AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:13:24 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

While the mechanics of HIV transmission tend to favor the
activities of homosexuals (really, mostly only one specific
practice) the disease remains a disease of promiscuity, not
homosexuality per se.

No, it's a disease that primarily affects gay men (spec. anal sex), IV
drug users, and any woman that has had sex with either, or someone
previously infected. Promiscuity has only a marginal impact of the
risk. Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in
one of these ways.

If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe
(leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:13:24 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

While the mechanics of HIV transmission tend to favor the
activities of homosexuals (really, mostly only one specific
practice) the disease remains a disease of promiscuity, not
homosexuality per se.

No, it's a disease that primarily affects gay men (spec. anal sex), IV
drug users, and any woman that has had sex with either, or someone
previously infected. Promiscuity has only a marginal impact of the
risk.

That last is a form of promiscuity.

Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in
one of these ways.

Are you saying all those African HIV-infected men are gay?

If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe
(leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong.

Really? Got figures?

At some point I modified that to "unprotected promiscuity". I'm
not sure drug use is necessarily a "lifestyle", but I'll concede
the point. Nevertheless, the lifestyle that results in
transmision of the disease, aside from dirty needles, is
unprotected promiscuity.

Of course, another mode of transmission is birth to an infected
mother.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:
AIDS is certainly a lifestyle disease, but that lifestyle is
unprotected promiscuity, not homesexuality per se.


Ya know what?

you got it exactly!

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:42:26 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:13:24 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

While the mechanics of HIV transmission tend to favor the
activities of homosexuals (really, mostly only one specific
practice) the disease remains a disease of promiscuity, not
homosexuality per se.

No, it's a disease that primarily affects gay men (spec. anal sex), IV
drug users, and any woman that has had sex with either, or someone
previously infected. Promiscuity has only a marginal impact of the
risk.

That last is a form of promiscuity.

Promiscuity suggests it's a choice, where in cases of rape and child
abuse it's not. Sadly the later is very common in Africa.

Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in
one of these ways.

Are you saying all those African HIV-infected men are gay?

How on earth could you extract THAT from what I said???

If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe
(leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong.

Really? Got figures?

I don't honestly believe people in Africa are more sexually active
than in Europe, if that's what you are getting at.

At some point I modified that to "unprotected promiscuity". I'm
not sure drug use is necessarily a "lifestyle", but I'll concede
the point. Nevertheless, the lifestyle that results in
transmision of the disease, aside from dirty needles, is
unprotected promiscuity.

It's from fluid transmission, not promiscuity. You can be promiscuous
as you like if you take precautions, and the risk increase is
minuscule. OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person
can almost guarantee getting the disease.

Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is
selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:26:24 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:42:26 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:13:24 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

While the mechanics of HIV transmission tend to favor the
activities of homosexuals (really, mostly only one specific
practice) the disease remains a disease of promiscuity, not
homosexuality per se.

No, it's a disease that primarily affects gay men (spec. anal sex), IV
drug users, and any woman that has had sex with either, or someone
previously infected. Promiscuity has only a marginal impact of the
risk.

That last is a form of promiscuity.

Promiscuity suggests it's a choice, where in cases of rape and child
abuse it's not. Sadly the later is very common in Africa.

While child abuse and rape can be actions for th transmission of
HIV, they aren't common enough to maintain the sort of near
epidemic thate ther has been with HIV. Widespread dissemination
by widespread unprotected promiscuous acts is the problem. An
epidemic requires generalized spreading. Without the unprotected
promiscuity, there woule be few infected drug needles and few
rapists or drug abusers that were infected.

Not to mention that those infected by child abuse and rape are
not likely to spread it further; for the virus they are pretty
much dead ends.

Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in
one of these ways.

Are you saying all those African HIV-infected men are gay?

How on earth could you extract THAT from what I said???

The only other choices you left was that tehy were drug abuses or
that they got infected by screwing infected woemen; since you
have already precluded the possibility of the latter, that being
part of promiscuity, and I assume you don't claim them all to be
drug abusers, the ony choice you left was that they are gay.

While HIV can be gotten by non-promiscous, but not monogamous
sex, it can only be widely spread by promiscuous sex. Naturally,
there are cases of all kinds that can be cited, but they are not
the cause of widespread HIV infection.

If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe
(leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong.

Really? Got figures?

I don't honestly believe people in Africa are more sexually active
than in Europe, if that's what you are getting at.

Which part "UNPROTECTED promiscuity" is escaping you?

At some point I modified that to "unprotected promiscuity". I'm
not sure drug use is necessarily a "lifestyle", but I'll concede
the point. Nevertheless, the lifestyle that results in
transmision of the disease, aside from dirty needles, is
unprotected promiscuity.

It's from fluid transmission, not promiscuity. You can be promiscuous
as you like if you take precautions, and the risk increase is
minuscule.

Don't tell me you're agreeing with me here?

OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person
can almost guarantee getting the disease.

On an indivudiual basis, that's true, and includes two of the
women infected by males that I have cited previously. But If AIDS
is not already widespread there won't be many "wrong persons".
The 1970s were fabulous fun, but we weren't spreading HIV. I
still insist that, as a public health problem, AIDS is a disease
of unprotected promiscuity. Unprotecrted promiscuity results in
lots of infected people who use drugs and rape people and abuse
children. In the USA AIDS became a widespread problem in the
1980s because (1) for a few years no one could figure out what it
was and (2) promiscuity was rampant, and not only aomong the gay
community, but the gay community was indulgin in behavior that
favored the transmission of the disease.

Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is
selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not.

Whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the simple fact is
that HIV would be a rare condition in America were it not for the
unprotected promiscuity of the early 1980s. That promiscuity has
declined considerably since, and, in America, at least, AIDS is
declining. Were it not for the effective drug treatments
available, I suspect most HIV victims would have died by now and
it would have almost disappeared from the general population,
both gay and straight.

Africa has a different sort of problem.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:34:03 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:26:24 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:42:26 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in
one of these ways.

Are you saying all those African HIV-infected men are gay?

How on earth could you extract THAT from what I said???

The only other choices you left was that tehy were drug abuses or
that they got infected by screwing infected woemen; since you
have already precluded the possibility of the latter, that being
part of promiscuity, and I assume you don't claim them all to be
drug abusers, the ony choice you left was that they are gay.

Ummm... no, I wasn't saying that.

While HIV can be gotten by non-promiscous, but not monogamous
sex, it can only be widely spread by promiscuous sex. Naturally,
there are cases of all kinds that can be cited, but they are not
the cause of widespread HIV infection.

I don't believe promiscuity the right target. You can't stop people
****ing!

If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe
(leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong.

Really? Got figures?

I don't honestly believe people in Africa are more sexually active
than in Europe, if that's what you are getting at.

Which part "UNPROTECTED promiscuity" is escaping you?

Dave, sit down, and relax for a second. The word "unprotected" has
recently been added, and makes a hell of a difference. I know that's
what you meant, but I didn't.

At some point I modified that to "unprotected promiscuity". I'm
not sure drug use is necessarily a "lifestyle", but I'll concede
the point. Nevertheless, the lifestyle that results in
transmision of the disease, aside from dirty needles, is
unprotected promiscuity.

It's from fluid transmission, not promiscuity. You can be promiscuous
as you like if you take precautions, and the risk increase is
minuscule.

Don't tell me you're agreeing with me here?

I might be, in fact it wouldn't surprise me.

I simply disagree completely with the notion that promiscuity spreads
aids. Ignorance is a far bigger factor.

OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person
can almost guarantee getting the disease.

