Look, those are the CDC stats, free and clear for all to peruse. Draw your own conclusions, justify the numbers, run screaming in the night... i'm simply posting the stats as they are (yes Dan, the stats i selected, seeing as i was the one doing the selecting and all, i'm certain you never overlook or omit any pertinent quotes that would aid in my argument.....right?) That you guys are going apeshit at the sight of the CDC's findings is disapointing, not surprising, but still... disapointing.

And another thing, this thread initially brought to light the issue of gay men giving other, unsuspecting, gay men Aids. Sean and i had some conversation speaking to ways, other than the ghastly "Tatoo" idea, to help ease those fears. I find it telling that in all you homosexual rights supporters many posts, not one of you has offered a single idea or suggestion as how to allieviate that initial problem. Which still exists by the way. In fact i'm (you know, the homophobic rat bastard) the only one that brought up any alternatives to the Tatoo. You guys seem so determined to argue anyone who has ever taken a anti-homosexual stance that you haven't even slowed down to offer assistance in finding a way to communicate from one gay man to another "i'd like too,but i have Aids". That you'd look over that original delimma and instead seek to lob girly slaps at me because "he's not on our side", is just juvenile as hell. I made an assertion about homosexual promiscuity and that was it, end of serious conversation, end of reasonable discourse and on with the full tilt bitch session. I don't think you see the forrest for the tree's!! In the end it doesn't matter if "I" think Aids is being spread via "rampant homosexual promiscuity" or not. How does my opinion play a part in saving innocent people from contracting Aids? That you've chosen to focus your ire and retalliation on me, instead of the real life problem at hand says a helluva lot more about you than it does me. Shoot, im the only one that even suggested alternative's to the Tatoo.... what have you brought to the table? Lot's of snappy cut downs and one sided statistical analysis in a vain attempt to prove Aids is not a problem of gay men !!!

Steve

I think it would be really interesting to see what the reaction would be to seeing someone walking down the street with one of those tattoos on his forehead that tells everyone, "I infected others with HIV ."

Dan, sorry dude, i just don't see how lumping sub-saharan African Aids cases in with United States ised cases is relevent or helpful. I have no illusions of how to stamp Aids out on the African continent, they have a societal epedemic on thier hands. That is not the case in America, as i feel the graphs referenced clearly point out. There is a group of Americans that is 3 to 4 times more likely to get Aids than any other group. Gay men. That's the situation at hand. That combining all the worlds Aids problems into one makes that "problem" go away is all well and looks good on paper, but it doesnt do diddly squat in saving American lives... be they gay or straight. Leave Africa out of this conversation.. unless you prefer skewwing the numbers a bit.

And the next time you accuse someone of "ignoring facts which contradict the conclusion you want to reach" i'd suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror!!

Steve

The CDC stats for a select subset of AIDS patients.

In addition, you have had several flaws with the conclusions you have reached based on these stats pointed out to you, and failed to respond to any of them. So your whole "hey, these are the facts" riff rings pretty fuckin' hollow.

So... your selective picking and choosing of facts is valid... because of course you need to selectively pick and choose facts to support your point?

I certainly can't think of any occasion in which I've had ommitted facts pointed out to me, and have summarily ignored them, continuing to repeat my claims. In fact, you routinely complain about the fact that I specifically address each and every one of your points. You call it "thread-dissection" or something?

That you continuously ignore that we're not arguing the CDC's findings, but are in fact pointing out that the conclusions you've drawn based on those facts are crap, is... well, pretty much par for the course. You seem to love making shit up and claiming it's what we're saying. What's the problem... is what we're actually saying too difficult to argue?

I find it telling that no matter how many times I say that the answer is safe-sex education, across the board, for everybody, you continue to ignore it.

And again, it's somehow our fault that you say something ridiculous.

How are the two mutually exclusive? It's easy to be concerned about AIDS, and think that your opinion is asinine. At the same time, even!

Clearly nothing you've bothered reading.

Absolutely! It's my responsibility, to educate hostile, ignorant people about themselves. The way you attack can show your greatest weakness. I'd made overtures of peace throughout this discussion, and you've kept the ball rolling with childish attempts at 'below the belt'. Talking about 'man-panties' incessantly on a comic book board, thinking it's clever? What are you, a high school football player?

If you think this has all been psycho-babble, you must have some weak insight into the human condition. It's just Psych 101 jargon, with some half-hearted button-pushing--if you're going to write well about human beings, you may want to take a glance at some of the disciplines that study them.

Whoops... yeah, double post.

Steve -

In my mind there are two issues you haven't dealt adequately with re: the statistics

1. Do you still believe initital HIV infection occurs in middle aged gay men? If so how do you explain your own citation that indicates that half of new infections occur in those under 25. This is an important point to your promiscuity argument, because you were responding to Dan's argument that younger people tended to be promiscuous generally, by saying that it was in fact middle aged men who were the primary cause of AIDS in the gay community.

2. You haven't dealt with the difference in likelyhood of transmission for men engaging in vaginal sex vs. those engaging (particularly on the receiving end) anal sex. Until you do that, your assumption about promiscuity is not supported by the facts you've presented.

This might be a double-post... board's acting weird.

Because you were talking about the supposedly innate promiscuity of gay men, and using AIDS as your reasoning.

Are there not gay men in Africa? Is their innate nature somehow different than that of American gay men? Will it just be easier for you to say that gay men are the big ol' AIDS spreaders, due to their innate promiscuity, if you ignore Africa?

So I guess we can assume that Africans... what, catch AIDS differently than Americans? So prevention methods would be radically different in each case?

If nothing else, Africa shows how quickly AIDS can spread through heterosexual channels. Ignoring it, especially in a conversation ostensibly about prevention, is just ridiculous. The best way to prevent something is to look at a case where it happened, and find out how, so you can avoid it.

Tattoo the forehead of those who infect others.

Dan, so basically you just want to argue with me and forget about the thousands of gay Americans living with, and dieing from Aids? Yet im the uncaring homophobe.... i find that ironic. And your "educate everybody" starting point is already in place and not saving many. The issue at hand is a sensible way for gay men to communicate to one another that they do, or do not, have HIV. That's the issue at hand. That's what this thread was originally about. That you'd choose to "stay the course" seeing as it's been so sucessful, to me, only proves the futility of even carrying on this conversation. I may be narrow minded for choosing to solely focus on Aids in the United States, but your being down right silly in continuing to only discuss Aids in parameters of the "whole world".

Here's a website that seems to speak directly to my "promiscuity" statement. Be warned it's a Christian site so be sure to prepare your delicate little sensibilities.
a touch on the old side, but still, telling of homosexuality in the 70's early 80's i think. 26% had more than 1000 sex partners..... that is astounding... and damned promiscious too, i venture.

again, dated, but still New England journal of Medicine.. so repuatable atleast.

see, they are comfortable with thier promiscuity.
anyone know the definition for "Promiscious"?

Ya know i'd be happy to drop this entire "promiscuity" tangent and get on with the heart of the problem if you'd #1. admit there is a shread of truth to my assertion and #2 get over it.

Steve