Advertisement
Advertisement

Q&A: Errol Fields on Young Black Gay Men and Perceptions of HIV Risk

TheBody.com Sits Down With the Researcher to Clarify the Findings of His New Study, Which Found That Young Black MSM Believe That "Masculine" Men Are Less Likely to Have HIV

May 11, 2011

 1  |  2  |  Next > 

Last week, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health released the results to a recent study about young black gay men and its findings are interesting.

Errol Fields, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.

Errol Fields, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.

By interviewing 35 young black gay men, ages 18-24, in Rochester, N.Y., Atlanta and New York City, researchers found that the participants almost exclusively prefer romantic and sexual partners they perceive to be masculine; are reluctant to allow a man they consider to be feminine to "top" them during sex; allow men they perceive to be more masculine to control the terms of what kind of sex happens, including condom use; and consider masculine men to be less likely to have HIV, and feminine men to be more at risk.

Given the alarming rise in rates of HIV among young black MSM, these findings could potentially shed some light on what is fueling these numbers. Because this study had such a small number of participants, it wasn't meant to be prescriptive of the entire demographic, yet some media reports have taken these findings and made sweeping generalizations about all young black MSM.

Advertisement
Kellee Terrell, TheBody.com's news editor, talked to the study's lead author, Harvard's Errol Fields, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D., about the participants' misconceptions around HIV risk, how those misconceptions may impact prevalence rates and why his findings are not new or specific to black gay men.

How did this study come about?

It was part of a larger project in my dissertation looking at the statistics in young black MSM. I noticed that there aren't that many studies that focus on younger MSM, which is a high risk population. During my work doing adolescent medication, I had a 16-year-old patient who was infected with HIV by a 28-year-old partner. That experience with him made me want to better understand what's going on in that community.

These findings were a combination of three different studies that consisted of interviews with 35 black gay men from Rochester, N.Y., New York City and Atlanta. We sat down with them for between an hour and an hour and a half. Since these were three different studies, not all the questions were identical, but they were very similar. From there, we then compiled the data.

I do want to stress something very important. What we did was a qualitative study, not something that should be generalized to the entire community. We just wanted to get a better perspective in hopes to being able to end up doing quantitative research down the road. As of now, we don't have enough information to develop a strategy, or PSA, or anything, but it begs for more research along those lines.

One of the most talked about trends that you all found was the sexual preference for more masculine men. Can you talk about what masculinity meant to those you interviewed and why it was falsely linked to lower HIV risk?

This preference for masculine men, or what was perceived as masculine, was fairly dominant and oftentimes, masculinity was described as something that "was not effeminate." Other descriptions of masculinity given were images we would see in hip-hop: Thugs and "gangstas", men who bragged about sexual conquests and certain physical attire.

But we also found that many of these men preferred masculine partners because by hanging out with more masculine men, they could hide their own sexuality from other people they were not out to. Hanging with more effeminate men would give their sexuality away and they didn't want that.

In terms of HIV risk, some of them had this assumption that masculinity meant not being involved in a "gay lifestyle" and men who were "wrapped up" in the lifestyle were more likely to be infected with HIV because they were exposing themselves to something they shouldn't be. There is this underlying assumption that HIV is something that is housed in the "out" gay community, and that was evident in their bias. One man told us, "If he is a guy with a girl and two babies, then he is not messing around with a lot of other men, so he doesn't have HIV."

Do you worry that talking about masculine men who are not out and HIV risk only adds ammunition to those who want to blame HIV on the down-low?

I do worry, but what we found was that the men weren't living dual lives. From what I got was that the men were mostly having sex with men who were gay. It's not something we asked directly, but that was the sense I got.

In terms of bisexuality, some of the men we interviewed who said they were bisexual, or would talk about sleeping with women, only said that to appear more acceptable to others, when in reality, they were not that having sex with women at all. They were only having sex with men.

If men referred to themselves as on the down-low, the term was used to mean that they're still masculine and having sex with men, but that their sexuality was something that was not common knowledge to their family members or other people.

 1  |  2  |  Next > 



This article was provided by TheBody.com.
 

No comments have been made.
 

Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)

Your Name:


Your Location:

(ex: San Francisco, CA)

Your Comment:

Characters remaining:

Advertisement