Gareth Thomas has roped in Prince Harry for self publicity a campaign to raise awareness of HIV.

Are people actually unaware? I suppose Gareth Thomas might have been unaware, or he wouldn't have had unprotected sex. Would he?

It is a bit different for drug users, when the addiction takes priority over safety, but (except for occasional condom failure and rape) I cant see why people are STILL being infected through sex.
Or have I missed something?

Also, I am sorry he was blackmailed, but other than the normal thing of your health being private, what was the big secret?

I wouldn't be surprised if people were less aware now than they were when there were still health warnings on TV and in the cinema.

Stephen Fry fronted an excellent two-part documentary called "HIV and me" a few years ago. It's on YouTube and the blurb says "British writer and actor Stephen Fry reports on the shocking increase of new HIV-infected people in Britain and in sub-Saharan Africa.". From what I remember, it made it clear that there is still huge stigma around the issue.

Don't sleep around with strangers whilst unprotected, don't share needles.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

It is a bit different for drug users, when the addiction takes priority over safety, but (except for occasional condom failure and rape) I cant see why people are STILL being infected through sex.
Or have I missed something?
[/quote]

Yes you are missing the fact that sex without a condom feels much better than with one.
There are of course risks but if you drive a car there are risks. It doesnt stop you driving

If he is 'raising awareness' then it needs to be spelled out how it is acquired so that people can avoid getting it. But it isn't being spelled out in most of the recent articles. We're just being 'made aware'.

I'm now too scared to do much at all.

I remember some reports a few years back on rising rates of STD cases, particularly among young people. It was speculated that, after a long campaign about safe sex and lowering infection rates, a new generation of sexually active people thought, "Oh, it's safe now, no need for condoms."

People opposed to sexual activity among youths concentrate very much on emotional harm. It's a concept that I think is only rarely valid, in certain narrow circumstances. But leaving that aside for a moment, wouldn't it be better to focus on the very real, practical harm of syphilis, hepatitis etc? That would logically lead on to other possible consequences that might have to be dealt with, like negative feelings, social embarrassment, and generally finding a successful way through sexual relationships.

The difference in approach is that the latter seeks to empower people through education, to decide for themselves what risk and responsibility they're willing to take, in the hope that their own informed decisions will lead them to the kind of flourishing that they want. The former tries to control people's behaviour through compulsion, browbeating and instilling fear. I don't think trying to convince people that an ever-widening range of sexual activity is abuse and will harm them is at all effective in helping them to have a happy sex life and avoid real danger and adverse consequences.

Blue Boy wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

It is a bit different for drug users, when the addiction takes priority over safety, but (except for occasional condom failure and rape) I cant see why people are STILL being infected through sex.
Or have I missed something?


Yes you are missing the fact that sex without a condom feels much better than with one.
There are of course risks but if you drive a car there are risks. It doesnt stop you driving[/quote]

I see. considering the expense of the treatment for HIV, and the absolute misery that (God forbid) aids causes, I wish people would put protecting themselves and others first.