 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2005People with one infection for example human immunodeficiency virus can have another sexually transmittable infection or infections.
The thing about having one infection, for example human immunodeficiency virus, and your potential sex partner having the same infection is that you or your partner or both of you could have another infection too or different infections. Before having sex getting tested together for sexually transmitted infections reduces ambiguity. Testing can detect infections that you can cure before passing on along infection to another potential sex partner. Here's a collaborative blog and a collaborative wiki about the strategy of let's get tested together before we have sex... for sexually transmitted infections http://NotB4WeKnow.BlogSpot.com http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/not_b4_we_know Earlier edits http://zork.net/dsaklad/notb4weknow http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:eFQohs9hkWMJ:notb4weknow.editthispage.com/ http://tinyurl.com/bll4k Don Saklad wrote... > The thing about having one infection, for example human > immunodeficiency virus, and your potential sex partner having the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Testing can detect infections that you can cure before > passing on along infection to another potential sex partner. You're assuming that people care if they infect their partners. And since you use HIV as an example, and since HIV and homosexual sex are essentially synonymous, HIV testing before sex doesn't matter because the potential partners couldn't even make it home from the clinic before picking up half a dozen strangers each and having sex with them behind dumpsters. In other words, their HIV- status at the moment of testing does not mean they'll still be HIV- by the time they get home an hour later. On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:09:54 GMT, the faaaaabulous supreme deity Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties, opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of Seamore Tush <stush@a.ses.fire.net> >Don Saklad wrote... >> The thing about having one infection, for example human [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Testing can detect infections that you can cure before >> passing on along infection to another potential sex partner. <factual errors corrected> >I'm assuming that people care if they infect their partners. And >since I'm going along with HIV as an example, and since HIV and HETEROsexual sex [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the moment of testing does not mean they'll still be HIV- by the >time they get home an hour later. The same way it worked to protect our blood supply the strategy of let's get tested together before we have sex... for sexually transmitted infections will protect the potential sex partners by reducing the ambiguity, reducing the risk. It doesn't matter what assumptions potential sex partners make. Would you want untested blood used if your child needed, somebody you cared about needed, you needed a transfusion?... Would you want the blood tested after the transfusion?... There's no assumption that the getting tested together before having sex... for sexually transmitted infections will detect nothing. Infections can be detected. You can get treated earlier than later. You can make an informed choice about having sex with the knowledge of each others' tests results. The strategy is a choice. It's something people can do to raise the standard of health at the beginning of a sexual relationship. When people who're attracted each other meet, among all the things people do together when they meet the strategy is one of the things people can do together. People you're thinking of are unlikely to take a course of action together that could get in the way such as the strategy. The biological imperative is interrupted by the strategy. || You're assuming that people care if they infect their || partners. || || And since you use HIV as an example, and since HIV and || homosexual sex are essentially synonymous, HIV testing || before sex doesn't matter because the potential || partners couldn't even make it home from the clinic || before picking up half a dozen strangers each and || having sex with them behind dumpsters. || || In other words, their HIV- status at the moment of || testing does not mean they'll still be HIV- by the || time they get home an hour later. || Seamore Tush | <factual errors corrected> | I'm assuming that people care if they infect their | partners. | | And since I'm going along with HIV as an example, and since | HIV and HETEROsexual sex are essentially synonymous, HIV | testing before sex doesn't matter because the potential | partners couldn't even make it home from the clinic before | picking up half a dozen strangers each and having sex with | them behind dumpsters. | | In other words, their HIV- status at the moment of testing | does not mean they'll still be HIV- by the time they get | home an hour later. | Bonnie Bitch Here's a collaborative blog and a collaborative wiki about the strategy of let's get tested together before we have sex... for sexually transmitted infections http://NotB4WeKnow.BlogSpot.com http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/not_b4_we_know Earlier edits at http://zork.net/dsaklad/notb4weknow http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:eFQohs9hkWMJ:notb4weknow.editthispage.com/ http://tinyurl.com/bll4k Feedback, comment, questions, suggestions welcome ! Ideas, hints, tips, pointers welcome ! It all sounds like techno sex to me. Oh well, we also have techno music, techno babble, etc. I won't have any of it. >" And since you use HIV as an example, and since HIV and homosexual sex are essentially synonymous," That sounds really homophobic. I would almost believe you have something against gay men. I don't, and I'm not even gay. >"because the potential partners couldn't even make it home from the clinic before picking up half a dozen strangers each and having sex with them behind dumpsters." They do?? I didn't know that. But I once had a girlfriend who did that, and man! Was she fun! Iconoclaster wrote... >>" And since you use HIV as an example, and since HIV and homosexual sex > > are essentially synonymous," > > That sounds really homophobic. I would almost believe you have something > against gay men. I don't, and I'm not even gay. Well, I'm gay but homophobic in the sense that I'm afraid of other gay men because I believe they all are infected with HIV. And no, I don't care whether you believe me or not. I am not afraid of homosexuals per se, I am afraid of deadly contagious viruses. So while I have no problems with my gay co-workers, I am not stupid enough to f.ck them. >>"because the potential partners couldn't even make it home from the > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They do?? I didn't know that. But I once had a girlfriend who did that, > and man! Was she fun! I'm afraid the part about dumpsters is true, that's where my gay brother caught his virus. He dragged me into some gay bar called Hula's in Honolulu, I felt very uncomfortable - like I could feel the disease in the air - and decided to leave but left my brother behind. He got back to the hotel the next morning and bragged about whatever piece of trash he had picked up (whose name he couldn't remember) and how they had had sex behind a dumpster. After we got back from vacation he came down with what seemed to be the flu and which the doctor diagnosed as mono and which cleared up in a week or two. There were probably 10,000 other dumpster encounters between then and when he tested positive in 1994, and between 1995 (he took a few months off) and 2005 there have probably been at least 20,000 more. "Seamore Tush" <stush@a.ses.fire.net> wrote in message > I'm afraid the part about dumpsters is true, that's where my gay brother > caught his virus. He dragged me into some gay bar called Hula's in > Honolulu, I felt very uncomfortable - like I could feel the disease in > the air - and decided to leave but left my brother behind. Which brings us back round-circle. He caught (something) that made him sick. At (that) time he wasn't on any medicines for hiv/aids, so that can be ruled out as the root problem of his visit to the doctor. He wasn't poisoned by AZT neither was his liver eaten up. At his first encounter, his CD4 cells hadn't had time to decrease in sufficient numbers to be detected by the doctor. So we can rule out a false positive because he hasn't been tested for hiv/aids. He later tested for hiv/aids and tested positive and got on meds that extended his life, where he used that second chance at life to infect others with (something). And there is no such thing as a hiv virus that is spread through faggot sex? (Something) has killed millions of people, some on cocktails, some without ever taking anything, and there is no common denominator? Am I missing something here ? > "Seamore Tush" <stush@a.ses.fire.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Am I missing something here ? Yeah, you forgot to change your socks and outed yourself again. B/ >Hm, Seamore, I'm getting the impression that you're a sincere guy (which is more that I can say about complete fakes such as Mssrs. Carter, Stein, Mailman, and Noble). Maybe I've been a bit too unfriendly when I answered your first post. For which I apologize. You've described your own feelings about the world around you, and made clear that some of these extreme thrills are not for you. Well, of course you have a perfect right to live your life as you see fit. And I don't think anybody could criticize you for wanting to live in a healthy and monogamous way. You would probably be best off with one partner, and without the bathhouse and dumpster scene. Well, more power to you. But I hope you will also realize that there are people who are different. People who want action and excitement. And your brother is such a person. Don't be too harsh on him. Of course that kind of lifestyle has its pitfalls. But it's not the STD's you have to watch out for. Among the most common are gonorrhea and chlamidia, and you can get rid of these in a very short time. For that reason, the religious right was so keen on a disease for which there was no cure. That's why AIDS got invented. But it's all fake; there IS no HIV that can be sexually