In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Stupid Abstinence-Only Site of the Day

Jill

Despite the snazzy design, it really doesn’t get much worse than this site, which claims to provide accurate sexual health information without judgment (via Feministing, which displays one of their lovely t-shirts). Well. Let’s see. I’ll bet you didn’t know these five fun facts about contraception:
1. They fail more often than you may know
2. In fact, 43% of all unintended pregnancies occur while using contraception
3. No method of contraception is perfect or guaranteed to work all the time
4. You can get an STD even if you’re using contraception
5. Despite all the many kinds of birth control that are out there, unintended pregnancy and STDs are at epidemic proportions.

So why even use ’em, right?

And what about condoms? Well, my friends, using a condom is just like a coin toss: You only have a 50% chance of being protected from an STD when you wear them. As for emergency contraception, “While some people think this prevents pregnancy, in some cases it acts like an early abortion, if the fertilized egg, or embryo, is prevented from implanting in the mother’s uterus.” Ah, FACTS!

So what is the solution? “Don’t want to get pregnant or contract an STD? That’s simple – don’t have sex. After all, it’s the only guarantee that you won’t get pregnant or infected.” That’s a real neat slogan: Don’t have sex, don’t get infected. I personally like the term “diseased” better. It has a more frightening ring to it, ya know?

The STD scare tactics are also fun. Didja know that you can get “the pox,” “the bad blood,” “the clam,” and “having the package” just from having sex? Oh these kids and their crazy nicknames!

For those that are curious, apparently “the pox” and “the bad blood” are nicknames for syphilis; “the clam” is a nickname for clamydia (funny… where I come from, it’s a nickname for the part of the lady that smells like the sea, also known as “the taco”); and “having the package” is a nickname for AIDS (funny again, because where I come from, “the package” typically refers to a guy’s little soldier). Aren’t regionalisms just great? It’s kinda like how people from the midwest say “pop,” and we say “soda”!

But, sarcasm aside, this shit really bothers me. Yes, the lies and all that are beyond unfortunate, but the STI gross-out factor as a means of “education” is really problematic. Tens of millions of Americans have an STI (STI = Sexually Transmitted Infection, because most of them are infections and not diseases). In the grand scheme of all the different kinds of infections and illnesses one can contract, most STIs are pretty mild. Most are curable. Even those that aren’t (like herpes and HPV) may be uncomfortable, but if they’re detected they can be treated and monitered before they lead to anything worse (like cervical cancer, in the case of HPV).

I’m not trying to downplay the importance of safer sex practices, and the negative effects of most STIs if they aren’t found and treated. Obviously STIs like HIV are in a category all their own. But using STIs as the big “eeeew!” to scare people out of having sex is just silly. If getting herpes is the worst thing that ever happens to you, you’re definitely living the good life. And plenty of people walk around with infections and illnesses that are nearly identical or worse than most STIs — think cold sores (herpes) or the flu or mono (way worse than chlamydia or gonorrhea). But they aren’t looked upon with disgust because they aren’t exclusively sexually transmitted. And that’s what bothers me: That the gross-out factor with STIs relies much more on how the person got them than on what they actually are. It’s another way to socially punish sexual behavior. The shame around them is even incorporated into “education,” as kids in sex ed classes are told that they should remain abstinent until marriage or else they’ll get an STI, as if getting chlamydia was the worst thing that could ever happen to a person. They’re shown gross-out pictures of out-of-control STIs; we don’t see this kind of “health education” anywhere else. So it projects shame onto anyone who has an STI, while simultaneously inferring that getting an STI is the worst thing that could ever happen, and that it generally happens to irresponsible, “dirty” people — when the truth is, lots of people have STIs, and as I wrote before, in the range of potential of health problems, there are way, way worse things. We can try and avoid infections and illnesses without shaming the people who have them.

That isn’t to say that kids shouldn’t be taught about them, or shouldn’t avoid them because, hey, no big deal. They’re infections, and we should generally try to avoid infections to the best of our ability. It remains true that some of them can have very negative health effects, if they aren’t detected and treated — so of course young people should be taught that they need to get an annual STI test, in addition to getting tested if they engage in behavior with an elevated risk of transmission. And young people need to be taught that HIV still exists, and they can get it — but scare-mongering with “SEX = DEATH” really isn’t the way to go.

Anyway, pet peeve. On to the rest of the site.

It handily informs us that girls think that they won’t get pregnant, even though, this year alone, 20 percent of them will! AH! So if you’re reading this, you’re probably pregnant. Here are your choices: Parent, Adopt, Abort. Let’s see how non-judgment and neutral these choices are presented as:

Parent: “Having a child will help you understand your own strengths and weaknesses. And most women who gave birth, even after getting pregnant unexpectedly, feel that becoming a mom was the right decision, even if it wasn’t easy. If you decide to parent, a lot of help is available for you, and you don’t have to do this alone.”

Abortion: “Abortion is when you use a medical procedure to stop a pregnancy. Unfortunately, 1 out of every 4 pregnancies ends in abortion. Not only that, but nearly 40% of all teen pregnancies end in abortion. No woman wants an abortion. It’s just not what they set out to have happen. Yet, nearly 4 out of every 10 women in the U.S. have had at least one by the age of 45. Did you know that in the U.S. it’s legal to have an abortion at anytime during a pregnancy, for any reason?”

I love “facts” — like the “fact” that it’s perfectly legal to stroll into your doctor’s office and demand an abortion the week before you give birth.

So what should you consider before having an abortion? Well, how about this (my comments in brackets):
-Abortion can be harmful to you, both physically and emotionally. [So can childbirth; in fact, it’s more likely to be more physically and emotionally harmful. That isn’t a very good argument against it.]
-Having an abortion can cause side effects like anger, sexual dysfunction, anxiety, sleeplessness, or relationship problems. [Ditto for childbirth]
-Physically, abortions can cause many different problems, such as infection, heavy bleeding, uterine damage, and cervical tears. [Childbirth is much more physically dangerous, and more likely to be physically damaging. Again, not a good argument against it]
-If an attempted abortion is unsuccessful (and it does happen) there could be more complications. It could even require surgery. [Hello, c-section!]
-Remember, having an abortion is not the only way out. You have choices. There are people out there willing to offer you medical care and counseling.
-Given all the available programs, it’s possible to raise a child even if your resources are quite limited.
-Pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes can help you sort through the available options for: food, clothing, housing, furniture, and medical care; legal assistance; employment and education opportunities; drug abuse and domestic violence counseling; and childbirth, breastfeeding, and parenting classes.

And what is abortion, you ask? Well: “This kind of abortion ends a pregnancy by removing the fetus (baby) from the uterus surgically.” Nice. I’m not even going to bother quoting from the rest of their abortion “information,” because it’s so factually incorrect and ridiculous (a final example: “Then, a curved instrument called a curette is put inside the uterus to scrape the lining and remove the baby”).

Adoption: “Many women sense they will develop an attachment to their child during pregnancy, which would keep them from allowing someone else to raise it. However, many women find satisfaction in knowing they gave life to a new baby who is now being raised in a loving home. And, most often, the child is grateful to the birth mother for his or her life. Many couples would love to have a baby, but are unable to get pregnant and have a child on their own. They wait, often for several years, to receive a baby they can love and care for. To learn more about how adoption works visit Bethany Christian Services’ website at www.bethany.org

If you are pregnant and thinking about adoption, this will take courage. Choose an adoption agency that will offer good support for you now, and after the baby is born.”

Ok. Now, this wouldn’t bother me quite so much if it was explicitly “pro-life.” But it’s not. It’s targeted at young women, and it claims to offer them unbiased, truthful information — but it doesn’t. It feeds them straight-out lies, and employs ridiculous scare tactics to scare and shame them into making certain choices (or, to scare and shame them from admitting that they’ve made other choices).

I think it’s great that they tell young women that they have options, and give them information about places that will help them should they choose to give birth. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt, though, that these places will actually help them — that unfortunately isn’t the case at a lot of these “crisis pregnancy centers.” They’ll offer some formula, maybe a few packs of diapers and some used maternity clothes, and then send the women on their way. Or, they’ll brag about how they help women all throughout the first year! Because after that, apparently, the child is entirely self-sufficient and the new mom will be able to do it all herself. I’ll also just note that the adoption program they link to only helps Christians adopt.

They’ve got important information to share about living together, too. For example, you’re way more likely to break up if you live together than if you just get married. Plus, you’re more likely to get divorced if you get married after living together. And here’s the kicker: Unmarried women who live with men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than unmarried women who don’t life with men (I wonder why that could be? Perhaps it’s the word “domestic.”). We should note, too, that the site sneakily attempts to infer that unmarried women living with men are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence than any other group of women, including married women, when that’s not quite the case.

There are also some important things to consider about moving in together. Like, “Will your boyfriend expect sex if you live together?” (Honey, I’ll expect sex if we live together), “Have you considered the risks of getting pregnant?” (Because sharing a home makes babies) and “What if the guy you’re living with cheats on you?” (What if anyone cheats on you? What if your husband cheats on you? It sucks. You do what you have to do. Dumb question.)

And did you know that marriage is every girl’s dream? Yet another reason why I don’t call myself a “girl.”

But at least you can build the perfect guy! This is fun. Did you know that men tend to take three occupational paths in life? “Businessman,” “Artist,” or “Whatever comes.” Ditto for education: “College,” “Med school,” or “No school.” As for relationships, they’re either living “the single life” or “married with children.” Enlightening. But the coolest part is that after you check all the little boxes of what you’re looking for, and you click the button so that the site can “build” your dream guy, a pop-up window comes up that tells you… word for word exactly what you just selected. Wowza.

And then there’s the t-shirts. These really slay me. They have great slogans like “Herpes KILLS dates” and “Sex Causes Babies.” Which is great, but… true? I remain confused by the shirt that reads “Guys Don’t Get Pregnant,” embellished with a cute little princess crown (it’s not that they can’t, ya see, it’s that it’s something that guys just don’t do). Is this supposed to be one of those silly nyah-nyah “Girls Rule Boys Drool” kind of things? Like, “HA, I can get pregnant and YOU CAN’T, sucka! Plus, I’m a total princess!” I don’t get it. But it is adorable.

30 thoughts on Stupid Abstinence-Only Site of the Day

  1. eeeuuuuwwwww. what is snazzy about it? the design? the black background contrast so sharply with the solid white and pastel colors, I had to blink several times and shake my head.

    otherwise, thanks for the great analysis!

  2. The conventional wisdom on HIV transmission is WAY overblown (not that wearing a condom still shouldn’t be as necessary as brushing ones teeth):

    According to a report by researchers Norman Hearst and Stephen Hulley in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million. With a condom it’s even safer–one in 50 million. Just to put this in perspective, the chances of someone in your family getting injured next year in a bubble bath are 1 in 1.3 million (source: The Odds on Virtually Everything, Heron House, 1980). You’re in much greater danger of being struck by lightning (1 in 600,000), having your house bombed (1 in 290,000), or being murdered (1 in 11,000).

    The numbers get a lot worse if you engage in “high-risk behavior”–having sexual intercourse or sharing needles with a member of a high-risk group, e.g., a gay or bisexual male or IV drug user from a major metro area, or a hemophiliac. The chances of getting AIDS from one such encounter range as high as 1 in 10,000 using a condom to 1 in 1,000 unprotected. Even if your partner tests negative for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the chances of infection from a high-risk person are still relatively high–1 in 50,000 without a condom. That’s because there’s a 45 to 90 day window during which a newly infected person can infect others but test negative. (A few people go as long as 180 days.)

    From there on out, statistically speaking, things deteriorate pretty fast. If your partner is HIV-positive, your chances of getting AIDS after one night are 1 in 5,000 with a condom, 1 in 500 without. Have sex with an HIV-positive partner 500 times using condoms and your chances escalate to 1 in 11. Skip the gift wrap and they’re 2 in 3.

    1 in 500 with an HIV+ individual w/o a condom.

    I was shocked to learn of such odds after absorbing years of conventional wisdom (thinking it was more like 1 in 10).

    That being said, it’s not too difficult to pick up herpes, even with a condom, and 1 in 5 people have it. Also situationally, there are risk factors (like other active infections, skin abrasions, etc) that can dramatically boost the odds of getting HIV. Still, STI scare tactics are pretty ridiculous. Ah sex, what a mixed bag.

  3. I was shocked to learn of such odds after absorbing years of conventional wisdom (thinking it was more like 1 in 10).

    I think that one of the contributing factors–I’ve seen it, most notably, in DE’s blog comments–is the statistic about how much condoms reduce transmission risk. People confuse statistics like, “8% [relative] transmission risk with condom use” with “8% likelihood of contracting HIV.”

  4. Like, “Will your boyfriend expect sex if you live together?”

    Nope. For some reason they always say, “Damn, I expected something but nothing like this!”*

    *Yeah right. They’re talking about my cooking.

  5. Being a gay male, as well as completing a PhD in HIV clinical management, I speak with some authority on the issue of relative risk of HIV infection in heterosexual sex, and can attest to the accuracy of the study that is quoted. More to the point, the complete lack of accuracy.

    This study is one that has been co opted by right wing faith based abstinence encouragers. Originally designed to be a study showing the risk for heterosexual HIV serodiscordant couples who have varying degrees of condom compliance, it was a meta analysis used to extract retrospective comparison to other similar studies. A quality assurance in the research field. The results have been used to show the numbers that are detailed speak to a high condom failure rate, however the terminal result of the study showed the amount of seroconversions in a group of 100 couples, with one partner being positive, was 2 out of 100 individuals becoming infected with HIV. Both were women, as the risk for women is anywhere between 50 to 100 times higher than female to male transmission. The long and the short of it, where condoms are used, they are extremely effective against infection from HIV.

    A point worth noting, heterosexual transmission statistics almost always refer to male to female transmission, as in over twenty five years, we have no statistically significant numbers of female to male transmissions. Nine times out ten, when I have treated a male, non IV drug using heterosexual, his history, if expanded upon will recover behaviors that give definitional challange to “non drug using” and “heterosexual”.

    It is unfortunate that in this country sex education has become a bible based shame filled rant about what is good and what is bad in so far as personal sexual taste. That mindset only works if you are a male or female who is completely heterosexual, or a female who is appropriately filled with shame and an inherent need to downplay sexual desire, lest she be thought a whore. Anyone else, well they’re just asking for what they get!

    Sadly, we export this paradigm to Africa in the way of mandating that our much needed cash be used to support prevention programs that use condoms as a THIRD line defense, if at all. In a part of the world where women are becoming infected with HIV in a majority of cases through non choiced sex, this is nothing short of criminal. Sadly, it is so very much not a surprise to those of us who work in the field.

    Steve

  6. Yack. Even ignoring the fact that their numbers are wrong, their use of statistics is really uninformative. If I want to know how a condom affects my risk of pregnancy, I don’t just look at the percentage of unplanned pregnancies where the couple used a condom. I also look at the number of couples who use condoms vs. the number of couples who don’t; otherwise the statistic is totally worthless.

    Just another way in which they’re being uninformative.

  7. “I don’t just look at the percentage of unplanned pregnancies where the couple used a condom.”

    Exactly. It’s like the anti-marijuana folks who shout loudly that “73% of cocaine users tried marijuana first!” Well, yes, and 82% of cocaine users tried alcohol first, and 100% of them tried food first, but none of that tells me what percentage of marijuana users go on to try cocaine*

    It’s a meaningless statistic used to scare people. But you knew that.

    *All statistics made up.

  8. Amanda: Like, “Will your boyfriend expect sex if you live together?”
    Nope. For some reason they always say, “Damn, I expected something but nothing like this!”*
    *Yeah right. They’re talking about my cooking. ”

    Right, no boyfriend of Amanda will ever expect sex with her, because it’s universally known she has no interest in that 🙂

    But (drifting back on-topic briefly), that really is a vile and insidious site… I suppose this is going to be part of the wave of the future for the nutcases who spout this garbage.

  10. so… are they ever planning on talking to boys about the dangers of sex that’s not sanctioned by a legal document and intended to make babies? i hate how one-sided this abstinence crap always is. they tell girls to keep their knees together, but “boys will be boys.” (like who do you think most of them are “being boys” with?)

  11. We had a woman from Planned Parenthood come into our Human Sexuality class and she told us that abstinence is only 62% effective or something like because 38% of people who say they will remain abstinent before marriage do not.

    I thought it was a riot.

  12. Do people not realize that the use of contraceptives will prevent abortions? I wrote a paper about the abstinence only argument and, though I do not remembre the exact figures, pregnancy rates were higher in school districts with abstinence only education. Sexual supression, like the 21 drinking age, and the illegality of marijuana only make these things seem more exciting to young people. In turn you could say that they are less likely to be safe when practicing such activities.

  13. Steve – super interesting comment. Your expansion on the stats does underscore the concept that HIV in the US is overwhelmingly a gay/drug user affliction. I say that with no negative moral judgment on any lifestyle (except perhaps with regards to promiscuity itself and unsanitary needle practices that spread the disease) , rather because the disproportionate focus on heterosexual transmission has skewed the funding benefit away from populations that truly need it.

  15. What constitutes outlandish and/or dangerous promiscuity? You could fuck anything that moves but take precautions and have no more real risk than someone who has sex only with a spouse, depending on the spouse’s behavior.

  16. What constitutes outlandish and/or dangerous promiscuity? You could fuck anything that moves but take precautions and have no more real risk than someone who has sex only with a spouse, depending on the spouse’s behavior.

    Not to mention the kind of sexual contact you’re having with all these people. Going to a bdsm orgy every night of the week is potentially safer than, say, serial monogamy.

  17. What constitutes outlandish and/or dangerous promiscuity? You could fuck anything that moves but take precautions and have no more real risk than someone who has sex only with a spouse, depending on the spouse’s behavior.

    Could, but a situational statement. Statistically improbable, unless your spouse is an irresponsibly rutting fool that uses drugs and/or is a homosexual male (assuming UStates sexual contacts). And if your spouse is banging dozens or hundreds of folks and you don’t know, I’d say youve got a host of problems.

    Just for the wacky sake of argument, let’s categorize outlandish and/or dangerous promiscuity to be something like, oh, say, 100+ anal sexual partners a year (possibly with a certain portion unprotected, maybe even totally protected). Can even those with the most libertine sensibilities agree to that? Many doctors would put that number much, much, much lower, I assure you.

    Even with 100% protected sex, your chances of picking up more benign STI’s than HIV are basically assured with that kind of crazy variety and frequency. Condoms break and fail to cover all genital to genital contact. And while statistical transmission of HIV itself extrapolated from incidence and presentation in the population is statistically low, situationally, it can be higher, even with a rubber (with abrasions, other ongoing active infections due to the other STI’s you certainly picked up, the partner having just contracted HIV and thus having a spike of the virus in various fluids around initial seroconversion, broken rubbers, rough sex, etc.)

    So banging the whole planet is exercising poor health judgment, in my opinion, even if the odds are with you. HIV epidemiologists would agree. While the notion of modern crazy gay promiscuity has been found to be totally overblown in at least one study I’ve read (can’t find a link), some gay subpopulations at the dawn of HIV (and some individuals to this day) had/have an amazing number of sexual contacts in a year, most/many/some unsafe (does maybe 500 strike you as a bit much? Or am I being “square.”)

    not sure why this point is that debatable. If you think banging hundreds of different people a year is not risky behavior, I’d mark you as wrong, to be polite. My assessment wasn’t accounting for “bdsm orgies,” or “furry piles,” or whatever other curveballs you could mention, rather extremely promiscuous gay anal sex in the states, crazy promiscuous sex (esp anal) of hetero/homo variety in certain places overseas and, to a much lesser extent, crazy amounts of crazily promiscuous sex of any variety in the states. And by sex I mean inserting the pushy-tushy tickle-pickle, not spanking with rubber paddles or wacking off while wearing Star Trek outfits and looking at each other from behind a sheet of glass.

    PS – keep in mind that there is a huge amount of pleasure to be had in life between the scare tactics used by abstinence advocates in the post above and screwing 100+ strangers per year. Call me old fashioned.

  18. Could, but a situational statement. Statistically improbable, unless your spouse is an irresponsibly rutting fool that uses drugs and/or is a homosexual male (assuming UStates sexual contacts). And if your spouse is banging dozens or hundreds of folks and you don’t know, I’d say youve got a host of problems.

    Are you aware that this is exactly how AIDS is spreading in sub-Saharan Africa? Women who are married as virgins are contracting AIDS from their husbands, who feel it is their right to sleep with prostitutes and other women. These non-promiscuous married women wind up transmitting HIV to their children.

    Few people wind up with 500+ partners. But one definition of “promiscuous” is “more sexually active than I am.” So, I ask again — what *is* your definition of promiscuous, more specifically dangerously and outlandishly promiscuous?

  19. Just for the wacky sake of argument, let’s categorize outlandish and/or dangerous promiscuity to be something like, oh, say, 100+ anal sexual partners a year (possibly with a certain portion unprotected, maybe even totally protected). Can even those with the most libertine sensibilities agree to that? Many doctors would put that number much, much, much lower, I assure you.

    You haven’t explained what promiscuity has to do with what happens between you and any given person. Promiscuity involves the number of people you sleep with, not whether you eat the pie with your fingers or with a fork. What’s a woman in a committed relationship with an HIV+ man?

    And after we’ve established your reductio ad absurdum standard for conduct that should be morally mandated out of existence because it involves doing too dangerous things with too dangerously many people, then what? A public-health standard with a wide band of gray between a tiny, tiny segment of the population and, say, Mother Theresa isn’t terribly useful.

    My assessment wasn’t accounting for “bdsm orgies,” or “furry piles,” or whatever other curveballs you could mention, rather extremely promiscuous gay anal sex in the states, crazy promiscuous sex (esp anal) of hetero/homo variety in certain places overseas and, to a much lesser extent, crazy amounts of crazily promiscuous sex of any variety in the states. And by sex I mean inserting the pushy-tushy tickle-pickle, not spanking with rubber paddles or wacking off while wearing Star Trek outfits and looking at each other from behind a sheet of glass.

    You’ve Tivo’d CSI for the season, haven’t you? They aren’t curveballs; they’re pretty widespread trends among the segments of the population that are most promiscuous. They’re how promiscuous communities deal with promiscuity. And if that’s the case, then you should probably stop referring to “promiscuity” as relevant in a pure sense, since all of those things qualify as sexual relationships with other people.

  20. And here’s the kicker: Unmarried women who live with men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than unmarried women who don’t life with men (I wonder why that could be? Perhaps it’s the word “domestic.”)

    Seriously, that has to be the most obvious statement I’eve ever read. Are they kidding? I’m all for abstinence in high school (it served me well anyway!) but pushing it down people’s throat with this crap is just ridiculous. I lived with my husband before we were married. He wouldn’t hurt a fly. Seriously… he accidentally hit me with a coat he was throwing in the closet and cried for 30 minutes because the zipper had left a mark on my back. I think it has to more to do with the guy you are living with. And obviously, women living with men are more likely to be domestically abused than woman living alone. It takes two seconds of critical thinking to realize that. And yes, I would think your boyfriend is going to expect sex if you live together. Unless you make it clear beforehand and have seperate bedrooms, but I think that’s pretty unrealistic.

  21. here’s a radical idea….let’s create a website that talks frankly (and honestly) about being a teenage girl who *likes* sex, who knows how to use contraceptives, has no idealized view of marriage, wants both a career and children and expects her sexual partner(s), both now and in the future to treat her as an equal….

    this site will boost their self-esteem and teach teen-age boys that smart, confident women not only like to get laid, they know how, and ….oh wait….I’m living in fantasyland again

    sorry for the sarcasm, but that ridiculous site got the my blood boiling.

  24. Pingback: News for Greens

  25. Abstinence first is similar to saying: Obey the laws of the country first; break them and there may be an unintended consequence.
    The debate seems to hinge on morals and science. There were some in the education community that resisted revealing the fact that condoms do not block the HIV virus from passing through the material. In other words, they were not 100% effective from preventing disease. Engage in immoral behavior at your peril. You will attract other immoral individuals and they will themselves engage in more immoral behavior. To attract a moral person, exhibit those values. If one wishes to have a marriage with one person, they must do the same. On “boys will be boys”. I reject that and told mine to keep yourself for one only.

  26. zuzu: What constitutes outlandish and/or dangerous promiscuity?

    I think the part where Bill from INDC said it “flouts precaution or common sense” did a decent job of describing dangerous.

    I’m not sure just what defines common sense, but lack of precaution, is risky enough, adding numbers to that increases the risk.

    That would seem dangerous to me.

  27. I think the part where Bill from INDC said it “flouts precaution or common sense” did a decent job of describing dangerous.

    Tautologies do not give good points of reference for anything. Saying that “dangerous” behavior is the same as failing to take precautions is a tautology. Same goes with defining it as a lack of common sense–about, you know, danger. A decent description would have involved information about what level of risk is unreasonable, in a way that touches upon more people than a handful of circuit queens and unwilling NARTH mascots, and why certain levels of risk are unreasonable.

  29. An infection can be present without disease, and disease can be present without infection, such as with heart disease or congenital conditions.

  30. Some good points on the factors that influence risk, and our varying perceptions around the concept of it. To say that increased risk is directly proportional to increased frequency of sexual encounter is a point that can be directly offset by the sexual encounter engaged in, and the methods, if any, that are being used to decrease risk.

    That being said, there are some predictive makers that will increase individual risk statistically. The main three are if one is having unprotected vaginal or anal sex, if on “hard” drugs, (ie. not pot), and the number of encounters with different individuals. I was initially hesitant around this, however numerous recent studies of those who do not practice safer sex with more than one partner, have a clear co-relation in so far as number of partners. I agree though, promiscuous is not a helpful term if our goal is an approach that is meant to empower safer choices.

    No sex is complete “safe” sex in so far as a risk for HIV, unless the individual is immune through CCR5 genetic mutation, and that estimate is only 1% of the population. The important thing to note is risk being cumulative, and if we take the example of a gay man who has unprotected receptive anal sex with an HIV positive partner, his risk is approximately 1 in 200 of becoming HIV infected. Per encounter. So if we take the suggestion of 100 partners a year, and in i can say from my practice, which has a largely gay male and minority female demographic, 100 seems similar to what I’ve heard for the men, then the risk appears to some, not an extensive risk for a one time encounter. But…have sex without a condom 100 times a year and you’ve just moved up to a fifty per cent risk.

    Taking the female example, the risk has been demonstrated through a study of actual causation. Results were two individuals out of an analysis of 100, both women, who became positive from an HIV positive man they were in a relationship with and had intermittent condom usage, defined as anything less than 100%. Out of the women who used condoms all the time, defined as 100% of the time, there were no seroconversions. The clear message here is if used consistently, and as recommended, condoms have been shown to offer near complete protection from HIV.

    Unfortunately these are the only stats this country has on the risks associated to women who are vaginally receptive, and to gay men involved in receptive anal sex. There have been seven leading national studies on men who are the insertive partner in straight vaginal and anal sex, or the insertive partner in gay anal sex. Both of those sexual activities have not yielded any sampling of HIV positive patients resulting from the insertive partner in any amount that would even make a statistical dent. That is more than telling of the motivations from those making policy decisions.

    It is also clearly more example of the white straight male bias that is central to Americas realization of this disease. That the leading demographic of who is testing positive in 2005 fall to gay men and straight women, with minority women of all visible minorities having a significantly higher risk than white women.

    Lastly, I apologize if I strayed from the main topic thread, however after viewing the comments and the interest in the promiscuity vs. “wear the white dress” parafigm, I thought I would offer some points.

    Lauren and Jill, fantastic blog! Keep it up.

    Steve

Comments are currently closed.