HIV changed view of sex, diseases and other parts of life. Society links HIV with certain things such as sex and sin because of religious, government, and social influences. AIDS has also been associated with minorities and gay men. Out of all the people effected, AIDS is the worst for people who are not able take care of themselves.

There are many who view this as an act of God, ‘”…the stroke of God’s wrath for the sins of mankind,”’. Reverend Jerry Falwell even stated on TV, “Do it and die”. In the past, rhetoric behind HIV was very morally based. Many individuals, mostly religious people and conservatives, viewed having HIV or AIDS as God’s holly punishment for sinners. Religion’s inability to accept homosexuality has caused people who sufferer from AIDS to become targeted. But not all of those who are religious condemn homosexuality. An article in a 2005 issue of the Emory Report an article caught my attention. Note Nov 11, 2012 (2) This article is about gay rights, as applied through religion. One of the best points made in this article was “..that whatever governments do about same-sex marriage or same-sex unions, Christian churches still have a question before them. The legal solution will not solve the religious question.” The same process can be applied to those with AIDS. The author also claims that scriptures are not always against homosexuality, there are churches such as the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ that do not condemn homosexuality. So therefore, these churches do not see HIV and AIDS as God’s wrath against the gays. The article compares homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages to what a biblical marriage.

Government and religion’s influence were two major points in this weeks reading, and this made me think about the fact that those two are the most influential things in our country, pop culture and media not included.  If religion and government both are portraying negativity on the subject then the public will be unaware and uneducated as to the real problems occurring. On page 124, paragraph 3 of the Lewis article, surveys showed some disturbing things about America’s perception of AIDS and HIV. 60% showed no sympathy towards HIV victims, 30% wished them quarantined, and 25% favored discrimination towards HIV and AIDS victims. Four years after the initial survey, 27% still felt that people with AIDS should not get any compassion. Even if Koop did release a book outlining the dangers of HIV and AIDS, present Regan was not vocal about it and still there is a misunderstanding of what is actually going on.

This is why Alicia Lurry’s article in a 2004 edition of the Emory Wheel stood out to me Note Nov 11, 2012 (1). She states that woman over the age of 50 are living longer and having more sex, therefore their chance of getting and transmitting AIDS is higher than they were before. What seemed in earlier years to be non-threatened demographic, white middle-aged women are now in danger too. In a survey, none of the women answered all 9 questions correctly. Most of the time these women received information about AIDS through television and friends. Less then half claimed they got information from healthcare providers. There is one quote that I believe is crucial in comparing our readings to this article, “The misconception is that older people don’t have sex anymore and that they are really are not engaging in risky activity.” This is the same misconception that labeled AIDS as a gay disease. This is the same misconception that leads to religion to condemn individuals with the disease. This is the same misconception that lead the government to tip-toe around the AIDS issue.

Our societies misconceptions about sex and who is having it are a detriment to how we as a country handles HIV and AIDS. If the interpretation of a problem is wrong, how can we as a society fix our misconception, and how long does it take to fix this misconception? If Ronald Regan, the President considered to be the greatest conservative ever, had been more publicly supportive of the plight of AIDS victims maybe in the present we would have been better off as a country, but as stated before, regardless of what government does to try and fix the issue, religion will still have its issues with sex and STDs. This is a issue with problems coming at it from all sides.

One World One Hope

Talks with S

11/10/2012

AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease that has been visible in official records since the 1980’s.This disease has provided a constant threat to mitigate the existence of mankind ever since the establishment of its fatal consequences, thereby creating a national epidemic. Researchers, scientists, doctors, and the like, have put in constructive efforts over the years to find a solution to put an end to this epidemic. Having been unsuccessful to find a cure, the next steps they attempted include finding ways to “control” or dampen the spread of this disease. Various constructive efforts have been put in by several international humanitarian organizations, such as UNAIDS, World Health Organization, International AIDS Society, etc. to find ways to control the spread of this disease.

Questions such as- how the disease continues to spread despite complete and transparent information available to the public about reasons for its occurrence, what groups of individuals (caste/race/religion etc.) are mostly impacted by this disease, and who (gender) is the active agent in spreading this disease- have been under constant debate all over the world. In the 1980’s, when the first cases of AIDS were reported, this disease was assumed to affect the male bodies, particularly that of gay men (Richardson 127). It was associated to appear among individuals who chose the “homosexual lifestyle.” At that time, women were almost invisible in the identification of AIDS as a deadly disease. AIDS is now seen as a disease prevalent even among those who lead the “heterosexual lifestyle,” and thereby impacting those who are “straight” as well. Over the years, the face of women in this active struggle against AIDS has changed, from invisibility to “stigmatized vectors” of the virus (Dworkin, Higgins & Hoffman 435). Dworkin, Higgins and Hoffman, in Rethinking Gender, Heterosexual Men, and Women’s Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS state, “the primary face of AIDS is a woman” (435). Furthermore, Richardson states, “Although AIDS has been firmly constructed as a ‘male disease’, at least in the west, the heterosexual male is largely the invisible in AIDS discourse” (138). This discourse of AIDS in the world has greatly been based upon the paradigm that women are the “disadvantaged victims” of society, while the men are the active agents that have caused this epidemic.

It is believed that men are the prime carriers of the HIV infection, who have imparted this deadly virus on the women they have had sexual intercourse with. The vulnerability model that blames men is based upon the theory that, “the socially disadvantaged, monogamous, and unsuspecting woman is infected not through her own behaviors but as a consequence of her partner’s wrongdoing” (Dworkin, Higgins &.Hoffman 436). Men are blamed for widespread dispersion of this disease, because they are said to have sexual intercourse with multiple partners, believed not to use condoms for the lack of sexual sensation or arousal, and on several occasions are regarded as being unfaithful towards their partners. Despite these conditions, all the attention is focused on ways to educate women, and not men, on combating the AIDS epidemic. Men are giving leeway here under the impression that, “[the] male sex drive is unstoppable”, “boys will be boys”, and “[their] behavior is unchangeable and uncontrollable” (Dworkin, Higgins &.Hoffman 440). Statistics shows that, “for every sex act, an HIV- negative woman is at least twice as likely to become infected by an HIV-positive man, than an HIV-negative man is to become infected from an HIV-positive woman” (Mukherjee 380). It is believed that woman are biologically, epidemiologically, socio-culturally, and structurally more susceptible to contracting HIV than men (Dworkin, Higgins &.Hoffman 441). Thus, it is assumed that women are solely responsible to protect themselves from AIDS, and as a result, ultimately controlling the AIDS epidemic.

Dworkin, Higgins &.Hoffman, in Rethinking Gender, Heterosexual Men, and Women’s Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS, state:

“This paradigm rests upon the following assumptions about gender inequality: (1) women want to prevent HIV when having sexual intercourse with a potentially infected man, but lack the power to do so, and (2) men are more likely than women to bring HIV into the partnership because they engage in more sexual and drug use risk behavior” (438).

This theory takes into account the social concept of “masculinity,” where, women are unable to tell their male sex partner’s to use a condom during sexual intercourse. It also stems from the notion that males do not want to use condoms as they may not get sexual satisfaction with its usage. It does not take into account that, perhaps women may not get the sexual sensation they desire, if their male sex partner does in fact use a condom. Furthermore, it assumes that men are “careless” and “carefree,” while all women are “conscious” of getting inflicted with the HIV infection. This may not always hold true. In some cases, women may indeed be the “carefree” sexual partners, while the men may be the “conscious” and “faithful” partners.

If heterosexual men are the active and prime carriers of the disease because they have multiple sex partners, or are unfaithful towards their partners, then the question that comes to mind is whom did these men contract the disease from? Assuming that these males are heterosexual and not involved in any homosexual activity, then the argument can be stirred the other way around. We can also argue that, in reality “heterosexual females” are the prime carriers of this disease, as these males are having sexual intercourse with “other females.” Dworkin, Higgins & Hoffman, in Rethinking Gender, Heterosexual Men, and Women’s Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS state, “Emerging data show that in many settings women are almost as likely as men to bring HIV into the partnership” (439).

