PubMed · 11366047
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1998-12-25. Discrimination alleged.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11366047/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Increasingly, studies show that characteristics of the urban environment influence a wide variety of health behaviors and disease outcomes, yet few studies have focused on the sexual risk behaviors of men who have sex with men (MSM). This focus is important as many gay men reside in or move to urban areas, and sexual risk behaviors and associated outcomes have increased among some urban MSM in recent years. As interventions aimed at changing individual-level risk behaviors have shown mainly short-term effects, consideration of broader environmental influences is needed. Previous efforts to assess the influence of environmental characteristics on sexual behaviors and related health outcomes among the general population have generally applied three theories as explanatory models: physical disorder, social disorganization and social norms theories. In these models, the intervening mechanisms specified to link environmental characteristics to individual-level outcomes include stress, collective efficacy, and social influence processes, respectively. Whether these models can be empirically supported in generating inferences about the sexual behavior of urban MSM is underdeveloped. Conceptualizing sexual risk among MSM to include social and physical environmental characteristics provides a basis for generating novel and holistic disease prevention and health promotion interventions.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
A symptomatic representation, from a Marxist critical vantage point, of three prototypical recent U.S. and U.K. films of young gay romance-Beautiful Thing, Get Real, and Edge of Seventeen-shows these films (as well as the larger, insurgent cinematic subgenre of which they serve as particularly exemplary instances) do significant ideological work, contrary to what might appear to be the case from a superficial (and uncritical) reading that dismisses them as pure escapism. These films confront contradictions central to contemporary U.S. and U.K. gay politics and culture-contradictions involving the unity and struggle of tendencies toward gay assimilation versus gay separation, gay normalization versus gay differentiation, and gay integration versus gay dissidence. While these films do not provide formal resolutions to these real social contradictions as much as they engage in processes of formal dissolution and irresolution (i.e., suspension) of these contradictions, they cannot fully elide the existence of these contradictions because to do so would effectively undermine the empathetic appeal of the romantic tales they tell. We can observe this ideological tension most clearly by examining (1) the fraught ways in which the films represent their protagonists' struggle to substitute individual acquisition of a seemingly secure private place for engagement in social struggle to extend collective control over public space, as well as (2) the abstractly utopian manner in which these films celebrate the power of love.