The New York Times reported today, 8/3/08, that HIV infection rates in the United States are 40% higher than previously thought. The article, H.I.V. Study Says Rate 40% Higher Than Estimate, discloses that a new, more precise testing method "found that 56,300 people became newly infected with H.I.V in 2006, compared with the 40,000 figure the agency has cited as the recent annual incidence of the disease."
The article further states that "findings confirm that H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, has its greatest effect among gay and bisexual men of all races (53 percent of all new infections) and among African-American men and women."
Have earlier findings, that the infection rate previously declined and has remained steady since the late 1990s, led gays to relax their safe sex practices? Has your own attitude about safe sex and AIDS prevention changed in the past 10 years?
Please comment.
Full Version: HIV Infections
I have always thought that safer sex was the better option. I am unlikely to ever engage in bareback simply because am I unlikely to ever be able to trust anyone that much. There are too many men who will lie even when they are in a relationship, so why should I ever put my life at risk like that for anyone?
Safer sex is better and I think younger people think it cannot happen to them.
Even when using a condom be good if you get tested.
Maybe when I get in a long term relationship and both get tested then maybe no condoms. It would be a decision between me and a bf.
Even when using a condom be good if you get tested.
Maybe when I get in a long term relationship and both get tested then maybe no condoms. It would be a decision between me and a bf.
One article I read on this story stated that while the number of people with active infections among some groups has shown a decline, it continues to increase among gay and bi men. This is where the epidemic started and it is still ground zero. 25 years of education does not seem to have been able to change that.
I'd be interested to see more information about the gay men that are acquiring the new infections. My suspicion would be that those who are some what out and in contact with a wider gay community get the information and those who seriously closeted don't. However, it may well be more complicated than that.
I'd be interested to see more information about the gay men that are acquiring the new infections. My suspicion would be that those who are some what out and in contact with a wider gay community get the information and those who seriously closeted don't. However, it may well be more complicated than that.
Maybe new abstinence program is also to blame, ooh no sex education just don't have sex and take a oath 
QUOTE (MikeL @ August 3 2008, 06:04 PM) 
H.I.V... has its greatest effect among gay and bisexual men of all races (53 percent of all new infections) and among African-American men and women."
It has been feared for some time that HIV would start moving in the heterosexual population like it has in Africa.
Maybe now the Feds will get serious about finding a cure or a vaccine.
QUOTE
QUOTE (jamessavik @ August 3 2008, 05:17 PM)
It has been feared for some time that HIV would start moving in the heterosexual population like it has in Africa.
Maybe now the Feds will get serious about finding a cure or a vaccine.
There is resent research that indicates that Africans and people of African ancestry may be more susceptible to AIDS infection as a result of an adaption that protects against malaria.
My attitudes regarding sex remain the same. Sex between two people who have made a committment to each other and are going to remain monogomous is just as safe with or without the condom provided both partners are tested. If you are not in a mutually committed relationship, then condom usage is a must.
Demetz, what if somebody cheats? That defeats the whole idea, because that means an increased risk of HIV infection. That's the problem I have with the whole idea.
I think Safe Sex practices are on a decline. I don't think younger people realize how unsafe sex can be and that their sex-life is too extreme. As for me, personally not using a condom for even oral sex is extreme for me and I just don't do that. Teen pregnancies are at an all-time high as well so I don't think any social group has a good stance on safe sex practices.
Some states teach abstinence only and have higher pregnancy/STD rates. Other States are too relaxed on the idea of sex and so you'll see generations causing the overall average to increase.
All of that is my opinion though.
Some states teach abstinence only and have higher pregnancy/STD rates. Other States are too relaxed on the idea of sex and so you'll see generations causing the overall average to increase.
All of that is my opinion though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_pandemic#United_States
In the United States in particular, a new wave of infection is being blamed on the use of methamphetamine, known as crystal meth. Research presented at the 12th Annual Retrovirus Conference in Boston in February 2005 concluded that using crystal meth or cocaine is the biggest single risk factor for becoming HIV+ among US gay men, contributing 29% of the overall risk of becoming positive and 28% of the overall risk of being the receptive partner in anal sex [5]. In addition, several renowned clinical psychologists now cite methamphetamine as the biggest problem facing gay men today, including Michael Majeski, who reckons meth is the catalyst for at least 80% of seroconversions currently occurring across the United States, and Tony Zimbardi, who calls methamphetamine the number one cause of HIV transmission, and says that high rates of new HIV infection are not being found among non-crystal users. In addition, various HIV and STD clinics across the United States report anecdotal evidence that 75% of new HIV seroconversions they deal with are methamphetamine-related; indeed, in Los Angeles, methamphetamine is regarded as the main cause of HIV seroconversion among gay men in their late thirties[6]
In the United States in particular, a new wave of infection is being blamed on the use of methamphetamine, known as crystal meth. Research presented at the 12th Annual Retrovirus Conference in Boston in February 2005 concluded that using crystal meth or cocaine is the biggest single risk factor for becoming HIV+ among US gay men, contributing 29% of the overall risk of becoming positive and 28% of the overall risk of being the receptive partner in anal sex [5]. In addition, several renowned clinical psychologists now cite methamphetamine as the biggest problem facing gay men today, including Michael Majeski, who reckons meth is the catalyst for at least 80% of seroconversions currently occurring across the United States, and Tony Zimbardi, who calls methamphetamine the number one cause of HIV transmission, and says that high rates of new HIV infection are not being found among non-crystal users. In addition, various HIV and STD clinics across the United States report anecdotal evidence that 75% of new HIV seroconversions they deal with are methamphetamine-related; indeed, in Los Angeles, methamphetamine is regarded as the main cause of HIV seroconversion among gay men in their late thirties[6]
QUOTE (Richard Lyon @ August 3 2008, 09:41 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_pandemic#United_States
In the United States in particular, a new wave of infection is being blamed on the use of methamphetamine, known as crystal meth. Research presented at the 12th Annual Retrovirus Conference in Boston in February 2005 concluded that using crystal meth or cocaine is the biggest single risk factor for becoming HIV+ among US gay men, contributing 29% of the overall risk of becoming positive and 28% of the overall risk of being the receptive partner in anal sex [5]. In addition, several renowned clinical psychologists now cite methamphetamine as the biggest problem facing gay men today, including Michael Majeski, who reckons meth is the catalyst for at least 80% of seroconversions currently occurring across the United States, and Tony Zimbardi, who calls methamphetamine the number one cause of HIV transmission, and says that high rates of new HIV infection are not being found among non-crystal users. In addition, various HIV and STD clinics across the United States report anecdotal evidence that 75% of new HIV seroconversions they deal with are methamphetamine-related; indeed, in Los Angeles, methamphetamine is regarded as the main cause of HIV seroconversion among gay men in their late thirties[6]
In the United States in particular, a new wave of infection is being blamed on the use of methamphetamine, known as crystal meth. Research presented at the 12th Annual Retrovirus Conference in Boston in February 2005 concluded that using crystal meth or cocaine is the biggest single risk factor for becoming HIV+ among US gay men, contributing 29% of the overall risk of becoming positive and 28% of the overall risk of being the receptive partner in anal sex [5]. In addition, several renowned clinical psychologists now cite methamphetamine as the biggest problem facing gay men today, including Michael Majeski, who reckons meth is the catalyst for at least 80% of seroconversions currently occurring across the United States, and Tony Zimbardi, who calls methamphetamine the number one cause of HIV transmission, and says that high rates of new HIV infection are not being found among non-crystal users. In addition, various HIV and STD clinics across the United States report anecdotal evidence that 75% of new HIV seroconversions they deal with are methamphetamine-related; indeed, in Los Angeles, methamphetamine is regarded as the main cause of HIV seroconversion among gay men in their late thirties[6]
Is the methamphetamine itself tainted or is it some other factor, such as dirty needles, that is responsible?
The Wikipedia article also said, "Experts attribute this to "AIDS fatigue" among younger people who have no memory of the worst phase of the epidemic in the 1980s and early 1990s, as well as "condom fatigue" among those who have grown tired of and disillusioned with the unrelenting safer sex message. This trend is of major concern to public health workers." This seems to be a response to the initial question.
Based on similar reports in Australia, the use of methamphetamines reduces the judgement of the user and they are more likely to use unsafe sex practises as a consequence. The drug is a contributing factor in the risky behaviour, not in the actual transmission of STDs.
Pretty sure Graeme is right. And a comment about earlier - realize that though testing is better these days, it can still take up to 3 months (at least) for a test to detect HIV. In other words, if someone is infected, gets tested the next week - it shows as a false negative. If that person then says "Oh, it's ok - I just got tested and I'm negative" - they can STILL transmit the virus.
Tests are better - it used to be that some strains of HIV could infect but stay hidden from tests for up to three YEARS. BUT - the bottom line - practice safe® sex everytime - not only for your sake, but for theirs... Yes, if you've been with someone say a year, and gotten tested every three months during that year, AND absolutely trust each other (cause that's what we're talking about - trusting someone else with you LIFE) - then and only then would I say that you could consider going without. But ANYTHING short of that - and ya, you could be risking getting infected or, should you BE positive but not know, you COULD infect them.
I do think there is too much nonchalance regarding HIV and possible infection these days. In part - having lived through some of the worst of the crisis (ie, mid-80's to mid-90's) where yes, I did know people not only HIV+, but had too many friends and acquaintance die. Seeing less vigilance now is... almost sad. Being HIV+ is not the death sentence it used to be - and there continue to be great hopes in research.... but NOW is not the time to relax to the point of letting this disease spread even more (and it HAS spread way too much).
Tests are better - it used to be that some strains of HIV could infect but stay hidden from tests for up to three YEARS. BUT - the bottom line - practice safe® sex everytime - not only for your sake, but for theirs... Yes, if you've been with someone say a year, and gotten tested every three months during that year, AND absolutely trust each other (cause that's what we're talking about - trusting someone else with you LIFE) - then and only then would I say that you could consider going without. But ANYTHING short of that - and ya, you could be risking getting infected or, should you BE positive but not know, you COULD infect them.
I do think there is too much nonchalance regarding HIV and possible infection these days. In part - having lived through some of the worst of the crisis (ie, mid-80's to mid-90's) where yes, I did know people not only HIV+, but had too many friends and acquaintance die. Seeing less vigilance now is... almost sad. Being HIV+ is not the death sentence it used to be - and there continue to be great hopes in research.... but NOW is not the time to relax to the point of letting this disease spread even more (and it HAS spread way too much).
QUOTE (MikeL @ August 3 2008, 10:14 PM)
Is the methamphetamine itself tainted or is it some other factor, such as dirty needles, that is responsible?
No. Meth makes you feel horny and invincible. Imagine a club full of people feeling the same way and you'll get some idea why it is fueling the epidemic.
I happen to agree with Trebs. Still, I would say one needs extensive proof that his or her partner is trustworthy enough. If there's any sign at all that there may be dishonesty at all, then it's best not to trust your partner with that. It's best to keep using condoms unless your are as close to 100% sure as you can possibly be. Again, that is why I am extremely unlikely to ever allow it for myself. I'm scared of HIV and other STDs to the point where self-preservation is my top priority. Do I have trust issues? In fact I do, but that is my problem. Still, I'd rather stay safe, and that's the bottom line.
QUOTE (jamessavik @ August 3 2008, 11:58 PM)
No. Meth makes you feel horny and invincible. Imagine a club full of people feeling the same way and you'll get some idea why it is fueling the epidemic.
James took the words right out of my mouth. It's the invincible factor that does it. You know that you should be using a condom, but somehow that part of your brain that says "hey, this is serious, I could be a statistic if I do this..." is shut off. So, since you feel like God, it really doesn't cross your mind that you're even susceptible to HIV.
~shrugs~ Meth is the common thread I've found in a lot of seriously sad situations, especially involving gay men. Everything I've ever seen just gives me excellent reasons to completely avoid it and those who use it.
Okay, I realise that my personal observations are not statistically significant, but from chatting to young gay guys in person and on the net, it seems that those who insist on use of condoms has declined over the last few years. i.e. They are prepared to use a condom if the other guy insists, but they won't make it a condition of having anal sex.
One contributing factor, I feel, is that most of them think that AIDs is now treatable, and recent reports reinforce their feeling. e.g. I think that I saw somewhere that the right cocktail of drugs given in the early stages of HIV infection can keep someone alive and reasonably well for 10-15 years.
For a young person, who in any case has a sense of personal invulnerability (that's how society persuades them to go to war!), the idea of being able to live for another 10-15 years is virtually the same as immortality. So now they wrongly consider HIV infection to be no more serious than any other STD.
Of course there are other contributing factors (e.g. drugs), but I've not personally chatted to anyone who admits to using drugs, so it's not part of my personal observations.
Kit
One contributing factor, I feel, is that most of them think that AIDs is now treatable, and recent reports reinforce their feeling. e.g. I think that I saw somewhere that the right cocktail of drugs given in the early stages of HIV infection can keep someone alive and reasonably well for 10-15 years.
For a young person, who in any case has a sense of personal invulnerability (that's how society persuades them to go to war!), the idea of being able to live for another 10-15 years is virtually the same as immortality. So now they wrongly consider HIV infection to be no more serious than any other STD.
Of course there are other contributing factors (e.g. drugs), but I've not personally chatted to anyone who admits to using drugs, so it's not part of my personal observations.
Kit
QUOTE (Tiger @ August 3 2008, 06:06 PM)
I have always thought that safer sex was the better option. I am unlikely to ever engage in bareback simply because am I unlikely to ever be able to trust anyone that much. There are too many men who will lie even when they are in a relationship, so why should I ever put my life at risk like that for anyone?
Well said, Tim!
QUOTE (Richard Lyon @ August 3 2008, 07:08 PM)
I'd be interested to see more information about the gay men that are acquiring the new infections. My suspicion would be that those who are some what out and in contact with a wider gay community get the information and those who seriously closeted don't. However, it may well be more complicated than that.
Yes, in my experience, as an out young gay guy with out young gay friends most of us have the sense to use condoms or at least none of us have the stupidity to admit to not doing so.
The very youngest gay teens first coming out, and gay males who are alienated from gay society definitely seem to be at the greatest risk.
QUOTE (Trebs @ August 3 2008, 11:50 PM)
Pretty sure Graeme is right. And a comment about earlier - realize that though testing is better these days, it can still take up to 3 months (at least) for a test to detect HIV. In other words, if someone is infected, gets tested the next week - it shows as a false negative. If that person then says "Oh, it's ok - I just got tested and I'm negative" - they can STILL transmit the virus.
Tests are better - it used to be that some strains of HIV could infect but stay hidden from tests for up to three YEARS. BUT - the bottom line - practice safe® sex everytime - not only for your sake, but for theirs... Yes, if you've been with someone say a year, and gotten tested every three months during that year, AND absolutely trust each other (cause that's what we're talking about - trusting someone else with you LIFE) - then and only then would I say that you could consider going without. But ANYTHING short of that - and ya, you could be risking getting infected or, should you BE positive but not know, you COULD infect them.
I do think there is too much nonchalance regarding HIV and possible infection these days. In part - having lived through some of the worst of the crisis (ie, mid-80's to mid-90's) where yes, I did know people not only HIV+, but had too many friends and acquaintance die. Seeing less vigilance now is... almost sad. Being HIV+ is not the death sentence it used to be - and there continue to be great hopes in research.... but NOW is not the time to relax to the point of letting this disease spread even more (and it HAS spread way too much).
Tests are better - it used to be that some strains of HIV could infect but stay hidden from tests for up to three YEARS. BUT - the bottom line - practice safe® sex everytime - not only for your sake, but for theirs... Yes, if you've been with someone say a year, and gotten tested every three months during that year, AND absolutely trust each other (cause that's what we're talking about - trusting someone else with you LIFE) - then and only then would I say that you could consider going without. But ANYTHING short of that - and ya, you could be risking getting infected or, should you BE positive but not know, you COULD infect them.
I do think there is too much nonchalance regarding HIV and possible infection these days. In part - having lived through some of the worst of the crisis (ie, mid-80's to mid-90's) where yes, I did know people not only HIV+, but had too many friends and acquaintance die. Seeing less vigilance now is... almost sad. Being HIV+ is not the death sentence it used to be - and there continue to be great hopes in research.... but NOW is not the time to relax to the point of letting this disease spread even more (and it HAS spread way too much).
Very well said, Trebs!
I only disagree on the point in bold. In my opinion it isn't almost sad; it's F-ing tragic!
QUOTE (Demetz @ August 3 2008, 08:25 PM)
My attitudes regarding sex remain the same. Sex between two people who have made a committment to each other and are going to remain monogomous is just as safe with or without the condom provided both partners are tested. If you are not in a mutually committed relationship, then condom usage is a must.
I'm sorry Demetz and forgive me for being so blunt, but I think that idea is naive at best and downright stupid and dangerous at worst. As Trebs so aptly pointed out tests can lie. More to the point people can lie. I think many of us have been in the situation in which we've been betrayed by someone we were dating, or at least seen it happen to our close friends/family. I think it's rather rash to believe that it couldn't happen again to us.
"Commitment" is a lovely word, but do you really want to live and die by it? You might live by it, but if your partner doesn't you may indeed die by it.
Condoms really aren't such a big deal. They aren't expensive, they aren't difficult to use, and they're usually quite comfortable. I can't fathom someone having so little respect for themselves and their partner that they wouldn't take this simple step.
As I said, forgive my bluntness but as may be apparent I feel rather strongly about this issue.
-Kevin
Something else you should think about, would you tell a straight, married couple to never stop using condoms because someday their partner will cheat on them? What does this tell you about your opinion of your fellow gay people that you think those who have been in stable, happy relationships should never even consider trusting each other enough to not use a condom?
Now, I'm not suggesting going out and slutting up the nearest bar, but when you're with someone you trust and you've made a mutual, long lasting committment to be emotionally and sexually exclusive, there just isn't anything wrong with not using a condom.
Another note: use some judgment in picking that person.
Now, I'm not suggesting going out and slutting up the nearest bar, but when you're with someone you trust and you've made a mutual, long lasting committment to be emotionally and sexually exclusive, there just isn't anything wrong with not using a condom.
Another note: use some judgment in picking that person.
During a sex ed... well more STI awareness lecture in college we were told that the rise in HIV infection has more prevalent in heterosexuals in the past two years... granted I think we were using UK statistics...
as for younger people having more of a blase attitude towards sex in general... well i have to agree that as a generation we are a lot more relaxed about the idea of sex... but I wouldn't say as a whole the threat of HIV or any infection has really been taken any less seriously... at least not by anyone that i know, I mean we have had the threat of these diseases shoved down our throats for years... even to the point that photographs of genitals erm... seeping puss... has been shown on wide screen projectors... not the image you want to see with a hangover *shudders*
The relationship aspect is difficult... demetz makes a good point with the straight couple arguement...
but I don't know if I could trust someone else with the well... value of my health.
and as for the drug factor... i totally agree that thats definately a reason that less protection is used... I mean ive been that drunk and smashed out of my teeth on nights out that I honestly don't remember leaving clubs, travelling and arriving home... so in that state I don't think I would even consider using protection... BUT I don't think sex would be on the top of my agenda... reckon that'd be vomiting!
It is scary... infact very scary... to the point that I only take a maximum of £50 out on a night out now.. just so I can be safe.
But i think that the booze culture especially in the UK plays a role in STD increase
as for younger people having more of a blase attitude towards sex in general... well i have to agree that as a generation we are a lot more relaxed about the idea of sex... but I wouldn't say as a whole the threat of HIV or any infection has really been taken any less seriously... at least not by anyone that i know, I mean we have had the threat of these diseases shoved down our throats for years... even to the point that photographs of genitals erm... seeping puss... has been shown on wide screen projectors... not the image you want to see with a hangover *shudders*
The relationship aspect is difficult... demetz makes a good point with the straight couple arguement...
but I don't know if I could trust someone else with the well... value of my health.
and as for the drug factor... i totally agree that thats definately a reason that less protection is used... I mean ive been that drunk and smashed out of my teeth on nights out that I honestly don't remember leaving clubs, travelling and arriving home... so in that state I don't think I would even consider using protection... BUT I don't think sex would be on the top of my agenda... reckon that'd be vomiting!
It is scary... infact very scary... to the point that I only take a maximum of £50 out on a night out now.. just so I can be safe.
But i think that the booze culture especially in the UK plays a role in STD increase
QUOTE (Demetz @ September 1 2008, 03:23 PM)
Something else you should think about, would you tell a straight, married couple to never stop using condoms because someday their partner will cheat on them? What does this tell you about your opinion of your fellow gay people that you think those who have been in stable, happy relationships should never even consider trusting each other enough to not use a condom?
A few comments on that. First, I've heard of lots of instances of one person in a straight marriage cheating, picking up STDs (including HIV) and bringing it home to their spouse. So honestly who's to say it is a good idea? I'll butt out if it's a married couple, but I'm disinclined to ever advise them against condom use (unless they are specifically trying to conceive, but that should be pretty obvious).
Anyway, you said 'monogamous couple', referring to gays, in your first statement, and then 'straight married couple' in your second. Sorry, but there's a difference. Just as there's a difference between a 'monogamous straight couple' and a married straight couple.
I would VERY MUCH and VERY STRONGLY encourage a straight, monogamous couple to use condoms. Sorry but simply 'committed' and 'monogamous' don't cut it for me, whether you're gay or straight I still think it's stupid to have unsafe sex.
Now, if you want to compare apples to apples, if it's a gay 'married' couple who have done it somewhere in which marriage is legal, or they've entered a domestic partnership, civil union, or at least had a commitment ceremony - and assuming that a closed, monogamous relationship is a part of their partnership (which is the same requirement I would have for married straights to engage in unsafe sex) - then sure, I don't object at all and don't consider their behaviour foolish.
If they've been faithful to each other for years and intend to remain partnered and monogamous for the duration of their lives, then of course I don't care if they've had any ceremony or legal arrangement (as I don't with straight couples). But I'm sorry this 'oh I love him and we're going to be together forever' nonsense that so many couples (gay and straight) pull as an excuse to have unsafe sex isn't going to float with me. Just because it's your steady boyfriend/girlfriend - regardless of whether it's a gay or straight relationship - does not mean you should be having unprotected sex with them. Give it a year or two, minimum, and then talk to me about commitment and monogamy.
QUOTE (Excuse @ September 1 2008, 09:33 PM)
and as for the drug factor... i totally agree that thats definately a reason that less protection is used... I mean ive been that drunk and smashed out of my teeth on nights out that I honestly don't remember leaving clubs, travelling and arriving home... so in that state I don't think I would even consider using protection... BUT I don't think sex would be on the top of my agenda... reckon that'd be vomiting!
It is scary... infact very scary... to the point that I only take a maximum of £50 out on a night out now.. just so I can be safe.
But i think that the booze culture especially in the UK plays a role in STD increase
It is scary... infact very scary... to the point that I only take a maximum of £50 out on a night out now.. just so I can be safe.
But i think that the booze culture especially in the UK plays a role in STD increase
Be safe, dude
Take care all and have a great day!
-Kevin
QUOTE (Excuse @ September 2 2008, 03:33 AM)
During a sex ed... well more STI awareness lecture in college we were told that the rise in HIV infection has more prevalent in heterosexuals in the past two years... granted I think we were using UK statistics...
as for younger people having more of a blase attitude towards sex in general... well i have to agree that as a generation we are a lot more relaxed about the idea of sex... but I wouldn't say as a whole the threat of HIV or any infection has really been taken any less seriously... at least not by anyone that i know, I mean we have had the threat of these diseases shoved down our throats for years... even to the point that photographs of genitals erm... seeping puss... has been shown on wide screen projectors... not the image you want to see with a hangover *shudders*
as for younger people having more of a blase attitude towards sex in general... well i have to agree that as a generation we are a lot more relaxed about the idea of sex... but I wouldn't say as a whole the threat of HIV or any infection has really been taken any less seriously... at least not by anyone that i know, I mean we have had the threat of these diseases shoved down our throats for years... even to the point that photographs of genitals erm... seeping puss... has been shown on wide screen projectors... not the image you want to see with a hangover *shudders*
you're right. I remember 4 years ago in 6th form going over statistics in my geography class. heterosexual infection was larger than that of homosexuals by sheer numbers I think, and due to that had a better chance of spreading further, but I think if I remember in the gay population the prevelance was still higher by % of the population. but yes thats uk stats and quite awhile ago. im amazed really that its not simular in the usa, or if it is that its only being recognised now. the problem I remember discussing was that most straight people, esp young people still believed in the myth and hadnt appreciated how easy it was for them to catch HIV.
