80 new of 129 responses total.
Re: #48 Are you aware of how many $billion$ per year are going into direct and indirect research on the problem? If you magically boosted the HIV-cure research budget to as much as is spent on *all* medical research, for *all* diseases combined, starting yesterday and continuing *forever*, than doubled *that*, there would *still* not be any real scientific prospect for the kind of cure that you want for 20+ years. That's over a generation, and in large parts of the world, the HIV+ bones of *most of the population* will have been picked clean years before that. The attitude that "i can risk HIV 'cause they'll have a cure before i'd get very sick from it" is a big part of why infection rates are bouncing back up in many groups that public health people *though* had been taught about safe sex, prevention, etc. Not that "screw as you will & don't sweat the consequences" would be a survivable attitude for humanity to have even if Allah snapped his fingers & made HIV vanish tomorrow. There's something called "runaway population growth & crash" that really easy to demonstrated with a few rats in a cage in a lab. Only there's no guarantee that Earth would be able to support humans after the crash, and no sign of alien scientists who'd move the survivors to new planets & feed 'em there after we'd given 'em their desired experimental result.
(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.)
aids isn't doing dick we'd need an ebola outbrack in new deli to really do that. we're looking at that population crash as it is, it's just a matter of weather it'll be 4 or 6 billion dead
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.
I was trying to remember why I opened this can of worms in the first place, so I read back. It's mostly #42 I am reacting to. I may be misreading, but this seems to be saying that 1) because consequences can be so severe, "young people" should not be allowed to explore their sexuality, 2) knowingly engaging in behavior that exposes someone else to AIDS is a crime deserving public execution in a painful fasion, and 3) what the heck, let's commit mayhem on some other people we think are morally weak, too. (WTF is "Clinton Syndrome", anyway? Enjoying a good BJ?) I'm sympathetic to #2, though I would probably prefer hanging or perhaps a gas chamber to burning. It's mostly 1 and 3 I have trouble with. I don't think AIDS is a problem that requires young people to stop having sex. I think that "skip-town fathers" is a reference to a far subtler and more complex problem than such heavy handed moralism can counter (in fact, I lay a nontrivial part of the blame for the existence of the problem squarely at the door of such moralism), and the other reason #42 suggests for mutilating people is something I don't even understand. My reaction whenever people suggest that, given all the possible consequences of sex, people should just stop having so much sex, is similar to my reaction when keesan suggests that we wouldn't have to pay high gas prices if we just all decided not to own cars. I'm not interested in giving up significant portions of my lifestyle, much as I'm not interested in amputating my legs to keep my feet from hurting.
Your last sentence, Greg, speaks volumes. It's not necessarily a good or a bad sentiment, but I think most people would share it.
Most people agree that it would be over the top to cut your feet off. There are people who think that abstinence, or life without a car (or vegetarianism, or not having cable, or giving up chocolate) are perfectly legitimate choices. That's really where the problem is. If you think your feet are expendable, then amputation is a pretty good response to sore feet. If you think double-fudge cheesecake is expendable, dieting is a pretty good response to weight gain. And, yeah, if you think sex is expendable, abstinence is a pretty good response to AIDS. <shrugs>
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.
The problem is when you think, say, cars are expendable and try to get *other* people to give them up, rather than trying to help them solve their problems in a constructive way.
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".
if only the mass knew it needed saving. there seem to echo notions, in some sentiments here, to do with appropriate ways for enormous groups of people to handle their privates, to do with expectations had of national health programs' sway over nature. i'd say it sounds like some folks are projecting their own sex lives onto their ethos. even if they didn't know what they were doing at the outset, they can at least say they did it all the only right way there was. what talk has there been of the possibility of people selectively immune to HIV? i'm curious, so if anyone has any info or ideas, please drop them here.
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.
That it's promiscuity's fault won't save us either, for what that's worth.
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.
<wild applause>
<approving nod>
<high five!>
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.
Don't think about cunnilingus much, do ya?
I don't think it's the case that the moral and ethical fiber of the
human race has suddenly been eroded, though it's not really possible to prove
or disprove. People, or their ancestors, have been doing it for the last
billion years or so. While we have aggravated a lot of natural factors that
predispose us to disease by living in such close proximity to one another,
we've also imposed social and moral codes on the proper expression of our
sexual drives. I don't believe for a minute that we're sinners and therefore
being punished for our wickedness, and the evidence suggests that such
diseases have emerged, and far from becoming epidemic, disappeared in the
past.
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.
resp:68 I do-- it's just generally not considered as risky as fellatio, *shrug*, depending on who you talk to. I think dental dams are indeed advocated, but I don't think they are quite to the extent condoms are.
> 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.
You risky fucker ...
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.
Gee. Looks like this thread just totally died for lack of controversy. How about we pass laws that everyone has to start having at least five times as much sex (low-risk only) to cut down the time that they've got available for tooling around in their giant SUV's, working for money they don't need to spend on paving the world with strip malls and mini- mansions, buying stuff from factories pouring toxic wastes into Earth's water, etc.? No....make that ten times as much. Harsh penalties for scoflaws, too.
What, you expect that to be controversial? :)
What the hell, I'll bite. I think the expectation that people have lots of sex is just as ridiculous as the expectation that they don't have much.
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.
This response has been erased.
I'm not sure. Celebrities like rock stars and athletes number among them. Portions of the gay/bisexual male community.
(Uh, lumen? Numbers that high are kind of startling no matter which gender you're into. Saying "oh, they're gay men" doesn't count as an explanation.)
This response has been erased.
resp:80 yep, I figured I'd get that. If you'd rather I be specific, it has been noted that it is more particular among numbers of young black and Hispanic gay males because of cultural taboos, machismo among them. For example, "tops" are not seen as necessarily gay, while "bottoms" most certainly are. In general, it has been found that infection is once again on the rise in the gay/bi youth population, and it is surmised that it is because the fear of AIDS is not as prominent as it once was; these young men do not have friends who have died yet. Why it's not equally a concern among the lesbian/female bi population, I'm not sure, but I think risk factors are not considered as high. They also don't seem to be interested so much in cruising for sex. (Not all gay/bi men are, but if you think the cruise culture doesn't exist, you're kidding yourself.) It has been reported in the news media: I remember hearing about it on NPR and in a Seattle newspaper. Clearly, numbers this high among either gender would indicate a degree of sexual addiction, which is a concern. However, it is folly not to examine that gays and bisexuals may be part of the picture. Men with both male and female partners are a concern: there is a larger potential pool of infection. I congratulate you if you haven't been there, Dan, but trust me, I have. Pretending that everyone *is* equally sexually promiscuous to this kind of degree isn't quite fair. Besides, I didn't say the rock stars and athletes were necessarily gay/bisexual. Freddy Mercury fits the bill, but Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain, Gene Simmons, and others who have boasted or spoke of their numerous conquests clearly do not (yes mynx, they did get away with that and then they told everyone). Also, the numbers of Catholic priests who are now being found to be pedophilic or otherwise sexually predatory-- I don't think homosexuality is really a root cause here. There are indeed homosexual priests-- this has been confirmed-- but I doubt they necessarily comprise a significant portion.
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.
Studies are scarce, but available scientific evidence points to a much
lower rate of transmission for cunnilingus than for fellatio, fisting, or anal
sex.
Possible, but no one knows. 'Sides, who says lesbians don't fist or share anal toys?
(ding!)
Just out of curiousity, again, how does one sanitize toys? I had a gay friend who said he knew how to do it, with bleach-- I think it was similar to the way you sterilize needles, the way they teach nurses.
you can a) boil 'em b) use bleech c) only use them on one person. basically if it's a porous surface your stuck with c
Re #85:
I certainly didn't. I was just listing different types of sex.
Obviously a gay male that is only into mutual masturbation is safer than a
gay female who's into bloodsports.
or any of the "vampyr" varity of pud monkey
Re #87: AFAIK, there is no "way you sterilize needles" at a hospital. Unless I'm very much mistaken, hospitals don't re-use needles.
This response has been erased.
Medical-quality sterile is easy to do with the right gadget. It looks like a very-high-end all-stainless toaster oven. Stuff goes into it on thin metal trays, and gets cooked in 250-300 degree steam for 10+ minutes. Re: #78 Going home from the meat-market singles bar with a different sex partner every night is (very sad to say, disease-wise) how some people live. Do that for a few years, and 1000+ sex partners is fairly easy to reach. No need to be a model or famous - fairly young & 90th percentile attractive is more than good enough for most meat-market bars.
I've known a few people who've lived that way, but for most it's just
a short phase.
You don't even have to be young and ninetieth-percentile attractive.
..people can get by on just the mere fact that they are intersting.
This response has been erased.
Yup.
or human.
or there.
or an inanimate object with an orifice.
