Today is World AIDS Day. While AIDS may cut across demographic lines in other parts of the world, here in America AIDS remains a disease primarily affecting men who have sex with men. Notions that "AIDS Does Not Discriminate" or "AIDS Is an Equal Opportunity Killer" simply don't mesh with the facts.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's periodic reports on AIDS clearly show that men engaging in homosexual acts constitute three-fifths of those who have died from AIDS complications in the United States. Intravenous drug users make up the vast majority of the remaining AIDS-related deaths.

AIDS has killed more Americans than World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War times two. Perhaps a million people are infected with HIV in the U.S., with about half of that number succumbing to the disease since its arrival was noted in the early 1980s. It's time to get serious about combating this killer that has taken away too many talented and good people from us. Getting serious entails doing away with politically-correct slogans and admitting the truth. And the truth is that like lung cancer, heart disease, and other maladies, behavior matters when it comes to AIDS. Decreasing new HIV cases means decreasing certain behaviors, i.e., the dangerous sex practices of some homosexual men and the intravenous use of drugs among addicts.

Forgive my ignorance here but who is claiming that something other than risky behavior increases one's likelihood of getting AIDS? Even gay activists acknowledge this....

I think I can explain Dave.

I think what is at issue in this post is the extent to which the homosexual community and AIDS activists in general have spent the last two decades trying to avoid letting AIDS be characterized as a "gay" disease. What I mean is that there has always been great fear and consternation at AIDS being seen to be "just" a gay problem. The fear was and is that homophobe (whatever that nonsense word means) American's middle class will never support funding for AIDS research unless we make it seem to affect them more directly and personally. This is why very often one would see slogans like "you too could be at risk for AIDS!" and "AIDS doesn't discriminate!" Or that activists would really push to the forefront a focus on the risk of contaminated blood transfusions (remember that poor kid Ryan White), or women getting infected by husbands who had intercourse with prostitutes, etc.

I am not saying that AIDS is in fact a "gay" disease, I don't know what it would mean to characterize a virus in such a way, it strikes me as nonsensical. But noticing that AIDS overwhelmingly occurs in two categories of behavior has generally been shied away from. I think it was simple strategy in the 80s and 90s, that in order to get the funding for research that the gay community desired they needed to "sell" or package awareness to the larger middle class community. This is something, for example, that males in general have not done for diseases like prostate cancer, which kills more men every year than breast cancer kills women (I think?).

Anyway, I think it has been that general tactic for seeking funding for AIDS research that is behind Dan's comments. He is cutting through the obfuscation.

Fair point. It sound like what you're saying is that (1) any person who engages in sexually reckless practices is at greater risk for contracting AIDS and (2) certain segments of the gay population engage in sexually reckless practices. Therefore, certain segments of the gay population are at greater risk for getting AIDS than the population generally.

The amateur statistician in me would like to know what the rates of incidence for HIV infection are for the segments of the heterosexual population that engage in sexually risky behavior.

But that's a question that's beyond the scope of this posting.

Not to get technical, but homosexual conduct has resulted in just under 60% of the aforementioned AIDS related deaths. IV drugs constitutes a quarter of those deaths and heterosexual contact makes up 5%.

While not statistically insignificant, that 5% is far lower than propaganda would have you believe. It is important to note, these deaths do not necessarily reflect more recent trends of HIV infection rates within the US- AIDS deaths and HIV infection rates are certainly two different things. Young, minority homosexuals(and the gay community in general) are seeing infection rates on the rise due to lackadaisical attitudes encouraged by better medical treatment, longer life spans, etc.

Yeah, Swetz, you are correct. I was looking at the table on males and thinking that referred to all cases. Factoring the small number of female cases into the mix, the homosexual contact number goes from about two-thirds to three-fifths. I will correct in the post.

Yeah that is correct Dave.

I can't speak to whether it was strategically necessary to overemphasize the risk of blood transfusions and husbands passing AIDS on to unsupecting wives, but I think the fear was that if we say that someone puts themselves at risk for AIDS through their behavior than people might just "blame" the infected (particularly easy to do if you don't approve of homosexuality) and turn their backs on them.

I think the history of funding for AIDS research has demonstrated that average Americans are willing to be charitable for causes that deal with the ravages of AIDS regardless of whether the people affected "deserved" it in the sense of being the cause of their own downfall by doing stupid or risky things. Simple charity demands know less. And in fact there is no reason why I can't recognize, for example, the foolishness of smoking and even counsel people not to engage in that behaviorsince it is a major cause of lung cancer but still donate money to the American Lung Association in memory of my grandfather who died from the disease after smoking his entire life.