← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Robbie
Thread ID: 7088 | Posts: 21 | Started: 2003-06-03
2003-06-03 02:17 | User Profile
MONTEGO BAY, Jamaica (Reuters) - The sun-splashed Caribbean's growing sex tourism industry is contributing to one of the region's grimmest problems -- the world's second-highest rate of AIDS infection.
Prostitution catering to sex-seeking tourists and a growing trend called "rent-a-dread" has helped push the Caribbean AIDS/HIV infection rate higher than in any area of the world save sub-Saharan Africa, regional experts say.
The Caribbean AIDS crisis is an ominous one for the tourism industry, the region's leading moneymaker built and marketed on sun, sand, sea and sex.
Sex tourism involves men traveling to poor Caribbean nations, where the regional average annual income is about $3,000, in search of prostitutes.
The beach boy, or "rent-a-dread," phenomenon sees fair-skinned North American and European women seeking exotic, dark-skinned Jamaican men wearing dreadlock hairstyles for sex, Ian Edwards, a Washington-based spokesman for the Organization of American States, said at a recent conference on sustainable tourism held in Jamaica.
"There's a mystique that apparently comes attached with the dreadlocks. I've seen it here and I've seen it in Barbados and it is not rare," Edwards said.
[url=http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=2863362]http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=2863362[/url]
2003-06-03 02:22 | User Profile
I see only one problem with the AIDS epidemic. It doesnââ¬â¢t kill fast enough.
2003-06-03 02:48 | User Profile
Contracting AIDS is just all part of the 'experience'...once you go black, you'll never go back!
2003-06-03 10:16 | User Profile
These filthy "white" whores really are the scum of the earth. I sincerely hope they all end up Karposi's sarcoma-encrusted skeletons. Still, when you get to the bottom of it, you find the Hand-Rubbers.
2003-06-03 13:52 | User Profile
**I see only one problem with the AIDS epidemic. It doesnââ¬â¢t kill fast enough. **
Amen! :th:
2003-06-05 19:05 | User Profile
It is really interesting, how the posts dealing with sexual issues become very emotional, particularly the male posters lose all control. Guys, stay cool, please. Most of the race mixing that happened in the world was committed by males. Who cohabited with the black slaves in America creating the mulatto black that is the African American today? Who does the raping when armies raid a country? Who put the captured women into the harems? At least in my country, binational marriages are more likely to happen with the male native partner. The mestizo child (You know, the product of a 45+ bald headed, beer bellied man and his 20+ years old mistress) is a far more often sight catching my eyes than the blond nymphomanian with her bro'. The sisters supported the Apartheid Regime in South Africa in more numbers than their male contemporaries. And do not forget where A.H. got his vote from. By the way, the sex tourism of the females into the Carribean or Kenya is outnumbered by the child f*ckers who go to Thailand and the Filipines where they get the fresh flesh aged below 13. Unfortunately, my nation, you know, those repressed and unromantic Prussians, are the number one sex tourism nation in the world. There is no way to blame the other sex. But how far is the obviously deeper proclivity towards racism on the male part due to sexual feelings. Let's be honest, our political world view is less of an intellectual level but more on a sexual one. What drives our thought? Really some antropological study or just the fact that some of our sex idols could be humped by a rastafarian?
2003-06-05 19:30 | User Profile
Well, what I wanted to explain is the question how far nationalism, tribalism, ethnocentrism, clanism or racism is intellectual in its origin, or whether these feelings are really something subconscious, more of some hardwired instinct, a program of evolution. Finally, any racialist believe is centered on the idea that free will is limited or nonexistent, as our brain is not an amorphous carrier of our soul but part of our body, thus subjected to the laws of nature, or more specificly, our brain shaped by thousands of years of evolution inherits the fears, hopes and aspirations of our ancestors. So deep down an instinct exists that prevents distinct populations from giving up their genetic heritage. Many species can interbreed but don't do so, which can hardly be a result of culture in the realm of animal life. Despite massive migration and mobility, despite a culture of mixing and its propagation, most people adopt partners of their own kind. Surely a rather cultural phenomenom. But as our culture disappears, and barriers crumble, why is the miscenation rate somehow below 5%. What is the force that keeps these numbers low? Segregation or socio economic barriers can hardly be the reason in the egalitarian West.
2003-06-11 17:30 | User Profile
If you're looking for a pathogen that will quietly infect and slowly kill a huge number of people via sexual suicide, then AIDS is the perfect virus. It is incredibly contagious and very deadly long-term. "Fast-burning" viruses like Ebola do indeed kill quickly, but the numbers they kill remain small since the carriers tend to die before they can infect a large number of people. Patience is a virtue in many senses.
Anyone who is stupid enough to regard sex as simply a biological act to be fulfilled like sleeping, eating, etc., usually gets what they deserve. This is not the wages of sin: it is the price of reality.
2003-06-11 18:17 | User Profile
If that were true, Africa would be a nearly empty continent by now.
You're fixating on short-term results.
You will have to wait another ten to twenty years to realize the magnitude of the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
In some African nations the AIDS infection rate is over 30%. Do the math.
[url=http://www.unaids.org/fact_sheets/files/Africa_Eng.html]http://www.unaids.org/fact_sheets/files/Af...Africa_Eng.html[/url]
2003-06-11 22:56 | User Profile
Funny, that's what they were saying ten to twenty years ago!
Doubtful. Do remember that AIDS was only identified in 1984. The African AIDS issue only started surfacing in the early 1990's.
In Africa, "AIDS" is tested according to the presence...
Ah. The "conspiracy." cough cough
"AIDS" is rare among women...
Not true. Infection rates in women is higher than that in men. Although most women do not partake in the homosexual and deviant behaviours you detail, there are plenty of bisexual male freaks that do. In Africa, women are particularly vulnerable to sex crimes, and wearing a condom is considered an no-no for many cultural reasons, thus their female infection rate is the world-highest.
Infection rates in young African women are far higher than in young men, with rates in teenage girls in some countries five times higher than in teenage boys.
[url=http://www.un.org/ga/aids/press_kit/fs_africa.htm]http://www.un.org/ga/aids/press_kit/fs_africa.htm[/url]
2003-06-11 23:00 | User Profile
Don't forget the African (black?) proclivity for "dry" sex. That's been mentioned as one of the main problems in the spread of the disease in Africa, and the "Islands, mon!". The blacks seem to be more exited by an unwilling partner, is the way it was put, and far more into anal sex than any other group. This may another element involved in the extraodinary number of black rapists. Beyond being impulsive, they are just wired to seek this out. In the way that jews seem to be scatologically obsessed.
2003-06-11 23:06 | User Profile
Roy Batty, an ex-boyfriend of mine used to serve in the French Foreign Legion. He spent much of his time in the FFL in Ethiopia/Eritrea; I learned a lot of interesting little tidbits about African "culture" from him. Apparently "dry sex" like you say, is all the rage with East African men: the women sometimes even use sand, or ground glass, to increase the stimulation from friction. This, needless to say, results in injury to the vagina (or anus) and leaves the woman more vulnerable to infection and disease of all kinds.
2003-06-11 23:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 11 2003, 14:51 fisting
There's a verb that shouldn't exist in the English language.
BTW, how's your Sade coming along? :lol:
2003-06-11 23:36 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Alka@Jun 11 2003, 15:06 * ** Roy Batty, an ex-boyfriend of mine used to serve in the French Foreign Legion. He spent much of his time in the FFL in Ethiopia/Eritrea; I learned a lot of interesting little tidbits about African "culture" from him. Apparently "dry sex" like you say, is all the rage with East African men: the women sometimes even use sand, or ground glass, to increase the stimulation from friction. This, needless to say, results in injury to the vagina (or anus) and leaves the woman more vulnerable to infection and disease of all kinds. **
Alka, I heard the same stories when I was in Kenya and Ethiopia years ago. If the women didn't want to go along, tough luck. Mr. Konchellah would grab a handful of sand, dirt or whatever anyway. The level of STD's in Africa is unbelievable. Even without AIDS, the numbers are staggering.
2003-06-12 00:55 | User Profile
You're right, I was off by three years.
If "AIDS" is as hypercontagious and deadly as you keep saying, the issue should have "surfaced" in Africa long before the 1990s!
Should it have? Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
**Who said anything about a "conspiracy?" **
So what other politically correct term would you like to use instead to describe the kind of conniving you're describing?
[url=http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy]http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy[/url]
There, go pick one you're happy with and get back to me about it.
And even the women who do so--prostitutes and otherwise--rarely come down with "AIDS" unless they pick up repeated STD infections, abuse hard drugs, or are foolish enough to take "AIDS"-enabling anti-"AIDS" drugs. What does that tell you?
That tells me you're not going to be able to come up with a single reputable scientific study which will back up what you just wrote.
Forgive me for being a bit skeptical. This alarmist line has been pushed by "humanitarian" groups for decades, yet the African population continues to grow.
What doesn't seem to be penetrating here is the fact that it can and does take ten to twenty years to die from AIDS. Ruminate on that for a while. The problem started surfacing when? Early '90's. It's obvious that not enough time has yet passed to realize the magnitude of the death toll.
**"AIDS" supposedly originated in Africa, meaning that Africa should have been the first continent to bear the brunt of its effects. **
Should it have been? Confusion of correlation and causation.
2003-06-12 01:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Octopod+Jun 11 2003, 20:31 -->
QUOTE (Octopod @ Jun 11 2003, 20:31 ) <!--QuoteBegin-PaleoconAvatar ** There's a verb [fisting] that shouldn't exist in the English language.** :lol: I wonder who coined it as a verb? Maybe that's better left unknown. **
Indeed. But I bet one of our "prestigious" universities will put out a paper tracing the history of the term and practice, courtesy of the "scholarship" of the "Gay Studies" departments that seem to be in vogue.
Actually, I wonder if the "Gay Studies" departments put on joint functions with the "Women's Studies" departments at their respective universities...officially sanctioned academic "fag hags."
Then again, I'm more than caught up with sales (having learned to out-Jew even Jews) so what the Hell.... :th:
Now that's talent!
Drakmal
2003-06-12 05:35 | User Profile
A lot of modern 'science' is bogus, so it wouldn't be too surprising if the HIV->AIDS hypothesis is as fraudulent as fairytale anthropology "proving" that race does not exist. That said, I don't really see the motivation to perpetuate this massive fraud. If it was an attempt to change AIDS from a behavioral disease to something else, it was a total failure: everybody knows AIDS is the gay/African disease, brought on primarily by revolting sexual practices. There's no more money in trying to find anti-retroviral drugs than there is in finding anti-cancer drugs.
Octopod provides an impressive list of quotes; I'm pleased to see some scientists remaining skeptical in these all-too-credulous days. However I notice that most of those quotes are not dated, and the few that are dated are from the early 90s. A lot has changed in the area of AIDS research in the past decade, so more recent objections to the HIV->AIDS hypothesis would be appreciated.
Drakmal
Alka
2003-06-12 17:34 | User Profile
Octopod, those aren't scientific studies, those are personal opinions. Granted, they are scientists, but what do they have to back up what they say? You have presented no scientific evidence. This is nothing more than hearsay with PhDs attached. In my experience intelligence has very little to do with official educational accolades, in fact, usually the opposite. Scientists can be (and often are) idiots despite their extensive education.
"HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does." ÷ Dr. Gordon Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, University of Glasgow
The other quotes being equally lacking in scientific evidence, this one stands out as an outpost of ignorance. Either this is a very old quote or Dr. Stewart is behind the times. Remind me again of how little genetic information us human beings have again?
If I remember correctly us humans have barely a third more genes than a nematode worm and scarcely double the number of genes it takes to make a fruit fly. Are we not superior to nematode worms (I think so, with some notable exceptions)? Then how can we "do all these elaborate things" with such a small amount of DNA? If the amount of DNA counted, we much should be lower on the evolutionary rung. Obviously we don't know enough about DNA or how it works to unequivocably state that an organism needs more DNA to do more things.
Personally, I don't even really understand what we are debating here, or the point of it... my position being simply that AIDS is a deadly disease that does not (cannot) recognize or act solely upon human ideas of morality. Are you arguing that AIDS is not caused by HIV? Or ??
Alka
2003-06-12 18:33 | User Profile
I tend not to trust anyone's opinions without fact to backup their statements. That's just me. I'm a cynic.
Many respected scientists used to firmly believe (and teach) that diseases we now know to be related to vitamin and mineral deficiency were genetic. And there are other equally as silly beliefs out there in even the most otherwise intelligent of people.
I did not regard our discussion as an argument but rather fail to see the point in debating whether or not HIV causes AIDS. I really do not care what causes AIDS. I am more interested in its effects on global population and behaviour.
AIDS is relatively difficult to catch, in this I do agree with you, and if you are not an intravenous drug user, sexual addict or deviant, or infected against your will via blood transfusion or violent crime, you are unlikely indeed to catch this disease. However we must recognize that AIDS is blind to human ideas of morality. It is not a disease sent from above to wipe out the sinners. That it does so is a wonderful coincidence, and that's that.
I am a great fan of epidemic disease. IMHO we need more "slow-burning" viruses like AIDS. People get very concerned when something like SARS crops up, because it is "fast-burning" (and the death rate is quickly realized): people tend to take action to contain and prevent "fast-burning" disease. But the "slow-burners" these are the trully effective pathogens: they spread quickly amongst those who engage in activities that encourage transmission, yet kill slowly enough not to raise alarm in the sheeple.
Drakmal
2003-06-13 09:27 | User Profile
I tend not to trust anyone's opinions without fact to backup their statements. That's just me. I'm a cynic.
A reasonable position, and one that used to be standard for scientists. But in fairness, Octopod did give you a place to start if you wanted to look deeper into the question--and AIDS dissident sites have far more than just quotes on them, they have actual arguments, data, and references.
I did not regard our discussion as an argument but rather fail to see the point in debating whether or not HIV causes AIDS. I really do not care what causes AIDS.
Nobody's asking you to debate it if the topic disinterests you. I figured the reason Octopod started talking about it in the first place is because this is more than just a board to discuss politics; we were born into a world of multi-layered lies, and just about everyone here has an interest in determining the truth--not just about politics and race, but about everything. If we can discuss anthropology, nutrition, drugs, and security software, why not the diseases of homos/druggies/jungle-bunnies.
Drakmal
Lewis Wetzel
2003-06-24 21:26 | User Profile
Many blacks (Spike Lee, for example) think AIDS was concocted by white scientists. It's a disease I WISH we could take credit for.