Talk:Men who have sex with men/Archive 4

The Inclusion of Rape and the Creation of the Terminology
I'm going to restart this thread of discussion by explaining this clearly. The term "MSM" was created for use in HIV statistics by the CDC and other health agencies, because "gay" does not encompass all of the MSM community, and the MSM community as a whole has the larger prevalence not just simply "gay". It is not a political term at all, and thus the reason why "choice" doesn't come into play here. It is purely a health-industry statistical group that says nothing about the members of that group. (Beyond, that they are men, and have had sex (in any form, consensual or not) with men.) --Puellanivis (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * oK Puellanivis, I used the word "political" specifically in terms of the "health industry", and there are most definitely politics involved in that world, especially in regards to funding. You have skipped right over the thrust of my post, which I will now re-iterate: If the term MSM was created for use in HIV politics for funding and research purposes, and it was designed to include male rape, then that definition, in the very first paragraph, should clarify its nature: As a political term invented to be used for funding and political purposes, and includes 'male rape' only for that reason. This is not at all clear in the current definition, in fact the way it's written now doesn't make a lot of sense. Now please lets move past the word "political", and respond to my point first. EyePhoenix (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I restate this again, very clearly, because you're missing the point. The term was created exclusively for statistical purposes only.  Not funding, not politics, not anything but statistical purposes. If people have politicized it, whatever, but the term's origins in statistical incidences of HIV/AIDS refers to an entirely non-political origin of HIV/AIDS transmission. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear God, this is madness. Please stop dancing around what I am telling you, this is NOT about the word "politics". Read what I am saying: The article does not explain what MSM is. EyePhoenix (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced definition lists
At the moment, the article contains a laundry list of completely unsourced definitions as to who is, and isn't, a MSM.

These include self-contradictory statements and circular definitions -- for example:
 * "MSM groups include:" [...] "Female-to-male transsexuals sexually active with men;"
 * "Non-exhaustive list of people who are not MSM" [...] "Any transgender or transsexual individual, who does not engage in risk behaviors similar or equivalent to sex between MSM, regardless of self-identity, genital appearance, or social assignment."

Where do these definitions come from? The term "men who have sex with men" is a simple, useful, self-explanatory concept, independent of any considerations of risky or non-risky behavior, consent, or intention, and subject only to the definitions you choose for "men" and "have sex with". Even if we restrict the concept of MSM to the common case of non-transsexual non-intersexed biological males having sex, safe or unsafe, with other non-transsexual non-intersexed biological males, it is still a useful concept for epidemiologists, regardless of any arguments about whether some TS/TG/intersex people belong to this category.

If there is an "official" finer-grained definition of MSM, it should be sourced to the authority that provides it. Otherwise, these lists are original research, and fail Wikipedia's verifiability and attribution requrements.

Since all of these lists of who is, and isn't, an MSM are currently completely unsourced, I've removed them. If you can provide a finer-grained definition of MSM, and can attribute and source this to an authoritative source, please do so. -- The Anome (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with The Anome on the contradictions and outright messiness of everyone being unable to pinpoint just exactly what the notion behind the term MSM is. I think the main reason for the mish-mosh is that many consider a man to be gay only if he self-identifies or comes out. Unfortunately, this is actually an example of heterosexism: the assumption that someone is not gay because they have not come out or do not identify as gay despite their homosexual orientation. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you're practicing homophobic, and inconsiderate language here. I have not, nor desire to make the assumption that everyone is heterosexual unless they come out as gay.  Rather, the position is that "gay" is a specific subset of homosexual behavior, and community, and some people do not associate, and outright reject such a classification.  An MSM is for example, gays, gays in the closet, gays in the closet to themselves, but it's also heterosexual men who try it out because they're curious, but find that it's not for them.  MSM also involves people who have had unwilling sexual intercourse (this is being debated elsewhere).  I have long noticed that there is a part of the LGBT culture out there that deems if you're not part of the LGBT community, then you're lying to yourself, or something like that.  There are people out there who know exactly what they are, what they're doing, and the meaning of "gay" and yet reject that term, because it carries sociological ___ outside of their experience.  There's nothing to say that even someone who would otherwise identify as "gay" need identify as "gay" because in our society "gay" means more than just "engages in homosexual behavior". Homosexual activities do not necessarily make someone "gay", but just because someone doesn't identify as "gay" doesn't mean that they are not actually "gay". --Puellanivis (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your false accusation is a failed attempt at an ad hominem red herring, which seems to be the trend in your efforts to fill up this page. Were you to realize that I am the main contributor to the heterosexism article and that my professional research is specifically on homophobic language (read my User page), you might have realized that using such a blatently defensive, irresposible, and completely inaccurate epithet is logically impossible. As for being gay, you are absolutely wrong in saying that someone must come out or associate with a "community" in order to consider themselves gay. There are plenty of gay men and lesbians who are proud and out without participating in gay political or social organisations, in other words, in what you slapdashedly call "the community". With your faulty logic, then, gays must not have existed before bars or organisations. What nonsense! Also, what is this nonsense about a part of LGBT culture that "deems...your lying"? Can you cite that? But you agree with me as to what MSM should mean, despite how it has been used to EXclude self-identifying gay men. What you state as a position is in fact of your own invention and I think all of us here would appreciate it if you stopped fabricating things to support your presumptions. Why do you perpetually feel attacked regardless of whether someone is citing your faulty logic or simply stating facts that don't mention you and that don't please you or that you simply do not understand? I personally enjoy other contributors' insight and feel it certainly improves article quality, why don't you? --CJ Withers (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your declared professional research is meaningless on Wikipedia, as anyone can invent any form of credentials. I believe there was a big hoopla about one of the major editors on Wikipedia claiming to have a doctorate, which they didn't have.  Congratulations though, you're the main editor for heterosexism, guess what? I'm the main editor of men who have sex with men... WOW! No, my logic isn't that there were no gays without a "community", what I'm saying is that at this moment in time, "gay" means a lot of different things to different people.  That's why this article covers a term that was created to avoid the loaded word "gay".  I'll invite you to define gay for me, so that we can work from the same starting point in this discussion.  As for "citing" that some in the community insist on saying that people are "gay" even when they don't self-identify as gay... you're doing it yourself with every post.  I honestly don't see how you can claim that the term "MSM" is excluding self-identifying gay men.  Let's look at the intro, and first list of some MSM groups: "Sexually active gay males". Wow, it's first on the list.  I love other contributors contributing... however you are bickering with me on the talk page, not contributing.  If you have an issue with any of the language in the article, then please correct it, or lay it out.  The talk page and my personal views, or previous statements are irrelevant for the content of this article, as long as that article is accurate, and correct.  If you wonder why I take issue with a few people's posts? Because it either is unhelpful, misguidedly assumes MSM contains only gay/bisexual men, that if you're MSM then you're gay, or any other such nonsense.  The first thing that brought this article to my attention was that it was declaring transwomen as MSM... regardless of surgical status.  This article has been finely honed to ensure that MSM is known to include the obvious groups "sexually active gay men" and specifically note that transgender, transsexual and intersexed individuals don't fit nicely into this category as a whole group... only some of them are MSM, even though someone else might consider them all to be men, and since they have sex with men, obviously they would be MSM.  This is simply not true. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The work of bonified researchers like myself is certainly meaningful on Wikipedia; I don't know why you would think the opposite. In fact, that's why we use real references on Wikipedia in the first place. I'm sorry that you've gone off on other tangents and used non-sequiturs. Maybe you should bone up on logic and fallacies. Also, have you ever directly worked with health outreach organisations whose clientele is gay males and non-gay MSMs? I have been for some 20 years now and on an international level (US, Canada, Spain, Russia, etc.). This professional experience is clearly pertinent to this article, esp. when it comes to linguistic issues. That's why I'm here. Remember, a person whose sexual orientation is homosexual is gay man or lesbian regardless of whether he or she comes out or ever has sex. People do not suddenly "become" gay from the performative utterance of coming-out be it to themselves or to others, unless we're talking about Judith Butler's analysis of the Don't ask don't tell U.S. military policy. Please read the article on sexual orientation. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Plenty of material is not sourced because it's generally considered as common sense, even if you don't happen to agree. I see this as a retaliatory strike for me reverting your inclusion of Blanchard material. (see Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy) Benji boi 01:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm actually quite content with the Blanchard material's removal as part of normal editing processes, and have no desire to reinstate it, nor to retaliate in any way at anyone for its removal. The rest of the article, with the exception of the two lists I removed, seems fine to me; it's actually a rather good article. However, the list of who are/are not MSM does not seem to me to be in any way commonsensical; the two detailed lists, one specifying who is, and a second specifying who isn't, do not seem to me to make any coherent sense, and are, as I said before, completely unsourced.


