Why do so many Africans have AIDS?

[GePap]

Well lancer, your question has been answered....

This whole debate reminds me of the book Plagues and Peoples in which one of the arguments is that Sub-saharan Africa is the most inhospitable place for human development simply because, since Man evolved in that region, Nature has had a few extra millenia to come up with ways to keep us in check.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Gross oversimplification, chegitz, something you usually do not do. There are many, many cultural factors that play a role, not least the influence of Catholic and Islamic priests, plus many more specialised cases that are definately not male-exclusive. There are several patterns that need breaking for family planning to work, not lest through educational and purely economic change, some of it Gender-related, other not.

For a typical complex case, take the Chagga people of east africa, generally thought of as one of the most resourceful and industrious peoples in the region and thus widely dispersed throughout Tanzania with many in positions of power elsewhere. They are generally of a higher educational level than the rest of the Tanzanian population, are relatively gender-equal (not saying muvh, I know) and certainly earn more money than most. Yet they also have among the highest rates of AIDS in the world. Why? Well, partially it's 'cause they've had the misfortuned to be converted to christianity by catholics, but the major reason is orgies. No really. The widely dispersed and thus disease-prone young Chaggas travel home in large numbers for annual feasts that basically consist of large-scale, unprotected group sex, indulged in by men and women alike and (according to traditionally held beliefs) supposed to not cause any pregnancies. Family planning wouldn't help.

I don't think it's right to blame anyone (except those who know they carry the disease and indulge in unprotected sex anyway) for the spread of AIDS. It's a horrible scourge and everything in our power needs to be done to wipe it out, but ascertaining blame is hardly going to help the millions of people even now dying of this modern plague.

Interesting . . . .

and you are definitely right -- what kind of progress are we going to make by arguing back and forth who is to blame for this horrible scourge?

[Lancer]

MrFun, that's been resolved. It was a British monkey ****ing, weight lifting, pygmy... iirc.

GePap, yeah, that and the inability of a whole culture to keep it in their pants.

[chequita guevara]

One of the reasons the popultion of Africa is falling is because women are having far fewer children, aka, they are engaging in less sex for fear of catching the disease.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Britain is being put at risk of an AIDS epidemic because of the useless Labour government not wanting to appear racist by booting out unwanted cheats.

You are even more offensive and stupid than I thought possible for you.

Let's see some facts and figures to back up this piece of racist garbage from the sump you call a brain. And by facts and figures, I don't mean opinions you received from a toilet wall, or Gary Burchill, or a man in a pub.

Caligastia- it is your opinion that promiscuity and immorality are somehow inextricably linked- I don't believe they are. Why is it immoral to have more than one sexual partner?

Most heterosexual males I know have had more than one sexual partner- in most Western cultures for a male to have had multiple sexual partners is a 'good' thing, whereas of course, for a woman to have had multiple sexual partners puts her at risk of being called 'easy', or a 'bike' despite the likes of 'Sex and the City' portraying it as being 'different for girls' now.

I find it immoral that a church like the one I grew up in can condemn people like me for having a committed relationship with someone of the same sex for the past 19 years, and yet expect a relative of mine to live in a loveless marriage with a physically and sexually abusive husband because 'marriage is a sacrament'.

Still, A.I.D.S. is such a great excuse for people to get on their high horses and preach about morality, isn't it? Is everything in your life perfect? Would your morality pass muster?

[Ben Kenobi]

Molly Bloom,
Why is it immoral to have more than one sexual partner?

In short, abstinence followed by monogamy is an evolutionary advantage, especially for females. Not only is a stable family better for a child´s development, but people who abstain before marriage are more likely to live long enough pass on their genes. Of course, the STD´s have evolved around this by developing long incubation periods, so that the infected people can have kids before they die.

-Richard Burns

For the same reason adultery is immoral. When you add a third person to the equation, you increase the risk of STD transmission not only to yourself, but also to the original partner. Is this fair to them?

[chequita guevara]

Actually, abstaining from sex before marriage doesn't in any way increase the likelihood of living long enough to pass on your genes. Marriage has nothing to do with passing on genes, that's the purpose of sex.

Nor does engaging in sex with multiple partners necessarily have anything to do with children, in an age where people are reasonably free in some countries to be homosexual, bisexual, or use birth control.

Evolution says nothing about morality or immorality. That's religion and philosophy's job.

