Is there a "conspiracy" of silence about AIDS transmission? Are all of us part of this "conspiracy"?

[Jokodo]

Nope. Not Condoms.

We need to require STD testing, and have an online database that is easily accessible for sexually active individuals.

Require people report sexual partners, so we can track the spread of the disease. Give those who knowingly spread disease chemical castrations, 2nd offense- cut off the nerves to various erogenous zones.

Really?

 

[The Paul]

Spontaneous generation has been out of favor for some time.

The friction resulting from anal sex will not produce HIV particles.

Let me suggest you pay attention to the data from the CDC :

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/transmission.html

Yes. In fact, having anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or spreading HIV.
HIV can be found in the blood, semen (cum), preseminal fluid (pre-cum), or rectal fluid of a person infected with the virus. The bottom is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow HIV to enter the body during anal sex, but the top is also at risk because HIV can enter through the opening of the penis or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis. See the Prevention Q&As for more information.

Classically, when the structure of one's response is "Oh yeah, well <link>" one uses a link that refutes the quoted text.

 

[Kharakov]

Nope. Not Condoms.

We need to require STD testing, and have an online database that is easily accessible for sexually active individuals.

Require people report sexual partners, so we can track the spread of the disease. Give those who knowingly spread disease chemical castrations, 2nd offense- cut off the nerves to various erogenous zones.

Really?

Really what? Cut off the gangrene, or have the whole body rot. Pretty simple. Not that we have to kill those with communicable diseases, we just have to put a UV tattoo (with positives and negatives) on a certain location of each individual, along with an ID #, so that the info can be confirmed online, and require people to put in the ID# of themselves and their partner.

Might fuck up some people's lying ways, but the only people who will have a problem with this are those who are willing to lie to their partner and risk their partner's health and life- and guess what: one more thing to stop you from being a reckless asshole.

It's a pretty clear delineation of good and bad: someone who is not willing to go along with this is evil: they are willing to fuck up the lives of their significant other(s) for the sake of hiding what they are doing. You'll get those who say "well, I'll only fuck those who aren't infected, so I don't need to report my partners", but guess what?

You've got a pretty clear case of "3 months non detection", so you have to track all partners to stop AIDS.

Simplicity itself. And of course, you'll have those who have diseases, or think they have diseases, or who like to cheat on their partners: these are the ones who will be most vehement about this never working. They will fight against this until the bitter end- which exposes them exactly as what they are.

 

[Toni]

Really?

Really what? Cut off the gangrene, or have the whole body rot. Pretty simple. Not that we have to kill those with communicable diseases, we just have to put a UV tattoo (with positives and negatives) on a certain location of each individual, along with an ID #, so that the info can be confirmed online, and require people to put in the ID# of themselves and their partner.

Might fuck up some people's lying ways, but the only people who will have a problem with this are those who are willing to lie to their partner and risk their partner's health and life- and guess what: one more thing to stop you from being a reckless asshole.

It's a pretty clear delineation of good and bad: someone who is not willing to go along with this is evil: they are willing to fuck up the lives of their significant other(s) for the sake of hiding what they are doing. You'll get those who say "well, I'll only fuck those who aren't infected, so I don't need to report my partners", but guess what?

You've got a pretty clear case of "3 months non detection", so you have to track all partners to stop AIDS.

Simplicity itself. And of course, you'll have those who have diseases, or think they have diseases, or who like to cheat on their partners: these are the ones who will be most vehement about this never working. They will fight against this until the bitter end- which exposes them exactly as what they are.

Your plan will not work. It is based on some lack of information and a strong desire to punish other people. This is exactly the sort of thing that drives behaviors underground, into secrecy. Secrecy and shame only will cause more people to become infected as people avoid knowing their HIV status or avoid sharing it, and at the same time avoid treatment.

I am absolutely 100% confident that I do not have an HIV or any other STI infection. I am in a long term mutually monogamous relationship. There is no cheating, there are no outside sexual contacts and never any real temptation for such.

Your plan will not work.

It seems to be absolutely rooted in the late 1980's - early 1990's mindset where we knew much less about HIV, how it was transmitted, how to text for it. And that anyone who was infected should be isolated/treated as criminal or at best: diseased and dirty and unworthy of being treated as a human being.

Educating people about prevention and treatment options is much, much more effective than punitive, shaming strategies.

