Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Like what you don't know about AIDS but afraid to ask?
    
    Well I know some myths.  Mosquitos don't transmit aids....
    
    You can't get it by touching someone who has it or toilet seats.
    
    So far all I know is that you can get it by having sex (either oral
    or intercourse), using used needles (for drugs), or by getting blood
    transfusions and for EMT's, doctors, nurses etc....it's wise to
    use gloves in case you have cuts or sores on your hands, because
    if someone is bleeding and has aids you can get it this way - 
    
    There was an AIDS Forum at DEC....and I know there is now a person
    handling all questions but I forget his name.  It was just in the
    DECworld magazine I believe.
    
    bobbi
    

    see also notes 97 and 334

    RE: 778.14
    
    I agree with you that God doesn't make bad things happen.  He indeed
    gave us a free will.  Like you said when there are too many deer
    there is less food, if they don't eat it makes it easier for them
    to get sick, i.e. less deer.
    
    The point that I was trying to make was that, if the practice of
    sleeping with more than one person was o.k. then there would be
    no reason for disease.  If it was natural then the disease would
    not exist.  If with the free will God gave you, you choose to do
    things that are against nature and later find you have contracted
    a disease, it is not a bad thing that God made happen, It is the
    consequences of your own actions taken with your free will.
    
    AIDS is the "Black Plague" of the 80's.  It is serious, and it's
    going to take a world wide effort to stop it.  If and when they
    do find a cure, then we can stop worrying, until then we should
    be doing all that we can to at least slow it down.  That is why
    I didn't agree with Joyce in note 778.  Because I feel that alternate
    living will not slow it down, only increase it's spreading.
    
    Just an opinion 8~)
    
    kathy
    
    

    Sure, sure, so what was the reason for the Black Death?  The rise
    of cities?  Cat-killing?

 And you think my answers are funny?  (Cat-killing?)
    
    kathy

    
    re: .3
    
    You are stating that if sleeping with many partners weren't "wrong",
    then the disease would not exist.  But it is not solely a sexual
    disease, it is a disease that is spread when contaminated blood
    is mixed with healthy blood (however that can be accomplished).
    It does not attack the sex organs, it attacks the blood, which does
    not prevent the further sexual circulation of the "wrong-doer"...
    only serves as an excruciating experience ultimately ending in death.
    If its sole purpose were to prevent humans from having multiple
    partners, I think it would attack the sex organs themselves (like
    venereal diseases), and be blatantly obvious in doing so (rather
    than waiting upwards of 7 years to show up in the system).
    
    Do all diseases spring up to battle some "wrong" that humans are
    committing...what about cancer, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis,
    endometriosis, asthma, alzheimer's....why are they around?

    I say the only way to stop the transmission of the disease sexually
    (be it heterosexually or homosexually) is to make sure that, if
    people are going to live a multi-partnered lifestyle, they take
    all the precautions they know...get tested so they can prevent the
    disease's spread...and KNOW THEIR PARTNERS.
    
    -Jody
        

    Re .3: A favor, please? Don't use the term "alternate living" to
    mean "sex with multiple partners"... 
    
    I realize that that may often be what it is intended to mean, but
    I think it's a more useful phrase if allowed to mean "household
    consisting of other than one monogamous heterosexual couple". This
    could include Kate and Allie or Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice,
    but doesn't mandate either version!
    
    Re AIDS, and "the natural consequences of our actions" - it's a
    reasonable-sounding argument, but I'd like to point out that in the
    nature of things we get old, our teeth rot, our joints stiffen, and we
    die. Doesn't matter *what* we do or do not do, eventually we're worm
    food. While it makes sense to avoid eating tainted food or exposing
    ones self to disease, that's easier said than done (you do breath,
    don't you?). 
    
    As has been mentioned before, three (or four, or twenty) AIDS-free
    people who have sex exclusively among their own group, and avoid other
    potential blood-contaminating activities, are (as far as we know!) just
    as safe as two people who behave the same way. The problem now is that
    it's so difficult to be certain who has and hasn't been exposed. And,
    obviously, when you interact with a larger number of people, the odds
    increase that one of them is less than truthful (or less than careful). 

    There's certainly some truth to the idea that "nature is trying
    to tell us something," though. Have you noticed that the better
    we get at preventing diseases and avoiding most of the historical
    causes of death, new and more interesting forms make their appearance?
    They might have been there all along, but unnoticed because nobody
    survived long enough to "benefit" from them. Higher populations,
    global pollution, stress on the environment - or, at a more personal
    level, over-fed people living in over-heated rooms breathing over-dry
    air in insufficient natural light *all their lives*...
    
    No wonder people get sick.
    
    [I guess I've always been fatalistic about risk-taking. I figure
    that something's got my name on it, and when it shows up I'll find
    out what kind of afterlife I'm headed for. That doesn't mean I won't
    take precautions, but neither will I lose sleep over the "what-ifs".]
    
    -b

  Kathy, "cat-killing" refers to the fact that the Black Death was transmitted
  by rats and the fleas that rode the rats.  If you kill cats, the rat
  population tends to grow.  Anyway, you never answered the question.  If
  the Black Death was retribution by God, what was the offense that caused
  the retribution?

  From your 778.15:

  > Aids is some sort of "biological coincidence" ???
  > It's not a coincidence, Of course there is a reason.  The government
  > definately needs to educate on this subject.  If AIDS had nothing
  > to do with what is right and what is wrong.  Then explain the reason
  > for the government to make oral and anal sex illegal.
   
  Oral/anal sex is illegal in some states, so there is no single government
  that enters into it.  More importantly, many of these laws were on the
  books for a hundred years or more before the first case of Aids.

  Anyway, the best argument against this "retribution" stuff has been
  pointed out in this file before.  If AIDS is retribution by God, and
  lesbians have the lowest incidence of AIDS (and from what I read, I
  believe this to be the case), then lesbians must clearly be God's chosen
  people.  Wouldn't you agree?

  JP

    Re .3, yes, I do believe it is just coincidental that Aides exists.
     I don't think there is a "reason" for everything.  I think the
    fact that most/many/some people have trouble dealing with this is
    one of the reasons that religion exists.  
    
    If you want me to explain why I think that oral sex is illegal in
    some states, it's probably because a lot of our ancesters were narrow
    minded puritans who believed they would go to Hell if they relaxed
    and let themselves have a good time on Earth.
    
    (If I were God I *might* start a plague to punish "cat-killing"
    but certainly not for sexual preference - either of gender or number
    of partners. I'd want MY people to enjoy themselves!)

    Lorna
    
    

    Who was it who wrote the story "The Plague"?  Camus?
    
    (Shouldn't that line be "Lesbians are the Goddess's chosen people"?)

    Is this a rathole spawning a rathole?? Oh well, I'll keep diggin
    with my little paws, here....
    
    RE: certain types of sexual activity illegal
    
    Many of our current laws have been handed down from ancient religious
    groups which started as small sects and needed to grow, or which
    simply made out better sustaining the life of the group if people
    populated the group as much as possible.
    
    Thus, any sexual activity which had no chance of procreation was
    outlawed. (Look at what happened to the Shakers!) (*What* Shakers?
    you may well ask)
    
    There are plenty of people on the earth today. STill, the best way
    to get someone to believe in your particular religion is to get
    them *born* into it.
    
    --DE
    

	RE: .3

	Kathy,
	
        I don't believe there are reasons for a lot of things in life.
        Sometimes things just happen, and sometimes outside occurences can
        coincidentally combine to cause things.  I don't believe in a God
        who passes out retribution.  I agree that multiple casual sex
        partners is if not wrong, at least stupid (especially given the
        known dangers). But I don't believe God thought up a disease to
        prevent people from being homosexual or having multiple sex
        partners (of course I'm not convinced that God is against multiple
        partners).  Jesus did not shun the lepers.  He did not believe
        that they got leperousy in retribution for some wrong. 

        AIDS is serious, but is not retribution against homosexuals.  In
        all the articles and documentaries, there is no agreement as to
        the cause of AIDS.  It is not only passed through homosexual sex.
        In one african country (I forget which) it is a definate
        heterosexual problem.  It could be that it is prevalent in the US
        homosexual society because it is in the blood stream (and semen?),
        and anal sex is prone to breaking blood vessels.  There are some
        theories that the disease is from apes who are not themselves
        affected by the disease, but could have bit a human at one time
        and started it in humans.  AIDS does not spontaneously occur because
	of someone's method of sex.

	...Karen

    re: 778.11
    
    >    a man and a woman can not contract aids between themselves, there
    >    has to be a third party
    
    Kathy,
    
         This is not true.  The disease affects a large portion of the
    heterosexual population of Uganda as .12 stated.
    
    ASP
    
    P.S.  There are a number of people who believe that AIDS is a man-made
          disease.  A radio show called "Radio Free America" had several
          programs devoted to this theory.  They presented the evidence
          that they believe links the disease to biological warfare
          development.  If anyone is interested in getting tapes of
          the shows I can try to find out where the reproduced tapes are
          available.

    
    Re:.1
    I'm a little late on the pick up but the DEC Aids Program Manager
    is Paul Ross who works in CFO2.
    
    am
    

 I thought I had seen some more mis-information in the original
 note, so I went back and looked, and by gosh, I was right. 

    
 >> Again with a little education on AIDS you would find that AIDS,
 >> Which is a disease created in the body by the immune system to kill
 >> the immune system.  When semen gets into the blood steam, the body
 >> considers it a foriegn object, the blood stream is no place for
 >> semen which in all actuality is human cells.  The body's immune
 >> system fights the semen as it would any other foriegn substance.
 >> and then you now have a natural anti body in the blood stream so
 >> that it can fight this foriegn object if it ever appears again.
 >> Except that the anti body finds that there are lots of human cells
 >> around for it to fight so it keeps fighting, and that's where it
 >> kills the immune system.
    
     AIDS is not caused by "semen in the bloodstream". It is caused
     by a VIRUS. This virus is related to that which causes some other
     major disease, which escapes me at the moment. "Semen in the
     bloodstream", so far as I know, is a mis-conception. [heh,heh ;-)]

 
     In addition, the virus has been found in blood, semen, and saliva.
     Presumably, it is in all body fluids, but the amount needed to 
     transfer the virus is more than the average mouthful, say, so
     getting it from saliva has never happened. (I suppose you could
     save up a gallon or so, but you'd have to keep it warm somewhere
     and then.....what?...inject it with a syringe? bleah)

     Males *can* pass the virus to females and other males quite easily.
     Female-to-male transmission is less likely to happen, but presumably
     could. And, of course, a blood transfusion will do it as well.

     And, of course, there *are* ways to have sex which do not pass or
     exchange body fluids, though I think some people define sex as
     penetration-only and don't understand about the alternatives.

     --DE

    I hope this won't be seen as picking on anyone's religion, but I wonder
    whether the misconception (about semen itself being the infective
    agent) comes from some biblical interpretation. "Thou shalt not spill
    seed" sort of thing? I think Anita Bryant used such interpretations in
    her crusade against homosexuality. This sort of argument would, of
    course, be used to support the case for AIDS = punishment from God. 
    
    Chuck

    Re .17, don't take everything you read in the bible literally. 
    A lot of it's just nonsense.  You have to use your common sense
    too.  That's what "God" gave us brains for.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .17
    
    >                                  But I do want to clarify that
    > aids (sic) is not a virus. If it were a virus it could be taken
    > care of by antibiotics.
    
    Kathy, generally viral infections of any type - including the common 
    cold - do not respond very well to antibiotic treatments. Bacterial
    infections do. 
    
    > About the "oral an anal" law, It was passed in 1986 by the Federal
    > government, not certain states.
    
    Can you elaborate more on exactly what this law states? It would
    seem curious that the Feds would even think of proposing such a
    law, since Americans have been taking it "up the ass" from Uncle
    Sam for many years now.
    
      Alan
                                                            

    RE: 17
    You are right that all the info in the Bible is not correct, but
    every thing had a moral to it.  They are called parables.
    
    RE: 18
    The reason common colds do not react is because there are way to
    many types.
    I will get you details on the law if you would like, I would have
    to look it up again to get you the exact info.
    
    Kathy 8*)
    
    p.s. I guess I did get some danders up! 8*)
    
    

    RE: "Will this ever end?"
    
    For my part, not until any misconceptions about AIDS are
    cleared up. Every legitimate medical authority I have ever
    heard on this subject says AIDS is caused by a virus. You will
    have to prove to me that "semen in the bloodstream" a) happens
    and b) has anything to do with AIDS.
    
    I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but it is ABSOLUTELY
    VITAL that mis-conceptions about AIDS are not perpetuated, especially
    not by medical personnel.
    
    --DE
    

    There may be some fringe opinion that connects "semen in the
    bloodstream" with AIDS, but the overwhelming medical opinion
    is that AIDS is caused by the HTLV-3 (or HIV) virus.  The process
    described in 778.11 (antibodies to semen) is an auto-immune
    rweaction, which (again, according to the medical consensus)
    has absolutely nothing to do with AIDS.
    
    As for:

>                                       But I do want to clarify that
>    aids is -not- a virus.  If it were a virus it could be taken care
>    of with antibiotics.                                       
    
    This is nonsense.  There is *no* antibiotic which has *any* value
    for the treatment of *any* viral disease.  The only reason that
    antiobiotics are ever prescribed for viral infections is to prevent
    subsidiary bacterial infections.
                                    
    	-Neil

    RE: .17
    
    In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld a Georgia law against sodomy that
    has been in effect for as many years as Georgia has been a state.
    The reason for the situation getting to the Supreme Court was 
    because police were serving a summons to a person, and when they,
    the police, entered the house to serve that summons, they found
    two men in a bedroom having sex.  Not only did the police serve
    their summons, they also arrested the men having sex.  The State
    in the long run was going to drop charges, but one of the indviduals
    involved decided to push to have the offended law removed from the
    books.  Consequently, the case went to the Supreme Court, which
    in turn upheld the State's rights to have such laws.
    
    -shirley

    RE: .23
    
    . . . . . . . . "offended law"  should be offending.
    My opinion.   8^)

    May I add a third on the virus/antibody discussion. Viruses
    are intracellular parasites. They cannot be attacked by antibiotics
    because they are inside of cells. Bacteria are extracellular parasites
    which can be killed by antibiotics. The body can develop antibodies
    against viruses which will kill them when they burst out of the
    cells to travel in the body fluids to attack other cells.
    
    Also in re the ape connection.
    
    One theory about the development of AIDs was that it passed from
    people who� became infected by skinning green monkeys for food.
    (Blood contamination.) It has been further speculated that it
    moved into the United States as a result of the purchase of blood
    from infected Africans for the manufacture of gamma globulin.
    Since gamma globulin is frequently used to combat heptitis which
    affected the active male homosexual community out of roportion
    to their numbers in society the infected gamma globulin resulted
    in AIDs showing up first in that community.
    
    Bonnie
    
    who taught nurses courses for many years before coming to DEC

    Re: -.1

>   May I add a third on the virus/antibody discussion. Viruses
>   are intracellular parasites. They cannot be attacked by antibiotics
>   because they are inside of cells. 
    
    Nit:  As Neil pointed out, antibiotics will have *no* affect on
    viral agents, regardless if the viruses are intracellular or
    extracellular.
    
    That's an interesting theory about how the AIDS virus got into the
    human population; I hadn't heard that before.
    
    Jim, a biologist in a former life

    Jim, um, that was what I meant...in re viruses and antibiotics..
    
    Bonnie
    (also a Biologist in a former life)

    As for antibiotics and the common cold, I believe the misconception
    here is in regards *vaccinations*. It *is* possible to vaccinate
    against many viral agents, possibly against AIDS (I heard a report
    that a human HIV vaccine was being readied for human trials, but
    the trials would be conducted in Europe). The common cold is hard
    to vaccinate against because the protein coat on the "cold" virus
    tends to mutate VERY rapidly, and there are a large number of viruses
    that can cause the cold.
    
    As for the "federal anti-sodomy law" that is a common misinterpretation
    of the Harwick vs Georgia result. Sodomy between consenting adults is
    NOT illegal in California, for example. The Supreme Court merely ruled
    that *State* anti-sodomy laws did not necessarily violate one strict
    Constitutionality test (privacy). One of the Justices (I forget which)
    was heard to opine later that if the case had been brought via a civil
    rights challenge (equal protection under the law, claiming that the law
    was selectively enforced) the result might well have been different.
    Were you aware that consensual oral sex between husband and wife is
    prohibited by the same law that Harwick was convicted under? 
    
    Furthermore the argument that "it's against the law, so it must be bad"
    is clearly deficient, otherwise why have mechanisms for changing the
    law? Why do we have an entire body, the Supreme Court, who's sole job
    is to decide if a partiular law really is good? (A gross
    oversimplification, I admit, but apt nonetheless.)
    
    The notion that AIDS or any other disease is a punishment or warning
    is a classic example of the "pathetic fallacy", but let's agree
    to disagree about that. AIDS is a dreadful disease, let's work on
    educating people about how it is spread and how its spread can be
    slowed.
    
    	-- Charles

According to the news today, another problem with the Aids virus is that
it mutates *within* humans -- the only virus known to do so.  This is
apparently why there is such a long gestation period -- the early stages
don't cause serious illness.

One way this was discovered was by noting that people who received
contaminated blood transfusions from doners in the early stages of
the disease lived longer than those who received blood from doners
in later stages.

Martin.

    Another point made in the report that Martin mentions was that the 
    AIDS virus is unusual in tending to mutate toward GREATER virulence.
    (Whereas your more all-around successful viruses tend to get LESS
    virulent as they mutate, thus letting the host last longer.) 
    
    I suspect that over enough generations, the tendency would reverse,
    but for now it looks quite possible that AIDS will get worse before
    it gets better. (Whatever 'worse' means in an already-fatal illness.)
   
    All the more reason to apply maximum effort to squashing AIDS now,
    regardless of any attached moral issues.
    
    Chuck

    .17:  I've never had anything to do with biology or medicine, but
          official statements that antibiotics have no effect on viruses
    	  seem to be common.  I've heard it about as often as I've
          heard that there's no cure for the common cold.  In fact,
    	  I've heard that when people mistakenly take antibiotics for
    	  different viruses, they run the risk of eventually becoming
    	  immune to the drugs and having them not work when they really
    	  need them to kill bacteria.
    
    	  The meaning of HIV escapes me now, but doesn't the V stand
    	  for "virus"?
                     
    
      	  Brenda
                

    RE: .30
    I agree.
    
    

    HIV = "Human Immunodeficiency Virus"
    
    There are variants of this virus which cause different things. I
    believe Herpes is caused by one.
    
    In a pamphlet from the Red Cross, HTLV-III is given as the particular
    variant which causes AIDS.
    
                                   
    Given the new information mentioned a few  REPLYs previous, it is
    VITAL that we understand as much about this killer as we can.
    Presently, it is a very fragile virus so it is difficult to contract
    AIDS if care is taken. IF THIS THING DOES INDEED BECOME STRONGER,
    we need to quash it now, while we can. 
    
    Dawn
    

    I've read all I can about the AIDS epidemic, and am continually
    amazed at all the mis-information I read and hear from intelligent
    and educated people.  However, something happened recently that
    opened my OWN eyes and made me understand a little better why people
    sometimes react the way they do.
    
    I'm certainly in a low-risk group:  straight, in a monogamous (marital)
    relationship with a faithful partner, don't do any sort of drugs or
    needles, and don't deal with body fluids in any way; i.e. my profession
    is not related to medicine.  So the logical side of me has been saying
    all along "You don't really have anything to worry about."
    
    But I was on an airplane not too long ago.  I unfortunately had a
    window seat, and there was a very nice looking gentleman in a business
    suit sitting beside me.  When dinner was served, we both sat there
    eating our meals.  Then the gentleman beside me sneezed.  He covered
    his mouth, and directed it down, not into my meal.  But I found myself
    unable to take another bite.  This was not a logical reaction, but a
    purely emotional one.  I told myself over and over that there is no way
    to contract AIDS from someone else's sneeze.  But I was totally UNABLE
    to bring myself to take another bite of that food; I just couldn't make
    myself do it. When I got home and told my husband about it, he chuckled
    till he realized how upset I was by the experience.  Once we talked
    about it, I think he also gained a little insight into how serious
    the problem really is, and how utterly terrifying. 
    
    Wish I had the answers.  I agree that education is probably our
    best weapon against this scourge right now.  That in itself is a
    sad statement: we need better weapons than education (like a cure
    for example).  But for now, we MUST make people realize both (a)
    the seriousness and (b) how to prevent the spread of AIDS.
    
    							Pat

    Cold sores and Herpes ARE NOT related to AIDS.
    
    They are caused by Herpes Simplex Virus I (oral, for the most part)
    and Herpes Simplex Virus II (genital, for the most part)...I say
    for the most part because one can mutate to the other location,
    and vice versa.  Herpes Zoster causes shingles, a painful skin problem.
    Most people have been exposed to Herpes Simplex by the time they
    are 8 or 9, and the main problem with it is that once it lodges
    in the body it kind of resurfaces every now and then, particularly
    when your body's defences are weak.
    
    the abbreviations are probably what is causing the confusion.  AIDS
    is HIV, Herpes is HSV...but they are NOT the same...
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .35
    
    My apologies. I know there are other diseases caused by the same
    family of viruses, I thought one was Herpes.
    
    Anybody know the ones that are related? Maybe just the specific
    auto-immune diseases.
    
    By the way, just because something is caused by a virus in the same
    family does NOT mean the DISEASES are the same. And, of course,
    if we are picking nits, AIDS isn't a *disease*, anyway...
    
    Sorry about the mis-information; this is one subject I DON'T want
    to spread drivel about.
    
    Dawn
    

    I'm not sure if anyone has done this yet - if they have feel free
    to remove this response...
    
    Pointer to 334, where there is information on AIDS from the Usenet
    (I believe the note is set nowrite, but it's there for all to see)
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .36
    
    > Anybody know the ones that are related? Maybe just the specific
    > auto-immune diseases.
    
    HTLV-III is like HTLV-I and HTLV-II.  I think HTLV stands for
    Human T-cell Lucemea (sp) Virus.  I think HTLV-I causes some kind
    of T-cell Lucemea.  I don't know much more about it.  I think
    that these Lucemea are also related to Feline lucemeas.
    
    All of these virus are what's called "Retro-viruses".  They have
    only RNA instead of DNA and use a chemical call reverse transcriptace
    (sp) to convert the RNA to DNA once the virus has invaded the cell.
    
    My source is a NOVA show on the subject.
    
    					MJC  O->

    There is a relationship between AIDS and Herpes.  If one has active
    Herpes, this makes transmission of the AIDS virus much easier, since
    there is an open sore to penetrate.
    
    They are not genetically related in any way except that they are both
    viruses that effect humans. 
    
    Elizabeth

One thing that I have not seen mentioned up to now:  although AIDS can be
transmitted by receiving contaminated blood or blood byproducts, you cannot
get AIDS by giving blood.  In particular, it is 100% safe to give blood in the
Red Cross blood drives which Digital sponsors from time to time.  The needles
which they use to take blood from you are manufactured sterile, used to take
blood from you and *only* you, and discarded after you give blood.  You
*cannot* contract AIDS by giving blood.

Please, everyone:  give blood when there is a blood drive at your site
(provided that you are not among the groups that the Red Cross specifically
requests not give blood--they can tell you which they are).  You can save
someone's life that way.  And you absolutely cannot contract AIDS from
giving.

				--Q (Dick Wagman), working on his third
					gallon of donated blood

    
    Its nice to be able to help out like this, when one
    can do so safely. Please understand that there are
    also some who cannot give blood for perfectly
    legitimate medical reasons having nothing to do 
    with AIDS or fear of it...a past history of hepatitis
    will disqualify one from being a donor.

    	RE: .41
    
    	Also, if one is slightly (or greatly) anemic, they will refuse
    	to take your blood.  (This happened once to a friend of mine
    	who tried to donate some years back.)
    

    re: .42
    
    Not to mention that if you have a tendency to become anemic,
    your doctor may prefer that you not donate blood even at times
    when your iron is high enough . . . 
    
    --bonnie

    another reason red cross will not let you donate blood is if
    you are under wieght... which happens to my case... it seems
    by their chart you have to be at least 110 lbs.  Anyone under
    that cannot give blood...(weight in portion to height of course)
    
    I've tried many times to give blood even baby booster size...
    especially since I have rare blood type... but they refuse
    due to me being under the 110 lbs.
    

    re 778.10
    
    > ... 3 people involved
    > in an...er...alternate relationship who have been involved among
    > themselves and WITH NO-ONE else for the last roughly 10 years are
    > probably among the people with the *lowest* risk of getting AIDS.   
    > ...
    >All this applies to the *het*erosexual community.
    
    It applies to homosexuals as well.      
                            
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

    Yes, it certainly does. I made the point assuming people would
    assume it for the gay community - I was trying to say that all
    the issues involved with AIDS impact the heterosexual community
    as well. Guess that wasn't clear..
    
    --DE