transmitted. Of course I'm not denying that people have gotten sick, and have even died. People always have. But the danger of a wild lifestyle is not the sex. It's the things that come with it: Drinking too much, taking drugs, lack of sleep, unhealthy eating habits, etc. You simply can't run your body ragged without paying the price. One of my famous quotes (or at least it should be famous) is: "You have to be an adult to be able to play as a child". I wasn't kidding when I wrote that I once had a girlfriend who did all those things you described. In the hetero world things are not all that different. Unhealthy lifestyles are not uncommon there either. But the goons who invented HIV/AIDS were targeting gay men, not the heteros. Only when the pharma industry smelled money, the rumor was spread that everybody was vulnerable. And yet, in the U.S. and in Europe the vast majority of "HIV+" victims are still gay men. Some of us are smart enough to enjoy both worlds. I enjoyed the fast lane for a few years, but I was careful not to do any damage to my own body. I never took street drugs, curbed my drinking, was always conservative with prescription drugs, and made sure I ate well and got enough sleep. For the rest, I lived like a beast. And now I am back to a slower, more respectable lifestyle (have too; can't keep up anymore). I think there's nothing wrong with your brother. All he has to do is starting to use his brain. > >Hm, Seamore, I'm getting the impression that you're a sincere guy (which > is more that I can say about complete fakes such as Mssrs. Carter, Stein, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > everybody was vulnerable. And yet, in the U.S. and in Europe the vast > majority of "HIV+" victims are still gay men. The vast majority in the US is now around 51% doesn't sound to vast to me Claster but then math has never been one of your strong points has it. Gary Stein >"The vast majority in the US is now around 51% doesn't sound to vast to me Claster but then math has never been one of your strong points has it." Try me. Gary, I don't think math is your strong point. If it were, you would notice that only 18,000 deaths annually are attributed to "HIV" infection out of a pool of 1.2 million, according to the CDC. The non-epidemic. " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. >"Here's a collaborative blog and a collaborative wiki about the strategy of let's get tested together before we have sex... for sexually transmitted infections" Oh, get off it! If the hetero's would have been into this doom-thinking, humanity would have been extinct long ago. What a sad, sad world you must be living in. Never being able to enjoy a youthful life, with fearless sex, without HIV on your mind... The babyboomers were able to enjoy their youth. Now that they are getting a little long in the tooth, they are trying their damndest to keep the young people from having sex by means of all kinds of scare stories about HIV and STD's. I've got news for you: Knowing is NOT beautiful; it will destroy your life. Don't get tested! "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message > I've got news for you: Knowing is NOT beautiful; it will destroy your > life. Don't get tested! QUEERLY BELOVED Posted: April 2, 2005 © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com A lesbian couple from Connecticut who married in Massachusetts during last year's rush of same-sex weddings find themselves in somewhat of a pickle - there's no legal way for them to divorce. When Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney invoked a pre-existing law that prevented issuance of marriage licenses to people who could not legally marry in their own state, it effectively voided the union of Anita Ann Albanese and her partner, a woman identified in court papers as "Lane." Anita and Lane, however, still had reason to hope their marriage would receive legal blessing when proponents of same-sex unions challenged the ban invoked by Romney. The problem is, Anita and Lane no longer want to be together, nor do they want to find themselves legally yoked if the legal challenge to the Massachusetts ban succeeds at some future date. They want their marriage annulled. Now, a Connecticut judge has told the pair that because neither Connecticut nor Massachusetts saw their marriage as legal to begin with, the court has no jurisdiction to annul it. Hartford Superior Court Judge Linda Pearce Prestley's determination rested on the fact the state legislature has deemed same-sex marriage to be against public policy, reported the Connecticut Law Tribune. Prestley's 10-page decision cited the relevant Massachusetts law: "No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction." Because the 'marriage' between Anita and Lane was "premised on a violation of the Massachusetts marriage statute, the 'civil marriage' was not valid from its inception, but null and void, and, therefore, Connecticut has nothing to dissolve or annul." The case has been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Until Connecticut lawmakers recognize same-sex marriage, Prestley concluded, the pair must remain both unmarried and un-divorced.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.