The myth of heterosexual AIDS

So, maybe heterosexuals in African culture have a lot more sex than heterosexuals in other cultures? A lot more reckless sex, that is? Non-monogamous sex?

It is clear from your final tagline that you want to make culture the primary culprit in the differential, and I agree that monogamous sexuality is more healthy than promiscuous sexuality, but the important point was mentioned in the article you quoted:

more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases

"Ulcerative" basically means open sores on the genitalia which facilitates the transmission of the HIV virus from female to male.

"The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?"

DC has a high syphillis rate. Also, the above quote did not specify heterosexual men. DC has a higher concentration of homosexual men than does North Dakota.

Again this is not to suggest that culture does not have consequences, I merely point out that the physical aspect of open sores is the best explanation.

I would take this article with a pinch of salt unless you have time to carefully read the original document. Eg. this nonsense jumped out at me, the paragraph after the comparison of Africa and the UK:

"Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, ... also contributed to Africa's heterosexual epidemic. "

Circumcision is compulsory for Muslims, in the northern parts of sub-Saharan Africa, and is also part of numerous tribal cultures. On the other hand, it is almost unknown, except among Jews and Muslims, in the UK and most of Europe.

Africa has massive problems, even in comparison with the rest of the poor world. My guess is that if you are hungry and diseased, and you have sex with starving prostitutes with genital ulcers, you are likely to catch AIDS (among other things).

It Takes A Village To Spread A Pandemic.

Where are St. Hillary of Rodham and Cardinal Carlo "Condom" Martini when the sorely afflicted are weeping and teeth-gnashing?

It does sound though that there is a business opportunity for an enterprising mohel there.

Anna: whereas generational HIV transmission is low in the west because of contraceptives.

Generational AIDs transmission in the West is probably cut down by prenatal testing. If a mother is tested for AIDs in early pregnancy, there are measures that can be taken to forestall infection of the baby. It's a matter of having a functioning medical infrastructure.

Rod: Maybe the heteros who live in Washington, DC, have a lot more reckless, non-monogamous sex than the heteros who live in North Dakota? In other words, culture has consequences.

Nicely phrased. With due deference to prevailing standards of politically correct codespeak. ;-)

And consequences not only for transmission of loathsome diseases. Children born out of wedlock. Illiteracy. Illegal drug use. Rampant crime. Lack of culture has graver consequences.

Maybe we should move the National Capital to Bismarck.

I read all about this back in the 1990s: The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: How a Tragedy Has Been Distorted by the Media and Partisan Politics (Paperback) - Fumento 1993

amazon.com/Myth-Heterosexual-AIDS-Distorted-Partisan/dp/0895267292

He couldn't get it published due to the leftward bias of the publishing company, but he finally got it published through Regnery. Even then, back in the 1990s bookstores would still hide it.

And it was as true then as it is now, the data completely obvious to any reasonably intelligent person. The media and political interests - both left and right - twisted AIDS to fit their agenda and so the scare went on. The left has real blood on their hands by trying to separate the disease from the homosexual community and drum up support and money for funding for what was really a gay disease. The right pumped up hetrosexual AIDS risks to try and scare everyone to chastity. While in fact the odds of getting AIDS due to hetero sex is nearly nil. Better chance of getting run over on the way there. If you just stay away from male homosexuals or those they have sex with, you're pretty much safe. And woman-woman sex is fully safe.

Summary: if you look at the data, it's been clear forever that AIDS is strictly a male homosexual disease with some very rare exceptions.

Regarding the African "hetero" deal, anybody paying attention knows that you will never find people who admit to being homosexual there (could get you killed) and male homosexuals in Africa tend to blend right in and have a lot of woman sex as well. A lot of sex, period. Also: the poverty/multi-partner sex/low IQ/lack of circumcision all mean there are few precautions from homosexuals mixing closely with hetros. Only in these conditions can AIDS flurish among hetros - you have to try really hard to make it happen. It couldn't happen an a traditional Christian nation, and African nations cutting back on the culture of sex have few problems here.

Another deal: circumcision is critical in the fight against AIDS, and the left fought that forever as well until finally the raw data made it impossible to ignore. I made sure all my boys were circed, and many of the older doctors out there are totally ignorant about the protection of circumcision. It most likely works for many other STDs as well, but few studies except AIDS have been done (for political reasons, natch). They actually had to stop the testing in Africa because circs save so many lives, and just try to encourage everyone to get them.

nytimes.com/2007/02/23/science/23hiv.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I read all about this back in the 1990s: The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: How a Tragedy Has Been Distorted by the Media and Partisan Politics (Paperback) - Fumento 1993

amazon.com/Myth-Heterosexual-AIDS-Distorted-Partisan/dp/0895267292

He couldn't get it published due to the leftward bias of the publishing industry, but he finally got it published through Regnery. Even then, back in the 1990s bookstores would still often hide it.

And it was as true then as it is now, the data completely obvious to any reasonably intelligent person. The media and political interests - both left and right - twisted AIDS to fit their agenda and so the scare went on. The left has real blood on their hands by trying to separate the disease from the homosexual community and drum up support and money for funding for what was really a gay disease. The right pumped up hetrosexual AIDS risks to try and scare everyone to chastity. While in fact the odds of getting AIDS due to hetero sex is nearly nil. Better chance of getting run over on the way there. If you just stay away from male homosexuals or those they have sex with, you're pretty much safe. And woman-woman sex is fully safe.

Summary: if you look at the data, it's been clear forever that AIDS is strictly a male homosexual disease with some very rare exceptions.

Regarding the African "hetero" deal, anybody paying attention knows that you will never find people who admit to being homosexual there (could get you killed) and male homosexuals in Africa tend to blend right in and have a lot of woman sex as well. A lot of sex, period. Also: the poverty/multi-partner sex/low IQ/lack of circumcision all mean there are few precautions from homosexuals mixing closely with hetros. Only in these conditions can AIDS flurish among hetros - you have to try really hard to make it happen. It couldn't happen an a traditional Christian nation, and African nations cutting back on the culture of sex have few problems here.

Another deal: circumcision is critical in the fight against AIDS, and the left fought that forever as well until finally the raw data made it impossible to ignore. I made sure all my boys were circed, and many of the older doctors out there are totally ignorant about the protection of circumcision. It most likely works for many other STDs as well, but few studies except AIDS have been done (for political reasons, natch). They actually had to stop the testing in Africa because circs save so many lives, and just try to encourage everyone to get them.

nytimes.com/2007/02/23/science/23hiv.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

YOU ARE A BIGOT. I KNEW A HETERO COUPLE THAT DIED OF AIDS. SHAME ON YOU. IF IT SPREADS AMONGST HETEROS ANYWHERE, IT CAN SPREAD AMONGST THEM EVERYWHERE.

Rod,

So, maybe heterosexuals in African culture have a lot more sex than heterosexuals in other cultures?

It's not so much African cultures as it is the destruction of African cultures. Urbanization and other, yes, consequences of colonialism have meant that in many parts of Africa, the man will live and work in a city hundreds of miles away from his rural family. You can see how an urban population of lonely men who visit their wives once or twice a year might spread STDs like wildfire... but this is not at all intrinsic to African cultures; it's a lifestyle in complete opposition to most African cultures.

(of course among the thousands of different African traditions, some have wild careless sex as an intrinsic part of their culture... but not very many at all)

mdavid: circumcision is critical in the fight against AIDS, and the left fought that forever as well until finally the raw data made it impossible to ignore. I made sure all my boys were circed ...

Alors, les gars, laissez les bon temps rouler!

For your boys' sakes, make sure that they augment your prescient preputial preparations with proper prophylactic protection. Let the quill beware the inkpot.

Franklin Evans,

Please explain for us how someone who remains abstinent contracts an STD or becomes pregnant?

"YOU ARE A BIGOT. I KNEW A HETERO COUPLE THAT DIED OF AIDS. SHAME ON YOU. IF IT SPREADS AMONGST HETEROS ANYWHERE, IT CAN SPREAD AMONGST THEM EVERYWHERE."

Ah yes, another great example of medical science and public health policy via screaming-all-caps anecdote.

Perhaps it's been mentioned here already, but I have two points:

1) The last part of the article did not say the difference between DC and North Dakota AIDS statistics were limited to heterosexual sex.

2) Africa has MANY environmental factors that challenge the immune systems of the population there; bad drinking water, tropical diseases, etc. Those ARE pandemic on that continent.

Haven't heard of Fumento, but did read Duesberg's book back in the 90's. He raise very good questions. Questions which I've never heard answered. Rather, the questions only elicited ad hominem attacks of "bigot" etc. To me that's a red flag that his questions MIGHT be hitting the mark.

DavidTC: "I don't know of any solid information, but, yes, I've also heard that a lot of 'AIDS' in Africa is basically malnutrition."

That is *not* the case. Yes, there is malnutrition but the widespread, recent development of a devastating wasting sickness was a new twist and it tracks tightly with HIV infection.

And yes, better assessments of the actual HIV status of many African populations have been done. The virus is definitely there and in some countries spread through a large percentage of the population. AIDS is Africa is *not* malnutrition. Malnutrition may cause a more rapid decline with AIDS and allow other opportunistic diseases to flourish along with HIV-related immunosuppression, but it's not the cause of AIDS.

I think the reason any questioning of the HIV-AIDS dogma causes so much histrionics on the part of gays is because they MUST repress that terrible thought in the back of their minds:

Heterosexual Sex causes babies.
"GAY" Sex causes AIDS.
Lesbian Sex causes bupkis.

"Or, perhaps, that abstinence-only ignorance of contraception will somehow miraculously result in no STD or pregnancy when an ignorant child (or young adult!) decides to have sex."

Or perhaps your perception that abstinence-only = ignorance is wrong.

Gosh, Max. That was harsh, even for you. Just for balance, after "babies" you could append gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia.

Just wanted to add, I did enjoy your philosophical discussion in the other thread.

Mr. Evans,

As I'm sure you know, it is impossible for abstinence to cause an STD or pregnancy. Yes, some people, when taught abstinence, choose not to be. But that doesn't mean we should stop teaching it.

Hundreds of motorcyclists die every year because they don't wear helmets. Does that mean that "wearing helmets doesn't work"? No, it just means that people are ignoring good advice. Should we stop telling them to wear helmets? Or should we try harder to educate them on the benefits of wearing a motorcycle helmet?

"Gosh, Max. That was harsh, even for you. Just for balance, after "babies" you could append gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia."

Even for me!?!

Franklin, yes of course, those things are part of heterosexual activity.

Please believe me when I say that my post was not meant to be mean, but rather was a conjecture as to why there is such emotional response from gay-activist/anti-AIDS warriors to anyone questioning the behavioral aspects of the pandemic. Any research into the gay-bath house scene will show behavior that boggles the mind. Behavior that activists most likely would prefer didn't ever see the light of day.

As a side note, it is very ironic that the very liberal San Francisco banned the bath houses at one point (don't know about now), but at the same time the relatively conservative San Diego let the bath houses there operate un-checked in any way.

"Just wanted to add, I did enjoy your philosophical discussion in the other thread."

Thanks. It's been a number of years since I've cracked any of those texts. Need to do so again.

rombald: Circumcision: Whatever the medical pros and cons, isn't it a bit, like, ur, WEIRD?

Spoken like a true Hellene. This was the insight that Paul had to market the bizarre Nazarene sect to the Greek cosmopolis. Greeks prized the prepuce and frowned upon circumcision as barbaric. Not to mention ugly. And ugliness was anathema to the Greeks who essentially invented beauty. So Paul and James argued the point, so to speak, and Paul prevailed based on his felicity in melding faith and reason, and also a couple of saddlebags of cold cash collected from his burgeoning dioceses. Specie healeth all schisms.

Thus the Greeks could look good in church and in the gym. In time, shellfish and ham sandwiches were added to the pleasures permitted the Christian. In our own time, there is ongoing debate about who and what might yet fall outside the ban on fornication. Dogma has consequences.

Mr. Thornton and Kimberly, I do apologize for being sarcastic, because the point is an important one: anecdotal evidence (look, it worked here!) is not valid support for an argument. Actual, practical, on-the-ground experience is to be measured, not cited as proof. For every couple, Kimberly, who took to heart the very real information concerning sex, abstinence and risk, I can name a hundred who also had accurate information about contraception and also arrived at their marriage beds disease-free, if no longer virgins. I hasten to point out that my rebuttal is itself not a proof of anything except collected data.

Mr. Thornton, at no point did I write or imply that we should stop describing abstinence as a best possible choice. Your helmet analogy is well taken, and I respectfully extend it to condom use, with the same logic and conclusions.

Kimberly, the manner in which abstinence-only education is being delivered in fact can and does result in ignorance of what else is out there. I do not attack the idea. I do hold contempt for those who use it as an excuse to "protect" teenagers and young adults from life.

Lady and sir, how many times have you seen loud, even strident objections to "burying" abstinence as "only one option" in some sex education curricula? From that evidence, I'd say that there was a conscious effort to prevent the teaching of information about sex. I respectfully submit that it is that information that some seek to suppress. I don't know about you, but I find that to be unethical at best.

Max, you go right on being harsh. That was not a request to stop, just to review the clarity of your writing once in a while. :-)

"Yes, but a good salve should relieve it."

LOL!

Yes, the tribade's variation of the Indian Rope Burn!

LOL!

Well, what it seems to promote is that women should avoid sex with men, period.

Sure, if fidelity is there on both sides, assuming that the disease wasn't contracted other ways, or prior to the relationship.. then it is a way of avoiding, but any woman can tell you there's no guarantees. We deal with, every day, women who would swear up and down that their guy wouldn't do such things.. only to have positive test results.

Or in other words, if AIDS is some sort of consequence for immorality (culture has consequences, after all), and because male homosexuals get AIDS more because they are more immoral, therefore, lesbians are more moral than straights, since they are the lowest risk group outside of total celibacy.

Or maybe its a disease, and it spreads certain ways. Same as TB, same as Malaria, same as the Black Plague, for that matter.

Charles Cosimano may be right. After all, He condemned Africa to be scourged by both Islam and Christendom. Marauding Israelites never made it that far, so I guess the Africans lucked out there.

Here is a 2004 report from the British newspaper Daily Telegraph regarding mis- and over-diagnosis of AIDS in Africa.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/1451257/Aids-in-Africa-%27overestimated%27.html

It's no surprise that the threat of heterosexual AIDS was always exaggerated. People of all stripes have atencdency to resort to fear-mongering instead of appealing to the best in us.

Gays and their supporters wanted more money spent to help the sick and to find a cure for AIDS. That's both understandable and good.

The Religious Right wanted their kids to be chaste and their married couples to be faithful and monogamous. That's also understandable and good.

So, did gays try to appeal to our compassion? No1 They were terrified that wouldn't work. Did the Religious Right preach the joys of monogamy, and tell their kids that chastity was part of God's plan? No! They were terrified THAT wouldn't work.

So, they lied, with the best of intentions. Gays figured they had to yell "AIDS is going to get you straights, too" in order to get funding. And the Religious Right used the threat of AIDS to promote abstinence.

So, now what? After all these years of lying, what are the gay activists and the Christian Right going to do now? The AIDS explosion among straights hasn't happened, and there's no reason to think it ever will. Who's going to listen to their dire prophesies now?

*

This is the same risk guys like Rod take all the time. Instead of preaching the virtues of Crunchy living and a simpler life, Rod invariably resorts to scare tactics. He's afraid we won't listen if he just tells us how great organic fruit tastes or how happy life in a small town can be. He thinks we'll only listen if he screams that the sky is falling.

Like the gays and the fundamentalists of the early Eighties, Rod and many of the Crunchies are lying, with the purest, noblest and best of intentions.

Here we are in Bizzaro World wherein noting that there is no AIDS pandemic for heterosexual people is a "scare tactic".

Frankin,
Actually, from what I've read, Abstinence-only education is about as ineffective as comprehensive sex education - i.e., not very. According to the Mathematica study that has been used to critique abstinence only education, after 12 months and after a longer period (I'm not sure when) there was no (statistically significant) difference between abstinence-only studients and others in terms of
1. % having sex
2. # of sexual partners
3. % using protection when having sex
4. % getting pregnant
5. % reporting an STD

That suggests that there isn't much of an effect from either kind of sex ed program, although I'm not entirely convinced by the study, based on what I know of it. It seems many of the kids had had previous sex ed classes (some involving contraceptive teaching) prior to being assigned to test or control groups.

Like the gays and the fundamentalists of the early Eighties, Rod and many of the Crunchies are lying, with the purest, noblest and best of intentions.

Look, you may certainly come to this blog and dispute my arguments, my conclusions, and things like that. But don't you come here and call me a liar. Or anybody else here a liar. This is your warning. Next time you're banned.

And I've had it with you too, REP. Go have your hissy fits on somebody else's blog.

recovering ex-Pentecostal,

How's the recovery coming along?

One thing I didn't mention is that the study showed that those in abstinence-only education were less likely to believe condoms were always or usually effective at preventing stds like HIV-AIDS, Herpes and HPV, and gonnorhea and chlamydia. There wasn't any effect seen on use of condoms, but beliefs about condoms were different.

Recovering,

The point, which the analogy makes, is that teaching people to make a healthy choice is a good thing. Even if the education is not always heeded, that doesn't mean we stop giving it. Condoms are not equivalent in this example because they are not at all morally healthy, and thus not good for the person.

Your insistence that we stop teaching abstinence because some people will not be abstinent is ridiculous.

Re: HIV prevalence in Africa
It's not quite the population-eradicating pandemic that had been estimated (fortunately), but with 15% infection rates among adult populations in some countries and 30+% rates among woman in antenatal clinics, particularly in southern Africa, it's a huge drag on their resources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_11_07_hiv.pdf

Rod,

"That is, the idea that it's a general threat to the hetero population is nonsense, says the World Health Organization. If you are not a gay male, a drug user, or a skeezo who frequents prostitutes, you're pretty much not going to get AIDS."

The WHO didn't say that. They said it wasn't a general threat.

Then why may I ask does should a hospital still require health care workers to have AIDS checks if they are exposed to someone else's blood like with a needle prick. Some hospitals require it for more generic reasons.

Some hospitals will check for it when they have no clue what you have reguardless on whether it makes sense or not or you could have even been exposed.

I think if it really were a myth this would no longer be required because of the small percentage being in these categories.

I think it is still a problem for much of the population. Or is the Mayo Clinic wrong here?

Mr. Dreher,

When I first read this blog, I had to wait a while to control my anger; I am glad that your blog actually comes with the filter because it blocked two of my previous responses which were very angry themselves. Perhaps they were sort of like second chance to say what I really feel about this commentary without worrying about you turning away by the first sentence.

AIDS is a crippling disease, Mr. Dreher, not a curse from God, and certainly not a talking point with which to promote your own political agenda. AIDS is something which is, as you posted, affecting 40% of African adults in some countries, not a fear mongering tactic to try to scare young men and women into a frightened celibacy. AIDS is a pandemic which is leaving countless children orphaned and confused and frightened, not something with which you pronounce the superiority of your own culture.

Please, Mr. Dreher, the statistics you are reading about AIDS are sobering and should be responded to with thoughts towards the children, thoughts toward what can be done to at least lessen the suffering of them, not point at them and say coldly, "culture has consequences."

To those who are reading this, there are many sites to go to in order to educate yourselves on the matter. Go to the Annie Lennox Sing Campaign or some other site dedicated to this. It shouldn't matter how someone gets AIDS; pointing our collective fingers at them with moral indignation is not going to help the situation. There are many more ways of getting AIDS than by drug abuse and sex - remember this is occuring on a continent where there is very little adequate access to healthcare and where it is incredibly easy to have wound on wound contact, whether through tribal warfare or even through holding a child in your arms with open sores covering their bodies.

Mr. Dreher, please stop looking at this disease as a gay disease or a black disease or an African disease. Our moral obligation should be to see what we can do to help these people, not denigrate them.

Sincerely,
M.E. Graves

M.E. Graves, you are reading a heck of a lot into my comment. Where on earth do you get the idea that I call it a curse from God? The fact that most people get AIDS from reckless sex -- and that it is therefore quite preventable, as human beings are not animals who lack self control -- doesn't obviate our moral obligation to care for the sick. No more than pointing out that people who smoke cigarettes are more likely to get lung cancer obviates our moral obligation to care for lung cancer victims.

Still, that the entire 25-year campaign saying that all of us are equally at risk from AIDS was based on false information is cause for reflection. And whether it pains you to think so or not, when it comes to avoiding AIDS, a culture whose values idealize monogamy and sexual self-discipline is superior to cultures that do not.

When it comes to avoiding any contagious disease, a culture that values shunning the habits of and the people who carry the disease is superior to cultures that do not.

"It shouldn't matter how someone gets AIDS; pointing our collective fingers at them with moral indignation is not going to help the situation.

Posted by: I_Like_Dragyn | June 10, 2008 4:03 PM"

I'm sorry to be harsh, Mr. Graves, that's simply ridiculous. Of COURSE it matters how someone gets AIDS. Only by knowing HOW someone gets AIDS will we ever ERADICATE it. Contrary to popular liberal opinion, it is quite possible to have genuine compassion for sick people, and even actively engage in their care, while simultaneously acknowledging that their affliction was probably preventable, and that their lifestyles need to change to prevent further suffering. In your desperation to avoid being judgmental (except, of course, of traditionalists, who you clearly scorn) I fear you've turned off your powers of reason.

Of COURSE it matters how someone gets AIDS. Only by knowing HOW someone gets AIDS will we ever ERADICATE it

I think you are confusing two things. When I say how, I do not mean it is of no benefit to know that it is transmitted through blood, semen, breast milk or vaginal fluid. What I mean when I say how if that it does not matter if they got it through tribal conflict, open wound to open wound transmission, mother to child transmission, or even sex or drug use. The point of the matter is that they have it, and the response should be how to we respond compassionately. I apologize if you didn't understand what I meant when I said that, but I hope my clarification helps you understand.

I have no problem with traditionalists. I am just of the understanding that you win over people by acting correctly, not talking about how to act correctly. If you act compassionately to someone, they know that you are a compassionate person. If you merely talk about being compassionate, they have no way of knowing whether or not you are compassionate. Do you see the distinction?

"And whether it pains you to think so or not, when it comes to avoiding AIDS, a culture whose values idealize monogamy and sexual self-discipline is superior to cultures that do not."

Given that, in the Hispanic community, being married is actually an AIDS risk factor for women, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Monogamy and sexual self-discipline for BOTH sexes is a good way to avoid AIDS. In all too many cultures, what is sauce for the gander can kill the goose.

Thanks Astorian. All is well.

Patrick, do I read you correctly when I assume that, based on this principle, you would have civilian and military clinics stop treating or worrying about the large numbers of heterosexual men who fall ill with syphilis every day, due entirely to their own behavior? Really, it would be instructive for everyone to review the history of syphilis, a life-threatening illness that has caused infinite misery and was introduced into the population entirely via the bad behavior of heterosexual men. What makes syphilis different from AIDS?

"Unhygienic circumcision procedures are a cause of HIV infection among African adolescents, according to research by Stuart Brody, professor of psychology at Paisley University."

This reminds me, there are (were?) many rituals in Africa that involve scarification. The photos and videos I've seen of the procedure indicated that such events are far from being clean, not to mention the abundance of blood and its transfer to others.

Can't be good.

Compassion without truth leads to the gas chamber.

There is no such thing as Compassion without Truth. Compassion requires Truth, otherwise it is called pity. Likewise, the only true Truth is one that is viewed through Compassion, otherwise it may be knowledge, but it is certainly not Truth.

I read just fine, as do many of the other people here...we read fine enough to see the not-very-veiled innuendo of the post.

Of course, there are cultural/behavior aspects to the AIDS epidemic, as there are to ALL epidemics. And it is beyond doubt that promiscuous behavior, of all varieties, increases the likelihood of transmission of AIDS, as well as other STDs. And it is equally beyond doubt that complete abstinence would severly restrict said transmission.

So I'm in no way denying those facts on the ground.

But we are dealing with an illness here that has killed over 11 million Africans alone. A biological holocaust, a plague of biblical proportions. And there are many, many folks (particularly of certain Conservative Christian persuations) who do indeed see it as a punishment from God against sin, against gays, against libertine lifestyles. And many of them frankly wouldn't lift one finger, or spread one dime, to save the people so infected.

I'd say you have to be careful with your innuendo on this topic. Many of the terrible events of the past, and of our day, have "cultural" components. But pointing out that Jews, had they resisted the Nazis more vigorously, might have spared themselves the Holocaust, takes on dangerous meanings for certain people in our culture.

Obviously, the same information could have been presented with an overall feeling of "Thank God that research is showing that AIDS is spreadingly far more slowly than expected in heterosexual populations. That's good news, and will let us target research money, cures, etc. more effectively. Thank God for small blessings."

Your presentation had nothing of that in it, and you know it. It had the usual self-righteous "See! I told you so! If only people had sex tha way God intended, they'd be fine!" air that infects many of your worst postings. Hence, the many negative reactions.

I also find your "Who? Me?" responses to be disingenuous. You're far too smart a guy not to notice the clear subtext in your own writing, or to not understand how people could take it poorly. You have become cliched for writing with at least nearly two constant themes. The first presents a "the sky is falling" end-of-the-world perspective on an enormous range of topics. Basically, high-brow scaremongering for the literati set. Secondly, brow-beating condemnation of non-conservative social, political, and moral choices, with an affected air of classically-informed snobbery and a "What? I'm just saying...!" comeback when called on it.

The current post would be a fine example of the second type.

It is actually your third type of post, where you examine traditional practices with feeling and affection, or lampoon modern cultural silliness with literacy and wit, that I come back for.

Basically, I think that once something kills more people than Hitler, "I told you so" is never the right air for the discussions, even if you did, and were correct. Compassion requires a gentler approach...wisdom might provide one, if asked.

"It is just that this post, while reporting knowledge, is not espousing Compassion, and is therefore not Truth."

No offense, but as a principle, that's just silly.

Compassion is an emotion.

Truth is a fact.

Living by the former can get people killed.

Ignoring the latter because the one speaking it is "mean" can too.

