Say the unsayable: countries get the HIV epidemics they deserve
wisdomofwhores.com
wisdomofwhores.com
In both cases we could probably have more rational discussions without that "deserve" word, which involves moral connotations. How about discussing: what kinds of sexual-relationship graphs are more or less conducive to the spreads of which kinds of disease?
I would guess there are actually a lot of factors, and more than unprotected promiscuity. Clearly unprotected promiscuity seems involved: the article's discussion of some recent African experience points that out, and so does the 80s gay bathhouse culture. But there are plenty of promiscuous cultures that appear not to have high HIV prevalence, e.g. college-student bar-pickup and frat culture has very low HIV infection rates, even for people with 30+ partners and regular unprotected sex.
Citation needed. I seriously doubt a major group of people can keep low infection rates with 30+ partners and regular unprotected sex. The only rational explanation would be regular HIV tests plus stopping on positive result - seems implausible.
For instance, models have shown that IV drug users are an extremely important group because they connect the heterosexual and gay pools of susceptible.
You stated that it was confined to Gays and IV drug users. It's not. The statistics show heterosexuals contracting it. Whether they get it because they're sleeping with an IV drug user, someone who is homosexual, or another heterosexual who is classified as "high risk" doesn't matter: they're straight and they have HIV, therefor it's not "contained" to gays and IV users.
That sort of analysis is pretty common in epidemiology, describing a particular outbreak as "confined to group A and immediate contacts of group A". For example, when looking at diseases associated with health-care workers, people in direct prolonged contact with them but who aren't themselves health-care workers, like family members, are often counted as basically honorary health-care workers (or at least treated as a group separate from the general public).
Estimated # of HIV/AIDS Cases, in 2007
Category | Adult & Adolescent Male | Adult & Adolescent Female | Total
----------------------------+-------------------------+---------------------------+-------
Male-to-male sexual contact | 22,472 | - | 22,472
Injection drug use | 3,133 | 1,806 | 4,939
Male-to-male sexual contact | | |
and injection drug use | 1,260 | - | 1,260
High-risk heterosexual | | |
contact* | 4,551 | 9,076 | 13,627
Other** | 102 | 96 | 198
* Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
**Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not
identified.Gays spearheaded the campaign for safe sex because they were highly exposed to the risk (anal sex has a much higher risk of transmitting HIV). If leaders in the gay community, well aware of the risk, went around boasting of having unprotected sex, their advice would be laughed at, and yes, it'd be fair to say they'd earned it. But they don't - gay leaders are exceedingly responsible in this area. As opposed (apparently) to the leaders of South Africa and Swaziland.
Screw "the general direction" and "uncomfortably". HIV is really, actually, for real dangerous. When you act irresponsibly, against better knowledge, as a leader, yes, you deserved it when your people suffers.
And the article isn't about the leader deserving anything, it is about the culture deserving what it gets, and using the leader as an excuse to talk about it. And maybe it is a good excuse to talk about dangerous behavior and the consequences thereof, but talking about people "deserving" an epidemic like AIDS is pretty insensitive and counter productive. Whatever good message you had (behavior needs to change) is going to be drowned out by that stupid generalization (no, a third wife who got AIDS from her philandering husband did not deserve it, and vice versa).
I think the purpose of the article was indeed to provoke and to get the point across that HIV in these areas aren't just about getting condoms and information in the hands of people, it's systemic. Combine that with white guilt (white Christian Europeans don't really get to tell Africans how to lead their lives), that's a recipe for, if not disaster, then really inefficient programs.
It has less to do with promiscuity than with unprotected sex. If the promiscuous population engages only in safe sex, then it's very unlikely HIV and other STDs will spread.
No individuals deserve blame for collective actions, but the collectivity may deserve what comes from collective behaviour.
"You don't need to dream up complex economic formulae to explain why HIV prevention in Africa is failing. Look at the leadership. HIV would fall if fewer people had several sex partners at once, and if there were less intergenerational sex. But in Swaziland, which tops the world charts in terms of HIV prevalence, the thirty-eight-year-old king marries his thirteenth bride in 2007, after she became pregnant. His new wife is younger than his eldest daughter. Look at the leadership on condoms. Men certainly won't use them to prevent AIDS if they think they don't work, or believe condoms cause AIDS. South Africa's leader* conceded that condoms stop HIV, but since he hasn't conceded that HIV causes AIDS, condoms are worthless against AIDS. Kenya's religious leaders have burned condoms in public. In Mozambique and Zimbabwe, opinion leaders have spoken on the radio about how white people were pushing condoms laced with AIDS to wipe out Africans. When bishops, presidents and the media poke holes in condoms, they become ineffective".
In contrast, she heaps praise on the leadership of countries like Uganda and Senegal, who acknowledged their cultural traits and encouraged open discussion and practical advice on risk reduction, successfully tackling the health problem.
*(Thabo Mbeki)
Anyway, this 2006 papers looks at the effect of different network patterns in sexual relationships and STD transmission. Basically, the amount of overlap you have between sexual partners is key. The less, the better. http://www.scribd.com/full/29969122?access_key=key-19cz4fztd...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7967173.stm
It said the Pope's recent comments that condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/Aids were wildly inaccurate and could have devastating consequences.
The Pope had said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use.
Isn't that basically the same as "no sex outside marriage"?
Please focus on the first part: "condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/AIDS".
The statement is wildly untrue, and makes the Church guilty of STD's spread.
Doesn't really seem plausible, does it?
It doesn't, but I think this is what happens in practice.
Her main concern was not for health problems but moral ones: she had sinned for sex outside of marriage and was repentent etc. When I asked if she'd "at least used a condom" she looked horrified "oh no! I couldn't do that"
The problem is that sex outside of marriage is a sin with reward; you get to have sex, that feels good. Condoms are not a necessary part of that act (I don't know of anyone who prefers them! :)) and so the sin is "easier to avoid". There is not necessarily a perceived reward for using contraception (at least at the time of the act). You can lose but not gain. etc.
Church argument: Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
I don't follow the church's argument, but crimes against humanity? That's just silly. So why are yall down-voting him?
I'm not a catholic, but you have to try to see it from their perspective. What kind of moral leader are you, if you say "don't sin, but if you're going to sin anyway, here's the best way to do it"?
To draw a parallel: Suicide is very very wrong. But doing it wrong will put you in a lot of pain and might handicap you - so we should make small pamphlets for teenagers saying "don't kill yourself - but here are some tips if you're going to anyway".
For someone who's not opposed to premarital sex or contraception, it's an unreasonably far stretch to compare - but I'm not at all sure that's not pretty much how they feel about it.
Specifically, I disagree with their interpretation of the passage about the man spilling his seed. It wasn't worth death because he spilled his seed, but because he deliberately deprived his brother of a child, rather than simply being infertile as other men who failed to father children were.
[edited]
Unfortunately, the message could be "if you are really going to sin, at least sin in a way that doesn't endanger yours and your partner's life" not "do not sin and damn the condoms"
The roman catholic church has rules and nobody is forced to follow those rules. If some people like to think they are roman catholics then they should follow those rules which include not having sex unless you are procreating.
Now you can say the church should evolve, become modern, and while that would be fair, it's also fair for the church to stand by their ideals.
You can insist and say they have a fair share of responsability for those who follow them which should make them evolve faster but people need to start thinking for themselves and think about what's more important: being roman catholic or using a condom?
I'd say there's only one way you comply to both: if you're married to someone HIV positive and want to procreate. If that's the case, you might want to think about your child which might carry HIV too.
edit: At the end of my post I said "your child which will probably carry HIV" but apparently it's not a high probability as pointed by sounddust so I changed it to "might carry". Thanks, sounddust!
One thing I want to point out: mother-to-infant transmission of HIV is around 2-8% with proper preventative treatment and 15-30% without, so I disagree that the child will "probably" carry HIV, although it is certainly a risk.
I'm not sure what should the church do but I know I'm fascinated by those who follow those rules. I'm not talking about those who follow it blindly but of those who really believe it.
I edited the original post to reflect the right probability of a child carrying HIV from their parents, thanks!
Naturally, if you happen to be among the elite/leadership, maybe encouraging religion seems like the better idea.
Pope Benedict said on the eve of his trip that he wanted to wrap his arms around the entire continent, with "its painful wounds, its enormous potential and hopes".
