POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: tednlou2 on March 12, 2010, 12:38:14 am
-
I was just reading a new report from the CDC showing who is being infected with HIV. The results were not a total surprise. I'm wondering what is going on that makes gays not fear this virus. I obviously didn't fear it enough. Is it the thinking that HIV is no big deal anymore? Is it that gays have a self-destructive nature as many have written about? I know many who have a lot of self-hate even if they don't realize they do.
I'm currently dealing with this with my best friend. He has had soooo much unprotected sex. He developed some ARS symptoms and I finally got him to get tested. He said he wasn't too concerned about it even though he has had sex with at least 2 people who later told him they were poz. He said HIV is really no big deal with the meds today. I haven't told him my status. He texted me the other day saying he got the results and needed to talk--implying a poz result. I text back saying to come by after work. I was preparing to tell him I was poz, too. I was preparing what all I would tell him.
Well, he later said he was joking and that the test was negative. As you can imagine, I was so pissed that he would be joking around like that and not correct the joke within a couple mins. Being pissed at him, I started thinking how unfair it was why some get infected and others don't. He has been with a different guy every couple days. Remember, I was pissed at him for the joke and I was venting. I didn't want his test to be poz--well, the little devil on one shoulder did. I felt guilty for thinking that way. Anyway, I told him I didn't want to talk to him for awhile. I felt the joking was totally insensitive. I also told him he should learn from this negative result and how lucky he is. He came back saying again he's not that worried about HIV. He was not one bit worried about what the results would show. I was always worried about HIV and have talked about how I got it before--won't go into it again.
So, I'm just wondering whether it is a feeling that HIV is no big deal, denial, self-destructive nature, or what. I've been wondering whether his test was actually poz and he decided to not tell me. It just seemed odd that he would let a joke like that go for hours.
Anyway here is that CDC report for anyone who hasn't seen it.
http://www.poz.com/articles/MSM_HIV_syphilis_1_18145.shtml
-
Interesting questions. Throughout my career in computer security I've come to realize that many people don't understand how to deal with risk. When faced with making decisions involving risk vs. reward trade-offs, our million-year-old vestigial reptilian brain overpowers our larger, more evolved primate brain. Bruce Schneier, a security industry expert whose writings have influenced me greatly, wrote about this in his essay The Psychology of Security (http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html). It might help you understand how some people consistently get risk wrong.
-
I was just reading a new report from the CDC showing who is being infected with HIV. The results were not a total surprise. I'm wondering what is going on that makes gays not fear this virus. Is it the thinking that HIV is no big deal anymore?
Are you sure it is mostly gay men? The article only says men who have sex with men - and closeted "straight" men tend to be more worried about their wife finding-out they like a dick up their ass than about catching something, and often play unprotected at rest-areas, restrooms, etc. because they are in a hurry to get-off and get-out before they are caught.
-
Well, he later said he was joking and that the test was negative. As you can imagine, I was so pissed that he would be joking around like that and not correct the joke within a couple mins. Being pissed at him, I started thinking how unfair it was why some get infected and others don't. He has been with a different guy every couple days. Remember, I was pissed at him for the joke and I was venting. I didn't want his test to be poz--well, the little devil on one shoulder did. I felt guilty for thinking that way. Anyway, I told him I didn't want to talk to him for awhile. I felt the joking was totally insensitive. I also told him he should learn from this negative result and how lucky he is. He came back saying again he's not that worried about HIV. He was not one bit worried about what the results would show. I was always worried about HIV and have talked about how I got it before--won't go into it again.
I wonder if you're friend is truly HIV negative. Perhaps he found out he is positive. It's not unlikely he would freak out and text you and then later have second thoughts about telling you his true results.
-
Regarding human beings and risk taking, I came across an interesting quote in an article I read about the subject, it's taken from Traffic: Why We Drive The Way We Do (And What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt:
When a situation feels dangerous to you, it's probably more safe than you know; when a situation feels safe, that is precisely when you should stay on guard.
