One doesn't know quite what to say about the Craig revelations except to wonder about the statistics. If two Republican legislators get caught in a relatively short period of time . . . well, I know it's just a coincidence, but still. How commonly does this sort of thing happen in the general population? And if it doesn't happen commonly, why is it happening so often in our legislative bodies? Presumably they didn't run for office in order to enjoy broader opportunities to solicit undercover cops.
Meanwhile, perhaps it is just that I am a woman, but I am a little puzzled by this:
Radley Balko remarks "Guess there's some sort moral distinction between cheating on your wife via anonymous gay sex and cheating on your wife by paying for hetero sex with a prostitute."I can imagine distinguishing between these cases, but I would think that any difference would tend to cut in favor of Craig rather than against him, since paying prostitutes for sex is a real crime and it's still unclear to me what it is Craig's guilty of -- he mostly seems to have been brought up on charges of "being gay in the Midwest." Either way, Hewitt seems to be drawing the distinction based on pure homophobia.
Legally, I agree that the cops have no business worrying about Craig's sex life, or for that matter, the sex lives of men who seek to employ prostitutes of whatever persuasion. But if I were Craig's wife, I'd be far more worried about my husband trolling random bathrooms for anonymous men, than by his sleeping with prostitutes. Given the relative risks of male-to-male and female-to-male HIV transmission, I'd be crazy not to worry more. Should that matter to the public, if not the police?
Megan. I'm a fan. In fact, I take heat as an apologist. But what the fuck?
"[T]he cops have no business worrying about Craig's sex life"? You mean you think there is a legal right to have sex in airport restrooms? Wow, you are a libertarian!
I wonder if our data is truly a random sample? The media is more interested in Republican peccadilloes of this type for a variety of reasons, many of them creditable (i.e., the constituents of Republicans tend to care more) and there's a semi-organized campaign to out gay Republicans.
Still, it gives to think.
It's not clear to me that he was trying to have sex in the rest room. On the other hand, I'm not really familiar with the techniques for picking people up in airport restrooms.
But if I were Craig's wife, I'd be far more worried about my husband trolling random bathrooms for anonymous men, than by his sleeping with prostitutes. Given the relative risks of male-to-male and female-to-male HIV transmission, I'd be crazy not to worry more.
Chlamydia?
Hepatitis-B?
Herpes?
HPV?
Gonorrhea?
There's lots of things you can get from good ol' unprotected hetero sex, especially from a prostitute, some of which are forever and some of which can kill you. Frankly, I think you'd be crazy to worry less.
How commonly does this sort of thing happen in the general population? And if it doesn't happen commonly, why is it happening so often in our legislative bodies? Presumably they didn't run for office in order to enjoy broader opportunities to solicit undercover cops.
I think it's got to be about lack of opportunity to find partners discreetly in a more normal fashion. Joe Average, if he figures out he's gay as an adult, can leave his wife, come out of the closet, and date like an ordinary person without a whole lot of career damage. Even if he stays closeted and married, he can advertise on Craigslist, go to a bar in the next town, and generally sneak around pretty effectively.
Joe Republican Politician, though, has serious career reasons to stay closeted, and is in the public eye enough to make ordinary discretion difficult. This leaves him more likely to be cruising under absolutely anonymous circumstances, like public bathrooms. I don't know if that's the explanation, but it seems to make sense.
This may be the dumbest thing ever affiliated with The Atlantic.
McCardle writes: "It's not clear to me that he was trying to have sex in the rest room."
Well, that settles it then.
Um...it was clear to the cop, whose job it is to make arrests for lewd and lascivious public conduct, which is as it happens a violation of law.
McCardle: "Cops have no business worrying about Craig's sex life."
Cops don't give a flying feck about Craig's sex life. See above.
I don't understand how any of this is particularly mysterious. Amusing new hiring practices at the Atlantic, indeed.
Um, Megan, most of the new cases of HIV these days ARE a result of heterosexual encounters with prostitutes or the downstream effects thereof (the days when this was the "gay plauge" are long gone).
Who knows if Craig and his wife even do It anymore.
What, your comment? Or Megan's health concerns?
but what if craig only does oral? that's the union station report. that reduces the risk level a lot, though not totally (presumably any men craig had oral sex with could have been engaging in risk anal sex with others, and one can catch things via oral sex [so i've heard ;-]).
Republicans having casual gay sex while opposing gay rights is the moral equivalent of voting for war while avoiding military service when it was their time to answer the call.
It's part of the genetic makeup of men who join the GOP: Quen es mas macho?
According to the police report, the "sex" he had consisted of tapping his foot and "touching" the entrapping officer's foot with his. Even assuming this actually happened as the police officer reported, it's a stretch to think that a jury would convict someone on this evidence alone. Craig, like many others caught in such stings, chose not to contest the charge, assuming (wrongly in his case) that the no contest misdemeanor conviction would be better than a public trial.
If Senator Craig is in fact gay, then he is quite a hypocrite, based on some of his political positions and public statements. But this is pretty thin evidence and the entrapment aspect of this police operation is plain disgusting.
Megan,
Great discussion. I'm sorry but I don't have a lot of sympathy for politicians caught in lurid sexual encounters (of either party).
Not to side-track the issue, but Megan wrote:
Given the relative risks of male-to-male and female-to-male HIV transmission, I'd be crazy not to worry more
The risks of hetero sexual transmission of HIV are practically nil.
The longest American study of hetero transmission of HIV was in 1997:
Padian et al 1997. Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Northern California: results from a ten-year study. Am J Epidemiol 146, 350-357)
1. It was the largest and longest epidemiological study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in America. (Padian, pg 354.)
2. After 6 years, not a single person (over 175 couples)in the prospective study contracted HIV, despite lots of sex with HIV+ partners. (Padian, pg 354.)
3. A significant portion did not wear condoms consistently, including 47 couples. Money Quote:
Nevertheless, the absence of seroincident infection over the course of the study cannot be entirely attributed to significant behavior change. No transmission occured among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up" (Padian, pg 356.)
Bottom line -- HIV wasn't even transmitted by sex with HIV+ people, even when engaging in anal sex over years! (Padian, pg 355).
Despite the propaganda, the risk is quite small. One less thing for Craig's wife to worry about.
Um, Megan, most of the new cases of HIV these days ARE a result of heterosexual encounters with prostitutes or the downstream effects thereof (the days when this was the "gay plauge" are long gone).
Without even looking it up, I would venture to say this statement is wildly out of touch with reality. You've evidently gotten your statistics mixed up.
charges of "being gay in the Midwest."
Is this a joke? The man was arrested in MINNEAPOLIS. The Gay Mecca of the Midwest. SanFran on the Mississippi. Their "Pridefest" is two weeks long, their downtown is festooned with rainbow flags, and two-story banners of shirtless men advertise gay clubs right in the heart of the downtown business district. If you're gay in Minneapolis you're not going to get arrested--you're going to get LUCKY.
(The Somali Muslims in St. Paul, OTOH, probably won't be so friendly. And don't try to take your seeing-eye dog in their cab, k thx.)
This was an interpretive bust. If cops busted every man who tapped his foot in the john, the jails would be full. The hand pass under the stall barrier? That's a bit more to refute. No mention of a toilet paper request. Curioser and curioser. Then, having a wide stance on the pot is counter-productive—it forces the sphincter or the glutes to tighten.
I can't help wondering if the same thing that happened to the Roman Catholic church has happened to the GOP. From the 60's onwards, a lot of homosexual men infiltrated the RC with a view to impacting the doctrinal stance of the church WRT homosexuality, amongst other things. Liberalize the RC, doncherknow, and do it enough harm that it will experience a loss of credibility.
Um, Megan, most of the new cases of HIV these days ARE a result of heterosexual encounters with prostitutes the days when this was the "gay plauge" are long gone).
No
They
Are
Not
Your ignorance is appalling.
Start here:
Next:
I'll leave it to you to figure out what that means.
Um...it was clear to the cop, whose job it is to make arrests for lewd and lascivious public conduct, which is as it happens a violation of law.
Don't be so sure, this is what the NY Times reported:
Not for nothing but the arrest seems premature. Doesn't Craig have to actually do something to indicate his desire to have sex in the public bathroom as opposed, to, say "let's go get a room" or something like that? I suppose this probably is the 'code' for public sex, which would be illegal, but given that it is so subtle I'm a bit surprised the cop wouldn't have been required to get some actual confirmation that Craig was really signalling for something illegal. What if this also happens to be a method for...how do I say it...'flirting'?
Usually you see this when they show the prostitution stings on TV. They make sure at some point there is a verbal agreement to exchange sex for money.
Republicans having casual gay sex while opposing gay rights is the moral equivalent of voting for war while avoiding military service when it was their time to answer the call.
I would actually liken this more to fighting the drug war while privately using, (not every situation involving a Republican needs to be compared to the Iraq War with the tired 'chicken-hawk' moniker). It is making a choice to engage in behavior privately that one condemns in public. That is not to say that the person does not regret their own behavior in private, just that they condemn it in public. That is not to say that the above course of action is commendable, just that it occurs more that one might think.
Um, Megan, most of the new cases of HIV these days ARE a result of heterosexual encounters with prostitutes the days when this was the "gay plauge" are long gone).
This is also devastating,
More than three-fourths of young gay and bisexual men infected with HIV in a six-city CDC study - including 91% of African Americans in the study - were unaware of their status, and may have unknowingly transmitted the virus to their partners
Republicans having casual gay sex while opposing gay rights is the moral equivalent of voting for war while avoiding military service when it was their time to answer the call.
Which "gay rights" do Republicans "oppose"?
Further, do you mean "Republicans" like Harry Reid, John Edwards, and Tom Daschle?
(all of them voted for the AUMF and did not serve)
Finally, can you point me to a liberal who has rushed to a military recruiter asking to go fight in Afghanistan? Remember, you ignorants allegedly suppport that war.
Thanks in advance.
If Craig had stayed in the closet, he wouldn't have been caught in the mens room.
Republicans like Craig who get caught are subject to several orders of magnitude more scrutiny because the standards of Republicans are higher.
Everyone expects DHIMMIcRATs to indulge in bad judgment. That's what makes them DHIMMIcRATs.
For the record, Larry Craig served in the US Army National Guard from 1970 - 1974: this does not in anyway excuse his conduct, just for the record.
If Senator Craig is in fact gay, then he is quite a hypocrite, based on some of his political positions and public statements
Could you point us to one such statement?
The Ace:
Those are good stats. But, even those are likely over-estimates regarding heterosexual transmission.
The Padian paper (noted above) is the gold-standard -- a peer-review paper in the scientific literature. It estimated a male-to-female transmission rate of 1/1000, the converse was estimated at 1/10,000. But even these "estimates" are probably exaggerations, since the study authors (University of California at San Francisco) found "no seroconversions." Quotes from the paper:
1. "To our knowledge, our study is the largest and longest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the United States. The consistency of results over the 10-year duration argues for the validity of our results." (Padian, page 354.)
2. "We followed 175 HIV-discordant couples over time for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow-up." (Padian, page 354. (Discordant couple means one is HIV+, one is HIV-)
3. "We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study."(Padian, page 354.)
The are very good reasons not to cheat on your wife and to wear a condom. Fear of HIV, though, is not one of them.
Billy Parish,
I belive you're probably correct. The CDC defines "high risk hetero" as "Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
What that tells me is they are counting women (unknowingly) infected by bi-sexual males who got it by having gay sex.
Sen. Craig's behavior has a pretty simple psychological explanation. When you unnaturally repress your natural sexual urges, they find outlet/expression in other bizarre and extreme behaviors.
Men who ordinarily would not engage in certain sexual activity do so when they are confined to the unnatural environment of a prison; men forced into celibacy in order to be priests end up committing horrible acts of sexual exploitation.
Part of Craig's problem is that he earns his living from a right-wing political party that insists gays are morally defective and that all gay sex is deviant, filthy and evil. He suppressed who he truly is for years, in the most extreme and unnatural way, and thus ended-up trolling for sex from strangers in Minnesota bathrooms.
I have no sympathy for the man, but you can bet he has lived tormented life of self-loathing.
JoeRio,
a right-wing political party that insists gays are morally defective and that all gay sex is deviant, filthy and evil
I disagree with this. On the whole, our society is becoming much more tolerant of gay people, which in my humble opinion is a good thing. I think this is true for both Republicans and Democrats.
Even folks I talk to who are opposed to gay marriage, do believe that civil unions are probably a good, fair and just development.
Of course, this general perception probably doesn't hold for East Louisiana or Mississippi, but that's ok. These big macro-cultural movements take time.
Does it matter if Craig is a Gay man who is a Republican or if he is a Republican who is gay?
Tiptoe through the bathroom, through the bathroom, won't you come along and tiptoe through the bathroom with me ee. Sung to "tiptoe through the Tulips". what's this whole playing footsies in the bathroom stalls anyway? Why not just scribble with a sharpie "For a good time call the Senate Switchboard." Or "meet me here after the quorum call."
Part of Craig's problem is that he earns his living from a right-wing political party that insists gays are morally defective and that all gay sex is deviant, filthy and evil. He suppressed who he truly is for years, in the most extreme and unnatural way, and thus ended-up trolling for sex from strangers in Minnesota bathrooms.
and what about all those other guys in there, in bath houses, and other sick places, doing it?
Are they all "right wingers" too?
What Craig did was a crime, I'm sorry to say. Many adult men, including myself, have been forced to avoid certain parks and public bathrooms thanks to the likes of Craig. I'm Libertarian when it comes to that behavior done in the privacy of someone's home, but neither I nor my family should have to avoid a perfectly fine restroom in an airport or mall because a guy's not getting enough at home. It's not an anti-gay thing either. If women hung out in restrooms to give it away free, the line of heterosexual men trying to get in would stretch to Venus. And it would be wrong in that case, too.
Legally, . . . cops have no business worrying about Craig's sex life . . .
Maybe, but I have an interest in not being solicited for sex in a public restroom, and I want the "cops" to protect that interest.
Boy, the things I learn in the Atlantic. First, for all of those of you who think "repression" causes anything why do out-non-closeted gays crusie rest rooms? Freud has been long discredited. Read Focault or De Sade or any of scores of homosexual accounts. A tremendous number of that persuasion like anonymous sex. Similiarly, just as AIDS spread in that population even after it was known (see Randy Shilts-The Band Played On), risky sex is exciting sex for a significant demographic. Second, I laughed out loud that the only thing Ms. McArdle thought a wife would worry about were the health risks. You can just see it "My husband is trolling rest rooms for sex with men, if it weren't for the health risks I'd be fine with it." I can not fathom any women who would not be appalled her husband was seeking anonymous gay sex. Third, homosexual activity is always going to be more perverted than sex on the perversion scale of the general public no matter what libertarians or progressives think. Fourth, the view that sex is nobody's business but the participants has never been part of American law or life and that theorie's interjection into the Constitution and social life in the last 40 years is the source of about a third of our social problems. The problem with the world is not that Americans are too sexually repressed. Fifth, I believe Larry Craig should be impeached for the sole reason that I now know about this "signalling" and bathroom activity I could have lived another 40 years happily without knowing. Sixth, just because somebody wishes to do something he knows is wrong does not make him a hypocrite. It makes him morally weak. All of the thieves I've met do not believe in thievery generally speaking. They are not hypocrites they merely let personal pleasure and desire outweigh what they know to be right. One can apply this to any law including speed limits. I am against them but a lot of people who are for them are in a rush sometimes. The fact that someone who rails against cigarettes because they kill people is not a hypocrite for smoking, he's weak or has cognitive dissidence. Anyway, homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are not morally, culturally or biologically equal and they never will be. The posts that attempt to make them so betray only an unquenchable interest in being progressive rather than incisive.
Well, I think JJV up there says it all. T Room sex, as it used to be called, is furtive because all concerned know it's dirty.
It has long been my contention, based solely on anecdotal data, that, in general, Republicans are caught with their pants down and Democrats are caught with their hands in the till.
It's a natural byproduct of that most repugnant human tendency, projection; the tendency to criticize others for the very deeds you are commiting or wish to. Of course there are exceptions and the occasional switch hitter, to coin a phrase, who manages to get caught with both his pants down and his hand in the cookie jar simultaneously, but all in all it has been a fairly useful guideline.
Jane, you ignorant slut.
Prostitutes have venereal diseases up the wazoo - they are probably the surest way to catch STD's by heterosexual sex. That a wife would be "comforted" by her husband having with prostitutes rather than gay men has got to be the one of the dumbest bits of BS you have ever penned. Herpes, Hepatitis, do any of these ring a bell of concern for you? Good Lord!
Not to mention the fact that since Craig appears to be quite gay, his sex life with his wife is probably nonexistent.
Barney Frank (above) has created a great image for the multiple offender against morality:
who manages to get caught with both his pants down and his hand in the cookie jar simultaneously
Now if only cartoons could be posted and someone could draw that.
PWT: Presiding over the War on drugs and being a big-time frat-boy coke-head drunk-driver is a good example as well, thanks.
Chicken-hawk is only tired to chicken-hawks. In fact, I heard Prager dump a load this morning when a Korean police action vet guest asked him if he ever bothered to join up. I guess we should move on, right?
Ace: I can see that this Craig issue touched a nerve for your world view wrapped in a little bow. Everyone knows that republicans pols are wimps when it comes to putting their own ass on the line. That is not to say that most of the WOT vets are now skewed heavily republican. Lets see where they are lining up in 10 to 20 years once they get a chance to see who funds Vet health and welfare programs.
EB and The Ace:
You guys are ignoring WHERE most transmission of HIV occurs these days.
Hint: it's not in the United States.
And yes, the vast majority of it is either through hetero prostitutes or downstream from them. Certainly, people who assume that HIV is basically an issue for gay males these days are way, way off.
Dilan Esper,
You wrote:
Certainly, people who assume that HIV is basically an issue for gay males these days are way, way off.
It is absolutely an issue for gay males in America (not Africa).
Did you not see my link above to the Padian Paper (American Journal of Epidemiology 1997) which documented "no seroconversions" after 10 years of HIV+ people having sex with HIV- people? I'll be glad to link the entire article, if you're interested.
This is an important topic to rid the public domain of misinformation.
Somebody wrote: " ...It estimated a male-to-female transmission rate of 1/1000, the converse was estimated at 1/10,000...."
What does that mean? Does it mean (a) That if I go out and have unprotected sex 100 times with an HIV-positive woman, my risk of getting AIDS from her is 1%, or (b) if I go find 100 average women at random and have sex one time with each of them, my risk of getting AIDS is 1% or (c) something else?
Disclaimer: This is just an academic question. I don't think my wife is going to let me try either experiment :-(
It is absolutely an issue for gay males in America
Of course it is an issue for gay males. I didn't say otherwise. But it isn't ONLY an issue for gay males. It is also an issue for straight males.
And no matter what that paper you linked to said, arguing that there isn't female-to-male transmission by prostitutes in Africa and Brazil and Thailand and India is absolutely CRAZY. Female prostitutes are the common denominator that every reputable source that I have seen cites to, and downstream transmission infects many married heterosexual females.
Further, thanks to sex trafficking, lots of sex workers from these places now work in American massage parlors and brothels.
Of course it is an issue for gay males. I didn't say otherwise. But it isn't ONLY an issue for gay males. It is also an issue for straight males.
Only if the "straight" males are bi-sexual.
male prostitutes are the common denominator that every reputable source that I have seen cites to
What are these "cites"?
You guys are ignoring WHERE most transmission of HIV occurs these days.
Hint: it's not in the United States.
And?
I live in the United States.
And yes, the vast majority of it is either through hetero prostitutes or downstream from them
No it isn't.
. Certainly, people who assume that HIV is basically an issue for gay males these days are way, way off.
I've cited CDC data. You've posted your opinion on the matter.
Which of course is meaningless.
What does that mean?
John W,
It means that, on average, it takes 1,000 sexual acts with an HIV+ male, for a woman to get infected.
For a male to get it, it takes, on average, 10,000 sexual acts with an HIV+ female.
In other words, a person is very unlikely to get HIV through sex, unless they have a lotta sex over many years with an HIV+ person.
From the study, after 6 years of sex with HIV+ people, not one person got infected. Zero. Nada. Nil.
Dilan Esper,
Sorry, but you are parroting a meme, that isn't supported by the facts. Many more Americans die each year of the flu, than AIDS. The actual numbers are relatively small -- and have always been relatively small. The big killers in America -- heart disease, stroke, cancer -- have nothing to do with infectious diseases.
Yes, germs tend to frighten people, and sexually transmitted germs are even more frightening, but the data does not bear out this fear.
Condoms probably do reduce the risk of pregnancy (a good thing), but don't reduce the risk of contracting HIV, because the a priori risk is so small.
Ace: I can see that this Craig issue touched a nerve for your world view wrapped in a little bow.
Translation:
You can't respond to facts.
Everyone knows that republicans pols are wimps when it comes to putting their own ass on the line.
Do you mean like GHW Bush? Or like Bob Dole? Or like John McCain?
Or did you mean Col John Kline?
Lets see where they are lining up in 10 to 20 years once they get a chance to see who funds Vet health and welfare programs.
Comical.
Your ignorance is astounding, which of course is why you're a liberal. Though I did enjoy this:
The bill contains provisions that will provide VA with additional tools to help it contract with veteran and disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
And this:
Are you illiterate or just stupid?
Billy Parrish wrote: " ...For a male to get it, it takes, on average, 10,000 sexual acts with an HIV+ female...."
So, assuming for the sake of the discussion, that 1 out of 1000 randomly selected women are HIV+, then you are saying that a man could have an average of ten million one-night stands before he finally got AIDS ??? .... Or, assuming that 1 out of 10 prostitutes are HIV+, then a man could visit an average of 100,000 prostitutes before he got AIDS ?
Frankly, those numbers do seem incredibly large. And how did the study define "sex acts" between heterosexuals? Vaginal only? (I would assume the risks would be much greater if anal sex were involved.)
Propositioning someone in a public place is not the same as seeking to have sex in a public place.
It sounds like Craig hit on a guy.
Were he Democrat, we'd be hearing that he was arrested for hitting on a guy -- a victim of prejudice. But since he's in the Party of Satan, he's a hypocritical pervert seeking dangerous anonymous sex while children might be present.
Next.
This comment deleted for profanity
This comment deleted for trolling
Ace: I said in 10+ years from now
Which of course is incoherent.
I'm sure all of the 'Nam vets who got f-d over are jumping for joy over the two little bills you cite.
Well, those guys were spit on and called baby killers by people like you.
Given that, your faux outrage is pretty appalling.
Also, I guess throwing money at a problem is a conservative solution as long as no one notices that the privatization of Walter Reed Med resulted in amputees sitting in their own filth.
Funny, given that it was you mentioning "funding" I suppose this is some sort of retort.
And of course there were simply no problems at Walter Reed or anywhere else before Bush.
Also, noticed that your repug butt-boy Craig
More liberal "tolerance" of gays! Remember dumbass, being gay is ok as long as they share your political views you tolerant rascal you!
it goes so well with Chicken-hawk
Funny, but again, can you point me to a liberal who has rushed to a military recruiter asking to go fight in Afghanistan? Remember, you ignorants allegedly suppport that war.
Thanks in advance.
PS, I've been reading up on Senator Obama's military service.
It's quite impressive. On par with President Clinton's, against whom you'd never utter such a charge.
The Ace:
You need to google East Africa truck drivers. You see, they have a very high rate of HIV infection (even compared to others in the region), and it's linked directly to the fact that they visit lots of prostitutes. Similarly, truck drivers in India pick up the HIV virus from prostitutes.
You are promoting some sort of revisionist argument that says that you can't get HIV from sleeping with a woman. That is not borne out by the data.
Condoms probably do reduce the risk of pregnancy (a good thing), but don't reduce the risk of contracting HIV, because the a priori risk is so small.
I agree that HIV is a relatively small risk in the US, but your statement is not only nonsensical, but offensive. First of all, condoms do not PROBABLY reduce the risk of pregnancy, they do. As Bill Maher says, he's used the product for 35 years and the only thing that is as reliable as a condom is a toaster. Conservatives apparently have a cottage industry of lying about condom effectiveness, but they really do work. Combined with another method, you can get to 100 percent effectiveness.
As for HIV, low risk is not no risk, and latex condoms provide the ONLY effective means of preventing transmission other than abstinence and sero-sorting. The virus simply cannot penetrate latex.
ver the two little bills you cite.
Yawn.
You are a silly bore.
You are promoting some sort of revisionist argument that says that you can't get HIV from sleeping with a woman. That is not borne out by the data.
Really?
You mean except for the data cited here, right?
Because "google East Africa truck drivers"
Isn't actual data.
The virus simply cannot penetrate latex.
Really?
You are simply not that informed on these topics.
This comment deleted for making personal attacks
Frankly, those numbers do seem incredibly large. And how did the study define "sex acts" between heterosexuals? Vaginal only? (I would assume the risks would be much greater if anal sex were involved.)
John W.,
According to the study 29% of the couples practices anal sex. Still no seroconversions.
Dilan,
I don't know where you get your information from, you haven't cited any sources. "Probably" is a good term. It's more accurate than "certainly"
Is there any particular reason to think that Larry Craig has sex with his wife?
I saw a few clips from that bizarre statement today. If body language is an indication, those two are less intimate than Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein were.
PWT reports: "For the record, Larry Craig served in the US Army National Guard from 1970 - 1974: this does not in anyway excuse his conduct, just for the record."
He also saw "Jaws" when it was first released in theaters, but SFW?
The Ace asked: "Finally, can you point me to a liberal who has rushed to a military recruiter asking to go fight in Afghanistan? Remember, you ignorants allegedly suppport that war."
Pat Tillman did - and look what good it did him. He was killed or murdered and the Bushpigs committed propagandic acts of necrophilia on him and lied to his family.
And you think that's a great thing.
By the way, fighting in Afghanistan is now as pointless as fighting in Iraq, because your incompetent scumbag president let Osama get away and no longer cares about finding him.
Pat Tillman did - and look what good it did him. He was killed or murdered and the Bushpigs committed propagandic acts of necrophilia on him and lied to his family.
No he didn't.
Either you can't read or you're lying.
Which is it?
Is there any particular reason to think that Larry Craig has sex with his wife?
Ok, now that is actually funny.
And to answer your question, no! She looked just as weird as he did with those glasses on.
This comment deleted for being weirdly off topic
No Megan,
It wasn't off topic. If Craig was gay, then he would not have had an interest in cheating on his wife with women online. Thus a gateway law that will force background checks on everyone online if it is upheld by the SC.
I was saying that other politicians are probably also not so interested in normal avenues of meeting people...and thus have no personal interest in the laws they make.
We need to have normal people in Congress, so they vote in our and their own interest.
It would be on topic if someone listed all the laws that Craig voted for that touched on other's social lives.
Megan wrote: "It's not clear to me that he was trying to have sex in the rest room. On the other hand, I'm not really familiar with the techniques for picking people up in airport restrooms."
If you were male, you would have no doubt about what he was trying to do; it's clear as a bell. Men going about their proper business in a rest room DO NOT behave the way Senator Craig apparently did.
NEVER EVER. It's one of the first things you figure out as a boy.
Staring through a crack in a stall door at a guy for 2 minutes? Putting his foot all the way under a stall partition until it touches another guy's foot, while sitting on the throne? For an extended period of time?
No way on God's Green Earth this was innocent or misunderstood, assuming of course the cop is telling the truth.
This has nothing to do with whether it was a "crime."
The Ace (and Billy Parish, take note):
African truck drivers:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-10894315
Indian truck drivers and sex workers:
http://www.globalhealth.org/reports/text.php3?id=257
Really, I don't know what your agenda is, but it sounds very right wing to me. You seem to want to pin HIV exclusively on gays and decry the effectiveness of condoms. If that is what you are doing, you are playing a very dangerous game. I can only hope that people don't listen to your lies.
The Ace:
Finally, no, the HIV virus does not penetrate latex condoms:
http://www.engenderhealth.org/res/onc/hiv/preventing/hiv6p6.html
Again, stop spreading lies that could kill people.
Dilan,
You really shouldn't falsely accuse people of lying.
I cited the longest, epidemiological study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in America. This is the gold standard.
Padian et al, Am. J. of Epidemiology (1997)
The study found "no seroconversions." (Padian, pg 354).
That's a scientific fact, not an agenda.
Billy,
Dr. Padian would seem to disagree with you entirely:
"HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide." Nancy Padian, PhD
More:
"Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best. Their misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public." Nancy Padian, PhD.
Love the internets.
dylan
Dilan,
Strawman extreme -- Padian can run away from her data all she wants, but she shouldn't lie.
I didn't say "HIV is not transmitted sexually"
I said the risk -- since she found no seroconversions -- was extraordinarily low.
Learn to read.
Billy:
First of all, "Dylan" is not me-- though it seems like "Dylan" got you.
Second of all, this conversation is reminiscent of Chico Marx being found in bed with another woman by his wife and saying "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?". It is absolutely clear that HIV is being transmitted heterosexually through prostitutes to truck drivers in Africa and Asia. Whether we know the MECHANISM or not (which is what the seroconversion issue goes to), it is clearly happening.
You certainly haven't denied what I implied in the previous post-- that this meme you are spreading may be motivated by homophobia and a desire to call HIV a "gay plague". So do you support or oppose legislation to prohibit discrimination against gays? Do you support or oppose sodomy laws? The answers might illuminate why you are denying the obvious reality of heterosexual transmission of HIV.
Men who have sex in bathrooms at most have oral sex. The number of cases of HIV that can be conclusively linked to oral transmission is miniscule.
As long as married men have been having sex with men, their wives have claimed to feel more betrayed than if another woman had been involved. The usual reason given is that a woman can't compete with a man.
There is nothing behind the inequitable treatment of Craig vs. Vitter than homophobia -- and the political reality that Vitter would be replaced by a Democrat.
buy generic viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy online securely viagra
http://geocities.com/joploz/01/ tsmtife
http://geocities.com/joploz/01/ tsmtife