+ 
Posted on 07/05/2009 9:17:05 AM PDT by Maelstorm
An experience of sexual abuse in childhood or adolescence is associated with an increased risk of gay men becoming HIV-positive in adult life, American researchers report in the July 1st edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. The research also showed that men with a history of sexual abuse in early life had higher levels of depression and problematic drug and alcohol use, as well as being less receptive to HIV prevention interventions.
“This is the first study…to demonstrate a predictive relationship between a history of childhood sexual abuse and high rates of HIV infection among HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men,” comment the investigators.
Earlier research has shown that gay and other men who have sex with men are more likely to report a history of childhood sexual abuse than heterosexual men. Other studies have also shown that a history of childhood sexual abuse is associated with sexual risk-taking by adult gay men. There are also data demonstrating a relationship between the experience of sexual abuse as a child and depression and other mental health problems in adult life, as well as poor social skills and drug and alcohol use.
Studies have also demonstrated that that gay men with a history of abuse have higher rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. But this research has been limited in its ability to generalize by its cross-sectional design.
Investigators from the EXPLORE study, a prospective study into the effectiveness of behavioral intervention to reduce HIV risk amongst gay men, therefore examined the association between a history of childhood sexual abuse and the risk of becoming infected with HIV. The researchers looked at the relationship between childhood abuse and unprotected anal sex. The mediating role of mental health problems, poor social skills and drug and alcohol use between abuse and infection with HIV or risky sex were also explored.
The study lasted for four years and included a total of 4244 men. These men were recruited to the study in six US cities. All had recently had anal sex with another man, and all the men were HIV-negative at baseline. The men were randomized to receive a behavioral HIV prevention intervention or standard HIV prevention counseling. Every six months they were tested for HIV and provided details about their recent sexual behavior.
To ascertain if an individual had a history of childhood sexual abuse they were asked on entry to the study to say if they had had a sexual experience before the age of 13 with an individual five years or more older than themselves; and/or if they had a sexual experience between the ages of 13 and 17 with an individual who was ten or more years older.
Of the 4244 individuals in the study, 1686 (40%) reported childhood sexual abuse. There were 258 HIV infections during the course of the study, a rate of 2.1 per 100 person years.
The HIV incidence rate differed according to abuse history. It was 1.8 per 100 person years for men with no such history, but 2.5 per 100 person years for men reporting childhood sexual abuse.
Individuals who reported having experienced childhood sexual abuse had an increased risk of HIV infection compared to those with no such history (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.69).
Results of the full study showed that the behavioral intervention modestly reduced the risk of HIV infection. This was not, however, the case for men reporting childhood sexual abuse. Men who received the intervention (AHR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.52), as well as those who were provided with standard safer sex counseling information (AHR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.95) had an increased risk of acquiring HIV infection.
A significant relationship also existed between childhood sexual abuse and the reporting of unprotected anal sex, including unprotected sex with an HIV-positive man.
Evidence was also found showing that mental health problems, poor coping and communication skills, and the use of drugs and alcohol (all p < 0.001) were significant in the relationship between childhood sexual abuse, risky sex, and subsequent infection with HIV.
“HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men with childhood sexual abuse histories are at a greater risk of HIV infection, report higher rates of HIV sexual risk behavior, and derive less benefit from prevention programmers,” conclude the investigators. They suggest that the “efficacy of HIV prevention initiatives may be enhanced by incorporating treatment components designed to address the specific mental health concerns [of those] with a history of childhood sexual abuse.”
Aware of the sensitive political nature of their research, the investigators emphasis, “despite the high rates of childhood sexual abuse in the sample, these data do not suggest anything causal regarding the association of abuse and later homosexuality…the majority of men in EXPLORE did not report any type of childhood sexual abuse, so there is little to suggest that childhood sexual abuse ‘causes’ homosexuality, but rather, childhood sexual abuse makes men who have sex with men more likely to engage in HIV risk behaviors.”
Reference
Mimiaga MJ et al. Childhood sexual abuse is highly associated with HIV risk-taking behavior and infection among MSM in the EXPLORE study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 51: 340-8, 2009.
So we know the following: First that gay men specifically have suffered childhood sexual abuse at a rate far greater than the general population.
Now from this study we know that this specific group is more likely to contract HIV from risky sex.
We also know that those who are sexually abused in general show a much higher incidence of perpetrating abuse.
Thus we can assert as many studies have found that there is a clear line of reasoning to suggest that homosexual are more likely than the general population to molest and perpetrate sexual abuse.
Notice in the above article there is talk about the political considerations. They absolutely do not want to confer that sexual abuse is a causative factor in a large percentage of male homosexuals which it is becoming clear is very probable if not clearly obvious.
