By Alex Distefano
By Scott Snowden
By Anna Merlan
By Steve Almond
By Jena Ardell
By Jon Campbell
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Tessa Stuart
The biggest argument for oral sex not being a major route of HIV transmission is epidemiology. If, as some people claim, it carried a significant risk of HIV transmission, then many, many more people, particularly gay men, would be infected.
I would also treat claims by people that they have become infected with HIV by only having oral sex with great skepticism. People tend to "forget" the large amounts of unprotected anal sex they've been having, partly because health promotion campaigns made this such a taboo activity. And given that (in the U.K. at least) rates of HIV among gay men have remained stable for the past few years despite evidence of an increase in unprotected anal sex, I think it shows how difficult it is to transmit HIV via penetrative sex, let alone oral sex.
Re Duncan Osborne's "The State of Oral Sex":
"We can rationally conclude that unprotected oral sex is significantly less risky than unprotected anal sex. If more gay and bisexual men substituted acts of oral sex for anal sex, this would greatly help to reduce HIV transmission among such groups."
But I think that unprotected oral sex does pose some type of risk and that more than a marginal number of people have been infected by oral sex.
Take Boston's talk radio host Dr. David Brudnoy, an openly gay, openly HIV-positive libertarian-conservative. In Life Is Not a Rehearsal: A Memoir, Brudnoy graphically describes his sexual history. He had one act of anal sex in his lifewhen he was around 20 years old in 1960. He didn't enjoy that experience and never repeated it, only having oral sex (and he had many, many acts of oral sex with multiple partners). Unless he received HIV during that one act in 1960, he must have received HIV via oral sex.
With reference to the idea that "Charles 'Old Roman' Comiskey must be spinning in his grave" at the renaming of Comiskey Park [J.Y. Yeh, "Those Annoying Telemarketers," Jockbeat, February 12-18], realize two things:
1. Comiskey was a notorious cheapskate who'd have traded naming rights for bus fare if he were alive today.
2. Sox fans don't care what that plastic shitbox is called.
It was a bad park named for a bad guy, and we were resigned to it; now it's a bad park that may get better (cosmetically) thanks to U.S. Cellular.
Big deal? No, not so much.
I believe Hentoff is searching for outrage where none is called for. Kamal Derwish, a U.S. citizen killed by CIA "remote control," raises serious concerns, but given his association with al-Harethia, an enemy combatant of the U.S., it simply does not rise to the level of outrage.
As he is an enemy combatant, there is absolutely no legal requirement whatsoever to "arrest" him, and to suggest such is simply silly. Killing enemy combatants in a war is by no means unconstitutional or unusual. As for 20-year-old soldiers doing what they are ordered to do regardless of its "legality"what is Hentoff suggesting is the problem? Are these soldiers supposed to decide what orders they will and will not follow in a given situation? Let's reserve our outrage for occasions when it's due, lest it lose its relevance to the debate.
Nat Hentoff replies: The Constitution is still in effect and requires that no American citizen can be executed or assassinated at any time by the government without a chance to prove his or her innocence. Derwish did not even know he was designated as an "enemy combatant"a term that is still dangerously ambiguous.
We read with interest as Khatchadourian outlined the hard situation of the Turkish southeast provinces. We had the opportunity to visit that region two years ago with a group of Italian observers focused on the human rights question, observing as people there are stricken by a policy of threat and deprivation of many basic rights.
The Turkish state, still dominated by a strong military power, is openly trying to provoke the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) to a new desperate armed response where it could be easily criminalized as terrorist. It's the shortest and easiest way for an authoritarian state to confront human rights issues related to the Kurds, and the admission of responsibility for the genocide perpetrated against them.
Maria Setzuand Rosa Maggio
Raffi Khatchadourian replies: I probably should have given the PKKs history and current behavior greater context. As you point out, the history here is long and complex. While the PKK once acted brutallyearning its title as a terrorist organization for killing schoolteachers and kidnapping foreigners, among other acts of violence against civiliansit has since renounced that kind of behavior, and more or less taken on a new name, KADEK, to reflect the shift (however convincing). At what point does an organization stop being a terrorist group? That is a difficult question to answer. Armed PKK guerillas still hold out in the mountains of eastern Turkey and in northern Iraq. They appear to be an ebbing force, though, and as far as I can tell, recent skirmishes with the Turkish armed forces have been just thatstrictly military affairs, without the indiscriminate attacks on noncombatants that were more common in the past.