Advertisement
<< Back To Blog Post
Sexual Transmission of HIV/AIDS: The opportunity is far from equal

Write a Comment

I have read and agree to the terms and conditions in the Posting Rules*

3 Comments

vincit

What may seem to be normal though may already be considered as warning signs of STDS?

December 15, 2010

JSonnabend

Thank you for your comment. As you note I did not say that the insertive partner was free from risk; nor did the Canadian judge. In my post I said that Polly Thomas at the New York City health department wrote to Don Capra indicating that most men originally claiming a woman as the source of their infection had to be placed in another risk category when further investigated. This most probably was either sex with men or IV drug use. The studies I cited came to the same conclusion. It's incredibly intrusive to question people about details of their sexual choices, although it's understandable that we must do this as part of epidemiological investigations. Asking people to be frank on such matters is particularly intrusive when irrational destructive attitudes and stigmatization towards some choices are so prevalent in our society. I don't think we can ever fully sort out why risk designations had to be changed. Whatever they are, I'm sure they are much more complex and nuanced than the three possibilities you suggest at the end of your comment.

May 12, 2010

edfu

I greatly appreciate your long-standing willingness to discuss issues relating to HIV that are of major importance but are considered by most to be too controversial for serious evaluation. You have done so here once again. I have long bemoaned the fact that some gay groups have been-and are--too eager to deny that AIDS is a gay disease in the U.S. I believe that this attitude and approach have seriously hurt gay HIV prevention in both large ways and small. However, I am left more than a little bewildered by what I see as the bottom line to the points you have raised here. I fully understand that you are not claiming that men who are 100% heterosexual and not IVDU and that homosexual men who are 100% insertive and not IVDU canNOT acquire HIV. I may be following a personal logic ad reductio absurdum, but my interpretation of the mathematics you have outlined here for the epidemiology of HIV infection leads me to the following conclusions and the source of my bewilderment: The majority of 100% heterosexual men who are not IVDU but are HIV-positive and claim the source of their infection to be heterosexual sex activity are either lying, confused, or unwilling to admit receptive homosexual intercourse. And the majority of homosexual men who are 100% insertive and not IVDU but are HIV-positive and claim the source of their infection to be insertive homosexual intercourse are either lying, confused, or unwilling to admit receptive homosexual intercourse. Can this be so?

May 11, 2010

Advertisement

Hot topics


POZ uses cookies to provide necessary website functionality, improve your experience, analyze our traffic and personalize ads. Our Privacy Policy

Manage

POZ uses cookies to provide necessary website functionality, improve your experience, analyze our traffic and personalize ads. By remaining on our website, you indicate your consent to our Privacy Policy and our Cookie Usage.