BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM

Also, you omitted this sentence that followed the "but" sentence,

"For example, there is an 18 times greater risk of HIV transmission through anal sex than through vaginal sex, which may explain why the virus continues to thrive in gay men, despite the fact that they still receive the bulk of HIV awareness and treatment public-health messages"

Akeneaton flagged that as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 10:02 AM

I put the "but" in my original post.

We are told that "HIV experts" have traditionally blamed factors including "having multiple partners" for the high rate.

Why is Ake "stereotyping gay men as promiscuous" when he said exactly the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:40 AM

I have never suggested that that linking high-risk behaviours to making gay men more vulnerable was stereotyping. Me, and others, objected to stereotyping gay men as promiscuous. I also objected to people labelling gay men as perverts and linking them with paedophilia. I also posted the line you have put, including the all important BUT that you have omitted. Just in case you missed it

Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection. But there may be biological reasons for the enhanced risk as well. (Emboldening is mine)

Ake is still guilty of branding gay men as promiscuous perverts and linking them to paedophilia so, no, no vindication from me on that score. Sorry.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:03 AM

You did Dave, and you are vindicated.

And also,
"Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection. "
is what Akeneaton said and he was accused of "stereotyping" for it.
Is he vindicated?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 05:51 AM

Thanks for that link, Keith. I would advise that everyone reads it and pays particular attention to the sections that say

Public health messages about safe sex practices and testing targeted to gay men have waned in the intervening years, and now, some experts say, a new generation of at-risk men have to be educated about the disease.

And

Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection. But there may be biological reasons for the enhanced risk as well.

As well as

"If HIV infection in MSM is heavily biologically determined, do present approaches to HIV programming for MSM, which rely heavily on information, education and behavior change strategies, make sense?" the authors write. "The epidemiology suggests that urgent reform is needed."

That's why the latest data on using HIV treatments to protect healthy people from infection, a strategy known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), are of particular interest to public health experts.

Which is what I suggested ages ago. I am certainly no expert but education and research sounded, to me, a good idea while compulsory registration and testing is just wrong.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:23 AM

The risks do differ dramatically.
Infection is at epidemic levels and rising in MSM.
It is rare and falling among non-MSM.
The piece I linked to gives reasons for that difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:05 AM

I would have thought that most health-care providers (I expect that means doctors and nurses) know how to advise and screen gay men, and anybody else, with regard to HIV risks. It isn't rocket science is it? With regard to treatment, I imagine all who have a positive result would be sent initially to a specialist, then medication distributed and monitored at their local GP surgery. I don't see why gay men should be any more disposed to high-risk behaviours such as promiscuity drug use, sharing needles etc than the straight population. When I visited in prisons, I learned that about 80 per cent of the inmates used drugs, and about half of those used and shared needles. (By the way, the ever-hot tea urn on each 'landing' was nearly always used to store these shared needles, and the officers turned a blind eye usually!) There were hardly any gay men in any of the prisons I entered, but a slightly larger-than-the-norm level of HIV infection. Many of the straight youth today have sex promiscuously with many partners. I feel it isn't useful to separate gay and straight people when looking at HIV. The risks, prevention and treatment can't differ much surely?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 03:43 AM

So why are MSM at such high risk.
Ake suggested some reasons, and was branded a homophobe for it.
Here health professionals give exactly the same reasons.

"Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection. But there may be biological reasons for the enhanced risk as well. For example, there is an 18 times greater risk of HIV transmission through anal sex than through vaginal sex, which may explain why the virus continues to thrive in gay men, despite the fact that they still receive the bulk of HIV awareness and treatment public-health messages. "If HIV infection in MSM is heavily biologically determined, do present approaches to HIV programming for MSM, which rely heavily on information, education and behavior change strategies, make sense?" the authors write. "The epidemiology suggests that urgent reform is needed."

"In another paper in the series, researchers document the fact that many health care providers aren't trained or equipped to screen, treat or advise gay men about their HIV risk."

One positive suggestion is that healthy MSM should be persuaded to take drugs that give some protection. This is called Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis or PrEP.
Is that a rights abuse?
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show/

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 10:57 AM

Cappy Jack: ""The Church forbids sex between men anyway, so the condom rule is completely irrelevant.
However much you want to make this an issue of religion, it just isn't."
Exactly.""

One of the problems that a lot of politicos have, and is a misconception, is that when they attack a 'religion' or church, they mistakenly think they are attacking 'God', in hopes that they can 'quiet' that little voice inside them, that keeps reminding them that they're on the wrong path.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 09:49 AM

"The Church forbids sex between men anyway, so the condom rule is completely irrelevant.
However much you want to make this an issue of religion, it just isn't."

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 02:28 AM

Go ahead and report me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 02:27 AM

You are being silly Jim.
The Church forbids sex between men anyway, so the condom rule is completely irrelevant.
However much you want to make this an issue of religion, it just isn't.
You really are obsessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 02:19 AM

"The Church condemns fornication, sodomy and adultery many more times than condom use."
Now you are simply becoming evasive, as all religious hypocrites I have ever met do.
The use of condoms is discouraged and where possible is forbidden - simple as that.
The use of condoms is encouraged by those working to prevent the spread of AIDS.
In taking the stance they do, the church is standing in the way of a major form of AIDS prevention.
Your solution - total abstinence.
Your stance on this is exactly the same as that of a church that has condemned millions of people to death.
It is little wonder that the church is in rapid decline - long may that be the case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 10:36 PM

Troubadour: "It certainly should!   If only it did, but I'm afraid that going to church on Sunday and spending the week cutting others' throats to get to the top of the heap, far outweighs the few who actually live a religious life."

Stop going to the mosque, then.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 10:14 PM

We know how HIV is transmitted. The thread has degenerated into who did what with whom and were they moral about it. That's as it may be

Today, the greatest spread of the disease is among the MSM group. (I think that comes from either the WHO or the UN. Anyway, I can find the article again if anyone needs it to satisfy their intellect as opposed to their curiosity.) Some people just don't listen worth a plug nickle. But folks in the heterosexual population don't hear so good either. And that's the problem regardless which group you come from.

Used to be in the early years of HIV/HIV (1981-5 ish) there were jokes about it all. I think the best I heard was a Newfie joke, likely started by Newfoundlanders.

Jarge had a fellow come accost him with a syringe. The assailent held the needle to Jarge's neck and said, "Gimme your money or I will inject you with HIV." Jarge said, "Go ahead!" The bad guy did, then ran off. Jarge's buddy said, "Jarge, you're gonna die." Jarge replied, "It's ok. I forgot to take off the condom when I left my girlfriend's."

Today, we should know better, but we don't. The issue is not one of which area of sexuality you live in but rather which area of reality you inhabit. I suppose the thing we can be thankful for is that HIV/AIDS does in ten years what it takes the hemmoraghic fevers ten days to do. It at least gives time to consider the problem.

The religion-side of the issue is a non-starter. I posit that the Pope has so little power to over-ride the instincts/feelings of the Catholic people that few have followed his strictures, ever. I might be wrong, but I heard a fine lady once mention that penny royal was available OTC in the early 1900s. It was known about by most menstruating females. Celibacy? Not a &^^%# chance. We aren't made that way--nor were we I hasten to add :-)

We either treat HIV/AIDS as we did smallpox or polio or plague--that is through research and education--or we can say goodbye to a million people a year.

I see I have blabbed on long enough, but I do have one more thing to say: work the problem, people. (That line is from Armageddon, the movie. Parts of it I love.)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:36 PM

"'Religion' literally means 'way of life'"

It certainly should!   If only it did, but I'm afraid that going to church on Sunday and spending the week cutting others' throats to get to the top of the heap, far outweighs the few who actually live a religious life.

If there were ever a day of judgement, Hell will be so full of self styled "Christians", there'll be hardly any room for Atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:08 PM

The Catholic church forbids the use of condoms because their purpose is to prevent conception - maybe a hangover from times long ago when the population was small and under threat; procreation was encouraged for everyone as it was necessary to continue the human race.

Procreation was (is) encouraged for Catholics, by condemning birth control, in order to keep Catholic numbers up. Cynical yet true.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:56 PM

Cappy Jack: "How about a publicity campaign warning people what the danger signs are and asking them to look at those signs to see if they need to be tested?"

Would you consider hanging out with a lot of promiscuous people a 'danger sign'?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 06:00 PM

The only thing I would discuss is the fact that it is hardly given any coverage as it used to be at least in the UK. I don't mean the scare mongering public safety TYPE warnings a while ago but HIV awareness that brought it to people's attention be it soap operas or dramas which for some it was an ideal way to get a message across that it exists.

Although as someone mentioned there was a program on BBC4 which is good an informative but it is still very few and far between it's as if it has been forgotten or put on the back burner. Even magazines easily accessible don't seem to cover it as often or am I just imagining this? One UK soap (Emmerdale) is going to cover it where the people involved are from an older age group not the usual stereotype because of that it will be interesting to see how they handle the storyline in a sensible informative way I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:48 PM

Hmmm, Interesting POV. I think the ban on contraception is on married couples. They don't have much sway there either.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:43 PM

The Catholic church forbids the use of condoms because their purpose is to prevent conception - maybe a hangover from times long ago when the population was small and under threat; procreation was encouraged for everyone as it was necessary to continue the human race.
Condom use between people of the same sex would make no difference to the chances of conception, though sex between people of the same sex might distract them from activities that would result in procreation, and so might be looked on with disapproval by those concerned about the continuation of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:24 PM

Jim,

The Church condemns fornication, sodomy and adultery many more times than condom use. I have heard such condemnation in church many times. If the church's views really had a sway in this there would be no sex before marriage. There would be no AIDS among Christians. IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:17 PM

Akenaton.

The 1 in 20, those living with AIDS are in no way relevant to your argument about prevention. They already have it. You can't prevent them from getting it.

The figure you need to look at is what you would call MSM newly infected divided by the total number of MSM people in the "demographic"

This comes out to 1 new infection per year per 79 MSM people. according to your figures and according to your proposal 4 of those 79 people (1 in 20) would already have been known to have HIV, so testing them would certainly a waste of resources.

How about a publicity campaign warning people what the danger signs are and asking them to look at those signs to see if they need to be tested?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:11 PM

"Do you have statistics to support your albeit indirect assertion that AIDS is spreading because religious hierarchies condemn the use of condoms?"
Why on earth should you want such irrelevant data?
If condoms offer some sort of protection against aids
If churches forbid the use of condoms on religious grounds
If believers are in any way discouraged or forbidden from using condoms in areas were Aids is prevalent
Put then together and what have you got - bippety-boppety-boo
Are you really demanding a body count before you condemn this inhuman behaviour?
You are like no Christian I have ever associated with - what kind of people are you - what kind of god do you worship
You reinforce my atheism no end.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:11 PM

With early treatment, HIV infection need not prevent normal life expectancy.
When AIDS symptoms appear, it is too late.
I have no problem with anyone's sexual activities, even ones involving cocoa.
All I have done is provide accurate figures and expose misleading and incorrect figures.
No bashing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM

I'm sure that I have read that there are advances in HIV treatments, so that many aids suffers may live out the same lifespan they would have had if they had not got HIV.

I'm sure I have read that some assert that this will lead to the ability to cure HIV positive status and aids.

When this comes about will Akenhateon and Keith (our other most prominent resident queer-basher) start saying that everyone is entitled to have anal sex because it isn't dangerous?

I should Coco!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:14 PM

Hmm...I dunno Jack, you seem to be concentrating on the 1 in 20 figure, but every new infection within the demographic adds to the numbers living with HIV.
When you develop AIDS there is only one exit door and the rates are increasing annually.

HOW DO YOU KEEP THAT IN PERSPECTIVE?

Is "liberalism" more important than life, or a healthy life?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:12 PM

[Rwanda News Agency]:60 per cent of people living with HIV infections in Africa are women. On average about eight out of every 100 Ugandan women are infected with HIV compared to five out of 100 Ugandan men. Among young men and women aged 15 to 24 years, for every one man, four women are infected with HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:07 PM

Jim,

Do you have statistics to support your albeit indirect assertion that AIDS is spreading because religious hierarchies condemn the use of condoms?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:40 PM

"You may be happy to find that no church I ever sat in forbade the use of condoms."
Once again Jack you are dealing with religious brand-names - I don't give a toss what church you sit in - the richest and most powerful Christian Church on the planet either forbids or strongly opposes the use of condoms - your sectarian approach to that fact is distasteful, to say the least.
"NOT have it be the only perspective. "
In context of the fact that HIV is the major problem that it is, a church exerting its influence to prevent the use of a major contributor to the prevention of its spread is assisting in spreading that disease and your trying to shuffle around that fact is religious hypocrisy at its murderous worst.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:29 PM

Where?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:24 PM

Because IF a person is straight, there is less chance they will encounter HIV!

In many parts of the world this is patently untrue.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:21 PM

Akenaton, Everyone recognizes that there is a problem. It is just the the rest of us are taking it in perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:17 PM

Bill...."(why must I explain what seems so simple, and is not the core issue?)"
Because you had previously implied that there was only a slight difference between homosexual and heterosexual infection rates.

You seem to be trying to minimise the difference between an epidemic, and a rare form of infection.

In your last post you say that there IS a problem with HIV infection in the MSM demographic, that is not in the heterosexual one.....A change of stance?   Perhaps brought about by my "stupid" questions? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:58 PM

Jim Carroll,

"No doubt, religion is part of the debate. For one thing, youthful rebellion is a stereotype, and therefor known to be common, among some religions. CERTAINLY MANY YOUNG PEOPLE ENGAGE IN RISKY BEHAVIOR OUT OF REBELLION AGAINST THEIR CHURCH. I imagine that includes some rebelling against sexual abuse. Hopefully we can all keep the religious aspect in perspective and NOT have it be the only perspective. "

You may be happy to find that no church I ever sat in forbade the use of condoms.

I also find it unlikely that two men about to engage in risky sexual acts are thinking "Oh! No! We are about to engage in a risky behavior, but we can't use condoms because Father Buttock Bruiser says it is a sin!"

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:46 PM

I sleep late, and find myself so far behind I don't know what to comment on..... and once certain personalities get involved, the signal-to-noise ratio gets pretty bad.


Keith-"Are you sure?
How can the difference be smaller if gay rates are rising and straight rates falling?"
That is not what I said: I said: (translating into simpler terms) **because the straight populations are now a significant part of the HIV statistics and the gay populations rate overall EXCEPT in younger demographics, is declining, the difference in transmission rates is smaller.**

And Ake.... your view has simply become part of the discussion IN THIS FORUM, partly because OF your views on what society should do about the issue. My answer addresses what you asked

"Why is education on infection, "less of an issue for hetero youth"?
That just does not seem to make sense."

Because IF a person is straight, there is less chance they will encounter HIV! They still might if they become involved with someone who got HIV thru injury, transfusion or sex with someone who is NOT totally straight.
(why must I explain what seems so simple, and is not the core issue?)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:46 PM

Steve, you have outdone yourself for stupid posts!...but then maybe you DO equate custard cream and brown shoes to anal sex.....

Good grief!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:37 PM

to those who love anal sex, anal sex is a 'way of life'

To those who like custard creams, custard creams are a way of life.

To those who like wearing brown shoes, brown shoes are a way of life.

To those who like feeding birds in their gardens, feeding birds in their gardens is a way of life.

To those who like to talk like complete twats, talking like complete twats is a way of life.

I think I've just found someone who the cap fits.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:58 AM

"McDaid has been gone for a while"
Thanks Peter - they all look the same to me in those frocks!
"Wow Jim, sorry, the thread is about HIV"
Any discussion about HIV must encompass its causes, possible prevention and all the consequence arising from it - to prevent such discussion is simple censorship, compounded by the fact that such attempts are now being used on a regular basis by someone who declares himself a practicing Christian.
It is not just a matter of the Church preventing the use of condoms - which they do when they are able.
The use of condoms needs to be actively encouraged and superstitious hoodoo, far from doing this, acts as yet another barrier to sexual health, which (your) god know, has been interfered with enough by your church and others down the ages..
Priests are supposed to be celibate - it didn't stop some of them from raping unknown thousands of children and continuing to call themselves Christians - and not infrequently telling their victims that what was happening to them was "gods will"   
Your somewhat facile analysis of homosexuality beggars belief - paternal-love substitution - you cannot be serious?
Why not go the whole hog and claim it can be cured with a simple trappaning procedure; your analysis seems to coincide with that era?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:51 AM

"I must add that neither I nor my husband have ever been personally involved in these scenarios!"

:-D I don't think that you did have to add that. You don't come across as a "John" or as anyone who would have one in your home. Much less the other players in your scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:31 AM

Regarding condom use, I do know that in W Africa for example (not a particular 'hotspot' for HIV as are central and southern Africa admittedly) males refuse outright to use them as they reduce sensitivity and pleasure. Even men who know they are HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex with wives/girlfriends/prostitutes simply because they like it like that. My husband tells me that some prostitutes demand extra money for non-use of condoms, and some men are prepared to pay more for the pleasure. They don't seem to consider that they're putting themselves at terrible risk of HIV and all other STDs, and so are the women. That's why I said above that science, education and testing are the way forward. In Gambia (another country I've visited many times) black male prostitutes entertain white tourist-clients of both sexes and are a source of HIV transmission. It's definitely a poverty thing. There's a lot of money to be made, because even £5 is a fortune for them. So in third-world countries, poverty is obviously part of the machinery of the spread of the disease.
I must add that neither I nor my husband have ever been personally involved in these scenarios!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:29 AM

Jim Carroll: ""This thread is not about religion Jim"
Then why take part in a discussion about it - you chose to defend the church's role (your church...."

'Religion' literally means 'way of life'...and to those who love anal sex, anal sex is a 'way of life', an answer to the prayer for the 'anal sex Jones' rolling around in their heads.
So Jim, you answered your own question, "Then why take part in a discussion about it - you chose to defend the church's role..."

....and my!...how they will defend it!

The 'political movement' is more akin to laundering their 'drives' out to the public for 'acceptance'....sorta like 'laundering some sort of guilt'...or maybe just advertising....who gives a shit?!?

Makes ya' wonder, why they can't just have their butt fucks, and shut the fuck up about it! Now EVERYBODY has to deal with it...and the fact is, NOBODY cares...AND/OR, if you will, takes anyone seriously who feels the need to announce it to the world, for everyone to accept!...as if they have the corner on their 'special sacrament'.

Nobody cares!...EXCEPT, in their 'quest' to get butt fucked, the urge often outweighs the responsibility of not endangering the health of other people...whose 'pleasure' may last a few minutes, in the heat of passion, but then are carriers of a lethal illness.........but you know what they say, "A hard dick has no conscience"......(Goes for either heteros or homos)!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 10:13 AM

Wow Jim, sorry, the thread is about HIV. I wasn't trying to moralize. I was remembering my own acting out in my late teens, mostly because of a nasty dynamic in the home. Binge drinking, speeding, bar fights, all sorts of reckless behavior. Lots of my peers were like that. But those with better home lives generally were not. No girl let me have unprotected sex with her.

I can imagine two boys of that age, suffering all the abuse that I did plus a layer of hate from their fathers for not being the football playing he-man they wanted, being sexually attracted to each other and being less than diligent than the girls I dated. I can imagine a boy trying to get the love he missed from his father in the bed of an older man.

Maybe your knowledge of psychology is so much deeper than mine that you can dismiss this out of hand. But in my view of the world, it explains why some people do some things that are so reckless that it is beyond the imagination of others. It explains the motivation of many "sex workers" as well.

Condoms are very cheap insurance. Its a given that every curious teenage smart enough to use the Internet knows what a condom is and what it is for. The question is why don't they?

Jim Carroll, no doubt, religion is part of the debate. For one thing, youthful rebellion is a stereotype, and therefor known to be common, among some religions. Hopefully we can all keep the religious aspect in perspective and not have it be the only perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 09:20 AM

[i]'Archbishop MacDaid of Dublin has just announced'[/i]

Jim! Keep up with the times, it's Diarmuid Martin. McDaid has been gone for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:47 AM

I said, right early on After this I will leave you to it. Unless anyone decides to label AIDS sufferers promiscuous perverts of course.

They haven't as yet but I think ake's latest comment is even worse. According to him...

- Liberals are asking for gay marriage.
- Liberals do not agree to registration and tagging of homosexual men
- I am therefore a liberal by his reckoning. (I'm not BTW but no point in arguing that)
- Liberals want to have the age of sexual consent lowered to 10 therefore
- Liberals are pedophiles

You may as well just go ahead and say it ake. You describe me as a homosexual, promiscuous, perverted, pedophile. And than you have the nerve complain if anyone dares to throw the odd insult at you.

Sick

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:59 AM

Well said Keith, Hatred of religion and those who practice it".....Wonder if their is a "liberal" epithet to go with that.....shouldn't think so. :0)

Someone on TV last night described the "liberal agenda" as "a sort of madness", they were discussing "liberal" attempts to have the age of sexual consent lowered to 10 years of age. :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:43 AM

Does anyone believe there is one single sexually active gay man in the whole world who is influenced not to use a condom because of Catholicism?
If he was that influenced, he would not be sexually active anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:33 AM

Howze about a rousing chorus of either Goodnight, Irene or Boil Them Cabbage Down?

You two have been through this so many times before that by now you should be able to cut and paste from old posts. Be careful with that method though because word meanings sometimes change over the course of decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:16 AM

I am sick to the back teeth of your seizing control of these threads and attempting to censor discussion with accusations of "thread drift"
I have never carried out the various threats I have made in order to stop your you manipulating threads in this way and I will not bother making them again, but the next time you attempt to steer discussion into your comfort zone by making certain aspects taboo I will not bother to respond to you but will simply request that the thread administrators prevent you from doing so.
If you persist I will ask that you be removed from this forum altogether.
Your manipulative and censorious behavior has now become a major threat to free discussion on this forum.
I will mot respond to anything yo have to say directly and will think all my birthdays have come at once if you will do the same.
General point to all -
Archbishop MacDaid of Dublin has just announced that he believes that the Church is out of step on the matters of sex: contraception, homosexuality, same sex marriage.... all matters pertaining to sex.... with the majority of Irish Catholics.
The strongest weapon against the spread of Aids is the practicing of safe sex, and the most effective means of doing that is by contraception, the use of a condom.   
Any Catholic in a country where the Church has any great degree of influence, is forbidden the use of a condom.
In the 'more enlightened' countries, where the Church has lost much of its influence, the clergy will do their level best to dissuade the faithful from using condoms, (or any form of contraception, for that matter).
As somebody who comes from a traditional Catholic background, it has been my lifelong experience that the priest will target the woman of the family in his (no women clergy remember) efforts, insisting that abstinence is the only practical alternative if she doesn't wish to have children.
In practice, the church is abusing its power to a lethal extent to prevent people from practicing safe sex.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:55 AM

You have not shown me supporting propaganda, and you never could.

I am entitled to complain when obsessive people try to use a thread about HIV transmission as just another platform for their tedious, repetitive and predictable rants against religion.