skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The pope is at it again: Confusing the faithful and activists on whether the use of condoms to help stop the spread of AIDS is OK with the church.
I respect all religious views, but I want to be up-front here and happily disclose that I am a FORMER Catholic, and the most recent flap has only strengthened my resolve to never, ever go back.
How is it even possible to have to think about whether the use of condoms to help stop AIDS and all STD’s is advantageous? It is a no brainer, but apparently the Vatican remains stuck in the wrong century, as usual. It also remains blatantly homophobic and obviously bigoted, views it has held close to his hypocritical chest and has carefully nurtured for over 2,000 years.
While some AIDS activists welcomed the pope’s apparent softening of the Vatican’s opposition to the use of condoms, sex workers said his concession, directed only at infected prostitutes, demonstrated both his prejudice, and stark removal from reality. Not to mention, his apparent belief that sex workers are responsible for AIDS!
In a book-long interview entitled Light of the World to be published on Tuesday, the 83-year-old German pontiff suggests that using condoms could be justified in some cases on moral grounds to prevent infecting others with the virus causing AIDS, citing the example of a “male prostitute.”
In a book to be published this week, Benedict XVI said there could be “justified individual cases” in which condoms could be used, softening Rome’s blanket ban on contraception, one of the most controversial issues facing the Church.
"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics said, giving as an example a male prostitute having sex with a client.
Of course, he gave no guidance on the long-standing moral and religious question of whether it would be permissible for a married couple, in which one partner is HIV positive, to use condoms in order to prevent the other partner from becoming infected. Not to mention, the millions of homosexuals worldwide who are sexually active and want to protect themselves and their partners from AIDS and any and all other STD’s.
If that is what he meant even in this very narrow area, it is quite a contradiction, since the pope spoke out against condom use as recently as March 2009 during a trip to Africa. At that time, the pope caused an international uproar by claiming that condoms “increase the problem” of AIDSs. Ridiculous, disgusting and incredibly dangerous, in my view.
Pressed yesterday by Peter Seewald, a German Catholic journalist, whether he meant that the Church was not opposed in principle to the use of condoms, Pope Benedict replied: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” Um, what?
While the Vatican’s ban on artificial birth control was set out in a 1968 encyclical, it has not formally documented its position on condoms as a means to combat AIDS.
“This is a significant and positive step forward taken by the Vatican,” Michel Sidibé, executive director of UNAids, said. “This move recognizes that responsible sexual behavior and the use of condoms have important roles in HIV prevention. This will help accelerate the HIV prevention revolution.”
Predictably, Jon O’Brien, head of Catholics for Choice, a U.S. group, commented quite positively, proclaiming, “It is a marvelous victory for common sense and reason, a major step forward towards recognizing that condom use can play a vital role in reducing the future impact of the HIV pandemic.”
O’Brien asserted that the pope’s words were especially significant for “the many, many people who work for Catholic aid agencies and have been secretly handing out condoms while fearing that they will lose their jobs.”
But, the Vatican today apparently contradicted that all-too rosy interpretation as well as its Pope! The Vatican's chief spokesman today said that the pope is neither "reforming or changing" the Catholic Church's position banning condom use. Reverend Federico Lombardi emphasized that the church does not consider condoms a "moral solution" to sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS.
Some activists, including dissident Catholics, were dismayed that the pope only specifically cited the narrow example of a male prostitute – although the Vatican’s own newspaper fueled confusion by translating his words in Italian as a female prostitute.
“Thirty years of Vatican prevarication and refusal to admit the gravity of the HIV pandemic – which has already claimed the lives of 25 million people and threatens not only the 33 million currently affected but their partners and offspring – cannot be wiped away by a narrow exception constructed by a papacy under fire,” commented Mark Harrington of Treatment Action Group.
The pope’s shift was also interpreted by some Vatican observers as a communications ploy to soften his image as an out-of-touch fundamentalist whose papacy has been tarnished by revelations of hundreds of cases of child abuse committed by priests, sometimes protected by their bishops.
Sex workers were equally unimpressed by the pope’s new insight. “What the pope said is not connected to reality,” said one 23-year-old male prostitute in Rome who asked not to reveal his name. “No one cares about him. Maybe it is interesting from the theological point of view but in practical terms it makes no difference.”
A representative of the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe said his remarks were a, “damn sight better than saying condoms are of no use, but still pins the blame for AIDS on sex workers who face discrimination and stigmatization.” She also questioned whether the pope was really directing Catholic social workers to do anything differently.
Catholic aid organizations account for some 25 per cent of AIDS programs in sub-Saharan Africa, providing education, treatment and working against the stigma attached to the disease.
— The Curator
Not this month dearest, we BOTH have headaches.
Kenyans may consider holding a national "no-sex" month to slow down the spread of HIV and maintain the current momentum which has seen a drop in new infections.
This is one of the innovative and less expensive methods, countries attending the 18th International AIDS Conference 2010 which opened in Vienna, Austria on Sunday, may have to consider.
First proposed by Aids researchers, Prof Alan Whiteside of the University of Kwazulu-Natalin South Africa and Dr. Justin Parkhurst of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the U.K. in April, the hypothesis is gaining momentum and the two will be suggesting it be put on trial.
The new proposal was first published in the Southern African Journal of HIV Medicine, in April and forms part of hundreds of proposals and researches to be discussed at the ongoing Vienna conference.
Writing of the proposal for aidsmap, one of the official online information channels for the Aids 2010 international conference Keith Alcorn says Swaziland, which has a high HIV prevalence rate is considering trying out the idea.
The researchers argue that, since newly infected people have the highest transmission rates to their partners, an abstinence period would disrupt the infection chain with significant gains in bringing down the prevalence rates.
Scientists say HIV levels are highest in first six weeks after infection. This is before the body's defense system kicks in to fight the virus. Individuals in this phase are thought to account for anywhere from 10 to 45 per cent of new HIV infections.
"Stopping large numbers of recently infected people from passing on the virus for a month could act as a "fire break," in the same way that trees are chopped down in a forest fire to break the progress of the fire," says aidsmap.
The researchers say countries may try other options depending on what is most acceptable to their people. They may try a month of protected sex for all, or no commercial sex for everybody for a certain duration.
Another suggestion would include no sex at night for a period of time for the whole population. This behavioral change options comes soon after Kenya won praise from the conference organizers, UNAids on its success in convincing the youth to adopt responsible sex.
In a pre-conference communication last Thursday, UNAids said HIV prevalence in pregnant women aged 15 to 24 fell by at least a quarter in 12 countries, with some of the steepest drops in Kenya.
"Young people have shown that they can be change agents in the prevention revolution," the agency said in its OUTLOOK Report 2010.
Talking to the Nation soon after the release of the report, Dr. Nicholas Muraguri, the director of the National Aids and Sexually Transmitted Infections Control Program, said persistent campaigns have resulted in behavior change among the youth, considerably reducing the infection rate.
He said condom use as well as voluntary counseling and testing are also on the increase because of the efforts. "There are more young people using condoms, and many more are going for HIV tests without fear.
"This has seen HIV testing rise from 35 per cent to 70 per cent in the recent past," said Muraguri as he prepared to leave for the Vienna meeting. "Unlike in the past, when men would brag about the number of women they had slept with, young people are now more cautious.”
— The Curator
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability has decided to retain the policy that bans blood donation by any man who has had sex with a man at any time, even once, since 1977.
Incongruously, current policy allows people who have unsafe heterosexual sex with someone who has AIDS to donate blood after a one-year waiting period.
In a 9-6 vote, which took place last week, the committee cited a lack of research to support the notion that lifting the ban would not contaminate the blood supply.
Current HIV testing technology can identify a new infection with the virus within about 10 days of transmission.
The committee acknowledged that current policy permits "some potentially high-risk donations while preventing some potentially low-risk donations."
It called this state of affairs "suboptimal" and suggested more research into the matter."
This decision is outrageous, irresponsible and archaic," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We expect more out of this advisory committee and this administration than to uphold an unnecessarily discriminatory policy from another era."
She said all donors should be "screened appropriately and assessed based on actual behavioral risk independent of their sexual orientation."
The American Red Cross, the nation’s largest blood supplier, agrees.
"The American Red Cross is disappointed with the decision made by the (committee) not to recommend a change to the FDA policy of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men," the organization said. "While the Red Cross is obligated by law to follow the guidelines set forth by the FDA, we also strongly support the use of rational, scientifically based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities."
Though the committee voted to recommend against changing the current policy, the committee did recommend, among other actions, that quarantine release errors should be investigated. Depending on the results of such an investigation, this could lead to a future recommendation to reduce or eliminate the “deferral” of gay men and other men who have sex with men desiring to donate blood. Not much improvement, but a bit of a start.
While the increase the blood supply could receive by lifting the indefinite deferral was noted as “modest at best,” Dr. Frederick Axelrod, CEO of LifeStream, noted that there are other concerns with not changing the current policy at all.
Referring to college campuses and others canceling blood drives to express sympathy for and solidarity with the gay community, Axelrod said, “these issues...are coming up more frequently and the vocal nature of it is getting louder and louder.” Axelrod warned that if the policy is not changed “there could be an increased voice that’s going to push harder as it relates to this and then it’s going to affect the amount of blood that we can collect and then it’ll affect patients in a different way — not with an infectious disease, but not having enough blood and going back to shortages.”