 * Now, "Common sense" material can be, and often is, used unsourced, providing there is no controversy about it. When there is controversy on material within an article, Wikipedia policy like WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:OR necessarily come into play. "Generally considered as common sense" is none of those, and is original research which does not satisfy those conditions. I've now removed those lists for a second time, with the same rationale as before.


 * I would, however, be perfectly happy to have this material restored to the article providing that it can first be attributed to verifiable, citable, reliable sources, as per Wikipedia policies. Given your level of confidence that these classifications are commonsensical, you should -- presumably -- have no difficulty in finding the necessary references. Please do not restore that material without providing the necessary source citations.


 * -- The Anome (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The lists were based on mathematical formal logic to create them. Both of them were listed as "non-exhaustive".  There's an infinite (or at least one per person in the world) gray points to use.  Ideally, this risk category should simply be "people who engage in receptive anal sex", however that's not what the research community uses.  I will insert the lists into the talk page and we can discuss each point if you wish.  As well, "common sense" is anything but common.  FTMs who have sex with men typically engage in the same risky behavior as any other man... the lists were not self-contradictory.  "Any transsexual despite being FTM or MTF engaging in sex with the same risk level as unambiguous men with unambiguous men." includes the vast majority of "FTMs who have sex with men" (likely in the same percentile of men who have sex with men are in the same risk category as any other MSM)  You left that statement in the body text... I don't see why you have difficulty understanding the lists given. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reinserted into the article the lists keeping only those entries that are by definition MSM, or by definition not MSM. The two previously listed as "MSM" are as follows:
 * Female-to-male transsexuals sexually active with men;
 * People engaging in sexual behaviors equivalent in risk to MSM regardless of either partner being transsexual, transgendered or intersexed partners.

Feel free to discuss any issues you have with these two... without contest, I will reinsert them as-is in no less than a week. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

STOP THE HATE
That is absolute rubbish that 1 in 10 gay men are HIV positive that is rubbish you gay haters you really hate us STOP THE BIAS AND HATE NOW!!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.74.110 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont believe thats hateful at all, in fact its grossly underestimated. I personally don't know the statistics about gay men and HIV nationally, but I can tell you that in most major cities like NYC and San Francisco, almost half of the gay-identified male population are HIV positive. Citing those statistics is not "homophobic" at all. Those numbers have been that way for many years now. EyePhoenix (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find a reference for that statement. Also, it refers to 'gay men,' not MSM, which is the topic of the article. While I'm not disputing the accuracy of the statement, it is a very specific, unsourced statement that refers to a different group than that talked about. I have heard (and unfortunately, I don't have a reference for this either, as the research is not finished and so unpublished) that rates of safer sex compliance are higher (and new HIV infection lower) among gay-identified MSM than non-gay-identified MSM, which calls the implication of the statement into question. Forsakendaemon (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have found (at http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_08_161006/pit10524_fm.html) a reference to a study that showed that in Australia, more than half of MSM identified as heterosexual (6.0% MSM, 1.6% gay, 0.9% bisexual). This calls into question whether we should refer to 'gay male' statistics in the MSM article, as gay men are not necessarily representative of MSM. Forsakendaemon (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have the best point of all here. MSM != gay, so mentioning how prevalent HIV/AIDS is in "gay men" is irrelevant for this article.  No less, it should be sourced.  All of this is entirely neglecting the point of if the statement is gay-bashing or not... it simply isn't appropriate for discussion on this page. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gay men who contract HIV before they come out to others or even to themselves are counted as MSMs. So, because of these men, mentioning HIV prevalence rates for gay men, is therefore relevant since any such figures termed as "gay" are mis- or under-representative and defeat the purpose of the MSM label/category. Also, the vast majority of gay men in non-Western countries, i.e., the world's population majority, such as all of those in Russia, China, India, in African countries, etc. do not identify as gay, particularly if their is no visible community. So, both the term and concept of MSM in such countries would clearly involve more gay men than actual bisexual and heterosexual men combined, not to mention those gay MSMs who immigrate to the West. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article specifically deals only with Western countries. MSM is a useless statistical group in Africa, because HIV/AIDS is so prevalent there. You speak to me about being insensitive to gays, yet, you're the one force-feeding the term "gay" and "homosexual" onto all MSM.  Please respect the wishes of people who do not identify as "gay" and please, stop pushing the homophobic position that all MSM are gay. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What source states that MSM is a useless statistical group? And who says gay men or gay men counted as MSMs aren't "more likely" to contract HIV "statistically speaking" in Africa, for example in South Africa? --CJ Withers (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply responded to the "Stop The Hate" comment in order to clarify that in fact the numbers he mentioned were largely under-estimated, and that they were not motivated by "hate" at all. The statistics about HIV infection in gay men may not be relevant for this article, but they certainly can be discussed on this page in order to help us all come to a better understanding. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, your comments are very insightful and I have to agree about under-estimated stats. There's nothing hateful or anti-gay in revealing the truth about how prevalent HIV is among gay men, no matter how unpleasant or misinterpreted that truth may be. This is especially the case if the research has been conducted with the purpose to raise gay men's awareness. In fact, the reality is that a startling number of gay men, particularly young gay men, do not know their serological status (what it is, how they can get tested, what the results mean, etc.). This number includes a signficant portion of young HIV-positive gay men, regardless of how they identify themselves. --CJ Withers (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I totally agree, talk about HIV/AIDS prevalence in gay men... however you should avoid doing an article that covers more than just gay people, because such prevalence rates are at an unknown statistical interaction with the greater MSM population. Specifically as an example, talking about the E. Coli contamination rate of strawberry jelly interacts at an unknown level with the E. Coli contamination rates of jelly as a whole.  So, even if E. Coli had a 100% contamination rate of strawberry jelly, we would not know what kind of impact that had on the total E. Coli contamination rate of all jelly without first knowing what the ratio of strawberry jelly to all jelly is.  --Puellanivis (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "He mentioned" who? If you're talking about me, I am female. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Any person can be HIV positive or have AIDS
HIV/AIDS is found in all countries. HIV/AIDS can affect anyone of any; age, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. In fact 80 percent of the world's cases of HIV/AIDS is from heterosexual vaginal sex (or penis in vagina sexual conduct) - Get your facts right please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.74.110 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why this term is defined as useless outside of the US. In the US the term is in common use by the CDC no less.  Facts are facts, world wide, receptive vaginal sex produces the most risk as a sexual behavior, within the United States however, both receptive vaginal AND ANAL sex are high-risk categories that deserve attention. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The term is widely used in Canada both in English and French, plus it's used in France, and the francophone regions of Belgium and Switzerland. In French it's abbreviated to HARASAH, HSH or HARSAH depending on the health or outreach group using it. Here's just one French language example. The rest can be googled quite easily. Accordingly, I am deleting the bizarre US-only comment at the beginning of the article. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment wasn't "US-only" but included Canada. Despite what you may think, because MSM is a completely non-statistically significant group in Africa, the term is not used there, and thus we should continue to have a restricting phrase in the intro paragraph defining where this term is even useful at all. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "...because MSM is a completely non-statistically significant group in Africa..." Source? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * _I_ added Canada, so the orignal, superfluous, unresearched comment was US-only. Although that's not a reason to add a never-ending list of world nations. That's why I'm removing the odd and ridiculous list of countries. Let's think concision and focus by sticking to the topic. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this article??
Firstly, I don't understand what the intent of this article is. The whole article title makes no sense unless it is clarified right at the beginning what is meant by a man. The first paragraph specifically excludes transgendered people. The article then goes onto say that there is a correlation between HIV risk and MSM, but cites no sources. This does not even make sense. There is a correlation between HIV and anal sex perhaps, but to imply a correlation based on sexuality? It seems like some kind of agenda is perhaps present here. --Rebroad (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * MSM is a statistical cluster used by the CDC for HIV/AIDS statistics. That is the purpose of the article.  The first paragraph specifically excludes transgendered people because they cannot be unambiguously termed "male" or "female", not also that it specifically excludes "intersexed" with the further exclusions to those exclusions that when it can be confidently said that the transgender/transsexual/intersexed person is unambiguously engaging in acts equivalent to MSM, that they're MSM.  Examples: a MTF pre-op not engaging in anal-penetrative intercourse with men should be treated as otherwise a woman, an MTF pre-op who is engaging in anal-penetrative intercourse is however unambiguously equivalent to MSM, and is treated as an MSM.  This is sticking to a logical construction of what the CDC would declare the route of HIV infection as being a result of.  --Puellanivis (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual Semantics
I wanted to respond to the above discussion about using the word "gay" with a new thread, since I didn't really see a resolution to the idea. MSM was designed to include men who have sex with men but dont identify as "gay". I just wanted to make my views on the subject known also, which is that a persons unwillingness or inability, for whatever reason, to identify as "gay", makes them no less "gay". That is using the Webster's definition of "gay" as "homosexual". In other words, one may call themselves SGL, and they may reject the use of the word "gay", but if they meet the definition of "gay" then their still "gay", regardless of how they identify. That's not always easy to know however, because orientation really pivots on a persons personal sexual attraction. If we define sexual orientation in terms of sexual attraction, and not behavior, obviously all men who have sex with men are not "gay". Some are bisexual, and some are heterosexual. I do think its fair however, if someone meets the definition of "gay", to refer to them as "gay", regardless of whether they do or not. All MSM's are certainly not gay, but homosexual people are. I understand it is a complex issue, and some will have problems with that. After all we do live in a homophobic/hetero-sexist culture which many gay people internalize. But it's not fair to say that calling someone who is homosexual "gay" is not politically correct, as long as they truly are by definition. A horse is still a horse. EyePhoenix (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd go beyond dictionary-citing to say that using "gay" to designate a person whose sexual orientation is homosexual is not only linguistically accurate but also common sense. Homosexual orientation = gay, i.e. homosexual, regardless of identity issues. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "regardless of identity issues", but I really don't think that the identity issues can be so lightly dismissed. Consider, by way of analogy, the fact that of the vast swath of humanity that is claimed under the rubric of "queer" (i.e., practically everyone who is not unquestioningly heterosexual, vanilla, and cisgender), only a (very) small fraction would find the label welcome; many more would be offended at being called "queer" (and would reject the cultural baggage that comes with both the word "queer" and the queer culture that has grown up over the past two decades) than would be pleased by it.  Should the label be forced on the ones who do not so self-identify, regardless of their feelings in the matter?  "Gay", for its part, contains a dimension of cultural identity that is lacking in "homosexual", and so the terms are not perfectly synonymous;  to run the two together is, at best, to indulge in the fallacy of equivocation by conflating gay cultural identity, homosexual orientation, and same-sex sexual behaviour -- and at worst to make the terms meaningless by refusing to define them.  --7Kim (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Define homosexuality. (Ok, sex with a person of the same sex.) Now, define a person's sex. How do we classify XXY males? How do we classify other intersexed people, how do we define the transgendered, and transsexuals. How do we define the transsexuals who are attracted to the same gender that they identify as. A horse may always be a horse, but, for example, in cats, a cat that looks like a Russian Blue, is not always a Russian Blue. Like it or not, the term "gay" is far to socially charged with meanings and intent, and connotations. Many fundamentalist Christians wouldn't stop for a heart beat before calling a transwoman "gay", regardless of who she is attracted to. From a genetic viewpoint, anyone who is XXY (typically they look like men) wouldn't be "gay" unless he was with another XXY male (or an XXY transwoman). Not less, the amazing unlikelihood that an XXXY male would have finding someone to pair up with that would make them considered "gay". You both are treading in an area of absolutism, that you can label someone as a diametric pole, without consideration that there is variation in between. It's not always obvious what a "man" is, nor what a "female" is. Defining "homosexuality" is far more complicated than either of you are assuming it to be. Just because you're "enlightened" about gay issues, doesn't mean you understand bisexual and transgender issues at all. You're pushing a politically insensitive issue by stating that someone can be called "gay" even if they do not self-identify as gay. This is as absurd as claiming anyone's "true" inner gender without their self-identification. You are conflating too many issues and turning this term (MSM) into a politically charged arena, where the intention was specifically to get away from such politically charged terms. Stop with your false dichotomies, please. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. "Gay" still means homosexual, and someone can be most definitely be homosexual without self-identifying as such. Seems like it's you who isn't getting it. But this thread was simply a conversation for clarity. As far as the article goes, you have still not spoken to my concerns. Let me simplify: The definition of in this article of MSM is inadequate and incorrect. It does not explain what it is. It is confusing to anyone who doesn't use the term and already understand its context. EyePhoenix (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm totally confused. The whole point of the term "Men who have sex with men" is that it is simply a behavior group, like "people who drink Dr Pepper."  There isn't really a definition because the name is the definition.  The article deals with how "men" is used, much like dealing with whether Diet Dr Pepper counts as Dr Pepper.  I've never seen the term used outside of population-level public health research (though I'm biased since my job is in public health), so is there another use for the term "Men who have sex with men" that has a different definition?  What definition would you use?Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you have a good solid point, or rather half the point: "gay" does still mean "homosexual". (There was a time when I would have said that there are some straight men who become gay-enculturated, but "metrosexual" has pretty much colonised that space.)  The half of the point that you're missing is that "homosexual" does not necessarily mean "gay"; the equivalence runs in only one direction.  "Gay" is a special case of "homosexual": it is "homosexual" with an added dimension of cultural self-identification.  But all of this is wide of the point, because the subject of this article is one level up: all "homosexual men" are "men who have sex with men" (I acknowledge that I'm deliberately ignoring consciously celibate gay/homosexual men), but not all "men who have sex with men" are "homosexual men".   The hierarchy ( MSM => homosexual => gay ) is like the hierarchy ( raptor => hawk => red-tailed hawk ). --7Kim (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The very concept of people being 'gay' or 'homosexual' in the sense of having a fixed sexual orientation is peculiar to Western socities from about 1850 onwards (for example all but one Roman emperors had male lovers; and almost all senior soldiers in Ancient Greece did - asking whether they were all "gay" doesn't make much sense). These words are totally bound up with notions of culture, politics and identity, and do not make a good basis for scientific work e.g. on disease. From a scientific perspective, I can see why MSM is a much more straightforward and empirically useful category; 'gay' is clumsy, subjective and unclear.--82.22.10.232 (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is what I was attempting to explain. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? Hyacinth (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering that this article seems to perpetually need to defend its right to exist against people who earnestly believe that every male who has sex with another male is necessarily not only homosexually oriented but gay, I'd say it has everything to do with the article. :-/ --7Kim (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Luckily, this article has a right to exist whether or not those "earnest" people are right or wrong. Hyacinth (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)