"a fact-based analysis of AIDS written over a decade ago"

Yes, we've had ten years to see if heterosexual AIDS was a myth or if we really were going to swamped by an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS cases. So what happened? You tell me.

Given that heterosexual African-American women are the highest new rate of infection of any group, I'm not seeing your argument.  Or are you saying that it's only hetero women who are it risk, rather than hetero men makes it a non-issue?

Thalia

Nothing I like to read better than a fact-based analysis of AIDS written over a decade ago by an author who seems to have some "ethical questions" about his honesty and balance

And Steve's trolling goes a bit beyond just alleging that HIV transmission among heterosexuals is unusual; unless I'm missing a huge point, he's saying that that method of transmission is near impossible or so unlikely we should really have no concern about it.  Yeah, I'm aware that, as a straight male who is faithful to the woman I've been married to for close to 35 years, I'm extremely unlikely to pick up HIV, much less die of AIDS.  But, even the link I offered that you said proves Steve's point doesn't say that heterosexual spread of AIDS is almost an impossibility.  Don't tell me you read all nine pages to that review.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

...even the link I offered that you said proves Steve's point doesn't say that heterosexual spread of AIDS is almost an impossibility

Those conclusions are not medically controversial.  But they are socially controversial for a number of reasons, including one that is mentioned in the Washington Monthly article:

Homosexuals and researchers saw how AIDS went ignored when it was perceived as a "gay disease." Only once the fear-mongering that Fumento documents convinced mainstream America that it was at risk, did the federal funds begin to flow. Persuading the public that the virus trains its deadly fury on drug users (a despised group) and minorities (a neglected and often powerless one), may now shut off the spigot

zyx,

QUOTE FROM CLUELESS: "That's only because of homo-sexualist propaganda claiming everyone is at equal risk for AIDS."

Isn't risk of AIDS based entirely upon safe-sex-having and non-needle-sharing... it's about FLUID TRANSMISSION, right? That's what you're basically saying, right? And, once again, if it's possible that AIDS is transmitted hetero-to-hetero somehow, why wouldn't we at least be a little precautious about it? Why would you ever argue against educating people about potential harms?

AFAIK, the only thing sexuality has to do with the spread of any disease are the initial vectors of where the disease entered into the populace, and, as you said zyx, what the social customs of those sub-populations.

Anyway, you're standing up for a dude how un-ironically uses "homosexualist". He also seems to think there's a huge "homosexualist conspiracy", with propaganda and everything (too bad he wasn't invited, huh?) He also seems to think that no man ever got AIDS from a woman. Apparently, he also seems to think AIDS can recognize national borders.

{ k }

Why would you ever argue against educating people about potential harms?

That is not to say (as the troll suggested) that female-to-male HIV transmission of HIV is impossible.  It certainly is possible, and is, in some small sub-populations, a significant risk. But it was alarmist to have said, as some people were back in the 1980s and 1990s, that there was a significant risk of HIV breaking out into the general population in the US.

Anyway, you're standing up for a dude how un-ironically uses "homosexualist". He also seems to think there's a huge "homosexualist conspiracy", with propaganda and everything...

Maybe I'm too paternalistic, or too into prevention instead of cure. I was raised to understand that it's "better to be safe than sorry". That's why I'd rather we overstate the risk of infection of a deadly disease than understate it. The worse thing I see happening my way is that people use condoms more (or, if I thought abstinence education worked, perhaps people might have less sex...). You're way seems to indicate that people might have more sex without protection, which, I fear will lead to at least a small percentage of people being dead. Since no one dies my way, and the costs are reasonable to me, I think it trumps yours.

To each their own, I guess,
{ k }

...I'd rather we overstate the risk...Since no one dies my way, and the costs are reasonable to me, I think it trumps yours

Your way stretches the truth, almost to its breaking point. It leads, inevitably, to cynicism about the government, and distrust in its motives.

I think it is better to tell people the full truth: that unless you have promiscuous gay sex, or have unprotected sex with extremely promiscuous people, or (for a woman) have sex with a bisexual man, or use illicit IV drugs, you are almost certainly not going to get HIV. The full truth allows people to make reasoned and informed decisions about how to conduct their lives. Your way, if successful, leads them to believe that, for instance, having unprotected sex with a random person is just as risky as the behaviors I listed above. That is simply not true and leads to people making misinformed decisions.

I think it is better to tell people the full truth: that unless you have promiscuous gay sex, or have unprotected sex with extremely promiscuous people, or (for a woman) have sex with a bisexual man, or use illicit IV drugs, you are almost certainly not going to get HIV. The full truth allows people to make reasoned and informed decisions about how to conduct their lives. Your way, if successful, leads them to believe that, for instance, having unprotected sex with a random person is just as risky as the behaviors I listed above. That is simply not true and leads to people making misinformed decisions. (emphasis mine)

That random person may be "extremely promiscuous." So why not allow for koos's suggestion regarding sensible prevention?

...why not allow for koos's suggestion regarding sensible prevention?

Let me give an example to counter your hypothetical: Driving 100mph is quite a lot more dangerous than driving 55mph.  Yet it is possible to lose control of your car and be killed when driving 55. Should we teach students learning how to drive that driving 55 is just as dangerous as driving 100, or should we tell them the truth and let them evaluate the relative risk themselves? I say we should tell them to always wear their seat belt, but maintain a safe speed nonetheless.

Advising sensible prevention does not equal prevarication. You yourself said that having sex with extremely promiscuous people is risky. When one has sex with "random" people, that risk factor comes into play. So it makes sense to suggest to people that when having sex with someone they do not know well or at all that they should take precautions.

I don't understand any objection to such counsel.  

So it makes sense to suggest...they should take precautions.

I don't understand any objection to such counsel

zyx::

My understanding of your argument is as follows (and please let me know if I am wrong): (i) the government has overestimated the risk of harm certain populations have when it comes to HIV/AIDS infection, (ii) in order to prevent the citizenry from becoming cynical about the government*, it should instead only tell people the exact data regarding these risks.

First, I agree with you that honesty is the best policy when it comes to stating facts. When it comes to stating risk of harm (which, as you yourself state, is highly dependent on a number of factors)? Not so much. I see your point about marijuana and video game usage, but I also see at least one major distinction - in your instances the cost the government is asking people to pay is complete forebearance (stop making violent video games! stop smoking pot!), whereas in the instance of AIDS education all that is being asked of the citizenry is to wear a condom, or at least be aware of the danger and discuss things with your potential sexual partner (do you do intravenous drugs? are you "promiscuous"? are you a man who sleeps with other men?). Abstinence is not the only solution to this dilemma (and proll'y doesn't work, natch), very few people are headed to jail over this policy, and very little govenrment money is being spent in the process (one might even argue that differentiating between populations would cost the government more in educational initiatives).

Second, I don't mean to prevaricate, but I never said we "should" overstate risk in order to influence political policy. If I implied such a thing, I am sorry. I certainly didn't mean to do so. What I intended to convey was this: if we have to choose (as we often do when trying to boil a complex subject down for, say, a highschool population) between over- or understating risk, I'd rather we choose the former, unless the cost of education and preventing that risk (here use of condoms or abstinence) outweighs the likelihood of harm times the cost of that harm if it occurs (here, death of at least some part of the population). See Hand, Billings Learned.

Third, I take umbrage at the idea that "common sense" indicates that people won't get AIDS from heterosexual sex. I just don't see how "common" the knowledge is about other people's sexually transmitted diseases (as opposed to, say, the common knowledge that second hand smoke smells bad and makes people cough). Additionally, I would like to state for the record that humans are amazingly bad when it comes to their own risk assesment.

{ k }

* Seriously, did you read any posts on Plastic or on TnT? Cynicism of the government certainly isn't new, and it maybe isn't the worst thing in the world for a representative government. After all, it allows us to have this sort of discussion. I simply can't reconcile the potential costs you appear willing to bear against the costs of the current regime.

Magic Johnson

It's possible that, unlike all the other highly promiscuous men in the NBA (including non of Magics teamates, who theoretically would be banging at least some of the same chicks he did), NFL, MLB, NHL, unlike all the promiscuous actors and rock musicians, Magic caught AIDS from a woman.* Which would make him unluckiest man in the world. Or else he was on the down low.

Bet much Flores?  

*Has a single non-gay or non-IV drug user actor or musician ever been diagnosed with AIDS? I guess those guys in Motley Crue practiced safe sex every single time. Because they are really responsible chaps.

This is well off the topic I think you are trying to steer the thread onto, but assuming that the strongest version of your suspicion were true, what would a sensible response be from any individual?

Let's see, no man can catch a deadly disease from having penetrative sex* with a woman.

On the other hand, a very large proportion of men (including the most "red-blooded" examples you can think of) are having sex with other men and probably carrying said deadly disease. Women can catch this from sex with an infected man.

Conclusion: in the absence of perfect information, or prophylactic measures, women should really not have sex with any men. Men should exclusively have sex with women.
Nobody's going to have any fun at all.

Here's my practical fudge: how about we use condoms and testing (and for really lucky people, honesty) and then we can get back to the shagging? Oh, that was sort of where everyone else on the thread was already.

*not clear from your statements if there are limits, but let's assume "of any sort"

Fela Kuti.

Fela Kuti spent 20 months in prison.

Please see: Africa, AIDS Epidemic.

Unless you also think all those foreign black men are gay? or reckless drug users?

{ k }

Blacks are homosexualists at higher rates than whites, but even taking that into account it is obvious that AIDS in Africa is different than AIDS here. Why not try and figure this out, instead of continuing to propagate the nonsense that "We are all equally at risk for AIDS"?

My uncle, but I'm not about to throw that info on the Net just to win an argument with you.
   The story: he was diagnosed with colon cancer at an early age (38, IIRC), and in the process the blood tests revealed he was HIV positive. This was in 1991-2, and he nearly died five years later from weight loss and secondary disease; now, thanks to better drugs, he's had to go on a diet. That's why it took me two days to remember he has AIDS-- things have been fairly normal for so long that when I do return to visit, it's easy to forget the bad times.
   How did he get it? He's not really sure, though he says gay sex or IV drugs weren't the cause. Since he's admitted to doing every drug he could get (it was meth that caused the car wreck that caused him to be born again in the late 80s), if he says he never shot up, I believe it. He did have a lot of risky sex in the early 80s-- went on the road for a year when he found his wife in bed with his best friend, and by his accounts bedded every woman he could. Would he cop to a gay encounter, especially now that he's found God? Hard to say. One thing about folks who are so open with their personal lives is that it can be easy to keep one or two secrets and still sound as if you've revealed everything. On a hunch I'd say no,  though I doubt you'll believe it.
   Is my uncle a common case? No, but then you were the one who set the bar at zero cases.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

After spending a day or more musing about this, it occurred to me that a whole lot of people benefit from spreading the notion that heterosexual transmission of AIDS presents a significant risk. Sadly for Urkel, none of these require a minority conspiracy exercising control.
   First off, lets follow the money. Who's benefited the most from the safe sex boom? Condom makers, that's who, since no other contraceptive device works by preventing fluid transmission. Condom makers finally won the chance to advertise on television thanks to AIDS, and funny, I don't recall ever seeing any guy on guy action in those ads-- too small of a market, I guess. Ads today may be able to take funny, lighthearted approaches, but back when perceptions were being made early on, it was all deadly serious. If the conversation is about popular perceptions, I'll take ad campaigns over medical information every time.
   What of the political sphere? The sex education liberals, arguing for increased access to information in high school and junior high got a lot more leverage when "sex can cause death!" became the theme, since preventing teenage death is a lot more emotional than preventing teenage herpes. (And let's not forget that somebody has to supply those free condoms, meaning either money or free advertising.)
   Safe sex conservatives aren't likely to raise much fuss either, since abstinence only programs also benefit from the threat of dead teens. Dwelling too much on the sufferers of AIDS also is a losing proposition, since gay men dying in beds are more sympathetic, and muddy the moral waters too much. No less than Rush Limbaugh backed off from trying to turn AIDS into a gay only issue back around 1993 (he may have reversed since then, I don't know), and I seriously doubt it was because the 'gay mafia' made him an offer he couldn't refuse. In any case, the whole "sex causes death!" subtext that was so popular with syphilis and masturbation is better for summoning moral outrage than "sex leads to annoying diseases."
   Is this where the science is at? Who cares, when there's money and/or power at stake?

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras