Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I think all you can do with Joe is to tell him what you think he should
    do.  I don't think you should threaten to do anything if he doesn't act
    as you think he should.  You are not responsible, nor should you feel
    responsible for anything that happens as the result of Joe's behavior.
    You can't protect people from themselves and all the dangers that lurk
    about in life.  Don't send anonymous letters.  Don't try to save
    mankind.  Talk to your own doctor or therapist for advice.  Cause I
    may be wrong on this one.
    						- Vick

    >Any advice on how to convince Joe to be honest?
    
        If he was going to be honest...he would have done it by now.
    I don't think there's anything you can do to *make* him fess up.
    I'd say right about now he's thinking he shouldn't say anything until
    he knows for sure it's aids.  I mean why blow a good thing if it
    turns out to be just VD?
    
    >If he doesn't, what action should I take?
        Are you friends with latest girlfriend or the wife?  If yes,
    I'd tell my friend.  I'd decide how on just how close the friendship
    is.  If very close, in person.  If merely likable acquaintance, then
    probaly the note signed ANON.
        Me, personally...I'd let them know either way. At this point in
    time I'd say the guy has done quite a good job of screwing up a lot of
    lives and wouldn't give a rats ass if he lost his family and ended up
    dying alone.  
    
    >Or are you going to tell me I should do nothing?
      
        I suspect many will tell you this.  Before they do they should
    ask if they would want to be told.  I know I would.
        "The worst thing about AIDS is not dying, but telling people that
    you care about that they might have it too"  A quote from a close
    family friend entering the last stages of the disease.
    
        And Deb, I'm truly sorry you're in this position...it's sucks.
    
    
    
                                    L.J.

    This is an easy one for me. If my wife was possibly HIV positive, would
    I want to be warned? Absolutely.
    
    Applying that golden rule, I'd absolutely feel that Joe should
    enlighten his sexual partners. I would make the following threat:
    
        "Joe, tell Jane and Local-girlfriend that you may be HIV positive
         by September 25, or else I will. I will find out whether you've
         told them by calling them and asking the question 'Has Joe told
         you that he may be HIV positive?'"
    
    I don't think you have any responsibility to tell Jane about
    Local-girlfriend. You absolutely have the responsibility to act to save
    the two women from a deadly disease. IMO.

I'm in the "try to convince Joe to do the right thing, but nothing else"
camp.  Also, remember that Deb doesn't know if Joe has HIV or some other
illness.  It would be wrong for her to suggest to Joe's partners that
he may have HIV when she really doesn't know what he has.

Deb, I'd recommend against contacting Joe's partners unless you want to
make a lot of enemies real fast.

					Steve

    Don't make enemies, Deb. Your main goal is to keep them as friends.

 Since you don't know for sure, telling the other people is making a 
judgment on your part, if your wrong you could be the sole cause
of breaking up a family, assuming the guy has told his wife he has
the three month flu.

If your right you could be saving/prolonging some lives by telling.

The dilemma:
Human life vs. the shame of ratting on someone

If I saw a mugger on the street I would call the police yet I would not 
feel responsible for the mugger or the victims problems.
 
I would tell, maybe anonymously, but I would not feel obligated to
be responsible for the actions of telling what you know, just tell them what
you know and why. 

    Why does this person not know if he's HIV positive yet?  I assume he
    at least has had the decency to take the test!
    
    
    
                                    L.J.

>Joe admits to having a rather nasty STD.  He won't say if he's 
>been diagnosed with anything else, but his symptoms read like a laundry list 
>for HIV.

 Unfortunately, you are involved. You have the oh so fun choice between
doing what's right and dealing with the almost certain unpleasant consequences
or not doing what's right and dealing with your conscience. Here's my thoughts
on how this ought to be handled.

 First of all, I tend to be a "do the right thing and deal with the unpleasant
consequences" rather than doing nothing and deal with the conscience type
of guy. With this in mind, I think that it is proper for the women in his
life to find out the trouble on the horizon.

 I suspect that no matter what STD he has that there is a high likelihood of his
wife and girlfriend having been exposed. Since many STDs are not easily
detectable in women, it behooves them to go looking for them on purpose
since they probably were exposed. Clearly it is preferable that Joe tells
the women himself. In the absence of this amount of courage on Joe's part,
you get to be the messenger.

 I think I would talk to Joe specifically about whether he has told his
wife and girlfriend, whether he intends to. I would probably imply that
they have to find out sometime, and that sooner is better for health reasons.
I'd ask him point blank if he has been tested for HIV and if he is HIV+.
In the end, if he decided to wimp out, I'd have to tell them.

 Since I do not thrive on confrontation, I'd probably wimp out from a face to
face confrontation. I'd either call them on the phone or write them anonymously.
I think a phone call would probably be the better way, because at least you
have an implicit acknowledgement (not to mention the fact that it's more 
personal.)

 Doing nothing to me is not an option I could consider and be able to live
with myself. Looking at it from the victim's perspective- would _you_ want
to know? I would. treat others as you would want to be treated...

 The Doctah

>    How can ANYONE maintain the kind of emotional intimacy that I
>    think marriage has to be, and NOT be aware of such philanderings?

 Some men are clever and can hide things and/or act.

>    She owns that part of the matter that can properly be ascribed to her
>    obtuseness.

 You're all wet here, Herb. He was gone on business travel. It cannot be any 
easier to hide than that.

    Gee, whats the problem. Tell them all or go with the flow and let half
    the world die cause someone cannot keep his lizard in his pants when he
    is away from the wife. Who care if he is unfaithful. He is a smuck with
    a dangerous problem for being such. Bottom line fess up. If our society
    wants to end this AIDs we all gotta be brave boys and girls and tell
    everyone when it happens. Reguardless of the outcome, get help. 
    
    Or, how about this? What of the children? When they find that mom and
    dad are both dead cause dad isn't doing things smart? Leaving the kids
    in a foster home? Leave the kids up for adoption? I think Joe should
    fess up, quite leading his life with his loins and us his brains for
    once.
    
    Yep, gonna get pounced on for this one.....

    re Doctah .10 -  Wow, I think you did a super job of summing up the
    situation.
    
    re LJ .8 - I don't know what he knows.  I only know he hasn't told 
    *me* whether he has HIV or not.

    re Paige .7 - Even if Joe doesn't have HIV, he *definitely* has a
    very serious STD, which all of his ex-lovers may be spreading around
    (and which his wife may also have contracted).  If left untreated,
    it can be very serious.

    re Herb .4 - Boston's AAC AIDS Hotline number is 1-800-235-2331 (or
    617-536-7733).  I thought that was a good article - thanks for
    bringing that up.

    Not to slight anyone...thanks Vick, Hoyt, Steve and George, too for 
    all the great responses so far.  This is short because the response 
    time is being *very* s l o w.

	deb

>>>>    How can ANYONE maintain the kind of emotional intimacy that I
>>>>    think marriage has to be, and NOT be aware of such philanderings?

>>>> Some men are clever and can hide things and/or act.

and, most women who are married to one of these examples of pond scum live
with a great deal of denial.  She doesn't see what she cannot afford to see
and continue to live with the creep.  She is married and wants to remain that
way.

I think the base note's description of this, and I use the term loosely, "man"
leaves very little doubt that he will not, willingly, tell any of the women
in his life that he has a STD, whether it is AIDS or not.  Therefore, as a
moral human being, you, must convince him that to fail to inform is going to
lead HIM to a worse situation than to not inform.  After all, he is completely
self-focused, so any argument used to convince him to "do the right thing"
must benefit him, FIRST. This calls for cold, hard blackmail.  In your shoes,
I would definitely make sure the women in his life are informed so they may
seek medical tests and care, if necessary.  Human lives may very well be
at stake.  I would use ANY threat necessary to make him:

	1) get tested for HIV immediately
	2) inform his wife and his local girlfriend of his true condition,
	   once the HIV test has been performed

Before you talk to him, get all the information you can on symptoms, hot-lines
to call for information/help, information on where he can go to be tested,
etc.  Hand him a big handful of brochures and information and simply tell him,

"You may be risking the life of your wife - she is the mother of your
children and the only person left to care for them IF YOU DIE...I will not
allow you to do this to another human being.  Get tested, and inform your
wife of your true condition within the next 7 days, or I WILL TELL YOUR WIFE
ABOUT YOUR DATES WHEN YOU ARE OUT OF TOWN AND I WILL TELL HER ABOUT THE LOCAL
GIRLFRIEND AND I WILL WARN HER THAT SHE MUST BE TESTED FOR ALL STD'S."

and then inform him that he also must tell the local girlfriend or YOU WILL.
AND MAKE HIM PROVE TO YOU THAT HE HAS!!!  In whatever manner you deem most
appropriate, make sure he has been tested, and that he has informed the women
involved of his condition.

Ugly?  You bet.  However, if you or someone doesn't make him take care of
these women in some manner, they may die.  I would be willing to face a great
deal of ugliness to save a life or two.

You will NOT be either woman's friend when you are done.  There is no way that
the women will want to face someone who "knows" that stuff about them...but,
you can live with yourself.

    If I was this guy's wife, I'd want to know, if I hadn't already.
     Regardless, if it's confirmed or not, HIV or STDs.
    
    What if, one of these guy's romances eventually makes it to your
    bed, and you didn't know that once upon a time she had been with
    this guy.
    
    I'd make an anon. call now!!

    possible approach/settle the issue in your mind....
    
    He will no doubt want to return to his wonderful lifestyle when the STD
    (assuming this is all it is) is cleared up. Well, he can't go back to
    the girlfriend if he hasn't told her and she is treated and cleared. If
    he plans on not seeing her ever again your course is clear (you do know
    who this woman is, Yes?) Same for the wife - so appeal to the slimeball
    at his level of thinking. Or did I miss something?
    JR

    When you knew he was screwing around, why didn't you tell the wife then
    and save him from this deadly disease he may or may not have?  Maybe he
    doesn't have AIDS and has learned his lesson and when he's well again
    he'll start all over with his wife and live happily ever after.  Of
    course, not if you jump into the AIDS panic and decide to save mankind
    by taking the very courageous action of anonymously calling his wife
    and telling her all about the things he told you in confidence.  I
    thought AIDS was hard to contract heterosexually (right, Herb?).  Did
    he confess to you any homosexual encounters or intravenous drug use?
    I thought AIDS didn't get detected earlier than it did because it looked 
    like so many other things.  Why don't you think he has one of those other
    things.  I think the advice being given here, especially given how little 
    any of us in this notesfile know about what is really going on, is pretty 
    bad.  Say the word "AIDS" and everyone takes out their guns and starts
    shooting.  Sure, talk to Joe and find out more.  But what kind of a
    person would anonymously tell a man's wife he may have AIDS if you
    aren't pretty damn sure?  I don't care how big a slimeball he is.
    
    					- Vick

    RE:.19
    
       I could care less if it's AIDS or some other STD...I'd tell her
    and darn quick too.
    
    >I thought AIDS was hard to contract heterosexually
       Must be a private jab at someone...I'm giving you the benefit of
    not being this obviously ignorant.
    
       If the man is cheating on his wife they don't have a happy go lucky
    marriage.  Something is either missing or very wrong with one or both
    of them.  
    
    
    
                                         L.J.

    
    
    First, if this man has NOT been tested for HIV, Deb, I'd grab him (by
    the scrotum if necessary, and insist that he be tested.  Then, and
    maybe only then, with the information the test will provide, will you
    be able to procede with this situation.
    
    For me, I'd ratyher have people hate me and still be alive than attend
    my friend's funerals.
    
    	GJD

re: how could she not have known?

egads!  Are you really living in a hermetically sealed space capsule or
something?  She doesn't SEE/KNOW because if she has to get unmarried, she
loses not only her spouse (whom she may "love" despite his childish
and selfish actions), but probably something like 33% of her standard of
living....by any estimation, that means that she probably becomes dirt poor
real fast - with several children to take care of.  He, on the other hand,
if he follows the US statistics, ends up with an increase in his standard
of living as shown by his disposable income.  Them are the statistics on
this subject from our own government statisticians....as well as the stats
from the state governments.  It isn't a rosy picture.

She isn't LETTING HERSELF see.  Add on the perception that she will
be 'damaged goods' as a divorced woman with several children -- her odds
of finding a loving spouse are real poor, as the majority of men state that
they want THEIR OWN CHILDREN, not a passle of step-children, and you have a 
very undesirable condition, divorce.

re:  what if it isn't AIDS.....well, okay, what if it is just syphilis?  she
probably won't see the lesion, as it usually shows up inside the vagina on
a woman, and it seldom hurts.  In 5 years she begins to have crippling
arthritis - IF the doctor can figure out what to look for, further damage can
be avoided, but the arthritis stays.  Or it might attack the brain.  That isn't
something you even want to think about.

I agree that calling the women directly should only be a last option...but,
they must be told the truth so they can advise their medical resources what
to look for.  If the man can be blackmailed into doing what is right, fine.
Let him do it, but make it clear that the women will be told, one way or 
another.  You aren't just talking inconvenience and unhappiness here, you
are talking about REAL LIFE AND DEATH or at the very least, TERRIBLE DISEASE,
if left untreated.  And, the truth is, a married woman's doctor wouldn't
THINK to check until a great deal of damage had already been done...no, there
aren't nice, or easy, answers here.  It sucks big time.

    re.22
    
    When they do a yearly pap smear would an STD show up?
    
    
                                    L.J.

Yes, it's possible for a person to overlook their mate's infidelities.
My mother has done just that for 47 years now.

And as far as "ratting" on the potential HIV+ lothario - are all of us
who would do so absolutely sure that _we_ are not HIV+ ?  Do all of us
know the complete personal history of all of their lovers (and their lovers'
previous lovers)(and their lovers' previous lovers' previous lovers)(etc) 
since 1977 or so?

Ben

    Yes, I'm absolutely positive I'm not HIV positive.  I get tested
    every 6 months in case it pops up from former relationships and
    may have remained totally dormant.
    
    I still plan on getting the tests at least once yearly and I'm in
    a monogamous relationship now.  
    
    
    
                                     L.J.

    
>>>    When they do a yearly pap smear would an STD show up?
    
some will, some won't.  AND, you are risking a great deal in assuming a woman
has a yearly pap smear.  She may not.  And the medical folks have to know what
to be looking for.  If they think she has an infection, they may spend months
trying to treat an STD ineffectively before determining that her problem is
the STD.  By then, she can be damaged enough to be sterile or worse.

pap smears are used to detect abnormalities in the cells which are an indicator
or cancer or a pre-cancerous condition.  An alert lab technician may detect
an attendent infection, but there are no guarentees.  HIV is only detected by
looking FOR HIV.

Gonorrhea is easily detected by even an unobservant lab tech, but syphilis can
be hard to find if you aren't hunting it.

re: heterosexual infection of AIDS

yes, it CAN be harder for heterosexual transmission to occur.  However, if
the couple practices high-risk sexual activities, it can also be very easy.
If you are not privy to the exact manner in which sexual congress occurs,
you must assume the vulnerability exists.

>Say the word "AIDS" and everyone takes out their guns and starts shooting. 

 You're out of line, Vick. Some of us specifically said "whether it's AIDS
or not." (I used "no matter what STD...") My perception of your statement
is that you are essentially calling members here AIDS-phobic or homophobic
and I find that assertion unfair and not supported by the bulk of the evidence.

>But what kind of a person would anonymously tell a man's wife he may have 
>AIDS if you aren't pretty damn sure? 

 Clearly something is amiss. The man admits to having a "nasty" STD. There is
little doubt that there is a high probability that th wife and girlfriend have
been exposed. What are you going to do, watch him die and then tell them?
Have the woman find out after the autopsy? Have the woman become ill like her
husband and find out from a doctor? It seems to me that you don't put much
stock in early treatment.

 We know that we are talking about a high probability that the women have 
been exposed to an STD. We also know what happens to people who contract
STDs. Let's put it this way, if the woman was someone you loved (sister,
neice, close friend, etc) and they (for example) became sterile because
the person that infected them lacked the courage to do the right thing
and the people that knew she was probably exposed also lacked that courage,
how would you feel? Bitter? Angry? I know I sure as hell would. All that needs
to happen for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

 the Doctah

    Okay, so you call the wife and say, "Honey, Joe's been cheatin' on ya
    and I think he may have AIDS."  So she hangs up and suddenly feels all
    the years of suppressed rage and takes a knife and carves Joe up.  Or
    maybe she has a few drinks and goes driving and runs off the road and
    kills herself.  Then you find out all he's got is syphilis or
    something.  What I'm saying is, before you go get on your high horse 
    and start meddling in business that probably isn't your own, be sure
    you know what's going on.  
    
    There seem to be an awful lot of holier-than-thou types floating
    angelically around this issue.  Seeing as how something like 2/3 of all
    husbands at some time cheat on their wives and something like 1/3 of
    wives at some time cheat on their husbands, we're dealing with a pretty
    average Joe here.  It's also quite possible he doesn't philander as much as
    he claims.  Get your facts straight before you do something stupid. 
    Hell is paved with good intentions and no doubt peopled with meddlers.
    
    						- Vick

    "Nasty STD" doesn't tell me much.  It clearly has symptoms, cause Joe's
    real sick.  I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.  Deb has to make the
    decision.  Everyone else is jumping on the "save the world from Joe"
    bandwagon, and I thought Deb should get some more balanced advice.
    If all these women or men who have been having sex with travelling
    salesmen haven't been practicing safe sex, is it Deb's responsibility
    to track them down and warn them of their impending doom?  Or to
    blackmail Joe into doing it?  I don't think I see it that way.  I
    definitely would talk to Joe.  But anonymous phone calls???  I don't
    think so.  
    						- Vick

Re: .30

Not "everyone else", Vick.

		Steve

    No, Steve, I realize others have taken the "nay" side in this as well.  
    Sorry.  And thanks for pointing that out.
    						- Vick
    

    .29> so you call the wife and say, "Honey, Joe's been cheatin' on ya
       > and I think he may have AIDS."  So she hangs up and suddenly feels all
       > the years of suppressed rage and takes a knife and carves Joe up.  Or
       > maybe she has a few drinks and goes driving and runs off the road and
       > kills herself.  
    
    I infer from this that you would attach some kind of responsibility to
    deb for the ensuing fight/murder/suicide/whatever?
    
       > Then you find out all he's got is syphilis or something.
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Which, as has been emphasized repeatedly here, can lead to sterility,
    dementia, and/or death.
    
    How nasty does the STD have to be before you'll deign to clue in the
    almost-certain victim(s)?
    
    Leslie

    That's the trouble with notes:  You can't see any of the halos.
    
    					- Vick

    >I infer from this that you would attach some kind of responsibility to
    >deb for the ensuing fight/murder/suicide/whatever?
    
    Absolutely!  If you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, and there is no
    fire, you will be held culpable for the ensuing deaths. 
    
    In fact, Deb might check with a lawyer to determine what actions might
    be taken against her if she pursues things the way she has been
    leaning.  
    
    So you think that if she doesn't act and people are hurt she's
    responsible, but if she does act and people are hurt then she isn't
    responsible.  I don't get it.
    
    >How nasty does the STD have to be before you'll deign to clue in the
    >almost-certain victim(s)?
    
    You see, you are prejudging this case.  Maybe Joe got the VD
    from his wife.  Who knows.  Maybe Joe's the real victim.  And where are
    the "almost-certain victims".  He may have gotten it from the last
    person he had sex with.  
    
    Again, I feel we are not possessed of enough of the facts here to
    perform a scrupulous lynching.
    
    						- Vick
    
    

    Wow - thanks for all the replies everyone.  A couple of things...

    re Vick (.19, etc): Whoa, calm down there...You're making the assumption 
    that I "knew he was screwing around," not that he just told me recently.  
    And if i had known, and suggested he get tested every 6 months as a 
    precaution, how do you think Mr. Married-Joe-Average would have reacted?  
    I expect he would have laughed and said I was being ridiculous since the 
    chances of that were so low.  I have only his word that he's never used 
    IV drugs or had sex with men.   It's true that transmission is easier 
    from male to female (since the female is the receptive partner), but 
    transmission from female to male has been documented many times.  If I 
    understand your statement, "the reason AIDS didn't get detected earlier" 
    was because no one knew what they were looking for or where to look for 
    it.  And as for whipping out the guns in an "AIDS panic"...maybe some 
    people would do that, but not me (and not, from what I've read, most of
    the people who've responded here).  You're way off base on that one.

    Just to clear something up:  As I said, this is a former co-worker who 
    I see occasionally.  This does not equate to a dear, close friend who 
    has confided to me on a routine basis for the past 10 years.  Also, I'm 
    not in the habit of conducting unsolicited AIDS lectures every time I 
    have a casual lunch with someone while we're talking about work, sports, 
    politics and gossip.  And re: my jumping to conclusions about his 
    illness:  I didn't fall off the hay wagon  yesterday folks, and my 
    experience with HIV people is not limited to abstract discussions, TV 
    and brochures.

    Personally, I don't care if he has fooled around or not.  If it were
    just that, I wouldn't agonize over telling anybody anything.  But as
    Wilde <what's your first name? your notes are great!> said, people's 
    health and lives are at stake here, and he is responsible for that.  
    And as many of you have said, if it were me who was definitely exposed 
    to an STD and possibly exposed to HIV, I would *certainly* want to 
    know about it.

    This whole discussion has brought out a lot of terrific responses.  
    I've found it interesting that in addition to exploring possibilities,
    people have made various assumptions which can lead to erroneous 
    conclusions.  However, it is still very interesting and helpful.

    And I think the moral questions of how do we encourage/force someone
    to get an HIV test, how do we encourage/force people to inform partners
    they may have infected with something, or how/if we choose to tell 
    their partners if they won't...these are situations that are very
    relevant to our times.

    	deb

    re .39
    
    Very good response.  Direct and to the point.
    
    Definitely do the right thing, inform the others who are involved.
    
    

>    Okay, so you call the wife and say, "Honey, Joe's been cheatin' on ya
>    and I think he may have AIDS."  So she hangs up and suddenly feels all
>    the years of suppressed rage and takes a knife and carves Joe up.

 What do you have to say about the relative probability of this happening
versus the relative probability of his wife having contracted an std given
the fact that he has one?

>What I'm saying is, before you go get on your high horse 
>    and start meddling in business that probably isn't your own, be sure
>    you know what's going on.  

 And what I'm saying is standing by and doing nothing may sit perfectly
well with you, but it doesn't with me. I haven't said Deb MUST do anything;
I've offered what I would do when confronted with such a situation. I could
not watch something happen to somebody that might be prevented if I only
did the difficult thing. And you know what, there's a possibility that doing
the difficult thing would be the wrong choice. Maybe the best thing _would_
be to do nothing and let nature take its course. Nobody really knows. 

 It is my personal belief that given the potential consequences, it is
more likely that choosing to "meddle in business that probably isn't your own"
will turn out to be the choice that results in the least aggregate human
suffering. You don't have to agree. (I would appreciate it if you would eschew
terming this "getting on your high horse" and being "holier-than-thou," 
however.)

 This is one case where a little knowledge is dangerous. There would be
no ethical question if Deb didn't know what she knows. But she does, and
that's what makes this a guessing game. My point is the I would try to
control potential damage to innocent people. You seem to be saying "everyone 
does it, we don't really know how bad it is anyway, so why blow this guy's
cover." Is this a fair assessment?

 Let me put it to you this way: what set of circumstances, if any, would lead
you to act on your knowledge? What would you do?

 The Doctah

    2/3 of men cheat on their wives?  And 1/3 of women?  Now, I've never
    been one to ask for proof of these factoids before, but I'd really
    like to know where you got those figures.
    
    
    
           L.J. (Whose halo is held up by her horns)

>Is this a fair assessment?
    
    Of course it isn't.  I was simply implying that people who were casting
    ready aspersions (e.g., slimeball) on this poor guy who may be dying of
    AIDS, without having much in the way of facts about the case, and
    suggesting that something had to be done about this guy and his ilk
    even if we have to take matters into our own hands, were being 
    holier-than-thou, judgmental, on their high horses.  So this guy had
    a lot of sex with consenting adults and was not smart enough to take
    preventive measures.  Heavens to Murgitroid, he was married too.  
    There's an awful lot of moralizing going on here.  So the guy has a bad
    marriage.  If that's a sin then there are an awful lot of sinners
    reading this note.  I feel triple compassion for this guy because his
    life is screwed up in so many ways.  I don't for a second think that
    this guy has only gotten what he deserves, any more than I would think
    that about a gay person with AIDS.
    
    Now as for blowing the whistle.  My only point has been that it is not
    good to blow the whistle if you don't have your facts straight or
    complete.  I'm not sure I'd be ready to do the "right thing" and
    maybe destroy what's left of his marriage unless I was pretty sure of my
    facts.  
    
    Deb knows this guy less then one might have at first assumed, and
    she actually hasn't told us what the symptoms are that make her think
    it might be AIDS.  Has this guy really not talked to his doctor?  What
    does the doctor say?  Isn't there some kind of reporting mechanism 
    that tries to notify sexual partners of HIV+ patients?  Maybe Deb can
    help us there.  
    
    					- Vick

    Re:  factoids
    
    I was afraid someone would call me out on that.  It's been awhile since
    I saw those figures somewhere and I'm not sure where I saw them.  So
    don't believe them if you don't want to.  
    							- Vick
    P.S.  And don't quote me either :^)

 Vick-

 I don't believe it's fruitful to make this guy wear the scarlet letter
(so Herb's pronouncements mean nothing to me.) On the other hand, calling him
a "poor guy" seems to be moralizing to a similar degree, albeit in a different
direction. 

 I'm not about to jump all over this guy because he catted around; it's
pretty sleazy but like you say, not at all uncommon. What bothers me most
about his behavior is his unwillingness to deal with his situation in
an honorable and moral manner. He is potentially leaving his children orphans,
and he is more concerned about the hard time he's going to get from the wife
when she finds out what he's been doing (which he apparently realizes is
wrong since he kept it from her.)

 It was his choice to play the part of Studley, and he got caught with his
proverbial pants down. I personally believe it is his moral obligation to
notify anyone whom he may have infected about the situation. You may disagree.

 Many states have laws requiring people diagnosed with STDs to notify all
sexual partners because of precisely the behavior we are seeing here. He may
well be breaking the law. In any case, the guy hardly deserves a medal
for his exploits...

 Anyway, I'd really like to know what your criteria are to initiate action
(if you would do that under any circumstances.) That might clear up alot
of the murkiness.

 the Doctah

RE: TYGON::WILDE first name = Dian or D    8^}

re: Holier-than-thou attitude

well, okay, I'm not married....but I still feel that a man/women that is
enthusiastically cheating on the contract that that he/she "signed" upon
getting married -- you know, the part about "cleaving only unto", etc,
which, in most people's minds means A MONAGAMOUS COMMITTMENT TO YOUR
SPOUSE, is pond scum.  This isn't a MORAL issue in my case, it is a
medical issue and always has been.  Before there was AIDS, there were
Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Herpes, and several other STD's - ALL OF WHICH
CAN LEAD TO DEFORMITIES IN BABIES BORN TO WOMEN WHO HAVE THEM...AND
CAN LEAD TO STERILITY OR WORSE IN WOMEN WHO ARE AFFLICTED AND NOT
TREATED.  I have NO sympathy for a man/woman who betrays the 
trust of marriage. If the marriage isn't working, fix it or get out...
don't just blow off the promise and not tell anyone.  That is totally
reprehensible behavior, unworthy of an adult.

If the man lived alone, or had partners with whom no committment or
trust was implied and who, therefore, might be assumed to KNOW they
needed to take protective precautions, it might be different to me...
I honestly don't know.  However, this case is one of a father who has
quite possibly killed himself AND IS KILLING HIS SPOUSE without her 
knowlege.  Even if you don't care what happens to this woman, their
children's future becomes very percarious with both parents at 
risk...and surely THAT is enough of a problem for someone to become 
concerned enough to get off their butt and address this issue with 
the man in question.  

I agree that the FIRST person to approach is the MAN himself.  If
he steadfastly refuses to do what needs to be done, then I can only
offer what I would do....blackmail him into it -- or, if he refused
to comply, I would do the ugly thing and warn his wife...knowing
full well that I would be hated for it.  Some things are more
important than being liked.  Besides, hasn't it occurred to anyone
that the man might WANT someone to push him into doing what needs
to be done...it can be a very hard decision to make and someone
with his track record isn't big on making mature decisions that
might cost him anything -- evidence being his refusal to live to
his marital committment or get out of the marriage...
however, he surely hasn't been raised in a moral vacuum.  It is 
quite possible that his subconcious is allowing a lot of stuff to 
come up in conversation - just to set himself up to get a large 
dose of cold, hard reality thrown in his face - 
to be forced to deal with this problem.  I've seen alot of this
kind of thing...

At any rate, it is a very ugly situation, and I don't envy the
base-noter...I've been too close to this fire for comfort and I
know what the fall-out will be.  It isn't pretty - no matter what
you do.

re .38  Herb,

    Why do you always attack?  Everyone else here is having a discussion of 
the issues, yet you come out here with guns drawn attacking me personally.  
Why do you feel you have to do that?  You practically called me a liar, and 
frankly, I really don't care for that.

    In any event, yes, this is a real family we're talking about here.

re .43  Vick,

    Yes, he's under a doctor's care.  There is no "reporting mechanism" in 
most states (definitely none in this case).  It is *strongly encouraged* but 
it is not mandated by the government.  Those working with HIV issues are 
totally against both mandatory testing and mandatory reporting to partners, 
although we strongly encourage people who feel they've been at risk to be 
tested and to inform all partners if they are tested positive.

re .45  Herb,

    "slime-ball" "scum" "snake"...Is it really necessary and germane to the 
discussion to resort to name-calling and attack the guy?  Especially when 
he's not even here to hear you.  Why can't you discuss things without 
attacking?  I never said he was a saint; are you?

re .46  Doctah and .48 Dian,

    Two thumbs up for your responses.  And in addition to the possible 
ramifications of STDs that Dian mentioned, it is known that Herpes for 
example can cause blindness, neurological problems, mental retardation and 
even death in newborns.

Oh, and one other thing...Yes, I have called the AAC Hotline.  (surprise, 
surprise)...The volunteer said that that was "the toughest problem" he'd 
ever had.  He suggested:

* If you see the wife and/or girlfriend, introduce Joe and his health into 
  the conversation and work your way into talking about STDs and HIV.

* An anonymous letter is "an option" but he personally didn't think he
  could do it.

He said that it's "pretty certain" given what I told him that he is HIV+.  
Given that, he said "it's a pretty good bet that he has shared HIV with 
those women."  He said that the fact that he has a new baby is bothersome, 
because since the wife doesn't know anything she doesn't know what to look 
for in any changes in the baby's condition.  When I told him how I was 
concerned for the women and baby because they could be infected without 
having symptoms, and even if they did develop symtoms doctors wouldn't
suspect HIV, and they can have different manifestations than men, he said 
I was "right on" and that "you really know the facts."  In the end, he had 
no clear answers, and said it was purely a conscience matter.

	deb

    I donno, I don't see anyone riding on a high house Vick. I see some
    folks who are conserned about the welfare of people, children, and the
    society as a whole here. I think this is not longer a soward in the
    stone thing for the gay community. It is a real life danger and we are
    ALL conserned. 

>   <<< Note 647.46 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Guess I'll set a course and go..." >>

> I don't believe it's fruitful to make this guy wear the scarlet letter
>(so Herb's pronouncements mean nothing to me.) On the other hand, calling him
>a "poor guy" seems to be moralizing to a similar degree, albeit in a different
>direction. 

    To say someone is a "poor guy" is hardly to say he is a good guy.  I
    don't see how showing compassion is moralizing.
    
>What bothers me most
>about his behavior is his unwillingness to deal with his situation in
>an honorable and moral manner. He is potentially leaving his children orphans,
>and he is more concerned about the hard time he's going to get from the wife
>when she finds out what he's been doing (which he apparently realizes is
>wrong since he kept it from her.)

    If indeed this is what's going on.  I don't have enough information.
    Besides, the dying frequently practice strong denial.  He may need a
    lot of talking to before he sees what's going on clearly.  Maybe he's
    a moral person and maybe he isn't.  I just can't make that judgment
    with the sparse facts at my disposal.
    
> It was his choice to play the part of Studley, and he got caught with his
>proverbial pants down. 
    
    Moralizing again.
    
    >I personally believe it is his moral obligation to
    >notify anyone whom he may have infected about the situation. You may
    >disagree.

    I don't disagree.  I simply don't know what his doctor says he has.
      
> Many states have laws requiring people diagnosed with STDs to notify all
>sexual partners because of precisely the behavior we are seeing here. He may
>well be breaking the law. 
    
    Fine, then Deb only need notify the authorities.  She doesn't need to
    make anonymous phone calls.
    
    >In any case, the guy hardly deserves a medal
>for his exploits...

    Show me anything in my replies that implies I think that.
    
> Anyway, I'd really like to know what your criteria are to initiate action
>(if you would do that under any circumstances.) That might clear up alot
>of the murkiness.

    What murkiness?  There was plenty of support for vigilanteism.  I was
    arguing the other side.  I indicated that the correct action was to
    work on Joe, not to go off making anonymous phone calls.
    

    - Vick

    A few thoughts:
    
    It takes two make a relationship.  If a relationship is bad, it can not
    usually be attributed to one of the partners alone.  Joe's screwing
    around is more likely a symptom of a failed relationship, then its
    cause.  However, it may also be a symptom of earlier failed
    relationships in his life.  
    
    An anonymous phone call is by its very nature an act of cowardice.  
    Sometimes cowardice is called for, sometimes it isn't.
    
    In a notesfile, it is very easy to cast the first stone.
    
    Herb,  If you assume that I, myself, am one of everything I support in
    this and other notesfiles, then I must seem to you to be some
    hideous monster.  I think I'll just leave you to believe that.
    
    						- Vick

    Yes, Herb, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that you think moralizing
    is good.  Moralizing is generally counterproductive in trying to solve
    human problems.  Moralizing is usually saying, "I'm better than you
    are, you need to change and be like me."  
    
    						- Vick

    >If you happen to be one of those people then my remarks are directed at
    >you.
    
    Your note was a reply to me, and your comment seemed to me to hide a
    veiled insinuation (e.g., why is this guy defending pond scum if he
    isn't one himself?).  
    
    "Bad" is sometimes hard to define.  You seem to be able to determine 
    when something is bad.  I don't have that talent.  I'm not a practicing
    Christian, but "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself." always struck
    a resonant chord with me.
    
    						- Vick

    >>I infer from this that you would attach some kind of responsibility to
    >>deb for the ensuing fight/murder/suicide/whatever?
    
    .36> Absolutely!  If you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, and 
       > there is no fire, you will be held culpable for the ensuing deaths.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    But there IS a fire, quite definitely:
    
    .0> Joe is... too sick, and out on LTD.  Joe admits to having a rather
      > nasty STD.  He won't say if he's been diagnosed with anything else 
    
    
    .36> So you think that if she doesn't act and people are hurt she's
       > responsible
    
    No I don't.  I agree with the Doctah ("standing by and doing nothing
    may sit perfectly well with you, but it doesn't with me").  I think JOE
    is responsible for his own illness as well as jeopardizing the health
    of his wife and his lovers.
    
    .36> but if she does act and people are hurt then she isn't
       > responsible.
    
    I doubt that if deb "acts," she would break the news in a hysterical
    doomsday pronouncement ("You have AIDS and your children are gonna DIE
    and your cheatin' husband is POND SCUM").  That, I think, would carry
    some Miss Manners demerits, but she would STILL not be responsible for
    any mayhem that the recipients might perpretrate.  I would imagine that
    the way she might "act" would be to ask Jane if she's considered STDs
    as a possible source for Joe's (LTD-severity) illness.
    
    .36> Maybe Joe's the real victim.
    
    No question but that he's A real victim of this debilitating disease.
                             ^^^
    .36> And where are the "almost-certain victims".
    
    Jane, Joe's other lover(s), other lovers' partners, Joe's children.
    
    .36> He may have gotten it from the last person he had sex with.
    
    So?  Jane, the children, and partners of "the last person" are
    potential victims.
    
    Leslie
          

| In a nutshell, people who engage in bad behavior should be condemned

	Herb, how bad does the behavior have to be before it's considered bad?
Who decides what is bad and what is good? 

| People who refuse to condemn others bad behavior (which is mostly where
| you seem to be coming from) are entitled.

	I agree. 

| But i think when such people condemn others' condemnation, they are
| wrong and misinformed. Nothing more.

	Wouldn't it depend on whether or not they agreed with the condemnation?
Think about it. If somone condemns you for something stupid, should we also
condemn you? It is true though, a lot of cases do fall into the catagory you
have mentioned, but are they all cut and dry?



Glen

>    To say someone is a "poor guy" is hardly to say he is a good guy.  I
>    don't see how showing compassion is moralizing.

 If he is a victim in any way he is a victim of his own faults. While it
is indeed highly unfortunate that his luck ran out, it is something he
considered to be a possibiility each time he chose to have sex outside
his marriage- he simply guessed wrong. He made a mistake. (apparently, a
number of them.) He will certainly pay for that. By not coming clean, he is
compounding that mistake. He is perpetrating a misdeed on innocent people;
to you, recognizing this fact is moralizing. To me, calling him a victim
is moralizing.

 As for showing compassion, it seems your compassion is just a little bit 
misplaced. Why don't you show compassion for those who have no complicity
whatsoever in this matter?

>> It was his choice to play the part of Studley, and he got caught with his
>>proverbial pants down. 
    
>    Moralizing again.

 Baloney. He admitted this is what happened.

>    Show me anything in my replies that implies I think that.

 Your steadfast support of him to the exclusion of showing even a hint
of compassion towards his wife and children makes me think that forcing
him to do what he is unwilling to do but morally if not legally required
to do is a raw deal. He freely chose to engage in extramarital sexual 
relations- now you seem to be arguing against forcing him to accept any
responsibility for the repurcussions of this unless he feels like it.

>There was plenty of support for vigilanteism.  I was arguing the other side.

 Is this an intellectual exercise for you? Is there nothing that would make
you do anything beyond lobby him to do the right thing? That's what I'd
like to know- what circumstances would motivate you to do something beyond
suggesting that he do the right thing? You've avoided this question like
the plague.

 The Doctah

>    if i were to respond to your 'questions', i feel i would be engaging in
>    intellectual onanism. 
>    I feel I have better ways to amuse myself.
    
 This time, anyway...

    	.43 says -
        
>        even if we have to take matters into our own hands, were being 
>    holier-than-thou, judgmental, on their high horses.  So this guy had
>    a lot of sex with consenting adults and was not smart enough to take
>    preventive measures.  Heavens to Murgitroid, he was married too.  
>    There's an awful lot of moralizing going on here.  So the guy has a bad

    	So?!?
    
    	The man is probably a sex addict. If so, he's emotionally sick
    and therefore riddled with disorders of his very _thinking_. He
    sounds like his life may apprear to be in control (his wife doesnt
    know...) but is actually completely out of control (he has screwed
    everything to the point where he's contracted something and is now
    physically sick) He's also evil* - knowing that there's a major
    problem and not bothering to take some kind of action on it.
    
    * evil by the latest M. Scott Peck definition I heard by word of mouth:
    "Teenager goes home from the institution where he's incarcerated for
    suicide attempts for Xmas...Counselor asks what his gifts from his
    parents were - he replies "a gun". Counselor asks "A gun like the one
    that your brother shot himself with?" He replies "No, *the* gun he shot
    himself with" Counselor concludes his parents are trully evil. They
    must know there's some kind of a problem, yet, keep perpetrating it." 
    
    	Joe

<<< Note 647.61 by MCIS5::WOOLNER "Photographer is fuzzy, underdeveloped and dense" >>>

>    But there IS a fire, quite definitely:
 
    Since I wrote that it is perhaps clearer that there is a fire.  
    Nonetheless, if Deb acts, she is responsible in one degree or another
    for what ensues.  An anonymous call to the wife might result in a
    murder or suicide, whereas if she talked to Joe and got him to agree
    to tell all and arranged for a doctor's visit where the wife could be
    calmed, sedated, whatever, then a tragedy might be avoided.  Just
    because Deb's intentions are right and she is "doing the right thing"
    does not free her from all responsibility.
       
    >I think JOE is responsible for his own illness as well as jeopardizing 
    >the health of his wife and his lovers.
  
    Well, at least one of his lovers was apparently "responsible for [hir] own
    illness as well as jeopardizing the health ... [hir] lovers".  In fact,
    weren't all his "lovers" responsible for their own safe sex.  I'll
    admit that his wife is probably an innocent victim, and of course the
    baby.  But I'll inflame you a little more by claiming they are more
    victims of AIDS (if they acquire it) than of Joe.  I bet Joe hasn't had
    sex with his wife since he discovered he had an STD, any more than he
    would if he discovered he had typhoid fever or whatnot.  Most people
    who participate in unsafe sex are either subconciously suicidal or just
    ignorant of the dangers.  I don't think they do it on purpose with the
    intent of getting and spreading AIDS.  Joe is responsible, yes, but so
    are a lot of other people in this melodrama.
      
>    I doubt that if deb "acts," she would break the news in a hysterical
>    doomsday pronouncement ("You have AIDS and your children are gonna DIE
>    and your cheatin' husband is POND SCUM").  That, I think, would carry
>    some Miss Manners demerits, but she would STILL not be responsible for
>    any mayhem that the recipients might perpretrate.  I would imagine that
>    the way she might "act" would be to ask Jane if she's considered STDs
>    as a possible source for Joe's (LTD-severity) illness.
 
    Saying something like that in an anonymous phone call almost has to
    come off as a doomsday pronouncement.  Face to face would be better as
    the counselor recommended. 
       
>    So?  Jane, the children, and partners of "the last person" are
>    potential victims.
 
    Ah!  "Potential" does not equal "almost-certain".
       
				- Vick          

    

    >	The man is probably a sex addict. If so, he's emotionally sick
    >and therefore riddled with disorders of his very _thinking_. He
    >sounds like his life may apprear to be in control (his wife doesnt
    >know...) but is actually completely out of control (he has screwed
    >everything to the point where he's contracted something and is now
    >physically sick) He's also evil* - knowing that there's a major
    >problem and not bothering to take some kind of action on it.
    
    If he is "riddled with disorders of his very _thinking_."  then he
    probably has not convinced himself he is dying of AIDS and may not be
    able to see that anyone else is in any danger.  Is it evil to be that
    sick?  Maybe it is.  But I'd rather look at him as just being very
    sick.  I don't see what we benefit by calling him evil.
    
    					- Vick

| if i were to respond to your 'questions', i feel i would be engaging in
| intellectual onanism.

	This was pretty funny. Which do you mean though? Pulling out before
orgasm or is it the mental masturbation thing you've been talking about?

| I feel I have better ways to amuse myself.

	Really? ;-)

	Seriously, how would answering the questions lead to your engaging in
mental masturbation? You are very good at stating your opinion, but when it
comes to backing it up, you seem to not be so good.


Glen

    Vick,
    
    	Good question for you. Please no fire. But if you don't think that
    Joe is a good anglo saxan swear word. What would you call a Joe like
    this who is having an affair with you? And you are involved in a mono
    realtionship and low-and-behold! He suprised you with a good list of 
    three letter acronims that spell a certain death and YOU have been a
    good person, faithful, keeping your reproductive joystick in your pants
    like many others? Besides sick with AIDS, STD, LSD, STP?? Gee, your
    just as conserned about safe sex as the rest of us, right? You have
    found out that neither of you have this from the beginning. And he 
    brings home alittle more than just the "bacon"? What visions are
    running through your mind? What red do you see in your eyes? 
    
    

    If you want to just sit around and chew and spit and call an SOB and
    SOB, then sure, moralize away.  If you want to save some lives
    though...
    
    Ah, heck, Herb, I'm sure sorry I called you a moralizer.  I won't use
    no cuss words like that no more.  Honest.  :^)
    
    
    >Since when did morality have anything to do with utility?
    
    Well, if'n he's just evil enough, guess we ken utilize a rope an' lynch 
    him.  That's one way to solve the AIDS problem.
    
    (Sorry for the accent, I'm just feeling foolish.  Don't say it Herb!)
    
    					- Vick

    >What visions are
    >running through your mind? What red do you see in your eyes? 
    
    Better question for you:  What does that have to do with anything?
    What do my feelings have to do with the reality of the situation?
    If I feel like "killing the bastard" does that determine whether Joe
    is evil or sick or a victim or anything else?  The same type of 
    emotional appeal is used in arguing for the death penalty.  "How would
    you feel if someone murdered your wife and children."  Well, heck,
    I'd feel kind of upset about it, wouldn't you?  
    
    					- Vick

    Guess the questions were of earlier notes. Perhaps I should have
    mentioned them. What is the reality of it all? Its that when you defend
    this person who has no morals, who could inflict real harm on not only
    those who embilish his morality, but to those who do not and to those
    who are inocent of all of the above. The man is sick, the man has no
    morals, the man needs help, the man (Joe) is killing others because he
    might not be telling his faithful wife, this man is certainly evil.
    Gee, If I were Joe, I think I wouldn't dance with the problem. Would
    you? Would you be honest with your SO Vick? Would you tell him or her?
    Or would you let someone else? Or would you not tell a soul and let
    half the world die off cause its not you fault for your not shure who
    gave it to you or if you got it from someone or......

re .70

>	Seriously, how would answering the questions lead to your engaging in
>mental masturbation? You are very good at stating your opinion, but when it
>comes to backing it up, you seem to not be so good.

More questions and questions and questions. Herb tried to ignore
your 'questions' (which by now have taken on more of a badgering quality or
implication), but in response you say he's not welcome to just 'have' an
opinion, but he is somehow obligated to you to 'back it up'. And if he
doesn't 'back it up' you are then free to cast aspersions on his ability to
justify his opinions (or his existence?)?!

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily agree with everything Herb has to
say or the way he says it. But I'm quite tired of your (and a couple of
your buddies) constant requests for Herb (or anyone else, for that matter)
to 'back up' their opinions, in the form of questions, questions, and more
questions. Recall the string on 'Let Men Talk'? Well, let men talk! Without
your badgering (and denegrations should they decline your badgering)!

Thank you.

    
    
    Well, being "one of the buddies", I think -- I'll respond.  Herb has a
    habit of offering his opinions -- he is entitled to to that.  I guess I
    think that when a person offers an opinion that differs from another
    person's opinion, a discussion of "why" the opinion is held just might
    be insightful to all parties.  Personally, an opinion which "just is"
    is not an opinion I'll pay any attention to.  
    
    As I've said before, one of the things that distinguishes human beings
    from the other dumb animals on this earth is their ability to "reason"
    and attempt to"understand" their own thoughts and behaviors.  I can't
    understand "you" (generic) unless you're willing to discuss "you".  If
    you aren't willing to discuss "you", "you"'re opinions will cease being
    important to me and will, simply put, be ignored.
    
    	Greg

    This is a notesfile.  Notesfilers like to chew on things alot.  Like to
    toss things back and forth.  Try out this idea, then that idea.  Most
    notesfilers get a little miffed if someone just comes around and flat
    out says something is so-and-so and then won't talk about it.  It just
    seems downright disrespectful.  Now Herb tends to talk when he feels
    the urge and when he doesn't he just says it's his opinion, take it or
    leave it.  Once you get to know Herb it stops bothering you when he
    does it.  In fact, it sometimes shortens lenghty debates that you're
    getting tired of anyway.  That's something I've come to like about
    Herb.  The other thing I like about Herb is the asbestos underwear he
    wears.  :^)  
    						- Vick
    
    P.S.  
    >I do not consider logic to be an important tool for communicating human
    >values or evaluating ideas.
    
    We noticed, Herb.  ;^)

| I see a very substantial difference between what I am saying and the
| discussion that I believe you want to have.

	You know Herb, there are a few other things that you are good at. You
have constantly been telling people what the intentions of their questions are.
How they are out to engage you in some sort of major argument. Well Herb, I can
assure you that there is no master plan out there to "get you". People would
just like to know why you say the things you do. We can form our opinions, and
they may be wrong, but unless you change them by clarifying yourself, your the
one that comes off looking bad. Everyone has told you that they don't want a
battle, just clarification. You have chosen to not clarify what you say. That's
too bad as I'm sure that a lot of what you say isn't meant the way it sounds.
But if people view you in a bad light is no ones's loss but yours.

| I interpret what you are trying to do is involve me in a logic debate.

	Oh, I would never do that! ;-)

| (and not a particularly sophisticated one at that)

	I try to keep it simple.....

| I do not consider logic to be an important tool for communicating human
| values or evaluating ideas.

	Does that mean the no thought process is the better way to go? If not,
what do you consider to be the best method for communication or evaluating
ideas? I know for me I have MANY times stuck my foot in my mouth when I don't
think and just talk. :-)

| It was rather more important during my undergraduate studies in math
| and my graduate studies in computer science.

	No one is expecting you to answer like you're Mr. Spock. All people
want to do is have you clarify what you mean when you say something. You have
many times surprised me when stating your views on certain subjects. It gave me
a totally different impression of you (regardless of whether I agreed with what
you were saying or not). I don't know why you feel it can't be done here.


Glen

    
    >Its that when you defend
    >this person who has no morals, 
    
    How do you know he has no morals?  You don't know the guy.  Just because 
    he may have AIDS?  Maybe he's a closet bi/homosexual with a lover and just 
    told Deb a believable story about sex on the road.  Anyway, I think
    it's highly likely that as soon as someone convinces him he actually has
    AIDS, he'll agree to spill the beans.  Can you imagine how hard that
    would be, though?  Here you are, very sick in bed, your wife taking
    care of you in your nice house, your parents and her parents calling to
    wish you a quick recovery.  Your children running in and out of your
    room.  And you have to tell them.  God, what a mistake you've made!  
    When will be the right time to turn all their worlds upside down?  Will 
    any of them love you after you tell them.  Will they put you out on the 
    street to die when you tell them.  It's really a nightmare.  
    
    >who could inflict real harm on not only
    >those who embilish his morality, but to those who do not and to those
    >who are inocent of all of the above. The man is sick, the man has no
    >morals, the man needs help, the man (Joe) is killing others because he
    >might not be telling his faithful wife, this man is certainly evil.
    
    You've taken a very few facts and blown them up into a full-fledged
    tragic epic.  You don't know if he has AIDS.  You don't know if he
    has morals.  You don't know if his wife is faithful.
    You don't know that he is killing anyone.  I agree with you that he
    needs help.
    
    >Gee, If I were Joe, I think I wouldn't dance with the problem. Would
    >you? Would you be honest with your SO Vick? Would you tell him or her?
    >Or would you let someone else? Or would you not tell a soul and let
    >half the world die off cause its not you fault for your not shure who
    >gave it to you or if you got it from someone or......
    
    If I developed symptoms of AIDS, I'd get tested, and if it turned out
    positive I'd tell my wife, and while I'm at it, I'd ask her what she'd
    been doing over the last 10 years while I was at work.  But I don't
    think that what I would do is particularly relevant.  
    
    						- Vick
    
    
    

    Vick,
    
    	When someone is sleeping around, they are married (!) as in a
    commitment to someone, they have no morals. Reguardless if they are
    streight or gay. It is that there is a commitment here. Not a thing of
    one side pointing fingers at another camp and saying its their fault. I
    am not saying, Vick, that AIDs is a gay thing. I am saying this person,
    based upon Debs .0, is just that. And your taking defence for him is
    wrong. O.K., lets say he is a closet bi/homosexual. He has been around
    and he has slept with men and women and has A commitment with a
    streight woman with kids.
    
    Deb did not say that Joe's wife was sleeping around. She said Joe was
    sleeping. Very basic statement. Cannot understand your position here?
    
    If you were in Janes shoes, what you would do would have a great deal
    of relevents.
    
    Vick, why not go see a childs ward this weekend. See some baby with
    AIDS, see some babies with other social infections. Its good for your
    soul, food for your position of defence. Maybe your not planning on
    having children. And yes, it doesn't have any relevants to your
    personal utopia. But go and see what Jane and the kids are going to
    face if you believe that Joe is a moral person. 
    
    I don't care if one is gay, streight, or what ever. It is a common
    sence move to protect all of the above with proper information, proper
    attitudes, and what ever.
    
    Have a good weekend all! :)

| I am not saying, Vick, that AIDs is a gay thing. I am saying this person,
| based upon Debs .0, is just that. And your taking defence for him is
| wrong. O.K., lets say he is a closet bi/homosexual. 

	George, you're telling us that AIDS is not a gay thing. But then you're
assuming that the person is bi/gay. Why couldn't the person Deb was talking
about be completely heterosexual? Is that so hard to phatom?



Glen

re .51  Herb,

Ah ha...Your latest notes are full of matters of "trust" and antipathy for 
"trust bandits."  This has given me a hint regarding your noting method 
which I (and others) may have perceived as "attacks."

Anyway, apology accepted.  I thought it'd be better to include responses to 
your questions in my note rather than mail (which I did), since it was a 
very busy week.  If it makes you feel better, yours was not the only mail I 
didn't have time to reply to.

In any event, I am/was not a nurse in ZK.  

re .61  Leslie,

You are quite correct that I am not the hysterical type, and would never 
break the news in anything less than a sensitive, concerned manner.

re the "responsibility" that Leslie and Vick (.68) discussed:

Actually, you're both right.  I would have no direct responsibility, but 
(being a very sensitive person who could suffer a major guilt trip), if 
something disastrous happened, I would blame myself anyway...at least in 
part,even though I had no direct control over the wife's actions.  There is 
definitely a fire; the severity has yet to be positively identified.

re .84 Glen,

I think you've misunderstood George's reply.  When he said "it is just 
that" I believe he was referring to Joe being immoral--not gay/bi--which 
was refuting Vick's defense of Joe as being a moral person.  I'm sure 
George will correct me if I'm mistaken.

	deb

    Mr./Ms. Rauh (sorry I can't find a first name for you in these notes),
    
    You can say that having a lover when you are married is immoral.  Fine,
    that's your opinion.  For me, nothing is ever so black and white.  I
    need to know more details.  And in the end, I have a hard time putting
    myself in the position of judging someone else's morality.  
    
    					- Vick
    
    P.S.  Deb didn't say Joe's wife was faithful, did she?  Well, even if
    she did, she has no way of knowing that.  You're just assuming she is
    faithful, like you are assuming so many other things.  Don't you feel
    any compunction at all about ascertaining some facts before branding
    someone as immoral?  

    I could really care less if this guy is a slut of the most
    incomprehensible magnitude - that's for him and the moralists
    to debate.  What difference does it make?

    What I do care about is his wife, his kids, and, his sex partner
    (be it a "he" or a "she").  *That* is the essence of this discussion
    and *not* his morals!!!!

    Wrong?  Right?

    Bubba

    I think the point, Jerry, is that the violation of his wife's
    and kid's trust *IS* a moral issue - and so his morals are a
    legitimate part of the discussion.  If he were a slut, but single,
    then I would agree the morality of *him sleeping around* would be
    less important (the morality of whether or not he took precautions,
    whether he lied about his sexual history or whether he made false
    statements about his level of commitment to his partners WOULD be 
    up for grabs though).  But the fact of the matter is that he is
    married.

