New Flesh Eating Bacteria Attacking Gay Men

EEEEeeeew.... Go Abstinence!

Abstinence will not help, unless you abstain from TOUCHING people. Touch does not = sex.

Abstinence will not HELP? You may consider rethinking that statement my friend. I think what you mean is, abstinence will not SOLVE the problem. Saying it won't help is an entirely different thing. Your own quote from the article references "abscesses and infection in the buttocks and genital area." I think abstinence could prevent at least THOSE cases...don't you agree? I'm not religious, and I don't really care what people do with their bodies. All I know is, I won't be suffering from any "abscesses and infection in the buttocks and genital area.", and it's all thanks to abstinence. Now, I do shake a lot of hands...(gulp)...

I guess it depends on how you define Abstinence. Without getting too graphic here, it is quite possible for two people to touch in those areas without having intercourse or sexual interaction. For example, naked spooning.

Riiiiiiight...

Even if I humor your logic, how many cases do you think can be attributed to naked spooning? Compare that to the number of cases that can be attributed to good old fashioned SEX. At that point it becomes increasingly clear that abstinence would certainly HELP, and would certainly SLOW the spread of the epidemic; protecting casual touchers, and naked spooners alike.

"Like most outbreaks, the gay population usually experiences them first"?

Yep just like burburry,fake tan bootleg clhoe handbags and louis vuitton slip ons, they have all the fun dont they!

Angelinea,

Let me put it this way. I will abstain from sex when I am dead. Therefor, it is not a viable option for me and millions of others. If abstinence was a good plan, we would have zero population growth and AIDS would be over.

Uh...Okay. That's fine. I don't really get your point, or why abstinence is such a bad word to you. I really don't get it. Furthermore, why do you have such a limited view of this problem? You continuously reference your personal life and your preferences, (i.e. naked spooning) ignoring large scale reality and impact. Foolish. If people just had FEWER partners, they would be less likely to catch this, and/or other, diseases. That's my only point. I don't know why you're so against abstinence, especially when no one is asking it of you. I get it... You really like sex, and no one is going to stop you from enjoying it. Cool. But that DOESN'T mean that abstinence isn't a viable tool in slowing the spread of this dangerous bacteria. I would rather take my health and personal safety into my own hands, than wait for some new wonder drug to save my ass when I get infected with something like this. I'm not saying to become a priest, I'm just saying that abstinence is a great way for an individual to avoid infection... NO, it's not a guarantee, but I'd give it a pretty high certainty of effectiveness. And I never said YOU should be abstinent. I don't care what you do with your body. You're being a little silly with your comments about zero population. Come on, let's not be petty. I never said everyone should stop having sex, I'm just saying maybe we should be more selective in who "we" take to bed.

So how would you suggest you select your partners?

F.Y.I. It's not just my personal (and humerously loaded) story that I am referencing, but also years of research on the subject. Ever since the Bush administration required abstinence only education in exchange for federal funds, researchers have been studying the effects of the policy. The fact is, teen pregnancy is on the rise, condom use is down, meanwhile HIV and other STDs are up. When I read or hear the word abstinence, I think of these startling statistics. It is outrageous to suggest that humanity is going to or should abstain from sex. It is a need like water. Should we stop drinking water, because some water sources are tainted. No!

[Note about the Author: I have a certificate in Sexuality Studies From the University of Iowa.]

Then you are proof that "education", even CERTIFICATION, isn't everything....... To answer your question about selecting partners...My answer is, CAUTIOUSLY. I have friends who sleep with random people, and end up at the clinic. These friends have all caught STDs, and have also had unwanted pregnancies. I, by personal choice, simply would NOT casually invite people into my bed. Needless to say, I am happily childless, and have never suffered any form of STD. You are misunderstanding what I have said, and have connected it to something entirely different. It's not my fault you have connected abstinence in any form to the retarded policies of this administration.

Since you got this all wrong, let me clear it up for you...I BELIEVE IN SEX ED...take a look at the debates I've gotten into on the subject.

I NEVER said abstinence was a cure-all...just common sense, and an effective way to protect one's self. My friend, your emotions are clouding your ability to see reason. What I am suggesting is not the same as, "no sex before marriage" or "sex is wrong" or anything like that...which is what you seem to want to believe. I am not religious...I don't care who has sex with who. I am all for gay rights, and liberty in general. I REALLY don't care that you are gay. I just don't care... All I said was, "go abstinence" because I see it as the best possible preventative measure in a case like this. I didn't say to stop having sex at all...I didn't say abstinence was THE answer...I only submit that it's a good way to avoid "abscesses and infection in the buttocks and genital area." You have only condemned my offering, yet I see no alternative solutions coming from you... What's your solution??? I'm curious... You talk about all this experience, but all I see is an obsession with sexual freedom, and references that have nothing to do with flesh eating, drug resistant bacteria. If you had kids, URO, what would you tell them? Obviously you would teach them to use condoms and birth control, but you would also teach them about risks such as this, where condoms are not a perfect solution. I think you should calm down, and think about this a little, because your position is overly emotional, and doesn't exactly make sense.

Angelina,

I think you are mistaking passion with emotion. I am passionate about what I write, I thoroughly research my arguments, and I present the facts as I see them using logic and reason.

I agree that on a very basic level abstinence is a preventative measure for some STDs, however it is simply not realistic for most people. There are just some people who love sex a lot. They love sex with people they know, and people they don't know. Sometimes lots of people they don't know at the same time... but I digress...

This "new" disease does appear on the anus and penis, but it can also appear on the leg, arm, face, chest, you name it. It is a serious concern for everyone, even you Angelina, and you do not have to have sex to get it.

I'm with both of you guys on this, but mostly AngelinaH because the practice of "safe sex" (when was the last time we even heard politicians talk about that!) is a public health issue.

That means the law -does- have a right and a reason to intercede when other people's safety is at risk.

Gay folks are going to have to come around and admit (and a lot of GLBT rights groups -do- admit there's a problem that's gone on unaddressed) that they have to get a better word out about how we go about getting these awful, uncurable diseases. People go into denial when they have an STD, it's embarassing. Many won't seek treatment even when the symptoms are clear (another argument for "socialized" medicine - public health is item #1).

Education is the first step, but the second is that our society responds with condemnation for those who have STD's, rather than with compassion.

For the love of St. Pube, STD's are -awful-. Anyone with a heart has got to see that. There's no reason why there should be so many infections be floating around our population but to conclude that yes, abstinence does create an environment where unsafe sex becomes once again the norm.

Witness on a large scale Sub-Saharan Africa. They don't have condoms not just because the young guys don't want to use them, but because of the massive poverty amongst the young sexually active population they don't even have access to them. Plus the women have no other opportunities but to rely on prostitution to keep their families fed and alive. It's particularly bad in the D.R. Congo (Zaire) where war has ravaged millions, and the largest number of rape victims in history has emerged after the Rwandan Hutu rebels invaded. It's a human rights crisis of unimaginable proportsions. It's spreading... and every time someone from over there caughs on someone visiting from here, we have no immunity whatsoever from what they bring back.

"No, no, no," intones President Dubya, "Jesus will light the way to goodness. No condoms, no sex till marriage. A 2000 year old book said so."

Well, blind obedience to the old books will also get you to stone women, kill foreigners, and break justifiable laws. So that's not really a place to start, esp. when there's so much religious division on biblical interpretation both there and here. Figure people who were illiterate before they read the book attribute miraculous events when clearly it's simply instruction that gives them inspiration to become bigger than they are.

I believe as an article of faith that secular, scientific politics will light the way: you discover the cause of a problem, and you root it out by pragmatic means. It doesn't -matter- how you feel about your body (when's the last time that gays or women ever actually had something nice to say about their bodies?!), it doesn't matter if you are having the best orgasms of your life (how often does that come around, and was it even worth it?!)... it's all a neurochemical effect that doesn't last.

Don't get me wrong... I hate abstinence more than anything, especially when it's imposed upon you! Sex is a great thing, great sex is even better... and I know that great sex only comes when you are in the right position (literally and abstractly) to be having it. Great sex however is conditional though, it's up to your ability to communicate to the other person what you believe -they- deserve to feel about you, not by what you're going to steal from them.

Freewheeling sex not a -right-. The right -to- sex is a myth, it's not in our laws, it has no business being upheld like it is a right to assemble to petition the government for the right of redresses or the freedom from the abridgment of the press establishment.

That said, this disease will -not- go away. You can whine all you want about what you think you're entitled to, but that will only cause it to get more divisive when we should be focusing on a reasonable solution. This, like HIV/AIDS will spread (probably faster because the delivery vector isn't necessarily anal), and we must focus our attention on the first group that has contact to it, namely gay men.

That's right, I'm calling them out... call me a homophobe but as a straight dude, I actually care about what gays do to each other. I care about how they care for each other and generally think they're actually kinder to each other than straight guys are to women.


We have to empathize with the conditions gays and lesbians face on a human level, no matter what your personal orientation is (which, again, I could care less who you screw than -why- you screw).

If you are unwilling or unable, well... I can't honestly feel sorry for you when you brush up against a gay or straight person not knowingly (or before -they- themselves realize) and get a particuarly nasty infection.