I’m only going to post once to this thread, but I’d like to add my voice to those who are getting mighty fed up with people introducing the subject of HIV/AIDS into threads posted by gay men when it isn’t relevant to the thread topic.
It’s already been pointed out that there are more heterosexual couples out there having anal sex on an average night than there are gay men.
It’s already been pointed out that there are other sexually transmissible diseases out there and that the infection rates for some of them are again beginning to climb.
Yes, IMHO, we do need a new rule along the lines of Godwin’s or Gaudere’s which relates to the irrelevant introduction of HIV/AIDS in threads posted by gay men.
We also need a corollary which can be invoked when people fail to make similar “comments” in threads posted by heterosexuals, or fail to include other sexually transmissible diseases in their “concerns”.
It’s utterly ironic that we can now manage HIV with a cocktail of drugs - if only it was so easy to manage the bigotry and homophobia which still surrounds it.
If you say “I’m gay, and I engage in casual sex” and someone says “You should be concerned about AIDS”, it’s disingenious to say that people are treating gay and AIDS as synomynous. Are people making a stronger connection between gay casual sex and AIDS than is warranted? Perhaps. Are they making a stronger connection between homosexuality and AIDS than is warranted? Absolutely not. There was absolutely no immplication in that thread that homosexuality, in and of itself, is connected to AIDS.
matt_mcl
I have exhibited no ignorance of that.
I would ask you what makes you think I believe that, but considering the pattern, you’ll probably just make up even more about me.
By now it should be obvious that The Ryan is only arguing to hear his own voice, shrilly maintaining whatever his half-assed ill-considered position is on whatever issue strikes his fancy by unleashing a meaningless torrent of insane, surrealistic misinterpretations.
Given time enough, he will convince himself that red is blue, the sun comes up in the west, demand and supply are unrelated, and that the universe revolves around the flat earth. Specifically, it revolves around him. And nothing that anyone says can sway him from his position in his own internal heavens.
He has no idea how to debate, or even what human discourse is for. No interest in learning, no inclination to change any position, no matter how absurd. He’s the only human I know who could fail a Turing test.
I’ve had more meaningful conversations with my house plants.
The Ryan, can we henceforth expect you to pop up in every thread in which a heterosexual poster talks about non-monogamous, uncommitted, sex and warn them about the dangers not only of HIV but of every other disease which can be spread by sexual contact (including those which can be spread my non-penetrative contact)?
You claim that your concern is about HIV/AIDS and that you are not homophobic.
I’m sure that the gay community now feels very special. You’re concerned about their sexual health, whilst ignorant heterosexuals who practise risk-taking behaviours must fend for themselves.
I didn’t say my concern is HIV/AIDS. Of course, you’ll probably find a way to twist this post into something that sounds bad, too, won’t you?
“What? You don’t care about HIV/AIDS?”
I think it’s pretty clear that your concern is just to attack me, and not to actually add anything to the discussion.
Certainly, considering that such warnings for heterosexuals who discuss such behaviour never receive such warnings.
I’ll say what’s been said - KayKay showed up, started screaming constantly about her sex life, and was met with a furious response that did not mention AIDS anywhere near as often - not ever, to my recollection - as I’ve had it brought up to me when I’m discussing my sex life in a civilized fashion.
If a person went around telling women, and only women, that they shouldn’t become lawyers, and someone accused them of sexism, it would be a little disingenuous (that’s how it’s spelled) for them to suddenly claim that their beef was with the legal profession and not with women.
By defending this behaviour, you have precisely exhibited ignorance of that.
I don’t know why I’m even bothering, since you seem to have no long- or short-term memory. Let me spell it out for you.
Thing one:
You obviously believe this, considering that you stated it explicitly. You said, referring to scott evil’s thread:
As has been explained to you in great length, he referred to his thread about EMOTIONS, his EMOTIONAL life, asking for advice on what he should do to resolve his EMOTIONAL issues with some people he has EMOTIONS for.
He “tangentially touched on gay sexuality,” but the topic of his OP was about EMOTIONS. He did not ask for advice about sex, but about EMOTIONS. And yet four people still thought it was appropriate to hijack this thread into a safe-sex lecture, in a way I’ve scarcely seen anyone do for heterosexuals under any circumstances, let alone in a discussion about EMOTIONS.
This demonstrates ignorance of the fact that a thread asking about one’s emotional life is about their emotional life, not about sex, which is what I accused you of.
Thing two:
You obviously believe that it is defensible to bring up AIDS in threads about gay romance or colds. You say:
In these quotations, you defend the hijacking of both threads. Since you defend this behaviour, you must find it defensible, which is what I accused you of.
While I do not want to get into another trainwreck, I would have to observe that in the circumstances surrounding the incident that gave rise to this thread, “casual sex” was neither mentioned nor implied. Sex between three people (presumably in sets of two) and apparently kept exclusively among that group does not equal casual or promiscuous sex (unless, of course, they were doing it casually, invoking a different meaning).
Since this was the case, and stated as such, and the question was regarding emotional reactions, gobear’s rant that the intrusion of the HIV/AIDS issue into the thread was unfair, and in his experience a commonplace where people do tend to equate AIDS with being gay, not with being promiscuous and unsafe in one’s sexuality or needle use, seems to me entirely validated.
Don’t use words you don’t understand, The Ryan. Colds are caused by rhinoviruses, and are in no way symptomatic of general immune deficiency. Any healthy person, of any sexual orientation, can be knocked out for a few days by a cold virus.
The hallmark of actual AIDS is the presence of an infection by a common germ that a healthy person would shrug off, like Pneumocystis carinii or Candida albicans, a nasty little oral yeast infection.
Other immune deficiency symptoms would include night sweats, fevers, shingles, sudden weight loss, and persistent diarrhea. Just being sick is not an indicator of HIV infection. I can just imagine your reaction to your kids having the measles: “He has red spots on his face–AIDS!”; or mumps: “His jaw is swollen–AIDS!”
This message board is about eradicating ignorance, The Ryan, not parading it. Time to educate yourself about the causes and sympotms of HIV, so you can stop writing foolish posts.
Having come down with a slight case of devil’s advocacy, I feel that I must point out that over 50% of new AIDS cases from last year were contracted by homosexual men. Due to the large demographic disproportion in AIDS infection, it is understandable that members of this group would be warned of the health risks more often than other groups. They are, in a sense, the front lines of the epidemic. However, white tigress coming in and screaming “ever think about aids!!!” was a little out of the blue.
That said, I think that all homosexual men should also worry about tetanus. If the blood stream of a homosexual man is exposed to debris from rusted metals (such as steping on a nail), his blood stream may become infected with the bacterial spores that cause this dangerous disease. All homosexual men should make sure they are up to date on their vaccinations.
That’s just not true. Even according to your cite, the 50% number is based on a very specific demographic, as it excludes persons outside a specific age group and all females. The numbers were also for HIV, not AIDS.
Yep, that was just sloppy on my part. I think a second cite will help to clear the statistical confusion up. As it turns out, the number is 42% of all new HIV infections within the US occur in gay males (or “men who have sex with men (MSM)” as the web sites put it. )
So yes, I was a bit sloppy, but my point about demographic disproportion of infection corresponding to demographic disproportion in warning people about the disease still holds.
Mind you, I think the AIDS comments came out of no where in Scott Evil’s thread, but I think gay men should take these warnings (as long as they are offered politely) with a shrug instead of taking umbrage to the fact that heterosexuals aren’t warned as much. Gay males are the demographic that has by far the highest HIV infection rate, so it is not suprising that the highest concern is centered around this group.
Beeb, if you are doing traditional demographics by age, sex, and race, and adding in sexual orientation, no doubt. But the demographic group with the highest infection rate is persons of whatever sex or sexual orientation who practice promiscuous sex without taking anti-infection precautions. It’s quite true that a disproportionate group of these are gay males.
But I suspect that “Asian gay males aged 70+ with a single partner” are quite low on that demographic table, and “black gay males 18-25 with multiple partners” are quite high, for reasons having nothing to do with their race or ethnicity.
Call a spade a spade – unprotected promiscuity, not the category of person with whom one is unprotectedly promiscuous, is what spreads the disease.
I didn’t say my concern is HIV/AIDS. Of course, you’ll probably find a way to twist this post into something that sounds bad, too, won’t you?
