| GMCarter 2005-10-24, 12:55 am |
| On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:31:41 -0400, "Fondoo" <dale601@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>buff, young or old.
>
> George M. Carter
>
> I thought the numbers told us HIV does care? It cares if you are gay,
>using IV drugs, Black, poor, living in Africa. Isn't the fact that HIV
>numbers show it as caring one of the rethinkers best arguments? It
>shouldn't care
HIV doesn't.
Human interactions are not as seamless, though perhaps more porous
than some may think.
Various "subsets" of humans are not uniform. "White gay men"
represents guys that sometimes do it with women, sometimes use drugs,
sometimes use needles, sometimes don't. Gay men represents more
ethnicities. Men who have sex with men covers a wider swath. So
terminology can have an effect.
Then where the virus is introduced first will underscore the
preponderance of members of such "groups" risk. Risk varies.
Whether then people use condoms or not, share needles or use their
own, frequency of use or activity, and so forth, along with their
perceived risk in a circumstance further has an impact.
10 years or so ago, there weren't as many people of color (African
descent, latino, etc.). But they were there...not heard so much tho.
There weren't so many heterosexual women--and I speak now of the
United States. Clearly, geography plays a role.
But HIV? It does NOT care....and when opportunity presents itself....
George M. Carter
|