CDC's New AIDS Strategy: A Healthy Approach?
	found on LA Times (registration required) written by ms_sue_collins, edited by Peter (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 19 Apr 7:07am
		There ain't going to be any more safe-sex workshops, said Terje Anderson, executive director of the National Assn. of People with AIDS.... There ain't going to be any more public attitude campaigns around this. The Bush administration has signalled a dramatic switch in priorities for funding AIDS programs. Beginning in July 2004, the government's new strategy will mean less federal spending on safe-sex programs to prevent HIV in uninfected people. Instead the government plans to invest heavily in programs aimed at preventing the spread of the virus by those who already test positive, particularly by the more than 200,000 who are unaware that they have HIV. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding told the L.A. Times that efforts aimed at high-risk uninfected people have stalled and that the number of new HIV infections has remained the same for the last decade.

	This priority shift has drawn criticism from leading AIDS groups. Daniel Montoya, director of government affairs for AIDS Project Los Angeles, thinks the policy change is shortsighted: 'Unless you are doing comprehensive prevention, in terms of looking at people who are at risk and not just look at those who are already infected, we may have another epidemic on our hands 10 years down the road.' Some critics also question whether the government will, if they manage to identify people who are unaware of their condition, offer treatment to such individuals. Anderson, director of the National Association of People with AIDS, contends that the government is using this change in focus to assuage conservative politicians who have expressed distaste for many of the safe-sex programs: This gets rid of the lightning rod.... It's just a backdoor way of defunding some of these interventions that have been so controversial.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 50 commentsbest: 7 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Americhrist   by anykey       at Sat 19 Apr 8:11am score of 1 succinct     This will be just one more chapter in the annals of a sick administration. John DiIulio was right. The Christian Right is running our country. Let us devote to unselfishness the frenzy we once gave gold and underpants ~ Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

44.  Re: Americhrist   by philipkd       at Mon 21 Apr 11:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     If being liberal means being educated, then we must draw from our education on moral relativity. So, when you state that our Administration is sick, I'd qualify it with the notion that it is only sick according to our definition of health. According to the Christian right and a large portion of US that is Christian, we are doing fine. As long as our president isn't a pot-smoker, party animal, who is getting his dick sucked behind the curtains, then our country is AOK. And this is the w(o|a)nder of democracy, only the minority can complain. - philipd Philosophistry   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  The Missionary Position on AIDS   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sat 19 Apr 8:31am score of 1.5 brilliant     "... conservative members of Congress questioned the propriety and scientific value of some of the group's workshops, which have carried such titles as 'Great Sex,' 'Sex Toys for Leather Boys' and 'A Walk on the Wildside.'" Let's just say this virus never heard about Jesus, doesn't give a damn about Christian morality and will kill the daughter or son of a conservative member of Congress as effectively as it will kill a transvestive prostitute in the Castro district. Yeah, yeah — needles, anal sex, blowjobs, multiple sex partners, it's hard for a Bible-thumper from picket-fence land to even think about that stuff without getting embarrassed. That's why we have scientists, who generally have a stronger stomach for such shenanigans, and most of them would not recommend street-corner preaching as an effective prophylaxis for a venereal disease. But politicians can get full of themselves pretty easily. I'm reminded of the time back in the '70's when the Utah state legislature passed a law forbidding the Great Salt Lake from rising. This latest effort from Washington is pretty similar.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Sneeking a Quarantine in the back door   by MonkeyBoy       at Sat 19 Apr 8:45am score of 1.5 interesting     Instead the government plans to invest heavily in programs aimed at preventing the spread of the virus by those who already test positive Sounds like advocates of an AIDS quarantine are making progress towards their goal.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  CDC   by Bennington       at Sat 19 Apr 9:41am score of 2 compelling     The CDC is a puppet of nobody. It is staffed almost exclusively by smart, slightly liberal, doctors and scientists. They can be painfully slow in changing policy, precisely because their only concern is with never making a poor recommendation regarding the public health. If they are changing policy it is because there is a mountain of data showing that this is the most effective way to improve the public health. The public health concern is with preventing new cases of HIV infection, treating people with AIDS does not further this goal — so of course AIDS patient advocacy groups won't like it. This is analogous to the way some parents of disabled children groups are mad at CDC for focusing on preventing new birth defects rather than making their children the spending priority. "The plastic virtues: purity, unity, and truth, keep nature in subjection." -- Apollinaire   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Re: CDC   by BrandonM       at Sat 19 Apr 11:32am score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 4     A quarantine will work real well since most of the people who have it and are spreading it either don't know and / or don't care. Good thing there aren't any OTHER STDs out there, either! *coughs* Yes, it IS preventable, and we should be making all the prevention efforts we possibly can make. With all the lies floating around about how condoms aren't effective ( wrong ), and talk of sexual education limited to the imaginative "Abstinence only", it seems we don't even prevention seriously! Who wants to know they have AIDS if treatment isn't available? What about treating those whose lives have been shattered by this virus? I don't suppose you all forget that these are human beings we are talking about? These are your friends, family, neighbors, and people you run into everyday. Stop trying to demonize HIV positive people. They're already fighting for their lives everyday, and enduring lots of pain doing so. The least you could do is help further Prevention, Treatment, and Research programs. Perhaps start fighting diseases with the same enthusiasm and funding that this country fights wars with. Imagine what we could accomplish if that were the case? Not just with AIDS, but other chronic and terminal illnesses. Most of the scientific community agrees that the only way to stop the spread of this disease is a working vaccine or a cure. Sex is human nature, and even our best prevention efforts haven't slowed down the disease as of yet. Year by year, AIDS always seems to meet or exceed its quota. Here are some sites you can browse for further information about