This second article, though predictable, can help us understand why these sorts of things are going down.

My commentary is in brackets:

New HIV Infections In Australia Surge

Oct 13, 2006

(AP) SYDNEY, Australia New HIV cases in Australia surged more than 40 percent from 2000 to 2005, according to study results released Thursday, prompting fears that drug treatment advances are making people lax about practicing safe sex.

[Here's the first problem.

1. It's not "safe" sex.

It's called "safe-er" sex because in theory, it's safer with a condom than without a condom.

In theory.

However, Buchbinder et al brought that very much into question:

Many studies have demonstrated that receptive anal sex is most strongly associated with prevalent and incident HIV infection in MSM and carries the highest per-contact risk of acquiring HIV. This study found that that URA [unprotected receptive anal] with either HIV-positive or unknown serostatus partners explained one quarter of new infections in this cohort. Surprisingly, we also found an independent increase in the risk of HIV seroconversion among men reporting PRA [protected receptive anal] with an HIV-positive partner. This finding likely represents a combination of overreporting of condom use and unrecognized condom failure by the receptive partner. Condom failure rates are particularly increased among MSM who use condoms infrequently, substance users, and those failing to use appropriate lubricants.

To which the Surgeon General added:

Are condoms strong enough for anal intercourse?

The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice."

Condoms may be more likely to break during anal intercourse than during other types of sex because of the greater amount of friction and other stresses involved.

Even if the condom doesn't break, anal intercourse is very risky because to can cause tissue in the rectum to tear and bleed. These tears allow disease germs to pass more easily from one partner to the other.

2. It's not "sex."

It's anal penetration.

The media on the whole -- in some cases I would think because they don't want to use the word "anal" -- will opt for the word "sex," and thus whether wittingly or not, aid and abet the identification of "gay sex" with "anal sex."

So the media is reinforcing the idea that if sex isn't anal, it isn't gay.]

The annual survey report, issued by the National Center in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, found that new HIV infections reported in Australia rose from 656 in 2000 to 930 in 2005 -- a 41 percent leap. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.

Gay men accounted for about 70 percent of the new cases. Heterosexuals made up 19 percent, while intravenous drug users and unknown transmission paths accounted for the rest.

[Perspective: In most places, it's thought that men who self-identify as "gay" make up no more than 3% of the population.

But in Oz they account for 70% of the cases.

Why?

Barebacking and bugchasing to be sure.

But the CORE RISK BEHAVIOR is anal penetration.

It's the ANAL. ]

According to the report, new infections hit an all-time high of about 1,700 in 1984, then declined steadily through the late 1990s. But in 2000, the trend apparently reversed.

[That's not quite believable.

It is believable that new infections peaked in 1984.

That's because, as Dr. Chin explained, "saturation" was reached around 1984.

Which means that everyone who could be infected was infected.

Afterwards, "incidence" -- the level of new infections -- tended to stay at somewhere between 1% and 5% per year.

What fell between 1985 and 1995 was "prevalence" -- the total number of men in the MSM population who were infected.

That's because guys were dying more rapidly than guys were getting infected.

And because of saturation.

Why are the numbers going up now?

Obviously in part because fewer men are dying.

But also because there's a whole new "cohort" out there now who are not yet saturated with the virus.

The people getting infected now are, on the whole, a NEW generation.

A YOUNG generation.

Gay kids.]

It's not just HIV that is on the rise in Australia.

Around 41,300 new cases of the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia were reported in 2005, a fourfold increase over 1995.

New gonorrhea cases have almost doubled in the past decade, the study said.

[Be aware guys: Gonorrhea and chlamydia can be spread orally as well as anally.]

"It's very possible that people are just not prioritizing safe sex as they maybe used to in the very serious HIV/AIDS era" of the late 1980s and early 90s, said the center's deputy director, John Kaldor.

"It might be here that improvements in HIV treatments have lessened the motivation for people to protect themselves sexually," Kaldor said.

["It's possible," says Mr. Kaldor.

"It might be."

If that's the case, whose fault is it?

People like Mr. Kaldor, who've made HIV appear to be a "manageable" disease.]

Australia has about 15,000 people living with HIV, and around 70 percent are being treated with life-prolonging anti-retroviral drugs, the study found.

Don Baxter, executive director of the Australia Federation of AIDS Organizations, said widespread use of the drugs -- which have been found to slow the progression of HIV to AIDS -- could be a factor behind the recent rise, especially among gay men.

"The place of HIV in gay men's lives has receded enormously from where it was, because they and their friends have stopped dying," he said "So the level of attention to it is much reduced."

He said so-called "treatment optimism" could make some people more likely to take risks, or "at least rationalize having unprotected sex."

Once again, who's responsible for the "treatment optimisn"?

Mr. Baxter and his friends.

And what about the case we just read about -- Michael Neal and his infecting of 200 men?

Does Mr. Baxter support prosecution for "intentionally causing a very serious disease?"

Most "AIDS activists" do not.

They're strongly opposed, as we saw in the post titled Brit buttboy guilty of infecting boyfriend; UK "HIV activists" protest.

Basically they believe that it should be every man for himself.

Particularly every negative man.

And that if a poz buttboy romances you and lies to you and tells you he's safe and, then, for no other reason than to satisfy his selfish sybaritic pleasure, gives you HIV -- he should go scot free.

Suppose a buttboy romances you and lies to you and tells you he's safe and, then, for no other reason than to satisfy his selfish sybaritic pleasure, shoots you.

Should he also go scot free?

Okay, suppose he merely stabs you?

Should he also go free?

That's the logic of this condomist culture of mistrust which in turn is the logical outgrowth of condom campaigns.

It's your job to protect yourself.

That's like saying if you leave a window open and your house is robbed -- it's your fault and the thief should not be prosecuted.

Or if a woman goes to sleep with a window open and is raped -- it's her fault and the rapist should go free.

It's truly dopey.

Yet this is the ethos which prevails in the gay community.

It's an ethos created by twenty years of condom campaigns, and which has yet to be addressed in any substantial way.

It's an ethos which treats men who have sex with men like children -- and absolves them of any responsibility for their actions.

Indeed, in an earlier story about rising infection rates in Australia, we saw that HIV "prevention experts" were describing barebacking as an "accident."

Gabe McCarthy, president of the National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS (NAPWA), said the report was internationally embarrassing for Australia.

Increased rates of HIV were largely due to a new cultural conservatism which has left many Australian less likely to access information needed to engage in safe sex, Ms McCarthy said.

"And we must not forget that since the advent of effective treatments for HIV there are more people with HIV living than ever before, so the number of occasions when an accident could happen are increased," she said.

"An accident."

As though this was a problem in toilet-training.

These are not accidents, as Mr. Neal made clear.

He didn't like condoms so he didn't use them.

That's not an accident.

In that same story, Ms McCarthy complained about cultural conservatism limiting access to "safe sex" info.

But, we were told

Last year, the commonwealth and state governments signed an $812 million national public health agreement to fund programs dealing with drug misuse, sexual health, HIV/AIDS and blood-borne diseases.

$812 million is a lot of money to throw away on condom campaigns.

Mr. Neal didn't lack information.

His doctor told him to use condoms, and he said he wouldn't because he couldn't keep an erection.

HE HAD THE INFORMATION.

HE CHOSE TO IGNORE IT.

HOW DENSE CAN THESE "SAFE SEX" PEOPLE BE?

I wonder if they believe their own bullshit.

Whatever the reason, you need to tell them to cut the crap.

And you need to demand that they stop underwriting anal with your money.

Because until they do, more guys will get seeded and pozzed -- each and every day.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.