http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4895012.stm
Again, another false witness against your neighbor.
I hadn't heard that. This makes a lot more sense to me now. I can understand, hypothetically, why some people would have an HIV fetish. There is a tendency to fetishize things that one is afraid of, or that are generally considered taboo and fearful. Given the fear that the country, and especially the gay community, had of HIV when it first became well known, this was probably inevitable. But it does make more sense when placed in the same category as amputation and castration fetishes. A handful of people find the ideas arousing; maybe 2 people actually do it.
We have friends who're married, who swing. The third Tuesday of the month, they open up their house to about 10 couples and they all show up in skimpy clothes and have sex with eachother all over the house. They're heterosexual, frankly they're homophobic... They outright hate gay people.
So, since they're straight, I guess it's safe to say that swinger-orgies are entirely natural for straight people, and it should be equated a normal heterosexual practice.
I am prone to the sorts of curiosity that kill cats--a while ago, I clicked on a few links somebody had offered under the title, "Absolutely do not click on these!" In the brief glimpses I got while fumbling for the "back" button, I was able to notice two things:
A: they were "scat" porn.
B: they were definitely marketed for heterosexual men.
I guess that's a straight thing, too.
Personally I saw the point in posting it as being something entirely different and one that most of the objections so far posted seem to prove.
The point is that if this same behavior, a behavior that does pose risks to all of society, were being done by nearly any group other than gay men, there would be a huge issue made of it. The CDC would be all over it and there would be steps being taken to stop it. The reason that there aren't is exactly illustrated by the reactions here. Any mention of the behavior, and mention of it being wrong is taken as an attack against all homosexuals.
I don't think anybody here believes or has suggested that
the article is an attack against homosexuals. The OP has a history of bringing up vile and extremely rare practices and claiming that they are the norm for homosexual people.
Had, say, Beanieboy posted this, it would have gotten a very different reaction....I was going to say that it would probably have been a meaningful thread, but I'm not sure that that's possible with this article as an OP.
There really isn't a whole lot of meaningful conversation that one can get out of this. Nobody has gotten up on a soapbox and denounced it yet because it pretty much denounces itself. The condemnation of the act is so obvious that it just feels like an insult to one's own intelligence and the intelligence of everybody around to spell it out.
I will though, if it would get that pink elephant out of the room.
Deliberately infecting people with HIV is morally reprehensible. Deliberately exposing oneself to HIV is extremely irresponsible, bordering on completely insane.
For the record, I also disapprove of child rape, the experiments performed by Dr. Mengele and whoever it was last summer, in town near mine, who stole a puppy and impaled it on a cast iron fence.
These are all very naughty things to do, regardless of the sexuality of the people involved.