![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I was dumbfound to come across this section in the article. Whoever wrote it seems not to know that transsexuality is not a sexual orientation, and transsexual women can, like everyone else, be heterossexual, lesbian, bissexual, or even assexual. Indeed there is some amount of proof that a greater percentage of transsexual women, compared to cissexual women, who are lesbians. In any case, these are very clearly women and not men, regardless of who they have sex with. So a population that includes transsexual lesbian women who have sex with women but is regarded, per this article, as being MSMs is really well, kind of odd. I don't get what the relevance of this section is in the first place even if it were not so, in order to be so proeminently in the article. 87.196.186.123 ( talk) 12:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hep B is listed as an STI health issue, but shouldn't Hepatitis A be listed also? A specific risk factor for having hepatitis A is MSM, and the MSM population is at an increased risk of contracting this viral disease... -- 74.179.117.110 ( talk) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
@Benjiboi - For pre-op transwomen who have sex with men the HIV transmission rates actually *do* have something to do with their bodies. They don't have a vagina so they are more likely to engage in receptive anal sex than women (or heterosexual men) -- and so they are more likely to get HIV. And because they have a penis they are more likely to engage in insertive anal sex -- and so they are more likely to pass on HIV.
Currently the article states:
"A [perpetuated stereotype] is that MSM are more [sexually promiscuous] and engage in unprotected sex, but studies have largely discounted these assertions."
But the citations listed don't support the assertion. One citation states that MSM and heterosexuals have similar numbers of unprotected partners -- but says nothing about total partners (the traditional definition of sexually promiscuous).
The other citation calls both assertions into question where it states:
"Conclusions: The persistence of disparities in HIV between heterosexual individuals and MSM in the United States cannot be explained solely by differences in risky sexual behavior between these two populations."
This citation says MSM engage in more risky sexual behavior -- but that alone can't explain the greater HIV prevalence.
At the very least, the contention that MSM are on average no more promiscuous than heterosexuals needs to be removed -- unless several very well regarded studies show otherwise.
Yes, it's a stereotype -- and certainly doesn't apply to all MSM. But, the stereotype that men, on average, would have a lot more sexual partners -- if they weren't limited by women and societal norms, is an age old stereotype ... that is backed by many studies.
Chris Rock jokes that: "Men are as faithful as their opportunities." It's funny because there is more than a grain of truth to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoping To Help ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.
I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.
Thank you,
Pdorion (
talk)
08:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of the text in the physical section is about sex and STI's in general -- without relating it to MSM. As such, most of it needs to be rewritten or eliminated. My plan is to be bold and remove that which doesn't tie in to MSM unless someone steps forward to rewrite it (or has a better suggestion). Hoping To Help ( talk) 02:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Possibly useful sources for updating the section:
Hoping To Help ( talk) 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all those links Hoping To Help, just to reiterate this point that was not addressed before, we should avoid giving space to subjects that do not mention MSM. For example, the sub-section on Hepatitis B, reproduced in full:
Hepatitis B is a disease caused by hepatitis B virus (HBV) which infects the liver of hominoidae, including humans, and causes an inflammation called hepatitis. The disease has caused epidemics in parts of Asia and Africa, and it is endemic in China. About a third of the world's population, more than 2 billion people, have been infected with HBV. Transmission of HBV results from exposure to infectious blood or body fluids containing blood. Possible forms of transmission include (but are not limited to) unprotected sexual contact, blood transfusions, re-use of contaminated needles and syringes, and vertical transmission from mother to child during childbirth. HBV can also be transmitted between family members within households, possibly by contact of non-intact skin or mucous membrane with secretions or saliva containing the virus. However, at least 30% of reported hepatitis B cases among adults cannot be associated with an identifiable risk factor.