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, an anti-gay organization that has been accused of lobbying Congress in opposition of a resolution that would denounce Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill, spoke at the meeting in favor of maintaining the current policy. Despite his organization’s anti-gay stance, his statements to the committee were carefully crafted to contain no blatantly homophobic language. Also speaking at the meeting were Nathan Schaefer and Sean Cahill of Gay Men’s Health Crisis, as well as several HIV/AIDS organizations.
Schaefer made clear that his organization does not “necessarily think that anyone opposed to changing the current policy is motivated by homophobia,” but the possibility of homophobia represented in the policy is certainly present. Describing disparities in treatment, Schaefer gave the example that though any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 can never give blood, a man who has had sex with a known HIV+ woman more than 365 days ago can give blood.
HHS apparently kept no record of how members voted on the issue. A recording of the meeting is available on the department’s website, but due to low video quality and a camera shot that doesn’t include all members, not all votes are known. One vote in support of the current policy was cast by Anne Marie Finley, Vice President of Government Relations at Celgene Corporation, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations.
Back in the 80's when we didn't know much about HIV/AIDS and the homosexual community was largely ignored and/or widely discriminated against, HIV/AIDS was seen as the "Gay Disease." This was because, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at that time most AIDS cases occurred among whites homosexual males. Soon thereafter AIDS began spreading through intravenous drug use as well as other transmission methods and that's when cases starting being identified in heterosexuals as well. Once the HIV/AIDS issue became an epidemic, the federal government got involved, "to protect the people."
In 1983 the Food and Drug Administration implemented rules against men who have had sex – even once – with another man since 1977, stating that they are forbidden from donating blood. The purpose of this rule was to prevent HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, from tainting the blood supply. Screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood had not been developed as of yet and so an all out ban seemed like an appropriate measure. Despite the fact that this is no longer the case as there are plenty of tests that can detect the virus, the ban was nonetheless retained. Thus, in 2010, gay males who have sex with other gay males cannot give blood, even if they don't have HIV/AIDS.
Of note: There are no other minority groups banned from giving blood, regardless of whether or not said minority group has a high HIV/AIDS infection rate or not. For example, if you are a gay woman, you can apparently give all the blood you want. That is because lesbians are not seen as a high-risk group for contracting HIV/AIDS as opposed to sexually active gay males. Though hundreds of thousands of woman have HIV/AIDS due to drug use or other methods of transmissions, the CDC still doesn't consider them to be a "high-risk" group because they are not likely to transmit HIV/AIDS through sexual intercourse (although it is possible).
Another example of this glaring hypocrisy is that despite gay males being labeled as a high risk group, according to the Center For Disease Control as of 2008, African American men and women were estimated to have an incidence rate that was 7 times as high as the incidence rate among white people...and yet there is no ban against black people giving blood.
In addition, various studies also show that heterosexual intercourse is the fastest-growing mode of HIV transmission in North America and the dominant mode of HIV transmission worldwide. It has been reported that HIV is rapidly showing up in heterosexual communities throughout North America. However, there is no ban on heterosexuals giving blood. It seems that the precautions taken against receiving tainted blood from sexually active homosexuals is not considered necessary for sexually active heterosexuals.
There is also a glaringly obvious problem here. For one, any person, gay or otherwise does not have to tell the truth about any of the above. All one has to say to give blood is, "I'm straight, monogamous and last time I checked, STD free." Then they take your blood and test it, just like everyone else. The dirty little secret in all of this is that homosexual men do give blood, when they choose to lie.
Sadly, it appears that the FDA is discriminating against a particular group of people based on their sexuality, rather than establishing real precautions to ensure that the country’s blood reserve is safe.
— The Curator
There is a fascinating and important opinion/editorial appearing at Bikya Masr that describes sex education – or the lack of it – in today's Egypt.
The author, Baher Ibrahim, notes that even doctor’s do not have correct or adequate sex education, nor do many men and women understand the correct usage of condoms.
Masturbation is absolutely verboten, and women, who are expected to remain virginal until marriage, are not supposed to have any specific knowledge about self-pleasure.
Ibrahim urges the country to confront its sexual conservatism, and advances a compelling argument that it must provide real, contemporary sex education.
The editorial appears in its entirety below, or read it directly at Bikya Masr.
By Baher Ibrahim
27 December 2009
in Health
“It may sound striking that in the 21st century; there are highly educated people, even doctors, who have highly inaccurate information about reproductive health. But in Egypt, that is the reality.
Starting from school pupils and reaching all the way to medical faculties, there is an astonishing lack of basic information on sex and reproductive diseases. Misconceptions and old wives’ tales are reinforced in young peoples’ minds by the insistence of medical professors on ignoring such basic information.