 

[dystopian]

It seems to be absolutely rooted in the late 1980's - early 1990's mindset where we knew much less about HIV, how it was transmitted, how to text for it. And that anyone who was infected should be isolated/treated as criminal or at best: diseased and dirty and unworthy of being treated as a human being.

I think you're off by about 4-5 decades there; his ideas seem rooted more in the 40's if you ask me.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Let me suggest you pay attention to the data from the CDC :

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/transmission.html

Yes. In fact, having anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or spreading HIV.
HIV can be found in the blood, semen (cum), preseminal fluid (pre-cum), or rectal fluid of a person infected with the virus. The bottom is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow HIV to enter the body during anal sex, but the top is also at risk because HIV can enter through the opening of the penis or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis. See the Prevention Q&As for more information.

Classically, when the structure of one's response is "Oh yeah, well <link>" one uses a link that refutes the quoted text.

Can you think of a source as reliable as the CDC who could "refute" their data when it comes to what I quoted?

 

[Sabine Grant]

By Toni :Educating people about prevention and treatment options is much, much more effective than punitive, shaming strategies.

Agree 100%. Where HIV sero positive used to mean a fatal outcome, it is not the case any longer. The earliest from the time of exposure an HIV sero positive is placed on prophylactic "cocktails" designed to prevent the onset of AIDS, the better the long term survival rate. Such drastic shift from fatal/terminal to potential for long term survival was the product of educating HIV sero positive patients as to their treatment options.


Magic Johnson's long term survival remains an inspiration for HIV sero positive persons (he was diagnosed if I recall in the early 90's).

 

[Sabine Grant]

Nope. Not Condoms.

You are contradicting the guidelines formulated by experts in the field of sexually transmittable infectious diseases. May I ask where you get your stance of "no condoms"?

We need to require STD testing, and have an online database that is easily accessible for sexually active individuals.

Not sure who this "we" is but any "we" would be fully aware that a mandatory testing of all sexually active individuals would be struck down as unconstitutional. Further when it comes to "online database that is easily accessible for sexually active individuals " you might as well suggest that this "we" dismiss HIPAA.

Require people report sexual partners, so we can track the spread of the disease.

An HIV sero positive patient can voluntarily and with their informed consent provide the identity of their sexual partners. Note the voluntarily. Mandating or compelling people to "report sexual partners" would be a violation of not only their Privacy Rights but also their partners' Privacy Rights.

Give those who knowingly spread disease chemical castrations, 2nd offense- cut off the nerves to various erogenous zones.

Considering that whether it be HIV or HP C which are both sexually transmittable can also be transmitted by other routes than sexually, you might as well suggest that such identified HIV or/and HP C positives be placed in permanent quarantine. Chemical castration would certainly not prevent such carriers to figure out other routes to contaminate knowingly other people.

 

[Kharakov]

Really what? Cut off the gangrene, or have the whole body rot. Pretty simple. Not that we have to kill those with communicable diseases, we just have to put a UV tattoo (with positives and negatives) on a certain location of each individual, along with an ID #, so that the info can be confirmed online, and require people to put in the ID# of themselves and their partner.

Might fuck up some people's lying ways, but the only people who will have a problem with this are those who are willing to lie to their partner and risk their partner's health and life- and guess what: one more thing to stop you from being a reckless asshole.

It's a pretty clear delineation of good and bad: someone who is not willing to go along with this is evil: they are willing to fuck up the lives of their significant other(s) for the sake of hiding what they are doing. You'll get those who say "well, I'll only fuck those who aren't infected, so I don't need to report my partners", but guess what?

You've got a pretty clear case of "3 months non detection", so you have to track all partners to stop AIDS.

Simplicity itself. And of course, you'll have those who have diseases, or think they have diseases, or who like to cheat on their partners: these are the ones who will be most vehement about this never working. They will fight against this until the bitter end- which exposes them exactly as what they are.

Your plan will not work. It is based on some lack of information and a strong desire to punish other people.

It is not based on a desire to punish, simply a desire to end the disease and behaviors that potentially endanger humanity. Making it clear to someone that a certain type of behavior is evil (results in harm) is not punishment. While reckless behavior that exponentially harms the populace pisses me off, I don't desire to punish the behavior, I desire to modify the behavior so that the fun can go on.

There is no shame in making a mistake and acquiring a disease. People fall down and skin their knees. But we can love, and prevent further harm to those we love, by setting up identification for those who have certain diseases and those who don't.