The worst part of my sex ed in school, year 9 (er, age 13) was watching this tape about the sexual services in our area, and usual stuff about std's, but the main guy presenting it was.....the dad of one our family friends. so yep, found out what type of doctor he was then. it was worse for his 2 kids
Celia
QUOTE (Smarties @ September 2 2008, 12:00 PM)
you're right. I remember 4 years ago in 6th form going over statistics in my geography class. heterosexual infection was larger than that of homosexuals by sheer numbers I think, and due to that had a better chance of spreading further, but I think if I remember in the gay population the prevelance was still higher by % of the population. but yes thats uk stats and quite awhile ago. im amazed really that its not simular in the usa, or if it is that its only being recognised now. the problem I remember discussing was that most straight people, esp young people still believed in the myth and hadnt appreciated how easy it was for them to catch HIV.
The worst part of my sex ed in school, year 9 (er, age 13) was watching this tape about the sexual services in our area, and usual stuff about std's, but the main guy presenting it was.....the dad of one our family friends. so yep, found out what type of doctor he was then. it was worse for his 2 kids
Celia
The worst part of my sex ed in school, year 9 (er, age 13) was watching this tape about the sexual services in our area, and usual stuff about std's, but the main guy presenting it was.....the dad of one our family friends. so yep, found out what type of doctor he was then. it was worse for his 2 kids
Celia
hahaha oh god the shame... i remember during one of our sex ed lessons a guy fainted... he never lived it down...
and the worst part i have to say would be the gaping vagina with gonorrhoea...
i felt physically sick... seriously... those images scar kids bleugh!
Kevin, I understand your point of view, but I think you're being overly cynical about it. It tells me that you probably have some issues with trust. The whole sex without a condom thing is definitely not something to do with just anyone, and when you do, you do so with two understandings. The first is that you have a deep level of trust with your partner. The other is that in the event that something does go wrong you will have to live with a change in HIV status. That is scary for sure, but it happens. We know we are at higher risk of HIV infection. That goes with the territory of being gay. Still, there ARE benefits if you are with the right man, one with whom you feel that you can have a lifetime commitment and one that you trust with your life. I hope that someday you find that just as I believe we all deserve. That's just some food for thought.
Tim (Playing Sacha's usual role of "The Devil's Advocate")
Tim (Playing Sacha's usual role of "The Devil's Advocate")
I guess you think it would be stupid of my opinion,
I said this manytimes, I will condoms til I know it's right and we get tested and just won't be with any guy, has to be for a long time.
Married doesn't mean your better to have sex etc. and non of our business if a couple desides one way or another, by shoving down their throats.
I think for kids there needs to be different infomation about sex passed around for sex education not just abstinence, Abstinence wasn't taught when I had went to them, and frankly I would like to see gay sex to be taught as well.
I responded to smarties by pm, I can't remeber much of sex ed, but I do remeber the drug part, some pretty disgusting pictures. esp with huffing.
I said this manytimes, I will condoms til I know it's right and we get tested and just won't be with any guy, has to be for a long time.
Married doesn't mean your better to have sex etc. and non of our business if a couple desides one way or another, by shoving down their throats.
I think for kids there needs to be different infomation about sex passed around for sex education not just abstinence, Abstinence wasn't taught when I had went to them, and frankly I would like to see gay sex to be taught as well.
I responded to smarties by pm, I can't remeber much of sex ed, but I do remeber the drug part, some pretty disgusting pictures. esp with huffing.
QUOTE (AFriendlyFace @ September 2 2008, 04:41 AM)
A few comments on that. First, I've heard of lots of instances of one person in a straight marriage cheating, picking up STDs (including HIV) and bringing it home to their spouse. So honestly who's to say it is a good idea? I'll butt out if it's a married couple, but I'm disinclined to ever advise them against condom use (unless they are specifically trying to conceive, but that should be pretty obvious).
Anyway, you said 'monogamous couple', referring to gays, in your first statement, and then 'straight married couple' in your second. Sorry, but there's a difference. Just as there's a difference between a 'monogamous straight couple' and a married straight couple.