Any human being, male or female that is gay has either been SEXUALLY ABUSED or EMOTIONALLY ABUSED. How they deal with it is a CHOICE. No one is born “gay”.
“Thus we can assert as many studies have found that there is a clear line of reasoning to suggest that homosexual are more likely than the general population to molest and perpetrate sexual abuse.”
No kidding!
I am truly horrified at the fact that “gays” adopt same sex babies as part of their “family”, YES, they ABUSE THEM!
A traumatic childhood may be a reason, but never an excuse of justification of future inappropriate behavior.
Not saying that at all. We have free will but freewill evaporates quickly in a society where license is the mode of operation.
I know many gay people, more men than women. Every single one of them suffered sexual abuse as a child - or had physically or emotionally distant fathers.
No matter what they say, this is NOT a normal lifestyle. I have friends that are gay, and I love them like anyone else - but I see the mental issues they carry with them.
Didn’t mean to insinuate that. I’m just tired of of all the dishonesty in popular culture. Homosexuality is just another sexual deviancy. It is sold as normal because it’s between consenting adults (yeah, right).
What I’m horrified is that anyone with a history of abuse is let adopt or at least face very high hurdles. Personally I think families that are intact with Mom and Dad and financially fit with no history of abuse should be in the front line to receive children at no additional financial cost. Why they are not boggles my mind especially with all the hand wringing that goes on in the effort to allow marginal candidates to adopt. It doesn’t make sense at all that anyone that does not already have a familial connection to a child be let adopt as a single non married person. Most homosexual adoptions are exactly that.
I do think some people are “born” with a sexual defect. We all know and all have seen that. But I don’t think it’s a large percentage. Once it became “accepted” it became a choice.
We also know that those who sexually abuse children of either gender are predominantly male. This means that they are the source of that entire problem.
Perhaps this can be used politically to gradually hand economic control and authority over the family unit back to women, since clearly we are just safer at everything. Such an idea might contradict the USA’s “traditional values”, but in time they might have to accept it.
I think the very well documented fact that juvenile delinquency explodes in female-run households should counteract your idea.
I think we should start rewarding healthy sexual behavior (one man, one woman marriages) and penalizing unhealthy (fornication, adultery, casual divorce, homosexuality, while increasing the punishments for rape and child abuse that we already have.
Physical defects happen - no question about that. However to ACT on sexual motivation comes from the MIND. It becomes and EMPOTIONAL issue. Physical birth defects don't work the same way. I have NEVER seen a physical birth defect lead to homosexuality. NEVER. There is no percentage of physical birth defects that require you to be a homosexual.
Hildy, think of it this way, we are wired for our gender roles. You see it played out with homosexuals. One behave like the “female” and the other plays the role of the “male” in a same sex relationship. It is a perverted imitation of a heterosexual relationship - not a “birth defect”. It becomes an EMOTIONAL void trying to be filled with perversion via sex.
When these sexually abused and emotionally troubled enter into their adolescence, THEN they ACT OUT on same sex - each seeking the other half of a normal relationship in a same sex relationship. It's an EMOTIONAL VOID that they are trying to fill and acted out sexually. It has nothing to do with physical birth defects.
Read through this site:
http://www.exodusinternational.org/
It is ONLY through God that they will be free of homosexual bondage. Through this organization and lots of patience, they get to the ROOT PROBLEM of why they are seeking same sex relationships. It ALWAYS, yes ALWAYS boils down to EMOTIONAL and or PPHYSICAL ABUSE. ALWAYS! Some avoid homosexuality and become promiscuous - others take the homosexual route.
Truly Hildy, you and I have been on this forum for a long time - read through that website. It will open your eyes. Some homosexuals are “nice” but they are in a living hell in private. Deep down they know what they are doing is perverted and wrong and WHY they are overly sensitive to criticism.
Feminists have conned them into throwing it away.
Oh, Boy! Where to start!
How about a few examples of “control over the family unit ‘back’ to women”!!
Who? When? Hitlery? Michelle?
Keep your sexual urges PRIVATE-and keep your dirty little desires for CHILDREN locked up tight.
I don't believe the last paragragh for a MINUTE in the article above, which is WHY the author went out of his way to say the word 'political climate'....I believe they confirmed that molesting little boys by predatory homosexuals leads, nearly ALWAYS, to a life of hurt, confused depravity. I believe homosexuals, the MAJORITY of homosexuals, crave sex with children.
The media as whole will not touch this story with a ten foot pole, there is too much truth contained therein..
I am horrified that anyone would let filthy disease ridden queers adopt babies at all!
The issue isn't really one of different orientation, but one of the different behavioural patterns between the two genders. The male has usurped the woman's position of control, and we are seeing the results, in various ways.
Hilary and Michelle to me are not examples of female role models, their feminism is all words but it doesn't actually fix anything. Their Leftist feminism is just an excuse for government to intervene in the affairs of the family unit (whatever its configuration may be).
All of the nonsense like child benefits and child support are wasting money, because all it does is tell women that they cannot stand in their own and that they must rely on the male and his money in order to get by. That is not conducive to allowing women to make choices, in fact it binds women to stay in abusive situations with men because it reinforces the false mentality that a woman cannot function as an independent agent. That idea needs to be overthrown along with many others.
That's what I mean when I say that if the woman had control of the family unit economically and authoritatively, she would be more inclined to put her foot down and discipline men, or failing that, walk out of the agreement at the drop of a hat and not look back.
I can give a great example of control going to women, try Lady Margaret Thatcher, conservative and former Prime Minister of Great Britain. She was the one who employed a phrase like, “If you want something done, ask a woman.”
She proceeded to then bust up the Unions, abolish the socialist car manufacturing cartel known as Bedford-Leyland, and cut taxes by about 30%. She then criticised the old political class, and enacted sweeping privitasation policies that literally saved Britain from bankruptcy. She also went to war with Argentina and won.
So I think she's a good example.
Correlation is not causation. Homosexual children may also be more likely to be victims of sexual abuse -- imagine an effeminate child being picked on more than a jock.
You will get no argument from me on this. I have seen first hand...that is why they want so much for societal approval. Because they hate themselves so much..and no matter how many “rights” they get, or how many parades they throw, when they’re alone in the dark, with no place to go ..they know they’re abnormal and what they’re doing is wrong and AGAINST GOD...It’s really quite sad.
I’ve always asked my gay friends why it is so important for them that I approve of what they do. I mean, if they feel so good about it, and so strongly, why should they care? They are protected by the law, as they should be...but that’s not enough...The truth is, nothing will ever be enough.
And so, for the first time in FR history, you and I agree (I think!).
My daughter and I have talked about this topic because she has gay friends. I once told her that so many gay people think if someone supports their gay lifestyle they care about them. For me it’s a matter of indifference to some people who only want to further an agenda and could care less about homosexuals. It breaks my heart to know some people are using the cross these people bear for their political whims. Just this morning my husband and I were talking about how some people do terrible things in their lives that causes them and those around them so much pain. But I once read an article that said when children are young and suffer some sort of abuse or trauma it can actually change their brain chemistry. When trying to make certain choices in their lives they revert back to the said abuse or trauma and do just the opposite that they wanted to do,to do better in their life. Coming from an abusive background I can understand how that can be true. I am fortunate to have my faith in Christ and have a good and loving husband.
“I think however that in a situation where women are handed the responsibility in name as well as reality,”
any historical precedent? Everything I’ve read and heard says otherwise.
Baloney. If anything, the role of fathers has been greatly diminished to the detriment of healthy families in our society.
“And so, for the first time in FR history, you and I agree (I think!).”
Hugs to HILDY!!!!
We may disagree sometimes, but I DO care about YOU!
Another HUG your way!
Have they ever given you a straight answer?
+
:)
no. But before the election I lost a lifelong gay friend when I told him I supported prop 8, although I don’t even live in California! He dropped me like a hot potato and said we can’t be friends. ...I understand how he feels. I’ve dropped friends who voted for Obama. That’s how I know we’re ready for a civil war.
What is the role of a father?
Has that really been reduced at all, or was it merely that it overaggregated and is now being pushed back to its original position?
Define “healthy family”? I think that the health of a family can be evaluated by the results it produces. As such we should be willing to employ all sorts of new ideas and liberate the woman in order to find whuch arragement they might naturally order a family into.
And since family units are the building blocks of the nation, you should be able to agree with me in saying that stronger families, regardless of their configuration, are good for the nation.
Just as we both agree that less government intervention in the economy is a conservative idea, I also think that less government intervention in the decisions that a woman makes about family, along with a change in the way that people think about the role of a woman, leads to conservative end-results as well. This is because family planning and reproduction are also part of the economy - almost the entire human experience can be assessed with catallactics (the praxeological theory of the way the free market system reaches exchange ratios and prices).
Once you start doing that, then you'll find that the somewhat socialistic tendencies of American Conservatism are uncomfortably easy to see, and one of reddest areas would be the self-contradictory and patriarchal ideas that are somehow still entrenched.
If you want to hold onto the misbegotten traditions which are not dynamic and which cost you more than just adapting, then at the same time you must admit that you are calling for sustained government intervention in the family, gender relations, and in reproduction. And that wouldn't be conservative.
You believe I happened onto the wrong site? Expand on this.
Then God is a liar?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.