Petrelis Files

S.F. DPH: Straight Women's STD Up 61%, 34% for Str8 Men

The San Francisco health department recently released the latest monthly sexually transmitted disease report, and despite an alarming jump in gonorrhea cases, the report has received no media attention and health officials have not put out a news release about the surge in gonorrhea.

The reason for this lack of media coverage may be due to the fact that the skyrocketing gonorrhea rates are not for gay and bisexual men, but for heterosexual women and men, and the press may just not be all that concerned with straight people's sex lives.

Let's go over the editorial note in the September STD surveillance report.

>Reported cases of gonorrhea among heterosexuals were stable or decreasing in San Francisco from 2000 to 2004. However, in the first nine months of 2005 we observed a 61% increase in gonorrhea cases in women compared to the same time period in 2004 (160 to 257 cases).

A sixty-one percent jump in any STD among women in a major American city and it's not news, front page or in the local section? Compare this dearth of stories with the dozens of articles that appear when syphilis or gonorrhea climbs even two or three percentage points among gay men, frequently demonizing gay sexuality and public gay sex venues. I'm not saying that women and their sex lives should be demonized like gay men's, but it is odd, to say the least, that there has been a huge increase of gonorrhea among heterosexual women and no media outlet is paying attention to the surge.

>Among women aged 15-19 years, gonorrhea increased 73% (49 to 85 cases).

Here we have an more frightening number for younger heterosexual women, and again, no news stories or press conferences from SF DPH about the scary increase. My gut says that if young gay men were experiencing such a dramatic surge of gonorrhea, we'd see articles about it on the front page of many mainstream newspapers.

>Among known heterosexual men, gonorrhea cases increases 34% (115 to 154 cases), compared to only a 9% increase (861 to 940 cases) among known men who have sex with men (MSM).

Another big increase, this time for straight men, and nothing has been reported on it, but, that 9% climb among "known" gay men has made the papers. I find the use of the word "known" interesting. Why doesn't SF DPH just say heterosexual men? Also, why is it homosexual men are not identified as such, instead we are branded MSM? If gays are to be labeled men who have sex with men, then SF DPH should identify known heterosexual women as women who have sex with men, WSM. Same logic should apply to known heterosexual men, who should be described as men who have sex with women, MSW.

>In 2005, 23% (411, 1,786) of gonorrhea has occurred in women and known heterosexual men. Fifty percent (205/411) of cases in heterosexuals occurred among African-Americans.

More alarming statistics are the figures for black people in San Francisco, who don't comprise 50% of the population, yet they make up half of all known heterosexual gonorrhea cases. According to recent population statistics, blacks make up 8-9% of San Francisco's residents. We haven't read about the scary increase of black cases in the papers or seen it on the TV news.

>While substantially fewer gonorrhea cases are among heterosexuals than MSM in San Francisco, we have seen a marked increase among heterosexuals, particularly in adolescents and young adults.

Even with the "marked increase," SF DPH has not seen fit to alert the press to this awful development, but rest assured, if a similar surge were noticed among gay and bisexual men, loud alarms from the health department would be ringing, ringing, ringing.

>In response to this increase, SF STD Control and Prevention Services is focusing intervention efforts on young heterosexuals, particularly African Americans. Current recommendations to control the continued transmission of gonorrhea include timely treatment for patients and all sex partners within the past 60 days and re-screening of all gonorrhea case-patients at 3 months.

Let's hope SF DPH recommendations don't include the ones proposed in 2001 when HIV infections among gay and bisexual men in San Francisco was supposedly increasing. These are some of the ideas that were debated in 2001, as reported in the November 2001 Washington Monthly magazine:

[...]Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, director of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention and Control Services in San Francisco, has suggested a number of measures, some coercive,which he thinks would slow the increase of new HIV infections among gay men. Among them: closing sex clubs and adult bookstores; enforcing no-sex ordinances in bars and clubs; enforcing no-drug policies in bars and clubs; and Internet-based outreach and education, particularly in chat rooms where many gay men meet new sexual partners.

Putting aside political realities when brainstorming on this subject, Klausner also raised the possibility of quarantining those who cannot control their infectivity---e.g., those barebackers who've infected 20 different people and still refuse to use condoms. Many of these measures would probably be infeasible in the current political climate. Still, this doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. After all, in an environment where there are no consequences for actions that threaten the public health, it may be necessary to create some. [...]

Finally, the September STD report doesn't mention HIV once in the summary on heterosexual increases of gonorrhea.

Yet whenever there is a surge of syphilis or gonorrhea among men who have sex with men, the SF DPH and other health officials are quick to say it may portend increases in HIV also.

Why is it no such corresponding claim is made when discussing skyrocketing gonorrhea among known heterosexuals? Are San Francisco heterosexuals, female and male, immune to HIV?

Surely the human immunodeficiency virus doesn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or other categories.