MSM | Campus Safe Words

TERM: MSM
RISK LEVEL: High

Definition

“MSM” stands for “men who have sex with men,” a term used primarily in public health and academic research to describe sexual behavior without assigning a specific sexual identity (e.g., gay or bisexual). It is intended to capture behavior-based risk factors, particularly in studies related to HIV/AIDS, STI transmission, and sexual health services.

Why It’s Risky

Although designed to be behaviorally precise and identity-neutral, the term “MSM” may be perceived as clinical, dehumanizing, or ideologically loaded, especially when used outside narrow research contexts. In conservative policy environments, its appearance in university programming or public materials can trigger criticism for promoting sexually explicit content, particularly if aimed at students. Critics may view it as part of a broader pattern of institutional alignment with sexual advocacy or LGBTQ+ activism.

The term is especially vulnerable in states that have enacted or proposed restrictions on the discussion of sexuality and gender identity in public education, such as Florida’s HB 1557 or Oklahoma’s executive orders limiting DEI programming. Using “MSM” in campus wellness programming, inclusive language guides, or student training materials can be interpreted as promoting a specific moral or ideological agenda, thereby inviting reputational or legal risk.

Common Critiques

One conservative critique of “MSM” is that it introduces sexually explicit framing into public-facing educational or wellness materials, particularly those accessible to minors or young adults. Critics argue that colleges should not be in the business of categorizing students based on intimate behavior or tailoring services around sexual practices. This concern is heightened in religiously affiliated institutions and states where legislation seeks to preserve traditional moral standards in education.

Another critique is semantic: opponents argue that “MSM” flattens complex identities into sterile, behavior-based categories that may ignore cultural, religious, or moral perspectives. While the term is intended to depoliticize health discussions, it can be perceived as part of an ideological shift that prioritizes sexual identity politics in institutional discourse.

From a legislative standpoint, language such as “MSM” may be flagged as part of content promoting “gender ideology” or “comprehensive sexuality education,” both of which are being restricted in some Republican-led states. It can also raise concerns among donors or trustees who view such terms as outside the academic mission of a publicly funded institution.

Acceptable Alternatives

1. Men at higher risk for STI transmission (when medically appropriate)

2. Patients reporting male-male sexual activity (in clinical contexts)

3. Individuals engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors (when gender-neutral framing is preferred)

4. Behavioral risk groups (defined case by case)

5. Use plain medical language appropriate to the audience

When It’s Still Appropriate

“MSM” remains appropriate in peer-reviewed public health research, epidemiological data, and federally funded grant reporting that adheres to CDC, NIH, or WHO terminology. It is also acceptable in academic writing within medicine, public health, or sexuality studies, provided the usage is confined to technical contexts. The term should not appear in general campus communications, wellness brochures, or student programming without strong justification.

Notes:

Avoid using “MSM” in student-facing materials or diversity-related content unless required by federal or clinical guidelines. Where possible, substitute plain language that describes health behaviors without evoking identity-based or sexually explicit terminology. Always consider audience sensitivity and local legal restrictions before including terms related to sexual behavior.