I know that, for me, I very likely got HIV through a situation that felt totally safe to me (i.e. my ex-partner).
-
Unfortunately life is not fair, and risk is a funny creature that makes rational people act irrationally. It's what makes prevention messages difficult to create.
People will exhibit risky behavior if they believe the rewards outweigh the risk. How do you think Vegas exists. Additionally, when the fear overpowers the message of prevention people disregard the problem and engage in risky behavior.
Right after I found out and my doctor told made a statement that truly impacted me. He said some patients have so much fear when they are HIV negative, they believe every cough, headache, sore throat was HIV, that when they finally found out they were positive it's was a relief because they could stop worrying.
When medical advice states that HIV symptoms are similar to the flu, but many people don't experience any symptoms it doesn't make people feel comfortable about the virus. When we worry we want answers, and if he can't get the answers we rationalize the risk. I don't believe it's the discovery of better drugs that has you're friend not worrying about HIV, I believe it's the lack visual cues and ambiguous messages.
Take for example anti-smoking ads. They show someone smoking, and then in another shot they show a person with a tracheotomy, or a cancer patient and then tell you if you don't smoke you can avoid this outcome.
Cause and effect and a clear solution to the problem is most effective message, and in my opinion the HIV message has never been clearly communicated. I can honestly say I have never seen never seen any PSA saying what HIV really is and why I want to avoid it other than it's a killer. People die of heart attacks, diabetes, etc so the message is not really effective and easy to rationalize. Additionally, drug companies show images of seemingly healthy people, and the conflicts with human perception of what a sick person should look like.
-
I don't believe it's the discovery of better drugs that has you're friend not worrying about HIV, I believe it's the lack visual cues and ambiguous messages.
Take for example anti-smoking ads. They show someone smoking, and then in another shot they show a person with a tracheotomy, or a cancer patient and then tell you if you don't smoke you can avoid this outcome.
Cause and effect and a clear solution to the problem is most effective message, and in my opinion the HIV message has never been clearly communicated. I can honestly say I have never seen never seen any PSA saying what HIV really is and why I want to avoid it other than it's a killer. People die of heart attacks, diabetes, etc so the message is not really effective and easy to rationalize. Additionally, drug companies show images of seemingly healthy people, and the conflicts with human perception of what a sick person should look like.
I agree with what you have written here. I think one reason gay men are having more unsafe sex is because they don't see people dying around them like they used to. It is not in their face anymore. Also I think as stigma of being HIV+ decreases in the gay community the less fearful gay men are of becoming HIV+. If more people had visible symptoms, such as lipoatrophy, contracting HIV would be more scary.
-
I wish then, the rest of the world would catch up with the thinking of the gay community that being HIV positive is not the death sentence it used to be. I think the social stigma of being positive would be decreased proportionately with the amount of people who understood the current ramifications of a positive diagnosis. I suspect, then, that unfortunately we would also see more people being careless about prevention in a proportionate quantity as well. What I am saying, and maybe this is obvious, is that as the percieved threat decreases, the stigma also decreases, and consequently prevention decreases as well.
I also wish there would be more education as to what exactly a hiv diagnosis means today. When I found out I was positive, I spent a day or two thinking I would be dead in a few years. I think it would go a long way to reduce the stigma that still exists.
We can wish a lot of things. We can do a lot of things. . .
-
Warning: tangent ahead.
Unfortunately life is not fair, and risk is a funny creature that makes rational people act irrationally. It's what makes prevention messages difficult to create. How do you think Vegas exists. Additionally, when the fear overpowers the message of prevention people disregard the problem and engage in risky behavior.
Also the opposite: when fear overpowers the probability of occurrence people worry too much about the wrong things. Rational people develop irrational fears that in turn allow for easy manipulation. The TSA -- long a bane of my existence -- capitalizes on this fact every day. This is a really neat chart (http://gizmodo.com/5435954/the-true-odds-of-airborne-terror-chart). (And here's the logo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/11863773@N05/4254863223/) they should have put on their crisp new take-us-seriously-because-now-we-look-like-police-blue shirts.)
