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.  

response 75 of 129:

Jun 10 16:47 UTC 2002

What, you expect that to be controversial?  :)

response 77 of 129:

Jun 12 07:08 UTC 2002

Well, apparently, there are a great deal of people who *do* have sex 
moderately.  But there is a small minority of people who have sex 
quite frequently, with many different partners up to 300+.  It's those 
kinds of numbers-- those in the scores, or few hundreds, that worry 
those concerned with transmission of STDs.

response 79 of 129:

Jun 12 13:47 UTC 2002

I'm not sure.  Celebrities like rock stars and athletes number among 
them.  Portions of the gay/bisexual male community.

response 83 of 129:

Jun 13 17:02 UTC 2002

   No one really knows about woman-to-woman HIV transmission.  There
was one study in 1991, and all the women in the study were IV drug
users, bisexual, or both.

response 85 of 129:

Jun 14 00:39 UTC 2002

   Possible, but no one knows.  'Sides, who says lesbians don't fist
or share anal toys?