On an indivudiual basis, that's true, and includes two of the
women infected by males that I have cited previously. But If AIDS
is not already widespread there won't be many "wrong persons".
The 1970s were fabulous fun, but we weren't spreading HIV. I
still insist that, as a public health problem, AIDS is a disease
of unprotected promiscuity. Unprotecrted promiscuity results in
lots of infected people who use drugs and rape people and abuse
children. In the USA AIDS became a widespread problem in the
1980s because (1) for a few years no one could figure out what it
was and (2) promiscuity was rampant, and not only aomong the gay
community, but the gay community was indulgin in behavior that
favored the transmission of the disease.

My point really is that aids can be damn near halted if the man is
circumcised and washes/****es after sex. Any man that does this his
whole sexual life has next to zero change of catching aids, and a lot
less chance of catching anything else.

Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is
selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not.

Whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the simple fact is
that HIV would be a rare condition in America were it not for the
unprotected promiscuity of the early 1980s. That promiscuity has
declined considerably since, and, in America, at least, AIDS is
declining. Were it not for the effective drug treatments
available, I suspect most HIV victims would have died by now and
it would have almost disappeared from the general population,
both gay and straight.

Unprotected. Well condoms are partial protection, but the Catholic
church doesn't seem to keen on them.

I don't believe discouraging promiscuity is an effective form of
halting the disease. You can't stop people shagging, and you can't
stop them shagging around.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:52:32 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:34:03 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:26:24 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:42:26 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in
one of these ways.

Are you saying all those African HIV-infected men are gay?

How on earth could you extract THAT from what I said???

The only other choices you left was that tehy were drug abuses or
that they got infected by screwing infected woemen; since you
have already precluded the possibility of the latter, that being
part of promiscuity, and I assume you don't claim them all to be
drug abusers, the ony choice you left was that they are gay.

Ummm... no, I wasn't saying that.

While HIV can be gotten by non-promiscous, but not monogamous
sex, it can only be widely spread by promiscuous sex. Naturally,
there are cases of all kinds that can be cited, but they are not
the cause of widespread HIV infection.

I don't believe promiscuity the right target. You can't stop people
****ing!

Promiscuity is not simply ****ing. And do try to rememeber that I
corrected myself to the term "protected promiscuity'.

If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe
(leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong.

Really? Got figures?

I don't honestly believe people in Africa are more sexually active
than in Europe, if that's what you are getting at.

I've just been reading my latest issue of the Economist and it
has a rather interesting review of a book, "Lust in Translation:
The Rules of Infidelity from Tokyo to Tennessee", by one Pamela
Druckman. It appears that the author has found some upublished
data at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine which
shows that the most asulterous countries in the world are in
Africa, and the review cites Togo where 37% of married or
cohabiting men say that have had another sexual partner in the
last twelve months. Also cited are Switzerland at 3% and
Australia at 2.5%.

Which part "UNPROTECTED promiscuity" is escaping you?

Dave, sit down, and relax for a second. The word "unprotected" has
recently been added, and makes a hell of a difference. I know that's
what you meant, but I didn't.

At some point I modified that to "unprotected promiscuity". I'm
not sure drug use is necessarily a "lifestyle", but I'll concede
the point. Nevertheless, the lifestyle that results in
transmision of the disease, aside from dirty needles, is
unprotected promiscuity.

It's from fluid transmission, not promiscuity. You can be promiscuous
as you like if you take precautions, and the risk increase is
minuscule.

Don't tell me you're agreeing with me here?

I might be, in fact it wouldn't surprise me.

I simply disagree completely with the notion that promiscuity spreads
aids. Ignorance is a far bigger factor.

Let's stick with unprotected promiscuity, shall we? Ignorance
doesn't matter a whit if there is no unprotected promiscuity
going on.

OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person
can almost guarantee getting the disease.

On an indivudiual basis, that's true, and includes two of the
women infected by males that I have cited previously. But If AIDS
is not already widespread there won't be many "wrong persons".
The 1970s were fabulous fun, but we weren't spreading HIV. I
still insist that, as a public health problem, AIDS is a disease
of unprotected promiscuity. Unprotecrted promiscuity results in
lots of infected people who use drugs and rape people and abuse
children. In the USA AIDS became a widespread problem in the
1980s because (1) for a few years no one could figure out what it
was and (2) promiscuity was rampant, and not only aomong the gay
community, but the gay community was indulgin in behavior that
favored the transmission of the disease.

