Black U.S. AIDS rates rival some African nations

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ghetto edit... accidentally hit the submit button....

They dont have time to lose, so they do whatever they can to increase their social status and thus their attractiveness to mates.

This leads to crime. In fact, it also leads to high levels of rape (why attract mates at all...) and lack of resource investment in offspring.

This feeds back into more poor life expectancy.

As for gay people... Homophobia might actually be evolved. Bisexuals have an evolutionary advantage in such situations. They begin sexual activity earlier (thus not only increasing their chance at successfully impregnating a mate via pure numbers) and are more experienced (allowing them to attract more mates and more successfully inseminate those they mate with. They tend to be better at hiding indiscretions as well, so they can mate with multiple mates (like...other men's mates) and not get caught.

The risk? Increased risk of disease. At high population frequencies there is a higher proportion of non-reproductive homosexual offspring. There is also the defensive response by purely heterosexual males.

Homophobia could have developed as a defense against the highly competitive bisexual males. Homosexuals get caught in the crossfire, but homophobia could function to depress the competitive ability of bisexuals.

In any case, all this really does is increase the disease risk, as bisexual males (and by extension gay males) have to go deeper into the closet to maintain their selective advantage, and take greater risks due to suppressed life expectancy.

I know that black women are more likely to marry men of other races than black men are likely to marry across racial lines, and partly it's because in some areas there aren't enough black men to go around. I have to wonder if HIV infection rates might also be a factor, men of other races being seen as "safer".

DING DING DING!

We have a winner!

Females like to mate UP the socio-economic ladder in order to increase their fitness, and in poor black neighborhoods it is not hard to find a better mate than the local males.

This means that the local males have to mate with the females that cannot attract other mates. Thus fucking over the offspring even further.

[Stormbringer]

Seriously though, what is the difference between this and a basket-case African country's approach to the poor? The standard of living is higher, but the attitude is much the same, i.e. fuck 'em.

It has a lot less to do with the approach to the poor, though that certainly doesn't help.

The core issue with HIV, and STDs in general, is an appalling lack of awareness about and practice of safer sex practices. What they don't seem to mention is that the under educated portions of the South are also getting hit especially hard with these diseases. These communities are suffering simply because there is no fact based education on sexual health.

Of course there's also the fact that sexual practices in general are poor among lower class America. Both backwoods and ghetto America have appalling attitudes regarding sex. Neither practice safe sex at anything like the average rate and it's reflected not just in STD rates but also in unplanned pregnancies.

There is some connection, but like the West Virginia dental topic way back, it's also very much an issue of cultural attitudes and a lack of action on a more personal level.

[Saxtonite]

Definite factors. The black community is HIGHLY intolerant of homosexuality and bisexuality.

yes. IIRC, many Afro-Americans who are homosexual end up forming their own night clubs as for some reason many of them say don't 'fit in' with caucasian homosexuals. Probably a cultural thing. I remember some people conducting some hate crimes against closeted black homosexuals in the South Side of Chicago on news a while ago.

Don't underestimate the cultural influences at work here - most African Americans are religiously conservative, even more so than most whites (although us Caucasians certainly have our whackjobs).

Oh yes....go to a Black Church vs. a White One. 'Gettin' the Holy Ghost' as the term goes heh.

Homosexuality is not tolerated. Drug use is rampant but shameful. People with HIV are routinely shunned, isolated, abandoned, and considered "sinners" even if, say, a cold-sober monogamous married woman who contracted it through rape or her spouse cheating.

the bolded part, erm, no. That might be the case in Africa (the stigma surrounding AIDS) but I don't remember seeing people with HIV stigmatized for having HIV. I remember some black liberationists comparing it to being stigmatized to being black in pre-segregation America.

And about drugs, it depends on the type of drugs. Many won't care about Marijuana, some will. The 'harder' drugs are more 'shameful' yes.

I know that black women are more likely to marry men of other races than black men are likely to marry across racial lines, and partly it's because in some areas there aren't enough black men to go around.

More accurately, Afro-American males who are compatible in terms of education and income. I know the rates are increasing, people like Michael Baisden (Radio DJ for a OLD Chicago House/R&B/soul/rap station in Chicago) said something along the lines of "the brothers are exercising their options, the sistas should too" and encouraging it, and other people suggesting it. Marriage in the Afro-American community is not really a high number, hence the term 'Baby Daddy' and 'Baby Momma' and 'Baby Momma Drama' being prevalently used in the community there vs. caucasian community (when's the last time you heard a suburban housewife/mother use those terms )

I have to wonder if HIV infection rates might also be a factor, men of other races being seen as "safer".

I didn't hear of that being a factor to encourage the change. However the down low people are getting the females infected more.

Dont forget lack of gene flow and selective breeding (We dont want to admit it, but it is true...)

heh. Yes. I don't think people would want to mentioned how they were bred like animals to be better slaves, resulting in the different shades of color and (supposedly) internecine conflict between lighter skin colors (high yellow) and darker skin colors. "Light-skinned" or "Dark-skinned"

This creates a positive feedback loop. Poor life expectancy leads to a phenotypically plastic response to increase risk-taking in the quest for reproductive success. After all, they dont have time to lose.

Or they don't care about reproduction or any children (or hate the children they create). They just don't give a fuck about anything as "they don't have anything to live for" and nothing tying them down, so they go crazy. Remember that joke on the show The Boondocks about Nigga Moments. here's the link for those ignorant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqsDRQJesMI

They dont have time to lose, so they do whatever they can to increase their social status and thus their attractiveness to mates.

but offspring in their mind would tend to be an impediment to their life, however. And they would not need to really fight over mates, there's plenty of them.

This leads to crime. In fact, it also leads to high levels of rape (why attract mates at all...)

I don't remember large quantites of rape in the black community? do you have a link?

and lack of resource investment in offspring.

Even the parents who are better-off sometimes don't stay around with their children and have many by different females.

[Broomstick]

Definite factors. The black community is HIGHLY intolerant of homosexuality and bisexuality.

yes. IIRC, many Afro-Americans who are homosexual end up forming their own night clubs as for some reason many of them say don't 'fit in' with caucasian homosexuals. Probably a cultural thing. I remember some people conducting some hate crimes against closeted black homosexuals in the South Side of Chicago on news a while ago.

White gays can be just as bigoted as anyone else, what can I say?

Homosexuality is not tolerated. Drug use is rampant but shameful. People with HIV are routinely shunned, isolated, abandoned, and considered "sinners" even if, say, a cold-sober monogamous married woman who contracted it through rape or her spouse cheating.

the bolded part, erm, no. That might be the case in Africa (the stigma surrounding AIDS) but I don't remember seeing people with HIV stigmatized for having HIV.

That's not what I've heard from the sisters. And in the 1990's I was working at a clinic where, by 1994, 1/5 of our clients had HIV. A whole LOT of shunning going on. Maybe it's changed, I certainly hope so, but back then women with HIV were lower than whores.

And about drugs, it depends on the type of drugs. Many won't care about Marijuana, some will. The 'harder' drugs are more 'shameful' yes.

People don't usually inject pot. Maybe I should have been more specific about IV drugs. Indeed, fear of HIV lead to a lot people snorting heroin instead of shooting it up. Even most junkies don't really want to die.

I know that black women are more likely to marry men of other races than black men are likely to marry across racial lines, and partly it's because in some areas there aren't enough black men to go around.

More accurately, Afro-American males who are compatible in terms of education and income.

No, I meant what I said. In the Chicago projects, due to high violence and incarceration, women significantly outnumbered the men.

Marriage in the Afro-American community is not really a high number, hence the term 'Baby Daddy' and 'Baby Momma' and 'Baby Momma Drama' being prevalently used in the community there vs. caucasian community (when's the last time you heard a suburban housewife/mother use those terms )

Frankly, I've NEVER heard those terms before.

On the other hand, I have heard it said that marriage is for white people, which says volumes.

but offspring in their mind would tend to be an impediment to their life, however.

But siring children makes them a MAN! Especially if they sire SONS! Of course, they can't be bothered to take care of them....

This leads to crime. In fact, it also leads to high levels of rape (why attract mates at all...)

I don't remember large quantites of rape in the black community? do you have a link?

Rape is sort of a problem for women of any color or socio-economic level. The rate is much higher than people really want to believe.

Even the parents who are better-off sometimes don't stay around with their children and have many by different females.

So... the men are "parents" but the mothers are "females"?

I think perhaps you could word that a little better. How about 'Fathers sometimes don't stay around with their children and have many by different women?" It's a little less offensive to the ear. Not that I think you intended to offend, but it can come across that way.

[Saxtonite]

White gays can be just as bigoted as anyone else, what can I say?

heh. I'm not to knowledgeable about the LGBT culture so I can't say :O
Maybe it's a response to the cinservative afro-american community, i dunno.

That's not what I've heard from the sisters. And in the 1990's I was working at a clinic where, by 1994, 1/5 of our clients had HIV. A whole LOT of shunning going on. Maybe it's changed, I certainly hope so, but back then women with HIV were lower than whores.

Okay, I might be mistaken then. the 'Down Low' discussions began in the late 1990s so maybe it changed around the beginning or people seeing it was the males giving the diease more often.

People don't usually inject pot. Maybe I should have been more specific about IV drugs. Indeed, fear of HIV lead to a lot people snorting heroin instead of shooting it up. Even most junkies don't really want to die.

Okay, thank you

No, I meant what I said. In the Chicago projects, due to high violence and incarceration, women significantly outnumbered the men.

okay.

Frankly, I've NEVER heard those terms before.

well here's an urbandictionary definition in case I didn't provide a good definition or details. They are sckewed in many directions and biases-like many urbandictionary articles.

baby daddy:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... baby+daddy

baby momma's drama
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... omma+drama
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... 7s%20DraMa

baby momma
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... baby+momma

On the other hand, I have heard it said that marriage is for white people, which says volumes.

Heh. Cohabitation is more prevalent, people stay in a relationship for 5, 10, 15 years with no marriage and have children-apparently they're too lazy/don't like the stigma of marriage/etc (especially the males). The family could be stable in a cohabitation, but yes there is a large quantities of single mothers.

But siring children makes them a MAN! Especially if they sire SONS! Of course, they can't be bothered to take care of them....

That's possible.-or that people forget to use condoms or something else; like re-marrying different people and etc.

I swore it was more of the dads not caring about their children at all or something simlar...

Rape is sort of a problem for women of any color or socio-economic level. The rate is much higher than people really want to believe.

okay, thank you for the information then.

So... the men are "parents" but the mothers are "females"?

I think perhaps you could word that a little better. How about 'Fathers sometimes don't stay around with their children and have many by different women?" It's a little less offensive to the ear. Not that I think you intended to offend, but it can come across that way.

you're right, I meant 'males' or men or something similar. I did phrase it oddly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Or they don't care about reproduction or any children (or hate the children they create). They just don't give a fuck about anything as "they don't have anything to live for" and nothing tying them down, so they go crazy. Remember that joke on the show The Boondocks about Nigga Moments. here's the link for those ignorant

And this kids, is a textbook case of confusion between proximate vs. ultimate causation. No one save for biologists like me go around actually thinking about maximizing their fitness. However, people DO act in a given environment in a way conducive to doing just that. Proximate mechanisms like who hates who, are window dressing

but offspring in their mind would tend to be an impediment to their life, however. And they would not need to really fight over mates, there's plenty of them.

There are. And yet you still find insane levels of domestic abuse. What you are saying is akin to saying that Elephant Seals shouldnt fight over mates because there are plenty of them. It is silly.

In different environments there are different male phenotypes that females find attractive. In stable environments, they tend to go for males that are more able to provide for offspring in the long term. They seek reduction o variance and dependability. The wealthier the male the better. Genes in these cases matter less, provided there are no obvious defects like poor facial symmetry, or susceptability to disease (and yes, females can tell)

In unstable environments with relatively low life expectancy, females select mates (I use this term loosely BTW. Male-male competition rises in importance compared to overt female choice...but not cryptic female choice) based upon social status, and physical characteristics. Actual wealth matters less because the male will probably be dead soon. The female in this case is looking for good genes, and protection from other males.

Males in both environments are trying to maximize their fitness by having children with as many females as possible, and avoiding infidelity on the part of their mates (Females are unfaithful for a variety of reasons, including increasing genetic diversity in her offspring, trying to get out of an unstable environment by mating with a wealthy male, or mating with a more dominant male to gain his protection)

In order to avoid protecting or provisioning offspring that are not theirs, males have several strategies. Topping up sperm hanging out in cervical mucous (insert diatribe about sperm competition) spousal abuse (most commonly triggered by perceived infidelity, or resource/social status strain which itself triggers infidelity in females) and mate guarding (mmm possessive males)

But if I dont stop this tangent I will write a book in a BBS post. Bear in mind, I am an evolutionary biologist that specializes in animal behavior... main interest in predator prey interactions but a not-so-passing interest in the evolutionary psych underpinning human mating.

I don't remember large quantites of rape in the black community? do you have a link?

Rape is more common in unstable resource poor environments, or in environments where the risk of being caught is low (this is the reason rape-rates sky-rocket in occupied countries)

Lets see what I can dig up. Bear in mind also. Inequality is a better measure of whether an environment is resource poor. For example: some US metropolitain areas are like third world countries in terms of life expectancy and crime rates, even though the individuals in that area make more than the wealthiest people in said third world countries on an absolute scale.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m0l211537354t280/

If you need me to explain why....

The difference is a matter of perception. An individual living in an environment that is in absolute poverty (say... in terms of median income in USD or euros) but is high in social status and has a lot of resources (cows or something) at his disposal will not follow the pattern I laid out for poor males in first world countries. He will follow the pattern for the wealthy. Depending on a few externalities he will either have one wife and a few fantastically well provisioned offspring, or multiple wives and lots of moderately provisioned offspring. False paternity will be low because the female cannot do any better.

In any case though, rape is extremely common, and I can get into issues of cryptic female choice with rape (sperm competition and how it is biased... the disturbing likelyhood of a female engaging in a long term relationship with her rapist in a relatively unstable resource poor environment, etc) but I dont want people to try to net-murder me.

Even the parents who are better-off sometimes don't stay around with their children and have many by different females.

Depends on cultural and environmental externalities. Also: Life exists on this thing, called the bell curve. There are always those that fall more than a standard deviation away from the mean. Not actually provisioning offspring is MUCH more common in unstable, resource poor environments than it is in better circumstances. But it still happens. Just like you sometimes find some stand up folk in the ghetto.

[Saxtonite]

snip

Okay, I am greateful for the post; I read it all.

This thread and the like also reminds me of the saying Michael Baisden and the like tried to coin: "Sperm Donors" instead of "Fathers" as they don't stay around to raise their children.

[Master of Ossus]

Ghetto edit:

From Wiki:

Other studies have confirmed the accuracy of current methods of HIV testing in the United States, reporting false-positive rates of 0.0004% to 0.0007% and false-negative rates of 0.003% in the general population.

Yeah, that's an astronomical false-positive rate, all right. Assuming a .0004% false-positive rate, if the 300,000,000 population of the US were tested, only 1200 false positives would be found.

Yep, that's a gigantic fucking waste of federal funds right there.

Wow. Layering multiple, independent tests drops the false positive rate so it's pretty small. And what happens in the meantime? How expensive are these tests, and what is to be gained? Do you really think that this type of population will massively change their behavior once they're told by some federal doctor that they're HIV positive?

[Alyrium Denryle]

snip

Okay, I am greateful for the post; I read it all.

This thread and the like also reminds me of the saying Michael Baisden and the like tried to coin: "Sperm Donors" instead of "Fathers" as they don't stay around to raise their children.

Oh, it gets even better. Population wide false paternity is 10% or so. Broken down by socio-economic class it reaches near 0 in the highest echelons of any given society, and is 40%ish at the bottom rung, with females trying to mate their way up the ladder (or at least mate their offspring's way up the ladder)

The poor guys that end up either defending or provisioning the kids are resource donors to the other guy's sperm donor. Just like cuckoos. God I am glad I am gay and dont have to worry about..heh... having fitness

[Saxtonite]

Oh, it gets even better. Population wide false paternity is 10% or so. Broken down by socio-economic class it reaches near 0 in the highest echelons of any given society, and is 40%ish at the bottom rung, with females trying to mate their way up the ladder (or at least mate their offspring's way up the ladder)

The poor guys that end up either defending or provisioning the kids are resource donors to the other guy's sperm donor. Just like cuckoos. God I am glad I am gay and dont have to worry about..heh... having fitness

Oh yes, I remember that study saying that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ghetto edit:

From Wiki:

Other studies have confirmed the accuracy of current methods of HIV testing in the United States, reporting false-positive rates of 0.0004% to 0.0007% and false-negative rates of 0.003% in the general population.

Yeah, that's an astronomical false-positive rate, all right. Assuming a .0004% false-positive rate, if the 300,000,000 population of the US were tested, only 1200 false positives would be found.

Yep, that's a gigantic fucking waste of federal funds right there.

Wow. Layering multiple, independent tests drops the false positive rate so it's pretty small. And what happens in the meantime? How expensive are these tests, and what is to be gained? Do you really think that this type of population will massively change their behavior once they're told by some federal doctor that they're HIV positive?

The tests themselves are dirt cheap to administer. As of '97 at least the current generation of Rapid tests costs about a dollar and does not require trained staff. You could probably do it with the same personnel that administer the eye tests, in theory. For the actual test units you are looking at a little over what americans spend on lip balm per year. For the additional man hours... nationwide... assuming each med tech processes a hundred patients a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, at a pay rate of 30k a year... we are looking about that price over again. So the total cost is about double what we as americans spend on lip balm per year. Now, there are probably some implimentation costs, and we might want to have each tech process 50 people a day. Oh no. The cost does up to three times what is spent annually on lip balm

The benefits? Well more accurate stats for one. Better contact tracing, fewer people getting infected because they know they have the disease. Fewer people developing AIDS due to lack of treatment. Gee, you know... I am pretty sure that this will be worth the cost.

[Master of Ossus]

The tests themselves are dirt cheap to administer. As of '97 at least the current generation of Rapid tests costs about a dollar and does not require trained staff. You could probably do it with the same personnel that administer the eye tests, in theory. For the actual test units you are looking at a little over what americans spend on lip balm per year. For the additional man hours... nationwide... assuming each med tech processes a hundred patients a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, at a pay rate of 30k a year... we are looking about that price over again. So the total cost is about double what we as americans spend on lip balm per year. Now, there are probably some implimentation costs, and we might want to have each tech process 50 people a day. Oh no. The cost does up to three times what is spent annually on lip balm

The benefits? Well more accurate stats for one. Better contact tracing, fewer people getting infected because they know they have the disease. Fewer people developing AIDS due to lack of treatment. Gee, you know... I am pretty sure that this will be worth the cost.

Fair enough. I have some vague memory, though, of Russia doing something like this and it turned into a complete disaster. Admittedly, that was a while ago and so the technology's probably improved, but my memory is that they identified NO ONE with AIDS who didn't already know it and got a whole mess of false positives that destroyed some peoples' lives. The US is a different population, and the technology is better, but I'm still pretty wary of health tests like this for that reason.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The tests themselves are dirt cheap to administer. As of '97 at least the current generation of Rapid tests costs about a dollar and does not require trained staff. You could probably do it with the same personnel that administer the eye tests, in theory. For the actual test units you are looking at a little over what americans spend on lip balm per year. For the additional man hours... nationwide... assuming each med tech processes a hundred patients a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, at a pay rate of 30k a year... we are looking about that price over again. So the total cost is about double what we as americans spend on lip balm per year. Now, there are probably some implimentation costs, and we might want to have each tech process 50 people a day. Oh no. The cost does up to three times what is spent annually on lip balm

The benefits? Well more accurate stats for one. Better contact tracing, fewer people getting infected because they know they have the disease. Fewer people developing AIDS due to lack of treatment. Gee, you know... I am pretty sure that this will be worth the cost.

Fair enough. I have some vague memory, though, of Russia doing something like this and it turned into a complete disaster. Admittedly, that was a while ago and so the technology's probably improved, but my memory is that they identified NO ONE with AIDS who didn't already know it and got a whole mess of false positives that destroyed some peoples' lives. The US is a different population, and the technology is better, but I'm still pretty wary of health tests like this for that reason.