This is exactly the sort of thing that drives behaviors underground, into secrecy. Secrecy and shame only will cause more people to become infected as people avoid knowing their HIV status or avoid sharing it, and at the same time avoid treatment.

What? You don't have to give out your sexual ID to anyone. You can be monogamous, and have an ID that says as much.

If you do have a trist, you should tell your partner anyway, just in case you do acquire something. In the case of disease tracking, as long as you check the sexual lineage of whoever you cheat with, your partner doesn't have to know. They don't have to check out your information, unless they go outside of the circle. Of course, there should be email notification if your partner has sex with an at risk or infected individual.

I am absolutely 100% confident that I do not have an HIV or any other STI infection. I am in a long term mutually monogamous relationship. There is no cheating, there are no outside sexual contacts and never any real temptation for such.

Of course you say that- you'd say it either way. And I couldn't predict that you'd attack my plan any way you could, and make claims of faith and monogamy. Even if your relationship is faithful and monogamous, you should still support the plan to help out those who are polyamorous, unless, of course, you are jealous and want them to catch disease (I've seen enough duplicity in my life to doubt your claims that you support and care for the polyamorous if you oppose simple modifications to society that will help them out).

It seems to be absolutely rooted in the late 1980's - early 1990's mindset where we knew much less about HIV, how it was transmitted, how to text for it. And that anyone who was infected should be isolated/treated as criminal or at best: diseased and dirty and unworthy of being treated as a human being.

Educating people about prevention and treatment options is much, much more effective than punitive, shaming strategies.

It's not a punitive shaming strategy. "How the fuck old are you, 2?" <-- that's a shaming strategy, and it's aimed at those who think that this is a shaming strategy.

It's about having a personal sexual ID, that you share with any potential partner. If you have HIV (or something else), and/or your sexual (or drug use) history traces back to someone who is positive for something, you will know it.

Feeling shame for having a disease? That is simply immature (you fucking 2 year old), and that's the absolute truth. Sorry. You have a disease, you warn your potential partners, and then you have a good time if the 2+ of you are compatible.

If you have a disease, you should let any potential partner know, or simply don't go around fucking. It's not some big mystery. It's also not a big mystery that there are certain individuals who don't give a shit either way, as long as they can get laid.

In fact, you don't even have to list someone's sexual partners on the website, or how often they have hooked up. You only have to show whether or not they have any overlap with an infected individual in the past 3-4 months. In this case, you just set up a warning of a possible infection- which means the person doesn't have sex with someone without an infection until they are cleared (or else, they just fuck those with similar infections).


I'll admit though- I forgot about the jealous monogamous who want to see the polyamorous suffer, while pretending to care. Those who have disease and want to be able to fuck those without disease are not the only people who want to keep disease hidden- you also have the jealous monogamous, whose hatred and jealousy of the polyamorous motivate them to try and prevent safe polyamorous love.

There is really absolutely no reason to prevent and track disease prevention this way. There will be people who get excluded from the orgies of the non-infected. However, whatever circle we ultimately lie within (having certain diseases will confine you to certain sexual populations), we will still care about those who are not within our sexual circle.


If you have a disease and want to keep on hooking up with young, non-infected individuals, of course you're going to say the things that you and Dystopian have said. Now, the 2 of you may simply have some sort of desire to be assholes, because you couldn't get laid outside of your monogamous relationships if you were thrown into a black hole with every porn star in the universe, but the truth is there is absolutely no reason to be secretive about what STDs one has.

We can either work out a plan to prevent disease while allowing marathon lovemaking orgies, or we can be idiots. We also have philosophy, natural sciences, a beautiful intricate universe to explore, friendship, family, love, hiking, mountains, exercise, sports, rock climbing, cooking, wine making, etc.

 

[dystopian]

It is not based on a desire to punish, simply a desire to end the disease and behaviors that potentially endanger humanity. Making it clear to someone that a certain type of behavior is evil (results in harm) is not punishment.

Your definition of 'evil' is pretty arbitrary. Actions that result in harm are not by definition evil.

While reckless behavior that exponentially harms the populace pisses me off, I don't desire to punish the behavior, I desire to modify the behavior so that the fun can go on.

If we were to take this to its logical conclusion, we'd have to start requiring people to register to do just about *anything*. No thanks.

There is no shame in making a mistake and acquiring a disease. People fall down and skin their knees. But we can love, and prevent further harm to those we love, by setting up identification for those who have certain diseases and those who don't.