I don't think toys count as 'slutty,' really. A sex toy with scruples and discretion would probably be considered defective...
This response has been erased.
It depends - does it say anything about scruples or discretion on the personality module that you just plugged into your Bimbobot(r)? Did you pay enough attention to know? Or did you download a pirate person- ality and flash it into a hotwired pm? Count yourself lucky if the pirate per' wasn't rescripted by some sicko with torture fantasies, Mr. Flasher!
i dunno that grapefruit is probably pretty discrete before someone cuts a hole in it and has his way with it, even with his brand new prince albert.
the cherry 2000 is a high class model.
This shit is getting a might weird ...
This response has been erased.
hey man, you ain't seen the half of it.
... and this is coming from a man who's seen things. I mean, just this
morning, I heard the theme song to Gilligan's Island sung to the tune of
Amazing Grace (it works, try it) and heard the subject of necrophillia
discussed before noon.
better is gilligan's island sung to the tune of that led zepplin song
Er... which Led Zeppelin song would that be? I suppose you could do it to the first half of Stairway to Heaven, but after that "if there's a bustle in your hedgerow" bit it wouldn't work out so well.
Is this the slutty phases or slutty phrases item?
This response has been erased.
resp:111 It's already been done, Dan-- a tune called "Stairway to Gilligan's Isle" and Dr. Demento has played on the show in the past. Betcha dimes to dollars Tim Ryan has a copy of it.
I just have to say that I have the utmoast respect for women especially when they are in there slutty phases. How can you tell a women is in her slutty phase though? Now that is the question? enter stop
Because they'll loudly announce how they just broke up with their
boyfriend, if they're interested in you (either as potential dating or ONS
material, or as someone to have around to bolster their self-esteem).
or they go around announcing to everyone else how great the fucking is with so-and-so.
It's all about booty language . . . .
If she's going with a guy, she is no more than distantly polite. If she isn't going with a guy, she is very friendly to me, with a sort of open & eager expression in her face & voice. I'll be polite and maintain a definite distance from her, but respect is too nice a word for my attitude.
I guess the question is really how to *get* with someone who's in
that phase. I'm not entirely sure why you'd want to, but hey, whatever
works.
If you're curious whether someone's seeing someone, it's pretty easy
to figure out. Just ask them. Tap her on the shoulder and ask if she has
a beau. Or approach it indirectly, like, "damn, I bet your boyfriend loves
that", or "I sure hope your boyfriend appreciates that."
Well, that won't tell you whether they have one or not, but it'll
tell you if they want you to think they do. :P
Well, it's not the original topic, but I should do that. There's this woman in RoS whom I like, but I don't know if she's seeing anyone. Granted, even just asking will be hard, I rarely have an opening for flirting or it's awkward to create one.
they just go up and ask if she's like some luv juice
I've accidentally scared enough people I'm interested in that I don't want to seem like frightening her is my intention. What I have found, however, is that if you just up front ask somebody out, if they're seeing somebody they mention that when they tell you no. Next time I see her, I'll ask her out on something minor. Like a drink after Ring (not the alcoholic kind, she's a little young for that).
I have the opposite experience; if you're asking someone out, and
they're seeing someone, they don't often tell you at all. May have to do with
the people I ask versus the ones you ask, though.
Might also have to do with whether it's "just dating" or "going steady". In any case, I'll respect a no, and follow through if response is possitive.
From a female perspective, the "I bet your boyfriend love that" line is so transparant, and pretty obnoxious in my mind. I'd much rather be asked a question directly, I'm not a fan of all the round-a-bout, yet obvious nuances in getting to know someone.
It is pretty transparent, and a lot of people need that it seems.
Crafting conversation is always more of an art than a science, though.
y'know. ot. i feel bad for the poor boy (or whoever) that says that to katy.. but yha, i've been to quite a few sci-fi cons, and i have to say, the thrid most painfull thing is watching a semi-suave geek blow it with that kinda line
Cheesy works.
Among the cheesier I've seen work personally.
"You know, it occurs to me that I owe you an apology, for leaving
last night without asking you out. Can I make it up to you, over dinner?"
"I've decided something ... " "That you're just too cute to not ask
out."
"How are you going to return it when you're done? I know, here's my
phone number. Call me when you're done. Or give me yours. And I'll call
you well before you're done."
None of the above would work if you really took yourself all that
seriously. But then if someone takes themselves that seriously, then I
don't want anything to do with them.
You have several choices: