What's happened to Aids?

[ronians1]

In the eighties we were inundated by government advertisements predicting biological armageddon if society did not change its sexual behaviour.

 

Today we are inundated by pornography from every source depicting sex with not a condom in sight.

 

What has happened to Aids?

[Ringer]

Porn stars are supposed to have regular check ups to make sure they don't have AIDS, or any other STD/STI.

[ronians1]

Porn stars are supposed to have regular check ups to make sure they don't have AIDS, or any other STD/STI.

I believe the biochemistry for detecting an HIV infection requires about 3 months to elapse after the inoculant is absorbed for it to be able to detect the virus. Isn't this rather late for individuals who live a promiscous lifestyle with multiple partners? And yet, and yet there seems to be a certain confidence amongst youngsters these days that thay are somehow immune from the virus.

[CharonY]

Education and use of condoms have reduced spread of HIV. From the 80s to the 90s there was a steady decline in new incidences and has more or less remained steady since then (for most of Europe and the US at least). In addition scientific and medical advances helped in the diagnosis and treatment and management (though not cure) of the disease.

 

It is not a novel finding that some youngsters (and others) miscalculate or ignore risks. That is why education can help.

Edited January 15, 2013 by CharonY

[John Cuthber]

In the eighties we were inundated by government advertisements predicting biological armageddon if society did not change its sexual behaviour.

 

Today we are inundated by pornography from every source depicting sex with not a condom in sight.

 

What has happened to Aids?

Believe me, we changed our behaviour.

Porn films seldom have a lot to do with reality.

[ronians1]

Believe me, we changed our behaviour.

Porn films seldom have a lot to do with reality.

We have indeed changed our behaviour. The prophylactic in terms of the condom has been very effective against the HIV virus and since the virus is is not that hardy, a significant dose/inoculant is apparently needed before infection is incurred.(according to a urologist friend). The condom, although nowhere near 100% effective appears to be effective enough because what percentage of the virus that may get through by contamination and/or misuse is generally not sufficient for infection.

 

Perhaps both changed behaviour and drug therapy explain the hedonistic attitude to sex by the youth of today?

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps both changed behaviour and drug therapy explain the hedonistic attitude to sex by the youth of today?

As far as I know, "youth" always had a hedonistic attitude to sex (and to be fair, so did most of those who weren't so young)

[ronians1]

As far as I know, "youth" always had a hedonistic attitude to sex (and to be fair, so did most of those who weren't so young)

Unfortunately this headonism has gone a little too far these days with the proliferation of the proclivity for anal sex amonst the young - no doubt fuelled by the prolific depiction of such by the pornographic industry. Such practice was virtually taboo prior to the seventies, a practice which, by nature of the physiology of the gastro-intestinal tract, makes the transmission of HIV much easier to achieve as is born out by Wikipedia statics.

[John Cuthber]

Unfortunately this headonism has gone a little too far these days with the proliferation of the proclivity for anal sex amonst the young - no doubt fuelled by the prolific depiction of such by the pornographic industry. Such practice was virtually taboo prior to the seventies, a practice which, by nature of the physiology of the gastro-intestinal tract, makes the transmission of HIV much easier to achieve as is born out by Wikipedia statics.

Hedonistic sex among the young always did "go a little too far".

Buggery may have been taboo, but there was still plenty of it going on.

It's probably not true that Churchill described naval tradition as "nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash" but he certainly could have said it.

Leviticus didn't take the trouble to condemn a behaviour that didn't exist, nor was Queen Victoria called on to sign legislation concerning a non-existent practice.

[Moontanman]

Unfortunately this headonism has gone a little too far these days with the proliferation of the proclivity for anal sex amonst the young - no doubt fuelled by the prolific depiction of such by the pornographic industry.

 

Can you give some support for this assertion other than your own claims?

 

 

Such practice was virtually taboo prior to the seventies, a practice which, by nature of the physiology of the gastro-intestinal tract, makes the transmission of HIV much easier to achieve as is born out by Wikipedia statics.

 

 

Were you there during the 70's? I was, I doubt anal sex was any more prevalent than it is now...

[ronians1]

 

Can you give some support for this assertion other than your own claims?

As far as I am aware the rudimentary porn films of the 70's scarcely featured anal sex at all whereas these days, if one listens to the youth of today it is most certainly mainstream and it appears that if females insist on desisting they can come under some pressure from partners to comply.

 

 

 

Were you there during the 70's? I was, I doubt anal sex was any more prevalent than it is now.

Yes I was and I did not say that that anal sex was more prevalent then than now, quite the reverse. I said that anal sex was a taboo subject prior to the 70's.

 

 

..

[John Cuthber]

Do you have any real evidence of any changes in sexual behaviour apart from the increased use of condoms?

It is a notoriously difficult subject to study.

[ronians1]

Hedonistic sex among the young always did "go a little too far".

Buggery may have been taboo, but there was still plenty of it going on.

It's probably not true that Churchill described naval tradition as "nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash" but he certainly could have said it.

Leviticus didn't take the trouble to condemn a behaviour that didn't exist, nor was Queen Victoria called on to sign legislation concerning a non-existent practice.

I agree with your point.

 

So what has happened to Aids? I suspect that under the veneer of containement, there is a latent beast awaiting its time. Just recently the BBC announced the findings that there are thousands of people walking aroung the UK unbeknowingly infected with HIV, Why aren't these people sick? Firstly there is the incubation period and secondly it appears that Aids does not develop unless one's immune system is compromised by malnuitrition, poor healthcare or a growing ineffectiveness of one's biochemical remedy in terms of drugs. However, the epidemic is young. The "HIV" generation has yet to grow old and with old age will come the gradual breakdown of the efficacy of one's immune system........Will this be when we find out that indeed, "nothing has happened to Aids"?