HIV post

22 May 2005

Regarding giving blood to get HIV test!
The literature given out when you attend a donor session specifically says DO NOT DO THIS. The blood sample is not tested for HIV on the spot, instead it is tested back at the lab. So if you gave infected blood and all the proceedures went wrong it could end up in a patient. Odds are highly against this happpening but Blood Transfusion Service want to guard against all eventuallities.
John & Shel

22 May 2005

Going through their questionaire, I don't know anyone who can give blood....including me !

23 May 2005

Quote by jomu
Going through their questionaire, I don't know anyone who can give blood....including me !

I can and do - I've given over 90 donations ..no, I'm not THAT old but I used to give plasma donations in the days when human plasma was used, and that attracts the equivalent of 2 pints of blood.
At least we haven't done what the Americans used to do - pay for blood. But, of course, it's all OK cos they speak English, don't they??
:P

23 May 2005

Quote by Scandal
Like i said ..................................

Quote by Silk and Big G
im so offensive if it wasnt for her no one would speak to me anyway

LOLOLOL a fella can be offended by anything , if he sets out to take everything personally and he looks hard enough for the points that suit his desire for indignation.
JUST like I said .............( spooky ) wink

23 May 2005

Quote by Jags
Going through their questionaire, I don't know anyone who can give blood....including me !

I can and do - I've given over 90 donations ..no, I'm not THAT old but I used to give plasma donations in the days when human plasma was used, and that attracts the equivalent of 2 pints of blood.
At least we haven't done what the Americans used to do - pay for blood. But, of course, it's all OK cos they speak English, don't they??
:P
They speak english? Really? Well you learn something every day!!!!!!!!!!!

23 May 2005

Quote by Shireen_Mids
What scares me is that she is actually happy to swing.... Now I may be naive here but I for one would not contemplate swinging if I was HIV+.....
I'm sorry honest or not she shouldn't be allowed to have the ad.... You can all shoot me down in flames but thats how I feel....
This is not the sort of thing she should be considering doing if she is HIV+.... No matter how many precautions she takes there is always the risk of a condom breaking... No sorry I just cant condone it!!....

agreeds with shireen
hugs
Babe1
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

23 May 2005

Quote by Scandal
Like i said ..................................

Quote by Silk and Big G
im so offensive if it wasnt for her no one would speak to me anyway

Silk here

Just to help, I've listed all of our nearly 4000 posts http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/search.php?search_author=Silk+and+Big+G to aid you in future discussions :wink:

23 May 2005

Aids and HIV spread because, initially, nobody knew about it. Subsequent research now allows the identification of this.
Anyone of us could be carrying the next undiscovered disease. So the practice of safe sex should not go unconsidered at any time.
Several people have let rip, but I think it has helped to resolve prejudices and mistaken beliefs.

23 May 2005

if the advert was genuine ( and i have my doubts )
firstly why did she change it after 3 days ?
surely that would have been the sort of thing broached at a first meeting ?/telephone or e mail exchange
secondly showing a penis without condom if genuinely her /truthfull advertisement
is soo selfish and ultimately could lead to lawful prosecution for infection
it actually seems a little bizarre if it was not ultimately such a serious topic

23 May 2005

Quote by alspals
..you may be right, but whatever Judy's motivation, he has chosen to not continue participating in this thread, so it may be unfair to 'second guess' his objectives.

Objective?? Just to sweep through with an 'alternative' view designed to offend and then bugger off and not bother defending his position?? Alternative does not mean the same as bigotted, surely?
Just cos he's chosen not to continue participating doesn't mean that the post should go unheeded. Questions go unanswered.
:twisted:

23 May 2005

Yes Jags, questions do indeed go unanswered, like why you chose to bring the Catholic Church into it amonst other things?
Just because one member has offended someone does not give the others the right to go to the same level and managed offend as many people possible.
confused

I had hoped this thread had gone back on topic about the seriousness of the HIV virus regardless of it's origins and peoples personal opinion of that origin.

23 May 2005

Quote by little gem
Yes Jags, questions do indeed go unanswered, like why you chose to bring the Catholic Church into it amonst other things?
Just because one member has offended someone does not give the others the right to go to the same level and managed offend as many people possible.

I had hoped this thread had gone back on topic about the seriousness of the HIV virus regardless of it's origins and peoples personal opinion of that origin.

No-one has asked that question? I am happy to answer it.
Did you not read my comments regarding the Catholic Church?? Or did you just read Catholic Church and nothing else??
It was in the context of the failure of HIV education - the fact that the Papacy has refused to allow Catholics to use prophalatic protection and the insistence on sexual intercourse only for procreation. That alone has caused the deaths of thousands and thousands of people in the developing world - remember, those who can't speak English??
In contrast to the post which didn't even try to not offend, my comments are not my own opinion but actual fact and not posted to cause offence. And I am here discussing it. And it wasn't me who took it off topic - but then almost every thread here seems to go off topic so there's no point having a go at me for that!
Point your finger elsewhere please.
rolleyes

23 May 2005

I'll find another scape goat then along with the rest of you, how mature. rolleyes

I agree that education is the way forward but until we all stop getting on our soap boxes and being so emotionally defensive about things nothing will be improved.
Although on the other hand passion and determination has always driven revolutionary changes. dunno

I'll agree to disagree with this one as not all people who are members of something choose to follow all the rules. Wonder how many un-married catholics on here for example. :dunno: Just a thought really.
Gem. x

23 May 2005

Quote by little gem
I'll agree to disagree with this one as not all people who are members of something choose to follow all the rules. Wonder how many un-married catholics on here for example. Just a thought really.
Gem. x

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.
However, it is the institution not Roman Catholics that I would have an issue with over the spread of aids and poverty.

23 May 2005

Quote by little gem
I'll find another scape goat then along with the rest of you, how mature.
Gem. x

I wasn't making the Catholic Church the scapegoat Little Gem - you really need to actually read what I said otherwise we will go round in circles. On the contrary I was ADDING to the debate and deflecting the blame which was being put squarely on the shoulders of the 'Third World' people (those who can't speak English, unlike the Pope of course!) and no-one else. I was suggesting that that type of purely racist view was rather bigotted and that other factors had to be considered. And then others added their factors, poverty, western sex tourism etc. etc.
Big topic which is important. The debate is most interesting and enlightening. Long may it continue.
:P

23 May 2005

Quote by Happy Cats

I'll agree to disagree with this one as not all people who are members of something choose to follow all the rules. Wonder how many un-married catholics on here for example. Just a thought really.
Gem. x

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.
However, it is the institution not Roman Catholics that I would have an issue with over the spread of aids and poverty.
Yes, which is why I refrained from blaming Roman Catholics - something missed completely by the response. Again, don't blame the PEOPLE, blame the regimes. Wasn't that being alluded to about 3 or 4 pages ago by most people? Only one person that I can see was actually was blaming a whole ethnic group.
Cheers.
:P

23 May 2005

point made and clarified. I see where the point was coming from now it has been unpacked from an angry state where it felt like you were adding another set of people on which to blame and point the finger at. I agree about it not being the people but rather a regime which may premote some miseducation of the facts.
It is so true that there are many contributing factors to the recent epidemic we are seeing. A lot of this epidemic is foccused in the third world and yes, I accept that here we have the education and the choice where as in certain other places in the world this information isn't so readily available.
It does disturb me that even with all the education, information and awareness we have in the UK, that people would still choose to run such a risk with their and other's lives.
Gem. x

23 May 2005

Thanks Gem.. was worried I was going to launch into another argument!! :shock: :shock:
Regimes govern, some regimes govern badly and it's always the people who suffer. And the people in Africa and surrounding countries are suffering enough without us superior white people going around spouting bigotted nonsense about them being to blame.
I'm grateful for the rationality and commonsense now being shown on this particularly interesting thread.
x xx

23 May 2005

I did not want to get involved in this thread as it is very,very difficult.
Jags, I'm sorry but no one here has said that white people are superior to any other group of people. It seems to me that you are reading this in to the discussion.
The spread of any disease/virus is serious as with increased travel oppertunities - for legitimate reasons such as business, normal holidays etc. that bring emplyoment and wealth to the third world - the possibility of causing a global disaster is closer at hand.
I have no problems about being tested for a new or existing problem - makes sense for me at the end of the day! And, similarly I see nothing wrong with testing everyone who may have come from or visited a country that is classified as high risk. When it comes to the health service, then I'm sorry but I would rather see money being spent on adaquate care for pensioners, people who are "British" etc. than those persons who are coming here illegally.
As far as the contraception arguement goes,I agree with you 100%. It is the regime - whether it be the Catholic Church or the South African government - that refuses to see the situation and tends to make anti-condom policies for their own political gains.
Yes, education is the answer - but who decides on the education?
I see nothing racist or wrong in discussing the problem and nothing wrong in having health checks for ANY person coming to the UK. The problem at the moment is that the imegration policy in the UK is totally wrong - how many more lorry loads of dead illegal immegrants need to be found before the government makes a move?
I will get my dressing gown and go and sleep on this till tomorrow!

24 May 2005

Quote by Jags

..you may be right, but whatever Judy's motivation, he has chosen to not continue participating in this thread, so it may be unfair to 'second guess' his objectives.

Objective?? Just to sweep through with an 'alternative' view designed to offend and then bugger off and not bother defending his position?? Alternative does not mean the same as bigotted, surely?
Just cos he's chosen not to continue participating doesn't mean that the post should go unheeded. Questions go unanswered.
:twisted:
..er Jags maybe you didnt see my other contributions to this thread?
I was not suggesting that Judy's post should go unheeded, I was responding to Happycats theory about why Judy had posted what he did!

24 May 2005

Yes, I've seen your most interesting responses and wasn't suggesting otherwise, sorry if you read that. I'm just wondering what happened to the argument, that's all. And, I think it's worthy of debate still. After all we spend pages and pages and pages on trivial debate and I was enjoying the more fulsome one.
:P

24 May 2005

Quote by McCloggie
Jags, I'm sorry but no one here has said that white people are superior to any other group of people. It seems to me that you are reading this in to the discussion.

I have not suggested that anyone who has commented here made those remarks. This is what I have written:

...without us superior white people going around spouting bigotted nonsense about them being to blame.

It was ME who used that phrase, nobody else. And it is true that there are some people who are of the opinion that black is bad and white is good. That's the racists stance, fundamentally. It is horrible seeing it written down, isn't it?? Shock statements always work.
To blame 'Third World' people, illegal immigrants and those who can't speak English alone for the spread of the HIV problem is coming from very high, and very dodgy, moral ground. We are already in a state of global disaster because of the inaction of some and the ill-action of others, and once again I mean regimes.
Why illegal immigrants? Why not legal ones? What about those coming to the UK from white English speaking nations? Does being white, Enlgish and and 'legal' make us/them immune to HIV? A stamp in the old passport and a GCE in English afford healthy status? Of course not. rolleyes

:roll:
Read about the history of South Africa and Aids
"Historically, South Africa has had a turbulent past, and this history is relevant to the explosive spread of HIV in the region...It was during this chaotic time, in 1982, that the first cases of HIV were diagnosed in South Africa, and for the first few years of the epidemic,cases were mainly amongst white gay men. Following the same trends seen in other countries, as the number of cases increased, the virus began spreading to all other areas of society."
for the controls being put in place to protect against Sars and bird flu - infections WE can't prevent spreading. We CAN prevent HIV spreading, very simply!
Reasoned debate is good for the soul and provides a workout for the thinking processes, heated debate is good for viewing figures.
:P :P

24 May 2005

Quote by Jags
Read about the history of South Africa and Aids
"Historically, South Africa has had a turbulent past, and this history is relevant to the explosive spread of HIV in the region...It was during this chaotic time, in 1982, that the first cases of HIV were diagnosed in South Africa, and for the first few years of the epidemic, cases were mainly amongst white gay men. Following the same trends seen in other countries, as the number of cases increased, the virus began spreading to all other areas of society." :P :P

That is where my theory comes from, that perhaps if you were a member of that community you may be subconsciously looking to deflect blame elsewhere. Non white, non English speaking immigrants could be a convenient scapegoat. I still dont believe the view expressed is premeditated or deep rooted racism but an ill thought out biased conclusion.

24 May 2005

Quote by Happy Cats

Read about the history of South Africa and Aids
"Historically, South Africa has had a turbulent past, and this history is relevant to the explosive spread of HIV in the region...It was during this chaotic time, in 1982, that the first cases of HIV were diagnosed in South Africa, and for the first few years of the epidemic, cases were mainly amongst white gay men. Following the same trends seen in other countries, as the number of cases increased, the virus began spreading to all other areas of society." :P :P

That is where my theory comes from, that perhaps if you were a member of that community you may be subconsciously looking to deflect blame elsewhere. Non white, non English speaking immigrants could be a convenient scapegoat. I still dont believe the view expressed is premeditated or deep rooted racism but an ill thought out biased conclusion.
I think that's a reasonable ratiionale' happy cats and I believe that a lot of people would go along with that. A lot of this is interpretation and it's very easy to jump on the racism bandwagon when someone may have actually just been making a misguided factual point. I dont know the individuals personally but to the outsider I am concerned that this thread is now becoming a continual personal attack. I think most people agree the comments were misguided and unfounded but as the poster pointed out he is not racist. Neither, I would suggest are the majority of people on here, therefore to continually drag that person through the mud serves no purpose. rolleyes

24 May 2005

Quote by Jags
I don't understand what you are saying Judy.
I may be picking you up wrong but your post has tinges of racism around the edges.

Don't think I called the person concerned a racist there.

I can only judge you by your comments, so if you don't want to be mistaken for a racist then stop posting racially offensive posts, eh??

Or there.
And then I wrote this:

Nothing personal in my comments at all Judy - I was merely responding to what I saw as a potential area of concern. And, as I said earlier, if you are not racist then you need to stop posting in such a manner. Tying your flags to the mast makes a pretty sight though.

Nowhere did I call Judy a racist - I just pointed out the racist overtones of the comments. Not the same thing. If I had wanted to be offensive then I would have called him racist. Please read my posts carefully.
And yes, I agree that the original post WAS phrased clumsily, which is why I said that I could be picking up the content wrong in the first place!! I tried. rolleyes

:P

24 May 2005

Jags,
I am essentially with you in what you have written but you, along with a few others, have been a bit selective in what you have read. You make the point that the Catholic regime has a part to play in the continuing spread of HIV but you don't blame Catholics per se. Judy made the point that immigrants from HIV-risk areas are a problem when it comes to spreading HIV (a point I don't agree with in its entirety) but primarily blamed the system in the UK for the problem, not the immigrants alone. I think you were too harsh when you accussed Judy of being racist. That is a very potent term that can be used to stifle debate on legitimate issues (look how effectively Judy has been removed from this debate) that don't fit some people's ultra PC view of the world (not accussing you of that, just making a point). Yes, I do see a touch of xenophobia in Judy's post but I don't see overt racism. But that is my opinion.
-------------
As far as testing immigrants goes it is totally unworkable on so many levels. i won't even mention the cost element but there is no point testing immigrants anyway unless you are absolutely sure that the UK is free of the disease. HIV is a nasty illness but as Jags points out it is incredibly difficult to catch compared to all sorts of other diseases. HIV in the UK gets a lot more press coverage it really deserves (while the coverage of the situation in Africa is woefully inadequate, never mind the action being taken). As people who enjoy sex with more than just one life partner we do need to be concerned about the risks of catching HIV and all sorts of other STIs but on a national scale the issue is blown way out of proportion. Car accidents kill many, many more people than STIs in this country.
I travel a bit with my work and while I haven't been to too many dodgy places many of my colleagues have. Let me assure you that the Brit male abroad, in poor countries where cheap sex abounds, is not renowned for making sensible decisions. Bare-back in Nigeria, Brazil or Thailand? Oh yes, some are that stupid! There are far, far more Brits working, and shagging, in dodgy places and coming back home to their familes than there are infected immigrants - legal or otherwise - coming to our shores. On a broader scale, very few of the problems facing the UK - of any sort - can be laid at the door of immigrants, never mind the small problem of the spread of HIV.
H

24 May 2005

Just wanted to know what the situation was concerning taking out life insurance here in the UK?
Back home (SA) we have to under-go HIV testing before any insurance company will take out a policy for you, but then again considering 60% of the population is HIV+....... oh and the prime minister doesn't believe HIV causes full blown AIDS....not to mention the cost of drug...no national health service....and doctors forcing pregnant HIV+ mothers to give natural birth .... mad

24 May 2005

I think you were too harsh when you accussed Judy of being racist. That is a very potent term that can be used to stifle debate on legitimate issues (look how effectively Judy has been removed from this debate) that don't fit some people's ultra PC view of the world (not accussing you of that, just making a point). Yes, I do see a touch of xenophobia in Judy's post but I don't see overt racism. But that is my opinion

Everyone's opinion counts! Can you read what I wrote above. Maybe that will help to explain things. As for Judy leaving the debate - I have no comment to make.
Oh, and thanks for the comments about HIV testing and Brits abroad.
Remember that I am posting on a personal basis and my views on this topic are not meant to be construed as coming from a Moderator.

24 May 2005

Quote by Jags

I think you were too harsh when you accussed Judy of being racist. That is a very potent term that can be used to stifle debate on legitimate issues (look how effectively Judy has been removed from this debate) that don't fit some people's ultra PC view of the world (not accussing you of that, just making a point). Yes, I do see a touch of xenophobia in Judy's post but I don't see overt racism. But that is my opinion

Everyone's opinion counts! Can you read what I wrote above. Maybe that will help to explain things. As for Judy leaving the debate - I have no comment to make.
Oh, and thanks for the comments about HIV testing and Brits abroad.
Remember that I am posting on a personal basis and my views on this topic are not meant to be construed as coming from a Moderator.
I'm sure everyone is aware that your views wouldn't come from a moderator wink

In conclusion, I think the factual points have been well made, Judy has given her answer and it should be respected. To continue serves no useful purpose to the general community.
If individuals want a general discussion on racism I suggest they start a new thread and leave this to continue with the excellent factual contributions on HIV.

24 May 2005

Quote by Jags
Everyone's opinion counts! Can you read what I wrote above. Maybe that will help to explain things. As for Judy leaving the debate - I have no comment to make.

Oh, and thanks for the comments about HIV testing and Brits abroad.
Remember that I am posting on a personal basis and my views on this topic are not meant to be construed as coming from a Moderator.

You are right Jags, everyone's opinion is worth something. But when you you say someone's words sound like racism you are essentially accusing them of being racist. But maybe you are right, maybe Judy is racist and maybe I missed it - but that is not really worthy of debate!
You, as a moderator, and everyone else has the right to offer your opinion on any subject but perhaps you, as a moderator, need to be even more aware than the rest of us of general forum guidelines that suggest that if a post really pisses you off you should have a cup of tea and and re-read it a number of times to see if you are misinterpreting it before you write a response? I think your comments have mostly been utterly valid and I think Judy's angle is essentially wrong but we are not able to debate the issue with him because he was hurt by the harshness of your initial posts. If you had said something to the effect that you did not believe that Judy's contention was valid for the reasons that have subsequently been brought up and asked him to justify his point of view, perhaps with some statistics or reference to a study or two, and he was unable to do so then you could have suggested that his viewpoint sounded to you as if it was essentially racist in origin.
Maybe we would have learned that there is a bigger problem with immigration than we think or maybe Judy would have realised that immigration isn't the problem at all. Maybe Judy could have come to a point where he re-evaluated his views on the world, and the place of immigrants in it, and come to realise that he has a racist or xenophobic part to his being. Maybe he would have changed for the better because of this introspection or maybe he would have gone on the same was as before but either way we will never find out and Judy will probably not do that kind of thinking about his thoughts because he is hurt and defensive where this topic is concerned.
One point that should be made about the Catholic Church and its activities in Africa is that not all of the attitudes towards contraception are down to Catholic teaching. Many, yes, but not all. The Caotholic Church is not an overriding influence in all African countries that have HIV/AIDS problems - the Protestants and the Muslims have their share of the problems as well, not to mention the influence of the native African religions and cultural expectations. Actually, is it not a form of xenophobia and an assumption of cultural superiority to assume that Africa's problems are all down to Western influence? Sure, our influence plays no small part in the problems of that continent but maybe we should be focussing on our economic policies than the actions of any church group. If the Catholic Church alone had such an influnce on the HIV/AIDS situation surely Italy, Spain and France would all be rife with the disease?
I don't know what Judy's views really are as all I have to go on is a snapshot contained in one post that you then proceeded to shoot down in flames. Likewise I don't know what your views truly are either but one possible conclusion that I could draw from what you have written is that you don't like Catholics and the Catholic Church. I am writing this in the context of someone who grew up in Scotland and has seen a fair bit of sectarianism (something our English and Welsh members may not be so familiar with) so I could read between the lines of what you wrote and make the assumption that you are a Catholic-hating Protestant! But that would be a very, very wrong assumption to make as I know nothing about you. In a similar way you may have taken Judy's words and added a context of your own to them. In that context, can I ask you, what was it that prompted you to write about the Catholic Church's influence in Africa rather than the role of 3rd World Debt, the IMO or the World Bank? Actually, please don't feel the need to answer that as I do not want this debate to get into the realms of religion. All I am trying to achieve is to make you, and everyone else, think about how their posts can be taken out of context or how their views can be misinterpreted by those with an agenda (know or otherwise) of their own. No doubt I make the same mistakes myself at times but I try not to write anything when I am angry but when I do I try not to make it personal, which I am afraid you did in this case.
If the last paragpraph offended you in anyway please re-read it and see that I am not trying to offend and that I have not offered an opinion on who I think you are or what you think, only what someone could end up thinking should they put two plus two together and end up with five.
All the best,
H