Currently, all the programs and policies aimed towards mitigating the HIV infection focus on female education and empowerment. Inclusion of men is necessary in this movement to combat the AIDS epidemic. Today, women all over the world are recommended to follow the ABC commandments of remaining abstinent until marriage, being faithful to a single partner, and using condoms (Dworkin, Higgins & Hoffman 436). The same can, and should be applied towards education of men. For example, women should continue to be given education or skills on how to speak up and ask their male sex partners about using condoms during intercourse. At the same time, men should also be educated on the benefits of wearing a contraceptive during sexual intercourse, talking to their sexual partners about their “sexual scripts,” and how to react to a sexual partners request to him to wear (or not wear) a condom.

Even though woman are considered more susceptible than men to contract an HIV infection, if certain myths are proven to be true, then men are at equal risk of contracting an HIV infection. These myths include notions that more men have multiple sex partners than women, more men are unfaithful in relationships, all men do not like to wear condoms while all women would want their sexual partners to wear one, and men are “carefree” and enjoy partaking in risky sexual behavior. These myths lead the society to believe that only women deserve protection from AIDS (Dworkin, Higgins & Hoffman 437). While these myths can hold true for some men, they can also be some women who partake in risky sexual behaviors while their male partner may not do so.

Both men and women should be responsible for their own “sexual health”. Men should also have the right to partake in AIDS prevention and treatment programs. While gender inequalities do exist in society, policies and interventions should aim at empowerment of both women and men. Educating men about safe sex practices will not only benefit all these men, but will also benefit women (say the male sex partner now always wears a condom during sexual intercourse), who under other circumstances, may not have been able to tell their partners to wear a condom before sexual intercourse.

Citations:

Dworkin, Shari L. Higgins, Jenny A. Hoffman, Susie. “Rethinking Gender, Heterosexual Men, and Women’s Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS”

Mukherjee, Joia S. “Structural Violence, Poverty and the AIDS Pandemic”

Richardson, Diane. “In/Visible Women and Dis/Appearing Men”

The idea of premarital sexual intercourse became less and less of a rigid standard during the mid 20th century. New cures and antibiotics were being discovered to cure sexually transmitted diseases. A societal transformation encouraged a new view of sex – “the sexual revolution, feminism, and the beginning of the gay and lesbian movement” were calling for a more sexually active America (Allen 121). Contraceptions, birth control, and ideas of safe sex liberated the sexual movement; sex became “fun” rather than just a means of reproduction. With this freedom came consequences: accidental pregnancy, disease, and the deadly virus, HIV.

The emergence of AIDS and HIV became associated with the identification of gay men. This sexually transmitted disease stigmatized the associated groups; outcasting and disgracing those unfortunate enough to get AIDS and HIV. During the mid to late 20th century, AIDS and HIV brought out societies hesitant ability to talk about issues relating to sex. It became the forefront to the other battles associated with sexual identity and health fighting for acceptance in America. Unfortunately, people like Cardinal O’Connor, Reverend Jerry Falwell, and other church associates blamed homosexuality and people’s sins as the reason for the spread of the virus; calling it “God’s cure to homosexuality.” Statements like “Do it and Die” led society to thoughts of guilt, anxiety, and fear concerning sexual activity effecting the entirety of the nation (Allen 122).

The stigma turned to taboo when President Reagan and his administration refused to acknowledge the growing AIDS and HIV epidemic. Rather than finding safer ways of performing sexual activities without transmitting the disease, the administration stayed silent. Silence only aided the spread. The atmosphere regarding AIDS became only more and more hostile. Only in the gay community did AIDS awareness appear in the early 80’s – “In 1981, activist Larry Kramer founded an organization in New York known as the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, now the nation’s largest AIDS organization, and later, a more radical group called ACT-UP (The AID’s coalition to Unleash Power) (Allen 126). These organizations warned people of the dangers of HIV and persuaded them to practice safe ways to enjoy activities virus-free.

Eventually, enough people became to acknowledge the virus as a sexually transmitted disease with the ability to affect any member of the community. The church revoked its statement that AIDS and HIV were God’s punishment among sinners. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop followed Reagan’s policy of silence until October 22, 1986. He published a statement endorsing abstinence “but was not shy about explaining that AIDS could be transmitted by anal, oral, or vaginal sex- and that transmission could be prevented by the proper use of condoms” (Allen 130). Once the message was out in public, the front only gained more movement. Movie stars began to endorse the message of AIDS awareness. Bono began the message of “Red” associating its image with several popular American brands and products. Now the message is taught to every child in a sexual education class or in the real world. Forms silence to total awareness, the AIDS movement has made a total transformation. Now the only thing is to hope that people take in the message, prevent the spread, and cure those who are infected.

Allen, Peter L. The Wages of Sin: Sex and Disease, past and present. Chicago: university of Chicago, 2000. Print.

In the Mukherjee article “Structural Violence, Poverty and the AIDS Pandemic,” she talks about how AIDS is changing the world for the worse. This may seem extremely obvious, but some of the points that she brought up I never thought of in that particular way.

There are many things that she speaks of that I have heard in different ways. Those include prevention strategies that include risk avoidance by abstaining from sex and drug use as well as harm reduction like needle exchanges. My roommate volunteers at a nonprofit in Atlanta that exchanges dirty needles for clean ones as well as provide condoms and showers. These types of tactics are truly helping in communities where some people want to be clean off drugs, but just do not have the strength yet. However, they still want to ensure some accountability for their own health and well being.

A new term that seems to do a great job of marking a key component of the causes and results of the AIDS pandemic is structural violence. She defines this in two different ways. The first, found on page 379, says “the systemic exclusion of a group from the resources needed to develop their full human potential.” She goes on to define it as “physical and psychological harm that results from exploitive and unjust social, political and economic systems” on page 380. When we think about how the world economic system is overall set up, it is easy to agree with Mukherjee. Men are in the position to receive more jobs than women, while women are not paid for all the work that they do to care for their children ad family members as well as up keeping the household. Women are also sold for the use of their bodies and viciously raped in every part of the world. Men have to travel for work, many of them finding several sexual partners along the way. Of course all of these are not the case for everyone, but they do give examples of how the structure of society and the roles that we allow some to play give in to the ongoing pandemic of HIV.

The most interesting aspect of this article to me was the effect of AIDS on the household. When the head of the household dies from AIDS in African countries, the monthly income of the household drastically drops. These families who are at many times solely reliant on one income have lost a family member at the same time of losing their daily living. The families are forced into a quick impoverished situation that they find themselves hard to get out of. I always thought of the worst side of AIDS being the death of the infected individuals, but the fate of those that relied on these individuals are an enormous issue as well.

Money seems to be the biggest issue in this pandemic, in my opinion. If we were to garner enough money for every infected person to take generic antiretroviral therapy, the only thing left would be the focus on prevention. I believe that because the United States was silent for so long (focusing not the Bush and Clinton administration most of all), the disease has gotten to an almost incontrollable point. If it were simple enough to say yes to generic drugs for all and millions of prevention programs across the world, this agonizing disease could have been gone with polio and smallpox.

Of course we will always have those that take advantage of people’s bodies and those  that are irresponsible with contraception and dirty needles, but our position to fight those would so much more focused. It’s time to leave the legislation behind and solely focus on the well being of this world’s people. At this point, I’m sure I will never see the day where that is the ultimate focus.

In the United States, at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, mostly gay men were identified as having high risk for this disease. No one really thought about women or heterosexual couples. But eventually women were actually found out to being much more susceptible to HIV/AIDS due to biological conditions and social conditions. Women account for almost half of the 40 million people living with HIV now [3]. The proportion of women’s HIV cases has tripled from 8% to 27% since 1985 [2].

Women face many challenges that can make them more susceptible to HIV. For one, especially in developing countries, some gender inequalities lead to certain behaviors that can lead contracting HIV. In some cultures, women are not free to refuse sex or insist on using condoms. In some of these cultures, men believe they have power over women and do not let them have a say in the situation [2]. Also in some of these cultures, women might not have the same access to education that men have and may not even be aware of the methods of preventions and consequences. The risk of sexual violence can also be extremely high in some places, possibly poorer environments. According to the Higgins article, women that were more likely to get HIV were Black or Latina and lived in very poor sections of the United States [1]. The culture and living conditions plays a major role in disease transmission. Access to education is low in certain areas and can directly result in more people contracting diseases such as HIV.

In addition to the social issues women face, they also have biological differences that make them more susceptible to diseases than men. Women are exposed to infectious fluids longer during sex [1].  Their cells lining of the cervix may also be more vulnerable to HIV [1]. There has been a lot of research proving this. For example, in the Official Journal of the International AIDS Society, there was a article published in 2008 titled, Vulnerability of women in southern Africa to infection with HIV: biological determinants and priority health sector interventions, the determined that bacterial vaginosis is associated with HIV [4]. This is something women have no control over but have to take the necessary precautions. There is no other choice.

People are aware of these issues, and there are many things being done about this. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has placed an emphasis on HIV research [2]. They fund and sponsor research around the world. One example of a type of research is developing a mircobicide gel that women could easily apply and lower the chance of infection. Efforts like these will slowly contribute to the decrease of infections. But it is difficult to lower the risk of HIV infection by women compared to men still due to all the social and biological factors. Women are most in danger of contracting HIV due to gender disparities, poverty, culture and sexual norms, lack of education or sexual violence.

[1] Rethinking Gender, Heterosexual Men, and Women’s Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS

[2] http://aids.about.com/od/womensresources/a/womenimpact.htm

[3] http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5728/1582

[4] http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Abstract/2008/12004/Vulnerability_of_women_in_southern_Africa_to.4.aspx

Given the huge impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic throughout the world, programs that emphasize education and prevention have been critical since the initial identification of the virus and its routes of transmission.

In the previous weeks, we have focused on articles discussing the significant populations and target groups that much of the funding and manpower of public health groups has been attributed to. We have also learned how skewed many of these programs are toward altering specific behaviors. Statistical data on the distributions of infected individuals, the rates and geographical patterns of transmission and the lack of available preventative measures have all contributed heavily to determining where resources are sent and how they are used.

HIV prevention programs can have a global impact on changing risk behaviors, if they are instigated intensely with sufficient funding and cultural competency (Holgrave 134). Based on CDC studies, there are specific measures that can be placed into affect in order to maximize the efficiency of HIV prevention programs economically and socially. As of 2006, the CDC estimated that over 350,000 infections had been prevented since prevention programs had gone into affect, averting over $125 billion in medical costs (Fenton 3).

Although studies primarily focused on the United States, the results can be applied globally. Research has shown that the best prevention programs have emphasized and achieved changes in behavior by encouraging entire community participation to share responsibility for prevention efforts. They have focused on the specific needs of the community in which they are instigated, offering resources for all individuals at risk but focusing outreach activities on primary needs. Successful preventative measures must be conveyed in manner that is culturally accessible, understandable and linguistically specific. The audience of each planned initiative should be outlined in advance and both the objectives and mechanisms for attaining them should be presented openly. In addition to these components, successful initiatives must also have sufficient resources. Prevention programs must have sufficient financial backing, as well as human and material resources, to follow through with interventions in the community.  In addition, programs must be designed to create success. At risk individuals must feel inspired to implement risk-reducing behaviors and have those changes be physically and emotionally attainable. They must be taught the skills necessary to change (Holgrave 4).

After 3 decades of HIV prevention programs in the United States the CDC is still developing prevention programs. Although the transmission of HIV in the U.S. has decreased significantly, there are over a million individuals living with HIV. Prevention has expanded to include promotion of testing centers along with educational programs for individuals living with HIV. Previous partner notification initiatives and multi-STI screening opportunities have become highly available. In addition, free condom distribution and needle exchange programs have been implemented through out the country (Fenton 5).

Although the United States is financially more inclined to promote these prevention programs in an attempt to avoid the eventual costs of healthcare, these kinds of initiatives could be instigated elsewhere with great success. The key points are to recognize the importance of cultural intricacies and the promotion of attainable behavioral changes.

Fenton, Kevin, et al. HIV Prevention in the United States. At a critical crossroads. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention

Holtgrave, David R., Noreen L. Qualls, James W. Curran, Ronald O. Valdiserri, Mary E. Guinan, and William C. Parra. An overview of the effectiveness and efficiency of HIV prevention programs. Public Health Report 1995

In Peter Lewis Allen’s “The Wages Of Sin”, he explains the history of AIDS in the United States of America. As part of his introduction, the sexual revolution as a major player to the awareness of AIDS in America. The sexual revolution eliminated most of the previous taboos associated with casual (outside of wedlock) sex, and replaced them with the notion that sex is just downright awesome. Needless to say, sex became an integral part of American culture, and was even evident in Hollywood films.

