Monday, October 8, 2007

Jose Solano: Our New Public Health Authority

Posted by another Opine Idiot, Jose Solano: One of the many homophobic (but probably really gay) heterosexuals obsessed with gay sex.

It's amazing to me the misconceptions among this crowd of supposedly educated people.

By "amazing," I mean "sad and pathetic."

Here it is everybody, a comment warning us all of the dangers of anal sex by the amazing Jose Salano...a "peaceful" man, who simply cares about the public health of our nation's homosexuals.

This is a man, who as far as I know, has no medical background whatsoever, yet has somehow managed to sift through the epidemiology, biostatistics, and medical knowledge that surrounds STDs, gay men, HIV, and anal sex to provide new recommendations for all our nation's youth and adults!!!

I'm very impressed. I guess he at least he doesn't use dead people analogies the way Culturologist does.

Here goes: *My comments are in italics*

"Peace Jane Know. You are not under attack. Cease fire. (0h, I'm not? Phew. For a minute there I thought you were calling homosexuals vile, unnatural, immoral, and perverse. I guess you just define those words differently than me.)

I am talking only about specific unhealthy sexual behaviors. You may not be aware of the numerous health problems associated with anal intercourse. (Actually, yes. I am. But I'm sure you are about to enlighten us all, anyway)

The anus is not at all like the vagina. The membranes of the anus tear much more easily than those of the vagina. These tears allow fecal matter to enter the blood stream causing a host of diseases. (Maybe so. But this isn't really your war to fight, Jose. As long as the sex is consensual, we don't need your moral guidance to tell us what is right or wrong.)

Non-promiscuous homosexual men are at a lower risk of contracting AIDS but the problem of membrane tears remains the same and the use of condoms does nothing to prevent this.
(Yes, because it is possible to transmit HIV from one non-infected person to another solely by anal sex. Well, according to homobigots like you. Since when did you care so much about gay people and their rectal tears, anyway?)

The environment of the vagina is far cleaner than the rectum with its enormously toxic fecal matter. Homosexual men are disproportionately vulnerable to diseases such as hepatitis B and a variety of rare conditions such as shigellosis and Giardia lamblia infection which are collectively referred to as the “Gay Bowel Syndrome. (Ohhhhh, is that what it's called? Because people in the medical world stopped using "Gay Bowel Syndrome" in 1985. But I don't expect you to know this as you are not a member of the medical profession)

Among the numerous diseases which are caused by anal sex are amebiasis, campylobateriosis, Chlamydia trachomatis, Treponema palidium, etc. The list of these diseases contracted through anal intercourse is huge and includes rectal cancer. (None of these are spread only through anal sex. Chlamydia and syphilis (the disease caused by Treponema palidium) are spread through any sexual contact, anal, vaginal, oral, etc. That means gay and straight people get them. Did you cut and paste your little arguments from a Christian homobigot website that seriously skews the facts? Because I'm sure you would never intentionally try to mislead anyone. Further, HPV can cause rectal cancer. The same way it causes cervical cancer in women. Surely you wouldn't argue for women to stop the dangerous practice of having vaginal intercourse.)

When you consider how homosexuals enjoy traumatizing the rectum with such rather common practices as “fisting” you can see why one can justifiably refer to their varieties of anal intercourse as perverse and vile. These activities are part and parcel of their form of “love making.” We cannot encourage such practices and we must warn children and everyone, at the appropriate age and with parental consent where necessary, against such practices.
(When I see a handbook given out to second-graders on the proper methods of fisting, I will take you seriously)

They are dangerous and deadly. So please try to understand where I am coming from. I am seriously concerned with the well-being of those people engaged in these practices and will use strong language to try and dissuade them from doing these things. We must sound the alarm because the media is not doing it and even “medical professionals” such as yourself are obviously not aware of the facts.
(Yes, tell that to the thousands of people who are grateful for my unbiased, unopinionated care before you jump to conclusions about my knowledge-base. Or, better yet, ask my boss. Fuckwad. You say I'm not under attack, but then you put "medical professionals" in quotes as if I am not really one. I see the facts every day, and I am trained by experts in the field. I read scholarly journals exactly on these issues you claim to be an expert on. I am bound by an oath to cause no harm to patients. And that means letting them live their lives the way they see fit. Because they are adults practicing consensual sex that is harming no one else. If I were to judge gay men the way fuckwads like you do, I would only be hurting them more.

This is one of the reasons I see the relationship of homosexual men as significantly more dangerous than that of lesbians. I’m not insulting anyone and my words must not be taken personally. I’m simply warnings people of the real dangers. As a medical professional you also have a responsibility to research the facts about these behaviors and warn the public. This should not be concealed by political opportunism but revealed as a public health hazard. Think about it. I wish you well.

(You are seriously delusional if you think any of what you said is peaceful or loving. I suggest a mental health counselor or therapist to work out some unresolved issues. Further there's a reason we don't let people just walk off the street and start practicing medicine or nursing. There are reasons we don't allow uneducated, unresearched, untrained people start making guidelines for the rest of us to follow. Jose Solano is one of those reasons.)

31 comments:

Rachel M. said...

Jose, you stupid piece of shit.
How dare you suggest that Jane not know her profession. What makes you think that you reading an article written by medical professionals (SUCH. AS. JANE.) makes you more of an expert than the ACTUAL medical professional (JANE). You’re embarrassing yourself. Your attempt at convincing the gay community that you're just looking out for them is pathetic, and your medical cut and paste is sophomoric. Leave the medical research and reports to the medical profession (JANE). When we need advice on being a homobigot, closeted homo, fuckwad, we'll go to you. The expert.

Fannie said...

But Jane,

perhaps Jose is speaking of all these intricacies of anal sex and fisting from personal experience. In which case his opinion WOULD count for something, even if it's not a professional medical opinion.

I'm sure he would have told you this himself, but he probably had to rush off and direct another play.

Jane Know said...

True, I'm sure we could do a qualitative study based on Jose's subjective experiences. That is, if has time in between his thespian career to talk about it.

Anonymous said...

In a comment at Opine, you described these behaviors as "gay sex" and here you have emphasized both consent and sexual orientation.

Jose said: "the numerous health problems associated with anal intercourse."

Jane, you said that you were well-informed about those problems.

Objectively, does consent nullify the physiological facts and the medical implications of these particular behaviors?

No, right?

Are not these facts and implications of these sexual behaviors applicable regardless of sexual orientation of the individuals involved?

Yes, right?

What do you think, as someone with training on the physiological facts and the medical implications, is the relevancy of consent?

There are surveys of openly homosexual men, of which maybe half or so respond that they rarely, if ever, engage in penetration (from either position).

But maybe that's not a reflection of what you discern through your own medical practice, I dunno. You could describe what you know about it.

In any case, in your experience with gay patients, would you say that those who rarely, if ever, engage in these behaviors have better sexual health, worse, or no different, than those who do so frequently?

In other words, those who are "frequent fliers" (or whatever euphemism works here), are they increasing their health risks overall? Is there a high or low correlation between freuency and the number of sexual partners -- or other risky sexual behavior?

These are general questions about your knowledge of the subject. Apart from the side issue of consent, your post did not address the physiological facts and medical implications, which would be your area of special knowlege.

You gained that knowlege, I would expect, without possession of a purile obsession on the subject. So, objectively, how do you advise your gay patients when it comes to making good and healthy choices in sexual behavior?

--Chairm

Jane Know said...

I could tell you that, Chairm, but I won't.

I know far too well how you will definitely misinterpret and misquote what I say and turn it against me despite any good faith efforts to answer those questions.

Your questions are fully loaded with your intent to get me to answer them the way you want me to answer them. And even if I don't answer them that way, you will still say I did.

