NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html

Apparently, if you're homosexual, or living the lifestyle of someone in Africa, you're fucked - but if you're a heterosexual living in a Western country, you've never really had much to worry about.

Not the politically correct answer you've all been wanting to hear - that the disease doesn't care what your sexual proclivities are - but apparently it does.

And the good doctor's name is a classic...

Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits

A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts

By Jeremy Laurance
Sunday, 8 June 2008

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia – China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html

Apparently, if you're homosexual, or living the lifestyle of someone in Africa, you're fucked - but if you're a heterosexual living in a Western country, you've never really had much to worry about.

Not the politically correct answer you've all been wanting to hear - that the disease doesn't care what your sexual proclivities are - but apparently it does.

And the good doctor's name is a classic...

Yes the doctor's name is a good one, I used to have a teacher with that exact same surname and the amount of shit we would give him was unbelievable. Of course he was from South Africa and his accent didn't help that much, it was all in good fun for the most part. Apparently it is pronounced De-coe a silent K, but whether that was so we wouldn't be saying cock all the time I never found out.

As for the news it's good to hear, but that wouldn't mean it is time to stop taking the necessary precautions.

Oh how intelligent. Tell straight guys they can't get teh AIDS. Worked really well before.

And in other news, people believing this shit are at the greatest risk for AIDS - far greater than anyone in Africa, anyone who prefers teh buttsecks, or anyone who uses IV drugs.

I'd say it's natural selection in progress, but they'll probably fuck it up for the rest of us.

There really is only one reponse. Bwahahahahahaha!

Oh how intelligent. Tell straight guys they can't get teh AIDS. Worked really well back before.

A combination of promiscuity and buttsex is necessary for an epidemic.

Anal is a method of birth control in Africa.

Western heteros are apparently not as promiscuous nor as likely to engage in buttsex as the people in Africa, and homosexuals.

Just because people are statistically less likely than someone else to catch a disease doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful. Telling people that 'it's no threat' is putting them at risk.

Tell that to the good doctor, who is sitting on decades of research, and you are sitting on zero evidence.

Just because people are statistically less likely than someone else to catch a disease doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful. Telling people that 'it's no threat' is putting them at risk.

Seems to be a trend that's changing...most hets I've met are into the buttsex. Not to mention being promiscuous.

Regardless, I don't think anyone should 'relax' when it comes to preventing STIs, HIV or otherwise. It would be absolutely idiotic to do so.

Well, as you know what my wife and I are into, yes.

But I think that most Western heteros just aren't as promiscuous as the typical Western homosexual, or the typical African hetero.

A combination of promiscuity and buttsex is necessary for an epidemic.

Anal is a method of birth control in Africa.

Western heteros are apparently not as promiscuous nor as likely to engage in buttsex as the people in Africa, and homosexuals.

Seems to be a trend that's changing...most hets I've met are into the buttsex. Not to mention being promiscuous. And people engaged in 'high risk' behaviour were always more likely to get AIDS than those who were not...I'm not certain what has supposedly changed.

Regardless, I don't think anyone should 'relax' when it comes to preventing STIs, HIV or otherwise. It would be absolutely idiotic to do so.

Except that's not at all what the article said. The Doctor said there would not likely be an AIDS epidemic among western heterosexual individuals.

An epidemic means a sudden and dramatic increase in the number of infected and the rate of infection. Saying there won't be an AIDS epidemic doesn't mean that straight western people are free from AIDS. It still means that, yes, even straight white westerners will get AIDS. It merely means that there won't be a sudden increase in the rate of infection. They will still continue to get infected with HIV and develop AIDS, at about the same rate as they are right now.

No AIDS epidemic doesn't mean people don't get AIDS, it means the rate at which people get AIDS stays about the same.

Western heteros are apparently not as promiscuous nor as likely to engage in buttsex as the people in Africa, and homosexuals.

And again Bwahahahah!

A combination of promiscuity and buttsex is necessary for an epidemic.

Anal is a method of birth control in Africa.

Western heteros are apparently not as promiscuous nor as likely to engage in buttsex as the people in Africa, and homosexuals.

o_O Where'd you get that?

Here's what your very own linked article says: The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa – with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country – but nowhere else.

"It is the question we are asked most often – why is the situation so bad in sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors – more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships."

"Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection."

Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can enter the body, also contributed to Africa's heterosexual epidemic.

Just because people are statistically less likely than someone else to catch a disease doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful. Telling people that 'it's no threat' is putting them at risk.

Maybe it's a test? All the stupid people will get AIDS and die?

Except that's not at all what the article said. The Doctor said there would not likely be an AIDS epidemic among western heterosexual individuals.

An epidemic means a sudden and dramatic increase in the number of infected and the rate of infection. Saying there won't be an AIDS epidemic doesn't mean that straight western people are free from AIDS. It still means that, yes, even straight white westerners will get AIDS. It merely means that there won't be a sudden increase in the rate of infection. They will still continue to get infected with HIV and develop AIDS, at about the same rate as they are right now.

No AIDS epidemic doesn't mean people don't get AIDS, it means the rate at which people get AIDS stays about the same.

It means that Western heteros won't be ravaged by AIDS as the homosexuals continue to be.

It means that there's something that homosexuals are doing that heterosexuals are not that is making a big difference.

We've gotten 25 years of political correctness that has told us that the virus doesn't discriminate - and now we have 25 years of evidence that says that the virus definitely does discriminate on the basis of sexual behavior.

Swallow the PC pill, please.

thats good to know *catches Chlamydia and becomes infertile*

Western heteros are apparently not as promiscuous nor as likely to engage in buttsex as the people in Africa, and homosexuals.

don't forget drug users....wait thats like all of us :eek:

Goddamn fags and slutty Africans!

That might have made a better title for what is essentially a shit thread.

Yeah, no one likes hearing a politically incorrect message backed up by 25 years of research...

thats good to know *catches Chlamydia and becomes infertile*

don't forget drug users....wait thats like all of us :eek:

Most of us aren't intravenous drug users.

*gets vasectomy and becomes infertile*

But I think that most Western heteros just aren't as promiscuous as the typical Western homosexual, or the typical African hetero.

Goddamn fags and slutty Africans!

That might have made a better title for what is essentially a shit thread.

It means that there's something that homosexuals are doing that heterosexuals are not that is making a big difference.

Yeah, welcome to 1995. We figured that out a long time ago. That's not new information.

That doesn't change the fact that once again, your source says something radically different than what you claim it does. Namely, it merely says that there will be no AIDS epidemic among heterosexual westerners.

It's not my fault you don't know what the word "epidemic" means.

Yeah, no one likes hearing a politically incorrect message backed up by 25 years of research...

Like I said, if that's how you want to spin it...we all know how much you enjoy that.

We've gotten 25 years of political correctness that has told us that the virus doesn't discriminate - and now we have 25 years of evidence that says that the virus definitely does discriminate on the basis of sexual behavior.

Huh?

That's how you're spinning it?

Maybe your ejumacation in the US is subpar to that in Canada (substitute 'maybe' for 'is', I was just being PC), but we have always been aware that high risk behaviours put you at a seriously increased risk of HIV infection. Sex workers, IV drug users, homosexual men, promiscuity (regardless of orientation) and so forth. The 'it doesn't discriminate' cry was to ensure people knew that their race, gender, sexuality or level of education was completely irrelevant when it came to being infected if they were engaging in this sort of high risk behaviour. Being a IV using, buttsexing male het slut has never meant you can't get teh AIDs.

Most of us aren't intravenous drug users.

isn't it something like 1 in 12 (yes I pulled that out my arse shh) having tried it? how many people have you had sex with?

*gets vasectomy and becomes infertile*

look like the Chlamydia has spread to your brain and decided to take a short cut! :p

Goddamn fags and slutty Africans!

That might have made a better title for what is essentially a shit thread.

I agree. I have a hard time believing that AIDS is not a problem for Western heteros, esp. considering 1/4th of girls in the States have an STD.

Not to mention with the attitude Hotwife is promoting, AIDS will quickly become a problem for Western heteros

Apparently, if you're homosexual, or living the lifestyle of someone in Africa, you're fucked - but if you're a heterosexual living in a Western country, you've never really had much to worry about.


(might this thing be bogus; the doctor's name makes me suspicious...)

Anyway, "no risk of generalised epidemics" doesn't mean "go on and fukalot 'cause yer getting no AIDS".
There are plenty of heterosexuals here in Italy who get AIDS by having multiple partners and not using condoms.

Multiple partners - not necessarily at once, I know what you're thinking you pervert!

A combination of promiscuity and buttsex is necessary for an epidemic.
False.
Sharing shots used for injecting drugs can transmit AIDS.
Blood transfusion can transmit AIDS - it happened in China iirc.
Promiscuity ALONE without condoms can transmit AIDS.


Anal is a method of birth control in Africa.

And has been/is in lots of other places.
Anal intercourses don't have greater chances of transmitting AIDS than genital intercourses.

Western heteros are apparently not as promiscuous nor as likely to engage in buttsex as the people in Africa, and homosexuals.
More likely, western heteros use condoms in promiscuous sex more than africans and homosexuals. Maybe because we've got an easier access to accurate information about sex, and to condoms.

Really, this attempt at making AIDS into an excuse for cryptoracism and homophobia makes me sad.

...except that's not what it says. It isn't our fault that you don't understand what you're reading.

The virus does not discriminate. If we have two men exposed to the virus in the exact same manner - one homosexual and one heterosexual - they have the same risk of contracting the disease.

The question here isn't "What sexuality are you?" It's "What activities do you engage in and within what groups?"

High-risk behaviors have always made a given individual more likely to contract the virus - gay or straight. And when a person's sexual partners are within a group with a higher percentage of infection, that will also increase their risk.

But it doesn't mean that the virus itself discriminates. It just means that certain people are in a higher risk group. This has always been known.

It means that if you're promiscuous and have a lot of unprotected buttsex, you're screwed...

Discrimination on the basis of behavior.

We've gotten 25 years of political correctness that has told us that the virus doesn't discriminate - and now we have 25 years of evidence that says that the virus definitely does discriminate on the basis of sexual behavior.

...except that's not what it says. It isn't our fault that you don't understand what you're reading.

The virus does not discriminate. If we have two men exposed to the virus in the exact same manner - one homosexual and one heterosexual - they have the same risk of contracting the disease.

The question here isn't "What sexuality are you?" It's "What activities do you engage in and within what groups?"

High-risk behaviors have always made a given individual more likely to contract the virus - gay or straight. And when a person's sexual partners are within a group with a higher percentage of infection, that will also increase their risk.

But it doesn't mean that the virus itself discriminates. It just means that certain people are in a higher risk group. This has always been known.

:P its called a condom. Homo sexuals dont need to worry about pregnancy so they are less likely to use it. And you can get AIDS thru vaginal intercourse. Many many people have.

The odds are far higher from anal. Much, much higher.

It means that Western heteros won't be ravaged by AIDS as the homosexuals continue to be.

It means that there's something that homosexuals are doing that heterosexuals are not that is making a big difference.


:P its called a condom. Homo sexuals dont need to worry about pregnancy so they are less likely to use it. And you can get AIDS thru vaginal intercourse. Many many people have.

It means that if you're promiscuous and have a lot of unprotected buttsex, you're screwed...

Discrimination on the basis of behavior.

If you have a lot of any type of unprotected sex, you're screwed. Buttsex does not have a higher chance of AIDS more than any other type.

False.
Sharing shots used for injecting drugs can transmit AIDS.
Blood transfusion can transmit AIDS - it happened in China iirc.
Promiscuity ALONE without condoms can transmit AIDS.


Stop. Stop right there. You can not "transmit" AIDS. Someone can not "give you" AIDS. You can't "get someone's AIDS".

AIDS is not a thing. It's not a noun. It's not somethng you get. AIDS is a syndrome. It's a descriptor. AIDS describes the state of someone with an advanced case of HIV.

Sharing shots used for injecting drugs can not transmit AIDS as AIDS is not a "thing" to be transmitted. It is merely a description of the conditions associated with advanced HIV.

Sharing shots used for injecting drugs can, on the other hand, transmit HIV.

What about homosexuals who don't engage in buttsecks?

You DO realize buttsecks is not the only way for gay people to go at it, righT?

Stop. Stop right there. You can not "transmit" AIDS. Someone can not "give you" AIDS. You can't "get someone's AIDS".

AIDS is not a thing. It's not a noun. It's not somethng you get. AIDS is a syndrome. It's a descriptor. AIDS describes the state of someone with an advanced case of HIV.

Sharing shots used for injecting drugs can not transmit AIDS as AIDS is not a "thing" to be transmitted. It is merely a description of the conditions associated with advanced HIV.

Sharing shots used for injecting drugs can, on the other hand, transmit HIV.

^This is absolutely true.

There's a tendency to use AIDS as short-hand as if it is the virus itself, but that is not the case.

It means that if you're promiscuous and have a lot of unprotected buttsex, you're screwed...

Discrimination on the basis of behavior.

Which is what 'they' have been saying all along. How have you missed that?

It means that if you're promiscuous and have a lot of unprotected buttsex, you're screwed...

Discrimination on the basis of behavior.

....which is not discrimination on the basis of sexuality, like you were suggesting.

It was never "PC" to suggest that certain behaviors wouldn't increase your risk of getting HIV or any other STD. So what exactly are you railing against?

You can have lots of gay sex and no anal. The research is not really anti-gay.

....which is not discrimination on the basis of sexuality, like you were suggesting.

It was never "PC" to suggest that certain behaviors wouldn't increase your risk of getting HIV or any other STD. So what exactly are you railing against?

In French, they call it 'un homme de paille'. In Cree, it is called a 'maskosiwinapewihkan'. I believe the term in English is 'strawman'.

Just because people are statistically less likely than someone else to catch a disease doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful. Telling people that 'it's no threat' is putting them at risk.

The article says there is no threat of an epidemic. No one's saying there's no threat of individual cases.

The article says there is no threat of an epidemic. No one's saying there's no threat of individual cases.

The title of this thread is "AIDS no longer a threat to western heteros".

So yes, someone is saying that. In his typically misleading way. Also this gem, pulled from the OP,"...but if you're a heterosexual living in a Western country, you've never really had much to worry about."

Right. HIV, the most deadly of STIs...not something you need to worry about if you're a Western het.

Um...no.

hmm..



Well....fuck.

Beat you:p Also read your mind and replied before you posted. *nods*

The article says there is no threat of an epidemic. No one's saying there's no threat of individual cases.

hmm..

AIDS No Longer a Threat to Western Heteros

Well....fuck.

Beat you:p

That's a switch

That's a switch

With a switch? I accept.

With a switch? I accept.

hah. Not on your life.

hah. Not on your life.

You're no fun.
*flounces out of the room*

Yes. I fucking said flounce.

You're no fun.

Hey now, you know I'm perfectly happy to hold it...

*flounces out of the room*

Yes. I fucking said flounce.

and what a flounce it was.

The title of this thread is "AIDS no longer a threat to western heteros".

So yes, someone is saying that. In his typically misleading way. Also this gem, pulled from the OP,"...but if you're a heterosexual living in a Western country, you've never really had much to worry about."

Right. HIV, the most deadly of STIs...not something you need to worry about if you're a Western het.

Um...no.
Anyone who reads just the headlines and thinks he's getting actual news is an idiot.

Anyone who reads just the headlines and thinks he's getting actual news is an idiot.

The idiot is the person posting misleading headlines, expecting people to not call him on it. Extensively.

Also, I'm glad you've now admitted that someone was in fact trying to say that AIDs was no longer a real threat to individual Western hets.

Also, I'm glad you've now admitted that someone was in fact trying to say that AIDs was no longer a real threat to individual Western hets.
I didn't. AIDS is no longer an epidemiological threat to western heteros, as a group. Adjectives like epidemiological get dropped from headlines all the time.

I didn't. AIDS is no longer an epidemiological threat to western heteros, as a group. Adjectives like epidemiological get dropped from headlines all the time.

You're missing the point that DK had absolute control over the OP and the title of this thread, and his choices reflect very poorly on his ability to accurately present information.

Also, I'm glad you've now admitted that someone was in fact trying to say that AIDs was no longer a real threat to individual Western hets.

AIDS damnit, AIDS

Just because people are statistically less likely than someone else to catch a disease doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful. Telling people that 'it's no threat' is putting them at risk.

it was not said it was not a treat to individuals, he is saying it isn't a threat to certain groups currently. He is suggesting funding would be better spent elsewhere.

it was not said it was not a treat to individuals, he is saying it isn't a threat to certain groups currently .

And he's wrong. HIV might not be as much of a threat, but it's still a threat.

After all, currently the group that has the most rapidly rising rate of HIV infection is...wait for it...married heterosexual women.

itt: dk's same old song and dance. still not very good.

That's good to know, but I'm still going to be careful. I might be less likely to catch it, but it's certainly not impossible.

One of the things the simple straight/gay statistics don't let on is how racially divided this thing has become in the US. African-American men are overwhelmingly disproportionate in both AIDS cases and new infections, and African-American women are massively more likely than white women to get infected as well. African-American gay men have rates of infection possibly as high as 40%.

But yes, if you're straight and white, your chances are fairly low by comparison. Probably helps if you're economically well-off too--certainly it does if you get infected and have to pay for treatment.

To be perfectly frank, it's past time some liberals got over this rather ridiculous fit of political correctness and recognized the overwhelming demographic trends... not for the sake of "personal responsibility" or some such, but because the consequence is to let governments off the hook when it comes to health efforts aimed at protecting minorities and the poor.

Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners.

There were "elements of truth" in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. "You will not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not always been good at that."

...

One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with men. He said: " We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased.

"In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high.

"It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously."

Case in point.

To be perfectly frank, it's past time some liberals got over this rather ridiculous fit of political correctness and recognized the overwhelming demographic trends... not for the sake of "personal responsibility" or some such, but because the consequence is to let governments off the hook when it comes to health efforts aimed at protecting minorities and the poor.

Here's the problem. Who are these "liberals"? Who doesn't actually recognize these facts? Liberalism may strive to be color blind, but it's not stupid. A liberal can recognize that blacks or gays are more likely to get HIV, but at the same time understand that merely being black or gay doesn't make you more likely, merely the conduct engaged that makes it more likely, and that certain groups, are more likely to engage in that conduct.

We can say "blacks are more likely to engage in certain conduct, and thus more likely to get HIV" and recognize that in saying so we aren't saying "blacks are dumb", but recognize also that there are social reasons that might cause that.

Here's the problem. Who are these "liberals"? Who doesn't actually recognize these facts?

All the ones who want to pretend that you can talk about dealing with AIDS without talking about race and sexual orientation... and yes, there are plenty.

The rhetoric on this subject tends to be something like "Some bigots back in 1980s said it was a 'gay disease', but now we know that AIDS affects everyone"... which is not outright false, but still suggests that its victims weren't and aren't overwhelmingly distributed based on race and sexual orientation. The consequence is that, in the guise of opposing racism and homophobia, we just reinforce the implicit institutional way in which they function, in their devastating and deadly neglect of racial and sexual minorities.

Liberalism may strive to be color blind, but it's not stupid.

It is far from my desire to attack liberalism as such. Conservatives on this subject, as usual, are far worse... among other things they are more likely to believe that if it's just blacks and MSMs who are dying, well, screw them.

A liberal can recognize that blacks or gays are more likely to get HIV, but at the same time understand that merely being black or gay doesn't make you more likely, merely the conduct engaged that makes it more likely, and that certain groups, are more likely to engage in that conduct.

Well, it's not just the "conduct engaged" in a narrow sense, it's the overall social environment too... among black "men who have sex with men", a particular problem is the lack of community support given the racism of the mainstream gay community and the homophobia of the mainstream black community.

It's no accident that AIDS often seems to target the most vulnerable.

We can say "blacks are more likely to engage in certain conduct, and thus more likely to get HIV" and recognize that in saying so we aren't saying "blacks are dumb", but recognize also that there are social reasons that might cause that.

That's right. Here we don't disagree.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html

Apparently, if you're homosexual, or living the lifestyle of someone in Africa, you're fucked - but if you're a heterosexual living in a Western country, you've never really had much to worry about.

Not the politically correct answer you've all been wanting to hear - that the disease doesn't care what your sexual proclivities are - but apparently it does.

And the good doctor's name is a classic...
Ugh. For the love of all that is holy, can't you atleast find a source that understands the difference between Aids (an improperly capitalized plural noun, representing several helpers) and AIDS (an acronym meaning acquired immunodeficiency syndrome)?

Honestly, they could atleast know the syndrome they are writing about.

Second of all, they are talking about the transmission of HIV, not AIDS.

Third of all, this isn't new information. Receptive anal sex (50 infections out of 10000 exposers) is still less risky than sharing needles (67/10000), childbirth (2500/10000), or blood transfusions (9000/10000), and only slightly more risky than receptive vaginal sex (10/10000). Insertive anal sex (6.5/10000) is only slightly (and in this case, VERY slightly) more risky than insertive vaginal (5/10000).

This information is nothing new.

The rhetoric on this subject tends to be something like "Some bigots back in 1980s said it was a 'gay disease', but now we know that AIDS affects everyone" ... which is not outright false, but still suggests that its victims weren't and aren't overwhelmingly distributed based on race and sexual orientation.

This was never meant to suggest that it isn't more prevalent in the homosexual male community. It was meant to point out that

(a) The disease is not confined to that community, nor do you have to engage in male homosexual activity to contract it.

(b)The importance in treating and finding a cure for it diminished by the demographic trends.

Maybe I'm just better educated than most, but I've never seen anything actually suggesting that HIV infection is not more heavily concentrated in certain demographic groups. In fact, both news articles and medical literature on the subject quite often talk about targeting prevention efforts towards high-risk groups.

*goes to sex everything in sight while shooting up with some needle from an alley*

Don't worry folks, I'll be fine! I'm straight!

The OP's argument is the reason why, no matter what the statistics say, no man gets with me without a condom.

You might be able to judge by a person's demographics whether they are at relatively higher or lower risk of HIV exposure, but the one thing you can never predict is how stupid they are. Since the advent of modern medicine, with all its wonder drugs and knowledge of basic hygiene, the most likely cause of epidemics of preventable diseases in modernized societies has become plain, old, untreatable stupidity (death's secret weapon). The numbers dip a bit, a few doctors forget what reality they live in and make the the mistake of talking about it in public, and hey-presto -- idiots are going to start running around declaring themselves safe just because of their demographic group.

Yeah, uh, no.