Egyptian society is by nature a conservative one, making sex a taboo subject. Thus, it has become absolutely normal and expected that an entire body system be practically ignored in science curricula all over the country. Everyone in Egypt has memories of the bizarre class on the reproductive system. What usually happens is that the teacher maintains a stern face and monotonous voice to deter students from making lousy jokes. If it’s a co-ed school, there is no place for a constructive detailed discussion. Likewise, if a male teacher is standing before a girl only class or vice versa, the lesson is finished off at lightning speed. Girls would be unwilling and embarrassed to listen to a man explain the anatomy of the female genitalia, and boys will almost certainly make an inappropriate comment that will deter their teacher.
In today’s age, sex is aggressively marketed through advertising, movies and music videos. With widespread Internet access, pornography is instantly available at the click of a mouse. That there is no kind of proper sex ed in our schools is preposterous. Fast forward to high school, and the situation is not any different. The reproductive process is explained in terms of spermatogenesis and fertilization, leaving numerous girls wondering (and this is not an exaggeration) how the spermatozoa happened to reach the ovum. In addition, it prompts teenage boys, who will stop at nothing to find out about sex, to get their information from their friends, who are just as misinformed as them, or from pornographic movies.
The only time when sex is formally discussed in school is in a religious context, where the (inexperienced) religious studies teacher offers the students more misinformation as fact. Examples of these are 'masturbation is strictly forbidden in religion, and the punishment of he who masturbates is equal to that of he who engages in sexual relations with his mother.' Another popular one is that 'one mustn’t masturbate because God has given each man a store of semen that will finish if you abuse it.'
These claims are laughable to many, but are widely accepted as fact, as well as the infamous 'masturbation ruins your eyesight.' Fast forward once again to university, and the unwillingness to discuss sex in even a medical context is absurd.
Khalid, a dentistry student at Alexandria University, recalls one of his experiences. He says 'It was in our first year during a Zoology lecture. The professor (a woman) happened to mention the word ‘vagina’. A colleague of mine, who’s English was very poor, asked the professor after the lecture about the meaning of ‘vagina’. Suddenly the professor started stuttering and launched into a prolonged English-Arabic explanation interspersed with medical terminology. While he was looking at her with blank eyes, I whispered in his ear the Arabic slang (and offensive) word for ‘vagina.’'
The country’s medical students, and future doctors, fare no better. Many still believe the common “masturbation ruins your eyesight” myth, while others believe it causes infertility. A medical student at Alexandria University laughs as he tells about one of his funnier experiences. “It was during our second year, and we were attending a psychology lecture where the topic of discussion was IQ. A student passed over a folded paper to the doctor with a question on it. (Note: this is how questions are commonly asked due to the massive number of students in the auditoriums) The question was ‘Excuse me doctor, but does masturbation affect your IQ?’ Many students burst out laughing but most of the girls seemed not to understand since they didn’t get the English term. The doctor was very professional, explaining that there was no harm at all in the act, unless it became an obsession or compulsive behavior. He also mentioned statistics that 99.9% of males and 70 percent of females masturbate.'
Naturally, the latter part of the statistic did not sit well with many. The student goes on to say 'My male friends were astonished that he mentioned such a statistic so openly in front of girls, and most believed it to be a lie. Some went on to say that only a whore would do such a thing and one also wondered if by doing so, a girl could lose her virginity. A few were also astonished at the prospect that girls even thought about sex.'
The student I spoke to is now in his fifth (second last) year. He says 'Even now, it is more of the same. We had a lecture on male infertility, and obviously, a semen sample is needed to know if a man is infertile. The professor found it too embarrassing to say that the sample is usually obtained by masturbation, despite the term being mentioned without definition in the book. He opted to say that ‘a sample is best obtained in the lab’. I don’t know what’s so embarrassing about it. I am sure many of the girls, especially the ones from rural backgrounds, didn’t understand.'
Nor are they expected to understand. Despite attempts at change, Egypt is still a largely patriarchal, male dominated society where 'respectable' girls are expected to guard their virginity and know little to nothing about sex, until they are married.
This student also says 'I was stunned when during a lecture on HIV/AIDS, the professor made very little emphasis on prevention of sexual transmission, besides mentioning the term ‘condom’ once in English. Then he made a claim I have never heard of that in 15-20 percent of proper, regular condom usage, HIV can still cross an intact condom. I’ve never heard of such a thing.'
Indeed, a fact sheet on male condom use, available on the UNAIDS website, says that after conducting studies, it has emerged that 'with regular sexual intercourse over a period of two years, partners who consistently used condoms had a near zero risk of HIV.'
Add to this the reality that most med students, even when they graduate, do not even know what a condom looks like. This is an outrageous lack of basic sex ed, especially for medical students, and steps must be taken to change it.
