BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

Yes Jack I understand that, but why the massive difference in transmission rates between young heteros and young homos?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:28 PM

"From: akenaton - PM
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

Yes Jack I understand that, but why the massive difference in transmission rates between young heteros and young homos? "

Would you please not say "homos" on this side of the Atlantic that is a slur.

A guy just can't run rampant and have sex with and girl he wants. Girls want to be courted, girls want to be bought dinner and do it in a nice bed. Girls say "no" sometimes. Musket's point about male anal sex is valid. But a girl is is having anal sex to please a boy is IMHO much more likely to insist on a condom than a boy doing it to get even with his father.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:15 PM

"...why is there a difference between the "education" of young homosexuals and young heterosexuals?"

I didn't say there is such a difference. The point is that YOUR concern is covered by the general situation! BOTH are resistant to being told what to not do, but there is a bit less issue for totally heterosexual youth. (They still have some STDs and pregnancy to be concerned about)

I dunno, Ake... you can't seem to separate your obsession with certain statistics from alternate interpretations of statistics.

I wish everyone could be educated to practice sensible sexual behavior... but it is folly to expect they will refrain FROM sexual behavior... and those whose orientation is toward the same sex WILL find a way.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:26 PM

Sorry Jack, no slur intended, simply an abbreviation.

Bill ..."your obsession with certain statistics".....this IS a thread on HIV transmission, I think my question is perfectly valid and is not being answered.

We know that young sexually active people want to have sex, but why the difference in transmission rates?

This is extremely important if we really want the epidemic amongst one specific demographic to be halted.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:52 PM

Cappy Jack: "Would you please not say "homos" on this side of the Atlantic that is a slur"

Is 'heteros'?

Some people think the term 'gay' is a slur against happy people.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:59 PM

Why? Because totally hetero people have a smaller chance of HIV... I acknowledge that. There IS a difference in transmission rates. It is smaller than it used to be here... partly because HIV has been spread widely enough in straight populations, and partly because gay populations have some better treatments and education.

That's not a difficult thing to understand... but all you wish to focus on is ONE part of the population..... and you have been pressed enough to admit that you think they 'ought to be controlled' by some outside agency.

That is why some folk suspect that there is a deeper motive to your 'concern'.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:46 PM

There is nothing "modern" about anal sex. Historically its vilification is not rooted in health concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

I'd hazard a guess that a major driver towards anal sex between men and women is fear of pregnancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:47 PM

Came late to this thread (mainly because I am suffering from WHITE (WHacko-Initiated Thread Exhaustion), and I may not stay, but this:
There is no justification for singling out Religion
is the most egregiously naive and in-denial comment about anything I've read for weeks!

As for this:

A guy just can't run rampant and have sex with and girl he wants. Girls want to be courted, girls want to be bought dinner and do it in a nice bed. Girls say "no" sometimes. Musket's point about male anal sex is valid. But a girl is is having anal sex to please a boy is IMHO much more likely to insist on a condom than a boy doing it to get even with his father.

Well where the hell did this tripe come from! Is this supposed to be serious?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:56 PM

Someone is forcing you to read the "tripe" are they Mr. Shaw? Something is keeping you from staring more interesting threads are they?

Please try to be more polite.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:30 PM

Bill,
There IS a difference in transmission rates. It is smaller than it used to be here

Are you sure?
How can the difference be smaller if gay rates are rising and straight rates falling?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:22 AM

Richard Bridge: "I'd hazard a guess that a major driver towards anal sex between men and women is fear of pregnancy."

Try it....and you won't have to 'hazard a guess'.
There ARE different reasons besides that one...


Steve Shaw: "A guy just can't run rampant and have sex with and girl he wants....Musket's point about male anal sex is valid. But a girl is is having anal sex to please a boy is IMHO much more likely to .....Well where the hell did this tripe come from!"

'Tripe'????

Gosh, and I was thinking you were just into anal sex with humans!!..but you never know...this is Mudcat, after all!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:57 AM

"Having anal sex to please a boy" - "get even with his father"????
It seems to me that the moralists among us have written some sort of manual on why young people have sex the way they do, attributing their own personal motives rather than consulting the young people concerned on why they do what they do.
This is the type of moralising agenda that the church has peddled in order to make sex "dirty" - "an evil necessity" which has brought about the twisted morality that has fouled up the Christian church today - correct me if I'm wrong Jack, but you do claim to be a Christian, don't you?   
Tripe indeed!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:06 AM

Bill, that is not an answer to my question, it is at best obfuscation, at worst a mild personal attack.

Would it not be more productive to address the issue, rather than express opinions on my personal motivations.

The fault lies not with those who suffer from this condition, but with a sector of society who view unrestricted "liberty" as beneficial, even when unrestricted "liberty" results it ever increasing rates of infection.
Increased testing and contact tracing has been pointed out by all the health agencies, as the way forward in the battle to combat the epidemic.....only one demographic is affected at anything near epidemic rates.
Political agendas come second to public health.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:09 AM

This thread is not about religion Jim.
Many others are.
Please pursue your obsession elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:52 AM

Whether I have anal sex, if so in what role, and why is an irrelevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:53 AM

I feel this thread should be a little more about science. After all, the important thing now is research, using virology, epidemiology, protective strategies, education and the final goal, vaccination or a permanent cure. Moral, religious or ethical issues are beside the point. I also think testing is vital, to identify, help and advise those who are infected. We should approach this danger with a practical, scientific and factual attack, not condemnatory rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:35 AM

"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 - that is, you've always been happy to attack other religions' attitude to sex in the past, particularly those nasty Muslims).
Eliza rightly introduced the subject by pointing out the anti-gay religious propaganda in Africa - you chose to respond by defending that propaganda.
Now you have lost the fight to defend the church's behaviour regarding homosexuality you are attempting to retreat by making the subject 'thread drift' as you always do.
Religion and church teaching has been the major influence in forming our attitude to sex recently and hsitorically.
Some denominations of the church have been forced to loosen their grip on our behaviour and minds.
Where the church, particularly the Christian Church, remains an influence, it continues to attempt to control sexual (and general) behaviour by using that influence ruthlessly.
The Church in Ireland has pledged to fight the move towards same-sex marriage despite the the Churches own behaviour regarding the on-going revelations of widespread homosexual and heterosexual rape of children by members of its own clergy .
It will no doubt use the threat of excommunication against those politicians who go against its wishes in the same was it did against those who opposed the changes in pregnancy-termination laws.
We haven't even begun to discuss the implications of the Christian church's anti-contraception stance on the spread of Aids.
You don't want to discuss religion in relation to this subject, then don't, I doubt that your 'infallible' contribution will be missed.
Do not presume to tell the rest of us what we should and should not be discussing - it's none of your business.      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:43 AM

Honestly Jim, the subject is "HIV transmission."
Look at the top. See?

the anti-gay religious propaganda in Africa - you chose to respond by defending that propaganda.

It is completely untrue that I defended any anti-gay propaganda.
I deplore it, and you for making that false claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:41 AM

You chose to defend the church propagating that anti Gay propaganda
"It was an issue of culture, not religion, and that is the case in Africa today too."
Religion was already and continues to be a part of this discussion despite your efforts to stop it.
It has been mentioned 18 times so far on this thread - the church 27 times, Christianity 9 times, by me a few time, by others far more.
You were happy to take part in this aspect until you fell foul of your own stupidity - now you are attempting to divert away from it
Do not presume to tell us what we can and cannot discuss in relation to "HIV transmission" because it doesn't suit your Christian agenda
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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:29 PM

Where?

GfS

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:48 PM

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