    I agree 100% with Herb here, BTW.  I find it difficult to believe 
    that anyone is arguing it is OK to cheat on your spouse, IF YOUR 
    RELATIONSHIP IS SUPPOSED TO BE MONOGAMOUS.  You can come up with a 
    million reasons why it might happen, but bottom line is, if you cheat 
    you've broken a promise not too.  That promise is one of the cornerstones 
    of marriage.

    Now personally I do not believe that all humans are fit for
    a lifetime commitment to one person.  Some are.  Some come close
    and may cheat once or twice in a lifetime (they are probably the
    most common).  Some are completely incapable of committing to a 
    single person.  So from my perspective, I am happy to accept as quite 
    normal, a variety of non-traditional relationships.  But the boundaries 
    must be stated UP FRONT!  You don't make promises you can't keep.  And if 
    you find yourself in a situation where you've made a promise you don't 
    feel you can keep, the MORAL and CORRECT thing to do is speak to your 
    partner about it.  To lie and cheat and go out carousing behind his or her 
    back is WRONG.  

    We're all human and we all make mistakes.  But if "Joe" is to be
    believed, he has clearly gone well beyond the all too common "momentary 
    lapse of judgment" - this wasn't a one time thing from which he's
    learned his lesson, understood his guilt and confessed to his wife his
    mistake.  No, sustaining the lie of his fidelity is a continuous, conscious 
    act.  I have little patience for the "sickness" theory...  Whatever
    happened to concepts like individual responsibility and respect for
    one's fellow man (or woman as the case may be)?

    For what it's worth.....

    /Greg
     
     

    .90
    
    I think that was an excellent reply!  
    
    Morals are not "rubberized" and, hence, can not be "stretched".

    I understood you all along, Herb.  I felt like I was saying "ditto"
    (but that never stopped me before :-)
    
    /Greg

    re: Vick
    
     Unless I missed it... It would be fair to say that there are no
    circumstances under which you would act (in a situation similar to
    this) if you could not convince the person to "do the right thing".
    True or false?
    
     The Doctah

    RE .0 Not to take offense
    
    You can be a hero. You can change someones life for the better, maybe
    even save it.
    
    Do you have a responsibility to do something?
    
    Well let me ask:
    	You talk a lot about AIDS. Tell us how bad it is. He we (givmt)
        must spend more money on research and EDUCATION.
    
    	You have the education and knowledge of this disease. You seem to
    	have a hard time applying this knowledge to do something to
    	possibly save someones life.
    
    	To my way of thinking, if you are one of the most vocal proponents
    	of more $$ and more education and then take this 'not my yob'
    	position when the time to apply this education come, I find it hard
    	to listen to you when you plead for more understanding and $$ for
    	AIDS. I think you really need to examine your position and maybe
    	your values.
    
    It is a moral issue. Remember the golden rule? "Do unto others..."
    If you were Joe's wife, or Joe's wifes mother what would want you to
    do? What do you think they would think of you if they knew that you
    could have possibly prevented a tragedy to one of their loved ones?
    
    Steve
    
    PS My 'best man' needed to be 'told' in a similiar moral problem years
    ago involving using my friendship to run around with my neighbors wife.
    I told him, he is no longer a friend... so what? It, like this
    situation needed to be done.

     >Unless I missed it... It would be fair to say that there are no
     >   circumstances under which you would act (in a situation similar to
     >   this) if you could not convince the person to "do the right thing".
     >   True or false?
       
    Of course not.  I'm saying you need to know the facts before you
    meddle in someone's life.  I'm saying that a lot of you guys are
    making a lot of assumptions about what's going on that are not 
    supported by anything revealed in .0 or elsewhere.  
    
    					- Vick
    
    

.97> 	You have the education and knowledge of this disease. You seem to
.97> 	have a hard time applying this knowledge to do something to
.97> 	possibly save someones life...I think you really need to examine
.97>	your position and maybe your values.

Oops.  Time to come out of the closet on this one.  I can't stand by and
see my friends criticized for something they don't deserve. Deb doesn't
know the "person" - I do.  The people involved are friends of mine.

This is a VERY painful situation for me.  It is a difficult issue to
discuss and it is difficult to resolve, if there *is* a resolution.  I
talked to D'Arch about it since I consider her to be my best friend on
the face of this earth - I didn't know where to turn - I didn't know what
to do, or say.  I've had to write the "I regret to inform you that your
son was ...." type of letters, and, that was not nearly as painful or
psychologically debilitating as this.

She volunteered to post a note so that I could get some different perspectives
on how different people would handle this situation.  Now, it's gone to the
point where she possibly can't respond to some of the statements (such as the
extract from #.97) so I'll try to answer since *I* know the people. The
responses have been very helpful but I was somewhat surprised to see the
decided tangent toward "morality".  A life is at risk - damn the morality.

I've known this family since 1975.  Believe me, they are *real* people and
a fine family.  The husband does indeed love his wife (I don't know how I
could possibly convince you of this) but I simply think that he's "addicted"
to sex.  He likes it (who doesn't?).  He likes the variety.  He told me once
that it "spiced up" his sex life at home.

If I had to take an educated guess, knowing this guy for 16 years, I'd say
that he's probably had sex with another guy.  I don't know, I never asked
him.  Just a suspicion on my part.  For the most part, I'd assume he's
99.999% heterosexual.  He's very embarrassed about this disease and I
strongly suspect that he is very much afraid that he'll be perceived as
gay or bi if it is known that he has AIDS.  He got very upset once when
we were having fun at a restaurant and I laughingly made a reference to
"my gay friend" (him) to the server ... he damned near blew up.

I, like Deb, have called the AIDS hot line in Bakersfield, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Houston, and Dallas.  The common response was (1) you don't know
that he had unsafe sex with his latest or any other fling and (2) you don
know that he indeed has AIDS (but, as Deb said, the symptoms are textbook),
so (3) keep your nose out of it.

With respect to his inability to say the word "AIDS", and, the embarrassment
factor, the hot line people were in complete agreement - respect his privacy.

It's reasonably accepted (now) that AIDS is not just for gays ... the fastest
growing segment of the population contracting the disease is indeed the
heterosexual population.  One of the hot line people reflected on the fact
that when homosexuals have sex the "thought" is safe sex for the prevention
of sexually transmitted diseases - when heterosexuals have sex they think
in terms of safe sex for the prevention of babies first and maybe, somewhere
down the line, there's the sexually transmitted disease issue.  When babies
are not an "issue" (i.e., the big 'V' or birth control pills) then the
safe sex issue is all to frequently forgotten and with increasing disastrous
results.

As to the 'morality' issue.  Mute point.  What is done is done.  I would
venture that a significant portion of the male population (and less signifi-
cant, but statistically relevant portion of the female population) has at
one time or another had an "affair" outside of marriage.  Hell, even the
Bible approves of it:  "Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel
or two?" (Judges 5:30).  Think about it.

Let Deb off the hook. Now you know the "rest of the story".

Bubba

    OK Bubba - I appreciate your honesty, and the tough situation you're
    in.
    
    If Jane really hasn't a clue as to Joe's sexual exploits, doesn't she
    still need to know (in as gentle a manner as possible, natch) that
    Joe's illness is A Very Nasty STD (which Joe admitted to in the
    basenote)?  Why split hairs over whether it's AIDS?
    
    Leslie

.99> As to the 'morality' issue.  Mute point.  What is done is done.  I would
.99> venture that a significant portion of the male population (and less 
.99> significant, but statistically relevant portion of the female population)
.99> has at one time or another had an "affair" outside of marriage.  Hell, even
.99> the Bible approves of it:  "Have they not divided the prey; to every man a
.99> damsel or two?" (Judges 5:30).  Think about it.

I'm thinking, and, I am reminded of the typical "immature" reason most children
give when they want something another child already has ("because <insert name>
has one, is doing it", etc.).  Just because a significant portion of the
population is "screwing around" still doesn't morally justify it no matter how
you interpret the Bible.  What's wrong is wrong.

    Vick,
    
    	I think an opologiee is in order here. The statement in .86 sounds
    rather sexist. And I feel that this is a good way to make enimies when
    we are all trying to be PC. If you had a question to who or what I am
    you could have checked other notes, you could have written me off line,
    you could have looked me up on ELF.
    
    Signed
    
    Mr. George Rauh
    
    ps. Thats Mr. Rauh to you Mr. Bennison

    Nah, George, I wasn't trying to be offensive.  In fact, why would you
    take offense at being addressed as Ms. by someone who honestly wasn't
    sure what side of the fence you fell on?  There is nothing to be
    ashamed of in being female after all.  If you don't sign your notes,
    you have to expect people to be uncertain sometimes.  I find it really
    baffling that you took umbrage.  I assure you I was not trying to be
    in any way unpleasant.
    						- Vick

.101> Just because a significant portion of the population is "screwing around"
.101> still doesn't morally justify it no matter how you interpret the Bible.
.101> What's wrong is wrong.

    This must be the day for apologies ... I'm sorry, my Biblical quotation
    was more in jest than anything ... I simply forgot those infernal
    "smiley faces".

    I'm not exactly a "saint" and have my own interpretation on "right" and
    "wrong" ... you know, "let he who is without sin among you ..." and all
    that stuff ...

    Bubba

>    Of course not.

 You say "of course not" like it should be obvious. It isn't obvious which is
precisely why I've been trying to get you to say what circumstances you would
do something- and you've avoided those particular questions on at least 2 or 3
occasions. It would be alot easier for me to understand your point of view if 
you'd either identify yourself as one who would respect the man's privacy to 
the point of it costing his wife and girlfriend their lives or as one who
needs x amount of information before doing the right thing. I have difficulty
with the former position; I don't with the latter- it's just a matter of
degree.

 The Doctah

    Opoligee accepted! :) Wish I could copy Herbs smiley face for here.

    Doctah,
    Both times I've said "Of course not", I've said it because you put
    words in my mouth that I never said and if I had would make me seem
    kind of ridiculous.  You can think I'm ridiculous if you want to, but
    don't expect me to agree with you.  
    
    I don't know exactly under what circumstances I would meddle. 
    Fortunately, I'm not in that situation now, of needing to decide.  If
    we really had to solve, in advance, a prioi, all the possible moral 
    dilemmas we might someday face, then we would all be in a constant
    state of mental exhaustion.  I can't really tell Bubba what I would do
    in his situation.  I don't have all the facts, I don't know the people
    as well as he does.  I don't know if Joe would respond to words I might
    say differently to words Bubba might say.  I have expressed in
    sufficient detail, I think, my basic feelings about the situation. 
    Those feelings seem to be echoed by the AIDS hot-line people and by
    Bubba.  I don't think I have much more to add to this discussion.
    (Ignore those people saying "YAY" :^)
    						- Vick

re .97  Steve,

Now that Jerry has 'come out' as the one who is actually agonizing over 
this situation, I'll let him answer the questions particular to his friend 
Joe.  I did want to address one thing, though:
    
>    	To my way of thinking, if you are one of the most vocal proponents
>    	of more $$ and more education and then take this 'not my yob'
>    	position when the time to apply this education come, I find it hard
>    	to listen to you when you plead for more understanding and $$ for
>    	AIDS. I think you really need to examine your position and maybe
>    	your values.

I beg your pardon? Please indicate where in this file I have *ever* been a 
'vocal proponent' 'pleading' for money.  (Not including the Walk notes, 
which a) I didn't write, b) I entered on behalf of the committee, and c) 
had nothing to do with any government.)

