HIV Numbers Cloud Condom Sense

Condom sense: Ignore the two charts that appeared this week on the Metro page of The Dallas Morning News—one showing a sharply sloping line tracking a boom in the number of people living with HIV/AIDS in Dallas County, another a graph tracking a decrease in new cases. The charts accompanied a story that suggested the data support a call by the two Democratic members of the commissioners court to reverse a 13-year rule that prohibits county health workers from distributing condoms in high-risk neighborhoods.

What do the numbers mean anyway? More county residents are HIV-infected, so lift the ban? New cases are down, so we don't need to lift the ban? Listen, if you're Buzz's sort of person, politically speaking, you already know that county health workers who perform HIV tests and education programs in neighborhoods with high infection rates should be handing out condoms. If you're the sort who thinks freely available condoms encourage "immoral" behavior—which Buzz thinks is like arguing that seatbelts cause traffic accidents—then the numbers are just so much smoke.

Republican County Commissioner Mike Cantrell, who voted for the original ban in 1995, certainly wasn't persuaded that the charts were clear-cut. Condoms purchased through federal grants are already available through community organizations, he points out, and if the latest batch of numbers argue that the county needs to reassess its HIV programs, then it should look at them in full, check out what other counties are doing and adopt whatever the "best practices" are. He hasn't made up his mind on the county's ban yet.

We suppose we should be glad that the numbers have people talking about the issue again, but it does seem odd that in 2008 the county is still dithering over the moral righteousness of condom distribution, as though we haven't already heard tons of evidence that abstinence education doesn't work too well.

Zach Thompson, director of the county Department of Health and Human Services, told Buzz that he's fielded a lot of calls and e-mails asking about the numbers, but he'd rather talk about people—those with HIV who need county services. They suffer. They cost the county money. "We have to personalize that these people are going to need help...We have to look at this from an overall health [perspective] in the community," he says, echoing Cantrell. "Condom distribution is not a silver bullet. The condom distribution is not a panacea. The condom distribution is an opportunity to look at the total outreach in the community."

 
  • TheLayman69 12/26/2008 2:53:00 AM

    see my commentary "Condom Mania! Safe Sex? the facts" http://groups.msn.com/AIDSMythExposed/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=36832

  • SR 12/26/2008 2:34:00 AM

    Codoms are an eccential part of the prevention of hiv-aids The government is suposed to safegard the people. It sounds to me as though they want these people out of the picture.

  • Michael E. 12/25/2008 11:44:00 PM

    If the goal of AIDS prevention is to prevent the development of AIDS, then focusing the attention of AIDS-risk groups on their actual health risks would be a far more effective way to prevent immune collapse than distributing condoms. Condoms, while having their place, do nothing to compensate for the biologically destructive effects of drug use or rimming, fisting and passive anal sex with hundreds of partners in a short period of time. In fact, the emphasis on condom distribution among these high-risk individuals simply reinforces the idea that because their high-risk, immune-compromising behaviors are non-infectious that there can't be any serious health consequences. This is a deadly myth. To drive the point home, if you compare these euphemistically dismissed, immuno-compromising "co-factors" to both the ever-static HIV statistics from the last 25 years and the "up and down" trends of every other STD/STI locally and nationally, you will discover that not only has "HIV" never behaved like a sexually transmitted virus, but that the spread of the different manifestations of AIDS are far better correlated with non-infectious health risks than with HIV-positivity. So when it comes to using "Condom Sense" consider this: playing it "safe" can actually be dangerous. If someone fires a gun at their head, no one attributes the damage done by the bullet to a virus hiding inside of it. And yet, if we apply to this scenario the same standards we use in AIDS-prevention, we would be telling suicidal individuals to be sure they clean the bullet before firing the gun. The ultimate irony here is that when it comes to topical and internal exposure to something as toxic as latex, the advice to use condoms to prevent AIDS, rather than lowering the risks, actually adds to them!

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy