How potential sex partners get tested together before having sex.

What are the myths?...
What are the excuses heard on asking a potential sex partner...
Let's get tested together now before having sex.


a. The window latency period myth.

It's a myth because before any possible window latency period
is a much longer length of time for which the potential sex
partners do not know one another's test results.


b. The trust myth.

Potential sex partners can not trust what has not happened yet.


c. Getting infected by donating blood myth.

Donating blood does not get people infected.


d. The one night stand myth.

Most people would not have sex with somebody they meet who tells them
they have an infection that could cause a prolonged painful death.




Collaborative WebLog
http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com

On 20 Oct 2003 08:00:27 -0400, Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu>
wrote or quoted :


I think the assumption in the baths is anyone having unprotected sex
is DEFINITELY HIV+ and anyone having protected sex such be treated as
HIV+. Trusting strangers to bring up something that would cause them
to be rejected is hopelessly naive. Only one in 1000 would do it.



--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

"Roedy Green" <roedy@seewebsite.com> wrote in message
news:tss8pvsf30k7tocmndivss2smhbnadtamu@4ax.com...
There really has been no research done because of political
considerations, but I strongly suspect that 95%+ of gay men
you would find in places like bathhouses are HIV+. Of course
the only way to confirm this would be to raid the places and
forcibly subject all patrons to HIV tests. The remaining
5% are either incredibly lucky or one of the tiny minority
with the genetic mutation that confers immunity to the virus.

When HIV first broke out some 20 years ago, the bathhouse gays
started dropping like flies so fast that most cities shut the
places down. Since then the epidemic has exploded, so one can
only assume that the bathhouse gays are now almost all infected.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:38:16 -0500, "Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote or quoted :

It is amazing how much oral sex people can have unprotected and not
get in trouble. For the odds see
http://mindprod.com/ggloss/safesex.html

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:38:16 -0500, "Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote or quoted :

On the other hand a greater proportion of HIV+ now are on drugs that
hold the HIV to undetectable levels. This has greatly reduced
transmission.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

Not in my experience here in San Francisco, the epicenter of AIDS in
the 1980s. I've known about 70 people who died of AIDS. Nearly all
were in my peer group, so there's this big hole in my social circle
where those people used to be. I knew these people very well. I knew
their habits. I knew pretty much their routines. In those days, SF
had 12 bathhouses and a number of sex clubs. Berkeley and San Jose
both had bathhouses (both still do). Oakland had a bathhouse.
Sacramento had two bathhouses. East Palo Alto had a bathhouse. Going
to the baths was a regular weekend recreation.

All but 2 of the people I know who died of AIDS I remember to have
been in two groups: (1) users of inhalents such as butyl nitrite,
isobutyl nitrite, etc., "Rush" and similar sexual stimulants. (2) The
others were speed users.

The 2 other people I didn't know well enough to know if they had used
either speed or poppers.

I know a bunch of people who went to bathhouses where they had sex and
survived. I'm one of them. I used to spend my weekends in the
bathhouses. Not only do I not have HIV, I have never tested positive
for ANY sexual disease or infestation.

What did I do? I (1) didn't engage in anal sex, (2) never used speed,
(3) never used poppers (inhalents). And I'm here to tell about it.
And the people I know from that era who also went to bathhouses and
sex clubs and survived I also believe were never speed or poppers
users.

It's hard to know how prevalent inhalents were in those days, but they
were so pervasive that the backs of the monthly skin magazines always
had ads for products like Rush, Bolt, and Kryptonite (later called
Crypt-tonite after DC Comics sued). Even some gay porn stars had
their own private label inhalents.

The most popular items sold in porn shops in those days was not porn
but poppers, called by such euphemisms as "room odorizer", "cleaning
solvent", and in recent years "video head cleaner".

While it appears that AIDS requires HIV for transmission, it seems
quite clear that an immune-suppressor like inhalent use is a very
necessary co-factor.

On 21 Oct 2003 02:12:03 -0700, sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
wrote or quoted :

The inhalant could have increased transmission with two means,
depressing the immune system and reducing inhibitions to dangerous sex
practices.

We have to keep in mind that the area of the world with the biggest
HIV problem is Africa, where neither homosexuality nor inhalants can
be blamed.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu> wrote:


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu> wrote:


----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Roedy Green" <roedy@seewebsite.com> wrote in message
news:dn79pvok3cul6kumm2gch50rokolaujfpr@4ax.com...
The conventional wisdom since the beginning of the epidemic was
that oral sex was safer than anal. But a few years ago I read
about some research where they actually tested this idea by
swabbing the anuses and mouths of monkeys with SIV and discovered
that the SIV virus was more readily absorbed through mouth
tissues. I don't have a link to this study though. But I'm not
sure if they simulated anal sex by damaging the monkeys' anal
tissues then exposing them.

"Roedy Green" <roedy@seewebsite.com> wrote in message
news:8p79pv4kc2a4m4brm5n42ks5ns2phm94da@4ax.com...
Sounds like you are trying to excuse their behavior. Anyway, it
is BELIEVED that since the drugs reduce viral load that they also
reduce transmission, but this has never been proven. Already
there are reports of new HIV infections where the virus is
resistant to all the drugs, something that suggests that the
virus is being transmitted by people taking the drugs AND KNOW
THEY ARE INFECTED!

"David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
Interesting theory, but I was a hardcore speed freak for years and I
never contracted HIV. The only reason I can think of is that I
did not engage in homosexual sex during that time. Of course, you
fail to mention whether the speed users used it nasally or
intravenously. The "popper" link was never proven, it is believed
that since the drugs were so commonly used to enhance sexual
pleasure, that they simply set up the situation for people to be
infected.


Yeah, they're still sold in head shops and porn stores, though I've
never tried them. They are not amyl nitrate like the prescription
only poppers, but rather butyl nitrate or another similar compound
that is unrestricted. People are still using these chemicals and
I've never heard of any link to HIV.


That's quite possible. Chemically-induced immunosuppression would
make a person more vulnerable to infection.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:22:33 -0500, "Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote or quoted :

I would say it is likely true. My anal-sex-loving friends are dead
and the oral sex loving ones are still kicking not infected at all.

Oral sex people are typically more promiscuous.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:25:17 -0500, "Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote or quoted :

I asked various doctors about this and they all agree. Drugs are
keeping people alive a lot longer, and there is much less
transmission.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:30:51 -0500, "Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote or quoted :

I interviewed Dr. Kennedy the head of epidemiology in BC for my book I
wrote back in 1970. Poppers were rare back then but the subject came
up. He was of the opinion there were harmless largely because the
headaches they created discouraged over use. Then they were made
illegal and all sorts of analog drugs appeared, totally untested and
possibly even carcinogenic.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

Collaborative WebLog
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
__________________________________________________ ____________________________

Exactly. That's how easy it is to understand human nature.

Priests, and everybody else, are subject to these powerful
natural impulses. Not even god can protect a priest from
these impulses being acted out.


Well, it seems you miss the point entirely when you go back to
the catechism of "safe sex", which is exactly what fails people.

Saying "always play safe" is like another religious rule to
protect oneself from the natural world. Perhaps people should
consider prayer to protect themselves from STDs?

People might consider saying a prayer before they dip into a
potentially poisoned well.

But then there's this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3193902.stm


You see how easy it is to treat life like a cliche?

Its like responding to the AIDS crisis by evoking the "safe
sex" mantra. Most people don't even realize it should be
"safe sex".


Spoken like an AIDS educator. Risk is part of the nature
of life. People are programmed to take risks.


You keep coming back to common sense like a priest who says
the solution to everything is prayer and church attendance.


Welcome to the club.


Now isn't it just so PECULIAR that everyone thinks exactly
the same of others? Its almost as though each person sees
themselves as knowing the truth. And I am ABSOLUTELY sure
of that, by the way.


God wouldn't want it any other way.

She's not on my Rolodex--so I've got no way of verifying that.


Is "only" a prevention one of those priestly words?

Know the risks.

Perhaps I'm a bit slow, but isn't "know the risks" one of them
there oxygen morons?


What an unpleasant world, where everyone is positive. And that
"no fluids" thingy is going to make getting pregnant tough. Or
is it possible that the desire, or accident, of getting pregnant
prevents AIDS? Or maybe getting married or living with someone
prevents AIDS?


Now there's another world I wouldn't want a piece of!

Play safe, exchange no fluids and forget about tests.

If you needed a blood transfusion, would you say, gimme the
blood, I trust that its not infected.


When a significant number of people actually believe the opposite
of the above, just how effective can any rational educational
program about "safe sex" be?


Can you tell me of any method or system by which one can determine
if your potential partner is positive or negative? Has anybody
thought of a way to determine if your potential partner is
positive or negative? I'm thinking it would be very valuable if
someone could find some way of determining if a person, or their
blood, for example, was positive or negative. Yeah, that would
be a good thing! Could you ask someone to get to work on that?


Sounds like another priestly absolute to me. How about a
prayer before sex? Would that work if a priest said it worked?

And are there really any "safe sex practices"? Don't you really
mean "safer sex practices"?

Are people practicing "safe sex"? Take a look at this:
[ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...oogle+ Search ]




__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________
Collaborative WebLog
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com

The correct term is always... safer
Safer sex. There's never zero risk.

On 22 Oct 2003 17:40:26 -0400, Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu>
wrote or quoted :

After years of complete celibacy which I assumed was necessary because
of my HIV+ condition I went to an HIV support group. I discovered
that EVERYONE but me thought like this:

1. Safe sex is an individual responsibility. It is not your job to
make other people safe.

2. If people are going to have unsafe sex with you, they are likely
going to do it with others. Either they are HIV+ or they soon will
be.

3. There is no obligation to tell someone you are HIV+. If you have
safe sex, then it is none of their business. Only if you get into a
relationship is it their business. All casual sexual encounters
should be treated as if one or both parties were infected.

4. Telling people is dangerous. They may try to hurt or kill you, even
if you have done nothing in the last bit dangerous. (I can attest to
this.) People go nuts -- terrified of glasses of water I offer, dishes
I have washed, getting a hug ...



--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

On 22 Oct 2003 18:08:08 -0400, Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu>
wrote or quoted :

Then you should not talk about safety belts, only saterty belts. You
should talk about teach kids road safety, only road safterty.

What is about is knowing the risks, not overreacting like some who
cowers in terror during lightning storm. There is NEVER zero risk
about anything.


--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com> wrote:

It's also a different HIV strain, too.

A lot of infection there is also through infected needles used in
injections. People in Africa seem to like the idea of injections
curing everything, maybe because they've seen how various
innoculations have stopped childhood diseases and such. As such, they
often demand to be injected for whatever ails them. This was
documented by the WHO some time back.

Problem is that they can't afford to use disposable needles, and
sanitation apparently isn't something that registers in that culture
-- the need to remove invisible "germs" from a needle.

Thus, when needles are reused the HIV-tainted blood is injected into
other people.