Ironically, in a country where extramarital sex is a big no-no, very few women know how to self induce a medical abortion or use the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy.
Most girls do not even know what their external genitalia look like, nor do they have the curiosity to know. This is part of the cultural norm that girls must guard their modesty and virginity before marriage.
For all the above stated reasons, definite steps must be taken to integrate proper sex education in school and university curricula, to be taught by certified specialists, so that we may pull our students, future doctors and the general population out of the dark.”
This editorial perfectly underscores many of the challenges that conservative countries face in our modern, technological society. Every country must determine its own mores, but when its citizens have access to broader experiences via the Internet, then sex education is even more imperative. It is also quite shocking to me that many of its doctor's do not possess this vital information, either.
It is not for me to judge the behavior of a society or government when it comes to sex, but ensuring the safety of all is everyone's responsibility.
I believe that every person must be given the tools to protect themselves from contracting AIDS and other STD's, and to have the most basic knowledge about their own bodies. That is not a religious/ideology issue, but rather a human issue.
I would argue that women should be considered sexual equals in any society. Even in the U.S., which is a much less conservative country, that is still not the case, but is thankfully coming closer to becoming a reality.
— The Curator
This is a vitally important topic, so no cute lead on this one: Kids need to know about sex from their parents before they have sex – duh!
Well, a recent study finds that parents are not talking soon enough, partly because kids are having sexual encounters at a younger age than in prior generations, and also because parents are in denial.
As a result, the birds-and-the-bees conversation occurs after, and not before, kids start experimenting sexually, possibly in risky ways, according to a study in the January issue of Pediatrics. In the study, researchers found “The Talk” about safe sex, birth control or sexually transmitted diseases often occurs after many adolescents are already having actual intercourse.
This revelation comes despite American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations that health-care providers and parents talk to their kids about sex and sexuality early in life.
"Parents are a little behind the 8-ball. They underestimate their children's sexual knowledge and interest and behaviors," said Dr. Lawrence Friedman, director of adolescent medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.
"It's a hard subject for many parents to broach, but the level of sexual activity in many kids has moved up in terms of initiation. It's younger," added Alan Hilfer, director of psychology at Maimonides Medical Center in New York City. "Talking about it is very helpful in terms of disease prevention, unwanted pregnancy and even issues around relationships."
According to experts, this is a troublesome trend, as teens who have had a sex talk with their parents are more likely to delay their first sexual encounter, and to practice safe sex when they do become sexually active.
Although there were long-term suspicions that parents lagged behind their kids, previous studies had asked adults to remember when they first had sex and when their parents talked to them, said study author Megan Beckett, a social scientist with the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica, Calif.
For this study, Beckett and her colleagues surveyed 141 middle-class and upper middle-class parents and their children, aged 13 to 17, in more of a real-time scenario. "We went back about four times over a year's period," Beckett said.
The study involved the families enrolling in the Talking Parents, Healthy Teens program, and should serve as a wake-up call for parents. The parents and children responded to a questionnaire covering 24-issues regarding sex and sexuality, including how pregnancy occurred, body changes during puberty, condom and birth control applications, as well as sexual identity and homosexuality.
Separately, parents and children were asked the first time they discussed each topic, which was then compared with the teens’ self-reports about engaging in three specific categories of sexual behavior i.e. hand-holding or kissing; genital touching or oral sex; and intercourse.
By study-end, over half the parents reported 14 of the 24-sex-related topics had not been discussed, by which time their adolescents had already begun genital touching or oral sex with partners.
Starting with questions about girls bodies and menstruation, the research team asked parents and children about kissing and handholding, birth control, refusing sex, oral sex and intercourse, all related to different developmental stages of the kids.
More than half of children had experienced genital touching before "The Talk" about birth control, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and condom use, the researchers found.
"More than 40 percent of adolescents are having intercourse before parents have talked to them about STD symptoms, condom use, choosing birth control and what to do if your partner refuses to use a condom," Beckett said. "That's a pretty large number."
Forty-two percent of girls said they had not discussed the effectiveness of birth control, while 40 percent had not talked it over with their parents on how to refuse sex before engaging in genital touching.
Nearly 70 percent of boys had not discussed condom use or other birth-control methods before having intercourse, with only half their parents saying they had not discussed the issues. About two-thirds of boys said they had not talked with a parent about how to use a condom before having intercourse. And conversations with boys almost always took place later than talks with girls.
"This is a flag to not put it off, and this is especially the case with boys," Beckett said.
Denial, naivety and any number of other emotions on the part of the parents may be playing into this trend, Friedman said.
"They reminisce that when they were in the seventh grade, they didn't do that kind of thing," he said.
"The fact of the matter is that this is 25 years later, and this is what is going on. You have to be knowledgeable and prepared to prepare children for when they become teenagers and have to confront sexual kinds of activities."
Other experts agree. "We live in an R-rated society, and our kids need our PG guidance," said Dr. Frank Biro, head of adolescent medicine at Cincinnati Children's Hospital. "If you want to instill knowledge and values, then you need to be talking to your kids earlier, not later."
Here are some tips on when and how to talk to your kids:
— Figure that the age you think is appropriate is probably too old. "If parents think that they should broach the topic at X age, they should subtract two years and do it at that age instead," Friedman said.
— Talk to your physician and scour resources from the Internet, libraries and schools about how to broach the subject and what to say.
— Take the lead. "Don't expect your child to come and ask an important question about a topic that they're embarrassed about or that they don't know their parents would be willing to talk to them about," Friedman said. "This will also help gauge how knowledgeable their teenager or child is."
— After you've talked, "step back and ask your kids questions and pay attention to what they're interested in," Hilfer said.
— Make sure your conversation is developmentally appropriate to the child, Biro said. Talking about fellatio with a 6-year-old is probably not appropriate. Talking about boys liking girls and handholding would be for kids 8 or 9 years or possibly even 6 years old. "If you haven't talked to your kids by the time they're 12, you need to get on the stick," said Hilfer.
— Make sure that kids understand the risks of even casual experimentation. AIDS, STD’s and unwanted pregnancies can happen even if the kids do not have full-on intercourse.
— Make sure kids know how to say "no," that it's OK to refuse any sexual suggestion, and that they are not uncool to do so.
— Swallow your unease. Your embarrassment is nothing compared to your kid getting pregnant or AIDS!
— Be senstive to your kids about feelings of shame. Make sure they understand that sexual feelings are normal and natural, and that you still have them.
— Make sure that kids know they can count on you if they get into ANY kind of trouble, without judgment or getting a lecture.
— LISTEN TO YOUR KIDS! Pretty basic, but may be the most important tips that adults can ignore. They understand they need to talk, but the listening — not so much.
In addition, it is important for all parents to know the correct terms and the anatomy of both genders. It is unbelievable, but it has been my experience that many adults have the same knowledge about sex as adolescents – they have not updated their own information in decades! Only give your kids correct information!
I also believe that no discussion about sex can omit a conversation about masturbation. Sexual impulses are natural, and masturbation is a safe-sex way to release those feelings in private, and for teens to learn about, and accept, their bodies.
Discussion about sexual identity has to be part of any conversation with kids. Believe me, kids will hear about homosexuality from other kids, and often that information is ugly and destructive. If children have begun to believe they are not heterosexual, the feelings of shame begin very, very early. Parents have to be conscious of what their kids are feeling, and observant, even if what you see is not something you may approve of, or want for them.
Unconditional love begins when parents embrace their children for who they are, including the sexuality, and realize that a lot of the rules have changed. Arm your kids with information on how to keep safe, as well as explaining the emotions that occur with even casual sexual contact.
Unwanted pregnancies, AIDS and other STD’s are not the only sexual minefields all kids have to cross. Peer pressure, even rape; poor body image; sexual identity; and even broken hearts are just some of the others. Whew! I am often glad that I do not have young children in this day and age.
— The Curator
Calls to end discrimination rang out across the globe today in a tidal wave of RED ribbons as countries marked World AIDS Day.
World AIDS Day, observed December 1 each year, is dedicated to raising awareness of the AIDS pandemic caused by the spread of HIV infection. It is common to hold memorials to honor persons who have died from HIV/AIDS on this day. Government and health officials also observe the event, often with speeches or forums on the AIDS topics. Since 1995, the President of the United States has made an official proclamation on World AIDS Day. Governments of other nations have followed suit and issued similar announcements.
The color RED has come to represent the movement to find a cure, as well as a non-profit organization that raises funds to fight the disease worldwide and provide treatment to those in need.
AIDS has killed more than 25 million people between 1981 and 2007, making it one of the most destructive epidemics in recorded history. Despite recent, improved access to antiretroviral treatment and care in many regions of the world, the AIDS epidemic claimed an estimated 2 million lives in 2007, of which about 270,000 were children. World AIDS Day began in 1987.
To read an important blog about the day, the disease, and taking precautions, please read my buddy BISH’s post.
South Africa, the nation worst affected by the pandemic, rolled out a new battle plan to defeat the virus. South Africa's President Jacob Zuma said today that his government will treat more AIDS patients and expand testing for HIV. He said the goal is to treat 80 percent of the country's affected people by 2012.
China warned today that the occurrence of the virus among homosexuals is gaining pace. President Hu Jintao called on the public to not discriminate against those with HIV.
