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

[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.

Next question : are you willing to revise your initial stance?

No. HIV, or any modern virus, is well beyond the level of complexity of what can reasonably be expected to spontaneously assemble without precursors. I'm pretty solid on that one.

That is an important question

Not really. It's seldom important to verify whether or not any given person believes some absurd proposition that is almost universally disbelieved. It's the kind of assumption you have to be comfortable making if you're going to get as far as tying your shoes most days.

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.

Well, not transmitted from people who don't already carry the virus. Because that would require that anal sex somehow actually generate the virus. Which is clearly impossible.

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.

Yeah, like there's a bunch of jackasses talking about how it's God's punishment on humanity for homosexuality, and how it's "the gay disease." As if it were not even a virus at all but some magical curse that befalls people who have sex the wrong way. That sort of misinformation leads people to think they don't need to worry about complicated things like condoms or the sexual history of their partner, as long as they use Vatican-sanctioned hole they'll be fine.

 

[Emily Lake]

News Flash: People all over the world are ill informed and ignorant about HIV, AIDS (and the difference), as well as risk factors, prevention, etc. If ignorance and misinformation were confined to emerging nations without universal access to education, then in the U.S., we wouldn't have a situation where an estimated 20% of those infected with HIV are unaware of their HIV status.

I didn't intend to imply that ingorance did not exist elsewhere. It's conditional logic.

If A then B. If the educational system is nearly nonexistent, then the populace will be uneducated and ignorant. It says nothing at all about ~A. You can still have an uneducated and ignorant populace with a well established educational system.

The educational system is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.

I fully agree that there's plenty more to be done. Mostly I was a bit surprised that people were surprised that people in countries with almost no educational system to speak of were misinformed on this topic.

 

[Emily Lake]

Really?

Really what? Cut off the gangrene, or have the whole body rot.

It's a pretty clear delineation of good and bad: someone who is not willing to go along with this is evil:

Speaking as a woman... there are other things one might consider beyond just STDs.

Condoms also help prevent the spread of other communicable diseases, like the common cold - any illness which can be transmitted via bodily fluids can usually be transmitted via semen or vaginal fluid as well. Have you thought that I might want to get my freak on when I have a cold, but maybe I don't want to give my partner a cold? I mean, I don't have to *kiss* him to do some of the things I have in mind.

There's also pregnancy to consider. And well, I rather think it's not your call to decide that we gals just have to take our chances on that front so you can ride bareback .

So basically, the whole "No Condoms!" approach is a bit... unusual, and seems poorly thought out.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not based on a desire to punish, simply a desire to end the disease and behaviors that potentially endanger humanity.

Leper Colonies FTW!!!!!!!

 

[Jarhyn]

gay sex doesn't threaten anyone. It is neither the sex nor the gayness of it that causes HIV. It's a virus. Someone needs the virus before it can be passed on. Mandatory testing for 100% of the population is really the only way the epidemic will end. PrEp, condoms, early treatment and comprehensive education will make it end faster. That's all there really is to it.

Seriously, some hardcore ignorance is at work in the heads of people that want to end gay sex. HIV is just an excuse used to demonize a population they deem as 'icky'. Well guess what? 99.9% of the population can't go through life without sex, at least not without becoming an emotional wreck. And the gay ones are going to fuck each other. No amount of 'education' will fix that.

 

[Toni]

News Flash: People all over the world are ill informed and ignorant about HIV, AIDS (and the difference), as well as risk factors, prevention, etc. If ignorance and misinformation were confined to emerging nations without universal access to education, then in the U.S., we wouldn't have a situation where an estimated 20% of those infected with HIV are unaware of their HIV status.

I didn't intend to imply that ingorance did not exist elsewhere. It's conditional logic.

If A then B. If the educational system is nearly nonexistent, then the populace will be uneducated and ignorant. It says nothing at all about ~A. You can still have an uneducated and ignorant populace with a well established educational system.

The educational system is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.

I fully agree that there's plenty more to be done. Mostly I was a bit surprised that people were surprised that people in countries with almost no educational system to speak of were misinformed on this topic.

What I was speaking to is the absolute fact that ignorance about basic facts of the virus, means of transmission and common sexual and cultural practices not to mention ignorance of basic human nature is rampant, and not confined to only emerging nations or impoverished communities. There can be significant lack of understanding, even among members of the medical profession in the most developed, most sophisticated nations and communities.

That ignorance is deadly.

 

[Emily Lake]

I didn't intend to imply that ingorance did not exist elsewhere. It's conditional logic.

If A then B. If the educational system is nearly nonexistent, then the populace will be uneducated and ignorant. It says nothing at all about ~A. You can still have an uneducated and ignorant populace with a well established educational system.

The educational system is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.

I fully agree that there's plenty more to be done. Mostly I was a bit surprised that people were surprised that people in countries with almost no educational system to speak of were misinformed on this topic.

What I was speaking to is the absolute fact that ignorance about basic facts of the virus, means of transmission and common sexual and cultural practices not to mention ignorance of basic human nature is rampant, and not confined to only emerging nations or impoverished communities. There can be significant lack of understanding, even among members of the medical profession in the most developed, most sophisticated nations and communities.

That ignorance is deadly.

Certainly; I do not disagree by any means.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

I have had sex with people whose last name I didn't know - with condoms. What do you think checking such an ID and confirming their and my STD status would have done in that situation? And that's assuming we'd have had a smart phone app to do it. I don't have a smart phone, so I would have to boot up a PC with internet connection.

And you're talking about Africa...

Oh, and how are you going to make sure e.g. potential employers aren't going to to sneak a scan of people's ID and decline applicants based on moral objections to their consensual sexual activities?