And by doing that you *are* publically shaming them, even if you proclaim that 'there's no shame' in catching the disease. The fact that you don't see the utter horror of what you're proposing is very disturbing.

What? You don't have to give out your sexual ID to anyone. You can be monogamous, and have an ID that says as much.

Wow. Just wow.

If you do have a trist, you should tell your partner anyway, just in case you do acquire something.

While I don't disagree with the basic principle, I'm going to go ahead and say that the act of trying to force that into law is itself more evil than the evil you're trying to prevent. I don't want to live in a society that legislates morality, thanks.

In the case of disease tracking, as long as you check the sexual lineage of whoever you cheat with, your partner doesn't have to know. They don't have to check out your information, unless they go outside of the circle. Of course, there should be email notification if your partner has sex with an at risk or infected individual.

Oh wow... it just keeps getting worse.

Of course you say that- you'd say it either way. And I couldn't predict that you'd attack my plan any way you could, and make claims of faith and monogamy. Even if your relationship is faithful and monogamous, you should still support the plan to help out those who are polyamorous, unless, of course, you are jealous and want them to catch disease (I've seen enough duplicity in my life to doubt your claims that you support and care for the polyamorous if you oppose simple modifications to society that will help them out).

Bullshit. Do you seriously think polyamorous people are going to support this insane nazi-esque scheme of yours anymore than the rest of us? If you seriously thought that safety brought about by 'simple modifications' to society outweighed personal rights and privacy, you'd support my proposal to force everyone into a bulletproof glass box for the rest of their lives so they can't get get hurt and the machines we set to watch them can always make sure they're still safe.

It's not a punitive shaming strategy. "How the fuck old are you, 2?" <-- that's a shaming strategy, and it's aimed at those who think that this is a shaming strategy.

No, it IS a shaming strategy; even if you personally don't think it is; that's the inevitable result, plain as day. Very few people subjected to this plan would not experience shame, and people WILL use people's registered status *against* them. It is mindboggingly naieve to think otherwise. Human nature doesn't change just because you can't comprehend it.

Feeling shame for having a disease? That is simply immature (you fucking 2 year old), and that's the absolute truth.

Bullshit; it's human nature which has absolutely shit-all to do with the maturity of a person; and I would argue that the only person who could hold your stated view is themselves an immature individual who'se never had a serious illness himself or been exposed to the stigma that those with diseases can experience. But go ahead, think yourself to be an enlightened adult by telling someone with leprosy that they're immature for feeling shame. I dare you.

If you have a disease and want to keep on hooking up with young, non-infected individuals, of course you're going to say the things that you and Dystopian have said. Now, the 2 of you may simply have some sort of desire to be assholes, because you couldn't get laid outside of your monogamous relationships if you were thrown into a black hole with every porn star in the universe, but the truth is there is absolutely no reason to be secretive about what STDs one has.

You really don't understand the basic objection people have to this idea of yours, do you? Rather than try to understand, you just dismiss us as having the desire to be assholes. It couldn't possibly be that we (like our laws and societies at large do) value basic privacy and human dignity above your demands for an absurd level of pretend-safety. No; it couldn't be that... we just can't get laid and therefore want to be mean to you. Because you're an adult and we're mean sexless people who can't see the brilliance of your plans.

We can either work out a plan to prevent disease while allowing marathon lovemaking orgies, or we can be idiots. We also have philosophy, natural sciences, a beautiful intricate universe to explore, friendship, family, love, hiking, mountains, exercise, sports, rock climbing, cooking, wine making, etc.

I refuse to live in a country that is so obsessed with safety that it would think putting the equivalent of a yellow star on people with STD's is somehow morally acceptable. Furthermore, I'd refuse to live in a country that is so obsessed with safety that it feels perfectly comfortable forcing people into a public registry and bureacracy surrounding their sexual activities, but is also hypocritical enough to not put restrictions on some of the things you listed; "Man, I don't want to get aids so we'd better put all of them on a list and make it so I can easily check the sexual history of everyone I sleep with. But I also don't want to give up wine just because alcohol kills millions of people every year."

Man the fuck up and accept that you live in a world full of risk. Your right to minimize the risks to your life doesn't extend far enough to force behavior onto others nor violate their privacy. A mature person understands this.

 

[Bronzeage]

Nope. Not Condoms.

We need to require STD testing, and have an online database that is easily accessible for sexually active individuals.

Require people report sexual partners, so we can track the spread of the disease. Give those who knowingly spread disease chemical castrations, 2nd offense- cut off the nerves to various erogenous zones.

A dangerous precedent, which could lead to court ordered Thorazine treatments for people who present ideas such as this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nope. Not Condoms.

We need to require STD testing, and have an online database that is easily accessible for sexually active individuals.

Require people report sexual partners, so we can track the spread of the disease. Give those who knowingly spread disease chemical castrations, 2nd offense- cut off the nerves to various erogenous zones.

Read the thread. We are talking about Africa.

 

[Toni]

Nope. Not Condoms.

We need to require STD testing, and have an online database that is easily accessible for sexually active individuals.

Require people report sexual partners, so we can track the spread of the disease. Give those who knowingly spread disease chemical castrations, 2nd offense- cut off the nerves to various erogenous zones.

Read the thread. We are talking about Africa.

How do you think the issues differ?

 

[Celldweller]

originally posted by Kharakov: It is not based on a desire to punish, simply a desire to end the disease and behaviors that potentially endanger humanity. Making it clear to someone that a certain type of behavior is evil (results in harm) is not punishment. While reckless behavior that exponentially harms the populace pisses me off, I don't desire to punish the behavior, I desire to modify the behavior so that the fun can go on.

Would this include children who get infected via bloodtransfusions? We know how reckless those kids are with their blood transfusions.

 

[The Paul]

Let me suggest you pay attention to the data from the CDC :

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/transmission.html

Yes. In fact, having anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or spreading HIV.
HIV can be found in the blood, semen (cum), preseminal fluid (pre-cum), or rectal fluid of a person infected with the virus. The bottom is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow HIV to enter the body during anal sex, but the top is also at risk because HIV can enter through the opening of the penis or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis. See the Prevention Q&As for more information.

Classically, when the structure of one's response is "Oh yeah, well <link>" one uses a link that refutes the quoted text.

Can you think of a source as reliable as the CDC who could "refute" their data when it comes to what I quoted?

In a philosophical sense, where one of the elements needed to achieve something is a desire to achieve that thing, I can not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Read the thread. We are talking about Africa.

How do you think the issues differ?

What's practical in the west isn't necessarily practical in that situation.

 

[Toni]

How do you think the issues differ?

What's practical in the west isn't necessarily practical in that situation.

Can you explain? I am not sure that I agree with you. Education is the key to prevention, no matter the location.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's practical in the west isn't necessarily practical in that situation.

Can you explain? I am not sure that I agree with you. Education is the key to prevention, no matter the location.

I was objecting about the electronic and recordkeeping part of the proposal. I fully support more education.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah. Buttsex is more transmissible than vaginal. Seeing as I don't have an attraction to women, I don't see how that matters. Sure, it sucks that the state of the universe makes me more HIV exposed. So I use a condom and am pursuing PrEP. Do what you can. Don't worry about problems you can't fix.

What is your point? That I shouldn't resolve my desire for a penis to hit my prostate? That I should stop with the dick-butt despite it is the only satisfying form of sex available to me? Should I flog myself as a filthy sinner?

I think instead of doing any of those things, I'll keep on doing what I always have: being safe and having the sex that I am driven towards.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Let me suggest you pay attention to the data from the CDC :

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/transmission.html

Yes. In fact, having anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or spreading HIV.
HIV can be found in the blood, semen (cum), preseminal fluid (pre-cum), or rectal fluid of a person infected with the virus. The bottom is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow HIV to enter the body during anal sex, but the top is also at risk because HIV can enter through the opening of the penis or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis. See the Prevention Q&As for more information.

Classically, when the structure of one's response is "Oh yeah, well <link>" one uses a link that refutes the quoted text.

Can you think of a source as reliable as the CDC who could "refute" their data when it comes to what I quoted?

In a philosophical sense, where one of the elements needed to achieve something is a desire to achieve that thing, I can not.

Next question : are you willing to revise your initial stance? That is an important question because I tend to be on the side of education (like Toni is) and when it comes to human health, especially when commenting on HIV, I tend to cringe when I see misinformation being propagated. In this specific case, you appeared to be dismissing the medically documented reality of HIV being transmittable via anal intercourse. As Toni pointed and accurately, there is a lot of misinformation circulating regarding HIV. Not just in the Third World but also First World nations. Usually folks who are assuming one thing or the other while not consulting reliable sources which are widely recognized experts in the field of prevention and control of infectious/contagious diseases.