Allen mentions “Old scourges like syphilis and gonorrhea were now seen as minor nuisances that could be cured with a couple of shots……prophylactics, contraceptives, and abortion were increasingly socially accepted and easy to obtain.” (Allen 113) This quote made me question whether abortion was more socially acceptable during the sexual revolution versus the present. As we all know, abortion is currently a controversial issue in modern society, with different views regarding the morality of the procedure. From series of anti-abortion billboards/ads to abortion clinic riots throughout the country, I’m left with the thinking that it is overly optimistic to say that abortion is socially accepted in modern times. When looking through the 1971-72 Emory wheels, I found numerous abortion clinic ads. The Wickersham Women’s Medical Center in New York not only posted the prices depending on how long one is pregnant, but also advertised their free psychiatric counseling, family planning, and birth control. Another abortion clinic had an advertisement in large bold font “ABORTION $140. ABORTION”, and also briefly mentioned they had a no referral fee, and served up to 12 weeks. The third ad I found was a local non-profit organization that said “We will help any woman regardless of race, religion, age, or financial status. We do not moralize, but merely help women obtain qualified Doctors for abortions, if this is what they desire. Please do not delay, an early abortion is more simple and less costly, and can be performed on an out patient basis.” I was in utter shock when I found these ads countless times in the 1971 Emory wheels. Prior to seeing these ads, I was under the impression that abortion wasn’t prevalent in society until the 80’s; I guess I was wrong!

Allen explains how C. Everett Koop was the surgeon general that gave America its first talk about AIDS. Koop wanted to address all people, just as the British government had done, to inform every single American household about AIDS. However, this was difficult to achieve, because the disease was viewed as immoral and vulgar. All Koop wanted was to inform that just because one isn’t a young gay men, or drug user, doesn’t mean they are safe from AIDS. Eventually, he finally got the funds for the AIDS brochure, and sent it out over 107 million American households. The White House then wanted to update the brochure by deleting any reference to risky sexual practices and condoms. The GMHC brochures had a similar problem with Reagan administration; they released brochures that taught how to engage in safe sex, how to kiss, and how to perform various sexual acts without exchanging infectious fluids. All of this policy against comprehensive sexual education to me sounds ridiculous. In my opinion, people need to be aware of what is really happening. Do the 1971-72 abortion ads I mentioned earlier promote abortion? Does teaching about safe sex, aimed prevent exchange of infectious fluids, promote sexual activity? Does teaching homeless individuals to use sterilized needles encourage them to do more drugs? I will leave those questions up to anyone who is willing to answer. pLuTo

Allen, Peter Lewis. The Wages of Sin: Sex and Disease, Past and Present. Chapter 6: “Aids in the USA” 119 -133. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

http://www.mikemason.net/work/magazines.php?cat=news&id=7

http://www.ansirh.org/research/aspects.php

Womens’ roles in HIV/AIDS have drastically changed since the first cases were diagnosed 25 years ago. When the virus was first discovered, females were expected to protect themselves against infection by insisting their partners wear protection or remain abstinent. Recently, though, there has been a switch in how HIV is looked at in regards to gender relations. Now, women are thought of as being extremely vulnerable to HIV infection because heterosexual males are active transmitters of the virus but are not active in prevention (Higgins, Hoffman, and Dworkin, 436).
Women are biologically more susceptible to contracting HIV because the female reproductive system has a larger mucosal surface that remains in contact with genital secretions and seminal fluid for a long time (Women, HIV, and AIDS). When STIs are left untreated, it may result in ulcerations of the vaginal wall that act as routes of entry for HIV. I would not, however, place the sole blame on the gender disparity for contraction on biological differences. Two-thirds of an estimated 40.3 million people who are infected with HIV/AIDS worldwide reside in sub-Saharan Africa, 77% of which are women. There are many factors that contribute to women’s heightened vulnerability in Africa, but much is attributed to women’s loss of control over their sexuality. In Africa, there are many harmful traditional practices such as child marriage, female genital mutilation, scarification, tattooing, wife inheritance, polygamy, sexual violence in the form of rape, and incest and forced prostitution that make females sexually inferior to men. In a majority of these communities, females are the sole caretakers for their families, which contributes to the spread of HIV to their offspring and family members (Iyayi, Iginomwanhia, Bardi, and Iyayi 114).
Women are increasingly becoming the face for the HIV/AIDS virus. Young people accounted for 40% of the 4.2 million new HIV infections in 2005, and young women accounted for 62% of people living with HIV/AIDS between the ages of 15 and 24 (Iyayi, Iginomwanhia, Bardi, and Iyayi 115). The factors that make women more likely to contract the virus can be viewed in the context of sexual inequality, which could affect the dynamics of sexual relationships. If there is not more emphasis on the male’s necessity to take on greater preventative measures when engaging in sexual relations, the virus will begin to spread at an even more rapid pace.
It is interesting that when you look back at the historic treatment of HIV/AIDS in our society, it was originally attributed to gay men and injection drug users. The only mention of females’ involvement in contraction was the role sex workers played in spreading it to heterosexual men. This evolution needs to be reflected in public health campaigns that are targeted at increasing knowledge of the virus and of preventative measures. Women also need to be economically independent in order to self sustain themselves and not have to depend on males for their well being. If the idea of economic stability is constantly running through women’s minds, they will never speak up to make sure they are engaging in safe sex and are not at risk for contracting this awful virus.

WORK CITED:

Higgins, Jenny, Susie Hoffman, and Shari Dworkin. “Rethinking Gender, Heterosexual Men, and Women’s Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS.” Framing Health Matters 100.3 (2010): 435-45. Print.

Iyayi, Festus, R. Osaro Iginomwanhia, Anthonia Bardi, and Omole O. Iyayi. “The Control of Nigerian Women over Their Sexuality in an Era of HIV/AIDS: A Study of Women in Edo State in Nigeria.” International NGO 6.5 (2011): 113-21. Print.

“Women, HIV, and AIDS.” Averting HIV and AIDS. AVERT, 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. .

Emory Wheel- September 6, 2005

November 2004, former Emory medical student, Gary Wayne Carriker was arrested on three felonies including civil litigation suits. He did not rob a bank, commit arson, nor committed homicide. He was arrested because he failed to communicate and inform his sexual partners that he was HIV positive.

Carriker attended Emory’s School of Medicine from 2000 to 2004 and he appeared to be [1]“someone you can trust.” Fulton County arrested Carriker in 2004 based on the Georgia Law that states that all HIV-positive individuals must informs sexual partners of their medical condition.

This article from the Emory Wheel not only caught my attention by its headline, but because Carriker was an intelligent individual, an EMORY individual whom should have know the severity of his condition and should have acted in a more responsible manner. Shouldn’t an Emory student be even more responsible and trustworthy because he/she attends one of the best schools in the country? Should he be charged on harsher grounds? What does his case say about Emory students overall? Did Emory lose some of its prestige with this trial? Also, if we assume that he was going to Medical student to be a doctor, does his trial have negative effects on other professionals in the field? Can we trust them as well?

Whether Carrikers acts may be morally right or wrong he obviously did not feel the need to communicate this to his sexual partners beforehand. The question is why? Explaining this article to a male friend, I asked him whether he would act similarly to Carriker. Surprisingly enough he told me, “Yes, I wouldn’t feel the need to communicate my medical condition to sexual partners if they were just one night stands because I probably wouldn’t ever see them again.” Did Carriker have similar views to this and thus the reason why he kept his silence? If this is true then why even tell them at all?

Do heterosexual males deserve to be punished in this way? As Reverend Falwell says [2]“AIDS is a lethal judgment of God on the sin of homosexuality and it is also the judgment of God on the Americans for endorsing this vulgar, perverted, and reprobate lifestyle. He is bringing judgment against this wicked practice through AIDS (Allen, 123).”

Whatever the case may be, we can see that AIDS is not only spread by those who are uninformed and uneducated. Silence is the first step in prevention however, only when it is communicated before committing the sexual act.

[1] Rao, Erika. “Student accused of spreading HIV.” Emory Wheel. Emory Wheel, 6 Sep. 2005. Print. 9 Nov. 2012.

[2] Allen, Peter Lewis. The Wages of Sin: Sex and Disease, Past and Present. Chapter 6: “Aids in the USA” 119-123. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.