HIV is everywhere. Only adherence to safe practices keeps it out of certain populations, and people who have a false sense of security are less likely to keep up such practices. I ain't going anywhere near any man who thinks he's in a safe demographic because, in my personal opinion, anyone dumb enough to think there is such a thing as a safe demographic from a virus is likely also to be dumb enough to get HIV from unsafe sex. And besides, people who use contagious diseases and science they don't understand to crow over their pet bigotries are not people I would ever help to reproduce anyway.

Maybe I'm just better educated than most, but I've never seen anything actually suggesting that HIV infection is not more heavily concentrated in certain demographic groups.

That's not the point. It's not a question of knowledge or ignorance. We might know the demographic trends, but what do we do with them?

In fact, both news articles and medical literature on the subject quite often talk about targeting prevention efforts towards high-risk groups.

That's true. But information is not the same thing as action. Resources for fighting AIDS in this country have been relatively scarce recently as the crisis has passed from the headlines and the victims have increasingly blackened, and they tend to be subject to the usual distributive inequities.

AIDS damnit, AIDS

Oh shut up. Acronym nazi.

This was never meant to suggest that it isn't more prevalent in the homosexual male community. It was meant to point out that

(a) The disease is not confined to that community, nor do you have to engage in male homosexual activity to contract it.

(b)The importance in treating and finding a cure for it diminished by the demographic trends.

Maybe I'm just better educated than most, but I've never seen anything actually suggesting that HIV infection is not more heavily concentrated in certain demographic groups. In fact, both news articles and medical literature on the subject quite often talk about targeting prevention efforts towards high-risk groups.

Exactly. All of the literature I have seen on the subject has been explicit about high risk behaviours increasing the likelihood of transmission. Much of the funding for direct intervention health education has been aimed at those high risk populations...again, sex workers, IV drug users, homosexual males etc.

I LOVE how this is being spun now. Instead of 'hey you fucking morons, yes you CAN get HIV even if you aren't taking it in the ass or sticking used needles into your arm...' which was the original message, it's now being retroactively interpreted to mean, 'we are going to be so PC that we're going to ignore the facts and make sure everyone sings the equality song about how HIV doesn't discriminate'.

I think it's time for another, 'hey you fucking morons' campaign.

That's not the point. It's not a question of knowledge or ignorance. We might know the demographic trends, but what do we do with them?

That's true. But information is not the same thing as action. Resources for fighting AIDS in this country have been relatively scarce recently as the crisis has passed from the headlines and the victims have increasingly blackened, and they tend to be subject to the usual distributive inequities. Uh, hmmm, well let's see what Canada is doing.

Safe injection sites (http://www.vch.ca/sis/).
Community based HIV education (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1448418). (targeting gay and bisexual men)

We have groups that do direct work with sex workers and their clients, providing education and medical support. We have community health workers targeting aboriginal populations where HIV transmission tends to be higher than the national average.

In fact, most of the work you see here is specifically targeting a certain high-risk population on top of more generalised educational and health campaigns. I do not have such a lack of faith in the US to believe that none of this is happening there...

I read that title as 'AIDS No Longer a Threat to Western Heroes'

Safe injection sites (http://www.vch.ca/sis/).

Great. Of course, in this country we have trouble even managing needle exchange, so....

Community based HIV education (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1448418). (targeting gay and bisexual men)

Well, that's some nice research which states the obvious:

"Men living in geographic regions with HIV prevention programming had significantly less frequent unprotected homosexual intercourse with both casual and regular partners... This study provides evidence supporting the effectiveness of community-level HIV prevention programming and the need for its broader implementation."

I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove in this context.

I do not have such a lack of faith in the US to believe that none of this is happening there...

There are particular issues with respect to the US, not least a homophobia at the highest levels of government that historically, and to some extent to this day, interferes with efforts directed particularly at gays.

But more to the point, I don't mean to discount the efforts that do target at-risk populations--my point is that, politically, we should be more focused on defending and expanding such efforts, rather than instead repeating rhetoric about how the risk is universal. Especially as the political mainstream tends to discount the issue, for the typical prejudiced reasons.

Great. Of course, in this country we have trouble even managing needle exchange, so.... Well, unfortunately it's so freaking controversial, that a recent plan to do the same in Edmonton just about got the supporters lynched publicly.



Well, that's some nice research which states the obvious:

"Men living in geographic regions with HIV prevention programming had significantly less frequent unprotected homosexual intercourse with both casual and regular partners... This study provides evidence supporting the effectiveness of community-level HIV prevention programming and the need for its broader implementation."

I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove in this context. That there have been community based programs specifically targeting certain people, in conjunction with wider education schemes, and that these schemes work. The high risk to gay and bisexual receivers was noted long ago, and has been the focus of health initiatives for some time, with good success rates...meaning, we're quite aware that continuing such efforts is a good idea. This study linked in the OP isn't some shocking 'eureka' moment.



There are particular issues with respect to the US, not least a homophobia at the highest levels of government that historically, and to some extent to this day, interferes with efforts directed particularly at gays.

But more to the point, I don't mean to discount the genuine efforts that do target at-risk populations--my point is that, politically, we should be more focused on defending and expanding such efforts, rather than repeating instead rhetoric about how the risk remains universal. Must be a US-based blind spot, because I have yet to see it spun that way here.

The last HIV/AIDS PSA I saw here was dealing specifically with the risk to IV drug users...since this behaviour has once again been on the rise. It seems that people need reminding on a fairly regular basis. HIV doesn't discriminate...if you engage in 'set' behaviour, you are putting yourself at risk. It's not like it just strikes you out of the clear blue yonder...

I read that title as 'AIDS No Longer a Threat to Western Heroes'

Damnit, I forgot the name of the DC heroine with AIDS.

Stop. Stop right there. You can not "transmit" AIDS. Someone can not "give you" AIDS. You can't "get someone's AIDS".

...


I apologise. I was misled by the common italian use ("prendere una malattia", literally "catching a disease", and I rendered it with "to get").

AIDS is not a thing. It's not a noun.

Well, AIDS IS a noun, sort of. Being the acronym of "Aquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome", the most significant part of it is "Syndrome" ("Acquired" being the descriptor of "ImmunoDeficiency", and "ImmunoDeficiency" should be in the genitive case as it is a specification of "Syndrome"). So it's safe to use "AIDS" as a noun.

It's not somethng you get. AIDS is a syndrome.
Ok, I should have used "catch", like in "catching a flu", which happens by "getting" flu viruses. Sorry. My point being that I'm perfectly aware of the differences between HIV and AIDS, just I'm used to talk about them in my language and not in english.

I hate losing at Grammar Naziness, dammit!

Maybe it's a test? All the stupid people will get AIDS and die?

We can all dream.

Well, unfortunately it's so freaking controversial, that a recent plan to do the same in Edmonton just about got the supporters lynched publicly.

That's insane. The idea is almost unambiguously a good one.

This study linked in the OP isn't some shocking 'eureka' moment.

Of course it isn't, it isn't really news at all.

It seems that people need reminding on a fairly regular basis. HIV doesn't discriminate...if you engage in 'set' behaviour, you are putting yourself at risk.

That's true, but it's only part of the story.

For one, it simply isn't true that AIDS only discriminates based upon personal behavior. Like any infectious disease, environment is also important... if you're having promiscuous unprotected sex with people with very low risk of infection, your risk is lower than if you're having promiscuous unprotected sex with people in a high-risk group. True, AIDS doesn't target you just because you're gay, or just because you're black... but for this reason those facts have a real influence even controlling for differences in personal behavior.

In this context, being "group-neutral" and simply stressing dangerous behaviors can have limited effect... especially when some of the most at-risk groups are the ones who are most difficult to reach with those messages. And to some extent "colorblindness" mars even more targeted efforts: in the US campaigns have actually had much success in reducing infection rates among white gay men.

Look, Hotwife. The virus discriminates on the basis of sexual behavior, not sexual orientation.

If you're a promiscuous person who fails to use protection, then you are at risk not only for HIV contraction but also every other kind of STD.

If you're not promiscuous, or you regularly use protection and have sex with people you have good confidence in being able to trust, then you are at lower risk.

And yes, fucking guys in the ass can tear tissue, which greatly increases the risk of HIV transmission. We all know that.

And those of us who give a shit either use protection or don't fuck each other in the ass.

I think it's time for another, 'hey you fucking morons' campaign.
I agree. And such campaigns can be quite effective.

Alright guys, let's be rational about this one.

1. In sub-sahara Africa rape is alot more widespread, there is terrible healthcare (or in some areas none) and people are generally less civilized and there is massive poverty which means that there are alot of prostitutes. Also, there's almost zero circumsision which helps protect against infection.

2. The REASON gays are so much more effected by the disease is because "taking it" anal sex is the most dangerous way to get infected do to this act having the highest likely chances of skin ripping from intercourse. Mix this with the the fact that the gay community is smaller and thus more likely to share partners who are infected, with a bit more of a lax feeling about sex do to the fact that no one can get pregnant and you have reasons for more infections among the gay community.

3. That doesn't mean that if you are not Black and are hetero, you can't get AIDS or HIV. In fact, saying so is stupid and may create a false sense of security. It just means you are not as likely to catch the disease, statistically. It's still very much a threat, just not as much as someone who is gay or Black. I know that personally I have not had sex without using a condom, and I am neither black nor gay...It's just playing it safe.

