Yoshie,
I've got no argument against condom use, but its for people to decide for themselves, isn't it? (Maybe condoms are advisable, but passions isn't always susceptible to rational foresight.) And more than that, its for them to decide on the basis of real information rather than scare stories.
I can't speak about the US but here it was most certainly the case that health care professionals and sex educationalists tried to whip up absurd fears of an Aids epidemic amongst straights that only served to heighten anti-gay hysteria. What's more, the risks were negligible. 252 cases in a cumulative total of 20 000 that fell outside of the high-risk groups.
> The encouragement of
>condom use can lead men to take responsibility for their sexuality.
Forgive me for saying so, but this does sound a little prudish to me. Is sexual promiscuity 'irresponsible'. I thought it was all part of growing up. Isn't that the great thing about sexuality - that you don't have to take responsibility for it?
>
>Besides, the promotion of safer sex does not have to be prudish at
>all. Safer sex education can be conducted with emphasis on enjoyment
>& mutual respect.
I don't know, it all sounds a bit worthy to have much to do with fucking. 'Mutual respect'? That's marriage, isn't it? I thought sexuality was more like crashing through boundaries that erecting them. Sexuality surely thrives on a certain amount of cavalier danger - debasement even - rather than mutual respect.
>Pornography, if created with a view toward such
>emphasis, can be very useful & educational.
I can't think of porn being useful and educational, and still cutting it as porn.
>
>Risks should be discussed in relation to specific acts, not in
>relation to categories of individuals (e.g., homosexuals, IV drug
>users, & Africans). Acts & identities are not the same, which you
>should already know, having read Michel Foucault, etc. (e.g., sodomy
>named acts; homosexuality refers to a category of individuals).
Where does the imperative 'should' come from here? Is it wrong to point out that gay men are more at risk from Aids? I don't think so. Yes, one imagines that the risks are associated with certain behaviours that are more prevalent amongst gay men, but that is a long way around the houses.
(Moreover, I think the rapid rate of transmission of Aids amongst gay men is not reducible to anal sex, but also relates to distinctive patterns of sexual pairing amongst gay communities.)
In message <F277OUIHNkjgJKVApwO0000cbab at hotmail.com>, jan carowan <jancarowan at hotmail.com> writes
>a public health expert such as Richard Levins may ask: does a significant
>statistical difference in the characteristic of interest between the
>contrast classes prove that the criterion used for setting up the groups is
>indeed causally significant?
Well, call me thick, but I still don't understand what you mean.
>
>>Indeed there is information useful for action. Namely it is unnecessary
>>to promote undue alarm and fear amongst straight people who are unlikely
>>to get Aids.
>
>Straight women are unlikely to get Aids?
Well, on the evidence from Britain's 20 000 cumulative total of Aids
cases, 252 contracted through heterosexual contact suggests that yes,
straight women are not very likely to get Aids (unless they fall into
another high risk category).
>
>Can't we partition this reference class (gayness) into relevant factors?
>Perhaps gayness in itself is statistically relevant to the explanandum fact
>but it may not be causally relevant.
Where's the harm? I don't see what harm comes from the fact that Aids charities and health groups direct their message at communities that are at greater risk. Michael Fitzpatrick cites the case of pensioners in his practice who were leafleted by the government about the dangers of unsafe sex. These people were wrongly - and absurdly told that they were 'equally at risk from Aids'. They weren't.
>
>For which heterosexual women is the contraction of Aids unlikely?
Those that do not fall into one of the high risk groups.
>So you think that an objective datum speaks for itself?
I don't understand the question. -- James Heartfield