response 51 of 129:

May 30 03:31 UTC 2002

(Those who like to take a long view of things will say that AIDS is helping
us stave off that ultimate population crash.  Those who like to take a long
view of things tend to be keeping their heads up their collective ass.)

response 53 of 129:

May 30 14:54 UTC 2002

        HIV, being a retrovirus, mutates at a staggering rate, and is indeed
difficult to find a vaccine or a cure for.  No less than the noted Jonas Salk
tried and only partially succeeded.  So there may well be no cure in the next
twenty years, though it is impossible to say with certainty.

        That said, it's a disease.  It doesn't have a moral message.

response 55 of 129:

May 30 23:30 UTC 2002

Your last sentence, Greg, speaks volumes.  It's not necessarily a good 
or a bad sentiment, but I think most people would share it.

response 57 of 129:

May 31 09:34 UTC 2002

I have a friend that shot off his leg because it didn't work and hurt 
like the devil.  He wanted to remain productive with a prosthetic leg 
rather than be slowed down with a painful leg.

response 59 of 129:

May 31 15:41 UTC 2002

        There's a hell of a strong evolutionary selection pressure to have sex.
If any of your ancestors, any of them, didn't have libidoes, then you wouldn't
be here.  I do think it's unreasonable to expect logic to overrule the
strongest selection pressure there is, and I do think that when such a
solution is offered - though not necessarily here - it often comes with
undertones of "*they* need to stop having the kind of sex *they* like".

response 61 of 129:

Jun 2 04:47 UTC 2002

Re: #54 & following
The "torch 'em on TV" scheme would have to answer to the same standard 
as ticketing folks for driving with little kids not in child safety seats 
- does the policy save enough innocent life & limb to justify the costs?  
Getting through the skulls of the many paragons of cluelessness, denial,
& disfunctionality was my point. 

Assuming that you don't have some brilliant master plan in hand to turn
young people into very faithful users of extremely reliable HIV-stopping
barrier methods, how high does the death rate need to go before you'd
support telling kids to stop exploring their sexuality with partners and
masturbate instead?  10%?  50%?  100%?

Best i'd heard, Clinton was & is a sex addict.  One hell of a charmer,
too.  Perfect resume' for a Typhoid Mary of VD, eh?  Society has as much
pubic welfare interest in the behavior of such Don Juan's as it does in
the intoxification of airline pilots...which does not guarantee that any
good policy to deal with the problem actually exists.

The skip-town dad (or rare mom who keeps dropping her babies off at the
orphanage) is a prime candidate for having those little tubes closed up.
Again, this does not a working public policy make.

(Last i heard, the "people naturally immune to HIV" idea was a flop.
Some people take longer to progress to the later (deadly) stages of HIV
(different immune system, varient of the virus, or what?), but it looks
like everyone ends up there after a while.) 

The ultimately deadly pair of "almost everyone wants to be sexually
active, with multiple partners over time" and "HIV will kill virtually
all the members of a human population behaving that way" are why i start
using phrases like "self-inflicted genocide".  If there are motorboats
'most everywhere, sea cows are too attracted to motorboats, and sea cows
tend to die of the wounds they get from propellors, then sea cows may
go extinct in the modern world.  That it's humans' fault won't save the
sea cow.  That it's HIV's fault won't save us. 

response 63 of 129:

Jun 3 17:58 UTC 2002

Oh, my.  Where to start.  

Walter, for someone who appears to have paid some attention to what's
happening with AIDS in the world, you appear to have retained some glaring
errors of fact.  You appear, for instance, to believe that "HIV will kill
virtually all members of a human population [in which the majority 
are sexually active with multiple partners over time]."  Huh?  You do 
remember, don't you, that it's a precondition for catching HIV by 
sexual transmission that your partner has HIV?  You are aware that it's 
possible to test for HIV with high accuracy, yes?  I assert that these 
two facts suggest a method by which it may, in fact, be possible to 
get one's freak on with very little likelihood of contracting HIV.  If 
the sea manatees knew where to go where there weren't any propellers, 
they might not face extinction.  

Clinton may well be a sex addict.  I'm a sex addict, too.  I get all 
cranky and irritable and such when I'm forced to go without sex for 
long periods of time.  I've been known to do irrational things in 
pursuit of sex.  As it happens, (and this may be a shock to some of you) 
there are circles in which the quirks of my personality are regarded as 
charming.  I'd be a perfect recipe for a "Typhoid Mary of VD", too, but
for one minor but crucial fact:  I DON'T HAVE VD.  Guess what?  Neither 
does Clinton, to the best of my knowledge.  

This kind of twisted, limping argument for abstinence tends to suggest to 
me that the proponent has something against sex, not against AIDS.  

response 65 of 129:

Jun 3 21:29 UTC 2002

<approving nod>

response 67 of 129:

Jun 3 23:59 UTC 2002

resp:63  Is this to imply that Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants 
because Hillary was too busy or what not to give him some lovin'?  We 
don't know for sure.  We do know, however, that he allegedly engaged 
in a number of affairs during his time as governor of Arkansas and as 
President of the United States.  We know that there was scandal before 
his affair with Monica; but it would seem that the president just 
couldn't stop.  He was definitely in danger of being caught-- and 
essentially, he was caught doing something improper a number of 
times.  If it wasn't an addiction, he may have had more room to cover 
it up.

At any rate, there is some reason to believe Clinton is a sex addict.  
We have no clear-cut evidence to believe you are the same, Greg.

Something against sex rather than against AIDS.. please.  Perhaps 
abstinence is poorly represented here, but I *do* know that it is 
promoted in AIDS education-- not as *the* alternative, but as *an* 
alternative, and as the *safest* alternative.

HIV is transmitted primarily through blood and genital secretions.  
Sexual behavior listed in most education programs are as follows, with 
riskiest first:

Anal sex-- riskiest, since there is penetration and genital 
secretions, with the risk of tearing anal tissue and introducing blood.

Vaginal sex-- less risky, but more mingling of genital secretions.

Oral sex (penile to mouth)-- moderate to moderately low risk.  Risk 
increases: 1) when ejaculation is involved, 2) when there is bleeding 
in the mouth and/or gums.

Abstinence from sexual contact-- relatively little risk, which I 
believe includes hugging, kissing, fondling, petting, etc.

Sharing of needles would involve primarily blood.. I am not sure how 
risky it is considered-- probably moderately high.

Other risky behaviors include sharing of sex toys without 
sterilization, and S&M activities that may draw blood (I don't know 
how risky the latter is considered, but I do know the community 
considers how to play more safely).  Prior contractions of other STDs 
are also risky, as they further increase the risk of eventually 
contracting HIV.  Herpes and Hepatitis C, for example, have no 
treatment that will permanently cure infection, especially the former; 
and many STDs, including gonorrhea and syphilis, are beginning to grow 
resistant to existing treatments.

Okay-- consider that, alone.  Even if we find a very effective 
treatment against HIV, what's to say it won't grow progressively 
resistant like many other bacteria and viruses are today?

About the mantees-- that may be-- but I think it's rather 
irresponsible for us to do nothing.  And all my point is-- something 
can be done, especially in regards to AIDS.  A cure shouldn't be the 
only solution-- prevention needs to be considered, too, or the cure 
may not last forever.

response 69 of 129:

Jun 4 01:32 UTC 2002

Re: #63
Let's start with the personal.  Considering how much damage Clinton
could know damn well that he was risking to an administration & 
government, the attention & performance of which would be making &
breaking millions (at least) of human lives, i don't think that you
could possibly have done so much harm if you wished to.  In fact, i
suspect that you probably made the "right" choice more often than he,
in spite of the far lesser consequences of your making the wrong one.

On to the Typhoid Mary of VD.  If you don't have it, then you are
almost certainly sadly lacking in one or more critical behavioral
areas.  Like a hard-drinking pilot who gets & stays cold sober two
days before take-off, you are happily deficient as a menace to public
safety.  (Highly mobile males with many causual partners, preferences
for riskier behaviors with them (see #67), and ignorance/denial about
health are a huge factor in the spread of HIV through a population.)

Now to a really fat hair to split.  I used the phrase "almost everyone
wants to be sexually active, with multiple...", you used "the majority
sexually active..."  95+% vs. 50.01+% is a very large gap.  I didn't
bother stating a few extras like "with a normal human range of risky
behaviors, a seed sub-population that's HIV+, etc."  From your follow-
on, i'll guess that you're talking about well-informed and responsible 
individuals with very good current first-world medical resources; i'm 
talking about the public health of populations that we can but dream
about getting up to that level of behavior and health care.  To cut to
the chase, we're arguing about whether wood burns; you're dropping the
lit match onto a thick, fresh green log and i'm dropping it into the
average old woodpile with plenty of dead leaves, mouse nests, etc.

Abstinence?  If the alternative is high-risk behavior, then YES, most
certainly absinence would be far better than the horrible alternatives
now playing out in too many parts of the world.  But, on the flip, if
the alternative is informed, responsible, low-risk behavior, then let
me encourage you to spend much more of your leisure time enjoying sex
with your partner(s) of choice, and perhaps cut down on your hours at
work so that you have yet more time for it.  Just, please, don't go
assuming that your own ability to handle both driving and alcohol is
any proof that everyone else can, or that loads of innocent people are
not dying for the lack. 

response 71 of 129:

Jun 4 16:52 UTC 2002

> From your follow-
> on, i'll guess that you're talking about well-informed and responsible
> individuals with very good current first-world medical resources; i'm
> talking about the public health of populations that we can but dream
> about getting up to that level of behavior and health care.

Yes, that's right.  I'm not really talking about what ought to be done
in the parts of Africa and so forth you mention earlier with unbelievably 
high infection rates.  There, you're right that one would be dangerously
crazy to employ anything less than a sexual strategy that woudl be 
considered paranoid elsewhere.  
  But elsewhere, such as where I live, such a strategy does verge on
paranoia.  Most people of my acquaintance (almost all, even) actually are 
well-informed and responsible individuals who do have access to 
excellent modern medical resources.  What I'm saying, and this is basically
*all* I'm saying, is that it's reasonable for those well-informed, responsible
people to explore their sexuality, within the dictates of common sense.  
Yes, this introduces a slight risk.  It's not my place or yours to tell 
other people whether that risk is acceptable or not.  

response 73 of 129:

Jun 5 10:36 UTC 2002

Re: #71
Heh.  There are plenty of populations far closer than Africa that flunk
the "well-informed and responsible" test.  Teens are perhaps the most
dangerous, because they're generally easy targets for social pressure,
far short of well-informed & responsible, in denial about risks and
consequences, and hugely self-deluded about all of the above (plus mostly
cut off from medical resources).  But HIV is on the rise in a fair number
of demographic groups in America.

I'll agree that public health authorities should direct nothing but a
steady stream of hard facts toward well-informed & responsible sexually
active folks.