Challenging Race-Based Stereotypes about Gay and Bisexual Men’s Sexual Behavior and Perceived Penis Size and Size Satisfaction

Racial prejudice and stereotyping in gay and bisexual communities may be important contextual factors that contribute to racial disparities in HIV. In an effort to challenge race-based stereotypes regarding gay and bisexual men’s sexuality, we sought to determine the extent to which race and ethnicity were associated with (1) racial homophily (i.e., same-race partnerships), (2) sexual behavior (e.g., number of partners, condomless anal sex (CAS), sexual position (top/versatile/bottom)), and (3) perceived penis size and size satisfaction. Data were taken from a survey of 1,009 gay and bisexual men recruited using a street-intercept method at gay, lesbian, and bisexual community events in NYC in 2006—15% Black, 61% White, 18% Latino, and 6% Asian/Pacific Islander (mean age: 35.7). There was strong evidence of racial homophily among men who were in relationships, particularly for White and Black men. Race and ethnicity was largely unassociated with multiple dimensions of sexual behavior (e.g., number of partners, CAS, sexual positioning). Although we observed some racial and ethnic differences in perceived penis size that were consistent with stereotypes, the magnitudes of the differences were insufficient to justify the stereotype. As well, there were no significant differences with regard to satisfaction with penis size or lying to others about penis size. The disproportionate HIV prevalence among Black and Latino men does not appear to be as a result of differences in sexual behavior (e.g., CAS, number of partners) and race-based sexual stereotypes were largely unsupported by empirical data

Maintaining success, reducing treatment burden, focusing on survivorship:highlights from the third European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer

<p>In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377-1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478-496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497-513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues.</p><p>The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, similar to 50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.</p>