Seems to be a trend that's changing...most hets I've met are into the buttsex. Not to mention being promiscuous.

Regardless, I don't think anyone should 'relax' when it comes to preventing STIs, HIV or otherwise. It would be absolutely idiotic to do so.
Take note of this, NSG. It may be the only time I agree with Neesika.

That's true. But information is not the same thing as action. Resources for fighting AIDS in this country have been relatively scarce recently as the crisis has passed from the headlines and the victims have increasingly blackened, and they tend to be subject to the usual distributive inequities.

I don't see that as a problem with how we view HIV or AIDS specifically, though. As you point out, we're looking at a much wider trend. Because of a number of factors, certain demographics have less access to healthcare and information overall. In the case of the black community, they also tend to trust healthcare providers less, and may therefore be more likely to ignore such information. These things are problems to solve in and of themselves.

As for funding, I'd have to look into it to see if funding on HIV/AIDS has specifically dropped. In truth, funds for medical research and treatment in all areas has been dropping.

2. The REASON gays are so much more effected by the disease is because "taking it" anal sex is the most dangerous way to get infected do to this act having the highest likely chances of skin ripping from intercourse. Mix this with the the fact that the gay community is smaller and thus more likely to share partners who are infected, with a bit more of a lax feeling about sex do to the fact that no one can get pregnant and you have reasons for more infections among the gay community.

I essentially agree, but I would like to add that promiscuity has a lot to do with it, as does failing to use protection.

It's not the very fact that there is widespread receptive anal sex, it is the fact that people engage in it without taking rational precautions.

Of course, you would be correct to point out that the cat leaped way the hell out of the bag before we knew the relationship between HIV transmission and sexual contact.

However, my point is that it has nothing to do with being a gay or bisexual man, and nothing to do with receptive anal sex and everything to do with promiscuity, misplaced trust and failure to use protection.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html

Apparently, if you're homosexual, or living the lifestyle of someone in Africa, you're fucked - but if you're a heterosexual living in a Western country, you've never really had much to worry about.

Not the politically correct answer you've all been wanting to hear - that the disease doesn't care what your sexual proclivities are - but apparently it does.

And the good doctor's name is a classic...

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/Factsheets/youth.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/women.htm

Pfffft, what the hell does the CDC know?

Damnit, I forgot the name of the DC heroine with AIDS.

Speedy aka Mia Dearden, and she's HIV positive, not having a full-blown case of AIDS.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html

Apparently, if you're homosexual, or living the lifestyle of someone in Africa, you're fucked - but if you're a heterosexual living in a Western country, you've never really had much to worry about.

Not the politically correct answer you've all been wanting to hear - that the disease doesn't care what your sexual proclivities are - but apparently it does.

And the good doctor's name is a classic...
I can't see where it says that in the article you linked to. It does say, however:

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

All it's saying is that people who have unprotected buttsex, share needles and are or visit prostitutes are at a higher risk risk of catching HIV. Period. It isn't saying that only camp fag AIDS monkeys get HIV, but since when have facts ever gotten in the way of an evil PC Liberals rant?

I suggest we unleash Fass on you. But not like that...

These things are problems to solve in and of themselves.

Yes, they are... and the social and political homophobia that interfered with early efforts to deal with AIDS was also a problem to solve in itself. But that doesn't mean that it didn't concretely worsen the problem, or that overcoming it, at least in part, wasn't (and isn't) a necessary part of effectively dealing with the disease.

Yes, they are... and the social and political homophobia that interfered with early efforts to deal with AIDS was also a problem to solve in itself. But that doesn't mean that it didn't concretely worsen the problem, or that overcoming it, at least in part, wasn't (and isn't) a necessary part of effectively dealing with the disease.

Of course it doesn't. My point was that it isn't confined to HIV/AIDS. Solving the issues in the medical area that have been caused by homophobia and racism will address not only the disparities in HIV/AIDS, but also in medical care as a whole.

This study is important in establishing high-risk demographics for a deadly illness, so that it can better be targeted. Clearly, education should not be distributed evenly between western heterosexuals and western homosexuals.

However, giving medical professionals and advocates a better idea of what groups to target for education is where this study's usefulness begins and ends. Just because homosexuals are more at risk does not degrade them as people, nor does it say that there is anything wrong with the lives that they lead. After all, had HIV initally spread among heterosexuals, then homosexuals will be less at risk for contracting the virus. Heterosexuals can claim no superiority just because they were lucky enough to not have the disease originate in their sexual demographic. Luck is no grounds to claim moral righteousness.