By Rex Wockner. ...only with people you know are negative also...
Don Saklad
By Rex Wockner
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?sernum=435
http://www.planetout.com/news/wockner
If you're HIV-negative, use a rubber or have anal sex only with people
you know are negative also. This second approach is a very common
strategy in the real world that gets almost no official support from
AIDS educators.
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?sernum=435
http://www.planetout.com/news/wockner
See also
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/globalhealth/hivaidstb/hivaids/announcements/announce-021028.htm
____________________________________________________________
Weblog. The strategy before sex potential sex partners getting tested
together for the standard sexually transmitted infections
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com/stories
Roedy Green
wrote or quoted :
>
>If you're HIV-negative, use a rubber or have anal sex only with people
>you know are negative also. This second approach is a very common
>strategy in the real world that gets almost no official support from
>AIDS educators.
the problem is, you can be HIV+ and not know it. It took me two years
to clue in. I found out when doctors looked in vain to find the cause
of my nausea. It can take up to six months to show up on a test.
Ironically you are probably safer with a known HIV+ person. What?????
At least the HIV+ person is on drugs, and knows just what his HIV
viral load levels are. It is possible to get them down undetectable
levels now.
I am not suggesting doing this, but if people realised that what they
were doing was MORE dangerous than having sex with HIV+ people,
perhaps they would rethink.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, contract programming for $50 US per hour or fixed price.
For rapid answers to Java questions, see the glossary at http://mindprod.com/jgloss.html
Tyrannic Hellish Cargo
wrote:
>At least the HIV+ person is on drugs, and knows just what his HIV
>viral load levels are. It is possible to get them down undetectable
>levels now.
Undetectable in blood != undetectable in semen.
Craig, just sayin'
Ron Chaplin
>
> >At least the HIV+ person is on drugs, and knows just what his HIV
> >viral load levels are. It is possible to get them down undetectable
> >levels now.
>
> Undetectable in blood != undetectable in semen.
I would just add the note of caution that no doctor nor public health
official would be in favour of unprotected sex with an HIV-positive
individual with an undetectable viral load.
No one is certain if "undetectable" means the virus has actually been
eradicated from the bloodstream. We do know for a fact that the virus is
harboured in some parts of the body, even if blood tests cannot detect it.
Nor am I aware of any study on the amount of virus which must pass from
person to person to transmit infection.
Ron Chaplin
Ottawa
Don Saklad
oo__ don
Weblog. The strategy before sex potential sex partners getting tested
together for the standard sexually transmitted infections
Roedy Green
wrote or quoted :
>That implies that having sex with hiv- people is more dangerous.
The irony is that someone who does not know their status or who claims
to be hiv- will possible have higher viral load in blood, then also
likely in semen, than someone hiv+ on drugs.
I say this not to encourage barebacking with HIV+, but to discourage
people from having unprotected sex with people who don't know their
status or who CLAIM to be HIV-.
One further fact. When I found out I was HIV+ I went to a support
group. I was under the assumption I would have to go the rest of my
life without any sex at all. I learned that EVERYONE THERE had sex
with others and DID NOT reveal their status, and most said they would
LIE about their status unless forming a partnership.
The consensus was, if you are using safe sex, your HIV status is not
the other person's business.
If more people knew this, they would be MUCH more careful in their
sexual encounters.
Tyrannic Hellish Cargo
wrote:
>That implies that having sex with hiv- people is more dangerous.
No, it doesn't.
Craig, just saying
Tyrannic Hellish Cargo
wrote:
>That implies that having sex with hiv- people is more dangerous.
No, it doesn't.
You're the one so fond of "thought experiments", Don -- let's try one
here.
Two guys (let's call them "Couple A") are having sex. One of them is
HIV+ and the other one is negative, so they have exclusively safe sex.
Another two guys (let's call them "Couple B") are also having sex.
They both *say* they're negative, so they throw away the condoms and
start barebacking.
Question: considering what's been said to you ad nauseam in the past
about the possibilities of (a) people lying about their status, (b)
people testing negative when in fact they're positive (because of the
testing window), and (c) people cheating on their monogamous partners,
who's at greater risk: Couple A, who know what they're up against and
carefully take the proper precautions at all times, or Couple B, who
think they're in the clear and can bareback with abandon?
Hint: don't say Couple A if you want to be right.
Craig, just saying
Tyrannic Hellish Cargo
<rcha...@netrover.com> wrote:
>"Tyrannic Hellish Cargo" <cas...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >At least the HIV+ person is on drugs, and knows just what his HIV
>> >viral load levels are. It is possible to get them down undetectable
>> >levels now.
>> Undetectable in blood != undetectable in semen.
>I would just add the note of caution that no doctor nor public health
>official would be in favour of unprotected sex with an HIV-positive
>individual with an undetectable viral load.
That was kind of my point.
Craig
Roedy Green
Hellish Cargo) wrote or quoted :
>>That implies that having sex with hiv- people is more dangerous.
>
>No, it doesn't.
Sorry. I should have stated that more carefully.
Obviously, having sex with people who ACTUALLY are HIV- is completely
safe -- at least vis a vis HIV.
What I meant is having sex with people who don't tell you they are
HIV+, people PRESUMED to be HIV- is more dangerous that having sex
with someone ON HIV DRUGS who tells you they are HIV+. You will tend
to be VERY careful with your safe sex. They will know if they have a
low viral load.
None of my long term partners got infected. They knew I was HIV+ and
were careful.
Don Saklad
There's the mistake of calling it safe.
It may turn out that way for one event
There's no way you can say zero chance in that scenario.
There's no sex. That's the only safe sex.
The correct term is always... safer.
There's never zero risk.
There's always some probability of the infection jumping from the
postive person to the negative person however small you want to make
that.
As to the second couple. Let's make two assumptions.
There's two possible scenarios.
There're both negative.
As long as they do it just with each other they would always remain
negative.
A second possibility are that one or both of them are positive.
If one is positive and the other negative,
then the infection could be passed to the negative partner.
If they're both infected then a varient infection could be spread from
one to the other.
The first varient of couple B are the safest.
It's the second varient of couple B that are the ones in danger but
not necessarily any more than couple A.
_____________________________________________________________________
Don Saklad
It didn't appear at
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci803019,00.html
Chris Ambidge
>Please explain the symbol !=
the exclamation mark is used as a negation, so !> means "is not
greater than", and in this case, != means "is not equal to" or
"is not the same as".
Chris
panda != bear
--
if the planets are misaligned, I may have been logged in under an assumed name.
no matter WHAT/WHO the headers of this post claim , I am
Chris Ambidge =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca =|= chris....@utoronto.ca
chemist by day=|=panda by night=|=www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
Tyrannic Hellish Cargo
wrote:
>It's the second varient of couple B that are the ones in danger but
>not necessarily any more than couple A.
Nope, you missed the fundamental distinction that I laid out. Couple B
are having *BAREBACK* sex because of their belief -- mistaken or
otherwise -- that they're both negative. So for your statement here to
be true, there would have to be *no* meaningful risk distinction
between using or not using condoms, which is obviously not the case.
The point is, whether both partners in couple B are negative or not,
they threw away the condoms because they took it on *faith* that they
were in fact both negative and likely to stay that way.
You're right, no sexual act is risk free -- but you're putting
yourself at *much* greater risk by barebacking than you are by having
protected sex even with a known HIV+ partner, because you simply can't
ever know for sure that your partner (a) hasn't seroconverted inside
the three-month window period before an HIV test will react, (b) is
telling you the truth about his HIV status, or (c) will always be
perfectly monogamous. They're *all* unprovable leaps of faith which
are already *known* to have led to significantly more new HIV
infections than condom failure has.
It's a dangerous game to evaluate your HIV risk on the basis of *who*
you're sleeping with. You can only evaluate it based on your *own*
practices.
Craig, pointing out the obvious
Tyrannic Hellish Cargo
wrote:
>What I meant is having sex with people who don't tell you they are
>HIV+, people PRESUMED to be HIV- is more dangerous that having sex
>with someone ON HIV DRUGS who tells you they are HIV+. You will tend
>to be VERY careful with your safe sex. They will know if they have a
>low viral load.
Roedy, again, viral load has nothing to do with it. A low or
undetectable viral load in your blood does *not* mean there is no
virus in your semen.
There is some indication that the risk is *reduced* if your viral load
is low, but people with low or undetectable viral loads *can* and *do*
still transmit HIV to others if they have unsafe sex. In fact, the
belief that undetectable viral loads prevent HIV transmission, and
therefore permit one to skip the safety precautions, is one of the
*reasons* HIV infection rates are going up again.
Craig, education is a wonderful thing
Don Saklad
You can propose the conditions.
One of the states are both of them are negative.
Another state is both of them are positive.
Your thought experiment doesn't include all the posibilities.
I divided it into two states.
Those are the two possible conditions you could have.
I'm taking every possibility into account.
The couple isn't in control of the thought experiment. You've lost
control of the situation. I'm defining the conditions. We know
there're people who're are negative. If no other sexual activity from
another person intrudes on them they stay negative.
You keep losing control of the thought experiment.
It has nothing to do with what they believe.
I'm setting new conditions.
In a thought experiment you set up the situation you define the parameters.
Their faith has nothing to do with it.
We're not considering actual clinical cases. We're considering a thought experiment.
Tyrannic Hellish Cargo
wrote:
>The couple isn't in control of the thought experiment. You've lost
>control of the situation. I'm defining the conditions. We know
>there're people who're are negative. If no other sexual activity from
>another person intrudes on them they stay negative.
*We* may know that, omniscient narrators that we are, but the point is
that the couple *themselves* have no way of knowing, at the point of
decision, that both of them are truly negative and will stay that way.
The *only* way one can be absolutely sure one is HIV-negative is to
test negative on two separate HIV tests, three to six months apart
from each other, with no sexual contact whatsoever in between (and
even then, there are isolated cases of people not actually testing
positive until a full *year* after they were infected).
>You keep losing control of the thought experiment.
Oh, I'm not losing control of anything. Life inside your head must be
awfully draining sometimes, eh?
>It has nothing to do with what they believe.