For a country the size of russia that is impressive. But yeah, the tests really have improved. They are much cheaper, and it is very easy to check for the rare false positives.

The test most commonly done on blood donations for example is ideal for mass-administration. You have a central testing facility (these already exist... the ones that do drug tests for private companies could be co-opted)

Each person who tests positive on a rapid test would submit a small blood sample, and they get sent at the end of the day to the test facility.\

Alternatively we could just have a socialized system and give everyone a finger prick while taking their blood pressure at regular checkups... have the results in ten min while the patient is being seen by the MD/Nurse practitioner/med-tech.

[Sidewinder]

Is it time for Americans to stop calling AIDS a "gay disease" yet?

The sad thing is it's most likely the people who engage in unsafe behavior (not using a condom, sharing needles, etc.) who are calling AIDS a "gay disease" and continue to engage in unsafe behavior under the delusion they're immune. That means Black Americans are one of the biggest proponents of the "gay disease" myth.

[Hillary]

Seriously though, what is the difference between this and a basket-case African country's approach to the poor? The standard of living is higher, but the attitude is much the same, i.e. fuck 'em.

It has a lot less to do with the approach to the poor, though that certainly doesn't help.

The core issue with HIV, and STDs in general, is an appalling lack of awareness about and practice of safer sex practices. What they don't seem to mention is that the under educated portions of the South are also getting hit especially hard with these diseases. These communities are suffering simply because there is no fact based education on sexual health.

Of course there's also the fact that sexual practices in general are poor among lower class America. Both backwoods and ghetto America have appalling attitudes regarding sex. Neither practice safe sex at anything like the average rate and it's reflected not just in STD rates but also in unplanned pregnancies.

There is some connection, but like the West Virginia dental topic way back, it's also very much an issue of cultural attitudes and a lack of action on a more personal level.

My comment was actually in response to DW's Glenn Beck quote rather than this specific topic.

In any case, the fundamental problems here, as you pointed out, are a lack of awareness/education and cultural attitudes amongst the poorest in society. The former can be firmly laid at the door of the authorities, and they are certainly implicated in the latter.

The UK is, sadly, moving towards this model, in terms of attitudes to the poorest in socety, at an alarming pace.

[Broomstick]

White gays can be just as bigoted as anyone else, what can I say?

heh. I'm not to knowledgeable about the LGBT culture so I can't say :O
Maybe it's a response to the cinservative afro-american community, i dunno.

I'm strict hetero myself, but my oldest sister was a lesbian so I had a window into the LGBT many people don't. I heard appalling bigotry come out the mouths of some such folks just like anyone else. There was also an element of a "well, I may be _____ but at least I'm not a _____!"

That's not what I've heard from the sisters. And in the 1990's I was working at a clinic where, by 1994, 1/5 of our clients had HIV. A whole LOT of shunning going on. Maybe it's changed, I certainly hope so, but back then women with HIV were lower than whores.

Okay, I might be mistaken then. the 'Down Low' discussions began in the late 1990s so maybe it changed around the beginning or people seeing it was the males giving the diease more often.

Quite possible. Not being black, my knowledge is necessarily second-hand in these matters. Attitudes also certainly vary over time and location as "the black community" is not a monolithic cultural block by any means.

You also get craziness like a man insisting he's not gay because he's never engaged in receptive anal sex, he's always been the one to stick his dick up some other guy's ass, his anus is virgin, so he's still a "he-man". So if you ask him about high risk behavior he'll say with a straight face he's not gay and mean it - that's why we have the phrase "men who have sex with other men" in some contexts rather than just saying "male homosexuals". Logically it's weird and nonsensical but that's because culture isn't always logical.

[Alyrium Denryle]

See, that is why I just catalog their behavior and put them on a kinsey scale....

[Kanastrous]

Reading this thread leads me back to wondering why there is so much more reported stigmatization of gay people among black Americans, than some other groups.

Influence of churches?

Is being gay perceived as a display of weakness that makes the rest of the population look weak by association?