HIV/Aids was, he argued, "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem". [1]
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk. [2]
The church can invent whatever rules it likes and people can chose to follow them or not, but spreading lies about condoms is not acceptable.
This is wishful thinking.
There are many heavily (90%+) Catholic countries with a culture that does not take kindly to outliers. You are forced to follow the rules, if not by threat of violence or social ostracization then by prosaic reality such as low to non-existent availability of condoms.
Further, much as I wish everyone would think for themselves and so on, if you've always been taught that the church is not just right, but divinely infallible, and disobeying the teachings will score you an eternity of damnation and some nice hellfire, for many, many people disobeying will not be quite as easy as saying "nobody is forced to follow those rules."
Certainly an amount of HIV infections may come about due to Church teachings causing a lack of condom usage (for example). But that feels more like a side effect.
If your coming from the aspect of negligence in them failing to address the problem of STD infection properly in their ideals then I agree that is poor form. But crimes against humanity? Bit far perhaps.
(also, if you're talking about the misinformation spread r.e. condom failure that is certainly something we should take issue with)
And in polygamous cultures, there's a lack of women to go around, so there should be a similar dynamic re prostitution.
Of course, it's not all this simple - there are lots of factors at work.
I hear Mormonism is rampant in Salt Lake City..
But why wouldn't you say SLC deserves its Mormonism?
I wouldn't say SLC 'deserves' its Mormonism. I was lucky enough to be raised agnostic / atheist. However, my parents also taught me that I should never take entrepreneurial risks in life. Because of that, I wasted over ten years working in dead end corporate jobs. But did I really deserve that?
By default, children inherit the beliefs of their parents. It's very difficult to break out of beliefs that you have followed for your entire life. If it took me ten years to figure out that corporate jobs were a dead end, imagine how long it would take someone to learn to think critically about religion when it claims their soul and essence are in jeopardy, or to break free of a culture that teaches women are inferior to men.
Though I agree that using the word "deserve" makes the argument very emotionally, politically and morally loaded, and not necessarily for the better.
The way the world works rarely follows our notions of what's fair or unfair. The laws of nature do as they will, and they are capricious.
Statements like yours really don't make any sense at all.
There are lots of ways to be stupid an irresponsible, but there is a very human tendency to treat ways of being stupid and irresponsible that involve sex as wicked rather than foolish.
It's a blind spot in our rationality that we have to compensate for, and the tone -- if not the substance -- of the article seems to fail to do that.
Yet the difference in infection rates are massive. And why does a warzone like Liberia have 1.7% infection rates?
See my post on this: http://blog.cubeofm.com/suprising-facts-about-aids-in-2010
To quote from the UN report:
"There has been a pervasive stereotype that in countries where men have multiple concurrent partners, there is a higher rate of AIDS. Well, according to the UN paper, "there is no significant correlation between prevalence of sexual concurrency and HIV prevalence at the country or community level."
That article is just wrong.
I'm just curious about if you are acknowledging promiscuity in South Africa, and with that claiming that Sweden and West African countries are also promiscuous, and, if so, what gave you this impression?
Here is the geographic distribution of male circumcision http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Global_Ma...
80-100% in most of West Africa.
Western countries such as Sweden have had education on the real causes of HIV transmission for many years, and encourage use of condoms, discourage sharing needles.
Brazil has had a fine response to HIV, including refusing to sign the US's 'loyalty oath' to receive PEPFAR money. This requires the recipient country to sign a statement saying they oppose prostitution. Brazil chose instead to regulate it, and lost $US50million in funding.
The author is an epidemiologist, who has lived in Kenya and Indonesia, working with gays, prostitutes and drug users (as well as 'waria' for whom we don't even have a word). She has been an author of many of the reports of UNAIDS itself. To dismiss the article as 'just wrong' appears misguided.
I'd really recommend you read her book- it's very readable.
I am a bit surprised to hear that Americans pay other countries to promote abstinence and monogamy.
Also, men in power everywhere have lots of sex, it is natures way. I don't think the president single-handedly infected the nation with HIV. Not that I have any sympathies for him, just saying.
I always felt it was hypocritical to demand a pure christian marriage life from presidents.
No one certainly deserves to have an epidemic.
There's an old saying that fits this metaphorically: "you reap what you sow". Please enjoy your harvest. Let forth finally a smaller generation, of better health.