I believe we should avoid using headers for any health concern unless we have information that fulfills at minimum:
Diseases where only one of these points apply should be placed under more general topics rather than given their own space. I'm not going to rewrite the article at once, but I am prepared to crop out all off-topic information and start rebuilding slowly. Theinactivist ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
What is the procedure to delete a page like this. This is an abstract term only a small group of people use and can/be deemed offensive. For instance, there isn't a men who have sex with women, women who have sex with women, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison312 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The picture caption previously had a purpose, in that it stressed the difference between "gay" and "MSM." The current proposed caption is meaningless and could potentially confuse readers. I am restoring something akin to the older caption, because it was actually useful to the reader. SDY ( talk) 15:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
What if we went with a drawing? And, if so, what would it need to depict? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, what a bunch of circular arguing. The image and caption are fine, we don't know how all these actors self-identify, the point is that researchers use the term even though these men pictured are men whose profession is to have sex with other men. These side digressions don't make any sense except to prove an article like this that explains labels are confusing is needed to explain why researchers need it. The image is fine because these are public figures who are known for having sex with other men, It would be wrong to say they were all gay unless you had a statement from each of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.15.151 ( talk) 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this dispute over the image has to stop. Work it out here first. Once there is consensus, I (or another admin) will unprotect. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that gay porn actors ("gay for pay" or otherwise) qualify as MSM. So the picture is appropriate (unless you want an even more explicit one, do you?). The caption wording proposed by Ctjf83 seems fine to me, although "for a variety of reasons" is superfluous in the caption. That's what the article is for. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) You have easily exhausted my good faith with your tendentious arguments. Note that the same actors appear in the cover image on Men of Israel: File:Men of Israel dvd cover photo.jpg. You should propose that for deletion as well because you "have BLP issues". Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If the problem is a BLP issue, which not, go to BLP Noticeboard, or you can go with an arbritator instead. Tbhotch Talk C. 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It is commendable Ctjf83 that you do not want a chance viewing of an image on a Wikipedia page to drive some young man to commit suicide, especially in light of recent events. However, using the image from Men of Israel is not going to give rise to the events with which you are concerned. Let’s review what we know:
Since they have no expectation of privacy, and since they consented to the release of the film, and since it is clear that the men in the video are having sex with other men, not only is labelling them men who have sex with men accurate, it is also not defamatory, not libelous, not slanderous. Thus, because of the nature of this particular image, there can be no BLP concern with a caption that reads:
“Although the two shirtless performers depicted in this image may not identify as gay, their performance in an all-male, pornographic film does indicate that they are men who have sex with men, even if such only occurs when being remunerated.”
If there remain any issues at all, they can only be with the caption and not with the image itself. — Spike Toronto 05:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
rfctag|soc|bio}}
Is the inclusion of the
WP:OTRS-certified image taken on the set of
Men of Israel,
File:Michael Lucas Men of Israel film shoot.jpg, a
WP:BLP violation in this article?
Tijfo098 (
talk)
10:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The main article for anal sex should be at the top of
Men_who_have_sex_with_men#Physical not in the middle.
CTJF83
chat
20:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
{{ editprotected}}
Can someone update the reference <ref name=MedicalNews> currently containing
Sexual Behavior Does Not Explain Varying HIV Rates Among Gay And Straight Men with Goodreau, S. M.; Golden, M. R. (2007).
"Biological and demographic causes of high HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevalence in men who have sex with men". Sexually Transmitted Infections. 83 (6): 458–462.
doi:
10.1136/sti.2007.025627.
PMC
2598698.
PMID
17855487. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)? Thanks.
Tijfo098 (
talk)
10:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Did I get it that there is consensus about the image and its caption? If so, I will unprotect. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Old: "Men, such as these gay pornography actors on the set of Men of Israel, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours."
New: “Although the two shirtless performers depicted in this image may not identify as gay, their performance in an all-male, pornographic film does indicate that they are men who have sex with men, even if such only occurs when being remunerated.”
The train is off the tracks here people, the new caption doesn't even make sense and you seem to be stereotyping that all men who do gay porn are gay which is false. I'm not sure if renumeration is a porn term but the entire caption lends to more confusion than clarity.
I suggest -
"Men, such as these performers on the set of Men of Israel, a gay pornography film, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours."
At least this explains why the photo is used here. Outproud1 ( talk) 02:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Ctjf83, I do not anticipate a new edit war. We have a consensus, so long as it holds. Editing against consensus constitutes disruptive editing. Any editor editing against consensus — i.e., changing the caption or reverting — could face sanctions. From WP:CON: “editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.” Also, from WP:DISRUPT: “disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely.”
Thanks! — Spike Toronto 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Having read through the talk page discussions about the image caption, I am reluctant to even ask, but why is there an image at all? How does that image (or any image) help the reader? Is this an attempt to condense the entire nuanced subject into a single sentence?
If a reader wonders what men who have sex with men look like, there is no picture that can adequately begin to answer that question. Choosing any one image gives a reader a necessarily false impression, especially if that image is of commercial gay porn performers. Delete the image and any debate over captions will also go away. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd honestly like to see some sort of picture, just because the article looks better with one, but given that we can't agree on one I'd rather just leave it out until someone has a better idea. The picture that was present from before this disaster had one useful feature, which was a caption that clearly established that MSM is not just a polite euphemism for gay and is a research classification, not an identity. Those are the two "big ideas" that anyone reading the article should walk away with, and putting them in a caption in the first image of the article draws the reader's attention.
Just as food for thought, a venn diagram that demonstrates "gay" "bi" "gay-for-pay" and such as subsets of MSM might be a decent image for the lead. I guarantee no BLP concerns. Someone might have to actually make the diagram if we can't find one, though. SDY ( talk) 00:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Unless I misunderstand the discussion here, there seems to be a recognition that the image is decorative only (and that someone somewhere sometime will maybe work on a diagram that can itself become the subject of discussion). Therefore I am removing the image. If I have misinterpreted the consensus here, feel free to revert and clarify here how the image serves the reader. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Really? Do we have source for this?
50.9.109.170 ( talk) 20:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Some bi and gay men do, and some do not engage in anal sex or sex involving the anus, or anal intercourse. MSM is just another term for closeted/down low bisexual and gay men that's all. It's nothing new and a lot of out bisexual men like myself as well as gay male friends of mine hate the term since it's a term coined by the CDC and media to lump us into statistics while ignoring our actual sexuality. 108.16.0.94 ( talk) 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest the removal of the statement that "giardiasis is common among gay men". First, the supporting citation is a broken link, which I tagged. Second, what exactly does "common" mean? Third, this article is about "men who have sex with men", not "gay men". HeyFK ( talk) 19:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The last line of the article. A valid citiation showing the prevalence of Giardiasis amongs MSM vs. the wider population must be provided to justify the claim that it is "common". HeyFK ( talk) 20:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I count 8 instances (well, now 6) where more than 2 references are cited at once, the worst of them using 8 unique citations. I suggest removing (or perhaps moving to Further Reading) several of these to cut down on information overload.
The first citation clump, [1] through [5], is just a case of pulling various sources out of context. These are present in certain unique areas as well as two clumps to define MSM and transwomen, though I only found one among them that defined those terms (rather than assuming them). Accordingly I've
un-cited them from the larger clumps. Many of the rest of these citation overload areas are unique sources, however, so we may need some sort of consensus on how to handle them.
Theinactivist (
talk •
contribs)
05:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't intend to reignite the whole stupid debate, but surely the significant thing about MSM is that they look just like all the other ordinary (i.e., straight) men you've seen. That's the whole point: judging by their behaviour, what we call straight men are not strictly defined by who they don't have sex with; so they might as well be illustrated by a royalty-free photograph of unexceptional and culturally working-class men.
Nuttyskin ( talk) 02:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Citation number ten, which is supposed to prove that 2% of the US and 4% of American males are classified as MSM. The article cited does not explain how this number was created.
-- PrincessWilly ( talk) 05:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "transwoman" to "trans woman", because, as the article for trans woman states, "many see it as an important and appropriate distinction to include a space in the term, as in "trans woman", thus using "trans" as merely an adjective describing a particular type of woman; this is in contrast to the usage of "transwoman" as one word, implying a "third gender"."
