The thing about having one infection, for example human
immunodeficiency virus, and your potential sex partner having the
same infection is that you or your partner or both of you could
have another infection too or different infections.

Before having sex getting tested together for sexually
transmitted infections reduces ambiguity.

Testing can detect infections that you can cure before
passing on along infection to another potential sex partner.

Here's a collaborative blog and a collaborative wiki about
the strategy of let's get tested together before we have sex...
for sexually transmitted infections
http://NotB4WeKnow.BlogSpot.com
http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/not_b4_we_know

Earlier edits
http://zork.net/dsaklad/notb4weknow
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...hispa ge.com/
http://tinyurl.com/bll4k

Don Saklad wrote...
You're assuming that people care if they infect their partners. And
since you use HIV as an example, and since HIV and homosexual sex
are essentially synonymous, HIV testing before sex doesn't matter
because the potential partners couldn't even make it home from the
clinic before picking up half a dozen strangers each and having sex
with them behind dumpsters. In other words, their HIV- status at
the moment of testing does not mean they'll still be HIV- by the
time they get home an hour later.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:09:54 GMT, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of Seamore Tush
<stush@asses.fire.net>

<factual errors corrected>

The same way it worked to protect our blood supply the strategy
of let's get tested together before we have sex... for sexually
transmitted infections will protect the potential sex partners by
reducing the ambiguity, reducing the risk.

It doesn't matter what assumptions potential sex partners make.
Would you want untested blood used if your child needed,
somebody you cared about needed, you needed a transfusion?...
Would you want the blood tested after the transfusion?...

There's no assumption that the getting tested together
before having sex... for sexually transmitted infections will
detect nothing. Infections can be detected. You can get treated
earlier than later. You can make an informed choice about having
sex with the knowledge of each others' tests results.

The strategy is a choice. It's something people can do to raise
the standard of health at the beginning of a sexual relationship.

When people who're attracted each other meet, among all the
things people do together when they meet the strategy is one
of the things people can do together.

People you're thinking of are unlikely to take a course of action
together that could get in the way such as the strategy.
The biological imperative is interrupted by the strategy.

|| You're assuming that people care if they infect their
|| partners.
||
|| And since you use HIV as an example, and since HIV and
|| homosexual sex are essentially synonymous, HIV testing
|| before sex doesn't matter because the potential
|| partners couldn't even make it home from the clinic
|| before picking up half a dozen strangers each and
|| having sex with them behind dumpsters.
||
|| In other words, their HIV- status at the moment of
|| testing does not mean they'll still be HIV- by the
|| time they get home an hour later.
|| Seamore Tush

| <factual errors corrected>
| I'm assuming that people care if they infect their
| partners.
|
| And since I'm going along with HIV as an example, and since
| HIV and HETEROsexual sex are essentially synonymous, HIV
| testing before sex doesn't matter because the potential
| partners couldn't even make it home from the clinic before
| picking up half a dozen strangers each and having sex with
| them behind dumpsters.
|
| In other words, their HIV- status at the moment of testing
| does not mean they'll still be HIV- by the time they get
| home an hour later.
| Bonnie Bitch



Here's a collaborative blog and a collaborative wiki about
the strategy of let's get tested together before we have sex...
for sexually transmitted infections
http://NotB4WeKnow.BlogSpot.com
http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/not_b4_we_know

Earlier edits at
http://zork.net/dsaklad/notb4weknow
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...hispa ge.com/
http://tinyurl.com/bll4k

Feedback, comment, questions, suggestions welcome !
Ideas, hints, tips, pointers welcome !

"Ronnie Butch" <

transmitted infections"

Oh, get off it! If the hetero's would have been into this doom-thinking,
humanity would have been extinct long ago.
What a sad, sad world you must be living in. Never being able to enjoy a
youthful life, with fearless sex, without HIV on your mind...
The babyboomers were able to enjoy their youth. Now that they are getting
a little long in the tooth, they are trying their damndest to keep the
young people from having sex by means of all kinds of scare stories about
HIV and STD's.
I've got news for you: Knowing is NOT beautiful; it will destroy your
life. Don't get tested!

That sounds really homophobic. I would almost believe you have something
against gay men. I don't, and I'm not even gay.

with them behind dumpsters."

They do?? I didn't know that. But I once had a girlfriend who did that,
and man! Was she fun!

It all sounds like techno sex to me. Oh well, we also have techno music,
techno babble, etc. I won't have any of it.

"Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message

QUEERLY BELOVED

Posted: April 2, 2005
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A lesbian couple from Connecticut who married in Massachusetts during last year's rush of
same-sex weddings find themselves in somewhat of a pickle - there's no legal way for them to
divorce.

When Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney invoked a pre-existing law that prevented issuance of
marriage licenses to people who could not legally marry in their own state, it effectively
voided the union of Anita Ann Albanese and her partner, a woman identified in court papers as
"Lane." Anita and Lane, however, still had reason to hope their marriage would receive legal
blessing when proponents of same-sex unions challenged the ban invoked by Romney.

The problem is, Anita and Lane no longer want to be together, nor do they want to find
themselves legally yoked if the legal challenge to the Massachusetts ban succeeds at some
future date. They want their marriage annulled.


Now, a Connecticut judge has told the pair that because neither Connecticut nor Massachusetts
saw their marriage as legal to begin with, the court has no jurisdiction to annul it.

Hartford Superior Court Judge Linda Pearce Prestley's determination rested on the fact the
state legislature has deemed same-sex marriage to be against public policy, reported the
Connecticut Law Tribune.

Prestley's 10-page decision cited the relevant Massachusetts law: "No marriage shall be
contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in
another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction."

Because the 'marriage' between Anita and Lane was "premised on a violation of the Massachusetts
marriage statute, the 'civil marriage' was not valid from its inception, but null and void,
and, therefore, Connecticut has nothing to dissolve or annul."

The case has been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Until Connecticut
lawmakers recognize same-sex marriage, Prestley concluded, the pair must remain both unmarried
and un-divorced.

Iconoclaster wrote...
Well, I'm gay but homophobic in the sense that I'm afraid of other gay men
because I believe they all are infected with HIV. And no, I don't care
whether you believe me or not. I am not afraid of homosexuals per se, I
am afraid of deadly contagious viruses. So while I have no problems with
my gay co-workers, I am not stupid enough to fuck them.



I'm afraid the part about dumpsters is true, that's where my gay brother
caught his virus. He dragged me into some gay bar called Hula's in
Honolulu, I felt very uncomfortable - like I could feel the disease in
the air - and decided to leave but left my brother behind. He got back
to the hotel the next morning and bragged about whatever piece of trash
he had picked up (whose name he couldn't remember) and how they had had
sex behind a dumpster. After we got back from vacation he came down
with what seemed to be the flu and which the doctor diagnosed as mono
and which cleared up in a week or two. There were probably 10,000 other
dumpster encounters between then and when he tested positive in 1994,
and between 1995 (he took a few months off) and 2005 there have probably
been at least 20,000 more.

"Seamore Tush" <stush@asses.fire.net> wrote in message
Which brings us back round-circle. He caught (something) that made him sick.
At (that) time he wasn't on any medicines for hiv/aids, so that can be ruled out
as the root problem of his visit to the doctor. He wasn't poisoned by AZT
neither was his liver eaten up.

At his first encounter, his CD4 cells hadn't had time to decrease in sufficient
numbers to be detected by the doctor. So we can rule out a false positive
because he hasn't been tested for hiv/aids.

He later tested for hiv/aids and tested positive and got on meds that extended
his life, where he used that second chance at life to infect others with (something).

And there is no such thing as a hiv virus that is spread through faggot sex?

(Something) has killed millions of people, some on cocktails, some
without ever taking anything, and there is no common denominator?

Am I missing something here ?

Death wrote:
Yeah, you forgot to change your socks and outed yourself again.

B/

Mailman, and Noble). Maybe I've been a bit too unfriendly when I answered
your first post. For which I apologize.
You've described your own feelings about the world around you, and made
clear that some of these extreme thrills are not for you. Well, of course
you have a perfect right to live your life as you see fit. And I don't
think anybody could criticize you for wanting to live in a healthy and
monogamous way. You would probably be best off with one partner, and
without the bathhouse and dumpster scene. Well, more power to you.
But I hope you will also realize that there are people who are different.
People who want action and excitement. And your brother is such a person.
Don't be too harsh on him.
Of course that kind of lifestyle has its pitfalls. But it's not the STD's
you have to watch out for. Among the most common are gonorrhea and
chlamidia, and you can get rid of these in a very short time.
For that reason, the religious right was so keen on a disease for which
there was no cure. That's why AIDS got invented. But it's all fake;
there IS no HIV that can be sexually transmitted.
Of course I'm not denying that people have gotten sick, and have even
died. People always have.
But the danger of a wild lifestyle is not the sex. It's the things that
come with it: Drinking too much, taking drugs, lack of sleep, unhealthy
eating habits, etc. You simply can't run your body ragged without paying
the price.
One of my famous quotes (or at least it should be famous) is: "You have to
be an adult to be able to play as a child".
I wasn't kidding when I wrote that I once had a girlfriend who did all
those things you described. In the hetero world things are not all that
different. Unhealthy lifestyles are not uncommon there either. But the
goons who invented HIV/AIDS were targeting gay men, not the heteros. Only
when the pharma industry smelled money, the rumor was spread that
everybody was vulnerable. And yet, in the U.S. and in Europe the vast
majority of "HIV+" victims are still gay men.
Some of us are smart enough to enjoy both worlds. I enjoyed the fast lane
for a few years, but I was careful not to do any damage to my own body. I
never took street drugs, curbed my drinking, was always conservative with
prescription drugs, and made sure I ate well and got enough sleep. For
the rest, I lived like a beast. And now I am back to a slower, more
respectable lifestyle (have too; can't keep up anymore).
I think there's nothing wrong with your brother. All he has to do is
starting to use his brain.

"Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:f73f93f643e8d5a05f973940db725a52@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
The vast majority in the US is now around 51% doesn't sound to vast to me
Claster but then math has never been one of your strong points has it.

Gary Stein

Try me.

Gary, I don't think math is your strong point. If it were, you would
notice that only 18,000 deaths annually are attributed to "HIV"
infection out of a pool of 1.2 million, according to the CDC.

The non-epidemic.

" We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell
of a mistake"
Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain
Reaction.



--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com