My point really is that aids can be damn near halted if the man is
circumcised and washes/****es after sex. Any man that does this his
whole sexual life has next to zero change of catching aids, and a lot
less chance of catching anything else.

while I'm sure those actions are helpful I'm nto sure I'd want to
bet my life on them.

Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is
selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not.

Whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the simple fact is
that HIV would be a rare condition in America were it not for the
unprotected promiscuity of the early 1980s. That promiscuity has
declined considerably since, and, in America, at least, AIDS is
declining. Were it not for the effective drug treatments
available, I suspect most HIV victims would have died by now and
it would have almost disappeared from the general population,
both gay and straight.

Unprotected. Well condoms are partial protection, but the Catholic
church doesn't seem to keen on them.

I don't believe discouraging promiscuity is an effective form of
halting the disease. You can't stop people shagging, and you can't
stop them shagging around.

But you can, at least, promote protected promiscuity. But this
whole thread was a response to some comments about AIDS being a
lifestyle disease.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:31:11 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:52:32 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:34:03 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

Don't tell me you're agreeing with me here?

I might be, in fact it wouldn't surprise me.

I simply disagree completely with the notion that promiscuity spreads
aids. Ignorance is a far bigger factor.

Let's stick with unprotected promiscuity, shall we? Ignorance
doesn't matter a whit if there is no unprotected promiscuity
going on.

OK, but condoms are not such great things. Men especially hate using
them, and they are know to break.

OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person
can almost guarantee getting the disease.

On an indivudiual basis, that's true, and includes two of the
women infected by males that I have cited previously. But If AIDS
is not already widespread there won't be many "wrong persons".
The 1970s were fabulous fun, but we weren't spreading HIV. I
still insist that, as a public health problem, AIDS is a disease
of unprotected promiscuity. Unprotecrted promiscuity results in
lots of infected people who use drugs and rape people and abuse
children. In the USA AIDS became a widespread problem in the
1980s because (1) for a few years no one could figure out what it
was and (2) promiscuity was rampant, and not only aomong the gay
community, but the gay community was indulgin in behavior that
favored the transmission of the disease.

My point really is that aids can be damn near halted if the man is
circumcised and washes/****es after sex. Any man that does this his
whole sexual life has next to zero change of catching aids, and a lot
less chance of catching anything else.

while I'm sure those actions are helpful I'm nto sure I'd want to
bet my life on them.

HIV can't penetrate flesh. A wash and a wee will clear any penis of it
plus many other nasties. I still can't figure out why this isn't
promoted as a basic form of hygiene. It has been well known for longer
than we have been alive.

A condom is better, but they aren't reliable, and make the sex less
enjoyable for both sides.

Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is
selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not.

Whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the simple fact is
that HIV would be a rare condition in America were it not for the
unprotected promiscuity of the early 1980s. That promiscuity has
declined considerably since, and, in America, at least, AIDS is
declining. Were it not for the effective drug treatments
available, I suspect most HIV victims would have died by now and
it would have almost disappeared from the general population,
both gay and straight.

Unprotected. Well condoms are partial protection, but the Catholic
church doesn't seem to keen on them.

I don't believe discouraging promiscuity is an effective form of
halting the disease. You can't stop people shagging, and you can't
stop them shagging around.

But you can, at least, promote protected promiscuity. But this
whole thread was a response to some comments about AIDS being a
lifestyle disease.

There is a correlation, but that isn't causation. There is also it's
correlation with homosexuals, but that too isn't causation.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:38:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:31:11 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:52:32 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:34:03 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

Don't tell me you're agreeing with me here?

I might be, in fact it wouldn't surprise me.

I simply disagree completely with the notion that promiscuity spreads
aids. Ignorance is a far bigger factor.

Let's stick with unprotected promiscuity, shall we? Ignorance
doesn't matter a whit if there is no unprotected promiscuity
going on.

OK, but condoms are not such great things. Men especially hate using
them, and they are know to break.

I hope you're not trying to justify not using them.

OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person
can almost guarantee getting the disease.

On an indivudiual basis, that's true, and includes two of the
women infected by males that I have cited previously. But If AIDS
is not already widespread there won't be many "wrong persons".
The 1970s were fabulous fun, but we weren't spreading HIV. I
still insist that, as a public health problem, AIDS is a disease
of unprotected promiscuity. Unprotecrted promiscuity results in
lots of infected people who use drugs and rape people and abuse
children. In the USA AIDS became a widespread problem in the
1980s because (1) for a few years no one could figure out what it
was and (2) promiscuity was rampant, and not only aomong the gay
community, but the gay community was indulgin in behavior that
favored the transmission of the disease.

My point really is that aids can be damn near halted if the man is
circumcised and washes/****es after sex. Any man that does this his
whole sexual life has next to zero change of catching aids, and a lot
less chance of catching anything else.

while I'm sure those actions are helpful I'm nto sure I'd want to
bet my life on them.

HIV can't penetrate flesh. A wash and a wee will clear any penis of it
plus many other nasties.

As long as you don't have any cuts or lesions or whatever.

I still can't figure out why this isn't
promoted as a basic form of hygiene. It has been well known for longer
than we have been alive.

A condom is better, but they aren't reliable, and make the sex less
enjoyable for both sides.

So if you remain monogamous, you shouldn't have to worry.


Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is
selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not.

Whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the simple fact is
that HIV would be a rare condition in America were it not for the
unprotected promiscuity of the early 1980s. That promiscuity has
declined considerably since, and, in America, at least, AIDS is
declining. Were it not for the effective drug treatments
available, I suspect most HIV victims would have died by now and
it would have almost disappeared from the general population,
both gay and straight.

Unprotected. Well condoms are partial protection, but the Catholic
church doesn't seem to keen on them.

I don't believe discouraging promiscuity is an effective form of
halting the disease. You can't stop people shagging, and you can't
stop them shagging around.

But you can, at least, promote protected promiscuity. But this
whole thread was a response to some comments about AIDS being a
lifestyle disease.

There is a correlation, but that isn't causation. There is also it's
correlation with homosexuals, but that too isn't causation.

A lot of people claim it is. I knew that little HIV-infected boy
that the Pope kissed on the papal visit to San Francisco a couple
of decades ago (the kids's name esacpes me for the moment). The
boy had gotten it from a blood transfusion, and his mother really
hated gays as a result. Of course, it was probable that the blood
used did come from a gay man, it being the early 1980s, but he
probably didn't know he was infected when he donated the blood.

--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:19:35 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:38:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

OK, but condoms are not such great things. Men especially hate using
them, and they are know to break.

I hope you're not trying to justify not using them.

Just pointing out that they suck. Apparently the pope doesn't believe
Africans should use them either.

HIV can't penetrate flesh. A wash and a wee will clear any penis of it
plus many other nasties.

As long as you don't have any cuts or lesions or whatever.

That's usually only a problem with anal sex.

I still can't figure out why this isn't
promoted as a basic form of hygiene. It has been well known for longer
than we have been alive.

A condom is better, but they aren't reliable, and make the sex less
enjoyable for both sides.

So if you remain monogamous, you shouldn't have to worry.

Well, that's a bit idealistic. People will bonk around.

There is a correlation, but that isn't causation. There is also it's
correlation with homosexuals, but that too isn't causation.

A lot of people claim it is. I knew that little HIV-infected boy
that the Pope kissed on the papal visit to San Francisco a couple
of decades ago (the kids's name esacpes me for the moment). The
boy had gotten it from a blood transfusion, and his mother really
hated gays as a result. Of course, it was probable that the blood
used did come from a gay man, it being the early 1980s, but he
probably didn't know he was infected when he donated the blood.

I never figured out why gays bother people so much.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--