OW 73 - Outweek.net
OW 73 - Outweek.net
OW 73 - Outweek.net
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 />
,