... when threads get this long and go in as many directions, it's easy to lose focus or key in on exactly what it is that who said. I maintain that the origin of the AIDS virus in the US is largely irrelevant. I'm not one who blames the homosexual for it's inception or believes that the disease was God's way of punishing the behavior or anything like that. However, the spread of the disease is largely the result of two activities -- MSM and IV drug use. Much of the infection outside of these populations came from relationships where one partner engaged in MSM or IV drug use and brought it home to an unsuspecting spouse or partner. Yes, the promiscuous heterosexual is not off the hook either, but even if I were to sleep with a different heterosexual non-IV drug using man every week, my chances of getting AIDS are next to nil because his chances of being infected are also next to nil.
I'm quite a bit younger than you Ian. By high school, our sex ed got pretty graphic, but I can honestly say that while we used to use the term for a bundle of twigs as a taunt/tease in grade school, and I "married" in the second grade, there just wasn't a whole lot of awareness at that age about the sexual nature of either. I pity parents these days who would like to see their own kids grow up in such an atmosphere. There is really little doubt that our children are being sexualized at a much earlier age, and I don't believe that is progress.
As I said in a reply to DK, I believe, nobody is disputing that the virus can be transmitted through other means. Just that the most efficient means is through blood, and as sexual practices go, anal sex is the one most likely to expose the participants to that route.
Anal sex is a practice with no benefit to the participants. OTOH, it can be very detrimental from a health point of view as the anatomy was designed for a one way excretion of solid human waste, not to mention disease transmission. Please don't regail me again with all the special pleasures only anal sex can provide. I've also read about the intense experience of erotic asphyxiation, but that practice is never recommended either. If it weren't for the pc nature of the issue, it would be a no-brainer to promote abstinence and implement policies to curtail, not condone, practices dangerous to one's health such as anal intercourse.
Yep, as bad consequences are mitigated, risky behavior increases because of lower risk. This is being seen again with AIDS as many see the retroviral cocktails as a cure. I see this all as selfishness. Nobody wants anyone to ever judge them for acting on every impulse to satisfy their immediate needs. To heck with the husband/wife, girl/boyfriend, kids, potential kids, family, friends. It's all about having sex when the urge arises and there should be no consequences whatsoever. I don't see this as progress, enlightenment or liberation in any way shape or form!
Evie 