AIDS, if you're interested. http://www.aegis.org http://www.thebody.com http://www.hopkins-aids.edu   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: CDC   by Bennington       at Sat 19 Apr 2:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     A vaccine would be ideal in ending the epidemic, indeed that seems to be the only way to end epidemics — e.g. smallpox and soon polio. A cure probably wouldn't work in ending the epidemic and might paradoxically increase incidence as people become less concerned with prevention. This, however, is science fiction at the moment every bit as much as a wet wired computer or an elevator to space. Theoretically possible but beyond the reach of current technologies. Public Health officials must do the best they can for the greatest number of friends, family, neighbors, etc with the technologies and resources available. If you think more money should go to public health both I and the CDC agree with you — please vote accordingly. "The plastic virtues: purity, unity, and truth, keep nature in subjection." -- Apollinaire   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  CDC   by anykey       at Sat 19 Apr 6:00pm score of 3 interesting   in reply to comment 4     You are mistaken. The CDC is run by bureaucrats like any othe government agency, and is without question Health and Human Services (HHS) bitch. Health and Human Services is the parent department of a dozen agencies including the CDC, FDA, and the NIH that are collectively headed by that icon of honesty, and all-around free thinker — HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson. And make no mistake, the CDC has happily "played the puppet" in the past. Let us devote to unselfishness the frenzy we once gave gold and underpants ~ Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: CDC   by mberman       at Mon 21 Apr 7:54am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 4     The public health concern is with preventing new cases of HIV infection, treating people with AIDS does not further this goal This isn't the change at hand, though. The change that has occurred is from one method of new case prevention to another. The old prevention technique was teaching uninfected people ways of not getting infected. This new prevention technique is preventing infected people from infecting others. Neither of these options has anything to do with treating existing AIDS patients, unless the second one eventually leads to a cure. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the focus of the program...it seems to be almost completely about getting infected people to "change their risk behavior". In my opinion, the new method is far less effective, and far more likely to be used to infringe on the rights of demographics that the government dislikes, but I think that discussion is outside the scope of this post. It is unreasonable to claim that any gov't organization is in no way affected by politics. Perhaps with constant vigilance on the part of the people an organization can stay independent, but the moment we start just assuming that whatever it says is well-reasoned and should be accepted without question is the moment it will start to fall into the sinkhole of politics.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  I wonder where...   by ninjagirl       at Sat 19 Apr 10:02am score of 4 funny     ...those sweet little Bush twins are spending their wholesome, heterosexual Spring break. Because we all know that places like Cancun, New Orleans, and South Padre Island are just nice places for heterosexual kids to get together and have good, clean, chaste, heterosexual fun. I'm sure the Bush twins even wear shoes their daddy would approve of. No way would those sweet heterosexual girls be participating in actual heterosexuality. Those homosexuals, on the other hand...I hear they're very, very promiscuous. Unlike the upstanding and modest young women of America, those gays sure do a lot of carrying on. We should really make sure they understand that their actions are not appropriate! I mean, AIDS is just a gay disease, right? Gosh, I bet Jenna and Barbara have never even heard of sex, which is great. Sex education is really just a plot by the liberal left to sexualize our innocent children, you know. I'm glad the Bush twins (who would never participate in any high-risk behavior!) aren't at risk for HIV!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  of course they wouldnt   by coprolalia       at Sat 19 Apr 2:34pm score of 1 funny   in reply to comment 5     engage in any high-risk sexual behaviors, ninjagirl. they have all those cockblocking secret service agents around. My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: I wonder where...   by Iluminati       at Sat 19 Apr 10:12pm score of 1 clever   in reply to comment 5     Here's a brilliant idea, ninjagirl. Perhaps there are other reasons for defunding safe-sex programs that gasp have absolutely NOTHING with the religious Right. Personally, I feel the Feds should have no right to tell anyone how to live their lives, irrespective of whether the government is run by fundamentalist Christians or gays and lesbians. Also, if you're gonna do satire, do it right. The religious Right has issues with a lot of straight people too, you know. When I'm not watching Fox News, I'm listening to my main man Marley Marl on Power 105.1!!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: I wonder where...   by scottfeldstein       at Mon 21 Apr 9:15am score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 12     Perhaps there are other reasons for defunding safe-sex programs that gasp have absolutely NOTHING with the religious Right. Like what? scott d. feldstein - on the web at scottfeldstein.net, AIM: TheBeeWolf   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Oh goody golly gee!   by StofCircumstance       at Sat 19 Apr 12:12pm score of 2.5 interesting     Considering the Federal government already woefully underfunds safe-sex programs, I cannot imagine what this might mean for them. Perhaps a moratorium on spending altogether? It's patently obvious that the only possible solution for the HIV/AIDS problem is teaching children (and I DO mean children) about the dangers of promiscuous, unprotected sexual contact. But, we need to limit that education to the realm of the possible. We need to limit that education to FACTS, and not morality lessons. The bare fact is, people are going to have sex whether their teachers, parents, or government want them to or not. That is, they will have sex if they want to. AND getting the message out to those already infected, as this sub suggests. Look, AIDS is 99.999% sure to kill anyone who contracts it, and that is a sorry fate to be faced with. The truth is, as gruesome as some may find it, HIV/AIDS won't go away until everyone that has it dies. Does that mean we ought to quarantine AIDS patients? No. It just means that preventing those already infected from passing along the HIV virus is equally as important as educating our children on how to avoid the high-risk behaviors that lead to contracting it in the first place. It is the height of stupidity for the government to tell teachers they must instruct students only about certain aspects of sexuality. A few years back, Joycelin Elders was "removed" as Surgeon General for advocating masturbation as a safe alternative to sex. God forbid we offer a compromise where the young get the gratification their hormones demand in a safe way; especially since no one has ever given himself/herself an STD. If we look at the human animal from a purely scientific perspective, the mores and morality plays we impose on sexuality become even more ridiculous. The average human is fully capable of reproduction by the age of 13. Is it any wonder then, that 14 year-olds are having sex? It's hard-wired into them, via their genes, to begin reproducing as soon as possible. Sure, humans, by virtue of their enhanced brains, can exert control over ingrained impulses like that. However, it is not the same thing to exercise self-control, as it is to impose control from a 3rd party. Knowing the CDC, their comments on the "unknowing infected" were likely meant to sway Congress into awarding MORE funding for HIV/AIDS programs, not a request for a priority shift in where the meager funding available goes. Unfortunately for the health and well-being of over 1 million Americans (and counting), Congress is bound and determined to not significantly increase such funding. Instead, we spend it on wars, "bribes" to foreign powers, and then initiate tax cuts. When it comes to prioritizing, Washington has always been in its own little world. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by BrandonM       at Sat 19 Apr 4:57pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 7     Well, about 5% of all people who contract the HIV virus become longterm nonprogressors. This basically translates into someone who can infect many others, but won't be feeling the sting of the virus itself for a longtime, if ever. So not everyone with the HIV virus is going to drop dead, and in most cases of UNTREATED HIV cases, it takes approximately 10 years for them to die. In other words, unless you're going to start federally mandating HIV tests to everyone, and somehow forcing all those who test positive to act accordingly ( easier said than done. ), then you still have a big problem on your hand. It's sad that a child would have to risk losing their lives to such a thing because the government that's supposed to protect them refuses to do so in manner that is efficient. Once they are infected, there is little besides treatment we can do for them. That's why we need better prevention efforts now, whether certain fundamentalists like it or not. It hasn't been long in human history since easy-to-access, rapid transportation has been around. In this short period of time, numerous new bacterial and viral threats have emerged. What would have killed off an entire isolated population before now spreads and evolves in our current culture. So much research has been done on the HIV virus itself, that IF we were to come about with a way to better prevent (vaccines) or even cure viral infections, HIV would be the logical starting point. Already, antivirals similar to those used in people with the HIV virus have made their way to other viral infections. These medications didn't even exist 20 years ago. Our efforts in fighting AIDS truly haven't gone unrewarded, but we must continue the fight.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by kuuba       at Mon 21 Apr 10:19am score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 10     Great post, but a tiny nitpick: HIV = Human Immunodeficiency Virus, thus HI Virus or HIV, but not HIV Virus.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by BrandonM       at Mon 21 Apr 4:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 42     whoops =) Good point   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by flarp       at Mon 21 Apr 7:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 42     Nope, I cast my vote as a passport-carrying warrior for proper english (as spoken by english people) that "HIV virus" is fine. These "initialnyms" (like acronyms, only they're not readily pronuncable except by reading out the individual letters) are, as far as I care, fully-formed words. Once "everyone" knows what they mean, they're words on their own, even if your choice of dictionary (or english teacher) disagrees. Rational Rationale: If "screen" and "display" can be synonyms, then "LCD screen" and "LCD display" are equally valid. Sure it's 1 redundant letter, but there's plenty of redundancy in the english language already — it's what mns yur' ble to wrk ot wht tis lie shd sa. You're probably going to have to put up with "HIV virus" and "LCD display" and suchlike because such phrasing is becoming 'right', as more people decide that making something easier to read and comprehend is more important than sticking to the "old rules". Of course if the rest of the world agrees with your approach instead, you'll be right. See you in a few hundred years?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by eduardo       at Sat 19 Apr 10:34pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 7     t's patently obvious that the only possible solution for the HIV/AIDS problem is teaching children (and I DO mean children) about the dangers of promiscuous, unprotected sexual contact While I agree with you in principle, I think AIDS education can not and will not solve the problem on its own. I don't think there're any people in the US who don't (at the very least) have a general idea of how AIDS can be caught, and still, people keep getting infected. My friend was diagnosed with HIV a year ago. He's a Westinghouse finalist, and a university student majoring in Bio. He couldn't possibly be more educated about AIDS. And it didn't make a difference. I don't claim to have a solution for the problem, but it would be naive to put all out hopes on education. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by StofCircumstance       at Sat 19 Apr 11:03pm score of 2 scholarly   in reply to comment 13     Exceptions don't quash a rule, they often prove it, as I believe is your friend's case, unfortunately for him. Level of education has absolutely nothing to do with safe sex, as your friend might also be illustrating (since it's entirely possible he contracted HIV from a transfusion or other blood-related accident.) Certainly, your friend probably knew all about safe sex. Your friend likely even asked his partners if they were "clean." Assuming your friend contracted HIV from sexual contact (since there's really no defense for blood on blood contact in life, short of wearing kevlar body armor and never leaving your room), he apparently forgot some of those lessons. If it was contracted through sexual contact, then he either didn't wear a condom "for a change," or decided that dental dams were a waste of time. We can tell our kids until we're blue in the face that they should wear condoms, but if we don't tell them to wear them for oral sex as well, we're doing them a disservice. Similarly, not stressing the use of dental dams for oral sex is compounding the problem. It's a matter of education, first and foremost. Additionally, there are indeed plenty of people in the US who have no idea how HIV is transmitted, or where AIDS even comes from. Unfortunately, they tend to be low-income, rural folk who don't exactly get high quality education. In fact, they might get the worst quality of education in the US (and that's including inner-city schools.) While I don't have figures or statistics in front of me right now, I can back it up via personal experience. Currently, I live in Louisville, Kentucky. I have friends from southeastern KY who grew up in some of the worst areas in the country. These friends have told me of people they grew up with who got pregnant and didn't know how it happened ! If they don't know where babies come from, it's a good bet they don't know much about AIDS, either. Not everyone gets even rudimentary sexual education in school, and not everyone owns a television set. I realize that may be difficult for people spending time on Plastic (since you're obviously intelligent and financially capable enough to own computers and use them), but it's the truth. Please understand, I have nothing but sympathy for your friend, and anyone else who's contracted HIV (or gotten full-blown AIDS.) I have a close friend who's been diagnosed as well, and he knows he got it from unprotected sex. He, like many people, thought it would never happen to him. Well it did, and one of these days, I'll help put him in the ground; it's sure to be long before his time. It saddens me, and it scares me to think this disease can get anyone, and we are thus far unable to cure it. So when I say education is the key to eliminating AIDS, I mean what I say. Education is not simply saying, "Have safe sex; AIDS is bad." Education also involves REINFORCEMENT of that lesson. And in reinforcement, we are sorely lacking. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by eduardo       at Sat 19 Apr 11:44pm score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 14     You are I are not disagreeing on the state of things. Your anecdote about uneducated people in KY highlights that education is necessary. My anecdote highlights that it won't solve 100% of the problem. My friend is a homosexual male who had sex with random men, including in foreign countries, and also used needle drugs. All the education in the world he had did not keep him from acting that way. When I was younger, I engaged in risky sex also. Plenty of unprotected intercourse with strangers. I can't tell you what in my head allowed me to do that even as I knew all about AIDS, but it's a matter of luck that I didn't catch anything. And you have to admit there are plenty of people like me and my friend who act stupid even though we know better. I want to narrow down my thesis so that you know exactly what I am trying to say. I am not saying that AIDS education is unnecessary. I am willing to accept your claim that there are people in the US (not to mention the rest of the world) who do not know the basics of AIDS, and I concur that educating them would reduce the AIDS rates among them. They key word is "reduce" — it would never actually solve the problem completely. I don't pretend to know what would solve the problem, but education alone will not. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by StofCircumstance       at Sun 20 Apr 12:46am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 15     OK, your point is well made, and in turn, I think you misapprehend my own. I agree with you that education alone will not solve the problem. IMHO, what will solve the problem is a paradigmatic shift in our collective attitudes toward sex, sexuality, and anything else under the sun that is relevant to that area. Included in that, in LARGE part, is our penchant to let religion get in the way of good sense. Religious beliefs destroy a great deal of the value sex education imparts; those mores and restrictions often "criminalize" what ought to be a wholly satisfying experience. What's worse, strict religious beliefs often directly contradict healthy attitudes and practices. For an easy example, look at masturbation (not literally...) Many, especially Western, religions hold masturbation to be sinful, or evil, or just plain wrong. It always seemed to me that an ancient religion wouldn't impose restrictions on something unless a great many people were doing it, and neglecting some other duty in the process. Which leads me to believe (quite rightly, IMHO) that masturbation has been around for thousands of years. The same goes for homosexuality. As further evidence, look at chimpanzees; they masturbate and engage in orgies, homosexuality, and incest with a regularity bordering on incessant. Then again, most of the religious people would deny evolution, too, so I may not win any arguments there. When it comes down to a healthy sexual viewpoint, parental involvement is key. That is to say, parents should be comfortable enough to reinforce healthy attitudes toward sex to their children. What we more often experience, however, is the cliche of parents so flustered at explaining sex to their children that the kid gets warped ideas. (A perfect example: my friend Leah's students were learning about rudimentary reproduction recently; one parent came to her and asked her to stop, because he did not want his son knowing that stuff yet. The child in question was 11 years old.) Those warped ideas we get as children take a long time, and a lot of error, to get around. And that's if we ever do. In terms of sex itself, we need to take some lessons to heart. Sure, wearing a condom is about as satisfying as wearing an oven mit, but if it helps (even a little) me from getting sick, I'm sure as hell going to wear one. Certainly there have been times I haven't, but all of them were in committed relationships in which we both got tested regularly. And yes, I've never used a condom when receiving oral sex, nor used a dental dam when giving it. Is that ultimately very dangerous? Hell yes it is. So, ultimately, I'm just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I have no idea what it will take to shift our attitudes toward a safer sexual landscape. I had thought AIDS would do it, especially in the 1980s, when it was spreading at a frightening rate. It didn't, and hopefully something worse won't come along. As for you and your friend, I think whatever sexual education you received failed, for the same reason mine has. We aren't sufficiently convinced of the very real dangers inherent with sex itself, and we act accordingly. That, to me, is a reinforcement issue. So, in the absence of a vaccine or cure, it's education, quarantines (not in my lifetime, if I have any say in the matter), or removing sex altogether, like that venerable Stallone vehicle, Demolition Man. Personally, I vote for better education. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sun 20 Apr 1:35am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 15     I think that it's not just the knowledge that's a significant part of the education, it's also the values. Teaching people that sexual conduct with strangers is inherently wrong is, in many cases, going to be counterproductive, because even if people don't believe this consciously, it's going to leave a subconscious impression that may cause them to view their own sexual conduct differently. If you already feel you're doing something that's wrong on some level, details like protection just might not feel that significant. When I was growing up (in Europe), I never had anyone tell me that there is something inherently wrong about sex with strangers, just that it's risky. I've had sex with strangers, but I've always used a condom, and have only had unprotected sex with people I trusted and was in a long-term relationship with. Maybe I'm just better at controlling my own behavior, but while I'm certainly not particularly impulsive, I doubt that's the whole picture. Personally, I credit not so much the fact that I was taught to protect myself from diseases — in a sense, I wasn't, I was sick during the sex ed classes at school — but the fact that I wasn't taught to view sexuality as something nasty and dirty. Note that I'm by no means unique in that the sex education at school wasn't my source of protection knowledge — in the late 80s, every 12-year-old around here could name several brands of condoms, due to huge advertising campaigns.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by eduardo       at Sun 20 Apr 9:34am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     As for you and your friend, I think whatever sexual education you received failed, for the same reason mine has. We aren't sufficiently convinced of the very real dangers inherent with sex itself, and we act accordingly. That, to me, is a reinforcement issue. I am beginning to see the finer point of what you're getting at — that education should go beyond simply letting people know the facts, and go as far as instilling attitudes in people. That's correct, but I guess what I've been trying to say in my last few posts is that I am skeptical about the possibility of this becoming reality. Looking back, I can't imagine the kind of education it would take for me to view "unprotected sex with strangers" as a repulsive, taboo-like concept. You're right in that if people genuinely felt this at their very core, it would go a long way to stop the spread of AIDS and other STDs. I can't and don't want to disagree with you on this. I am just curious how this could be accomplished. How do you make people take sexual education to heart? How do you make everyone reflexively put on a seatbelt, how do you make sure that every group of partying college kids on a thursday night has a joint motivation to have a designated driver? I am skeptical that education, either at school or at home, can succeed in embedding these ideas in the hearts and minds of 100% of people. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by StofCircumstance       at Sun 20 Apr 10:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     The only thing that comes to mind is parading in people who didn't take the message to heart, in descending degrees of health. Having each of these people tell their story, and what they've learned, would be a powerful tool. It may be gruesome, and it may be somewhat exploitive, but IMHO, kids don't listen to teachers with no idea of what they are talking about. Perhaps they'd listen to people who do? Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by Norman108       at Sun 20 Apr 10:29am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 22     What? You've never heard of organizations such as this. FYI, I've been a speaker for about 6 years. Don't know if it helps, but it can't hurt, huh? In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by StofCircumstance       at Sun 20 Apr 11:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     Certainly I have heard of Being Alive, as well as other groups that perform similar services. I applaud their efforts, and hope they are able to expand them in the future. My point was that such efforts are NOT widespread, and they ought to be. I neglected to mention that in the previous post, and for that I was in error. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by BrandonM       at Sun 20 Apr 9:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     I have a close friend who's been diagnosed as well, and he knows he got it from unprotected sex. He, like many people, thought it would never happen to him. Well it did, and one of these days, I'll help put him in the ground; it's sure to be long before his time. Don't give up on your friend just yet. Though it seems like there is an endless horde of Religious Right that will stop at nothing to shut us up and take our funding away for more antiabortion efforts, we'll try our best to keep up the fight to progress torwards better prevention, better treatment, and ultimately a cure. New cocktail drugs should continue to come out. Hopefully, some of the therapeutic or preventative vaccines will work. If we're lucky, perhaps the elusive goal of HIV elimination will be achieved.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Education is the key?   by BetsyDevine       at Mon 21 Apr 11:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     These friends have told me of people they grew up with who got pregnant and didn't know how it happened ! Call me a mean old skeptic, but isn't it human nature for someone who gets in trouble to say "But nobody told me"? I would never have smoked if I knew I could get cancer. I would never have had a heart attack if McDonalds didn't force me to eat their fries. I wouldn't have an STD if only somebody had told me I could get one. Already wayyyyy back when my almost-30 daughter was in school, she sat through hours of sex and drug and alcohol and cigarette education. Good thing all those problems were solved for her generation by this method--wait--what are you telling me? Kids who heard all these messages went out and smoked and got drunk and had sex anyway? Look, I'm a card-carrying left-wing old hippie, but "education" hasn't really worked, " and I'm glad to see people trying something new. "making trouble today for a better tomorrow"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Education is the key?   by StofCircumstance       at Mon 21 Apr 1:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 46     Actually, BestyDevine, what I was saying was that these people apparently were never told the correct information. If you or I choose to disbelieve them, it is a matter of perogative. I choose to believe them, in part because these are not just people from an area with no money. These are people that are likely targeted by Youth and Family Services (or whatever your local agency goes by) as being endangered. From what I am told by my friend, many of his peers quit school at 14 to help out on the farm, and were "home-schooled." By that, I mean they worked on the farm, or in Dad's garage, or the local grocery store, or wherever to help the family make ends meet. They missed out on the "where do babies come from" discussion in Health class most people get. When you add ignorance with general stupidity (as apparently, these people qualify for) it's not too hard to realize they never made the leap from "I stick it in here" to "she's pregnant." It's sad; it's a shame, no doubt. But never learning something is different from never having the opportunity to learn something. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Education is the key?   by BetsyDevine       at Mon 21 Apr 5:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     Actually, BestyDevine, what I was saying was that these people apparently were never told the correct information. Dear StOfC--What I was saying was that massive educational efforts have already been going on, for many years, about sex, AIDS, smoking, booze, etc. Are there some home-schooled or way-out-in-the-country people who never happened to hear this stuff? Yes. What I was saying was that if you look at all the twenty-somethings who got in trouble with sex, AIDS, smoking, booze, etc. --only a tiny fraction fit the profile you describe. 99.999% spent hour on boring hour from the age of maybe 10 onward listening to scary and detailed lectures about the very perils now wrecking their lives. If you look at smoking prevention--"information campaigns" didn't work. Lectures in schools about how bad smoking is didn't work. Smoking is now way down in the US but still very prevalent among educated Europeans--what made the difference? IMO, it was social pressure, smoking regulation, and clever ad campaigns to position smoking as stupid, stinky, and "lower class." AIDS "education" has been tried. It hasn't halted the spread of STDs. More education, scarier education, earlier education--they've all been tried. It's time to try something new. "making trouble today for a better tomorrow"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Just to be completely acurate   by maml       at Sun 20 Apr 7:19pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 7     A few years back, Joycelin Elders was "removed" as Surgeon General for advocating masturbation as a safe alternative to sex. Actually, what Dr. Elders said was that masturbation should be a subject for discussion. She didn't even advocate it, just say it should be discussed. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: Just to be completely acurate   by Hound       at Mon 21 Apr 9:50am score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 27     A few years back, Joycelin Elders was "removed" as Surgeon General for advocating masturbation as a safe alternative to sex. Actually, what Dr. Elders said was that masturbation should be a subject for discussion. She didn't even advocate it, just say it should be discussed. So, you're saying that masturbation rubs fundamentalists the wrong way?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by nmiguy       at Mon 21 Apr 7:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     Is there any evidence that these safe sex programs actually work? Do people experience one of these programs and suddenly they're like, "I'll never have sex without a condom again!"??? Just wondering if de-funding these programs actually makes any difference overall in the fight against AIDS or if these programs have proven to be effective in the fight against AIDS. Lord knows abstinance programs don't work. The main question is about whether the safe sex programs are the smartest way to spend the funding to fight AIDS. To someone who has AIDS, I'm sure that assistance in paying for the expensive cocktail medications is a higher priority than safe sex classes. And funding research for a vaccine or cure would and should be a high priority for this funding. You all make it sound like safe sex programs won't exist if the government doesn't pay for it. But without government assistance, you can be sure that many companies wouldn't be able to find a cure or vaccine, and that many people with AIDS won't be able to afford the life giving medications.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by StofCircumstance       at Mon 21 Apr 7:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     Not to denigrate or remotely take away from your personal struggle, I have to ask you: If there had been a stronger, and more effective sex education program in your school as a child, one that not only gave you the CORRECT information, but also reinforced those lessons sufficiently, would your situation be different? Now, when I say "reinforce," I'm not just talking about the duration of the semester. I'm advocating continued reinforcement, reeducation, and if necessary, seminars throughout the formative years . If we have to require such measures in college (should the individual go to college) so be it. While I am arguing that, but for better quality education, the problem could be (at minimum) curtailed, please do not misinterpret that as an argument to the exclusion of all else. Of course funding needs be given to research. Never would I assert that we ought to let those with HIV/AIDS "just die." Finding a cure or successful treatment program is key; but putting all our eggs in one basket is both short-sighted and foolish. If the current level of medical development is any indication, we might have a partial cure inside of 10 years. It would be folly to underfund education programs in that interim period; just as it would be folly to underfund the R&D side of the equation. You all make it sound like safe sex programs won't exist if the government doesn't pay for it. Well put, though perhaps you didn't go far enough. I am convinced that, but for government funding (be it federal, state, or local) these programs would cease to exist; alternatively, they would cease to incorporate (if they ever did) meaningful breakthroughs in medical and educational methodology. without government assistance, you can be sure that many companies wouldn't be able to find a cure or vaccine, and that many people with AIDS won't be able to afford the life giving medications. Right again. So, in the end, my argument (as it is initially in Comment 7) is that the Federal Government has acted foolishly and short-sightedly in changing the priority of the funding, instead of increasing it like they ought to. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by ms_sue_collins       at Mon 21 Apr 8:18am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 32     The main question is about whether the safe sex programs are the smartest way to spend the funding to fight AIDS. To someone who has AIDS, I'm sure that assistance in paying for the expensive cocktail medications is a higher priority than safe sex classes. And funding research for a vaccine or cure would and should be a high priority for this funding. According to the CDC's new strategy (link in write-up), the emphasis will now be to: 1. Make HIV testing a routine part of medical care. 2. Implement new models for diagnosing HIV infections outside medical settings. 3. Prevent new infections by working with persons diagnosed with HIV and their partners. 4. Further decrease perinatal HIV transmission. At stake is some $90 million that the federal government provides to community groups for HIV prevention each year. That money will now be directed toward finding that often elusive group of people who do not know they are infected. Money will go towards increased testing and counseling. As for treatment, if you blink while reading the CDC's plan, you'll miss the couple references. So it's a shift from prevention to detection primarily, not to "assistance in paying for the expensive cocktail medications" or "funding research for a vaccine or cure." It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by greta       at Mon 21 Apr 5:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     I went thru the safe sex education in junior high, and retained quite a bit of what I learned... but what really drove it home for me more than the class, was visiting a friend of my mother's in the hospital. He had tubes and wires everywhere. The gentleman in the next bed was in a sort of clear plastic tent. This was in the early to mid 80s. My mother's friend died a few days after our visit. My parents were pretty frank with us about sex, and I knew of a business associate of hers who was gay and liked younger men — high school boys and college men. He dated a few of my friends in high school. He was ultimately diagnosed as HIV positive and still slept with younger men — but, he told my mother, he used condoms. She told me about this. I'm glad she did, too. It's one of those things young adults need to learn, that you must be very careful about who you trust, and in particular who you sleep with. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, I'm a dumbass   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by nmiguy       at Mon 21 Apr 8:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 33     putting all our eggs in one basket is both short-sighted and foolish. I have to agree with you 100%. But is that what they are doing by shifting the focus of the funding? Are they trying to maximize the effectiveness of the funding? These safe sex education programs have never proven to be effective. There are very few ways to measure their effectiveness. the Federal Government has acted foolishly and short-sightedly in changing the priority of the funding, instead of increasing it like they ought to. To this I can only say perhaps, but not definitely. The government HAS increased spending to combat AIDS, and the current administration wants to TRIPLE AIDS spending in Africa. But shifting the priority to finding a cure seems wise. While some express fear that the de-funding of many educational programs will result in an increase epidemic in AIDS, this is not a forgone conclusion. In the vacuum other institutions will take up the slack in that area. But nobody will take up the slack in R&D of a vaccine or cure. More resources directed there will mean a quicker timeframe until a cure is found, or a vaccine. If you defund education about AIDS for 10 years, you MAY see an increase in infections. But if that funding is put toward a vaccine, maybe a vaccine can come about in 5 years, which could reduce the risks of these infections. I'm just saying that the panic over the changes in AIDS policy may be a bit premature. If, after a year, we see a dramatic increase in HIV infections, then that is a good indicator that you may be correct. Hopefully, this will result in expediting a cure for AIDS and an AIDS vaccine and we can put this horrible plague behind us.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by nmiguy       at Mon 21 Apr 8:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 36     Thanks Sue. As usual, I commented without knowing all the facts. What do you think about shifting the focus to detection rather than education?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by ms_sue_collins       at Mon 21 Apr 9:12am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     "I think it is shortsighted in some ways," Montoya [Daniel Montoya, director of government affairs for AIDS Project Los Angeles] said. "Unless you are doing comprehensive prevention, in terms of looking at people who are at risk and not just look at those who are already infected, we may have another epidemic on our hands 10 years down the road." Nmiguy, in general, I agree with Montoya here. Although I think that the new goals are all well and good, I don't think we should turn on back on prevention. I read the blueprint, hoping to find some mention of continuing such programs to reach and educate the uninfected, but to no avail. Since we don't yet know the exact funding allocation, however, maybe it's a little too soon for hysteria. It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: Oh goody golly gee!   by nmiguy       at Tue 22 Apr 6:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 51     When I 21 one of the projects I was working on was visiting people living with AIDS. we brought food and did chores like cleaning up their apartments and spending time with these men. They were all pretty young maybe about 30 and struggling. But I felt it was important that despite being ravaged by AIDS and the societal stigmas often attached against gay men, these guys needed to maintain their dignity. It was so difficult because they were sick and had a tough time taking care of themselves. That really drives the point home. There are many ways to learn about safe sex. You learned about it by talking with your parents and knowing somebody with AIDS. You did have the safe sex education class as well. My point was that safe sex classes alone won't do it. And the main question I have is whether the safe sex classes are an effective way to spend the funding to fight AIDS. Apparently, many feel it is. Since the safe sex education classes began, has the rate of infection with HIV slowed? If so, then they may be effective and should not be de-funded.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Center for Disease CONTROL, remember?   by Nameless Cynic       at Sun 20 Apr 11:03am score of 1 informative     Anderson, director of the National Association of People with AIDS, contends that the government is using this change in focus to assuage conservative politicians who have expressed distaste for many of the safe-sex programs: This gets rid of the lightning rod.... It's just a backdoor way of defunding some of these interventions that have been so controversial. Yup. That must be what it is. Has to be a conspiracy against HIV sufferers. Since the early 1990s, an estimated 40,000 new HIV infections have occurred annually in the United States. During 1999--2001, in the 25 states that had HIV reporting since 1994, the number of persons who had HIV infection newly diagnosed increased 14% among MSM and 10% among heterosexuals. The number of persons in the United States living with HIV continues to increase, and of an estimated 850,000--950,000 persons living with HIV, an estimated 180,000--280,000 (25%) persons are unaware of their serostatus Unless what we were doing wasn't working. And when a strategy is blatantly failing, what do you do? Maybe you create a new plan. The new initiative, Advancing HIV Prevention: New Strategies for a Changing Epidemic, is aimed at reducing barriers to early diagnosis of HIV infection and increasing access to quality medical care, treatment, and ongoing prevention services. The HIV initiative emphasizes the use of proven public health approaches to reducing the incidence and spread of disease. As with other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) or any other public health problem, principles commonly applied to prevent disease and its spread will be used, including appropriate routine screening, identification of new cases, partner notification, and increased availability of sustained treatment and prevention services for those infected. Maybe, just maybe, until the miracle AIDS cure is developed, you go back to what you know works best. Oh, wait. Right. I forgot. The CDC is an evil arm of the government, and can't be doing anything that might actually help people, could it? Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Re: Center for Disease CONTROL, remember?   by madison       at Sun 20 Apr 8:43pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 24     The parts of the country that are failing the worst to control the spread of AIDS and other STD's are all part of the Bible Belt. For example, the geographic distribution of heterosexual HIV transmission closely parallels that of other STDs. Most of the health districts with the highest syphilis and gonorrhea rates in the United States are concentrated in the South, the same part of the nation with the highest HIV prevalence among childbearing women. Researchers have long recognized that the risk behaviors which place individuals at risk for other STDs also increase a person's risk of becoming infected with HIV. STD surveillance can provide important indications of where HIV infection may spread, and where efforts to promote safer sexual behaviors should be targeted. And when a strategy is blatantly failing, what do you do? Maybe you create a new plan. Or maybe you deal specifically with the parts of the country that are failing: On Thursday, health officials from across the South urged state and federal legislators to take bolder action against HIV in the 16-state region that is home to nearly 40 percent of US AIDS cases. The three-day conference in Charlotte, N.C., drew health officials from 16 states from Delaware to Texas and such dignitaries as former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher. The South is affected more severely by HIV/AIDS for a number of reasons, officials said, including racial and economic demographics and a cultural conservatism that interferes with attempts to fight the disease. Trying to sneak the "Southern Strategy" for disease control into the national policy is just a recipe for disaster.