Posted by Curious on December 07, 2000 at 00:21:22:
In Reply to: Re: Something that REALLY bothers me... posted by Ritmo on December 06, 2000 at 23:18:39:
|
Ritmo said: "...which are geared against honest discussion..." Honest? Maybe. Realistic? I think not. There is a difference. "IMHO you don't know what the fuck you're talking about on this." I think that a BIG part of the problem is that your focus is far too limited, and other people have trouble narrowing the issues to such a small point of discussion. This is a tactic I used often in my school years during debate competitions. There it was considered slightly dishonest; here it is simply silly. "Honest "medical professionals" will back up precisely what I've been saying about female to male transmission of HIV--I've said a hundred times, whether you heard them or not, that I'm not talking about other stuff." But - and this is very important to MANY of us - that is far too narrow a focus. IF - and that is a BIG IF - that was the ONLY factor we had to consider, then such a discussion might have value re: condomless sex. But it is really only one small part of the larger picture. I am concerned also about the possibility of male to female transmission (MUCH higher than female to male) of HIV. I am also worried about the 31 other documented types of STDs floating around in Southern California and TJ. I am sorry, but I (and I suspect others) cannot accept that bare back intercourse is OK just because the possible transmission rates of female to male HIV is low. There are way too many other factors involved. That is kinda like saying you don't need to wear your seatbelt in the car, because when a 747 falls out of the sky on you it isn't going to keep you alive - but you don't need a seatbelt, because the chances of a 747 falling on you are REALLY small! It ignores the fact that your real exposure comes from OTHER factors - not just the rate of female to male HIV transmission.
|
|