MOH Forum: Are Lesbians Gods Chosen People?

Are Lesbians Gods Chosen People?

Posted By:
Chuck
in Rhode Island
Jul 18, 2005

I was watching PBS last night and there was a show on about the Castro district in San Francisco (sometimes referred to as "The Gayest Four Corners On The Earth")

There were some comments made about lesbianism and AIDS that intrigued me.

A woman said that in regards to the religious fundamentalist stance of AIDS being God's punishment to homosexuals that while gay men were the highest at risk group to contract AIDS, lesbians were the lowest therefore they must be "God's chosen people".

Now obviously the God's chosen people part was tongue in cheek (after all, we are ALL God's chosen people) but are lesbians really the lowest at risk group?

All I could find were statistics indicating that lesbians are indeed a "low risk group".....but the lowest?? could not find that anywhere.

There seems to be a myth of sorts that lesbians either very rarely or don't at all contract AIDS.

As far as the "at risk groups", I am only counting sexually active groups, obviously, those that abstain from any sort of sexual activity would have to be the lowest at risk group.

<b>***SARCASM ALERT***</b>
I think God has a typical male viewpoint on homosexuals...two men together is just plain nasty while two women together is kind of a turn on
<b>***END SARCASM ALERT***</b>

Category: Health, Sex; Replies: 22

Comments

Hairy Houdini	Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 \| 09:57 AM Sorry, Chuck...God's Chosen People are the Lebanese, not the Lesbians...a lot of people make that mistake, so don't feel bad- it happens
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 \| 12:53 PM I would think that any monogomous couple would fall into the least risk category. Assuming neither of them already has the disease, they can't contract it from each other...and if they're monogomous, they won't catch it from anyone else...So for sexually active people, I don't think it matters what your sexual persuasion is. As far as humans in general - the non-sexually active would top my list of least likely to get AIDS.
Jonas	Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 \| 02:23 PM I did extensive anti-homophobia education for several years, and I certainly heard the "chosen people" comment about lesbians a number of times; I must admit that I was occasionally tempted to repeat it to smart-mouthed workshop participants. I also remember hearing, perhaps four or five years ago, a reasonably reputable report of the first well-documented case of sexual transmission between women (or possibly of oral transmission specifically, I am not sure), and I have not heard of any more since. Of course, the difficulty of tracing the precise source of individual patients' infections and the fact that the vast majority of research into HIV/AIDS is aimed at gay men and heterosexual partners must be taken into consideration to account for this remarkably low figure. Disease risk, of course, is all about behaviour, not identity. My understanding is that unprotected oral contact with a female is relatively low-risk, and obviously this is equally true whether her partner is female or male. In the case I mentioned above, one woman was unknowingly HIV+ and the other had some kind of open wounds or infection in her mouth, providing an avenue for transmission and possibly also compromising her immune response. Similarly, open cuts on the hands are a risk in contact with bodily fluids, no matter which restroom those hands tend to be washed in. Furthermore, unprotected anal contact is known to be high-risk, and this is just as true for heterosexual couples as it is for gay ones. In the early years of the epidemic, when gay male communities tended to be small and rather isolated, demography was significant... if a higher proportion of gay men were HIV+ compared to women or other men, then someone sleeping with a gay man had a statistically higher chance of encountering an HIV+ partner. As sexuality and queer communities have become more open and fluid, however, and with the promotion of safer sex practices, this situation of endemic infection has eased dramatically. Statements that gay men are at high-risk and lesbians at low-risk are based upon simplistic notions of what kind of sex people tend to have, notions that are not always accurate. Statistically, there are of course higher infection rates among gay men (though rates are rising fastest among young, heterosexual women), but that doesn't make an individual male high-risk simply because he is gay. If he practices safer sex consistently, his risk will be lower than many heterosexuals and some queer women. There are many ways of having sex, none of them exclusive to one orientation. Not all gay men have anal sex, while two women can do many things besides what straight men tend to fantasize about. Not to mention, many lesbian-identified women do have sexual contact with anatomical males, whether as sex workers, assault victims, friends, to conceive a child, or with transsexual female lovers. Being lesbian obviously doesn't confer any special protection in these situations. Arguably, it might also be suggested that lesbians and queer-identified women, because they are engaged in the broader gay community and have often lost male friends to AIDS, may be more proactive in protecting themselves, or that women are more comfortable negotiating safer sex with other women than with men. So, while there is probably a degree of accuracy in suggestions that HIV/AIDS tends to be infrequent among lesbians, and that stereotypical lesbian sexual activity may be lower-risk than other forms, to say that lesbian women overall or individually are low-risk is misleading. Queer women are extremely diverse, and many other factors come into play. In terms of any individual's risk, male or female, gay, straight or other, it has a lot to do with what one does in bed (or elsewhere) and rather little with who it is done with, or with what label one claims to express this desire.
Jim K.	Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 \| 05:12 PM Lets not forget that not everyone who disagrees with or finds repulsive the homosexual lifestyle is a "homophobe." "Fobos," from the Greek for "fear," is where we get the suffix -phobe or -phobia. Just because I don't agree with the lifestyle or find it offensive does not mean I fear it or those that practice it. I think that it's about time we make this perfectly clear. I think the only practical application for the term would be if I were afraid of becoming homosexual or if I was afraid of those who practice it. If I had to classify it, I'd say homosexuality is a disease, but unfortunately, that also brings with it malformed notions of how to treat or "fix" the condition. Wow, I guess I just changed the topic on this forum. Sorry, I'll continue elsewhere. I'll continue to monitor responses so as not to drop my 2 cents and run. Thanks.
Jim K.	Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 \| 05:22 PM "In terms of any individual's risk, male or female, gay, straight or other, it has a lot to do with what one does in bed (or elsewhere) and rather little with who it is done with, or with what label one claims to express this desire." I agree with that entirely. It only makes sense. Where the stereotypes come into play is when the fact of homosexuality being inherintly promiscuous is considered. That doesn't change the fact that EVERYONE is at risk whenever they engage in activity with another without intimately knowing that other person and using that to evaluate the situation. The safest sex is no sex until you really know the other person. And I don't mean their name and where they're from. Really, God's plan is best. Keep yourselves from ruining one of the best experiences you could ever delight in. Keep your pants up and you won't have to worry about AIDS, barring rare accidents at hospitals and sharing needles. Wow, again, another topic.
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 \| 05:25 PM Well, in that case, Jim, most parents could be considered pedophiles. "Phobia" nowadays can refer to fear or hatred, just as philia mostly refers to sexual lust, but can still refer to simple obsession. The thing that really bothers me about "homophobia" is that "homo" means man, not homosexual, but it seems too late to change it and the word has already been absorbed into our vocabularies.
Jim K.	Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 \| 05:43 PM No doubt on that one. Once the media uses a term for 2 weeks, the public is brainwashed it seems. Pedophilia, when defined by it's root terms, means a love for children. Again, isn't it lovely what connotations different terms 'gather.' Actually, philia is not the greek for lust, that would be eros. Philia, is a term for love much like agape as well, but, philia is the friendly, 'I care about you' kind of love. Dare I say it, the 'brotherly' love. That's where Philidelphia gets it's title, "the city of brotherly love." But unfortunately, the general public will undoubtedly interpret 'brotherly love' as something else. Speaking of words and their distorted meanings, did you know that 'molest' just means 'strongly bother?' Lovely isn't it. So, if a gay man molests a pedophile with his ambulation just because he maintains a jovial gait.... Start a conversation with that and see what kind of looks you get!
Chuck in Rhode Island Member	Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 \| 06:52 AM wow...thanks for the informative and intelligent replies. I was hesitant to post this topic as some people might tend to give it a cursory glance, not digesting the actual content of the post and dismiss it. This post was not meant as a joke and I am glad it has not been interpreted as such. Thanks again 😊
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 \| 07:49 AM I think I'm staying on topic with this...but... Technically, wouldn't it only be people having sex with infected people that would be high risk? I have sex, but my husband isn't infected...so essentially I have zero risk. One of us won't spontaneously contract HIV. Two uninfected gay men, are still zero risk - b/c neither of them will just get HIV. I think it's really more of a lifestyle risk. I am not in the practice of having sex with multiple partners...people who are... People with a monogomous partner are less likely to get it. People who have more sexual encounters with more people have a higher chance of getting it. So, gay/straight/lesbian, if you're doin' it a lot - you're more likely to get it. Or, it could be that you yourself believe you are in a monogomous relationship, and your partner has HIV (and has not told you) or is having sex with people possibly infected, and also having sex with you... I dunno, statistics confuse me. B/c the hypothetical "if , then" situation is hard to determine for a population of 6 billion.
Chuck in Rhode Island Member	Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 \| 08:13 AM Maegan, I think it makes it easier when you deal with groups as opposed to individuals, so it's not you as a monogomous person but rather all monogomous people make a group. so all gay men comprise a group all gay women comprise a group all monogomous couples comprise a group I guess you could make the argument that there should be groups based on sexual activity/frequency but then it starts to get really confusing...you are right that it is a simplistic method and can create misleading statistics but all the studies I have seen use groups consisting of sexual preference/ethnicity/age. not sure if I addressed your questions but I think i might have
Boo in The Land of the Haggii... Member	Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 \| 08:18 AM But then what happens to the gay men who are a monogamous couple? Are they in both groups? This way seems open to an awful lot of confusion.
Chuck in Rhode Island Member	Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 \| 08:41 AM damn it boo! must you always poke holes in valid scientific methods?? 😊 just kidding and yes, I totally agree, however, I can only go on what studies have been conducted and how they were conducted. the same argument can be made for the studies based on ethnicity, sure, black males between 17 and 32 comprise one of the highest risk groups but what of monogomous black males between 17 and 32? I dont know the answer
DFStuckey	Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 \| 01:02 AM Maegan, I forget which doctor said it, but a physican once wrote " When a man has sexual congress with two women, at the same time of serially, he will contract syphillis, no matter how faithful to each other the partners be. It is the immorality of the act that engenders the contagion." Now lets see what that opens up..... :coolsmirk:
rachel	Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 \| 02:40 AM I think if considering groups by gender and sexual orientation (gay men, gay women, straight men, straight women, bi men, bi women) then lesbians will be lower than the other groups. Maybe this is what the woman meant.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 \| 05:45 AM Well, that's what I was assuming - BUT...I was just contemplating who would ACTUALLY be a lower risk. DF, what 1850s medical journal did you pull THAT from?
Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA Member	Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 \| 03:50 AM I don't know about being God's chosen people... But they're certainly one of my favorite groups!!! 😛 :cheese: :coolsmile:
DFStuckey	Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 \| 03:48 AM Meagan, it actually dates from the 17th century from an otherwise reputable doctor. I got it from the mostly accuarate "Penguin book of Unfortunate Quotations".
Follower of Christ	Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 \| 04:53 PM This is a disgrace to God and it sickens me. Homosexuality is a sin and all who practice it as well as any other sin will go to hell where there is everlasting pain and suffering. But, Know this. He loves you and wants to save you from your sins and give you life eternally. God sent His son Jesus to die on a cross so people could be delivered from sin and not be punished for it. I know you do not know me but I promise you he is real and whoever posted this is dead wrong. Think about it.
jen	Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 \| 11:26 PM I agree that whoeveer has the most sexual partners would be at the most risk. Gay men have more partners than anyone else so of course they would be the group with the most cases. Lesbians have the sames amount of partners as straight women so from the outset you would think the aids cases would be the same but you have to look at the act. Lesbians are less likely to have the kind of sex that would that would put them at risk. By that I mean if they use toys they use ones that fit and are not too big and cause bleeding and even if it did cause bleeding its not actually a part of the other woman coming into direct contact with the blood unlike if it was a man doing the deed. When you get to choose the size you choose the size that fits. Or so my lesbian friends tell me. As for god. If he didn't want gay people he wouldn't have made them and if you believe that being gay is just something you change like you do your clothes well I have a big statue in NYC I would like to sell and I promise I will give you a good price.
oyna	Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 \| 01:55 AM My understanding is that unprotected oral contact with a female is relatively low-risk, and obviously this is equally true whether her partner is female or male. In the case I mentioned above, one woman was unknowingly HIV+ and the other had some kind of open wounds or infection in her mouth, providing an avenue for transmission and possibly also compromising her immune response. Similarly, open cuts on the hands are a risk in contact with bodily fluids, no matter which restroom those hands tend to be washed in
oyunlar	Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 \| 12:38 PM The safest sex is no sex until you really know the other person. And I don't mean their name and where they're from. Really, God's plan is best. Keep yourselves from ruining one of the best experiences you could ever delight in
Skweek	Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 \| 12:37 AM Wow, this was posted a loooong time ago. It came up as a result for a search I was doing about how long it takes to contact the Lesbian Gods. Nevermind the context, it was an amusement that has since passed, HOWEVER I can answer your question, good sir. And no, I'm not going to argue or agree with your or anyone else's science, statistics, or personal opinions. I'm going to go by the strict word of Christian doctrine. John 3:16, so famously quoted by nearly everyone who wants people to think that they're really religious, states "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son," before going on about other stuff. Now, in context, this is referring to Jesus as God's only son. So if Jesus is God's only son, and we're all God's children, then in His eyes, we're a bunch of girls. Therefore everybody is lesbians, and that means that it is absolutely certain that lesbians are chosen people, or that no one is. You're welcome.

Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.