Anonymous wrote:What I gathered from this thread. Black men in DC don't have AIDS and it's racist to even think that they do.

What I gathered from your post is that you lack the ability to understand even basic English. Had you developed the ability to comprehend simple sentences, you would have learned that about 4% of black men in DC have AIDS. It is racist to attribute a characteristic of 4% to an entire group that has nothing in common beyond race.

OK, I'll accept that I'm racist. BUt black men in DC still have AIDS, tons of unprotected sex, many children out of wedlock, and hang out on the corner all day.

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing against black people but the rate of AIDS/HIV for DC Black Hetero Males is VERY high, much higher than any other population.

Nothing to do with "black people" and everything to do with "poor people." Almost all of DC's black folks are extremely poor. There's also a high rate of drug use among the poor. I'd be interested in seeing the AIDS rate among middle-class and wealthy black folks who live in DC. My guess is it would be roughly on par with everyone else.

But to answer your original question, yes, you are a racist.

Anonymous wrote:What I gathered from this thread. Black men in DC don't have AIDS and it's racist to even think that they do.

Then you lack reading comprehension skills...

Nobody is saying that there isn't a higher percentage of black men in DC that have AIDS (compared to other races). What people are saying is that it *is* racist to tell your child to never date a black person from DC because of this higher percentage and that it is simply foolish to do so b/c it isn't like you can't get AIDS from a white, upper class man (or woman from that matter).

Honestly...some of the posters here are being soo ridiculously obtuse that I'm starting to smell a troll...

What I gathered from this thread. Black men in DC don't have AIDS and it's racist to even think that they do.

Just tell her to be a lesbian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am public health and those stats are not new.

I suggest that you try a race neutral approach. You are expressly telling her not to date Black guys in DC while also implying that it is ok to have unprotected sex with any other race she wants. We all know that the hazards of unprotected sex go beyond HIV/AIDS. So I would focus on the message that unprotected sex with anyone is an unhealthy, potentially fatal, lifestyle choice.

Have you ever gotten tested for HIV? When I went the interviewer thought it was a bit strange because I didn't match the profile of someone that should be concerned with HIV. Basically the highest rate is gay, than aa than other minorities than whites. I am not white but thats the feeling I got from the tester. This was in DC by the way.

PP here. Yes I have. I am not sure what your question/oberservation is.....but gay is not a race....so why do you think the test administrator was surprised?

They ask questions regarding your lifestyle and race for state reporting purposes. The guy interviewing me was black and I think maybe gay but I am not sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am public health and those stats are not new.

I suggest that you try a race neutral approach. You are expressly telling her not to date Black guys in DC while also implying that it is ok to have unprotected sex with any other race she wants. We all know that the hazards of unprotected sex go beyond HIV/AIDS. So I would focus on the message that unprotected sex with anyone is an unhealthy, potentially fatal, lifestyle choice.

Have you ever gotten tested for HIV? When I went the interviewer thought it was a bit strange because I didn't match the profile of someone that should be concerned with HIV. Basically the highest rate is gay, than aa than other minorities than whites. I am not white but thats the feeling I got from the tester. This was in DC by the way.

PP here. Yes I have. I am not sure what your question/oberservation is.....but gay is not a race....so why do you think the test administrator was surprised?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you are racist. It should be situational. A black kid from a good family like mine, for instance, is no more likely to have AIDS than your son is. He will be every bit as careful and well-educated about the risks as your child.

No, it sounds like your child will be far more educated than this person's child can ever hope to be.

So you are saying HIV only affects "NON good" families?

No I am not. I am saying that children who are educated about protecting themselves are low risk no matter the color of their skin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you are racist. It should be situational. A black kid from a good family like mine, for instance, is no more likely to have AIDS than your son is. He will be every bit as careful and well-educated about the risks as your child.

No, it sounds like your child will be far more educated than this person's child can ever hope to be.

Thank you Yours will be as well

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am public health and those stats are not new.

I suggest that you try a race neutral approach. You are expressly telling her not to date Black guys in DC while also implying that it is ok to have unprotected sex with any other race she wants. We all know that the hazards of unprotected sex go beyond HIV/AIDS. So I would focus on the message that unprotected sex with anyone is an unhealthy, potentially fatal, lifestyle choice.

Have you ever gotten tested for HIV? When I went the interviewer thought it was a bit strange because I didn't match the profile of someone that should be concerned with HIV. Basically the highest rate is gay, than aa than other minorities than whites. I am not white but thats the feeling I got from the tester. This was in DC by the way.

PP, dont worry I dont have HIV, did it cause I wanted to do it for informational purposes.

Anonymous wrote:I am public health and those stats are not new.

I suggest that you try a race neutral approach. You are expressly telling her not to date Black guys in DC while also implying that it is ok to have unprotected sex with any other race she wants. We all know that the hazards of unprotected sex go beyond HIV/AIDS. So I would focus on the message that unprotected sex with anyone is an unhealthy, potentially fatal, lifestyle choice.

Have you ever gotten tested for HIV? When I went the interviewer thought it was a bit strange because I didn't match the profile of someone that should be concerned with HIV. Basically the highest rate is gay, than aa than other minorities than whites. I am not white but thats the feeling I got from the tester. This was in DC by the way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you are racist. It should be situational. A black kid from a good family like mine, for instance, is no more likely to have AIDS than your son is. He will be every bit as careful and well-educated about the risks as your child.

No, it sounds like your child will be far more educated than this person's child can ever hope to be.

So you are saying HIV only affects "NON good" families?

I am public health and those stats are not new.

I suggest that you try a race neutral approach. You are expressly telling her not to date Black guys in DC while also implying that it is ok to have unprotected sex with any other race she wants. We all know that the hazards of unprotected sex go beyond HIV/AIDS. So I would focus on the message that unprotected sex with anyone is an unhealthy, potentially fatal, lifestyle choice.

Anonymous wrote:Yes you are racist. It should be situational. A black kid from a good family like mine, for instance, is no more likely to have AIDS than your son is. He will be every bit as careful and well-educated about the risks as your child.

11;57 again. My scenario was real...also under a fine veneer some families and people are trash. Like actors playing a role.