- So called safer sex practices. Condoms.
- Posted by Don Saklad
See also
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...-1&q=bobbitage
Bitoniau
1. Bitoniau: n.m (contraction de "bite aux niaux").
Recette assez simple, dont l'ingrédient principal, obtenu par
bobbitage, est agrémenté d'une sauce (de type grand veneur) et
d'une poignée de niaux (fayots provenant d'un arbrisseau de
Nouvelle-Calédonie, le niaouli).
Plat façon nouvelle cuisine ou, de l'avis de certains, philtre
d'amour que certaines femmes n'hésitent pas à concocter lorsque
qu'elles subodorent avoir été trompées par leurs tendres époux.
Mets préparé en vue du "retour de l'être aimé".
(Gérard Contério)
Bitoniau
1. Bitoniau: n.m (contraction of "cock to niaux").
Rather simple
receipt, whose principal ingredient, obtained by bobbitage, is
decorated of a sauce (of large type huntsman) and of a handle
the niaux one (fayots coming from a shrub of New Caledonia, the niaouli).
Dish new way cooks or, of the opinion of some,
philtre of love that certain women do not hesitate with
concocter when that they suspect to be misled by their tender husbands.
Put prepared for the "return to be liked it".
(Gerard Contério)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...-1&q=bobbitage
- Posted by GMCarter
On 30 Jun 2003 16:01:06 -0400, Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu>
wrote:
New York and Washington state off the top of my head. You could try
either www.aegis.org or AIDS Treatment Data Network.
George M. Carter
- Posted by GMCarter
On 01 Jul 2003 04:42:42 -0400, Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu>
wrote:
Excellent idea!! But it won't say anything about tomorrow's exposure.
So, yes, get tested today!! If need be. Then get tested again. If need
be. And use a condom as safely, consistently as you can.
- Posted by GMCarter
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:36:34 -0700, Brian Mailman
<bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote:
snip...>> Testing provides a snapshot of a current condition....
EEK!!!! A truly effective way to end transmissions!!!
-30-
- Posted by Don Saklad
You implied it, but I'm not.
The strategy is before you have sex get tested together.
a. Are you suggesting it's a good idea to have sex with people who're diseased?
Testing gives you some likely knowledge just like going to the doctor
and getting tested for anything.
b. If you had children in school, would you want other children in that
school without a tuberculosis test ?...
c. Would you want your children to go to a school where the other
children had no vaccinations or tests for anything
d. If an epidemic started in your children's school would you leave
your children there because maybe they won't have it.
People make decisions on the basis of tests all the time and the
tests aren't necessarily accurate. You should use test results to at
least influence decisions.
On the other hand it would be very interesting to see what would
happen with a recently married couple who wanted to have children and
used safe sex practices all the time.
e. What are the chances that you became infected in the last three
months versus the last thirty years?...
And if you became infected in the last ten years or so, chances are
testing will detect the infections. Like with tuberculosis if you
don't get a test that shows you have it, you can't begin a course
of treatment to cure it or to mitigate the consequences of having
the disease.
- Posted by Don Saklad
See also
Naional Center for HIV, STD and TV Prevention
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/
- Posted by Don Saklad
Because most people who have these intense feelings of love with one another
are going to assume the other person is okay they can't imagine the other
person will hurt them. It is part of the evolutionary scheme to get us to
reproduce.
The strategy is before sex get tested together.
Collaborative weblog
The Strategy. Get Tested Together Before You Have Sex.
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
- Posted by Don Saklad
Nobody is suggesting it is spread sexually
but it does spread through social contact.
And really, would you want you children going to a school where the other
children were not tested for tuberculosis. Humor me with an answer, please.
The implication of this is somehow acquired immune deficiency syndrome is not
considered a disease by the medical establishment and that the rules we apply
to other diseases do not apply to aids.
Are you implying that we should have other political cultural responses other
than good medicine to other and future diseases?...
How about a disease that kills and is spread through social contact?...
Collaborative weblog
The Strategy. Get Tested Together Before You Have Sex.
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
- Posted by drifter
Brian Mailman wrote:
Nicely said, Brian <----
It reminds me of the story of the 35 year old accountant, albeit
pre-1980s with a wife and 5 children - as I recall all daughters - from
a small town who used to make occasional business trips to the city.
The city provided anal sex that was not professionally conveniently
available in the small town - to be clear, the accountant liked being
passive! While he and his wife could easily have had all the tests
before they became sex partners, and ultimately married, the wife was
clearly at high risk in spite of having one loving, trustworthy,
faithful husband - in her mind. In modern times, given the opportunity,
frequency, and random selection of partners, it could take some
considerable time for the accountant to become infected and ultimately
pass on a disease - perhaps never with a lot of luck!
The other problem is the definition of sex. Some people think hand jobs
aren't sex really and as such don't appreciate the risk of of passing
some viruses which are considered minor but can ultimately lead to
cancers in women.
Safe sex protects <you> from disease, dishonesty and the unknown
regardless of whether you have one partner, 10 partners, faithful or
unfaithful, heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, male or female. Safe
sex, although not 100 percent fool proof, is the ultimate.
Testing only protects you, for a split second in time, if the lab
results are yours, the test was done correctly, the results were
recorded correctly and the disease was sufficiently developed within the
body being tested to produce a positive result, and the body being
tested had the capacity to react to the specific test being done and did
not fall outside the norms when the test was originally developed.
- Posted by drifter
Brian Mailman wrote:
Nicely said, Brian <----
It reminds me of the story of the 35 year old accountant, albeit
pre-1980s with a wife and 5 children - as I recall all daughters - from
a small town who used to make occasional business trips to the city.
The city provided anal sex that was not professionally conveniently
available in the small town - to be clear, the accountant liked being
passive! While he and his wife could easily have had all the tests
before they became sex partners, and ultimately married, the wife was
clearly at high risk in spite of having one loving, trustworthy,
faithful husband - in her mind. In modern times, given the opportunity,
frequency, and random selection of partners, it could take some
considerable time for the accountant to become infected and ultimately
pass on a disease - perhaps never with a lot of luck!
The other problem is the definition of sex. Some people think hand jobs
aren't sex really and as such don't appreciate the risk of of passing
some viruses which are considered minor but can ultimately lead to
cancers in women.
Safe sex protects <you> from disease, dishonesty and the unknown
regardless of whether you have one partner, 10 partners, faithful or
unfaithful, heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, male or female. Safe
sex, although not 100 percent fool proof, is the ultimate.
Testing only protects you, for a split second in time, if the lab
results are yours, the test was done correctly, the results were
recorded correctly and the disease was sufficiently developed within the
body being tested to produce a positive result, and the body being
tested had the capacity to react to the specific test being done and did
not fall outside the norms when the test was originally developed.
- Posted by drifter
Brian Mailman wrote:
Nicely said, Brian <----
It reminds me of the story of the 35 year old accountant, albeit
pre-1980s with a wife and 5 children - as I recall all daughters - from
a small town who used to make occasional business trips to the city.
The city provided anal sex that was not professionally conveniently
available in the small town - to be clear, the accountant liked being
passive! While he and his wife could easily have had all the tests
before they became sex partners, and ultimately married, the wife was
clearly at high risk in spite of having one loving, trustworthy,
faithful husband - in her mind. In modern times, given the opportunity,
frequency, and random selection of partners, it could take some
considerable time for the accountant to become infected and ultimately
pass on a disease - perhaps never with a lot of luck!
The other problem is the definition of sex. Some people think hand jobs
aren't sex really and as such don't appreciate the risk of of passing
some viruses which are considered minor but can ultimately lead to
cancers in women.
Safe sex protects <you> from disease, dishonesty and the unknown
regardless of whether you have one partner, 10 partners, faithful or
unfaithful, heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, male or female. Safe
sex, although not 100 percent fool proof, is the ultimate.
Testing only protects you, for a split second in time, if the lab
results are yours, the test was done correctly, the results were
recorded correctly and the disease was sufficiently developed within the
body being tested to produce a positive result, and the body being
tested had the capacity to react to the specific test being done and did
not fall outside the norms when the test was originally developed.
- Posted by Don Saklad
Thank you for your comment in the collaborative thread of comments !
Collaborative weblog
The strategy. Get tested together before you have sex.
http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com
At the very least, You have to write... safer
It isn't safe. You write safe and then qualify it.
How common is that profile?...
And if it's uncommon why use it?...
Why not use the most common profile of who becomes hiv infected?...
How many married men with wives participate in that kind of sex?...
Is the most common profile very different from that?...
Is the writer a married man with a wife and 5 children?
Is the writer a 90 year old plus widow?...
Is the writer an under 10 year old child?...
What is the profile of the writer?...
Does the writer know any hiv positive people?...
And what are their profiles?...
Are they married with a wife and 5 children?...
Are they 90 year old plus widows?...
Are they under 10 year old children?...
etc?...
What is safer sex?...
Is safer sex done with barriers like latex condoms?...
Don't they have a common failure rate of ten to twenty percent?...
Or does the writer use the new titanium condoms which have a much lower failure rate?...
A second failure rate would the failure to use the condom at all
Has the writer ever had a condom fail ?...
Has the writer ever failed to use a condom ?...
And lastly, has the writer ever gone for testing with a potential sex partner?...
That is did the writer go get tested with somebody they were considering having
sex with before they had sex and did they reveal their results?...
- Posted by GMCarter
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:09:22 -0700, Brian Mailman
<bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote:
LOL...one of them...but drifter did it quite eloquently!! Hats off and
a little bow to you each.
George M. Carter
- Posted by Don Saklad
So called safer sex education has not worked. The epidemic continues.
Collaborative weblog
The strategy. Get tested together before you have sex.
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
- Posted by Asmodeus
Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu> wrote in
news:y447k6vlmwc.fsf@nestle.ai.mit.edu:
Duh.
--
"Pan is a sensual boy-god who tempts me to procrastinate from my
work and play with him. Kali is my protective mother. And Legba
trips me up when I am too arrogant."
-- Dawn Owens, NewAge Idiot Award Winner, 8/1990
- Posted by Don Saklad
What are the reference points for "MUCH lower" condom failure rate?...
Where did you get the information?...
See also
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...ilure+rates%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...ailure+rate%22
Collaborative weblog
The strategy. Get tested together before you have sex.
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
- Posted by GMCarter
On 06 Jul 2003 11:01:39 -0400, Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu>
wrote:
Not 100%. But I seriously doubt your testing idea would work as a SOLE
alternative. It certainly is another useful option to add to the
armamentarium for rather select cases and with limitations delineated
elsewhere.
George M. Carter
- Posted by GMCarter
On 06 Jul 2003 14:32:47 -0400, Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu>
wrote:
Consumer Reports. The rate of condom breakage and testing condoms.
Another article:
http://www.aegis.com/news/bar/1999/BR990703.html
This provides information more commensurate with the figures you were
providing (sorta). That is, in this group, 16% reported that they had
had a condom slip off or break at some point. That is not the same as
saying as condoms fail 16% of the time.
There's lots of ways to improve on this. Including:
1) As the article states, using water-based lubricant;
2) reducing the number of partners;
3) not cumming while still inside;
4) make it erotic--switch positions and check the condom;
5) avoid speed and alcohol;
6) practice using them if you are not practiced.
This is why we need SAFER SEX education as well as other options
provided in schools and elsewhere. Risk reduction. If people know the
risks and how to protect themselves, they can make better choices that
they WILL make anyway---sometimes to have sex, sometimes to avoid sex,
sometimes to get tested for HIV before embarking on what one can only
hope is a monogamous relationship.
George M. Carter
- Posted by GMCarter
On 06 Jul 2003 11:01:39 -0400, Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.ai.mit.edu>
wrote:
But it is attenuated in some populations.
Another article:
http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2001-08-16/cover2.html
George M. Carter
- Posted by Don Saklad
Using safer sex practices and condoms is still a good thing to do even after
potential sex partners have got tested together before having sex. There is no
test for mutual fidelity. The strategy get tested together before you have sex
is not foolproof. It reduces ambiguity. Regardless of the propaganda of safer
sex advocates, people are not assuming their potential sex partner is infected
already. People have not even been tested. People don't know they have a
sexually transmitted infection. People pass along acquired immune deficiency
syndrome human immunodeficiency virus and other STDs with not even a
suspicion.
Collaborative weblog
The strategy. Get tested together before you have sex.
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