Protesters actually interrupted an AIDS conference to focus attention on the stigma of having the disease, and the tendency for the government to deny needed treatment to homosexuals.
In the South Korean capital, protesters filed a petition with the country's human rights watchdog seeking an end to mandatory HIV tests for some foreign workers.
On Monday, White House officials said a longtime ban on HIV-positive visitors to the United States will be lifted early next year.
Washington also announced its plans to host the International AIDS Conference in 2012, and to spend 120 million dollars for treatment to help victims worldwide.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that President Barack Obama is dedicated to enhancing America's leadership in the fight against global AIDS. The previous administration of President George W. Bush began the process of lifting the HIV ban for visitors, which as been in effect for 22 years. The ban is expected to be lifted on Jan. 4, 2010. The conference is scheduled for July 2012.
The International AIDS Society said in a statement Monday that the new U.S. entry policy for people living with HIV reflects the country's key role in global efforts to combat AIDS. The U.S. last hosted the conference in 1990.
The United Nations says that last year, at least 33.4 million people globally were living with HIV and that 2.7 million new infections were reported. The U.N. also says two million deaths were due to AIDS last year.
While the war against HIV/AIDS is still far from over, 2009 is proving to be a watershed year in terms of advances in prevention and treatment, experts say.
In fact, earlier this month a U.N. report found that the number of people infected with HIV globally has remained unchanged, at about 33 million, for the past two years, but may have peaked in the late 1990’s.
Why the change? One big reason could be expanded access to antiretroviral drugs. A report released in October by the World Health Organization, UNICEF and UNAIDS found that 42 percent of people in the developing world who carry HIV now have access to life-extending medications. By the end of 2008, more than 4 million people worldwide were on antiretroviral medicines – 2.9 million of them in sub-Saharan Africa, where the bulk of HIV-positive people live. That's a tenfold increase in access over the prior five years!
"I think this has come about through a number of organizations that have been trying to get drugs to be available to people in the developing world," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He especially credited the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), begun under the second Bush presidency, which he said "is responsible for over 2 million people being on therapy."
Other nonprofit groups – most notably the Clinton Foundation and the Gates Foundation – have also led the charge, helping to broker price-reduction schemes with pharmaceutical companies for the cheap distribution of AIDS drugs in poorer nations.
More widespread access to treatment may also pay dividends in prevention, one expert noted.
"I think this is an interesting story that's been emerging this year, as well – the possibility that people who are on antiretroviral therapy are less infectious," said Rowena Johnston, director of research for the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR), based in New York City. She said that while the effect of widespread treatment on infectivity has yet to be proven, decreased viral load in infected people might help reduce the odds of their passing HIV on to others.
In fact, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. National Institutes of Health are planning major studies in New York City and Washington, D.C., to see if better identification and treatment of HIV-positive people can help keep infection rates down across the community as a whole, Johnston said.
There was also promising news this year in terms of the search for an effective AIDS vaccine.
In October, researchers reporting in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed that a combination of two vaccines brought about a modest, 31 percent reduction in infection rates among a cohort of 16,000 young adult volunteers in Thailand who were tracked for about three years. Analysis of the trial data suggested that the vaccines' effect faded with time, however, and was less effective in those at highest risk of HIV, such as sex workers or IV drug abusers.
For these reasons, no one is calling the trial a success. However, "the reason that we think it is potentially important is that it's the first time that we've ever seen the slightest positive signal" that immunization against HIV might work, Fauci said. "So, mild as [this result] is, at least it's a step in the right direction."
Johnston agreed, and called the trial an important stepping stone to further research.
"There's going to be a lot of intensive effort looking at blood samples of the people who seem to have done well on the vaccine," she explained. "If anybody can tease out what the magic ingredients are, that will form the cornerstone of how we move forward on AIDS vaccine development."
There were also new glimmers of hope in terms of treatment. One major story was reported as a case study in February in the New England Journal of Medicine. The patient in question was both HIV-positive and had leukemia, and received a stem cell transplant to help cure the cancer. The transplant was unique, however, in that the donor carried a rare gene mutation providing virtual immunity to HIV.
The result: post-transplant, the patient now has no detectable level of HIV in his system.
Johnston stressed that such a therapy could never become a widespread treatment for HIV/AIDS, because the donor pool is so scarce and bone marrow transplants carry a 30 percent risk of death. But the case does offer intriguing possibilities.
"It's a proof of concept that maybe you can cure HIV," she said. "So, there's been interest in finding out where you could do something similar with using gene therapy, for example," bypassing the need for dangerous stem cell transplants.