Either ask a simple objective question without your rhetorical commentary or leave.

For, I don't feel as though you really care about the health of gay men. Nothing you have said has demonstrated that you would care about them. How could I possibly be led to believe you aren't going to mischaracterize my answers and then scurry back to your Opine Idiots and brag about how you "really schooled" me.

Fannie said...

The point of Jane's article is that you guys are acting under the guise of caring about gay men's health, and assuming Jane doesn't know her profession. I KNOW Jane in real life, and I know that she's a medical professional well-versed in all of these issues.

And, she's well-versed in providing culturally competent and understanding care to gay people- "high-risk" gay men included. Providing such care is essential to improving gay men's access to the health care as gay people have traditionally been underserved by the health care system. For instance, gay men historically have been reluctant to seek care for STDs/HIV from medical providers that they know or fear will not be understanding of their sexual orientation. The fear of judgment, homophobia, and stigma contributes to the spread of STDs/HIV and prevents gay people from receiving necessary health care.

Yes, even today, there is remains a stigma for being gay. (As you should know).

So all of you should be applauding Jane for her work in improving health care access to an underserved population. Yet you mock her. You offer to "teach" her and send her articles.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I don't know what your backgrounds are in public health, but nothing you, Jose, or Culturologist has said makes me think that you would provide compassionate, understanding, AND competent care to gay men. And, so Jane is correct in saying that people like you are the reason we have standards and licensing programs to make sure qualified professionals are the ones doling out health advice.

Yes, some of you may be acting under the guise of "helping" gay men, but your "concern" really does more harm than good.

Anonymous said...

But Jane, those questions are relevant to the readers who have followed our exchange at Opine and here as well.

It is not about my response to your informed presentation of your own answers to relevant questions.

It is about informed consent, not merely consent, surely.

In case your readers here missed it, here is the latter part of an exchange between you and I, in the comment section at Opine:

I said: We can proceed from your stated motive. That's fair, right? And you will note my stated motive, too?

Jane Know said: Okay, thanks. [...] I will respond when I have more time.

I said: See you then.

* * *

You find the time and made the effort but haven't done as you said you would do. Neither at Opine's comment section nor here in your own recent blogposts and comments.

--Chairm

Jane Know said...

Chairm, like Culturologist, and like Jose, is definitely missing the point. Instead, he stubbornly chooses to obsess over Anal Sex and its Many Evils. In his idiotic way, he attempts to create a mockery of health care professionals and the good work they do saving people's lives and promoting health.

Sadly, I doubt he does anything of the sort in real life.

Jane Know said...

Chairm, then ask your questions in ways that people can understand them. Not in your Opine speak. And without your rhetorical editorials. We play by my rules here.

For example: "consent" in respect to sex is a completely different issues than "informed consent." i'm not sure where you trying to go with that.

Anonymous said...

Jane,

What objective medical information is relevant to consent and choice?

Presumably, you'd keep your gay patients informed.

I think you have already suggested something very similar to informed consent in these terms, when you've mentioned sex-education that you think is useful versus the kind you think is not.

If we are to discuss by your rules, here, please point me, and your readers, to those rules for consideraton and guidance.

--Chairm

Jane Know said...

I think you have already suggested something very similar to informed consent in these terms, when you've mentioned sex-education that you think is useful versus the kind you think is not."

Chairm, I have said or suggested nothing of the sort. Don't tell me what I do in practice, thankyouverymuch.

To answer this: "What objective medical information is relevant to consent and choice?"

I tell patients that on the hierarchy of sexual behaviors that can cause HIV/STD transmission, unprotected anal sex with a nonmonagamous partner is at the top of that list. I think nearly every gay man knows this, at this point in time during the HIV epidemic.

May I also mention that just a tad down on that hierarchy is unprotected vaginal/penile sex with a nonmonogamous partner.

Use that how you will.

Because people are going to have sex regardless of risk factors and definitely regardless of abstinence education, I (unlike most of you at Opine) have to deal with that reality by discussing how to *reduce* the likelihood of HIV and STD transmission to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

I would be causing harm to patients by intead just telling them "don't have sex" and not offering any further advice. Because they will, regardless of people like you, have sex anyway.

These *safer* activities include non-contacted activities like mutual masterbation, or intercourse-related activities, like having a mutual monogamous partner, using condoms or other latex barriers, using more lube to reduce the rick of vaginal or rectal tearing, and safe use of sex toys.

That is the objective information that medical professionals who work in areas like mine give to our patients.

That doesn't have anything to do with "informed consent," as that applies to medical procedures, not to people consenting to private behaviors outside a medical setting.

But patients do usually feel more "informed" once they talk to a medical professional about safer sex, and they feel like they are more "informed" when they have consensual sex with their partner(s). Is that what you mean?

Rachel M. said...

well said. the profession is lucky to have you.

Jane Know said...

Rachel M.,
Why, thanks. :-)

I realize that some people in the U.S. are always going to morally disagree with anything that strays from heterosexual sex between 2 married people without taking reality into consideration.

But when looked at from a common sense standpoint and in light of the *most current* research, the above methods are THE MOST EFFECTIVE in preventing the transmission of sexually-spread HIV (which both gay and straight people get!)

Abstinence-only education, which our Moron President agreed to fund, DOESN'T WORK.

I think it is interesting that the most scientifically-proven way to prevent the transmission of HIV today (since the highest incidence of HIV infections in the U.S. is in IV drug users) are needle-exchange programs, and thanks to Our President, no federal money is allowed to go to such programs.

Perhaps an article for a later date?

Fannie said...

Jane,

You should definitely write about the failure of abstinence-only education. It's pretty funny/sad that the President's own daughter just wrote a book decrying the policy and how it is failing people....

What sucks is that while these uninformed puritans impose their morals on everyone else, people like you and your co-workers are left dealing with the reality of increased STDs/HIV.

Rachel M. said...

In addition, the fastest growing population with HIV/AIDS is African-American hetero-sexual females. Sounds pretty NOT gay to me. Often times these women are married (TO MEN), and when their husband cheats on them and has unprotected sex with an HIV/AIDS infected woman (contracting the disease), and then has unprotected sex with his wife, she contracts the disease. She probably has no idea she has it until she is carrying his child and undergoes the typical blood-work involved. I study it EVERYDAY. Institutionalized racism + a lack of respect for marriage + a lack of PROPER education = innocent people dying. So wait…who’s destroying marriage, and how? Who’s spreading the HIV/AIDS virus? Who’s looking out for AMERICA’S children?

Jane Know said...

hmm... have we silenced the unsilenceable?

i guess it's no fun for them when they aren't the ones doing the bullying.

turnabout is fair play, fuckwads.

Rachel M said...

brushing off my shoulders.

Jane Know said...

*holding up flute of champaign to toast*

Anonymous said...

Jane said: "I have said or suggested nothing of the sort. Don't tell me what I do in practice, thankyouverymuch"

I did not tell you; I asked. You misread my observation that you, Jane, presumably would keep your gay patients informed of the implications of the sexual behavior you described as "gay sex".

Surely, in your response, you did not mean that, in your professional capacity as a medical adviser, you studiously avoid enabling people to make informed choices about their sexual behavior, based on the relevant facts, such as the risks involved.

I see that in a subsequent response you understood what I had written and responded more on point.

Thanks.

More on that in a bit.

--Chairm

Jane Know said...

If I misinterpreted what you said, I am sorry Chairm.

It's my instinct to be on the constant defensive when I interact with anyone from Opine.

And since you guys often make up your own definitions for words (and in your questions to opponents), I don't want you to quote me as saying something I didn't actually intend to say at all.

Anonymous said...

Jane said: "unprotected anal sex with a nonmonagamous partner"

Here you were referred specifically to HIV/STD and then briefly described a few means by which it may be possible to reduce the risk of transmission.

The means which stands apart, of course, is the non-contacted activities. To what extent do you stress this much safer option?

Which, if any, of the others means effectively moves anal sex further down "on the hierarchy of sexual behaviors" that cause transmission, more than just a tad?

Also, are there no other significant health implications with this behavior, apart from HIV/STD?

--Chairm

Rachel M. said...

Is this dude serious? Stump the healthcare provider isn't really going to work here. Jane is a licensed professional. She knows what she’s talking about, so what’s your point? I mean, you could ask your own doctor or look it up yourself, but why would Jane keep giving you medical advice when that's not really the purpose of Fallacy Findings? You're not friends and she's not writing a healthcare advice column so ask someone else to do your homework. If your questions were in earnest that would be one thing, but opine plays dirty and Jane is not stupid.

Anonymous said...

[Off-topic]

That apology is accepted, Jane.

Much that you, and your commenters, have assumed about myself, and about other Opiners, is so far off target that I think the namecalling and petty insults amount to little more than the sound of fireworks popping off, annoyingly.

Let's all try to raise the standard of discussion.

Rather than assume the worst, seek clarification or ask for elaboration. Read more generously. At least try to agree on what the disagreement is actually about.

The actual disagreement is usually far more interesting, and more challenging, than an exchange of grimaces and yelps and phoney poses.

[/Off Topic]

Anonymous said...

Rachel, if you are in earnest, then, perhaps you can answer the questions as asked.

--Chairm

Rachel M. said...

Me? No. I'm not a healthcare professional. Jane is. Do you have annoying policy questions? I can answer those...for a small fee, that is.

Anonymous said...

Rachel, I have not asked for medical advice. Your misreading should prompt you to re-read more carefully.

Sex education is a policy issue. As is public health and such.

--Chairm

Jane Know said...

What does everyone think of the study that shows men who are the most vocally opposed to anal sex as being the most likely to become aroused by videos of two men having anal sex?

""In tests conducted by Prof. Henry E Adams of the University of Georgia, homophobic men who said they were exclusively heterosexual were shown gay sex videos. Four out of five became sexually aroused by the homoerotic imagery, as recorded by a penile circumference measuring device - a plethysmograph. Prof. Adams says his research shows that most homophobes "demonstrate significant sexual arousal to homosexual erotic stimuli", suggesting that homophobia is a form of "latent homosexuality where persons are either unaware of or deny their homosexual urges"."

From:
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
By Adams, Henry E.; Wright, Lester W.; Lohr, Bethany A.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1996 Aug Vol 105(3) 440-445

Rachel M. said...

Chairm,
Thank you for telling me how to do my job and what it entails. Now go play with legos or something and leave the hard stuff to me and Jane.

Anonymous said...

Rachel, I did not tell you how to do your job.

But since you have brought it up here, what is the relevance of your job to the topic of this discussion?

--Chairm

Rachel M. said...

Chairm,

"Sex education is a policy issue. As is public health and such."

This is you telling me how to do my job. It's your passive aggressive, pussy way of doing it, but still... You pointed out to me what is a policy issue. No shit. Grow a set and attack/insult me directly or not at all.

And before that you thought you'd prove some grand point by asking me to answer healthcare questions. Which I cannot. Because I am not a healthcare professional. I then offered to help you in my chosen field (“for a small fee, of course”). Anymore irrelevant questions or can you get back to your homophobic agenda? Preferably elsewhere.

Jane Know said...

I think the more appropriate question to ask is "Chairm, what is the relevance of STD risks of anal sex to the gay marriage debate?"

There is none.

That's the whole point of this article and the Culturologist article. It's a meaningless red herring that you and others insert in this whole debate.