Your Vegas sentence reminded me of the first time I traveled there for a conference I presented. The opulence and sheer fakery of the whole town flabbergasted me. When the conference concluded I had an early flight the next day so I had to traipse through the casino at 4:30 AM to check out of the hotel. The slots were packed with blue-haired old ladies pissing away their dead husbands' retirement income. I wanted to scream "Look around you! Does your house have marble columns and gilded fixtures? No! So who do you think is the real winner here? Argh!"
-
Every county in every state in the U.S. has a "Department of Health." Within the Dept of Health, there is public record information available online called the "Epidemiology Report" which is done every year in every county in every state.
For the past several years the highest risk for getting HIV is:
1. A married woman who is in a monogamous relationship with her husband and has no drug history.
2. Hispanic men and women
3. Black men and women
4. Gay or bisexual men
In one of our Commission on AIDS meetings a married Commissioner, who is also a Health Information Officer in the County of Sonoma said, " it was not recommended to have unprotected sex with your husband." ;D Have the best day
Michael
-
Every county in every state in the U.S. has a "Department of Health." Within the Dept of Health, there is public record information available online called the "Epidemiology Report" which is done every year in every county in every state. For the past several years the highest risk for getting HIV is:
1. A married woman who is in a monogamous relationship with her husband and has no drug history.
2. Hispanic men and women
3. Black men and women
4. Gay or bisexual men
In one of our Commission on AIDS meetings a married Commissioner, who is also a Health Information Officer in the County of Sonoma said, " it was not recommended to have unprotected sex with your husband." ;D Have the best day
Michael
...And I can almost guarantee that will never become public-knowledge. People love their stereotypes dearly, and certain organizations - political or non-profits - will manipulate the statistics to apply them as "needed".
-
...And I can almost guarantee that will never become public-knowledge. People love their stereotypes dearly, and certain organizations - political or non-profits - will manipulate the statistics to apply them as "needed".
I was a Commissioner at that time, attended all meetings and task force groups and heard that said. It would be in the minutes of the meeting, available to all on the web if an individual were interested enough to look for it. Commissioners living with HIV, such as myself were identified by first name, last initial while all others were first and last name. Deeper review over the past few years will show this Commissioner to have done much for the local HIV community.
As of this year, our county has lost the last of their RWCA Title I funds, closed our HIV clinic and as the transition team gets each of the patients transferred and sees their doc in the new facility, they may be losing their jobs.
The Commission on AIDS received 10% of the annual grant to operate. Now, they find new funding. In San Francisco the AIDS Emergency and Breast Cancer fund raising is done together and I think this is because... the heterosexual woman (average age,41), has never had sex outside of her marriage, has never used drugs and all signs point to her husband. Her group is the most frequently infected. Our HIV Section Manager is a woman of that age and should be broadening her funding search as well as some of the non-profits who also use this data. The data is compiled from the confidential HIV testing files, the numbers don't lie and numbers are available to those who search. ;D Have the best day
Michael
-
Every year these figures come out, and I am always dismayed at the basic epidemiological interpretation errors the reports continue to make, from the CDC and HPA (UK equivalent) down to health planners, nurses, health advisers, science writers, journalists and people talking in pubs. - matt
-
Every year these figures come out, and I am always dismayed at the basic epidemiological interpretation errors the reports continue to make, from the CDC and HPA (UK equivalent) down to health planners, nurses, health advisers, science writers, journalists and people talking in pubs. - matt
Forgive my ignorance here, but why do you see these reports as erroneous?
-
Well, let's start here (CDC take note):
"The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" (this is from the POZ write up, so I guess it reflects what the CDC said).
1. You can't compare "men who have sex with men" to other men, you can only compare them to the whole population. Because they are correctly, a (behaviourally categorised) fraction of the whole population. In a dictionary sense, men who have sex with men is an opposite of men who have sex with women. But in terms of people (who live in places, have differing incomes, freedoms, degrees of comfort with shagging men or women) this is not an opposite, it's the end of a distribution curve of sexual behaviour. And therefore should be discussed in relation to the whole distribution, with suitable caveats about where you are drawing a line.
2. You certainly can't compare MSM to women. For a start, women is not a homogeneous group, and some groups of women have extremely high risk of HIV, by virtue of, for example, location, social-economic class, ethnicity, drug use etc. Since drug use as a transmission report excludes sexual transmission, the rate among women is wrong as women who inject drugs will be in the drug use box (how bureaucracy learnt how to make gender disappear in one easy step...)
Is this a good start as to why I think this error is common? I could go on..
- matt
-
Well, let's start here (CDC take note):
"The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" (this is from the POZ write up, so I guess it reflects what the CDC said).
1. You can't compare "men who have sex with men" to other men, you can only compare them to the whole population. Because they are correctly, a (behaviourally categorised) fraction of the whole population. In a dictionary sense, men who have sex with men is an opposite of men who have sex with women. But in terms of people (who live in places, have differing incomes, freedoms, degrees of comfort with shagging men or women) this is not an opposite, it's the end of a distribution curve of sexual behaviour. And therefore should be discussed in relation to the whole distribution, with suitable caveats about where you are drawing a line.
2. You certainly can't compare MSM to women. For a start, women is not a homogeneous group, and some groups of women have extremely high risk of HIV, by virtue of, for example, location, social-economic class, ethnicity, drug use etc. Since drug use as a transmission report excludes sexual transmission, the rate among women is wrong as women who inject drugs will be in the drug use box (how bureaucracy learnt how to make gender disappear in one easy step...)
Is this a good start as to why I think this error is common? I could go on..
- matt
OK, but this is conjecture....
-
Well, let's start here (CDC take note):
"The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" (this is from the POZ write up, so I guess it reflects what the CDC said).
1. You can't compare "men who have sex with men" to other men, you can only compare them to the whole population. Because they are correctly, a (behaviourally categorised) fraction of the whole population. In a dictionary sense, men who have sex with men is an opposite of men who have sex with women. But in terms of people (who live in places, have differing incomes, freedoms, degrees of comfort with shagging men or women) this is not an opposite, it's the end of a distribution curve of sexual behaviour. And therefore should be discussed in relation to the whole distribution, with suitable caveats about where you are drawing a line.
2. You certainly can't compare MSM to women. For a start, women is not a homogeneous group, and some groups of women have extremely high risk of HIV, by virtue of, for example, location, social-economic class, ethnicity, drug use etc. Since drug use as a transmission report excludes sexual transmission, the rate among women is wrong as women who inject drugs will be in the drug use box (how bureaucracy learnt how to make gender disappear in one easy step...)
Is this a good start as to why I think this error is common? I could go on..
- matt
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. If you have 100 new HIV infections in a general population and 80 identify as "men who have sex with men", 15 identify as "men who don't have sex with men" and 5 identify as "women who have sex with men" then the rate of "men who have sex with men" is 16 times that of women.
-
Say you have a population of 10,000 and 100 new cases in a year.
The reported rate of new cases across the whole population is 1 in 100 for the 12 months or 1% per year.
If 50 of these new cases are recorded as in people with blue hair, the reported rate of new cases in people with blue hair is 0.5% per year - 50% of all reported cases.
If 5 of these new cases are recorded as in people who eat sushi, the reported rate of new cases in people who eat sushi is 0.05% per year - 5% of all reported cases.
You may conclude at this point that 50 in 100 cases were reported in people with blue hair and 5 in 100 in people who eat sushi.
It does not follow that the new case rate in people with blue hair is 10 times that of people who eat sushi. Maybe the sushi-eaters all had blue hair, for example.
Because, conceptually, men who have sex with men seems to be in the same ballpark semantically as men, women, men who have sex with women, etc and seems to be part of a set of oppositional meanings which do relate to everyday real groups, it is hard to see the error. But it is an error to create populations out of categories used for reporting data and then make comparative statements about real populations based on this.