Oh, and one other thing:  Do you think that there is any correlation 
between spending or not spending money on education (government or private) 
and a 40ish-year old stud who still thinks that AIDS is a 'gay thing' that 
only concerns 'them,' and that 'safe sex' means 'don't get her knocked up'?

re  Herb,

.108>  Just for the record, I was not apologizing to you in .51.

.51>  Sorry you felt you were being attacked.

Are you advising me to take your notes with due sarcasm?

	deb

    I've been thinking about this one for a while. I think Joe should tell
    people. If he loves them then their getting early testing and treatment
    should be as, if not more, important as them loving him. If they love
    him back they'll adjust. If he doesn't love them then he doesn't need
    them to love him back. Since he's too sick for the sex he doesn't lose.
    But he could, one hopes, get some satisfaction for doing the right
    thing. It sounds like he's being selfish so far but he may not see it
    that way. He may think he's sparing them worry or sparing their image
    of him. 

    If he doesn't tell people I don't know what advice to give you. If you
    tell them then you make enemies. That's almost a sure thing. But at the
    same time it may help save lives. I think the right thing might be to
    tell them anonymously. But I'm not sure I could do it myself.

    			Alfred

    
RE .109
    

>I beg your pardon? Please indicate where in this file I have *ever* been a 
>'vocal proponent' 'pleading' for money.  (Not including the Walk notes, 
>which a) I didn't write, b) I entered on behalf of the committee, and c) 
>had nothing to do with any government.)

    Why do you discount the Walk note? Yes it does not have anything to do
    with givmt spending. But do you think we are spending enough on givmt
    spending? I assume (correct me if I am incorrect) that as you are 
    A) Quite knowledgeable about this subject and that
    B) You entered the FAWOL note in many conferences
    
    that you have a greater than the average Joe or Josephene interest in
    the subject.
    
>Oh, and one other thing:  Do you think that there is any correlation 
>between spending or not spending money on education (government or private) 
>and a 40ish-year old stud who still thinks that AIDS is a 'gay thing' that 
>only concerns 'them,' and that 'safe sex' means 'don't get her knocked up'?

    Hard to say. In this particular case I would say that you are correct
    that pregancy was his primary concern and that (from his point of view)
    that AIDs  is/was a 'gay thing' and that he probably wasn't even all
    that concerned about other STDs. But that is just my speculation, not
    germain to your position on telling his wife/girlfriend versus my
    position on the subject.
    
    
    Steve
    
    I apologise if my other note sounded harsh. But understand that
    I have a real hard time seeing innocent victims possibly get an
    incurable disease because someone is afraid of offending someone or
    'nosing in' on someone elses 'private' business.
    	If AIDs IS serious, then let's treat it that way.

Re .112  Steve,    

>    Why do you discount the Walk note? 

    I answered that already, didn't I?

>    Yes it does not have anything to do
>    with givmt spending. But do you think we are spending enough on givmt
>    spending? 

    Not by a long shot.  We've got almost 200,000 documented cases of AIDS 
    in the US now, with an estimated 1-1.5 million more HIV+ who it is almost 
    certain will develop AIDS or ARC in the coming years.  Plus we have all the 
    people who become HIV infected every day--mostly due to unsafe sex and IV 
    needle sharing.  And what is the government (federal, state, local) doing?  
    They're cutting back funding to public health services, cutting back 
    funding for education, housing, home nursing, meals-on-wheels, shelters, 
    drug treatment centers, halfway houses, etc., etc.  They're cutting back 
    subsidies to AIDS organizations, clinics, hospitals and hospices.  They're 
    cutting back funding to schools, which are in turn eliminating 
    'unnecessary' classes like music, art, PE, and health education.  

    And that's just the financial aspect.  Then we've got President Lips saying 
    "Oh yes, I got the message - it's compassion...I have compassion for all  
    those poor people" <gak> and who has shown zero leadership on the issue 
    (like his predecessor).  He had the Names Project Quilt right on his 
    doorstep and never even looked at it; he appoints a National AIDS 
    Commission and never even reads their reports to see what their findings 
    are or what they're advocating; he sanctions discrimination and fear with 
    his pal Jesse with their immigration bans and witch-hunts to root out all 
    HIV+ health care workers - completely disregarding all medical evidence.  
    Leaders in other countries have actually *been* leaders--they've gone on 
    national TV with AIDS messages, instituted (or strongly encouraged) AIDS 
    education programs, condom commercials, even handing out safer sex 
    brochures at international airports.

>    I assume (correct me if I am incorrect) that as you are 
>    A) Quite knowledgeable about this subject and that
>    B) You entered the FAWOL note in many conferences
>    
>    that you have a greater than the average Joe or Josephene interest in
>    the subject.

    Yes to all of the above.

>>Oh, and one other thing:  Do you think that there is any correlation 
>>between spending or not spending money on education (government or private) 
>>and a 40ish-year old stud who still thinks that AIDS is a 'gay thing' that 
>>only concerns 'them,' and that 'safe sex' means 'don't get her knocked up'?

    Methinks you missed my point.  As of this moment (and probably for some 
    years to come) education is the *only* 'vaccine' we have; the *only* means 
    to prevent future HIV transmission.  Perpetuating myths, ignoring
    facts, keeping silent or preventing education is the same as saying "I 
    don't care if you die."

>    I apologise if my other note sounded harsh. But understand that
>    I have a real hard time seeing innocent victims possibly get an
>    incurable disease because someone is afraid of offending someone or
>    'nosing in' on someone elses 'private' business.
>    	If AIDs IS serious, then let's treat it that way.

    I understand.  I couldn't say it earlier, but if Joe *had* been my friend, 
    you'd better believe I would have taken every opportunity to bring the 
    subject up and discuss things. (remember - I don't "lecture"!)  And, 
    there's no "if" about it...AIDS *is* serious, and it is one thing I don't 
    joke around about (except with my AIDSpals, but that's a different story).

	deb

    jerry,
    
    i'm late here, but have you thought about talking to the wife IN
    GENERAL about aids?  maybe some (fake) friend who had [x,y,z] symptoms,
    and you *just* *now* figured out he's got it, and how's he gonna tell
    his wife, and isn't it insidious how that virus can hang around so long
    before it manifests itself, etc...
    
    on the issue of your friend messing around with the chicks and maybe
    the guys, i'd steer clear of that; myob, eh?  but she's a thinking
    woman, she can put two and two together if that laundry list of typical
    aids problems is listed to her.  maybe stress how very, very, very long
    it can stay latent (yes, exaggerate how long it can stick around).
    
    re jane - any woman who's makin it w/o condoms with a married man has
    been single recently enough that if she's run through the list of all
    the folks she's messed around with who are possibly infected she'll
    find at least one.  i know *i've* got a few in my past that *i* wonder
    about.  so she's either been tested or is denying the possibility.  in
    either case, no news from you (or anyone BUT a recent, repeated lover)
    will change her actions with respect to getting tested.  so i'd do
    nothing with respect to her.
    
    lee

RE .113
    
    
>>    Yes it does not have anything to do
>>    with givmt spending. But do you think we are spending enough on givmt
>>    spending? 
>
>    Not by a long shot.  We've got almost 200,000 documented cases of AIDS 
>    in the US now, with an estimated 1-1.5 million more HIV+ who it is almost 
>    certain will develop AIDS or ARC in the coming years.  Plus we have all the 
>    people who become HIV infected every day--mostly due to unsafe sex and IV 
>    needle sharing.  And what is the government (federal, state, local) doing?  
>    They're cutting back funding to public health services, cutting back 
>    funding for education,...
    
    Correct me if I am wrong. Don't we now spend more (fed) money on AIDS
    than any other single disease like cancer or heart disease?
    
    

>    Methinks you missed my point.  As of this moment (and probably for some 
>    years to come) education is the *only* 'vaccine' we have; the *only* means 
>    to prevent future HIV transmission.  Perpetuating myths, ignoring
>    facts, 
    >keeping silent...
    ---------------
    
    This is what this note is about keeping silent
    
    >or preventing education is the same as saying 
    >"I  don't care if you die."

    You are correct. That, education, is all we have right now and probably
    for some time to come. Who knows, maybe we will all be surprised like
    the Berlin Wall coming down. But we should not plan on it.
    
>    I understand.  I couldn't say it earlier, but if Joe *had* been my friend, 
>    you'd better believe I would have taken every opportunity to bring the 
>    subject up and discuss things. (remember - I don't "lecture"!)  And, 
>    there's no "if" about it...AIDS *is* serious, and it is one thing I don't 
>    joke around about (except with my AIDSpals, but that's a different story).

>	deb
    
    Then I guess we agree that we would 'attempt' to do something. That is
    what this note is/was about. That was my (and others) point(s).
    
    Steve

    The Bush administration responds to critics by observing that by 1992,
    the federal govenment will have spent $17 billion on AIDS. I don't know
    what is included in that spending, or comparable numbers for heart
    disease, etc.
    
    Nearly a million die in the U.S. each year due to heart disease. AIDS
    deaths were somthing like 17,000 in some recent year, 1990 maybe? It
    doesn't make sense to compare those numbers, probably, because AIDS has
    a great latency. It would be a dumb policy, to neglect AIDS research
    and education because lots of people are dying of other causes. At some
    lever, though, people are figuring out how to best invest our health
    care budget, which necessarily makes trade-offs between ailments.

    Woundering how the inquiries are doing with that woman who contracted
    AIDS from her dentist who only put his fingers in her mouth?

    ...damn ... a tangent ...
    
    A recent article in "Readers Digest" showed that more money was being
    spent on AIDS than on heart disease and cancer combined.  Money, alone,
    ain't gonna cut it.
    
    Bubba

     <<< Note 647.118 by MORO::BEELER_JE "Hit hard, hit fast, hit often" >>>
                        -< There's got to be more ... >-

    
>    Money, alone,
>    ain't gonna cut it.
    
Unfortunately, money is about the only thing the AMA and the CDC seem to 
know anything about.  They sure aren't about the business of healing the 
sick.

Ron

    
    to money, add individual responsibility and encouragement of
    old fashioned morality in sexual matters.
    
    like it or not, sexual libertinage and aids seem to go hand in hand.

    re  Rauh
    
    You're wearing my patience pretty thin with your sensationalistic
    witch-hunt diatribes.   
    
    For the record, the dentist in Bergalis' case did more than put his 
    fingers in her mouth - he extracted a tooth.  And it has been shown 
    that the sterilization procedures in his office were lax.
    
    At the hearing today, several PWAs--including a nurse, a hemophiliac
    and another patient of Dr. Acer--all advocated *against* Dannemeyer's
    mandatory testing bill for all health care workers and patients.  The
    nurse said that education, training and universal precautions would be
    the most effective and least costly course of action.
    
    	deb

>    like it or not, sexual libertinage and aids seem to go hand in hand.
    
    Ha! The old myth about hand-holding causing AIDS was exploded YEARS
    ago!
    
    Dr. Ray

    Back on subject?
    
    Bubba

    
    Okay, I still have no idea where I originally saw my statistics on
    infidelity, but in browsing through a bookstore, I came up with the 
    following:
    
    The Hite Report on Male Sexuality (or whatever the exact title is):
    
    	72% of married men polled admitted to having been sexually unfaithful 
    	at some time during their marriage.
    