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Center for Disease CONTROL, remember?   by Nameless Cynic       at Sun 20 Apr 9:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     I'm not sure I get your point, but I appreciate your supporting mine. The strategy we've been trying has been failing. HIV is on the upswing, so it's time to try something new. And if the Bible Belt has the worst record for AIDS prevention, maybe y'all need to target them sumbitches. Blatantly not understanding your "Southern Strategy" line, all I can say is, there needs to be an effective strategy in the South and Midwest. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Center for Disease CONTROL, remember?   by Sir Real       at Mon 21 Apr 5:48am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 30     His point was that the strategy wasn't failing- the South is failing at implementing that strategy (or not doing so at all, a'la Abstinence only). By the miracle of averages, the South's skyrocketing HIV rates give conservatives cover to say "See! I told you condoms didn't work". He wasn't supporting your "point", he was exposing the falsehood in the evidence you were citing. And aside from that, the Federal Gov't track record on HIV has been dismal (you knew you were in trouble when Dr. Koop was your hero). A consequence of that failure- deserved widespread distrust of the government's motives re:HIV. If that keeps their worst abuses in check, it's a fair trade (consider the AIDS Grant story on plastic now for similar causes for concern). Also, claiming that sex-ed don't work because HIV infection is still increasing isn't a tenable argument either, unless you can prove that the RATE of the increase is unaffected. Sex-Ed could be keeping new cases at 10-14%, rather than, say, 25%. Ending all former programs while trying something with even less support isn't responsible, or wise. The serpent, meanwhile, Sleeps his meal off in Paradise -Smiling to hear God's querulous calling.- Ted Hughes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  About time   by deanc       at Sun 20 Apr 7:03pm score of 1     What this means is that HIV will finally be treated like every other STD. Traditionally, routine screenings for HIV, tracing vectors of the sex partners of those testing positive for HIV and contacting them, and other methods that have treated an HIV infection as an "outbreak" to be controlled has been absolutely forbidden by law. These proven methods of controlling the spread of other STDs were originally not to be applied to HIV because it was thought that the stigma of HIV would discourage people from seeking medical help if they knew that they would automatically be tested or their partners would be notified. It was hoped that the problem would be solved by encouraging the HIV-negative population to take safe-sex measures to protect themselves from the HIV-positive population while keeping the HIV-positive effectively a secret from the rest of the health care community that otherwise might find the knowledge of these new HIV positive people useful.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  Re: About time   by DanPol       at Mon 21 Apr 9:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     tracing vectors of the sex partners of those testing positive for HIV and contacting them, and other methods that have treated an HIV infection as an "outbreak" to be controlled has been absolutely forbidden by law. Where? To the best of my knowledge, this is not universal. At Fenway Community Health Center in Boston, we have always asked for the names of known partners when administering HIV test, AFAIK. We do have to have permission to contact them, but that's a far cry from being forbidden by law from doing so. The infection rates for HIV in men who have sex with men have been rising again, after a low in the early 90's. This is something that I, and the other safer-sex educators affiliated with FCHC, have been puzzling over for some time. The currently popular theory is that being gay is now so acceptable that young gay men are not seeking out older gay men as mentors. The LGBT youth groups in many high schools encourage queer youth to turn to each other and their high school counselors for advice, rather than seeking it in the gay community. And frankly, kids are dumb, and the majority of high school counselors are underinformed. While I certainly don't advocate putting everyone back in the closet, I have heard from the young men I talk to during outreach that: 1) they don't consider getting HIV a big deal, thanks to new therapies 2) they figure they're going to get it anyway — that it's inevitable 3) they are unaware of risk vectors outside anal sex 4) they have wildly outdated (and occasionally dangerous) ideas about prevention 5) they don't worry about other STDs, because HIV has been drummed into their heads as the only one to worry about 6) they aren't being tested I don't think mandatory testing is a bad idea. We force students entering college to get TB tests, and inoculations. I'm not saying we should prevent HIV positive students from entering college, but the biggest danger comes from those who don't know they're infected.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: About time   by Linux Ate My Dog!       at Mon 21 Apr 10:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 40     It isn't just young kids who think AIDS is acceptable and manageable. It is also all the adults with it who build their bods with the steroids your center prescribes against wasting, get shredded sixpacks from the inhibitors, and hang out on hook-up sites all day trying to find new guys to have HOT RAW SEX with. And who can blame them: for most of these white insured weight-lifting healthy-eating being pos has become manageable. For now. Cross your fingers. HIV+ is a badge, a way to be countercultural, non-mainstream, a rebel, a club of buff guys (ok, so some unlucky ones die or are disfigured, but hey, in the meantime you get to have fun) scaling mountains and being healthy like the ads for therapy in The Advocate. The older mentors themselves stopped caring. People stopped dropping like flies. "He's old school." -- byrne   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  Safe Sex?   by krazydude       at Mon 21 Apr 11:24am score of 0.5 incoherent     There is no 100% safe way of sex. The best you can do is abstain. That is the only 100% foolproof way to avoid AIDS. You can shut up now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

48.  Re: Safe Sex?   by dreamcloak       at Mon 21 Apr 12:40pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 45     ...which works pretty well. Except if you get raped. Or you had a blood transfusion before the testing procedures went in, or in a country where they're not followed. Or if you share a needle with someone (voluntarily, as in IV drug use, or involuntarily, as in the nurse in Botswana (which has a staggering AIDS rate) who used the same needle to vaccinate 83 kids). Or if your mother had HIV. So I find myself unconvinced by your strategy. But since have nothing more to say on the topic, and need a new way to procrastinate...hrm. My monogamous husband is downstairs, and he's taking a break from his telecommuting. Maybe I'll see if he wants to have sex.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]