When you engage in sex with anyone, you create a risk of passing on an STD. If you are open about having multiple partners (as opposed to cheating) you are willing accepting a greater risk. Plus, most people have multiple partners, just serially rather than all at once. Humans really don't see to be made for mating for life.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by obiwan18


For the same reason adultery is immoral. When you add a third person to the equation, you increase the risk of STD transmission not only to yourself, but also to the original partner. Is this fair to them?

You're missing out on something- not everyone is in a committed/married relationship, and the majority of the animal world (inlcuding us) was designed in such a way that the male can drop his dna payload and walk off.

Morality is a human construction and changes from society to society- fairness has little or nothing to do with morality. Is it 'fair' that so many people from underprivileged backgrounds are in prison? Or are poor? But some cultures would see it as moral- it's their karma. Should we stop living in large cities because cholera, diphtheria, measles and typhoid take advantage of this? Is it fair or moral that so many of the people 'blaming' Africans have never been to sub-Saharan Africa, or a country in the grip of civil war- and yet smugly pass judgment on people living in a very close approximation to hell on earth?

http://www.undp.org/hiv/publications/issues/english/issue27e.html

'The U.S. Committee for Refugees estimates that more than 34 million people were living away from their homes because of one disaster or another at the end of 2000. Close to 15 million of them were refugees in foreign countries. More than 3 million were living in Africa, with Tanzania hosting the largest population of more than 500,000 people.

The number of people displaced within their own countries was even greater — at least 20 million, according to the Committee. In Sudan, ongoing civil war has created some four million internally displaced people, while conflict has displaced another 2.5 million people in Angola and 1.6 million people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The genocide that erupted in Rwanda in 1994 increased the international community's awareness of the need to address the HIV epidemic during emergencies. The conflict created a massive refugee crisis in the Great Lakes region of Africa, as hundreds of thousands of people fled Rwanda — where HIV was already prevalent — for countries that were also plagued with the virus.

Since then, relief agencies agree that displacement places affected populations at heightened risk of HIV infection. The virus spreads more rapidly among the poor, dependent, and powerless whose risks increase even more in situations of social instability and lawlessness — conditions that are most extreme during natural disasters, war, and conflict.'

from:

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/Content/ContentGroups/Articles/011/Uprooted_People_and_HIV_AIDS_in_Africa__Responding_to_the_Risks.htm

'Against this background, it is too easily forgotten that the vast majority of Africans--more than 90%--have not acquired HIV. Enabling them to remain HIV-free is a massive challenge, with the protection of young people a priority. '

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?page=cr09-00-00

Frankly the people who expect a refugee to be able to find a condom whilst on the run, or sheltering fom Interahamwe militia, or instead of looking for potable drinking water, or the first food they've had in three days, are living in dream land.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Caligastia
You don't have a problem with promiscuous, unprotected sex unless there are diseases involved? You don't see this behaviour as being immoral?! There are many other reasons other than disease why this kind of sexual activity is a problem. There is a lot of emotional hurt involved, not just among the sexually active, but also among the children who are born as a result of this kind of activity. It's a very selfish practice, don't you consider selfishness to be immoral?

I can safely say that none of my promiscuous sex has resulted in children, thank you.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Frankly the people who expect a refugee to be able to find a condom whilst on the run, or sheltering fom Interahamwe militia, or instead of looking for potable drinking water, or the first food they've had in three days, are living in dream land.

That fact that this is very true doesn't mean that people who know better shouldn't obstain from risky sexual behavior. If you're on the run or looking for food or drinkable water, sex shouldn't be on your list of things to do. Psychologically, however, if people think that death is already imminient, they are far more likely to engage in risky behavior. It doesn't mean that Africans aren't largely responsible for their own mess in regards of AIDS.

The magnitde of the problem is so great that putting morals on it is frankly, pointless. Personally, the treatment of African women offends me greatly. I see this treatment as largely responsible for the crisis. That doesn't mean I think Africans deserve HIV or that we shouldn't try and help them. When you're talking about the lives of thirty million people, the only question of morality is yours, and whether or not you're going to help them.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That fact that this is very true doesn't mean that people who know better shouldn't obstain from risky sexual behavior. If you're on the run or looking for food or drinkable water, sex shouldn't be on your list of things to do. Psychologically, however, if people think that death is already imminient, they are far more likely to engage in risky behavior. It doesn't mean that Africans aren't largely responsible for their own mess in regards of AIDS.

In Great Britain during 1942, the birth rate went up- one might have thought people had better things to do...Other forms of sexual behaviour were also treated with greater licence- I have spoken to people who remember the thrill of having sex in public places during air raids, while bombs were falling- the imminence of possible death was a spur. If people think they may die tomorrow, eros will triumph over thanatos.

Again, you keep insisting that Africans are 'largely responsible for their own mess'- as if somehow H.I.V. were the same as diabetes or alcoholism. If a disease evolves to take advantage of various situations in different, neighbouring countries- civil war, with the concomitant traumatic displacement of population ( Angola, Uganda, Sudan, Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi) rape as a weapon of war (Uganda, Sudan) and poverty (all of the afore-mentioned, and South Africa) then 'blaming' is really rather pointless.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by molly bloom
If people think they may die tomorrow, eros will triumph over thanatos.

As the wave of post-9/11 sex in NYC showed.

Again, you keep insisting that Africans are 'largely responsible for their own mess'- as if somehow H.I.V. were the same as diabetes or alcoholism. If a disease evolves to take advantage of various situations in different, neighbouring countries- civil war, with the concomitant traumatic displacement of population ( Angola, Uganda, Sudan, Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi) rape as a weapon of war (Uganda, Sudan) and poverty (all of the afore-mentioned, and South Africa) then 'blaming' is really rather pointless.

HIV is spread by human behavior. The fact that African men are raping African women as a weapon of war in no way means that Africans aren't causing the problem. Again, a culture which sees women as objects, as less important, has helped spread the disease.

In many cases, African civil wars aren't even about toppling dictators or differing ideologies, they're about grabbing wealth. Angola, Eastern Zaire/Congo, Siera Leone, Liberia, Sudan (at least on the part of one side), etc are all about control of mineral wealth. Greedy goverment and dictators chose corruption over developement, chose ignorance over education, chose war over health care. It's still "Africa's fault." They didn't have to take American money or Soviet guns and fight those wars.

And yes, I realize the pointlessness of reducing a continental health tragedy with complex human causes to one of simple human choice. But just as much as the massive amount of crime in murder in the US is our own damn fault, the massive amount of HIV infection is Africa's own damn fault. At some point, people decided to chose their own selfishness over the good of their fellow Africans, for many reasons.

God, I'm writting like a conservative.

[Willem]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q]
As the wave of post-9/11 sex in NYC showed.

It's not just about imminent death or destruction. A few years ago, here in Canada, we had a major ice storm wreak havoc through parts of Ontario and Quebec and more or less demolished the hydo lines in the area. A few million people were without power for days, some areas over a week. And 9 months afterwards there was a distinct bulge in the birth rate.

Whether the moralists like it or not, sex is a form of recreation as well as a means for propogating the species. And if in situations like in Africa, where people have nothing; no work, no money, sometimes no home, people will engage in it, sometimes recklessly.

It's also a question of emotional comfort. If someone is insecure, lonely; or has been mentioned, thinking that death is immanent, they'll reach out to others without necessarily thinking about the consequences. They already have enough on their plate at the time, all they're after is a bit of a reprieve from their present troubles. And sex is a good way of providing them with that comfort, at least momentarily.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I can safely say that none of my promiscuous sex has resulted in children, thank you.

Thank God -- the world is crazy enough, as it is.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whether the moralists like it or not, sex is a form of recreation as well as a means for propogating the species.

agreed, with limits mentioned below. Sex is definately pleasurable and enjoyable.

It's also a question of emotional comfort. If someone is insecure, lonely; or has been mentioned, thinking that death is immanent, they'll reach out to others without necessarily thinking about the consequences. They already have enough on their plate at the time, all they're after is a bit of a reprieve from their present troubles. And sex is a good way of providing them with that comfort, at least momentarily.

But that is all sex provides...it does not produce the long-lasting bond that these people are craving. It may help in the short-run to deal with these feelings of loneliness, but not in the long run. That's why it's best to wait until marriage, so one can reap the benefits of a steady relationship as well.

Che,

When you engage in sex with anyone, you create a risk of passing on an STD.

Not if both are virgins.

Plus, most people have multiple partners, just serially rather than all at once. Humans really don't see to be made for mating for life.

Interesting point. 250 years ago, the average length of time people could expect to be married before one partner died was 12 years. Now, its about 35-40 years.

There are two responses to this. We can work on extending marriage, or we can forgo this idea altogether. I'd rather focus on strenghtening marriages rather than weakening them, to help keep folks together.

People are made to form long-term relationships. Whether we do so, or maintain them is an entirely different question.