I'm going to have to clarify what I said earlier, as at least two people took it to mean that I meant a large section of AIDS in Africa wasn't AIDS. I didn't mean to convey that impression to anyone.

Most AIDS diagnosis are correct, for the simply matter that most of them actually test for HIV itself. There is, however, a small but significant fraction of people, in places where testing is sporadic, who are believed to have AIDS but don't. There's no way that this is, at the most absurdly high value, higher than maybe 3% of the supposed infected, and that's only in places with no medical facilities.

By saying 'many', I merely meant 'a statistically significant amount'. Of course, that amount would be more than countered by the people who have AIDS but don't know it, so if anything AIDS infection is underrepresented, not over. I was just agreeing with the other guy about the fact that, sometimes, someone will die of a disease they easily should have been able to fight off, the doctors will put down 'complications of X caused by AIDS', as that is what is almost the only reason people die of that disease, and in reality he was just incredibly sickly. So, in fact, they died of an immune deficiency, just not 'Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome', and no one actually got around to testing him to see what the causes of that immune deficiency might be.

I remembered, after I said what I said and read the responses, that there are, in fact, 'HIV denialists' who like to assert that HIV does not cause AIDS, but that AIDS is just a immune deficiency caused by all sorts of random things and that HIV is an easy-to-fight-off infection that normal people don't have but people with AIDS usually do. I am not one of those crazy people. (That theory made a tiny amount of sense in 1987. It makes no sense now.)

Max, I think it's rather simply the general inability to understand the difference: HIV is an entity, AIDS is a condition. One can have the entity in one's system without having the condition. HIV/AIDS is not the only such pairing about which that is true.

Your "person" example is badly constructed. It should be "person with AIDS-suppressed immune system" instead of "HIV pos". In that case, the correct phollowing frase is: contributing cause of death AIDS.

My mother passed (1987) while being treated for leukemia. Her heart stopped during a lung biopsy procedure. Her cause of death was the leukemia treatment, which suppressed her immune system, which allowed an infection to enter her lung, which could only be diagnosed via a biopsy. (No, I will not enter a tangent about my mother. I prefer to use real, personal examples; in this case, I request it be left as such.)

From where I sit, that may serve to explain your suspicion.

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/228/27/

Heterosexual Sex causes babies.
"GAY" Sex causes AIDS.
Lesbian Sex causes bupkis.

No sex causes any infections/diseases, you imbecile.

Another one bites the dust.

I've now lived through....

1. The Super Bowl spousal-abuse myth
2. The McMartin Pre-school molestation and all its spin-offs myth
3. The satanic ritual-abuse myth
4. The "5,000 women died every year from illegal abortions pre-Roe" myth
5. The Alger Hiss was innocent myth
6. The Pope Pius XII was Hitler's Pope myth.

And now...

7. The AIDS will become a heterosexual epidemic myth.

Conservative Christians have their faith-healers. Liberals have their faith-catastrophes.

At least the bullsh** is equitably distributed.

Francis,

Don't forget the "Al Capone's Vault Conatains Treasure (or maybe bodies" Myth!

I think few people would debate that certain sexual practices are more harmful than others because of exposure risk etc. Few people would deny that sexual behavior is quite often a matter of personal choice. But, the creation of a sharp risk dichotomy between "gay/druggie/prostitute" and "heterosexual", which could be implied from Rod's post, conflates activity with circumstance and disposition. I wish Rod would have elaborated on the conclusion of his first paragraph, but in any event ...

I've noticed from many of these comments that there is a marked tendency to conflate "gay" with "anal sex", bathhouse sex, bar cruising, or other highly risky sexual behaviors. When will people realize that some gay men have decided not to have anal sex, have decided on celibacy, or somewhere in between? Perhaps these men are few and far between. Who knows? They exist however.

I think that this tendency to conflate gay sex with gay identity reflects modern conservative Christianity's struggle to reconcile identity and acts. Do acts define love and companionship? I'm sure that many married readers would question that statement. So why should risky sex characterize my identity and capacity for companionship?

Oh my. I can't help but want to parse your statement in different ways, trying to figure out if there's a missing comma or something.

Oh you can help it. Just try. You might surprise yourself.

I see that in your infinite wisdom and charity you missed the part where I was speculating that this was some possible latent thinking on the part of those overly emotional gay activists when presented with anything that might call into question BEHAVIOR as a major risk factor.

I missed nothing. I read what was said, and it very clearly stated that the aforementioned statement was a terrible thought in the mind of "gays". That has NEVER been a belief of mine. That's a crock of bull that only the likes of you would believe, hence my addressing that bull.

Beyond that, I love the word "imbecile". It has such a great sound to it. It's right up there with one of my all time favorite words: "fatuous".

Remind me why I should give a damn.

NO sex causes diseases? Are you talking material and formal cause s only, or do you include efficient cause (certainly it's not the final cause, except in some of those "barebacking" parties I've read about).

Gee, try the concept of "cause" that any sane person would think of when reading what you wrote. Save the juvenile wordplay for someone interested.

NO sex? No cause? Well, at least your statement seems to imply that you're not one of those considering children to be a disease. That's nice.

And I'm sure you're one of those that just LOVE children, so long they're a carbon copy of themselves.

"I missed nothing. I read what was said, and it very clearly stated that the aforementioned statement was a terrible thought in the mind of "gays". That has NEVER been a belief of mine. That's a crock of bull that only the likes of you would believe, hence my addressing that bull."

Oh, forgot to comment on this.

So Brandon, does your personal mental state speak for all gay men?

Max,

I have no love of Pride Parades, etc, and find them rather vulgar. So rest assured that there are gays who like to stay home and watch TV rather than ride parade floats. As for the Hallmark Channel, well I'm not a fan, and don't understand what that has to do with any of this.

Just because you've sparred with a few people who claim that homosexual acts shouldn't be separated from gay identity does not necessarily mean that this is a common notion among homosexual people. It may be, but it is not necessarily true for all cases. It's not something I've come across a lot, fwiw. I would say that those who participate in pride activities represent a minority of the homosexual population. While you might filter out the experiences of workaday homosexuals, a selective encounter with a population does not invalidate the fact that many gays are not promiscuous or typical of what you've seen at pride parades.

Rather than put up straw men, consider this: the "homosexual agenda" for many gay people means picking up the dry cleaning and groceries, not the bar or bathhouse.

trp, the "satanic ritual abuse" myth is based on so-called regression hypnosis therapy sessions where subjects imagined bizarre rituals conducted with them as unwilling victims. Church vandalism and theft has been happening since there were churches, and calling them "satanic" -- while emotionally satisfying for those left to repair and replace -- is a strictly pejorative usage having nothing to do with the myth.

Satan worship is a hostile and malicious practice by ex-Christians. It is, however, exceedingly rare and the vast majority of church vandals are kids thinking they can get away with something that looks like fun. Satanists, on the other hand, are a bit more numerous (not saying much there), and they chose their name to be provocative, not because they are ex-Christians looking for revenge.

"Just because you've sparred with a few people who claim that homosexual acts shouldn't be separated from gay identity does not necessarily mean that this is a common notion among homosexual people. It may be, but it is not necessarily true for all cases. It's not something I've come across a lot, fwiw. I would say that those who participate in pride activities represent a minority of the homosexual population. While you might filter out the experiences of workaday homosexuals, a selective encounter with a population does not invalidate the fact that many gays are not promiscuous or typical of what you've seen at pride parades."

You are of course correct. But I think you've mentioned that you don't know what the real numbers are. I certainly don't. But it is the Pride folks that speak for the "community" in the public forum. One can hardly be surprised that that message is at the front of the discussion.

Brando: "But I digress..."

Yes, but at least you do THAT well. ;-)

Don't worry about Max, guys. He's just wishing he knew how to quit you.

"He's just wishing he knew how to quit you."

Sig, I don't even know what that means?

Sorry, Max. It's a reference to dialogue from "Brokeback Mountain," which I should have realized you probably wouldn't have seen.

Recovering, Mr. Thornton put the same (lack of) words in my mouth, too. He has been silent on my response to that so far, so don't expect one to your post.

So Jeniffer, how's that becoming a lesbian thing working for you? It's like sooo obvious that that's where you need to be.

Franklin,

Boz Scaggs and Hall & Oates are "mainstream" even though 99.99% of Americans are not into them. People react to their fans just as they do to satanists: with pity and amusement rather than torches and pitchforks. Just to avoid misunderstanding: I'm not saying that Boz Scaggs/Hall & Oates music is "satanic" (except in the most imprecise sense of the word); my point is only that small numbers don't push a social phenomenon out of the mainstream. But this is way too petty a counter-quibble, so please feel free to ignore it...

Quibble is a great word. Reminds me of that Star Trek with all the little cute furry creatures that reproduced like uber-bunnies.

It's a shame that the idea isn't more widely accepted that AIDS isn't limited to sexual gender preferences.