27.06.2013 Views

OW 73 - Outweek.net

OW 73 - Outweek.net

OW 73 - Outweek.net

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

',ui RykoNCo/.mln rlpl/,,:<br />

I dId not charg, Dr. Burk,tt<br />

wIth plagIarIzIng Bruce Nuss·<br />

baum's book. In cQntext, as Is<br />

clear from the first four paragraphs<br />

of my crItique, the<br />

statement deals with the pre·<br />

publication IntBrtlSt Good<br />

Intentions was generating .....<br />

I am not now, nor have I<br />

ever been, a misogynist.<br />

IMPRUDENT<br />

ANNOUNCEMENT<br />

In his letter [no. 70, Oct.<br />

31], Dr. Bern~rd Blharl states<br />

that Community Research Inl-.<br />

tlatlve (CRI) of New York will'<br />

open trials of VaxSyn In<br />

December 1990 and of<br />

566C80 In February 1991. In<br />

addition, h'estates that ~RI/NY<br />

may soon open trials of WOB<br />

enzyme, Curdlan sulfate, etiocholanalone<br />

and the IVAX<br />

AZT/ddl dimer study. '<br />

, While Dr. Biharl certainly<br />

• •<br />

,<br />

Weekwrote [that] ''the demon- tts list of virtually safe (meaning<br />

stratlon targeted the c~rdlnal absolutely no risk of tranamlsfOf...hls<br />

refusal to countenance slon) actlvttlea. I assume this Is<br />

safer-sex education within the what you mean by "safe," but<br />

Institutions ofthe church." then again, trylng'to'deflne<br />

What burns In the belly "safe" Is part of the problem.<br />

of this activist IsO'Connor's- There are no safer-sex guidedirect<br />

obstruction of p.ubllc lines In this country (or !n Aus- -<br />

policy-making when It comes tralla, Holland, France, England<br />

to the health education of and Germany, am9ng: others)<br />

public ~chool children In New that have ever stated that oral<br />

York CHy. And I dare say sex Is safe. In fact, eve,n the<br />

that's what brought many of CDC has always categorized<br />

the thousands of people out oral sex as carrying a high risk<br />

that cold day to scream for of transmission. , /<br />

three hours. Where have you Your editorial makes It<br />

been? We stili don't have real . sound like someone Is trying<br />

sex and health education 'In to pull the wool over our eyes.<br />

public schools In New York, It's not as If we've been led to<br />

much less the condom distri- believe that oral sex was absobution<br />

planned by Schools lutely safe, and now, suddenly,<br />

ChancelJor Fernandez (read we're finding ol:lt It Isn't. There<br />

ACT UP). has been, a risk of unknown<br />

While I,care about par- - severity associated with oral<br />

,<br />

ochial school children and am sex from the beginning. You<br />

greatly sadd~ned that they're state that the "biggest barrier<br />

getting their minds polluted to a clear appraisal of the reJa""<br />

every day, let's exercise our tlve hazards of oral sex is the<br />

constitutional right to educate lack of a major CDCstudy preour<br />

children lJl public schools clsely delineating the risks of<br />

without the deliberate, sophlstl- the practice." This Is the least<br />

catedand unconstitutional significant barrier. The point of<br />

,(therefore Illegal, get it?) Inter- a major CDC study Is to force<br />

ference of that small hateful them to act on our behalf, to<br />

man Inthat big stone building.' listen to, us and take us serl-<br />

By'the way, thanks for an ously, to value our lives and to<br />

otherwise thoughtful and do their best to find out exact-<br />

Informative piece. Iy what puts us at risk. How-<br />

. Steven Keith ever, It will have little bearing<br />

Address Withheld on whet.her we suck cock or<br />

/<br />

SAFETY AND<br />

SUPPORT<br />

In response to your editorial<br />

[~'Oral ConSiderations,"<br />

no. 70, Oct. 31]~ I would like<br />

to add to some of the pOints<br />

you made.<br />

You state that the canadian<br />

g,overnment has pro-<br />

nounced oral sex safe. This is.<br />

not true. The Safer-Sex Gulde-<br />

. . ,-<br />

lines: A Resource c<br />

Document<br />

for Educators and Counsel/ols<br />

of the Canadian AIDS SOCiety,<br />

which Is the document I belleve~you<br />

are referring to, states that<br />

oral sex carries a "minimal to<br />

low risk" of transmission. It<br />

\. • I<br />

does not Include, oral sex under<br />

,<br />

•<br />

,<br />

not. Telling someone that the<br />

risk for contracting AIDS from<br />

.oral sex has gone from 1 In<br />

5,000 to 1 In 900 Is hardly<br />

going to be the deciding factor<br />

of Whether to go down on that<br />

dick or not. What you're talk-<br />

Ing about Is knowledge, and<br />

.knowledge does not necessar-<br />

Ily equal action.<br />

There are two Issues ,<br />

here, neither of which has to<br />

do with charts, percent~ges,'<br />

numbers, statistics, bar<br />

,<br />

graphs and anything else CDC<br />

researchers will throw at us<br />

after a long, two-year study on<br />

oral sex that Is not even In the<br />

planning stages. These two<br />

Issues have to do with support<br />

j<br />

, ,<br />

,<br />

•<br />

•<br />

•<br />

\<br />

,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!