Cultural influences carried over from original African ancestors?

What, exactly?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Reading this thread leads me back to wondering why there is so much more reported stigmatization of gay people among black Americans, than some other groups.

Influence of churches?

Is being gay perceived as a display of weakness that makes the rest of the population look weak by association?

Cultural influences carried over from original African ancestors?

What, exactly?

See my post above. Evolutionary psych is your friend.

[Kanastrous]

You also get craziness like a man insisting he's not gay because he's never engaged in receptive anal sex, he's always been the one to stick his dick up some other guy's ass, his anus is virgin, so he's still a "he-man".

The ancient Romans took a similar view. Being the penetrating partner wasn't viewed as anything wrong or unusual, so long as your partner was of lower social rank. Being on the receptive end, though, was something else, entirely.

[Setzer]

I remember the Romans believed penetrating was okay, being penetrated was not. Being the submissive partner was thought to be shameful for a man. That's why they tried smearing Julius Caesar by saying he had an affair with the King of Bithynia. It wasn't the homosexual activity, it was the idea that he was submitting to a foreigner.

Western civilization gets lots of things from the Romans, even prejudices.

[Saxtonite]

I'm strict hetero myself, but my oldest sister was a lesbian so I had a window into the LGBT many people don't. I heard appalling bigotry come out the mouths of some such folks just like anyone else. There was also an element of a "well, I may be _____ but at least I'm not a _____!"

okay, thanks for the info. Odd that it would be like that. But then again I've heard that quote/saying said by other people on the internet, etc.

Quite possible. Not being black, my knowledge is necessarily second-hand in these matters. Attitudes also certainly vary over time and location as "the black community" is not a monolithic cultural block by any means.

correct, but aren't there many similarities in the community (for example, supposedly Afro-Americans in northern cities with large black populations like Chicago have a southern accent-something left over from the great migration from the 1910s-1950s and kept intact due to segregation and the like.)

Logically it's weird and nonsensical but that's because culture isn't always logical.

yes.

Reading this thread leads me back to wondering why there is so much more reported stigmatization of gay people among black Americans, than some other groups.

Influence of churches?

Is being gay perceived as a display of weakness that makes the rest of the population look weak by association?

these are part of it, IIRC Gay Black man are considered a threat to the traditional family and not considered masculine. And there's the influence of churches, a MAJOR influence in Black America which stigmatizes homosexuality. Given how many go to church once a week the influence can sit in greatly. Remember the sheep/shepherd thing about pastors leading sheep? It's true. People putting their hope and blindly following the pastors and the like.

The stigma surrounding black homosexuals seems to be decreasing as there are some people 'out of the closet' and dressing in a distinct way, etc but I'm not sure if they're in a higher economic/social ladder or not.

[Saxtonite]

I also remember the whole slavery thing emasculating black men, and they wanting to regain that power and they hate homosexuals for that reason. That's a theory I heard, it's not manly/sissy (IIRC the older people believe that more, the old-school who lived in the rural south under segregation and were sharecroppers-the grandparents). It's also odd more blacks aren't republicans given their social beliefs in general, but then again there's the conception that the US Republican Party is racist.

[Darth Wong]

I also remember the whole slavery thing emasculating black men, and they wanting to regain that power and they hate homosexuals for that reason. That's a theory I heard, it's not manly/sissy (IIRC the older people believe that more, the old-school who lived in the rural south under segregation and were sharecroppers-the grandparents). It's also odd more blacks aren't republicans given their social beliefs in general, but then again there's the conception that the US Republican Party is racist.

I'd say that's more than perception. While not every Republican is a racist, racists do tend to vote Republican.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I also remember the whole slavery thing emasculating black men, and they wanting to regain that power and they hate homosexuals for that reason. That's a theory I heard, it's not manly/sissy (IIRC the older people believe that more, the old-school who lived in the rural south under segregation and were sharecroppers-the grandparents). It's also odd more blacks aren't republicans given their social beliefs in general, but then again there's the conception that the US Republican Party is racist.

I'd say that's more than perception. While not every Republican is a racist, racists do tend to vote Republican.

Or they vote Constitution Party and Libertarian

(sorry, I could not resist the jab)