But what about the fact that the largest rise in infections is among minorities? And the fact that the rate of gay mens’ infections are decreasing?
It’s amazing what you can do with numbers.
Esprix
You know, if I meet an albino, I don’t immediately get the urge to say “Hey, you should stay out of the sun, you know!” I figure the person in question has more experience with albinism than I do, and that their knowledge of albinism exceeds my own. I find something else to talk about.
If I ran into a guy named Wallace Cleaver, my first impulse would be to crack a joke referring to his namesake on Leave it to Beaver. But if I pause to reflect a moment before letting loose with a “Hey Wally, where’s the Beaver?”, then I’d realize, hopefully, that having had that name for a long time, he’s heard all the jokes I could possibly come up with. I’d choose another conversational tack.
It’s simple courtesy. Sure, AIDS is associated with gay people in many people’s minds, and the statistics are worrisome. But unless the topic at hand is AIDS, then the exhortations of random strangers on the topic are unlikely to be novel, or particularly welcome. Just think for a second, before asking a gay man if he’s thought about AIDS; it’s a life-threatening disease that he’s at risk for. We live in a culture where information about the disease is freely available, even ubiquitous. What are the chances that you’re going to be the first one to bring this to his attention?
Find something else to talk about; if you become friends, and have reason to be concerned, then privately ask about AIDS/HIV exposure, and whether your new friend is taking adequate precautions. But until you’re a friend, or you’re aksed for help, bringing the subject into a conversation that’s not directly about it is rude.
What other diseases would get the same treatment? My boyfriend is Navajo, and Native Americans have a very high rate of diabetes, and yet people don’t warn him about his diabetes risk all the time. Why not? Because it’s rude, presumptuous behavior.
You know what fucking scares me the most? When the topic comes up and I verify with my gay friends that they’re being safe, they’re all like, “Well, duh!” But when I’ve asked my straight friends (notably my female friends)? Oftentimes, they’re not! :eek:
Perhaps the idea of injecting a little HIV/AIDS awareness into every heterosexual thread isn’t such a bad idea after all… 
Esprix
I hate to see the terms “inject” and “HIV/AIDS” in the same sentence, Esprix! But great points, MrVisible.
Jill
Matt_mcl
That does not follow.
On the other hand, if someone were to link to a thread in which someone told a woman to not be a lawyer, and said that there were even worse examples, but provided only that example, it would be strange to conclude that there is a bias against women.
I have repeatedly stated that I am not defending it, so it is you that are ignorant. Your arguent seems to be “There are only two possible positions on any issue, and Ryan doesn’t agree with us, therefore obviously he agrees with those guys”.
I think that you should review what the word “explicitly” means. Hint: it does not mean “said something which I can construe as meaning this”. You should also compare the definitions for the words “about” and “involved”.
How so?
Polycarp:
I disagree.
I saw no reason within the OP to presume that it was exclusive.
Gobear
And just what word am I using that I don’t understand?
Did I ever imply that they were?
Reprise:
You do know that you’re already in the Pit, right?
Okay, TheRyan, I’m curious. You say that it’s wrong to assume that the AIDS warnings were tied to homosexuality, and that they more likely sprung with the casual sex aspect of the thread.
So prove it to us. Find a thread that starts with an Emotional question that is only tangentially related to casual sex, and is hijacked by AIDS warnings. Only have the OP be about heterosexual casual sex. Then your claim that it’s the casual sex itself that triggers the warnings would be warranted.
matt and gobear have already come up with examples to help their side, so why don’t you go find some that support yours.
I posted once in a thread asking about the number of sexual partners. My answer is considerably higher than most people - approaching triple digits.
It would be safe to assume that I’m in a high risk group. (Note: I’ve been tested, everything is clean, and I am now happily married and monogamous.)
Yet no one gave me the rude warnings scott received. I’m a straight female. I wonder if there’s any correlation? :rolleyes:
Won’t work, Jester - if he goes looking, he might not find them, and we all know that being wrong is to The Ryan as water is to The Wicked Witch of the West.
Esprix
I hit the triple digits a long time ago. (Not to brag or anything… read my new sig line and you’ll understand.)
I’ve been tested, everything is clean, but I’m not happily married or involved. Oh well.
Very astute observation.
Hey, I have a broken rib. Maybe I have AIDS. 
- s.e.
Jill, I was hoping for an answer to my question - are you posting similar factual info about HIV and AIDS in threads related to heterosexual sex? (Not being accusatory, just asking.)
Esprix
I don’t believe that I said that making that assumption was wrong, only that I would not make it. And I didn’t say that the warnings were more likely to have sprung from the casual sex aspect, only that it was a reasonable belief.
Please. You came into the thread and made an entirely new post, just to say that you, personally, wouldn’t have made that assumption? What, pre tell, does that add to the discussion? Why did you even bother?
You obviously have put a lot of time into this thread, and I’m a bit confused as to why you’re so dedicated to arguing about an assumption which you don’t think is wrong. Care to share?
If HIV/AIDS is in the title, as it is in this thread, sure. Someone earlier in this thread said that “promiscuous behavior” puts one at risk for getting HIV. This is true only if that promiscuous behavior is with at least one partner who is infected with HIV. The fact, sad but true, is that gay men in the US and Europe are more likely to end up having sex with an infected partner than straight people are. In some other parts of the world, straight people are as much or more at risk of encountering an infected partner. The late Jonathan Mann of the World Health Organisation once said that marriage was the biggest risk factor for HIV infection for women in Africa (where in some areas they outnumber men in cases of AIDS).
This doesn’t mean that straight people in the US and Europe don’t get HIV or that gay men should be discriminated against, feared or blamed for this epidemic, any more than Navajos should be blamed for Hantavirus. People (on all sides of the issue) love to put a spin on this kind of thing, which is why I avoided answering this earlier.
Women are more at risk for being victims of domestic violence than men are, so we receive more warnings and targeted campaigns about it than men do. I could go on and describe various diseases that straight people are more at risk for than are gay people - and specific risks lesbians face, even - but I’ll leave it at that for now. I do agree with the above posters who say that it is usually rude to bring up HIV every time a gay man talks about his love life. But in some cases, at least, it’s because the person with the misguided warning cares.
Jill
Can you clarify “misguided warning?” Because I’ve had more than enough warnings throughout my life, even before I was sexually active. No offense, but if any of these warnings were misguided, I’d like to know what they were and how I was mislead by them.
- s.e. (broken rib NOT caused by AIDS)
Jesus fucking christ on a pogo stick - much as I respect your viewpoints and your particular scientific discipline Jill, I cannot believe that you flaunt your “epidemiologist” status here in respect of HIV and don’t even post about the risks of the various Hep virii.
I’ve never, EVER, called a mod/admin on their qualifications before, but as someone who was there at the outset of HIV hitting Western nations I’m asking you here and now to reveal to us why you are some kind of “expert” in this field.
I’m sorry, hon, I love your posts and 9 times out of 10 I will support them absolutely.
But you simply do not get to claim some kind of “expert” status here without referring to peer reviewed studies.
[Can you clarify “misguided warning?”]]
I meant people who warn you about HIV when you aren’t asking for advice about this.
Reprise, hon, I could talk about all kind of diseases and how they are spread, as I suggested in my earlier post. If you want peer-reviewed studies, go to www.cdc.gov and or http//hivinsite.ucsf.edu and go to town. I think they’ll back me up.
I’ve been here since HIV first hit the western world too, Reprise, and have lost a lot of folks to it.
It is! I assume here that you’re not suggesting these are mutually exclusive categories…
(and thanks, Esp. for giving me the EXPERT HIV/AIDS epidemiologist label… now I’m getting blamed for “flaunting” it!)
ps - http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?page=li-06-06
Here’s an interesting article that addresses some of th issues (relevant to the subject of this thread) re. stigma about gay men and HIV/AIDS. I’m posting this to support the OP’s rant:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/abs99_sp.pdf
[[Download AIDS stigma and sexual prejudice, a preprint of a paper published in the American Behavioral Scientist (1999, volume 42, #7). An analysis of national survey data revealed that: (1) most American adults still associate AIDS mainly with homosexuality or bisexuality, and this association is correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice (antigay attitudes); (2) all people who contract AIDS sexually are assigned blame for their infection, but such blame is greater for a gay or bisexual man than for a heterosexual man or woman; (3) a sizable minority of the public equates all male-male sexual behavior with AIDS, even sex between two uninfected men; and (4) misconceptions about HIV transmission are correlated with sexual prejudice.
(Requires Adobe Acrobat reader, version 5)
It adds the fact that I wouldn’t make that assumption. What, should I only post in threads in which I agree with the OP?
The original post didn’t take much effort. Most of the effort has been spent responding to people apparently determined to misinterpret me.
No, Ryan, it added nothing. All you did was say that you wouldn’t have offered the assumption. You’ve given no evidence to back up why you wouldn’t make the assumption. If you want to add something to the debate, then go and find a thread where a heterosexual OP touching tangentially on casual sex was hijacked. Put up or shut up, friend.
One of my wife’s favorite quotes on the use of statistics is “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure”! 
In short, one can come up with an honest statistic to bear out any argument one cares to make, by judicious tampering with the definitions. (E.g., the “ex-gay” ministries have a 66% success rate – which literally means that one poll discovered that 66% of those who decided to go into such a program and completed it “successfully” – whatever that term means – have not since had sexual relations with somebody of the same sex.)