Yeah, there’s always one loony with an HIV-infected syringe that makes EVERYONE look bad.
Um, I thought this thread was created in response to people saying using condoms alone is not totally safe, and that HIV was more easily transmitted by anal sex than vaginal. However, it was not intended to reinforce these ideas, but fight them.
No, Badtz, this thread was there to post some facts to refute some wild-ass assumptions and allegations out there. Regardless of your opinions, interpretations of the statistical data, or moral code, two things remain the same - everything involves some level of risk, and only you can decide what level you’re comfortable with.
Oh, wait, there are three - moralizing makes you look like an idiot, but I suppose you’re used to this by now.
Esprix
At the (women’s) magazine I work at, they did a story a few issues ago called “How to Get Him to Wear a Condom.” My (gay male) boss was surprised, saying that with him and people he knew, that was NOT a consideration - that it wasn’t something you “got” the other person to do, the guy used a condom or he knew where the door was. But from the tone of the article, including ways to get the guy to “totally forget to protest” about wearing a condom, I guess maybe that’s not de riguer amongst heterosexuals. Again, anecdotal, though.
I mean no offense at all to you slithy - I’m actually angry at the book you reference for giving out bad information.
- The bubonic plague is caused by a bacterium, Yersinia Pestis. It is treatable by antibiotics, although (i) treatment must come quickly, and (ii) drug-resistant strains are spreading.
General information on bubonic plague
Drug Resistance
I have no information about the black v. brown rat issue; however, the first link notes that the fleas which spread the bacterium can live on rodents other than the black rat, and, personally, I’d be surprised if they couldn’t dine on Norwegian rats. Plague-carrying fleas are still around, dining on rats and other rodents in India, much of SE Asia, and even the U.S. I don’t know the particular species of rat in India.
- There is no evidence that the virus that caused the influenza pandemic of 1918-19 mutated into a lethal form, then mutated again into a non-lethal form, because no one has a clue what virus caused the pandemic. Recently, there was a (failed) attempt to identify the bug by exhuming corpses of people who died of it and were interred in Arctic permafrost.
Sua
The Norway brown rat is a carrier of the plague.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**
Well, it is an awfully old book, but the bit about the brown rat Vs black rat was also in a book by Paul Theroux. After his “Polynesians eat spam because it tastes like people” nugget of misinformation, the fact should have been suspect (Hey - at lest I didn’t cite Eddie Murphy and claim that AIDS started when somebody had sex with a green monkey).
But your clarification strengthens my comparison of Bubonic plague with HIV. There’s no end in sight, and we have to somehow evolve into a species that puts on latex condoms to survive. I’m in full agreement with Esprix that proper condom use in itself will protect the individual, and that it’s both our best hope and the best fight we can make. But as for the human race as a group - I am extremely skeptical.
I repeat: this plague will only end when the last person who has caught it dies. My limited experience has covered two of the three causes: 1. Stupid Horny People: a co-worker who knew the risks but ran them; 2. Stupid Bureaucracy: a friend who died after an infected transfusion after a motorcycle crash. I’ll probably encounter someone who will die because of 3: Ignorance and Repression (but damned it it’ll be my kid.)I hereby flame all three of these, but I flame the 3rd the most, because it’s based on the threat that sexual exhilaration poses to religious ecstasy, that if we read and think and fuck for ourselves then our moral instructors will be out of a job. Sua easily shows me to be an ignoramus, but I’m not a willing sheep.
Now, now, Esprix, let’s not be too hasty. You forgot the word “excessive”.
There’s no reason why a gay man would have to “moralize” having sex with another man any more so than a straight man would have to “moralize” having sex with a woman.
I’d like to know when I brought morals into any of these conversations. I just disagreed with the statement that wearing a condom meant there were no consequences to having sex with lots of people, and stated that extreme promiscuity was dangerous. I never said it was wrong.
Thought this article might be timely to the discussion: HIV rate rises among San Francisco’s gay men, experts say
(Emphasis added)
Badz Maru: hear, hear.
Here’s some facts you “forgot” about
http://www.sacbee.com/news/calreport/calrep_story.cgi?story=N2001-01-24-1045-3.html
Uh, Pharmboy, that “fact” was just pointed out to everyone a post earlier…
All I take from that article is that a lot of people haven’t been as careful as they should be. So what?
It seems to me that the OP and its statistics seems to suggest that using condoms properly decreases the chances of contracting aids.
Heightened awareness of this issue among gay males has resulted in a decrease in the rate of new HIV infections in that class of individuals.
The active heterosexual community primarily concerned with birth control has not embraced the condom for HIV prevention and are experiencing a rise in the rate of new HIV infection.
The obvious conclusion is to take to heart a hard one lesson, and use condoms.
Well, that’s the point, SPOOFE - if everyone were really as careful as they could (and, evidently by Pharm and Batdz’s reckoning, should) be, nobody would be having any sex at all. After all, that’s the only way to 100% minimize the risk, right?
:rolleyes:
Esprix
Fathom’s SUEp Du Jour (who used to be MajorMD/Sue from El Paso over here) is a physician in the armed forces. She’s asked me to post the following link here:
Hope it adds something to the discussion. Carry on.
Look, don’t think I’m disputing the info in the link (either of them). I just think it’s a whole 'nother issue. The OP was dealing with “proper use of condoms”… the links in question deal with the notion of people slipping in terms of using proper protection.
And, yes, Esprix, you’re right, the only 100% safe way to avoid an STD is to not have sex (well, ignoring other, rarer instances of fluid transmission). However, there’s obviously an acceptable level of risk, a level which is different for everyone. Unless your a eunuch (like me) or a Christian (:D), you’re going to have a sex drive. Now, common sense would dictate that you shouldn’t stand around on a street corner with your trousers about your ankles, allowing any random passerby to stick it to you, but neither should you quiver in your chastity belt, in fear of the Dreaded STD Monster.
I just wanted to post since I know a little about this subject.
I did have sex with my former husband at least 8 times while he had AIDS.
His doctor said that this wasn’t an uncommon thing (the fact that I am negative and always will be).
No one should ever do this BTW< I’m just reporting that it did happen to me.
Condoms should always be worn (well, actually, they should be brand new), but the risk isn’t as horrible WITH condoms as some have suggested. They do a mighty fine job.
I don’t have a problem with people indulging in risky behavior, if they are aware of the risks, respect the risks, and acknowledge the risks. I’m a firm believer in a person’s right to risk their own life. I know the odds of catching HIV from a positive partner aren’t terribly high WITHOUT protection…female to male, something like 1 in 100. With odds like that, there have been times in my life where I would consider having unprotected sex with an HIV positive woman, and probably would with a rubber (which would reduce it to something more like 1 in 5000).
I never would have gotten into the argument with Esprix had he said something along the lines of ‘I know there’s a risk but it’s worth it’ when he was first accused of risky behavior. But he said if consenting partners practiced safe sex, there were NO consequences. I get sick of how things are always polarized these days - the attitude that something is either totally safe or dangerous, no middle ground.
He later acknowledged that there was a risk, but it was small enough that he felt comfortable. At that point, it stopped being an issue with me, though later he made some other inaccurate statements that made me poke my head back in.
Seriously, can’t you just shut the fuck up?
If anyone was of the “it’s either totally safe or totally unsafe” mindset, it seemed it was you, not me; after all, you were the one to open your mouth in the first place and graciously inform me of how uncomfortable you were with my sex life. Gee, thanks - how helpful of you. :rolleyes:
Maybe - just maybe - I might actually know what’s going on in my life better than you. :eek:
Esprix
There you go, putting words in my mouth again.
You’ve decided you don’t like me, fine. You’ve decided to misinterpret nearly everything I’ve said to reinforce your negative opinion of me, your problem, not mine. But I’m getting fucking sick of your false claims about what I have said. You’re crossing the line between intellectual dishonesty and slander.