STDs in Sweden & Britain: A Lesson
Major outbreaks of gonorrhea hit Sweden in the 1910s, 1940s, and late 1960s. In 1970 the incidence of gonorrhea was 487 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. By 1996, the incidence of gonorrhea reached an all-time low of 2.4 cases per 100,000, but now appears to be rising (e.g., the rate was 3.9/100,000 in 1998).1
What's going on?
First, as near as we can tell, Sweden has about the same proportion of men who have sex with men (MSM) as in the United States or Great Britain. But there are two kinds of cases: those who got gonorrhea in Sweden, and Swedes who got gonorrhea from foreigners as part of their international travels.
Looking at the proportion of gonorrhea cases attributed to gays, 13% of all Swedish gonorrhea cases were from homosexuals who 'imported' their disease from outside Sweden, while gays contracting 'domestic gonorrhea' accounted for 32% of all the infections. Both of these figures are considerably higher than the proportion of men who have sex with men in Sweden which is probably between 2% and 3%.
Unlike the excuses given for African or other third world nations, MSM in Sweden have been 'educated about safer sex' that is, to use condoms. Yet their 'contribution' to the gonorrhea rate in society far outweighs their numbers.
Which brings us to the question, who gets repeated infections with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)? Who are the 'incorrigibles' who just keep getting infected, treated, infected, treated, etc. in a word, the recidivists?
It's one thing to get an STD, but quite another to keep getting STDs. Perhaps getting your first STD might be considered a 'learning experience,' but then you are supposed to 'learn.' STDs are costly to society, causing short-term treatment expense as well as the risk of cancer and long-term treatment costs for certain STDs. And, of course, recidivists help to perpetuate the cycle of infection.
Investigators in England decided to track patients who attended three STD clinics from 1994 through 1998.2 All three clinics were in large cities (two in London). 52,908 patients attended the clinics, of whom 51% were male, and 32% were under the age of 24. 14% of the male patients engaged in sex with men. Altogether, a total of 17,466 patients (33% of all patients) arrived at the clinics with an acute STD at least once during the study period. Of these, 14% showed up at least once more with another STD.
This 14% constitutes the 'key group' the spreaders, the recalcitrant, the recidivists. In the liberal paradigm of sex education, these individuals are the 'dumb ones,' those who don't seem to learn from their sex-ed lessons.
After controlling for other factors, men who have sex with men (MSM) topped the list of recidivists. 22% of them were 'back again' within the year with an STD. Men who have sex with women (MSW) were next; 15% of them turned up again within a year. Women who have sex with men (WSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW) logged in at 10.6%. So women were 'better learners' than men, and heterosexual men 'learned' better than gays.
For both men and women, those aged 1215 were the 'dumbest' 21% were back with an STD within the year. By the same standard, blacks were about twice as 'dumb' as whites, with 25.9% back with an STD v. 9.6% of whites (U.S. blacks account for over 80% of the common STDs).
And those who had ever gotten an STD were twice as dumb as those who had never gotten one before, with 20.9% v. 9.9% returning within the year with another STD. Of considerable interest, those who had a history of injecting drugs (only 1.5% of the total) were no more apt to be repeat offenders (12.1% v 13.9%).
The authors noted that "These data suggest that there are core groups of individuals who do not respond to safer sex counseling at STD clinics, and who continue to place themselves at risk...." (p. 384). Indeed! As FRI's nationwide sex survey also documented3, homosexuals, drug users, and prostitutes are also the most apt to engage in deliberate infection of their sex partners.
The Massachusetts Psychological and American Psychological Associations very recently assured the Massachusetts Supreme Court that homosexual contacts are no more dangerous and medically contraindicated than heterosexual contacts. Why? To get the Massachusetts anti-sodomy law declared unconstitutional. On what planet are these psychologists living? Or is it just more convenient to lie?
References:
1. Berglund T, et al. Epidemiology of the reemergence of gonorrhea in Sweden. Sexually Transmitted Disease, 2001, 28, 111-114.
2. Hughes G, et al. Characteristics of those who repeatedly acquire sexually transmitted infections. Sexually Transmitted Disease, 2001, 28, 379-386.
3. Cameron, P. et al. Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical Journal, 1985, 70, 292-299