It has *everything* to do with what they believe. We're talking about
the *real* world here, not some fantasy universe where you can
intervene and personally control the details.
You can set all the conditions you want, but the only way the couple
can be absolutely sure they're safe is to (a) wait six months and two
HIV tests before having any sexual contact (which isn't a realistic
expectation),
(b) be absolutely sure their partner is being honest with them about
the results of those HIV tests (which is impossible to prove -- what
are you going to do, require him to take a lie detector test before
having sex?), *and*
(c) be absolutely sure their partner hasn't had sexual contact with
anybody else in the meantime (which is also impossible to prove,
unless you lock your partner in a cage and don't let him out unless
he's in your sight.)
And even then, it's only relevant if the goal of the whole process is
to have sex without using condoms. If that isn't their intention, then
why the hell bother with all of that when there are so much simpler
ways to protect themselves?
Craig, just saying
Don Saklad
> Newsgroups: can.motss
> Subject: Re: By Rex Wockner. ...only with people you know are negative also...
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:05:10 GMT
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
>
>On 15 Dec 2002 13:15:29 -0500, Don Saklad <dsa...@nestle.ai.mit.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>The couple isn't in control of the thought experiment. You've lost
>>control of the situation. I'm defining the conditions. We know
>>there're people who're are negative. If no other sexual activity from
>>another person intrudes on them they stay negative.
>
>*We* may know that, omniscient narrators that we are,
That is part of the point of a thought experiment.
Just like Einstein, when he proposed his thought
experiments, he became "dog" (sorry, dime islexic).
>but the point is
>that the couple *themselves* have no way of knowing, at the point of
>decision, that both of them are truly negative and will stay that way.
Um, perhaps I forget to mention, but this is a thought
experiment--my proposal is that they are negative.
The thought experiment has nothing to do with reality.
Just like Einstein's thought experiments were nothing
but words--they were not the words put into reality/action.
>The *only* way one can be absolutely sure one is HIV-negative is to
>test negative on two separate HIV tests, three to six months apart
>from each other, with no sexual contact whatsoever in between (and
>even then, there are isolated cases of people not actually testing
>positive until a full *year* after they were infected).
This is a thought experiment, in case I'd not mentioned
that, so my initial proposition is that they are negative.
Period.
> >You keep losing control of the thought experiment.
>
>Oh, I'm not losing control of anything. Life inside your head must be
>awfully draining sometimes, eh?
That sounds like your head talking. I'm not feeling drained.
And need I point out that you have lost control of the
discussion by switching to talking about what you imagine
my state of mind to be--rather than the point at hand?
> >It has nothing to do with what they believe.
>
>It has *everything* to do with what they believe. We're talking about
>the *real* world here, not some fantasy universe where you can
>intervene and personally control the details.
Sorry, but I meant to say that this was a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
where one can propose any initial conditions that one wants.
My apologies for not mentioning that in a previous message.
>You can set all the conditions you want, but the only way the couple
>can be absolutely sure they're safe is to (a) wait six months and two
>HIV tests before having any sexual contact (which isn't a realistic
>expectation),
Oh, geeze, I meant to start the discussion with the idea
that this was a thought experiment. So let me begin by
saying that this is a thought experiment where I propose
a couple, male, where both of them are negative. Period.
That's going to be my initial condition. No tests are
needed. Negative is my initial condition.
>(b) be absolutely sure their partner is being honest with them about
>the results of those HIV tests (which is impossible to prove -- what
>are you going to do, require him to take a lie detector test before
>having sex?), *and*
No, this is a thought experiment where that is part of
my initial assumption--they are negative to begin with
and stay faithful.
>(c) be absolutely sure their partner hasn't had sexual contact with
>anybody else in the meantime (which is also impossible to prove,
>unless you lock your partner in a cage and don't let him out unless
>he's in your sight.)
No, this is a thought experiment, not an investigation
of any particular couple. One of my thought experiment
propositions is that they are faithful.
>And even then, it's only relevant if the goal of the whole process is
>to have sex without using condoms. If that isn't their intention, then
>why the hell bother with all of that when there are so much simpler
>ways to protect themselves?
What would one of those "simple" ways be? "Safer sex"
which requires due diligence each and every time, all the
time, for the rest of your sexual life? That does not
sound simple.
>Craig, just saying
The other guy, just listening to Craig not be able to
differentiate between a thought experiment and talking
about specific incidents so that everything gets mushed
together as though there were no difference between a
thought experiment and observations of reality.
Roedy Green
Hellish Cargo) wrote or quoted :
>Roedy, again, viral load has nothing to do with it. A low or
>undetectable viral load in your blood does *not* mean there is no
>virus in your semen.
surely though there is a correlation. Why else are new infections
going down? Safe sex is becoming LESS common.
Roedy Green
wrote or quoted :
>
>There's always some probability of the infection jumping from the
>postive person to the negative person however small you want to make
>that.
Then there is always the possibility God will strike you dead with a
lightning bolt. So bloody what?. What counts are PRACTICAL dangers.
People so often strain and gnats and swallow camels. They refuse
water at somebody's apartment that has HIV, then once a year have a
bareback gang fuck in the park.
