Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.bio
Subject: Re: Recent articles; homosex & science
Message-ID: <3445@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 20-Nov-85 13:43:21 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3445
Posted: Wed Nov 20 13:43:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 08:03:05 EST
References: <1612@bbncca.ARPA> <20@bbncc5.UUCP>
Followup-To: net.bio
Organization: USAMC ALMSA, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 36

In article <20@bbncc5.UUCP> sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes:
>The claim is that the vagina is a good shield against AIDS virus infection
>or dissemination due to its intact epithelial structure, as opposed to the
>anus and the penile urethra which are far more vascular and open to viral
>infection.  These are interesting hypotheses, certainly worthy of continued
>exploration, but they remain hypotheses, and no public health official has
>ever made as strong a statement as DISCOVER, trying to pass this off as
>established fact.  It is interesting that this article comes out at the
>same time that news reports have uncovered the extent of AIDS in sexually
>active heterosexuals in Africa.  This article discounts whatever earlier
>had been reported as being wholly reducible to the practice of
>scarification, a cosmetic procedure using unsanitized needles.  Why
>promiscuous heterosexual activity seems to be correlated with the incidence
>of the disease in Africa certainly is unexplored by this article.

It would seem to me that "promiscuous heterosexual activity" would
include anal intercourse. It certainly is popular currently in American
heterosexual pornography, and, unless it could be shown that it is
unlikely to happen in Africa, due to some cultural differences, I would
assume it to be just as common amongst the promiscuous there as here.
This does not mean I believe or support any position on the subject -- I
know far too little to do so. But, until I was shown otherwise, I would
expect that any human being who could be described as "promiscuous"
would indulge in any possible sexual activity, and we would have to rule
OUT the possibility that some one or combination of those practices
would be the vector or cause in some sexually-transmitted disease.

I'm not sure about the statement that "discounts" scarification. Was it
proven that AIDS was not trnsmitted in this fashion? It sure seems in
line with the "dirty needle" transmission vector amongst Haitians and
intravenous drug abusers. Why wouldn't it be a factor?

(This host no longer allows access to net.motss, so I am restricting
distribution to net.bio. Please perpetuate discussion here.)

Will