Please either change "biologically male" to "with penises", or change "people born either biologically male or with ambiguous genitalia" to "people assigned male at birth or born with ambiguous genitalia". The first edit is both more accurate (as karyotype is generally not checked at birth, and people can be born with penises and testicles without being XY, so "biologically" male just seems to mean "visually what is considered male") and less hurtful. The second edit is more accurate, for the same reasons, and is consistent with other articles that reference assigned sex.
67.68.57.2 ( talk) 19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.--
Canoe1967 (
talk)
10:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)As part of a class at Rice University, I propose to start a new Wikipedia page entitled “HIV and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)” to expand the current small subsection on the Men who have sex with men page. The current HIV subsection of the MSM page is far more detailed than anything else on the MSM page (everything else is merely a survey) and would benefit from having freedom to expand by itself. If the subsection on the existing MSM page were expanded to encompass the available scholarly information, it would drastically overwhelm the page. The page for MSM should broadly talk about issues faced by this population rather than devoting a significant amount of discussion to one topic. By expanding the subsection about HIV on the MSM page, it would unfairly bias the page to make it appear that HIV is the only health issue faced by that community (whereas other STDs, rape, and mental health issues should not be overlooked.) The CDC, UNAIDS, and AVERT websites all have pages specifically dedicated to HIV and MSM so Wikipedia should have a page that goes into an equal level of detail. The page should also include information beyond public health risks alone, like the stigma associated with an HIV diagnosis in the MSM community and prevention methods. This would make the page a thorough sociological analysis of how HIV affects the MSM population. Cshaase ( talk) 00:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
This article talks about the history of the term MSM, and notes one quirk - it was originally "Men who have sex with men but do not identify as gay". The term has obviously changed and now includes gay men, but it's an important part of the history. There's a lot of useful history in that paper that could be added to this article. Another interesting quote: "This transformation remains incomplete: an antagonism to gay identity continues to animate “MSM,” particularly when “gay” is assumed to refer solely to white Western men." Is conflating MSM with gay, then, somewhat racist, and should we take greater pains in the article to divorce the two? 71.231.186.92 ( talk) 20:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
An editor, Prcc27 ( talk), made some useful additions about MSM and blood donation bans. I rolled them back, because they didn't really fit the location where they were put. I think it would be useful to have in the article, though, if we can come up with a new section and probably expand on the info so it is not so US-centric. Thoughts? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Nearly all from a First World/Anglophone contemporary perspective, nothing about people from other areas of the world. In the Muslim world/Middle East for example, this activity is common before marriage, and people turn a blind eye to it. (In other words, it is tolerated, but not generally acknowledged. The participants do not consider themselves homosexual) Instead, this article quotes a number of Western (and ANZ) sexologists and studies. What about Japan? There's a tradition of this there as well, that predates western influence.
Also no mention of voyeurism - this is more the case with the women article - but certainly some people engage in this activity for a third party.- 193.39.159.73 ( talk) 15:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Would it be okay to add this map..?
-- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Co-infection of HIV and syphilis is often seen among seen among MSM because of synergistic nature of these two diseases. It is hypothesized that the association observed between syphilis and HIV among MSM is probably due to similar risks associated with both infections. Analysis of data from a survey among MSM in seven Chinese cities reveal that the factors significantly associated with co-infection are older age, education up to senior high school, unprotected anal intercourse, recent STD symptoms, and incorrect knowledge about routes of transmission. [1]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
the image that shows the world blood donation policies for men who have sex with men is wrongly coded. the regions are coded in red, whereas the legend shows two different blues and only one red (i.e. there are no regions colored blue, and the only red codes incorrectly; whole coding in the image legend is erroneous). needs correction.
/info/en/?search=Men_who_have_sex_with_men#MSM_blood_donor_controversy
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The table of donor rules is duplicating the one on the Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. I believe it can be removed here - this is not the main topic of the article. I will merge the info, then delete the one here. IF in the end we decide to have it here as well, we should aim to transclude the one from the specific article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NisJørgensen ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I was dumbfound to come across this section in the article. Whoever wrote it seems not to know that transsexuality is not a sexual orientation, and transsexual women can, like everyone else, be heterossexual, lesbian, bissexual, or even assexual. Indeed there is some amount of proof that a greater percentage of transsexual women, compared to cissexual women, who are lesbians. In any case, these are very clearly women and not men, regardless of who they have sex with. So a population that includes transsexual lesbian women who have sex with women but is regarded, per this article, as being MSMs is really well, kind of odd. I don't get what the relevance of this section is in the first place even if it were not so, in order to be so proeminently in the article. 87.196.186.123 ( talk) 12:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hep B is listed as an STI health issue, but shouldn't Hepatitis A be listed also? A specific risk factor for having hepatitis A is MSM, and the MSM population is at an increased risk of contracting this viral disease... -- 74.179.117.110 ( talk) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
@Benjiboi - For pre-op transwomen who have sex with men the HIV transmission rates actually *do* have something to do with their bodies. They don't have a vagina so they are more likely to engage in receptive anal sex than women (or heterosexual men) -- and so they are more likely to get HIV. And because they have a penis they are more likely to engage in insertive anal sex -- and so they are more likely to pass on HIV.
Currently the article states:
"A [perpetuated stereotype] is that MSM are more [sexually promiscuous] and engage in unprotected sex, but studies have largely discounted these assertions."
But the citations listed don't support the assertion. One citation states that MSM and heterosexuals have similar numbers of unprotected partners -- but says nothing about total partners (the traditional definition of sexually promiscuous).
The other citation calls both assertions into question where it states:
"Conclusions: The persistence of disparities in HIV between heterosexual individuals and MSM in the United States cannot be explained solely by differences in risky sexual behavior between these two populations."
This citation says MSM engage in more risky sexual behavior -- but that alone can't explain the greater HIV prevalence.
At the very least, the contention that MSM are on average no more promiscuous than heterosexuals needs to be removed -- unless several very well regarded studies show otherwise.
Yes, it's a stereotype -- and certainly doesn't apply to all MSM. But, the stereotype that men, on average, would have a lot more sexual partners -- if they weren't limited by women and societal norms, is an age old stereotype ... that is backed by many studies.
Chris Rock jokes that: "Men are as faithful as their opportunities." It's funny because there is more than a grain of truth to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoping To Help ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.
I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.
Thank you,
Pdorion (
talk)
08:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of the text in the physical section is about sex and STI's in general -- without relating it to MSM. As such, most of it needs to be rewritten or eliminated. My plan is to be bold and remove that which doesn't tie in to MSM unless someone steps forward to rewrite it (or has a better suggestion). Hoping To Help ( talk) 02:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Possibly useful sources for updating the section:
Hoping To Help ( talk) 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all those links Hoping To Help, just to reiterate this point that was not addressed before, we should avoid giving space to subjects that do not mention MSM. For example, the sub-section on Hepatitis B, reproduced in full:
Hepatitis B is a disease caused by hepatitis B virus (HBV) which infects the liver of hominoidae, including humans, and causes an inflammation called hepatitis. The disease has caused epidemics in parts of Asia and Africa, and it is endemic in China. About a third of the world's population, more than 2 billion people, have been infected with HBV. Transmission of HBV results from exposure to infectious blood or body fluids containing blood. Possible forms of transmission include (but are not limited to) unprotected sexual contact, blood transfusions, re-use of contaminated needles and syringes, and vertical transmission from mother to child during childbirth. HBV can also be transmitted between family members within households, possibly by contact of non-intact skin or mucous membrane with secretions or saliva containing the virus. However, at least 30% of reported hepatitis B cases among adults cannot be associated with an identifiable risk factor.
I believe we should avoid using headers for any health concern unless we have information that fulfills at minimum:
Diseases where only one of these points apply should be placed under more general topics rather than given their own space. I'm not going to rewrite the article at once, but I am prepared to crop out all off-topic information and start rebuilding slowly. Theinactivist ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
What is the procedure to delete a page like this. This is an abstract term only a small group of people use and can/be deemed offensive. For instance, there isn't a men who have sex with women, women who have sex with women, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison312 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The picture caption previously had a purpose, in that it stressed the difference between "gay" and "MSM." The current proposed caption is meaningless and could potentially confuse readers. I am restoring something akin to the older caption, because it was actually useful to the reader. SDY ( talk) 15:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
What if we went with a drawing? And, if so, what would it need to depict? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, what a bunch of circular arguing. The image and caption are fine, we don't know how all these actors self-identify, the point is that researchers use the term even though these men pictured are men whose profession is to have sex with other men. These side digressions don't make any sense except to prove an article like this that explains labels are confusing is needed to explain why researchers need it. The image is fine because these are public figures who are known for having sex with other men, It would be wrong to say they were all gay unless you had a statement from each of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.15.151 ( talk) 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this dispute over the image has to stop. Work it out here first. Once there is consensus, I (or another admin) will unprotect. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that gay porn actors ("gay for pay" or otherwise) qualify as MSM. So the picture is appropriate (unless you want an even more explicit one, do you?). The caption wording proposed by Ctjf83 seems fine to me, although "for a variety of reasons" is superfluous in the caption. That's what the article is for. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) You have easily exhausted my good faith with your tendentious arguments. Note that the same actors appear in the cover image on Men of Israel: File:Men of Israel dvd cover photo.jpg. You should propose that for deletion as well because you "have BLP issues". Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If the problem is a BLP issue, which not, go to BLP Noticeboard, or you can go with an arbritator instead. Tbhotch Talk C. 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It is commendable Ctjf83 that you do not want a chance viewing of an image on a Wikipedia page to drive some young man to commit suicide, especially in light of recent events. However, using the image from Men of Israel is not going to give rise to the events with which you are concerned. Let’s review what we know:
Since they have no expectation of privacy, and since they consented to the release of the film, and since it is clear that the men in the video are having sex with other men, not only is labelling them men who have sex with men accurate, it is also not defamatory, not libelous, not slanderous. Thus, because of the nature of this particular image, there can be no BLP concern with a caption that reads:
“Although the two shirtless performers depicted in this image may not identify as gay, their performance in an all-male, pornographic film does indicate that they are men who have sex with men, even if such only occurs when being remunerated.”
If there remain any issues at all, they can only be with the caption and not with the image itself. — Spike Toronto 05:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
rfctag|soc|bio}}
Is the inclusion of the
WP:OTRS-certified image taken on the set of
Men of Israel,
File:Michael Lucas Men of Israel film shoot.jpg, a
WP:BLP violation in this article?
Tijfo098 (
talk)
10:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The main article for anal sex should be at the top of
Men_who_have_sex_with_men#Physical not in the middle.
CTJF83
chat
20:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
{{ editprotected}}
Can someone update the reference <ref name=MedicalNews> currently containing
Sexual Behavior Does Not Explain Varying HIV Rates Among Gay And Straight Men with Goodreau, S. M.; Golden, M. R. (2007).
"Biological and demographic causes of high HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevalence in men who have sex with men". Sexually Transmitted Infections. 83 (6): 458–462.
doi:
10.1136/sti.2007.025627.
PMC
2598698.
PMID
17855487. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)? Thanks.
Tijfo098 (
talk)
10:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Did I get it that there is consensus about the image and its caption? If so, I will unprotect. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Old: "Men, such as these gay pornography actors on the set of Men of Israel, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours."
New: “Although the two shirtless performers depicted in this image may not identify as gay, their performance in an all-male, pornographic film does indicate that they are men who have sex with men, even if such only occurs when being remunerated.”
The train is off the tracks here people, the new caption doesn't even make sense and you seem to be stereotyping that all men who do gay porn are gay which is false. I'm not sure if renumeration is a porn term but the entire caption lends to more confusion than clarity.
I suggest -
"Men, such as these performers on the set of Men of Israel, a gay pornography film, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men, but researchers use the phrase for a variety of reasons when studying same-sex sexual behaviours."
At least this explains why the photo is used here. Outproud1 ( talk) 02:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Ctjf83, I do not anticipate a new edit war. We have a consensus, so long as it holds. Editing against consensus constitutes disruptive editing. Any editor editing against consensus — i.e., changing the caption or reverting — could face sanctions. From WP:CON: “editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.” Also, from WP:DISRUPT: “disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely.”
Thanks! — Spike Toronto 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Having read through the talk page discussions about the image caption, I am reluctant to even ask, but why is there an image at all? How does that image (or any image) help the reader? Is this an attempt to condense the entire nuanced subject into a single sentence?
If a reader wonders what men who have sex with men look like, there is no picture that can adequately begin to answer that question. Choosing any one image gives a reader a necessarily false impression, especially if that image is of commercial gay porn performers. Delete the image and any debate over captions will also go away. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd honestly like to see some sort of picture, just because the article looks better with one, but given that we can't agree on one I'd rather just leave it out until someone has a better idea. The picture that was present from before this disaster had one useful feature, which was a caption that clearly established that MSM is not just a polite euphemism for gay and is a research classification, not an identity. Those are the two "big ideas" that anyone reading the article should walk away with, and putting them in a caption in the first image of the article draws the reader's attention.
Just as food for thought, a venn diagram that demonstrates "gay" "bi" "gay-for-pay" and such as subsets of MSM might be a decent image for the lead. I guarantee no BLP concerns. Someone might have to actually make the diagram if we can't find one, though. SDY ( talk) 00:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Unless I misunderstand the discussion here, there seems to be a recognition that the image is decorative only (and that someone somewhere sometime will maybe work on a diagram that can itself become the subject of discussion). Therefore I am removing the image. If I have misinterpreted the consensus here, feel free to revert and clarify here how the image serves the reader. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Really? Do we have source for this?
50.9.109.170 ( talk) 20:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Some bi and gay men do, and some do not engage in anal sex or sex involving the anus, or anal intercourse. MSM is just another term for closeted/down low bisexual and gay men that's all. It's nothing new and a lot of out bisexual men like myself as well as gay male friends of mine hate the term since it's a term coined by the CDC and media to lump us into statistics while ignoring our actual sexuality. 108.16.0.94 ( talk) 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest the removal of the statement that "giardiasis is common among gay men". First, the supporting citation is a broken link, which I tagged. Second, what exactly does "common" mean? Third, this article is about "men who have sex with men", not "gay men". HeyFK ( talk) 19:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The last line of the article. A valid citiation showing the prevalence of Giardiasis amongs MSM vs. the wider population must be provided to justify the claim that it is "common". HeyFK ( talk) 20:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I count 8 instances (well, now 6) where more than 2 references are cited at once, the worst of them using 8 unique citations. I suggest removing (or perhaps moving to Further Reading) several of these to cut down on information overload.
The first citation clump, [1] through [5], is just a case of pulling various sources out of context. These are present in certain unique areas as well as two clumps to define MSM and transwomen, though I only found one among them that defined those terms (rather than assuming them). Accordingly I've
un-cited them from the larger clumps. Many of the rest of these citation overload areas are unique sources, however, so we may need some sort of consensus on how to handle them.
Theinactivist (
talk •
contribs)
05:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't intend to reignite the whole stupid debate, but surely the significant thing about MSM is that they look just like all the other ordinary (i.e., straight) men you've seen. That's the whole point: judging by their behaviour, what we call straight men are not strictly defined by who they don't have sex with; so they might as well be illustrated by a royalty-free photograph of unexceptional and culturally working-class men.
Nuttyskin ( talk) 02:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Citation number ten, which is supposed to prove that 2% of the US and 4% of American males are classified as MSM. The article cited does not explain how this number was created.
-- PrincessWilly ( talk) 05:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "transwoman" to "trans woman", because, as the article for trans woman states, "many see it as an important and appropriate distinction to include a space in the term, as in "trans woman", thus using "trans" as merely an adjective describing a particular type of woman; this is in contrast to the usage of "transwoman" as one word, implying a "third gender"."
Please either change "biologically male" to "with penises", or change "people born either biologically male or with ambiguous genitalia" to "people assigned male at birth or born with ambiguous genitalia". The first edit is both more accurate (as karyotype is generally not checked at birth, and people can be born with penises and testicles without being XY, so "biologically" male just seems to mean "visually what is considered male") and less hurtful. The second edit is more accurate, for the same reasons, and is consistent with other articles that reference assigned sex.
67.68.57.2 ( talk) 19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.--
Canoe1967 (
talk)
10:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)As part of a class at Rice University, I propose to start a new Wikipedia page entitled “HIV and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)” to expand the current small subsection on the Men who have sex with men page. The current HIV subsection of the MSM page is far more detailed than anything else on the MSM page (everything else is merely a survey) and would benefit from having freedom to expand by itself. If the subsection on the existing MSM page were expanded to encompass the available scholarly information, it would drastically overwhelm the page. The page for MSM should broadly talk about issues faced by this population rather than devoting a significant amount of discussion to one topic. By expanding the subsection about HIV on the MSM page, it would unfairly bias the page to make it appear that HIV is the only health issue faced by that community (whereas other STDs, rape, and mental health issues should not be overlooked.) The CDC, UNAIDS, and AVERT websites all have pages specifically dedicated to HIV and MSM so Wikipedia should have a page that goes into an equal level of detail. The page should also include information beyond public health risks alone, like the stigma associated with an HIV diagnosis in the MSM community and prevention methods. This would make the page a thorough sociological analysis of how HIV affects the MSM population. Cshaase ( talk) 00:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
This article talks about the history of the term MSM, and notes one quirk - it was originally "Men who have sex with men but do not identify as gay". The term has obviously changed and now includes gay men, but it's an important part of the history. There's a lot of useful history in that paper that could be added to this article. Another interesting quote: "This transformation remains incomplete: an antagonism to gay identity continues to animate “MSM,” particularly when “gay” is assumed to refer solely to white Western men." Is conflating MSM with gay, then, somewhat racist, and should we take greater pains in the article to divorce the two? 71.231.186.92 ( talk) 20:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
An editor, Prcc27 ( talk), made some useful additions about MSM and blood donation bans. I rolled them back, because they didn't really fit the location where they were put. I think it would be useful to have in the article, though, if we can come up with a new section and probably expand on the info so it is not so US-centric. Thoughts? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Nearly all from a First World/Anglophone contemporary perspective, nothing about people from other areas of the world. In the Muslim world/Middle East for example, this activity is common before marriage, and people turn a blind eye to it. (In other words, it is tolerated, but not generally acknowledged. The participants do not consider themselves homosexual) Instead, this article quotes a number of Western (and ANZ) sexologists and studies. What about Japan? There's a tradition of this there as well, that predates western influence.
Also no mention of voyeurism - this is more the case with the women article - but certainly some people engage in this activity for a third party.- 193.39.159.73 ( talk) 15:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Would it be okay to add this map..?
-- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Co-infection of HIV and syphilis is often seen among seen among MSM because of synergistic nature of these two diseases. It is hypothesized that the association observed between syphilis and HIV among MSM is probably due to similar risks associated with both infections. Analysis of data from a survey among MSM in seven Chinese cities reveal that the factors significantly associated with co-infection are older age, education up to senior high school, unprotected anal intercourse, recent STD symptoms, and incorrect knowledge about routes of transmission. [1]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
the image that shows the world blood donation policies for men who have sex with men is wrongly coded. the regions are coded in red, whereas the legend shows two different blues and only one red (i.e. there are no regions colored blue, and the only red codes incorrectly; whole coding in the image legend is erroneous). needs correction.
/info/en/?search=Men_who_have_sex_with_men#MSM_blood_donor_controversy
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The table of donor rules is duplicating the one on the Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. I believe it can be removed here - this is not the main topic of the article. I will merge the info, then delete the one here. IF in the end we decide to have it here as well, we should aim to transclude the one from the specific article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NisJørgensen ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Men who have sex with men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)