From: javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad)
Subject: Re: AIDS in Iran
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:44:34 GMT
Organization: LabaniyyAtee-e-Sar-e-Koocheh

In article <sehari.724623399@class1.iastate.edu> sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
>
>>I can't wait till this guy finds out that his "temporary wife" or girlfriend
>>had AIDS, and the only reason she wanted to sleep with him is she
>>wanted to give him AIDS!
>
>First, when you get married, perminant or temprary, you got to do some
>blood test.  Further more, temp. marriage is not for the reason of
>prostitution.  Off course you could get any good thing and abuse it.
>For example, knife is a very good tool for cooking;  However, it could be
>used for killing too.  Now here should we say knife is a bad device 
>or people who kill people with knife are bad people?  Other examples are
>electric power, car, airplanes, medicine, ....

Now that you mention it, how about another example - wine.  It is clear now
that wine is good for you when taken in moderation (e.g. one glass/day).
Also, one can become an alcoholic by drinking a lot of wine.  So according
to your logic, wine shouldn't be banned in IRI, but is.  Of course, temporary
marriage isn't.

>
>
>>This is one of the best examples I've seen of frantic reaction to and fear of 
>                                              ^^^^^^^^^
>>AIDS.  AIDS is a truly deadly disease, and in many cases is preventable
>>through education and awareness of how it is contracted.  The fastest way
>>to see AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases spread is to create an
>>environment which is very closed and does not acknowledge sexuality,
>>puts a taboo on sex, and always avoids the subject and suppresses anything 
>>having to do with it rather than deal with it.  This is the environment in 
>>Iran today, thanks to the IRI's policy of sexual apartheid. I hope it does
>>not become another stupid mistake that our people end up paying for.
>
>
>>Agha Javad
>
>It is funny, how a bozo like javad calling people names. Who the hell
>give the right to label this idea as "frantic".
>

Poor bAby baby has trouble making his point again, and can't take the 
discussion.  That's ok, bAby joon, we all understand your shortcomings.
You are in friendly company here at sci.  Maybe it would help to let you
know that frantic merely means "hurried", or "in a panic fashion", and by no
means is a bad word or qualifies as "name calling".  Seriously, you don't
think I would do something terrible, like call you names or something of
that nature, now, do you?  There, now you can relax again.

>Further more, sexuality is acknowlaged in Islam through marriage.  As a
>mater of fact it is duty of a moslem to get married.  Getting married is
>like going to Haj, pray, and other things are considered as worshiping
>god.   However, what Islam along with other religions like christianity,
>jewish, ... does not accept is your type of sexuality.

Excuse me, but what exactly is "my type of sexuality"?  In any case, I would
like to know how you propose to tackle the problem of young people getting
into sexual relationships without knowing the risks involved?  Do you really
think that by just saying "it shouldn't be done until you're married"
the problem will be solved?  I'm talking about those who DON'T practice 
the official teachings.  Once they get themselves into trouble it's too late.
What you're saying is like saying "if we tell people to don't go outside
then nobody will catch a cold".  The right message is "It's better to not
go outside, but if you do, dress warm, and take the right precautions,
because if not, you can catch a cold, and this is what a cold is, etc etc.".

>
>All these bullshits that gays and librals are saying for more than 10 years
>now, such as what just you have said:
>

>>to see AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases spread is to create an
>>environment which is very closed and does not acknowledge sexuality,
>
>Has caused the number of Aids people grow from less than 1000s cases in
>1980 to more than millions in 10 years.  However, even the highest 
>estamite of Aids in Iran is less than 5000 cases, most of them infected
>in foreign countries.  Now if we follow the US exprience and model, we might
>end up just like US, Brazil, with Aids where they follow your model.  I

If there was a taboo on the issue as you propose, it would be even worse.  And
as you mentioned, the disease grew rapidly in the U.S. from a few thousand in
early eighties to millions presently.  Well, it also grew in Iran, from 0 in 
early eighties, to 5000 now.  If the gov't doesn't do anything about it,
how many cases will there be in 10 years?  Of course, IRI always can execute
AIDS victims as a solution, and neither you nor I would be surprised one bit.

>think it better for us to play it safe.  As the saying goes:
>
>Better Safe, than sorry.

Dr. Malekzadeh, who knows much more about it than you or me, says it is not
safe enough now, and if we don't use education and awareness, we'll ALL be
sorry.  

Since you have such a brilliant solution to this problem, I suggest you write 
down your proposal, send it to him, and while he's reading it, tear up your 
driver's license, and send 90% of your income to IRI as voluntary tax (until
you are PERMANENTLY married, of course.  Then you can stop).


>
>                     With highest regards,
>                          Babak   Sehari.
>
>
>                   
>
With even higher regards/praise/commendation/recognition,


Agha Javad
-- 


Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian