Dear Jardine,

<<Why should some people, who practise safe sex, have their income stolen before they even receive it so as to force them to pay for other people who choose to have unsafe sex?>>

Well, this question is metaphysical in nature, not an economic one, hence it deserves a metaphysical answer.

Earlier on this thread someone related about:

<<Particularly those whose stone age belief also includes, there is an element of choice in gender bias!>>

The common element is the belief that we have no choice, that we are at the mercy of our nervous system and cannot do anything about it.

If indeed that were so, then we have no say about whom we are attracted to, nor about acting on that attraction, nor even about limiting the desired pleasure by using a condom or the like. In turn, such an outlook could also justify the financial transaction you mentioned.

If we deny the fact that we can direct our attention, indeed that attention even exists other than perhaps as an objective neurological phenomena, that we are capable of directing our attention to this or that brain-centre or even withdraw it altogether from our brain, then the rest follows and 'proves' that we are helpless victims of our sensual desires.

Simple experiments can show us that we CAN direct our attention - and that with practice we can get better and better at that. True, science will never accept those experiments as valid because they are subjective, but anyone who is willing to conduct such simple experiments can find the proof for themselves in a matter of minutes.

If there is any of value in education, then it is this - to teach our children to control their attention. All the rest will come easy for them.

The problem is gays bare-backing because they enjoy the thrill. It is their stupidity and recklessness.

'Educating' children on homosexual sex doesn't affect that and more likely gay activists will succeed in turning the 'education' into promoting and legitimising the gay lifestyle.

It is impossible that gays are not aware of the risks.

The best society can hope for is to reduce dreadful diseases like AIDS spreading to young women who might want to have children, or are already caring for a family. To do that these young women must be helped to avoid the risks of sex with a bisexual.

There should be a severe penalty for engaging in sex with a woman without declaring up-front any previous history of gay sex. Honestly, if the women remained keen she could demand that he provide evidence of a clean bill of health from a doctor. At least that way the risk-taking bi- who would put her and her possible children at risk was Ok at the time of the doctor's check.

While those wyho engage in gay sex -and some have many partners, it is the lifestyle- are on the front foot claiming they have rights, what about the rights of their often unknowing and very vulnerable targets as sex partners?

It's a little disturbing when someone says it should be a 'legal requirement' to profess any past same-sex activity to a woman before engaging in sex.

Truth is if you have sex, regardless of gender or orientation, it's always a risk. Everybody should know that, including women. We live in a pretty liberated society - not Communist Russia.

Should we lock up alcohol, junk food and even automobiles because they pose a threat to human life? No, we take the risk and indulge - it's the same with sex.

And even with ritualistic condom usage, syphilis, Hep C and/or B, Hep Delta and HPV can (and are) transmitted via penetrative sex and oral sex. So even if men are being as responsible as they can with condoms or dental dams, there's still a risk of infection - hence the need for a stronger educational awareness program for testing and symptom-awareness.

We already imprison people who knowingly transmit HIV! I would add compulsory castration!
The heterosexual community is not safe, given we also sleep with every partner our partner has already had!
Let he or she who has never ever had a one night stand or an affair, or unprotected casual sex, be the one to deny all others public health outcomes.
Particularly, given the thousands of entirely innocent hemophiliacs who have already paid the ultimate price; and or, the team sports players and the health professionals, who although entirely innocent of any immoral behavior, remain at very real risk!
Therefore, it is simply not good enough to deny some effective treatment, on the grounds they are currently too poor to pay for their own treatment, which were HIV is concerned, may set the infected back as much as $50,000.00 PA.
$50,000.00PA is more than many currently earn for goodness sake.
Moreover, one day it could be your too trusting and unsophisticated kid or grand-kid, who is the one infected, and would you also deny them, particularly, if the infection was gained through no fault of theirs, but at the hands of a dishonest bisexual partner/spouse?
We see in some examples in Canada, that this virus can and does mutate, with often lethal terminal consequences in just months; given the new strains are far more virulent and immune to the usual salad of antivirals.
There is a cure, using a cocktail of currently prescribed already approved medicine?
But it is withheld, I believe, due to the annual billions big Pharma is reaping from the affected, not all of who are gay hedonists, or needle sharing junkies!
And who amongst us can say with any surety, we can distinguish between the entirely innocent and the guilty?
Rhrosty.

STD's are nothing new, as they have been amongst the populace for many many centuries.
Ignorance today on this issue is no excuse, if you are going to have casual sex, then the onus is on the individuals to take necessary precautions.
No group in society is responsible for STD's, and to blame any; is a sign of social ignorance.

Kipp is right.
All sexually active people must already be aware of sexually transmitted diseases.

If they didn't hear about it at school, on TV, online or even on the radio , then they certainly would have noticed the multitude of condom vending machines in public toilets!

The problem is that most people think it won't happen to them.
Gay men are notorious for taking risks sexually, and I think that will continue.
The only thing to be done is to ensure a good supply of condoms.

We do need to continue sex education for ALL children at school, just as we need to warn them about smoking, drug and alcohol abuse.

If, as some posters suggest, these Gay men bring it upon themselves by that lifestyle and thus they reap what they sow, then we can also say the same about smokers or heavy drinkers.

The vast majority of Hep C sufferers contracted it from IV drug use, so there is another bad health choice.

There's already plenty of STI education out there, but I can see where the author is coming from when lamenting the ridiculous numbers of chaplains out there in Public schools.
It is really just a cost saving measure for Governments who don't want to pay for trained counsellors..