Other advances in HIV/AIDS made headlines as well in 2009. In February, a topical microbicide gel was found to cut the odds of HIV infection in at-risk African women by 30 percent, while in September researchers at the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative said they'd discovered two immune-system antibodies that might become powerful, broad-spectrum targets for vaccine research in the future.
And as already mentioned in policy news, the Obama administration in late October lifted a decades-old ban on foreigners with HIV entering the United States. As reported by the Associated Press, Obama described the ban as a policy "rooted in fear rather than fact," and said its removal would encourage HIV testing and help save lives.
Still, despite this year's advances, HIV/AIDS continues its decades-long swath of destruction, both in the United States and globally.
As Fauci pointed out, the annual rate of new infections in the United States has been stuck at a dismal 56,000 for the past decade. "We've sort of hit a wall to get below that number," he said. "We need to intensify the multifaceted prevention efforts that are ongoing."
Susan Smith Ellis, CEO of RED, wrote the following in today's Huffington Post:
“The novelist David Rhodes once wrote that life's fundamental narrative begins with ‘I’ and ends with ‘you.’ Everything in between is conveyance from one person to another. What we convey is what matters.
“The basic idea of (RED)™ is transactional conveyance; I buy a (RED)-branded product, be it an Apple iPod, a Nike shoelace or a Gap tee-shirt, and a percentage of the profit from that sale goes to the Global Fund. The Global Fund administers a well-managed network of health care projects in sub-Saharan Africa to help stem the spread of AIDS. Somewhere in Ghana or Rwanda or Botswana, someone gets antiretroviral medication which keeps them alive or reduces the likelihood that they will transmit HIV to their unborn or just-born child. And so that someone, who otherwise might die or be destined to die, lives or bequeaths a more promising life instead. It's a good deal.
“On World AIDS Day, we don't celebrate with fireworks or champagne. We take note of what has been accomplished and we resolve to keep at it. We are proud of what our partners have accomplished. We like to say that they have gained market share for life (and for themselves) and in so doing they have changed the course of a part of human history.
“In 2006, it was estimated that only 8 percent of HIV-positive pregnant women in Ghana received the antiretroviral medicine necessary to reduce the chance of transmitting HIV to their unborn children. Without the medicine, the chances of HIV transmission were (and are) roughly 50-50. With the medicine, the chances of HIV transmission drop to between 1 and 2 percent. By the end of 2008, nearly 40 percent of Ghanaian women in need received the medicine that will transform the lives of their children. That is market share for life. And it is growing year-over-year.
“On this World AIDS Day, there is improvement in HIV detection across sub-Saharan Africa. The percentage of pregnant women who were able to take an HIV test increased from 17 percent in 2007 to 28 percent in 2008. We have every reason to believe that the percentage figure will increase substantially again this year (the final data are not yet available). The goal obviously is to keep ramping up testing until the chain of HIV transmission from mother to child is one day broken altogether. That day is coming, if we keep after it.
“AIDS is not just an African disease, of course. World AIDS Day is testament to the fact that AIDS is a global problem. (RED) focuses on AIDS in Africa because that is where the need is most acute. Nearly 14 million children in Africa have been orphaned because of AIDS. There are an estimated 2 million children living with HIV around the globe, 90 percent of them are in Africa. More than 90 percent of the children living with HIV are infected through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, around the time of birth or through breast-feeding. This is a fixable catastrophe ($26 covers the cost of providing medication to a pregnant woman to sharply reduce the risk of HIV transmission to her child). And that is where your (RED) dollars go, $26 at a time.
“All around the world tonight, from San Francisco to Chicago to Pittsburgh to Los Angeles to Salt Lake City to Dublin, Ireland and London, England, cities will bathe their municipal buildings and town halls and key landmarks and architectural masterpieces in (RED) lights. All across the Internet, on the pages of Facebook and Twitter and Google, there will be links to (RED) and its partners. An ocean and a world away, in the pre-dawn hours of sub-Saharan Africa, men and women will begin their daily work of doing battle with a viral killer, a battle financed in part by the purchases of (RED)-branded products by people like you.
“As the CEO of (RED), I have the privilege of working with great partners at the Global Fund and at some of the world's most iconic brands. Every day, I get to work with a dedicated group of professionals who have devoted themselves to a great conveyance. On behalf of all of them, I thank you for your support of (RED) branded products and the work that it enables.
“World AIDS Day this year is better than it was a year ago. It will be better still a year from now. We just have to keep after it,” she concluded.
She keep after it for more information.
In this era of increased global understanding, it is vital that we use this important momentum to put down bigotry, homophobia and xenophobia to find an AIDS cure, and in the meantime, to get treatment to everyone who needs it throughout the world. This issue is bigger than any one country, ideology, or political agenda. Real people are dying, adults and children! These people can be helped. How can we call ourselves civilized if we fail to hear their cries?
— The Curator
