Were the sports teams sharing towels? Sitting naked on a bench that someone else just vacated? Wrestling sweaty and shirtless? Were the church members sharing utensils? At this point, we don’t know. What we do know is that ramping up our hygiene a bit seems to be effective. The impression I got was that it wasn’t the actual sexual intercourse that was spreading the disease but the flesh to flesh contact. And even that is only an impression. So, the focus on the bathhouse scene and explicit sex would deter from the message that this ailment is communicated through means that are far more commonplace.

The notion of wearing protection (i.e. condoms) might not be effective if the real transmission is from parts of the skin that aren’t covered by a condom. And, while it’s a noble thought to suggest that people be honest about what diseases they might be harboring, there’s an old line that says “when it comes down to the possibility of sex, everyone declares they’re negative”. And this ailment is unlike AIDS in so many ways. It’s not deadly. The point of infection seems to be external rather than internal. And, surprisingly simple measures–like washing with soap and water after skin to skin contact–are effective in arresting the transmission. In some ways, it seems more similar to poison ivy than AIDS.

My particular frustration with the bathhouse detour was that this is a blog of intelligent thinking people. I had hopes that we could think some of this through together. But, very early on in the thread, we seemed to detour to ‘anonymous sex’ as primary cause. Logic says that ‘primary cause’ gets ‘primary focus’. And, let’s face it, both sides seem to agree that anonymous sex is both tacky and unhealthy…yet it goes on. People that are engaging in anonymous sex really aren’t listening to health cautions. So, I felt (and feel) that focussing there was kind of pointless. We might have lots to say but nobody’s listening. It just seems more practical to focus on what kind of message we can get across to those in the mainstream who are listening.

Your questions are good ones. I’ve always felt that they are honest and sincere. If you ever feel that I’m minimizing one, let me know…because it certainly isn’t my intent. I think I appreciate your presence here more than anyone else’s.

Not sure if the bathhouse comment was for me or everyone. I originally asked for an explanation of what one was. My comments in #82897 asked if any unprotected sex would even occur if there was honest disclosure up front about any type of infectious disease one had – regardless who one was going to have sex with or where it was going to occur. It seems to me that the disease is spread unknowingly in other situations but we can prevent it by not having sex with another if we knowingly have it. That made sense to me and I asked if I was wrong about that.

I’ve been shopping around for more background info on MRSA and, unfortunately, everyone is currently caught up in this recent spin. Jim’s recent piece is thoughtful, articulate and pretty well rounded. I’m thinking it would answer the question you posed to Mike in 82914 better than a blog comment would. Jim’s research and communication skills are to be envied.

This bathhouse detour is frustrating me to no end. NO real bathhouse connection has been established or even been suggested in the research. Sure, it’s one likely place where the virus could be spread but the role of the bathhouse is so minimal that it doesn’t bear all of this discussion. I sincerely hope we can move beyond it into some broader discussion. (The link is in a post by Timothy but is easy to find…just look for the blue word ‘link’.)

bummer.