StacyCat’s World of Thought

Also referred to as Dunbar’s Number is a theoretical limit of the number of intimate connections that one is able to make. Granted, the science behind it is sketchy at best (it was extrapolated from the brain size difference between humans and various other primates), but it is a good example of how the brain is limited.

There are two parts to this post. The first is an example from Freakrevolution.com about The Monkeysphere. Pace gives a very succinct explanation of what the Monkeysphere is, but, more importantly, the importance of its application.

See, one way that people have come to accept gay people is that their monkeyspheres are now filled with more gay people. It is hard to vote against gay marriage when they have good friends who are gay, and who want to get married. I posted as a comment (in another forum) that it was the best reason for outing oneself to the world. The more freaks, bisexual, kinky people etc. that someone knows, the more likely they are to be tolerant to those other more abstract people.

The second is that I am now making an argument that the Monkeysphere is about ideas as well. One can occupy a few slots of their monkeysphere with abstract ideas. This is not as effective at social change as actually knowing someone, but can be helpful in creating a sense of community.

As an example, I have a few slots in my Monkeysphere for the positive sexuality community in New York City. I could recognize quite a few people at the party, and much more by name rather than face. It was funny.

“Hey, I am Max”

“Are you on Twitter as @maxlagos ?”

“Yup, thats me!”

Funny exchange, and it happened a few times. I met a guy that I had known from LJ for quite a while. I met people who knew me from Twitter Monkeyspheres encompass a number of people that are not directly involved in someone’s life, but yet make an impact. And this is the power of social networking and the internet.

I read a post on Trevorade Trevorade called Refusing to Have Sex With HIV-Positive People: Why It’s Not a Prevention Strategy, and Why It’s Harmful to Our Communities

Now, Trevor was talking about the Gay Male arena, but he was discussing how refusing to have sex with HIV positive men is not necessarily safe, and how it increases the stigma against HIV Positive people. While the statistics are slightly off, it reinforces two items.

1) Condoms are very effective against HIV transmission.

2) The Stigma against HIV positive people leads to either fewer people being tested, and/or fewer people disclosing their status.

The latter is what I tend to fight against. For me, if one is engaging in sexual activities with those who are untested, or do not know their current status, refusing to fuck someone who actively discloses their status is increasing the stigma against those with an STI. As Trevor discusses, sereosorting (or only having sex with someone of the same HIV status) is effective for those who are having longer term relationships with condom use being sporadic or not there. But, with condoms being used consistantly, the risk of HIV transmission is low.

For someone who knows their status, they can be taking active steps. An individual with a low virus count, who is taking anti-HIV drugs, may be a safer risk than the person that does not know their status.

Granted, if one is having orgies within closed circles, and/or within the “typical” swinger settings (aka, mostly straight with female bisexuality welcomed and male bisexuality severely), then the chances of encountering an individual with HIV is much lower. But, still, the risks of getting HIV from a sexual encounter are fairly low. (See my previous post about STI transmission rates and this article from Poz.com for more information.)