I did not state that minorities were inferior.
What I did was ask the question.
My subject should have been " How stupid do you have to be to get AIDS?"
Then we could have explored the avenues a “smart person” would take to get it.
my short list is:
now I get other options such as “poverty, youth, handicap,…”. I haven’t been persuaded .
It’s not that you asked question, it’s way you asked it. Nobody else had linked ignorance of AIDS with inherent lack of intelligence, yet you seemed to assume we had.
And that would have been a loaded question, probably locked by the mods rather quickly. How stupid do you have to be to get influenza or pneumonia? How stupid do you have to be to get lung cancer?
Personally I would place all of these under the stupidity and/or ignorance heading. Obviously with #4 the stupidity lies more with the cheating partner, but it’s stupidity nonetheless for choosing him or her. Of course, to clarify, I come from the perspective that we all do stupid things from time to time, that’s why we have accidents. I don’t think getting infected with anything is the direct result of making smart decisions 100% of the time; maybe you made one dumb decision out of 10,000, and that was enough. Getting infected with a disease doesn’t necessarily define your level of intelligence either way. Where exactly are you going with this?
You asked, we answered with reasonable explanations that try to fit the evidence. Maybe if you’re lucky someone from the CDC will show up. Perhaps in the meantime you would tell us what you believe if you’re not persuaded?
I asked and received possible answers and came to the conclusion that you have to be pretty stupid to behave in a manner that puts you at risk of such a condition.
The ignorance,de-sensitized,unaware,denial arguments dont hold water.
Do you feel the same way about cigarette smokers? How about people who eat lots of red meat? People who don’t get enough exercise?
Well, I suppose that would make many people “stupid” then. Take, for instance, sex. Anytime you engage in sexual intercourse, you risk getting pregnant/impregnating someone or catching something. No form of “safe sex” is 100% safe, ever. There’s always risk involved. To believe otherwise is to fall into the ignorance/denial trap you so condemn, IMO.
And as mrblue92, all it takes is one momentary lapse of good judgement, one mistake, and you can become infected. Who can honestly claim that they have, never once in their life, made an error in judgement?
You asked who in the US is getting AIDS nowadays, and answers have been provided.
“How stupid do you to be to get AIDS?” You don’t have to be stupid at all.
Please re-read my previous post, especially…
Do I need to elaborate?
Getting HIV generally requires multiple exposures. While cases of it have been documented from single sexual encounters, the vast majority of those who picked it up via intercourse or other such contact engaged in unsafe sexual practices repeatedly over months, and even years.
In my opinion, this does not represent stupidity, as the definition is commonly used, but the phenomenon of denial, which can and does affect people of all intellectual abilities.
Qadgop, MD
well gee, justin…
pick your cliche: " familiarity breeds…"
" those who forget history..."
there are many stupid things we do, and have done from
the beginning of time.
education only works for those who want to be educated.
In Australia, the original AIDS education packages were withdrawn from TV because they were scaring people!
People who are not at risk don’t like to be reminded that there are “others” out there.
Those at risk are…well…at risk.
This is not a question with quick, easy answers. Why do people smoke, live sedentary lives, eat fatty foods? Knowledge about positive health behavior is only one small part of what motivates you to live a healthy lifestyle. And sexual behavior is probably one of the hardest behaviors to change or influence. The vast majority of people who contract HIV nowadays know how the disease is spread. We all make decisions individually about the costs and benefits of the risks we take, and we are all in denial to some degree. None of us lives a life without any risks or even without any stupidity. Many of the people I know who are living with HIV are highly intelligent, creative, generous and contributing people (and of course some are total dipsticks). If you want to know more about the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in the US and the world, go to http://www.cdc.gov and http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu
[[Getting HIV generally requires multiple exposures. While cases of it have been documented from single sexual encounters, the vast majority of those who picked it up via intercourse or other such contact engaged in unsafe sexual practices repeatedly over months, and even years.]]
Qadgop the Mercotan
I know what you’re saying here, but it might be misread. The chance of acquiring HIV from a single exposure (especially sexually)is rare (see Cecil’s column on this topic). So if you are exposed many times, your chances of contracting it go up. It is not really dose related, though… it is acquired from a single exposure. - Jill
not very, if the condom breaks.
no, before you ask, i don’t have a cite for this.
but i had a “fun” lecture on STDs about a year ago (i love med school) and as well as the free vodka afterwards, i did come away with an interesting piece of information.
if you have sex once a week, every week using condoms, and if you use them properly, you still put yourself at risk 6-7 times a year.
if you don’t use them properly, but still use them, it’s 35 or 36 times a year.
if you don’t use them at all then it’s 52 times a year.obviously.
it’s not enough to use protection. you have to use it right.
remember, it’s a hell of a lot easier to get an STD than it is to get pregnant.
[[if you have sex once a week, every week using condoms, and if you use them properly, you still put yourself at risk 6-7 times a year.
if you don’t use them properly, but still use them, it’s 35 or 36 times a year.
if you don’t use them at all then it’s 52 times a year.obviously.]]
But… BUT only if your sex partner is infected. That is a very important variable here.
A lot of young, newly sexually active people today actually don’t remember a time without AIDS. Therefore they don’t have the sense of fear that people who remember the “AIDS explosion” of the early and mid 1980’s do - for them, It’s always been around, and it’s just a part of life.
I’m not aware of other groups, but living in an almost all Hispanic community, I think there is a stronger stigma attached to being gay, or being an addict (despite whats portrayed sometimes in movies), or having a STD, so a lot of people cover the behaviors up or keep diseases it to themselves. When I got tested for HIV (I was negative) the clinician there told me she didn’t test many people who weren’t already complaining of the symptoms - young people wondering why they have a thrush infected mouth, night sweats, general ill feelings and so on. Up until the time of testing they basically live in denial that they have the virus. By the time they get help, its already late.
Also many poor people and ethnic minorities have a mistrust of health care, doctors and nurses are seen as cold, uncaring, and disinterested in anything other than the bill.
OK, to clarify…by Deaf I meant members of the Deaf community, people who feel that their hearing impairment is a huge part of who they are, and more to the point, people who live in a different culture and communicate using a different language. I don’t think it’s calling a Deaf person stupid to say that they may not understand a bad translation of “HIV positive,” any more than it’s calling an American stupid when they make the wrong assumption about what “rubbers” are in some other English-speaking countries. (I’m thinking of rain boots.)
Deaf people are not stupid for not understanding English medical jargon, any more than French people are stupid for not understanding it. I did mean to say that there is a communication barrier, because there is.
I’m sure more people than just the Deaf community are missing out on what lots of us apparently consider “crystal clear” communication. Some of that is folks choosing to ignore it because they plan to be a virgin when they marry (nevermind the logical fallacy there). Some of it is the educators themselves being unwilling to learn and teach with honesty. I’ve seen a state-certified HIV tester/counselor/educator spout such idiotic nonsense as “you should always use a condom for oral sex,” and when I asked “What about on a woman?” she said “Lesbians don’t get HIV.”
I’d say it’s a pretty equal mix of misinformation, badly worded correct information, confusing or unclear presentations, embarrassment, shame, and the fact that most folks who don’t make a special effort get maybe one or two hours of education in this stuff during their whole adolescence, months or years before they’ll ever use it. Imagine taking drivers’ ed when you’re 10, what would you remember when you were 16?
Corr
quote:[How stupid do you have to be to get influenza or pneumonia? How stupid do you have to be to get lung cancer?]
quote:[
Do you feel the same way about cigarette smokers? How about people who eat lots of red meat? People who don’t get enough exercise?]
Do you compare getting AIDS to influenza? pneumonia? common cold? lung cancer? heart disease? obesity?
(I would agree that smokers are a different breed. they smoke as much as they can and then they bitch when they get cancer)
It only takes a single time to get it! you dont catch it like a cold. you have to actively pursue it. its not just a regrettable accident or a slip in judgement. Its the result of something you choose to do in complete awareness of the risk. I know there are exceptions but thats the way most people catch it. So what kind of person makes that choice?
If a 13 year old girl in some backwoods hole gets pregnant then you say she was ignorant of the facts of life. But when a 16 year old gets pregnant then she is just … what? stupid, retarded, …? If her IQ was less than 80 then you would say she was retarded but what would you say if it was over 80? I would use the word Stupid. Maybe there is a better word.
No one has to get AIDS. They have to choose to get it or try to get it. I know there are exceptions (drug addicts,…). But some of you act like its just a chance you take when living. Well I say it is not a chance at all for anyone who doesnt want to get it.
wake up!
One thing that no one’s mentioned is that some people just don’t care if they get AIDS. I’ve had many friends who’ve had this attitude. I’ve been to bars with them and seen them pick up women. The next day, we hear the stories. I always ask whether protection was used. Most answers are similar to this:
“She tried to get me to use a condom, but I didn’t.”
It really seems that a condom would only be used by these guys if the girl refuses sex without one. The alarming thing is that most of the time, the girl is OK with it.
I always ask whether they fear AIDS. My friends don’t. And these are all highly educated people. They simply don’t give a f***. To them, if it happens it happens.
In fact of my 10-12 close friends, only I and 1 other guy ALWAYS use a condom for intercourse. The others generally have the attitude that I described.
Scary, huh?
justinh, I’m not sure why you posted to this forum instead of GD - you don’t seem to be particularly interested in a genuine answer to your question. However, on the assumption that somebody else might see this thread with a willingness to consider a more complex history, I include some thoughts:
As the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and numerous other sources have noted, self-reported unprotected anal intercourse among gay men has been on the increase over the past several years. This increase seems to be cutting across all demographic groups, although probably for different reasons:
a. Some older gay men - i.e., those of us who were out when AIDS first landed on the scene 20 years ago - seem to be succumbing to a kind of fatigue. No one (but no one) predicted 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, that we’d still be grappling with this disease now. The assumption was that by this point either we’d have cured it or, more likely, come up with an effective vaccine. (I was sixteen in the spring of 1985, when then-HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler officially announced the discovery of the HIV virus and the availability of a test for it. She predicted that within two years there would be a vaccine - a predication that even my 16-year-old brain suspected was far-fetched, based on what researchers already knew about HIV’s capacity for mutation.) The cumulative effect of a couple of decades of fear has, in some men, produced active relief when they test positive, for the simple reason that they no longer have to worry about seroconverting - it’s already happened.
Public health officials indulged in an orgy of self-congratulation in the later 1980s, when the rate of new exposures plummeted among gay men. It's increasingly clear that that outcome, welcome as it may have been, resulted less from any well-advertised "message" and more from men watching their friends die. Thanks to combination therapies, a lot fewer men are having that experience. Indeed, although I've been out since late 1983, I have yet to lose anyone even among my more distant acquaintances.
b. African-American gay men have always had a disproportionately high rate of infection, and among younger black gay men the rate in some locations is simply astronomical. Black gay men are often caught in a terrible psychological bind: the gay male community is perceived as overwhelmingly white and affluent, partly because it’s white, affluent men who are most able to structure their lives to make being out possible. Financial independence means that an affluent guy can afford - literally - to alienate his family for a while and wait for them to come around. For poorer people, that’s a step that can be far too costly. The gay community also has its own rather ugly history of racial stereotyping (depicting black men as mindless Sexual Studs), and, in the 70s and early 80s, explicit discrimination in some bars and clubs.
In addition, the African American community on the whole (speaking in broad, general terms and acknowledging lots of exceptions) is pretty intensely religious, with widespread condemnation of homosexuality in general and gay men in particular. In some cases, homosexuality is seen as a betrayal, or (perhaps worse) as a "white thing." Black gay men have reported (both in surveys and, anecdotally, to me personally) that tolerance is certainly possible, but it's usually conditioned on not advertising your difference. Consequently, lots of black men will have sex with men "on the down low," meaning affairs with men while maintaining a public facade of a girlfriend or wife. There's some indication that for many of these men the act of using a condom requires an (impossible) acknowledgment of their sexuality. Of course, these men are equally unlikely to use condoms with their wives or girlfriends, resulting in an additional round of potential transmission.
c. Pharmaceuticals manufacturers have tended to exaggerate the efficacy of HIV therapies by depicting almost pornographically well-muscled men “moving on with their lives.” No mention of the diarrhea that may take an hour every morning to overcome, or the lipodystrophy that results in sunken cheeks and the infamous fatty-tissue “crix hump” growing on the shoulders(names for Crixivan, a new-generation drug that is perhaps the greatest offender in its young-studs-mountain-climbing advertisements), or debilitating anemia, or the simple possibility that the drugs won’t work in a given individual - as happens, eventually, for many.
d. Young people are young people - without the reminders of death, they will tend to assume that it can’t happen to them. Nothing is new about that.
e. People want to fall in love, and falling in love means falling to the moment and not worrying. It’s denial of the most human kind.
f. Drug and alcohol abuse are major contributors. One of the unfortunate inheritances gay men have is a tradition of bars and dance clubs as our primary social spaces - a relic of a time when they were our only social spaces. Of course that means additional opportunity for alcohol problems and, as has become more prominent lately, for use of party drugs like crystal meth, ketamine, GHB and ecstasy. The first three in particular can completely cloud judgment.
Poorer people are much less likely to receive prompt HIV treatment, which means that they’re likely to be much more infectious for much longer periods of time. Although it’s true that infection requires only a single exposure, there are indications that the likelihood of infection in an exposure depends on the amount of virus transmitted. People who have untreated infections and high virus counts are thus more likely to transmit the disease than those who are taking combination therapies successfully. In communities with existing high rates of infection, these factors ensure that it will be much harder to bring the disease under control.
In short, we’re running up against an awful lot of very deep-seated obstacles, and simply chalking continuing infection up to stupidity, or even ignorance, is completely inadequate.
Are you saying that if you choose not to wear a condom then you are choosing to get AIDS? If you equate taking a risk, big or small, with choosing to reap all the possible consequences of the risk, then you’re right. I was going to argue your point because I don’t consider myself stupid, yet I don’t always wear a condom. However after thinking about it, I realize that when it comes to sex, sometimes I am pretty stupid. I always wear a seatbelt when I drive, I always wear a helmet when I mountain bike. I don’t know why I don’t always wear a condom. I think I’d rather risk contracting AIDS then live my entire life never having condomless sex. The precaution I take is that I only forgo the condom in a monogamous relationship, although I have to admit it’s not always prefaced by an AIDS test. And since condoms aren’t a 100% guarantee against AIDS, I guess then your feeling is that choosing to have sex is the same as choosing to get AIDS. I think that’s a bit of a stretch.
Another important factor is that in some communities the message just isn’t getting spread. Poor, rural communities often don’t get information spread effectively-- so in some cases, teenagers and young adults really might not be aware of the risk. You don’t have to be stupid: you have to be unlucky, or uninformed, or unable to stand up for yourself and insist on condoms.
As hard as it is to believe, there are people in America who don’t get important public health information for a variety of reasons. Trying to spark debates about intelligence and race also proves that some Americans didn’t get the memo on blatant, groundless, unprovable racism being a bad idea on the SDMB.
While I agree with most of your post, I have to disagree with the last sentence. It appears I need to clarify my semantics.
What I call “stupidity” could in other terms be called “bad decision making” or “poor risk management”. In the aforementioned cigarette/lung cancer analogy, it’s stupid to smoke because of the obvious health risks involved. That doesn’t mean I think the person is stupid; rather, I consider it a stupid decision. I can certainly understand why someone would take that particular risk, and it’s their decision to make, but IMHO it’s a bad call. In the same light, it only takes one stupid decision (albeit a tiny one, and maybe not even your own) to catch a cold. Similarly, unprotected sex with partners at risk for HIV is a stupid decision–more stupid than kissing a relative with a slight fever, but less stupid than jumping off the Empire State Building.
A spectrum of stupidity, if you will. 