- matt
-
The question is also how many of the "men who don't have sex with men"/"men who have sex with women" actually are "men who have sex with men" also but refuse to admit it.
-
This thread has turned crazy " ____ who have sex with _____". But ultimately, that is the possibility that you may become infected. Going back to the original post. My boyfriend and I have a friend who is in a similar situation and we are just waiting for the day to hear that he has become infected, but some how has not. It is baffling. And maybe the same thing happened in my situation; although, I went five year without going tested. I have no clue when in that period I became infected. Obviously, looking back I wish I got tested regularly and it would be nice if everyone would....but... that's unfortunately not the case.
-
Hey, I know who is getting infected and I didn't need an epidemiological study to tell me - people who have unprotected intercourse with people of positive or unknown hiv status. :)
-
Wow...this is some fucked up shit!
-
Say you have a population of 10,000 and 100 new cases in a year.
The reported rate of new cases across the whole population is 1 in 100 for the 12 months or 1% per year.
If 50 of these new cases are recorded as in people with blue hair, the reported rate of new cases in people with blue hair is 0.5% per year - 50% of all reported cases.
That 0.5% can only be correct if all 10,000 people have blue hair. If it's really reported as you say, then it doesn't make any sense. You can't ascertain the infection rate in "people with blue hair" unless you know how many of those people there are in the first place. It's probably less than 10,000 ;).
Let's say it's 200 (I'm being generous). The rate of infection in "people with blue hair" should then be reported as 25%, 50/200.
If 5 of these new cases are recorded as in people who eat sushi, the reported rate of new cases in people who eat sushi is 0.05% per year - 5% of all reported cases.
Again same thing. How many of the 10,000 were sushi-eaters ? Let's say 5000. Then the rate of infection in that group is 50/5000 = 1%, the same as in the general population.
(about how many still eat it after they get HIV, I wonder!).
Since these 2 groups are not disjoint subsets of the population, it would be incorrect to try to compare the risks between the two subsets.
But let's say they are disjoint sets, and none of the people with blue hair eat sushi.
You can then compare :
infection rate in "people with blue hair" (50/200=25%) vs infection rate in "people who don't have blue hair" (50/9800=0.51%). Therefore, having blue hair multiplies your infection risk 49 times (25/0.51).
infection rate in "people who eat sushi" (50/5000=1%) vs infection rate in in "people who don't eat sushi" (50/5000=1%) . Therefore, eating sushi does not increase your infection risk.
Because, conceptually, men who have sex with men seems to be in the same ballpark semantically as men, women, men who have sex with women, etc and seems to be part of a set of oppositional meanings which do relate to everyday real groups, it is hard to see the error. But it is an error to create populations out of categories used for reporting data and then make comparative statements about real populations based on this.
As long as all the population subsets are disjoints, then making comparisons is possible. Are you saying the groups are poorly chosen because they overlap, and are being reported together ?
-
As long as all the population subsets are disjoints, then making comparisons is possible. Are you saying the groups are poorly chosen because they overlap, and are being reported together ?
Because they overlap and there is not always a case of HONEST admittance of belonging to a subset accuracy is IMPOSSIBLE using these classifications.
-
Because they overlap and there is not always a case of HONEST admittance of belonging to a subset accuracy is IMPOSSIBLE using these classifications.
So what do you suggest ? That they don't even try doing any reporting ?
Or just change wording such as "Men who report having sex with men" (MRSM) vs MSM, etc ?
-
I have blue hair and eat sushi but only have sex at the weekends what group am i in ?
-
The problem is.... humans are too wrapped up with sticking labels on things. Trying to slice up those new HIV infections into sub-groups instantly lends itself to problems that probably can't be overcome.
I could be a MSM, who eats sushi and has blue hair (OK -- I'm bald, but let's pretend, shall we). How does one account for my appearance in all 3 groups?
However, it isn't going to change because that's just how we are and how government agencies like to do things (to help with splitting up of monies, or determining why "label/group A" should be targeted for outreach, etc.
If only things were kept as simple as Ann's answer -- which truly is the main group becoming infected, now isn't it???
Mike
-
So what do you suggest ? That they don't even try doing any reporting ?
No, that wasn't what I meant at all (and PLEASE don't attempt to put words in my mouth - I realize that probably was not your intent, but folks on here tend to "run like a toddler with scissors" with such statements given opportunity! :-X).
I think Ann has it right - instead of everyone focusing on blaming other subgroups for transmitting the virus, how about a little solidarity?
Hey, I know who is getting infected and I didn't need an epidemiological study to tell me - people who have unprotected intercourse with people of positive or unknown hiv status. :)
That's the best way to approach it, I believe. :)
-
The problem is.... humans are too wrapped up with sticking labels on things. Trying to slice up those new HIV infections into sub-groups instantly lends itself to problems that probably can't be overcome.
Here here
Madbrain, you cover a lot of ground which is sensible and correct, but the basic error, which is a hard error in statistics to understand, is that categorical data from unselected, unmatched populations can't be compared between groups. A lot of what you say makes sense, and if people read it careful like it draws out a lot of the subtleties of reading epidemiological data.
As to the OP, I think this contains more important discussion than the correct way to map unbounded categorical data onto real populations. Undoubtedly, and with great fucking concern, HIV remains high in gay men (and the rest of the cocksuckers). I don;t see it needs comparing to anything (but if you are gonna do it, do it right eh).
I alternatively despair, ponder and feel optimistic about gay men's sex lives, including my own. What is it to be HIV+ in a population where 1 in 10 are positive compared to 1 in 1,000? Both has there advantages and advantages. It's bum rap whichever way you look at it.
I am most heartened by SanFran's new prevention plan, which has switched the focus to gay men and then transgendered people, because these are the people with highest incidence of HIV as determined locally, tho perhaps not so heartened by the lack of money meaning messages to negative people and the general population will be downplayed/unfunded. The CDC report would never have told you what you need to know to recommend the new programme.
- matt
edited for spelling
-
Study of gay men in the District finds 14% are HIV positive
Friday, March 26, 2010
More than 14 percent of gay men in the District are HIV positive, almost five times as high as the overall rate for the city's adults and teenagers, according to a snapshot of the community released Thursday by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration.
Continued . . .
LINKS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032503730.html
http://www.poz.com/articles/MSM_HIV_rates_1_18222.shtml
-
Study of gay men in the District finds 14% are HIV positive
Friday, March 26, 2010
More than 14 percent of gay men in the District are HIV positive, almost five times as high as the overall rate for the city's adults and teenagers, according to a snapshot of the community released Thursday by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration.
Continued . . .
LINKS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032503730.html
http://www.poz.com/articles/MSM_HIV_rates_1_18222.shtml
I saw a study about 6 years ago that said something like 20% of people believed there was already a cure for HIV--I believe it focuses on D.C. I've tried finding it with no luck. However, I found a similar report from the BBC--although this example is one doctor's study.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7007859.stm
-
So when I was interrogated about how I caught the bug they basically said...
Option 1) Blood Transfusion
Option 2) IV Drug Use
Option 3) Unprotected Sex
I chose option 3, they then asked if I had been with men or women in the last 5 years.
I only chose men, so the statistic accurately accounts for my infection. Do you really think people are lying about this sort of thing? I mean I guess you could still have pride, but once you're infected what does it matter anyway?
-
Do you really think people are lying about this sort of thing? I mean I guess you could still have pride, but once you're infected what does it matter anyway?
I guess you're not familiar with closet-cases who adamantly swear they're "not a fucking faggot" and deny ever even thinking of another man "THAT way". In every area of the country I've lived in (urban, suburban or rural) they are pretty damn predominant.
-
Do you really think people are lying about this sort of thing?
In addition to what Blackwing said, there are also people who in all likelihood got it from sharing drug injecting equipment, but were afraid to admit it for fear of legal repercussions, or afraid of being treated like a "junkie".
-
In addition to what Blackwing said, there are also people who in all likelihood got it from sharing drug injecting equipment, but were afraid to admit it for fear of legal repercussions, or afraid of being treated like a "junkie".
Yep, I know of people from this board that prefer to say they got it from sex rather than a needle. I'm sure it happens but I have no idea how often.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but just because people can lie/shade the truth doesn't make the information not useful. I don't really see any other way to look at such data as anything but "flawed but still the best you're gonna get" kind of thing.
-
What about men who have sex with sheep? MSS
-
What about men who have sex with sheep? MSS
since that isn't a vector for the spread of HIV, I don't think that comment really applies in this thread. ;)
-
since that isn't a vector for the spread of HIV, I don't think that comment really applies in this thread. ;)
Can you prove it?
-
Can you prove it?
::face-palm::
-
So when I was interrogated about how I caught the bug they basically said...
Option 1) Blood Transfusion
Option 2) IV Drug Use
Option 3) Unprotected Sex
I chose option 3, they then asked if I had been with men or women in the last 5 years.
I only chose men, so the statistic accurately accounts for my infection. Do you really think people are lying about this sort of thing? I mean I guess you could still have pride, but once you're infected what does it matter anyway?
Pride? Regarding what?
Gee, I was infected so long ago no one asked how I contracted it even though I insisted I was Haitian.
-
What about men who have sex with sheep? MSS
I don't think you can get Aids that way maybe just a case of the blaaaah's
-
Pride? Regarding what?
I think he's convinced it's all out-of-the-closet gay men.
-
I don't think you can get Aids that way maybe just a case of the blaaaah's
Oh you can avoid the blaaaah's too. Just make sure you are careful to choose a sheep with a latex intestine.
-
Oh you can avoid the blaaaah's too. Just make sure you are careful to choose a sheep with a latex intestine.
And don't share needles of coarse .
-
In New Jersey it's grandma who's getting teh AIDS:
HIV, AIDS cases rise sharply for N.J. senior citizens in recent years
http://blog.nj.com/njv_barry_carter/2010/03/hivaids_cases_in_seniors_on_th.html
-
I don't think you can get Aids that way maybe just a case of the blaaaah's
I thought it was the baaaaahs... groan.
-
I think he's convinced it's all out-of-the-closet gay men.
As one of the innocent victims (mosquitoes) I can understand that one would prefer to feign heterosexuality rather than admit to sexual deviance on par with bestiality, pedophilia, and a sadly deficient number of wardrobial accessories.
-
In New Jersey it's grandma who's getting teh AIDS:
HIV, AIDS cases rise sharply for N.J. senior citizens in recent years
http://blog.nj.com/njv_barry_carter/2010/03/hivaids_cases_in_seniors_on_th.html
I guess it's obvious the Viagra disclaimers aren't working. ;)
-
And don't share needles of coarse .
just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcEyihTYh-A
-
just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcEyihTYh-A
Thanks David . Eh , kinda looks like a fucked up Ronald McDonald nightmare drag queen . I have hired worse though .
-
just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcEyihTYh-A
It's Gee-nius.
"I blew a Jew in Squirrel Hill
In Shadyside I teabagged a fag,
I dig my brothas in Uptown
But their horse d**** make me gag.
I'm Sharon Needles
And you're a needle d***."
Sorry for the hijack, blame it on Miss P
-
I think he's convinced it's all out-of-the-closet gay men.
Actually my comment was regarding the fact that once you're infected, why lie about it? The outcome is still the same, just be honest and do what you can for your health. Lying to your doctor or people in the medical professional is bad for YOU not them.
-
Actually my comment was regarding the fact that once you're infected, why lie about it? The outcome is still the same, just be honest and do what you can for your health. Lying to your doctor or people in the medical professional is bad for YOU not them.
I agree with you... And it's too bad everybody doesn't see it that way. Unfortunately, most closet-cases are so paranoid that they have a deep need to keep the fact they like a dick up their ass quite secret for fear someone they know will find out... I'm sure the same is true for many of the white-collar professionals who mainline "Tina" on the weekends... They live in fear of someone finding out what they are REALLY like.