>Well, look, amongst the 20 000 aids sufferers in Britain, two thirds are
>gay and a disproportionately large number are African (the second
>largest identifiable group being intravenous drug users). You ask what
>the consequences are of saying these things. The consequences are
>whatever we make of them.
What percentage of gay men or Africans or drug users don't have the virus? Does this have to be explained as well?
>
>You say that unprotected anal sex is the source of Aids, but lifelong
>monogamous couples who engage in unprotected anal sex are not seriously
>at risk.
So you are serious that these couples are pretty monogamous?
>Then you are left with some explaining to do about the epidemeology of
>the disease.
Oh, I thought that's the explaining which you had to do.
Are you saying that it is merely accidental that two thirds
>of British aids sufferers are gay? Are aids charities mistaken in
>directing their message towards gay communities?
Yes, I am saying that gayness is not causative of the HIV virus. I am reminding you that many of your readers are predisposed to understand the social misfortune of aids by inferring some hidden, intrinic property in invidiously categorized kinds of people which explains why the virus afflicts. I am saying that beneath the seemingly objective discourse of risk factors, turned into risk groups, is the same old judgemental folk psychology of prejudice, intolerance and unreason. You may want to consider this aspect of the problem while penning your next manifesto against the condom.
Warm regards, Jan
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com