I would VERY MUCH and VERY STRONGLY encourage a straight, monogamous couple to use condoms. Sorry but simply 'committed' and 'monogamous' don't cut it for me, whether you're gay or straight I still think it's stupid to have unsafe sex.
Now, if you want to compare apples to apples, if it's a gay 'married' couple who have done it somewhere in which marriage is legal, or they've entered a domestic partnership, civil union, or at least had a commitment ceremony - and assuming that a closed, monogamous relationship is a part of their partnership (which is the same requirement I would have for married straights to engage in unsafe sex) - then sure, I don't object at all and don't consider their behaviour foolish.
If they've been faithful to each other for years and intend to remain partnered and monogamous for the duration of their lives, then of course I don't care if they've had any ceremony or legal arrangement (as I don't with straight couples). But I'm sorry this 'oh I love him and we're going to be together forever' nonsense that so many couples (gay and straight) pull as an excuse to have unsafe sex isn't going to float with me. Just because it's your steady boyfriend/girlfriend - regardless of whether it's a gay or straight relationship - does not mean you should be having unprotected sex with them. Give it a year or two, minimum, and then talk to me about commitment and monogamy.
-Kevin
Anyway, you said 'monogamous couple', referring to gays, in your first statement, and then 'straight married couple' in your second. Sorry, but there's a difference. Just as there's a difference between a 'monogamous straight couple' and a married straight couple.
I would VERY MUCH and VERY STRONGLY encourage a straight, monogamous couple to use condoms. Sorry but simply 'committed' and 'monogamous' don't cut it for me, whether you're gay or straight I still think it's stupid to have unsafe sex.
Now, if you want to compare apples to apples, if it's a gay 'married' couple who have done it somewhere in which marriage is legal, or they've entered a domestic partnership, civil union, or at least had a commitment ceremony - and assuming that a closed, monogamous relationship is a part of their partnership (which is the same requirement I would have for married straights to engage in unsafe sex) - then sure, I don't object at all and don't consider their behaviour foolish.
If they've been faithful to each other for years and intend to remain partnered and monogamous for the duration of their lives, then of course I don't care if they've had any ceremony or legal arrangement (as I don't with straight couples). But I'm sorry this 'oh I love him and we're going to be together forever' nonsense that so many couples (gay and straight) pull as an excuse to have unsafe sex isn't going to float with me. Just because it's your steady boyfriend/girlfriend - regardless of whether it's a gay or straight relationship - does not mean you should be having unprotected sex with them. Give it a year or two, minimum, and then talk to me about commitment and monogamy.
-Kevin
QUOTE (Excuse @ September 2 2008, 05:12 PM)
hahaha oh god the shame... i remember during one of our sex ed lessons a guy fainted... he never lived it down...
and the worst part i have to say would be the gaping vagina with gonorrhoea...
i felt physically sick... seriously... those images scar kids bleugh!
and the worst part i have to say would be the gaping vagina with gonorrhoea...
i felt physically sick... seriously... those images scar kids bleugh!
poor you. I can't go to any of the local gum clinics either, he runs them all. I don't think we were shown anything as bad as that in my school. I went to this taster 2 day thing for students thinking of medicine though and one of the docs was seriously funny, but why oh why he chose that proffession and showed us those pic I don't know! another guy was a brain surgeon, not sure which pics I saw were worse. In RE a girl fainted, that was from this film on abortion over time.
Do you americans have anything like this, there's always debate here of how much and how early they are supposed to tell kids, but reading it now it does sound graphic. we had our 1st session when we were age 9-10 I think, but it was only basic I think. in that same class when I was 13 I remember the teacher explaining what 69 was. we also covered drugs too, and exactly what experience they gave you.
celia
QUOTE (Richard Lyon @ August 3 2008, 09:09 PM)
There is resent research that indicates that Africans and people of African ancestry may be more susceptible to AIDS infection as a result of an adaption that protects against malaria.
Also there is some natural immunity in some people of northern European ancestry. People descended from folks who survived the Black Plague seems to have some genetic advantage in this regard. I sounds like natural selection at work, sort of like when you use anti-bacterial soap too much you select for resistant bacteria, or similarly over-use of antibiotics.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.