Posted on 06/03/2005 11:18:37 AM PDT by FormerLib
"I've read that in cultures where virginity at marriage is highly valued like Rio, girls will have anal sex to preserve it."
My brother, who spent years in the middle east, said that because virginity is a requirement at marriage, that the men have sex with other men until marriage, and even after.
They don't consider themselves gay (like men in prison) unless they are on the bottom. A man's sex drive is powerful. If a man in a traditional culture must be financially stable before marriage (and provide a large dowry), he might be 30 before he gets a wife. Do people honestly believe they abstain until then?
Yes, my guess is when and if you meet people like that, you keep your mouth shut, being that you are not on an anonymous message board.
And here's the runaway winner on the Silly Post contest: the repeated suggestion that they article suggests that certain behaviors are risk-free!!!!!
Read the article; it doesn't make that claim.
So if asked, they would deny homosexuality as being a risk factor, yes?
"Great point. Many children in Africa (and elsewhere) are born with the disease. God bless them!"
And their moms too! Saying AIDS is a gay disease somewhere like Africa only spreads the denial at a time when health workers are trying to educate them.
You don't read very well. It's labeling research that shows unprotected heterosexual intercourse as a "Radical Big Lie" that we have a problem with. I am sure that this is because the poster has an agenda that has nothing to do with medical science (that's you, in case you didn't understand).
As we say, fighting aids in africa is not a cause, its an emergency. The entire continent is burning down. I am glad that Bush and others (including church groups) are helping fight it. There is a long way to go in educating the people over there.
Again, the article does not state what you allege it states only that unsterile punctures and anal sex represent a much greater risk than vaginal intercourse.
Equating them as risk factors is the big lie in this reference.
There was a good article posted in Bloggers a few weeks back that discussed the possibility that HIV didn't cause AIDS. It was very interesting but I can't find it now.
Really? At least I don't make things up as I go. But don't let that stop you from claiming the article says things that it clearly does not.
Would you admit that both types of intercourse are dangerous, though maybe not "equally dangerous?"
HIV doesn't cause AIDS?
"The article does not in fact dispute that people are infected through heterosexual sex. It does state that one is more likely to acquire it through anal sex. Or needles. It suggests that the reason that AIDS infects both sexes to such an extent in Africa could be due to lesions or other infections the inhabitants have acquired there, perhaps due to the tropical climate, real poverty and primitive conditions."
The opposite could be true as well. What would a rural witch doctor say caused the purple legions? Demon possession? If purple legions were caused by tropical climate, poverty and primitive conditions, then why don't we have something like this documented as cause of death in past centuries? Also, how many people that were HIV negative were cured of their purple legions by western medicine? If there was a 'purple legion' disease, the west would know, and missionaries would know, and something would be done to cure it. There would be something in the historical record when westerners started visiting and settling in Africa.
Like I said it was an interesting article but I can't locate it.
"People skilled at public relations developed the "Big Lie": that HIV was a major risk to all"
Wow...your attacking a person's religion. Nice.
With respect to the HIV/AIDS virus, that would be correct.
I would never suggest that someone have unprotected intercourse with anyone other than their spouse.
Returning to the article, this suggests that there are two factors that constititue the primary threats in regards to the spread of the disease and, because of this, they should be the primary focus of efforts to combat the disease and educate people about AIDS.
It never suggests that other risks be ignored; only that they be dealt with factually.
Perhaps what you think you know is not so. Check out this thread and as Mark Felt said many years ago, "follow the money."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1383499/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.