Roedy Green
Hellish Cargo) wrote or quoted :
>It's a dangerous game to evaluate your HIV risk on the basis of *who*
>you're sleeping with. You can only evaluate it based on your *own*
>practices.
AMEN AMEN AMEN
I got my HIV from a black hunk with muscles bulging out. Back in 1985
it never dawned on me he could possibly be HIV+. Weren't AIDS people
starving skeletons?
So don't base it on looks either. That shy "virgin" could quite
easily be a carrier.
Roedy Green
wrote or quoted :
>Please explain the symbol !=
see http://mindprod.com/jglossprecedence.html
Tyrannic Hellish Cargo
wrote:
>>but the point is
>>that the couple *themselves* have no way of knowing, at the point of
>>decision, that both of them are truly negative and will stay that way.
> Um, perhaps I forget to mention, but this is a thought
> experiment--my proposal is that they are negative.
No, actually I already set the conditions for this particular thought
experiment when I proposed it. You can't insert additional conditions
that weren't in the original question -- you have to work with what
you've got.
> The thought experiment has nothing to do with reality.
> Just like Einstein's thought experiments were nothing
> but words--they were not the words put into reality/action.
Oddly enough, the result still has to be attainable by the precepts of
reality, and the precepts of reality simply don't provide a way to
attain "I've been definitively proven to be HIV-negative and so has my
partner, and neither of us will ever have sex outside of this
relationship" as a conclusion.
>> >You keep losing control of the thought experiment.
>>Oh, I'm not losing control of anything. Life inside your head must be
>>awfully draining sometimes, eh?
> That sounds like your head talking. I'm not feeling drained.
> And need I point out that you have lost control of the
> discussion by switching to talking about what you imagine
> my state of mind to be--rather than the point at hand?
Oh, and it's different when you do it?
>>(b) be absolutely sure their partner is being honest with them about
>>the results of those HIV tests (which is impossible to prove -- what
>>are you going to do, require him to take a lie detector test before
>>having sex?), *and*
> No, this is a thought experiment where that is part of
> my initial assumption--they are negative to begin with
> and stay faithful.
Okay, then, try this as a thought experiment instead: instead of being
an omniscient observer who can arrange the reality of the situation as
will, assume for a moment that you're actually one of the two partners
*in* the situation under discussion.
Now, tell me, in *that* thought experiment,
(a) how you plan to attain the conclusion that your partner is
definitively HIV-negative and will never seek sex outside of your
relationship,
(b) how you plan to deal with any uncertainties,
(c) what, exactly, you propose to do if it turns out that in fact your
is HIV-positive. Dump his diseased pariah ass?
>>And even then, it's only relevant if the goal of the whole process is
>>to have sex without using condoms. If that isn't their intention, then
>>why the hell bother with all of that when there are so much simpler
>>ways to protect themselves?
> What would one of those "simple" ways be? "Safer sex"
> which requires due diligence each and every time, all the
> time, for the rest of your sexual life? That does not
> sound simple.
Far simpler than popping handfuls of antiretroviral pills at precisely
scheduled times every day for the rest of your life, I'm willing to
bet.
Craig, adventures in theory
Don Saklad
> Newsgroups: can.motss
> Subject: Re: By Rex Wockner. ...only with people you know are negative also...
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
>
>On 16 Dec 2002 14:06:33 -0500, Don Saklad <dsa...@nestle.ai.mit.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>>but the point is
>>>that the couple *themselves* have no way of knowing, at the point of
>>>decision, that both of them are truly negative and will stay that way.
>> Um, perhaps I forget to mention, but this is a thought
>> experiment--my proposal is that they are negative.
>
>No, actually I already set the conditions for this particular thought
>experiment when I proposed it.
Yes. And then I divided it into two thought experiments.
Yours seemed so... incomplete.
>You can't insert additional conditions
>that weren't in the original question -- you have to work with what
>you've got.
>
>> The thought experiment has nothing to do with reality.
>> Just like Einstein's thought experiments were nothing
>> but words--they were not the words put into reality/action.
>
>Oddly enough, the result still has to be attainable by the precepts of
>reality, and the precepts of reality simply don't provide a way to
>attain "I've been definitively proven to be HIV-negative and so has my
>partner, and neither of us will ever have sex outside of this
>relationship" as a conclusion.
Golly, but I think you've almost gotten yourself close
to understanding my thought experiment. Keep at it.
You're almost there. There's hope for you yet. I really
think you can do this.
> >> >You keep losing control of the thought experiment.
>>>Oh, I'm not losing control of anything. Life inside your head must be
>>>awfully draining sometimes, eh?
>> That sounds like your head talking. I'm not feeling drained.
>> And need I point out that you have lost control of the
>> discussion by switching to talking about what you imagine
>> my state of mind to be--rather than the point at hand?
>
>Oh, and it's different when you do it?
Absolutely. My doing it is another person doing it.
My doing it is not you doing it. So in that sense it
is different.
But you are such a clever fellow with words that I'm
not sure I even know what you are talking about anymore.
But to continue, are you accusing me of being a hypocrite?
> >>(b) be absolutely sure their partner is being honest with them about
>>>the results of those HIV tests (which is impossible to prove -- what
>>>are you going to do, require him to take a lie detector test before
>>>having sex?), *and*
>> No, this is a thought experiment where that is part of
>> my initial assumption--they are negative to begin with
>> and stay faithful.
>
>Okay, then, try this as a thought experiment instead:
Its nice that you want to move along at a fast clip,
but then we'd have to skip over my thought experiment
and I'm not prepared to do that at this time.
>instead of being
>an omniscient observer who can arrange the reality of the situation as
>will, assume for a moment that you're actually one of the two partners
>*in* the situation under discussion.
Its a thought experiment. I'm not one of the two people.
But I suspect that, in reality, there are lots of couples
who started having sex when they were negative and they
remained faithful. The only way to determine otherwise
would be to run the universe to its end and see who was
not dead or infected--and surely there would be a reliable
test before the end of the universe!
>Now, tell me, in *that* thought experiment,
>
>(a) how you plan to attain the conclusion that your partner is
>definitively HIV-negative and will never seek sex outside of your
>relationship,
I'll let the person running that thought experiment
determine and/or answer that.
>(b) how you plan to deal with any uncertainties,
I don't. That's not my thought experiment.
>(c) what, exactly, you propose to do if it turns out that in fact your
>is HIV-positive. Dump his diseased pariah ass?
I'll let the experimenter decide that. Or do we have
examples of what happens in this case already?
> >>And even then, it's only relevant if the goal of the whole process is
> >>to have sex without using condoms. If that isn't their intention, then
> >>why the hell bother with all of that when there are so much simpler
>>>ways to protect themselves?
>> What would one of those "simple" ways be? "Safer sex"
>> which requires due diligence each and every time, all the
>> time, for the rest of your sexual life? That does not
>> sound simple.
>
>Far simpler than popping handfuls of antiretroviral pills at precisely
>scheduled times every day for the rest of your life, I'm willing to
>bet.
Why would a person who has no signs of the disease and
constantly test negative with all known tests want to take
drugs of that sort for the rest of their life?
>Craig, adventures in theory
Somebody, trying to cut through continuously arising
layers of fears that cause those who have this
happening to blindly throw themselves off the
nearest cliff or dangerous situation that they
mistakenly believe will relieve their pain
Tyrannic Hellish Cargo
wrote:
>>No, actually I already set the conditions for this particular thought
>>experiment when I proposed it.
> Yes. And then I divided it into two thought experiments.
> Yours seemed so... incomplete.
To you, perhaps. To anybody not utterly consumed by your particular
agenda, though, far from it.
>>Oddly enough, the result still has to be attainable by the precepts of
>>reality, and the precepts of reality simply don't provide a way to
>>attain "I've been definitively proven to be HIV-negative and so has my
>>partner, and neither of us will ever have sex outside of this
>>relationship" as a conclusion.
> Golly, but I think you've almost gotten yourself close
> to understanding my thought experiment. Keep at it.
> You're almost there. There's hope for you yet. I really
> think you can do this.
Golly, but I have this funny feeling that you're utterly missing my
point.
>> >>(b) be absolutely sure their partner is being honest with them about
>>>>the results of those HIV tests (which is impossible to prove -- what
>>>>are you going to do, require him to take a lie detector test before
>>>>having sex?), *and*
>>> No, this is a thought experiment where that is part of
>>> my initial assumption--they are negative to begin with
>>> and stay faithful.
*shrug* Please, just this once: try running this thought experiment
*without* that initial assumption, if only to see whether your new
conclusions differ at all from your current ones.
The problem here is that your initial assumption sets the answer
before you've even finished asking the question. *Obviously* HIV
transmission is impossible if both partners are honestly HIV-negative
and remain perfectly monogamous. You can't pass on something that
isn't there to be passed on. Nobody *ever* said otherwise. What we
*are* saying is that in the *real* world, it's *impossible* to be
absolutely assured that both of those condtions are true.
The real world isn't some game where you can load the question with
extra assumptions to predetermine the conclusion. The real world is a
place where people who are HIV-positive won't show up on an HIV test
until three to six months (or even, on rare occasions, up to a year)
after they contracted the virus, the real world is a place where some
people really do cheat on their partners or are consensually
polyamorous, the real world is a place where some HIV-positive people
really do lie about their status for any number of reasons from fear
of rejection to deliberately trying to infect others.
If your thought experiment doesn't even allow those possibilities to
*exist*, then your premise is flawed. Case closed.
>>Okay, then, try this as a thought experiment instead:
> Its nice that you want to move along at a fast clip,
> but then we'd have to skip over my thought experiment
> and I'm not prepared to do that at this time.
In other words, you're not prepared to even acknowledge the point I'm
trying to make. How enlightening.
>>instead of being
>>an omniscient observer who can arrange the reality of the situation as
>>will, assume for a moment that you're actually one of the two partners
>>*in* the situation under discussion.
> Its a thought experiment. I'm not one of the two people.
Gee, imagine that, I asked you a hypothetical question. That's what
"thought experiment" *means*!
> But I suspect that, in reality, there are lots of couples
> who started having sex when they were negative and they
> remained faithful.
Yes, that's true, but there are also lots of couples who started
having sex when one of them was positive and didn't know it yet, and
there are lots of couples who didn't remain completely monogamous
(either consensually or not.)
Are you capable of acknowledging that these things actually do happen
sometimes, and that there's no possible way for the partners
themselves to be absolutely assured, before commencing their
relationship, that neither of them *will* happen? Or is your agenda so
fixed that you're going to yet again pretend I didn't know this was
just a thought experiment?
>>Far simpler than popping handfuls of antiretroviral pills at precisely
>>scheduled times every day for the rest of your life, I'm willing to
>>bet.
> Why would a person who has no signs of the disease and
> constantly test negative with all known tests want to take
> drugs of that sort for the rest of their life?
Precisely my point. It's *because* they don't want to do so that they
shouldn't be taking the risks inherent to bareback sex.
Craig, philosophers of the world unite
Bill Drake
"Tyrannic Hellish Cargo" <cas...@sympatico.ca> wrote ...
> Don Saklad <dsa...@nestle.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >>(b) be absolutely sure their partner is being honest with them about
> >>>>the results of those HIV tests (which is impossible to prove -- what
> >>>>are you going to do, require him to take a lie detector test before
> >>>>having sex?), *and*
> >>> No, this is a thought experiment where that is part of
> >>> my initial assumption--they are negative to begin with
> >>> and stay faithful.
>
> *shrug* Please, just this once: try running this thought experiment
> *without* that initial assumption, if only to see whether your new
> conclusions differ at all from your current ones.
>
> The problem here is that your initial assumption sets the answer
> before you've even finished asking the question. *Obviously* HIV
> transmission is impossible if both partners are honestly HIV-negative
> and remain perfectly monogamous. You can't pass on something that
> isn't there to be passed on. Nobody *ever* said otherwise. What we
> *are* saying is that in the *real* world, it's *impossible* to be
> absolutely assured that both of those condtions are true.
No. In reality, it is impossible to be absolutely assured that life is
utterly deterministic. Every single day we all make faith-assumptions
that are required simply to function in society. We assume that others
are going to stop for red traffic lights. We assume that the trains on
the subway won't start up with the doors open. Each one of these
faith-assumptions is *at least* as indeterminate as those the two of
you are arguing over.
> The real world isn't some game where you can load the question with
> extra assumptions to predetermine the conclusion. The real world is a
> place where people who are HIV-positive won't show up on an HIV test
> until three to six months (or even, on rare occasions, up to a year)
> after they contracted the virus, the real world is a place where some
> people really do cheat on their partners or are consensually
> polyamorous, the real world is a place where some HIV-positive people
> really do lie about their status for any number of reasons from fear
> of rejection to deliberately trying to infect others.
Agreed. However, the whole idea of being able to predict human
behavior both positively *or* negatively is fraught with indecision.
Regardless, humans do so every day as a matter of faith. The central
issue is *who* do we have faith in -- not whether we have faith at all.
> > Why would a person who has no signs of the disease and
> > constantly test negative with all known tests want to take
> > drugs of that sort for the rest of their life?
>
> Precisely my point. It's *because* they don't want to do so that they
> shouldn't be taking the risks inherent to bareback sex.
There are risks even in "protected" sex.
First of all, there is *no such thing* as "safe sex". There is only "safer
sex".
The best condoms in the world have a reliability rating of approximately
98%. This means that one in 50 sexual encounters (over large statistical
samples) will result in body-fluid-transmission between partners
*regardless* of whether "safer sex" is practiced or not.
Furthermore, we can almost *guarantee* that even a well-engineered
condom will break if applied incorrectly -- or if the partners are not
careful during insertion and/or removal.
Each of the above situations is statistically *more* probable than
faithlessness between committed monogamous couples.
Monogamy between uninfected partners is *still* the statistically-safest
way to have repeated sexual encounters. Nothing else comes even
remotely close.
With the above issue out of the way, the next issue is separating
those who *talk* about committed monogamy from those who
*practice* committed monogamy.
And this *is* a faith issue -- since it is only by faith that we can even
perform the experiment.
There are those who are so utterly convinced of the unreliability of
their fellow humans that they reject the test-for-faithfulness as
invalid. Sane people in this category automatically follow the course
of "safer sex". However -- as mentioned above -- this course has its
*own* risks which are *not* trivial.
There are others who are utterly convinced that their fellow-humans
are *more* reliable than the statistical chances taken on the "safer
sex" road. These people search for *others* who display these
characteristics -- and then try to devise tests to winnow those who
talk-the-talk from those who walk-the-walk.
There are those for whom encounters with multiple partners are
so rewarding and fulfilling that "safer sex" is their only valid option.
There are others for whom encounters with a single partner are
so rewarding and fulfilling that "safer sex" is simply unnecessary.
Many of these people consider "safer sex" to be an impediment
to greater intimacy -- and there is no sound medical reason for
them to abstain from barebacking.
Personally, I don't make value judgments on either methodology.
However, I do take a *personal* position that the second
methodology is more appropriate for *me* -- since I am
emotionally and psychologically attracted to committed
monogamy for reasons independent of the medical ones.
Regardless, taking a position on *either* methodology is
a faith-based decision. IMO, to demean the conversation by
trying to make either methodology "logical" is to descend into
idiocy.
Bill
Daniel MacKay
substantial amount of evidence that not all, but a lot of Don is a
rather clever computer program:
- his daily output is superhuman
- his relevance and coherence are modest at best
- he's posting from the artificial intelligence department of MIT
- a few years ago, he had a very convincing conversational piece of
software on the IRC Chat System (with the nick "donsaklad") which did
a VERY good job -- it consistently passed the Turing Test -- of
having a conversation which steered you in the direction of
thinking about, and learning about, safer sex. donsaklad appeared
to be an extremely stubborn person with a limited ability to
follow a discussion (before he jumped back to his original point.)
The reason it passed the Turing Test (that is, it fooled people into
thinking it was a person) is that in real life, there are so many
extremely stubborn people with limited abilities to follow
discussions.
For more information on this interesting entity, check out the (maybe
tongue-in-cheek? maybe not?) Don Saklad fan club page; you will not
learn about the systems behind the entity there, though.
http://www.stormloader.com/saklad/
--
Daniel MacKay Daniel...@Dal.Ca
Homo habilis Nova Scotia, Canada
Don Saklad
Newsgroups: can.motss
Subject: Re: By Rex Wockner. ...only with people you know are negative also...
Lines: 133
"Tyrannic Hellish Cargo" <cas...@sympatico.ca> wrote ...
> Don Saklad <dsa...@nestle.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >>(b) be absolutely sure their partner is being honest with them about
> >>>>the results of those HIV tests (which is impossible to prove -- what
> >>>>are you going to do, require him to take a lie detector test before
> >>>>having sex?), *and*
> >>> No, this is a thought experiment where that is part of
> >>> my initial assumption--they are negative to begin with
> >>> and stay faithful.
>
> *shrug* Please, just this once: try running this thought experiment
> *without* that initial assumption, if only to see whether your new
> conclusions differ at all from your current ones.
As a teacher it pleases me to watch as a student slowly
comes around to accepting and understanding a new idea.
You are doing fine, really. No thought experimenter,
regardless of how slow, should be left behind.
But as to your thought experiment, that's for later,
after exhausting the fruits of mine.
> The problem here is that your initial assumption sets the answer
> before you've even finished asking the question. *Obviously* HIV
> transmission is impossible if both partners are honestly HIV-negative
> and remain perfectly monogamous. You can't pass on something that
> isn't there to be passed on. Nobody *ever* said otherwise. What we
> *are* saying is that in the *real* world, it's *impossible* to be
> absolutely assured that both of those condtions are true.
No.
Now you are getting obstreperous and stubborn again.
Do we really want to go down that road so soon again?
In reality, it is impossible to be absolutely assured that life is
utterly deterministic.
That's only because you still have difficulty accepting
the idea of a thought experiment. Give it try. Just
go a long for a moment to get along.
Every single day we all make faith-assumptions
that are required simply to function in society. We assume that others
are going to stop for red traffic lights. We assume that the trains on
the subway won't start up with the doors open. Each one of these
faith-assumptions is *at least* as indeterminate as those the two of
you are arguing over.
Exactly what do you refer to when you say "those"?
> The real world isn't some game where you can load the question with
> extra assumptions to predetermine the conclusion.
There are only two assumptions: 1) HIV negative, 2) faithful.
It seems likely that such situations occur.
The real world is a
> place where people who are HIV-positive won't show up on an HIV test
> until three to six months (or even, on rare occasions, up to a year)
I'm sure there are a few of those. Most will show up
when tested.
> after they contracted the virus, the real world is a place where some
> people really do cheat on their partners or are consensually
> polyamorous,
I'm not considering the latter at all. How about you
considering my thought experiment again instead of throwing
everything but the kitchen sink in every time you have
something to say?
the real world is a place where some HIV-positive people
> really do lie about their status for any number of reasons from fear
> of rejection to deliberately trying to infect others.
Ah! Yes, you are after all, a potentially good student.
You've now come to what all this talk is trying to lead
you to. What's that expression about how you can lead a
horse to oats, but you can't get it to make oatmeal
cookies? Anyway, this is good.
This is the core of the problem. In order to counter
these tendencies in human nature it makes sense for any
person to get tested with a potential sex partner. The
solution to the problem of one person testing positive
is a question for both people to consider. One possibility
is to not begin a sexual relationship. If they don't then
there is no possibility of a failure of "safe sex" and of
the other becoming infected. The other possibility is to
begin a sexual relationship.
Let me make it clear that I'm not against a person knowingly
becoming infected with HIV. Everybody has that right. But
they can only do so when they know the potential partner is
positive. But in all cases, the negative person has a right
to know the status of their partner.
One problem is, of course, a negative test that could be
from a positive person. And a person has a right to not
have sex with a potentially negative person. They have a
right to wait till they find someone who is positive.
So, from my point of view, every possibility should be
allowed--except where a person is completely ignorant of
the other person's status.
Agreed. However, the whole idea of being able to predict human
behavior both positively *or* negatively is fraught with indecision.
Regardless, humans do so every day as a matter of faith.
Personally I'd go with the test--followed by irresistable
horniness.
The central
issue is *who* do we have faith in -- not whether we have faith at all.
Not being religious, but an absolute reductionist, I'll
skip the faith and go with science--and the test.
> > Why would a person who has no signs of the disease and
> > constantly test negative with all known tests want to take
> > drugs of that sort for the rest of their life?
>
> Precisely my point. It's *because* they don't want to do so that they
> shouldn't be taking the risks inherent to bareback sex.
Your certainty about "precisely" has me muddled.
There are risks even in "protected" sex.
Which, theoretically, should be reduced further by
testing. One could say they are even reduced to zero
where you know the person is positive because you
aren't worried about becoming positive, and eventually
dying--after all, one dies eventually, anyway.
First of all, there is *no such thing* as "safe sex". There is only "safer
sex".
The best condoms in the world have a reliability rating of approximately
98%. This means that one in 50 sexual encounters (over large statistical
samples) will result in body-fluid-transmission between partners
*regardless* of whether "safer sex" is practiced or not.
And information like this is what leads to the conclusion
that testing before you have sex is a good idea so that
people can move forward, or somewhere else, with reliable
information.
Furthermore, we can almost *guarantee* that even a well-engineered
condom will break if applied incorrectly -- or if the partners are not
careful during insertion and/or removal.
Each of the above situations is statistically *more* probable than
faithlessness between committed monogamous couples.
Could you refer me to some of the math/statistics that
deal with calculating faithlessness or faith, in general?
Monogamy between uninfected partners is *still* the statistically-safest
way to have repeated sexual encounters. Nothing else comes even
remotely close.
Which would be the rational for getting tested before
beginning that adventure. Unless more primitive impulses
are actually ruling ones behavior--in which case people
whould just go ahead and do it. Oh, actually that's
exactly what happens in most cases--condoms or "safe sex"
or not.
With the above issue out of the way,
How can it really be out of the way when the plague
continues because the current efforts to get people
to practice "safe sex" don't seem to be effective?
the next issue is separating
those who *talk* about committed monogamy from those who
*practice* committed monogamy.
That's another issue, certainly. As an absolute
reductionist my approach would be to assume that human
nature will eventually drive nearly everybody to be
unfaithful.
And this *is* a faith issue -- since it is only by faith that we can even
perform the experiment.
You can do that test. I've got no faith.
There are those who are so utterly convinced of the unreliability of
their fellow humans that they reject the test-for-faithfulness as
invalid.
Not at the beginning when your new object of affection
turns out to be positive. By not having sex with that
person you reduce your chances of becoming positive to
practically zero.
Sane people in this category automatically follow the course
of "safer sex". However -- as mentioned above -- this course has its
*own* risks which are *not* trivial.
On the other hand you can say the risk is zero or
irrelevant if you begin the relationship knowing
that the other person is positive.
If the person tests negative then that risk has
been slightly reduced.
There are others who are utterly convinced that their fellow-humans
are *more* reliable than the statistical chances taken on the "safer
sex" road.
Its those people for whom the word naive was invented.
These people search for *others* who display these
characteristics -- and then try to devise tests to winnow those who
talk-the-talk from those who walk-the-walk.
And my advice would be to include the test devised
by science--go to a clinic, together, get tested, and
share the results.
There are those for whom encounters with multiple partners are
so rewarding and fulfilling that "safer sex" is their only valid option.
Would those be the same people who are now dead and/or
suffering from AIDS?
And, again, let me assure you I'm not against anyone
getting HIV or AIDS--my only concern is that people have
some knowledge of their chances of acquiring the infection
or the disease. Really, I've got nothing against a person
getting either of these. It should be a right, in fact.
Just one that you have foreknowledge of.
There are others for whom encounters with a single partner are
so rewarding and fulfilling that "safer sex" is simply unnecessary.
And some of those turn out to be lucky or unlucky.
Many of these people consider "safer sex" to be an impediment
to greater intimacy -- and there is no sound medical reason for
them to abstain from barebacking.
My view is that most people are programmed to just
go ahead and do it. It has nothing to do with sound
or unsound medicine. Its the human condition. Nature
doesn't care about the individuals of any given
species. Nature has built in programs to make the
individual not care about their welfare when it comes
to reproduction. Do it! Now! As often as possible!
Personally, I don't make value judgments on either methodology.
However, I do take a *personal* position that the second
methodology is more appropriate for *me* -- since I am
emotionally and psychologically attracted to committed
monogamy for reasons independent of the medical ones.
This implies that your first, and only partner, was
HIV positive. Or did you become monogamous after
you became infected? Did you tell subsequent partners?
Did you give them a choice?
On the other hand you have something to gain by using
both. By testing you can eliminate some, if not most
positive people from your choices. This reduces your
chances of becoming infected. Or you can decide to
go ahead--but at least you have knowledge about a
future possibility.
Regardless, taking a position on *either* methodology is
a faith-based decision. IMO, to demean the conversation by
trying to make either methodology "logical" is to descend into
idiocy.
To use the word logical in any conversation about
the subject of human sexuality is to descend into
irrationality. Possibly idiocy also, but we are
all idiots, to one degree or another, on this topic.
Bill
Receipt