Your language, in my opinion, borders on moral rhetoric and shaming. Condoms exist to fulfill the purpose that they were designed for.

     Here is my opinion: passing HIV to a negative person is immoral. <-- that's a PERIOD.

     Correction to your condom statement: condoms are less than 100% perfect at fulfilling

          the purpose they were designed for. <-- that's a period.

I see the links you posted. I can also post some that claim that HIV and AIDS are god's curse for homosexuality and other sin or links that claim that still profess denialism. 

     Regarding HIV being dog's curse for homosexuality: some people believe in unicorns

          leprechans. Dog's curse is in the same category.

I'm glad you have your opinions, but try running a GID/STD clinic and telling patients that get tested that they should come in with any new partner they have and get tested before having protected sex.

     Correction to "protected sex": partially protected sex

Then try shaming them because their current practices are

     You keep inserting (pun not intended (unless you are smart enough to laugh at this point))

     the word shaming in the conversation. I'll continue to let you bring morality into the

     conversation.

You'd never see them again.

     People who commit criminal acts often don't want to be seen again.

They'd also probably laugh at you the second they walk out of the office.

     People once laughed at Lister when he suggested doctors wash their hands before

     operating on or examining people. That seldom happens these days.

My priority is the people's health and how to best do that within what is practice today.

     That's fine with me. I'm more interested in solving tomorrow's problems. Clearly

     today's solutions aren't working all that well.

This is not about morality.

     Agreed. Nevertheless, some ACTS are criminal and immoral when they

     endanger the life of another person or persons.

I do, however, apologize for using the word 'you' in relation to sexual practice. I should have said 'one'

     Is that a clever reference to masturbation, which I'm not clever enough to get?

Your language, in my opinion, borders on moral rhetoric and shaming. Condoms exist to fulfill the purpose that they were designed for.

I see the links you posted. I can also post some that claim that HIV and AIDS are god's curse for homosexuality and other sin or links that claim that still profess denialism.

I'm glad you have your opinions, but try running a GID/STD clinic and telling patients that get tested that they should come in with any new partner they have and get tested before having protected sex. Then try shaming them because their current practices are

You'd never see them again. They'd also probably laugh at you the second they walk out of the office.

My priority is the people's health and how to best do that within what is practice today. This is not about morality.

I do, however, apologize for using the word 'you' in relation to sexual practice. I should have said 'one'. 

Really?

You think this is feasible today?

     No. But only if you consider the satisfaction of your primal needs

     and feelings to be more important than dying, if you are negative,

     or more important than killing someone, if you are positive.

Before every new sex partner?

See above explanation. It works for any number of sex partners.

The dynamic is very different if you're going to go have unprotected sex with someone, then sure. Given that the original blast was about condom use, I don't think that's what you were going for were you?

     Again, are your personal sexual feelings, gratification, intensity

     of pleasure, etc, are more important than [ibid] I always want to

     say ribbit at that point, but it would be bad, wrong, and immature).

http://notb4weknow.blogspot.com
http://aidshivstds.blogspot.com

The strategy won't work for people desperate for sex.
It will work for people who are sort of interested.

The strategy is
"Let's get tested 2GETHER B4 we have sex, 4 A VARIETY of STDs."

Randall Munroe
http://xkcd.com/632
http://es.xkcd.com/xkcd-es/strips/sospecha/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Munroe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xkcd

          >"Hey! You should be ashamed of yourself, you ignorant bigot!
             "Who's killing gay men?... It's other gay men. How do you get
              HIV positive?... having sex with other men. They're not
              paying attention."
          > People like you make me sick!!"

Even though, for some reason, I make you sick, we agree that HIV+ people who have sex with HIV- people is what causes more people to become HIV+. I'm thinking that if HIV+ people stop having sex with HIV- people THEN there will be fewer people becoming HIV+.

By the way, HIV is killing people who are not gay men. It does not seem to care about a person's gender or sex or orientation.


          >"Ur full of shit, dude! Ignorance spread AIDS, not people who
          > just happen to be gay. He doth protest too much, ig'nant
          > mother fucker!"

People (male, female, gay, straight, bi, etc) who HAVE HIV spread HIV. Some of them even know this. Some of them are ignorant of their status. Some of them are extremely intelligent. Sex and ego trump intelligence and knowledge--in such cases.

          > "pls cut it with the hate. It isn't going to fly here, doll. Knock
          >  it off."

when is a proposal to collect data to verify a claim about a method to reduce HIV infections and AIDS deaths being hateful or hating?


          > "I don't think any of us need to look all that far to be
          >  confronted by ugly, inflammatory, mean-spirited views."

how is the proposal for the collection of data to verify a claim... ugly, inflammatory, mean-spirited?

The only way you can be sure you haven't killed anyone with HIV (assuming you are positive) is to test every one of your sexual contacts over the course of their life. If they get sick or die, then it is still possible, with the best of current technology, to determine if they died from a strain of the virus they got from you. So, unless you've done this level and intensity of testing, then you can't say for certain if anyone has died or gotten sick after having sex with you.

What probably happens, in reality, is that uninfected people have sex with a number of infected people and get the virus from one or more of them. So it then becomes possible for any one HIV+ person to say, with some belief, that they did not pass HIV on to a given person--so responsibility is lost in the crowd. There is the possibility for each infected person to say some other person didn't get the virus from them. This is nature's way of saying that having sex is more important than being responsible.

Unless a complete fix is found for HIV, then you can look forward to the epidemic continuing largely unabated.

          > the community norm is for guys to take care of each other,
          > and do their best to protect each other.

Except for those that are killing each other or giving each other a terrible disease.


          > The majority of gay men are not trying to get each other
          > infected.

How do you know this?


          > The rates of HIV among gay men are unacceptably high, and
          > we must address this,

Clearly that is not happening.


          > but it is not the case that all gay men are reckless,
          > irresponsible and immoral/amoral.

You should speak to anyone who makes the claim that ALL gay men are reckless, irresponsible, immoral, or amoral. If there is one gay man who is not, then there are likely to be two, etc.

          > "If you were rejected every time you disclosed your HIV
          >  status, would you?"
          >
          > HIV stigma is putting 'clean, ub2' or 'disease-free' in your
          > online cruising profile.
          >
          > HIV stigma is rejecting HIV-positive gay men when they
          > disclose their HIV status but having sex with them when
          > they don't.
          >
          > Because of HIV stigma, some gay men make silent
          > assumptions about the HIV status of their sexual partners
          > based on beliefs they hold about who has HIV or how
          > someone with HIV looks or where someone with HIV has sex.

You can talk variations on this theme till the cows come home, but at the end of the day there will be new HIV infections and some people will die from it, others will live with this expensive disease till they die of old age or complications. A very few will find, by chance, that they are immune and will go on to infect others--causing a new cycle of disease and death. Welcome to a world that doesn't care about attempts to talk it to death.

This is a real disease. It doesn't speak your language. Its looking for a place to live. It wants to take over. That place is your body. It will get to you via another body. You can't negotiate with it once it gets in you. But you can prevent that from happening. There is only one very certain way to keep that from happening.




          > This is central to the lived experience of gay men and PLHIV,
          > not

WHAT is "central" to the lived experience of gay men?


          > just "variations on a theme", and the fact that we're all going
          > to die one day doesn't make it any less important.

There is quite a big difference between dying of old age and dying from being murdered or getting very sick or dying after visiting a doctor or a hospital stay. We have very different reactions when a loved one dies from old age or dies from a doctor visit or a hospital stay.




          > Thank you for spewing the kind of hyperbole and
          > exaggeration

No matter what you say I'm doing, it won't prevent any new infections from showing up tomorrow in somebodies tests.


          > that gives HIV stigma a life among Queermen. As one who
          > has been living with the virus inside of me for over 26 years,
          > most of that time unknowing,

Which means you may have infected a number of individuals who are now either dead or sick.


          > I am floored. I am, indeed, one of the fortunate few, thanks
          > to ancestors who survived the Black Death; however, since
          > learning my status over 10 years ago and having partners
          > both poz and neg, I have not been to them a source of
          > infection.

So I take it ALL of them have been tested regularly over the years and especially after your last contact.


          > As for the specific campaign, I find attacking stigma directly
          > more problematic--not to mention "deficit-based"--than
          > promoting brotherhood.

Whether I promote brotherhood or not, somebody is going to end up infected, sick, or dead tomorrow.


          > Disease-based stigma comes in part from our quest for
          > self-preservation and is fueled by misinformation and a lack
          > of understanding.

The last 20+ years shows that people with complete understanding have infected others or themselves been infected, gotten sick, and died.


          > I am loathe to object to another man's choices taken to
          > protect his health, but I would address his ignorance of facts.

Could you be so kind as to address any ignorance of the facts on my part?




          > pls cut it with the hate. It isn't going to fly here, doll. Knock
          > it off.

Is accusing me of being hateful without any evidence of me being hateful an example of your being hateful ?

Can you tell if HIV is capable of hate or love or any other emotion?

Can you tell me if an HIVpositive person who infects another person is feeling love, hate or some other emotion when they do that?

Also, if I were to change from being a hateful person to being a loving person would that prevent any HIV deaths, illnesses or infections?




          > pls, get an IDEA. You have beaten this one in to oblivion.
          > The people most at risk are not going to wait to have sex.

"not going to wait" is also why nothing else works either.



          > "The people most at risk are not going to wait to have sex."
          >
          > AMEN! We get so caught up in academic discussions of
          > disease prevention that we forget how racing hormones
          > silence any voice of caution in our minds, then we latch onto
          > Puritan memes about delaying pleasure. The arsenal against
          > STDs, including HIV, must be well-stocked with options....
          > oh, crap, is this defecit-based thinking?...instead of limited
          > to a couple pea-shooters that will not necessarily cover all
          > cases.

I've always thought Puritan meant NO pleasure.

Doesn't delayed pleasure intensify pleasure?