And I assume people returning from a trip abroad, in a country that hasn't yet implemented the system, as well as foreigners entering the country, will be put into a three-month quarantine?

You know what'll happen? People will ignore your requirements. And not just the people who are already reckless enough to cheat their partners and not even use a condom when doing so (although that's enough to make sure your proposal wouldn't do any good), but everyone else as well - including singles who sleep around, including people in consensually open relationships, including cheaters who are STD-aware enough to use condoms. If your proposal is to replace advocacy for using condoms, it is going to be not neutral, but positively harmful.

 

[Jokodo]

And when I say "positively harmful", I mean positively harmful even when only considering the objective of slowing the spread of STDs.

All the other problems with your proposals as have been detailed by others don't even have to enter the calculations.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And not just the people who are already reckless enough to cheat their partners and not even use a condom when doing so (although that's enough to make sure your proposal wouldn't do any good), but everyone else as well - including singles who sleep around, including people in consensually open relationships, including cheaters who are STD-aware enough to use condoms.

As they started saying a while back, when you sleep with someone, you're sleeping with everyone they slept with, too.
Somewhere there would have to be a record of every hookup.
That might be popular. Seeing that your ex slept with your boss who slept with his wife, who slept with the wife of his boss, who never slept with her husband, but did sleep with the pool boy... It'd be a new way to calculate how we're all six degrees from each other.
They could sell T-shirts. "Kiss Me, I'm 3 degrees from Kevin Bacon."
Or "Kiss Me, i'm 1 degree from (your name here)."
Or "Kiss Me, I'm a safe 12 degrees from Charlie Sheen."
Or "Kiss Me, I'm a safe 12 10 6, um 2 degrees from Charlie Sheen."


But probably, not everyone would take it in such an open-minded fashion. And since not everyone would cheer to find out they're linked through a spouse to, well, much of anyone, someone would probably not want to be on someone's t-shirt. Then the false reporting starts.

 

[Emily Lake]

And the calculations of the statistical probability of having contracted herpes. At which point folks start getting unsolicited coupons from Valtrex.

ETA: Or your husband starts getting lots of coupons from Trojan... which starts some interesting dinner table discussions to say the least...

 

[Jokodo]

And not just the people who are already reckless enough to cheat their partners and not even use a condom when doing so (although that's enough to make sure your proposal wouldn't do any good), but everyone else as well - including singles who sleep around, including people in consensually open relationships, including cheaters who are STD-aware enough to use condoms.

As they started saying a while back, when you sleep with someone, you're sleeping with everyone they slept with, too.
Somewhere there would have to be a record of every hookup.
That might be popular. Seeing that your ex slept with your boss who slept with his wife, who slept with the wife of his boss, who never slept with her husband, but did sleep with the pool boy... It'd be a new way to calculate how we're all six degrees from each other.
They could sell T-shirts. "Kiss Me, I'm 3 degrees from Kevin Bacon."
Or "Kiss Me, i'm 1 degree from (your name here)."
Or "Kiss Me, I'm a safe 12 degrees from Charlie Sheen."
Or "Kiss Me, I'm a safe 12 10 6, um 2 degrees from Charlie Sheen."


But probably, not everyone would take it in such an open-minded fashion. And since not everyone would cheer to find out they're linked through a spouse to, well, much of anyone, someone would probably not want to be on someone's t-shirt. Then the false reporting starts.

And how many degrees are you from your own parents?

 

[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?

No. HIV, or any modern virus, is well beyond the level of complexity of what can reasonably be expected to spontaneously assemble without precursors. I'm pretty solid on that one.

Since no one made such claim of "spontaneously assembling without precursors" and clearly the term "transmittable" meaning passing from one contaminated party to another has been repeatedly used while the CDC data I provided clearly relies on modes of transmission or infection or contamination, what are you talking about? Again, are you denying the clinically and scientifically demonstrated fact that anal sex is a mode of transmission of the HIV virus from one contaminated party to another?

That is an important question

Not really. It's seldom important to verify whether or not any given person believes some absurd proposition that is almost universally disbelieved. It's the kind of assumption you have to be comfortable making if you're going to get as far as tying your shoes most days.

Again, are you denying the scientifically and clinically demonstrated fact that anal sex is a mode of transmission of the HIV virus from one contaminated party to another? More specifically, are you denying that a HIV sero positive person is susceptible to contaminate/infect another party via anal sex by transmitting the HIV virus?

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.

Well, not transmitted from people who don't already carry the virus. Because that would require that anal sex somehow actually generate the virus. Which is clearly impossible.

No one made the claim that HIV spontaneously generates via anal intercourse. You seem to not understand what "transmitted" and "transmittable" mean. Even though the terms were used several times in this thread. Once more and for the last time, are you denying that a HIV sero positive person is susceptible to infect/contaminate another party via anal sex by transmitting the HIV virus? The CDC data I provided SPECIFICALLY covers a mode of transmission. It is difficult for me to fathom that anyone having read the content of the link I provided and paragraph I quoted would confuse them for a claim of " spontaneous assembly without precursors".

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.

Yeah, like there's a bunch of jackasses talking about how it's God's punishment on humanity for homosexuality, and how it's "the gay disease." As if it were not even a virus at all but some magical curse that befalls people who have sex the wrong way. That sort of misinformation leads people to think they don't need to worry about complicated things like condoms or the sexual history of their partner, as long as they use Vatican-sanctioned hole they'll be fine.

The misinformation in question goes beyond religion induced prejudice and ignorance. I was quite shocked while I was taking my first classes(in 2002) covering Contagious Diseases/ HIV Control and Prevention as to the questions some of the future CNAs would bring up . Such as " what if I catch AIDS from a toilet seat".

 

[The Paul]

Since no one made such claim of "spontaneously assembling without precursors"...

Especially not the CDC.