    Sex and the Intelligent Woman, by Dr. Albert Ellis:
    
    	Between 38% and 44% of women polled admitting to having been
        sexually unfaithful at some time in their marriage.  It was broken 
    	down by age group with the higher percentages for the older women, but 
    	with all age groups showing at least 38%.
    
    							- Vick

    
    From the New Hite Report "Women and Love"
    
    	83% of woman believe in monogamy as an ideal way of life
    
    	70% of women married five years or more are having affairs
     	outside of marriage
    
    	Patterns of extramarital sex of women who have affairs:
    	Lenght of affairs:
    	12% casual sex or one- or two-time meetings
    	 9% 1-11 months
    	14% 1-2 years
    	23% 3-5 years
    	 4% 6-10 years
    	 2% 11 years or more
    	 6% intermittent with the same person
    
	Number of affairs:
    	Married 2-4 years -	one affair 17%
    				two affairs 13%
    				several 5%
    
    	Married 5-10 years -	one affair 14%
    				two affairs 26%
    				three affairs 22%
    				several 8%
    
    	Married over 10 years -	one affair 7%
    				two affairs 21%
    				three affais 25%
    				four-five 18%
    				six-ten 9%
    				more than ten 4% (that's 84% total!)
    				49% one regular lover
    				15% more than one lover simultaneously

    An idea for a science fiction story:
    
    In 2008, bioengineering advances allow newlyweds to purchase a custom
    sexually-transmitted disease. It has a unique signature observable by
    an inexpensive over-the-counter test, with a central registry (sort of
    a bar-code bacterium). The spousal pair are innoculated. At the same
    time, they receive the custom-cofactor which prevents the SDT from
    turning the tip of their nose bright green. Anyone else who catches
    this highly infectious SDT _will_ get a glowing proboscis, however. And
    the green nose will be prima facie (get it?) evidence (with the registry 
    tagging the perpetrator) when they bring civil suit for damages.

    Condoms make a comeback.
    
    Ray

    These are _special_ bacteria, derived from a strain which arrived on a
    meteorite from Krypton, with the ability to _fly_ _through_ condoms in
    a single bound!

Re: .128

So they'll come up with Kryptonite condoms.  (I agree - great story.)

Actually, why focus on sexual intimacy as the "defining attribute" of
"cheating"?  Isn't it really a violation of trust?  And doesn't that depend
on what promises each partner made to each other?  

				Steve

> Actually, why focus on sexual intimacy as the "defining attribute" of
> "cheating"?  

Because people are obsessed with sex.

> Isn't it really a violation of trust?  And doesn't that depend
> on what promises each partner made to each other?  

Absolutely. Thanks for saying it.

	-- Charles

    The sex act has implications which shatter lives. It is an act of deep
    intimacy (if the sexual partner isn't totally objectified). This is a
    threat to the married couple's intimacy. It can lead to pregnancy, with
    all those implications. Those have diminished with birth control and
    abortion, but SDTs have acquired increased importance, esp. with AIDS.
    
    Breaking promises happens all the time. "I promise to honor and obey."
    If folks still use that line, I'm confident they break THAT promise
    within hours or minutes. "I promise to clean out the attic." Yeah,
    right, Real Soon Now. Hardly life-shattering.
    
    If a couple marries with an explicit understanding that sex outside the
    marriage is OK, then I guess it's not breaking a promise. Nearly all
    the time, however, the ultimate implication is broken hearts, divorce,
    and worse. (Is this PURE projection? _I_ couldn't accept it!)
    
    I presume that the couple of .0 married under the typical condition,
    e.g. to keep only unto each other until death parts them. And that
    family is shattered, perhaps to the extent of orphaning the children!

> The sex act has implications which shatter lives.

Can have. Does have for some people, perhaps most people. Doesn't make it right.

> It is an act of deep intimacy 

Can be. Often is. Doesn't have to be.

> (if the sexual partner isn't totally objectified).

There are finer gradations than this Hoyt. Sex isn't all black or white, nor
should it be. It's precisely attitudes like the one you express above that
result in the possibility of shattering lives.


> This is a threat to the married couple's intimacy.

Can be.

> It can lead to pregnancy, with all those implications.
> Those have diminished with birth control and abortion, 

Heterosexist attitude there chum.

> but SDTs have acquired increased importance, esp. with AIDS.

Yes. Practice safer sex.

Sex is wonderful, sex is great, sex is fun, but it doesn't HAVE to be freighted
with all the emotional baggage that most people attach to it. Sex with someone
you love can be a deeply enriching emotionally satisfying wonder. You don't
HAVE to forego physical pleasure with others for that to be true. I have
absolutely no quarrel with people who choose to be monogamous. I just get tired
of hearing that it's the only way to live.

Imagine a world where eating ice cream was only done with intimates. Imagine
those radicals who say "but eating ice cream doesn't HAVE to be an act of
intimacy, you can enjoy ice cream for it's own sake!" Oh the cries of "You're
cheapening the holy meaning of ice cream." "But ice cream should be saved for
sharing with your true love - eating ice cream with your true love is ecstacy!"
"People who eat ice cream outside of marriage are degenerate hedonists."

Sign me up as an unrepentant ice cream devotee. You want to eat ice cream only
in the privacy of your own home and only with one person, and only vanilla - go
for it! Just don't complain about those of us who like rocky road in public.
Just because you've promised someone that you'll only eat ice cream with them,
don't bug those of us who organize ice cream parties.

Yeah, I know, eating too much ice cream can cause heart disease and obesity,
and sharing spoons with people can transmit disease. I've heard it before.

	-- Charles

-- Charles

   You pervert!  You do IT with ice cream...  (just kidding - I enjoyed your
   analogy.  Good job!)

.133> Sex is wonderful, sex is great, sex is fun, but it doesn't HAVE to be 
.133> freighted with all the emotional baggage that most people attach to it. 
.133> Sex with someone you love can be a deeply enriching emotionally satisfying
.133> wonder. You don't HAVE to forego physical pleasure with others for that to
.133> be true.

   What in your life with your mate do you have that could be considered a 
   sanctum, something for just the two of you?  If your answer is too personal
   for this file you need not reply...  

   Regards, Don

Thanks Herb.

> The default for most of us when we talk about a marriage is that the
> marriage is a symmetrically committed relationship which among other
> things is committed to emotional, spiritual, & sexual monogamy. 

As most people here know by now, and YOU in particular, that is NOT my default,
and is never the context I use unless I explicitly say so. To assume that IS
the default actually causes all sorts of problems. My wife and I have a
committed non-monogamous relationship. If you (for example) with your standard
defaults knew I was married (I wear a ring, my wife comes to social events) and
saw me being intimate with someone else in a restaurant, you would (in your
eyes) reasonably assume I was scum of the earth.

Is there any reasonable way I can prevent this? I'm out as out can be about my
attitudes, but there will always be people who know that I'm married, but not
intimate details of my relationship. Do they have the right to assume that I'm
scum, based on their assumptions about cultural norms?

	-- Charles

> What in your life with your mate do you have that could be considered a 
> sanctum, something for just the two of you?  If your answer is too personal
> for this file you need not reply...  

We have shared intimacy deeper and broader and stronger than with any other
persons on earth. We have a shared commitment to each other "for better or
worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part." We
share each and every aspect of our lives on a day to day basis. We know each
others faults and accept them, we share joy in each others acheivements. We
accept each other totally. We trust each other completely. We KNOW this to
the innermost fibers of our being. We are in a very real sense only one person,
and yet we both have those things which are unique to ourselves.

I dunno, with so much shared and so much in common, I don't feel a need for some
thing reserved to ourselves only. We have each other in a way that no one else
will ever know. We do have an explicit agreement that neither of us will give
that level of intimacy and trust to any other person, but that's it.

	-- Charles

    Charles,
    
    I think that you might be considered A-moral. But thats me and my opion
    of you. Nothing personal, as you might consider me a school marm. :-)
    If I saw you with a close friend of mines SO, I would have the balls to
    let him/her know. For they PROBABLY would have a monogamous
    realationship. If your dating someone of your own gender and you have
    your open relationship fine. Live and let live. But if your dating
    someone like the Joe and Jane relationship, I gotta say it, and I know
    that I am going to get the shorts burnt on this one. BUT, I would think
    that your as low on the food chain as they come. 
    
    If you have a commitment that induldges open marriage with what ever
    you want to call. You don't have a marriage, you have a tenancy at
    will. What ever will you want to will. Just like in business,
    contracts, leases, and tenancy at will's. You can call it a marriage,
    you can call it by what ever color you want to. You can call it the
    "Delux Over Drive Siberian roller Skis". It is not a marriage. Your bed
    hopping. Your dating like a school kid. Whats the diffence? Why marry
    then and spoil an instution? 

    With the help of just one other person, you've managed to spoil an
    institution. What power!
    
    Could you go after the British Monarchy next?
    
    Thanks,
    Ray

> And i gather you enjoy tweaking our (the conventional world?) noses
> about our assumptions.

Was there ever any doubt?

> I think that you might be considered A-moral. But thats me and my opion
> of you. Nothing personal, as you might consider me a school marm. :-)

George, I think I have a stronger moral code than you do. It's just not the
same as yours.

> If I saw you with a close friend of mines SO, I would have the balls to
> let him/her know. For they PROBABLY would have a monogamous
> realationship. If your dating someone of your own gender and you have
> your open relationship fine. Live and let live. But if your dating
> someone like the Joe and Jane relationship, I gotta say it, and I know
> that I am going to get the shorts burnt on this one. BUT, I would think
> that your as low on the food chain as they come. 

But George - how can you tell by looking? You probably WOULD assume that -
incorrectly as it turns out. If you started saying that to other people, would
I be within my rights to come after you with a blunt object?
    
> If you have a commitment that induldges open marriage with what ever
> you want to call. You don't have a marriage, you have a tenancy at
> will.What ever will you want to will. Just like in business,
> contracts, leases, and tenancy at will's. You can call it a marriage,
> you can call it by what ever color you want to. You can call it the
> "Delux Over Drive Siberian roller Skis". It is not a marriage. Your bed
> hopping. Your dating like a school kid. Whats the diffence? Why marry
> then and spoil an instution? 

Watch it buddy. That's pretty damn offensive to me AND my wife. Your narrow
little rules are not all there are. You want to live by them - fine - but watch
what you call my marriage. I am NOT joking.

	-- Charles

    re .137
    
    I think the key expression in that note was that very high level of
    shared intimacy and trust. And, at least for me, if you have that the
    occasional sharing of pleasures of body or mind with other people does
    not matter much. And, at least for me, the need to for "external"
    activities decreases as intimacy and trust in the "main" relationship
    increases.
    
    I think there is room for many different standards of behaviour.
    
    regs,
    Heinrich

re.136

Charles,

Well done !  It's hard living on the edge, and being unconventional.  Even
harder to open up and speak for your principles as you have done.
Though I don't necessarily live a non-monogomous life, (one involvement
takes enough energy !) I do admire your attitude.  Honesty and acceptance
is far more important than the outdated, judgemental, victorian moralistic
attitudes of others (that's NOT a poke at anyone here - I just get sick
of hearing people moralise about the non-harmful activities of others).
The ice-cream analogy was perfect.

Wendy