The Other Unsafe Sex:
Straight ideology framing how Gay issues are discussed and defined, proposals to suppress homosexuality as a public health measure.
Gay sexual activities have been subject to moral judgements since the AIDS (HIV) epidemic has started. When children die of AIDS, they are the “innocent” victims, implying there are guilty victims of AIDS. Male homosexual activity gets divided into safe and unsafe sex. Gays who contract AIDS are often judged because they didn’t follow the guidelines. The following is a webpage of the Christian Medical & Dental Association advocating the suppression of homosexual activity because of the health consequences.
https://cmda.org/article/negative-health-consequences-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/
This is the link to the same page on the Internet Archive just incase it disappears from the Internet.
The term “unsafe sex” can be enabling of a right-wing agenda for the complete suppression of homosexuality. Seemingly neutral terminology can be actually an agenda.
However, there is a form of unsafe sex which claims the lives of millions each year and they are truly innocent victims. These are the children who were born when there isn’t any provision for the necessities of their lives.
The following is a webpage in English of the World Health Organization of the United Nations.
https://www.who.int/news/item/18-09-2018-a-child-under-15-dies-every-5-seconds-around-the-world-
The website tells us that an “estimated 6.3 million children under 15 years of age died in 2017… of mostly preventable causes.”
Further the webpage tells us, “The vast majority of these deaths – 5.4 million – occur in the first 5 years of life, with newborns accounting for around half of the deaths.”
And: “Without urgent action, 56 million children under 5 will die from now to 2030 -- half of them newborn…”
As to why these children are dying the webpage explains:
“Millions of babies and children should not still be dying every year from lack of access to water, sanitation, proper nutrition or basic health services,” said Dr. Princess Nono Simelela, Assistant Director-General for Family, Women and Children’s Health at WHO. “We must prioritize providing universal access to quality health services for every child, particularly around the time of birth and through the early years, to give them the best possible chance to survive and thrive.”
Babies, children don’t just happen. They are the result of sex, specifically heterosexual sex. The fact is that heterosexuals year after year have sex in which children are born for whom there is no provision of basic nutrition and even the minimum of health care. Heterosexuals will have sex in situations where there might be the basics of nutrition and health care presently, but those basics are at great risk of failing, such as a crop failure or ongoing war.
Even when the children aren’t dropping dead, often you see these families where the future of the children is dire poverty, endless hard work and exploitation.
Often mothers will be pregnant without adequate nutrition to carry a pregnancy and the children will suffer consequences when born.
In these situations, the children are truly innocent. They are the victims of their parent’s sexual activities.
Yet, you will never, never, never, hear the words “unsafe sex” regarding heterosexuality, even though millions die each year as a consequence, totals that by comparison dwarf the loss of life from HIV.
The reason you won’t hear the words “unsafe sex” or other terminology that might suggest culpability of heterosexuals having sex in situations where it is fairly obvious that the children will suffer or die is that straight people use terminologies and concepts that avoid negatively judging themselves.
Though there are programs promoting birth control and people do see that as reducing the numbers of children dying, the World Health Article for which the link is provided above, doesn’t mention birth control at all nor abstinence.
You won’t see right-wing proposals for the government to shut down the heterosexual activities of married couples when they don’t have the means to support a child or an additional child. They also are opposed to abortion which in some situations can result in a child being spared a life of misery.
Some of these societies where these deaths occur might be rural and isolated from modern life and these practices are traditional and there is totally a lack of any ideas of things being any way other than they are. However, a lot of these deaths occur in urban slums and other places which are in contact with the modern world. In some places there is resistance to practicing birth control.
The point of this discussion is to point out that often the words, the way we discuss things, the unacknowledged framework of the discussion, is based on a straight view of the world that serves their purposes.
As to what terms should be used, “unsafe sex,” is probably a good term for instructing Gays on the consequences of sexual activities where HIV might be transmitted. However, if heterosexual activities were also discussed using the term “unsafe sex” it would be good then that straights would understand that some straights, like some Gays also engage in sex without concern for consequences. Gays aren’t somehow more reckless than straights.
It might be that the term “unsafe sex” will be reserved for the transmission of disease. A new term could be invented for heterosexual activity where the potential child has a fairly high and obvious chance of dying a miserable death through disease, exploitation, or starvation. It is instructive that there isn’t such a term.
As pointed out in the introduction, the term “unsafe sex” can be the basis for the suppression of homosexuality when homosexual activity is conceived as unsafe versus heterosexuality. We might consider using the term “unsafe sex” in regards to heterosexuality when it has dire consequences. This would be a counter measure to right-wing proposals to suppress homosexuality as a public health measure.
However, the point of this essay isn’t to change straight people’s view of themselves or change their behavior, it is to get Gays to realize that what is put forth as the common understanding of things is actually often the straight understanding of things. Additionally, this straight understanding of things can negatively frame the activities of Gays.
Also, what is important is to realize that often Gays have internalized the straight view of the world, largely because we don’t even realize that it is a straight view of the world and we don’t have even the slightest thought that there might be a Gay view of the world.
The generally accepted view of things might be just the straight view of things, and since straights compose over 90% of society at least, what they think is common sense might be mistaken for what is common sense irrespective of sexual orientation since most people are straight.
What straight people think as straight people isn’t necessarily right, there are just more of them.
Any discussion about Gays, whether their health, needs, activities, rights, conceptualizations, situation, position in society, or anything else, when discussed in the general media needs to be understood that it might well be a straight person’s thinking about Gays, not some hypothetical discussion lacking a sexual orientation.
The terms used, the unspoken framework of the discussion might derive from a heterosexual conceptualization of the world, and have a negative effect on Gays in both how Gays are treated by society and how Gays think about themselves and their lives.
We need to always critically examine how general media, and Gay, Queer, and Alphabet Soup medias that are appendages of the establishment, that is accountable to the straight establishment, define terms and issues and conduct discussions.