Oh, I See. “You” Doesn’t Include Women.

Tom Humphrey has talked with Campfield further about his strange beliefs about straight people and HIV. I would just like to point you to this section:

Campfield said Friday that his point in the radio show is valid in that, within the United States, heterosexual encounters almost never result in AIDs “unless you’re having sex with someone from Africa or an IV drug user.”

“The odds of men catching it from women are very, very, very low,” he said.

To quote myself when I was providing a statistic Rachel helped me with this morning, “In the United States, heterosexual transmission accounts for how 65 percent of white women and 74 percent of black women acquired the infection. “

I can’t help but wonder if this is Campfield’s mistake or Humphrey’s. But seriously. The only way heterosexual encounters “almost never result” in HIV/AIDS is if women don’t count.

And, frankly, though Humphrey is not the only one to do this, he’s drawing my ire because I’m linking to him, this is something that can easily be fact-checked. It is a provable matter of fact. Do straight people having sex “almost never” get HIV/AIDS unless they’re fucking Africans or IV drug users? Any reporter can do five seconds of internet research or call the health department. It’s not a matter of “some experts say” and “other experts say.” There isn’t unsettled territory.

So, why can’t reporters report the facts? This is a matter of people’s health. Don’t they have the right to know the truth?

About these ads

17 thoughts on “Oh, I See. “You” Doesn’t Include Women.

  1. This man is not fit to serve and make decisions that affect the lives of people in Tennessee or anywhere else for that matter.

  2. Pingback: Personal Responsibility, Stacey Campfield Style | Southern Beale

  3. When facts are incongruent with wingnut personal beliefs, it’s always the facts that are wrong. Hence, doubling down on teh stoooopid.

    This is why I never vote Republican.

  4. People like Campfield and Floyd are simply ignorant. They’re elected by ignorant people and it’s their job to keep those people ignorant so they can keep their jobs being ignorant. When people start thinking for themselves instead of taking the easy way out and doing what they’re told to do by their “preachers” on Sunday mornings, nincompoops like this will, eventually, be replaced by more fair-minded representatives.

  5. Honestly, i don’t believe Campfield is simply ignorant. I don’t believe he’s secretly gay. I think whatever his deal is, it’s something that’s hard for regular people to focus on and accept, so they flounder for some dismissive “Oh, he just doesn’t know better” or “oh, he’s deeply in denial about his own sexuality.”

    I just don’t think that’s it.

    I mean, look at this instance. In order to come up with proof that you can’t get HIV from penis-in-vagina sex for all practical purposes, he had to go back to sources from 1988, which means he had to skip over and ignore almost thirty years of research and news that says otherwise.

    That’s not ignorance. That’s something malicious. That’s someone who seriously wants to advance the notion that sex with the wrong kind of people can kill you through a means that leaves his “right” kind of people vulnerable.

    How hard would it have been, any step along the way, to say “even though we all know you can not get HIV from heterosexual sex, you should still use a condom?”

    But he doesn’t even protect his own.

    That’s not ignorance. I don’t quite know what to call it without sounding hysterical, but it’s not ignorance or repression.

  6. You know what? I get really tired of the “Campfield is secretly gay” meme.

    Because it seems to equate homosexuality with the obvious mental problems he’s displaying. He’s a deeply cruel and deeply vain man. And every time someone says “he’s a closet case” or “he’s just covering for his own Gay” it comes off like he’s a troubled soul wrestling with issues.

    In reality, he’s the trouble. He’s the issue. And “gay” is not a funny punchline for someone you don’t like.

  7. I do want to talk about the math for a minute, though.

    ****DISCLAIMER: I THINK CAMPFIELD IS WRONGHEADED AMD BIGOTED*****

    But in the interest of intellectual honesty I have to make this point.

    You and Camp are working from two different sets of numbers .

    CAMP: He is looking at all the cases of HIV against all the instances of heterosexual intercourse. Statistically speaking, since most sex is heterosexual, the odds of contracting HIV _ARE_ very small. WHEN CALCULATED AGAINST THE FULL SAMPLE.

    The odds worsen a great deal when you start factoring in high risk groups. (IV drug users, hemophiliacs, multiple partners, unprotected sex, etc.).

    B: Your coming at the problem from a different direction. You are taking a sample with a 100% infection rate. That number is significantly smaller to begin with. So yes, 75% of women with HIV/AIDS got it from heterosexual intercourse. But that is -completely- different than saying that 75% of women who have heterosexual intercourse will get HIV/AIDS.

  8. ” … he had to skip over and ignore almost thirty years of research and news that says otherwise.

    That’s not ignorance. That’s something malicious.”

    i think you nailed it right there, Aunt B.

  9. Coble, I actually feel the same way about that. If we think people’s sexuality shouldn’t be any of Campfield’s business, his shouldn’t be ours.

  10. I am going to quibble with you on the stats, though, Kat – yes, heterosexual transmission is underrepresented compared to its frequency and population. However, Campfield’s statement that infection almost never happens through heterosexual sex is both completely wrong because it absolutely is one of the biggest risk factors for many, many people (and this is a growing category of infection), and is harmful to public health.

  11. Pingback: Sunday News Round-Up – Campfield and Floyd Give Me a Mad/Sad Edition « Women's Health News

  12. Campfield’s statement that infection almost never happens through heterosexual sex is both completely wrong because it absolutely is one of the biggest risk factors for many, many people (and this is a growing category of infection), and is harmful to public health.

    Oh, I agree about the risk inherent in heterosexual sex being greater than Campfield’s dismissive accounts claim. I also know that it’s a huge risk factor in many subgroups.

    But if one just looks at plain, overall numbers–all the heterosexual sex being had by all the peoples of the world–the statistical risk of falling prey to HIV _is_ low. Those are the numbers Campfield is clinging to and in my opinion it’s a mistake to not acknowledge the accuracy of those numbers. Truth is truth.

    On the same token, it needs to be made clear that it DOES happen and that women _do_ contract AIDS from heterosexual sex. Because people MUST know all the ways the disease is transmitted. And the vast majority of women who have contracted HIV did so through sex with an infected male partner.

    The problem is in driving the conversation because Campfield is clearly invested in promoting the canard that HIV is a ghettoized disease that affects only “undesirable” portions of society.

    I’m just very particular that we do emphasise the clear risk but not return to the days of creating a panic.

  13. Coble, I believe you’re either reading him too generously or he’s backed into what you’re saying since he talked to Tom Humphrey. Humphrey’s direct quote from Campfield is “The odds of men catching it from women are very, very, very low.”

    After watching years of his legislation, I don’t believe this is a mistake. He is NOT saying “once you take into account all of the occurrences of heterosexual sex, the amount of heterosexual sex that results in one partner passing HIV to another partner is very, very, very low, because proportionally, heterosexual HIV positive people make up a very small number of heterosexuals. In other words, straight people are probably not having sex with someone who has HIV, so they’re not going to get it.”

    He is plainly saying “the odds of men catching it from women are very, very, very low.” with the implication being that it’s possible women could have it and I believe that’s because he’s not thinking of women as people for whom being infected with HIV would suck. I believe that he believes in a model of sex in which is it something men do to women (or, if they are making wrong choices, let be done to them by other men). It is NOT something that women do to men.

    Therefore, as long as HIV is not something women can do to men (unless those women are African or drug users–and we could spend hours speculating about why he’s willing to acknowledge those two groups), it’s not a problem in the straight (male) community, thus adding more proof to his belief that heterosexuality (for men) is the only right sexuality.

    I think you’re arguing for a position in which Campfield has taken women as beings with agency for granted. I would argue that this is a mistake.

    He may be building off of the work of people who are saying what you’re giving him credit for saying, but I think his own words reveal he’s not actually in that group. He’s not talking about heterosexual couples. He’s talking only about the risks heterosexual men face.

    I’m thinking along the lines of some of the myths kind of addressed in this story–http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/18/whats-the-probability-of-hiv-transmission/–that it used to be thought that HIV infection in heterosexual couples was pretty much unidirectional. Men could give it to women, but women couldn’t give it to men.

    If he’s getting his “a guy fucked a monkey and gave the West AIDS” information from 1988, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he was also getting his “women can’t give it to men” information from that era as well.

  14. “I think you’re arguing for a position in which Campfield has taken women as beings with agency for granted. I would argue that this is a mistake.” – Yes, this, 100%. I also think this kind of misinformation about risk contributes to the situation we find ourselves in now, in which it’s estimated that 1/4 of people with HIV don’t know they have it – because, hey, if you’re only having PiV sex, it’s “virtually impossible” for you to get it, right?

  15. Yeah; I didn’t read the link and am just posting off the section here. I have zero doubt that Campfield is using any sort of accurate statistic and I’m not arguing in any way for his position. I’m just trying to clarify that 75% of women with HIV getting AIDS from penetrative vaginal sex is different than 75% of women having AIDS.

    Campfield has a vested interest in promoting the belief that America is this home of wonderful, upstanding normal people who are being robbed by, corrupted and infected by a pestilential minority.

  16. No, I think that’s an important point to make. As Dolphin pointed out, it’s important to strike the right note of “this is serious business” without veering into “we’re all going to die!”

    But I also absolutely agree with your second paragraph. Sadly for Campfield, once you start adding up all of the minorities he acts like are threatening to rob, corrupt, and infect the Normals, they’re not such a minority any more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s