deny being an alcoholic. By denying having a drinking problem, the person protects themselves from having to apply negative terms they have come to associate with alcoholics to their own identity. Likewise, by a man refusing to label himself as bisexual or gay, he can distance himself from the negative terms that have come to be associated with homosexuality. Although when given a checklist of specific behaviors that these people participate in, both will be able to judge with accuracy, even if they refuse to incorporate the behaviors into their overall identity.
Post a Comment