I'm leaning towards moralizing when 9 of the 11 foundations administering the $100 million are churches.

Is anyone disputing the right of the US to place stipulations? I just see people questioning the wisdom of the particular stipulations. Of course the administration can put any stipulation they like on it. That doesn't mean they should, or that people shouldn't question the choice of stipulations.

Damn right ! And I wish a lot more countries would. ;)

I guess the problem I have with it is this:
You are offering money to help with AIDS (or anything else for that matter) but in order to get that money you require that the receipient adjust their outlook/culture/morals/politics (anything really). If they don't change, they don't get the money.
So what is that money really for? AIDS research or foisting off your own view of right and wrong?

There is a drought. Water is scarce and some folks are running out of water. You are my neighbor and I am happy to share my water with you so you come over with a bucket. I start to pour some of my water in your bucket but notice a big gaping hole in the bottom of your bucket. I request that you fix the hole prior to my pouring some of my limited supply of water into your bucket.

Apparently, we are not in agreement about there being a hole in your bucket.

I'm not personally interested in debating whether legalized sex for hire raises or lowers the HIV infection rate. Those "with the water" think it does and they are not going to give you any until you fix the "hole." Its ok to disagree on stuff - but the institution offering the money has the right to withhold the money if it is of the opinion that there are simpler things that could be done to address the problem.

If it makes everyone happier, instead of thinking of the money as being for AIDS, think of it as the United States offering Brazil $45 million to make prostitution illegal. The price, evidently, is not high enough but there is a price at which Brazil would make selling sex a crime. America just hasn't hit the number yet. Of course, there is a limit to what America is willing to pay.

If I'm going to pay the medical bills for an alcoholic, then a condition of that agreement is that he stop drinking. Does that make me a holier-than-thou moralistic asshole? Ok, fine, then I'm an asshole. Again, this debate isn't about whether drinking caused the problems for which I am offering to pay. I think it does and since its my money, my opinion is the only one that matters.

Personally, I think the money would be better spent in Africa than in a country perfectly capable of managing its own affairs.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that Brazil might be a straw man in a sham transaction designed to funnel money from the Feds -through Brazil - to the drug companies as a subsidy but who the hell knows. Everyone is so focused on turning this into a religious issue that they forgot there's really $45 million dollars floating around and someone who was expecting it (down the ladder from Brazil) is now not going to get it and somebody else is now going to have to pay for that.

Then I guess you're wasting your time.
Nobody disagrees with you here. The only thing that is controversial is the wisdom of the decision, not the right of the US to make the decision.

The US has the right to make stupid decisions. That doesn't make the decisions right.

Maybe at some point but Brazil seems to be doing a pretty damn good job fighting AIDS (it's interesting that when an acronym hits critical mass people stop capitalising it, I'm as guilty as the rest on this) all by themselves and have at least in recent history, been very pickly to US demands for anything - see the incident where a US pilot was arrested for giving the finger to Brazilian passport control who started taking photos and fingerprints of incoming US citizens in retaliation to the US doing it.

From where I sit this is no different to 'charities' that indoctrinate kids in Africa while they feed and clothe them, I've on more than one occasion been approached by those assholes, I've got nothing but respect for charities that do work (MSF probably being the one I respect the most), particularly in Africa but if you're merely doing it to push your agenda you should be named and shamed for taking advantage of the suffering of others.

Not giving money to charity doesn't make one stupid. Nor is not giving money to charity wrong. But Brazil is neither a charity nor a poor country dependent on handouts from wealthier nations. Its not like we are withholding food drops to starving Ethiopians until they stop worshiping idols.

Besides, if legalizing prostitution lowers the infection rate, then why does Brazil have three times the infection rate of Mexico (or of many other Latin American countries) where prostitution is illegal? Is it possible that the premise is incorrect? Is that a debatable subject or am I stupid and wrong for even presuming to ask?

I agree. There has to be a nexus between the decision to be charitable and the behavior or attitude that is connected to the other end of the string. If I am to pay a drunk to stop drinking than I do require that he not spend the money on alcohol. Or on food for his buddy who then reciprocates with alcohol.

But Brazil does not fall into these categories - they are a proud and self-sufficent nation that, as far as I can tell, are not in desperate need for international assistance - string or no string.

I guess you're interested now. And yes, it is debatable. In fact, that is the subject of the thread.

Personally, I think that legal prostitution with health benefits and regulations is a good thing. Complaining that unregulated prostitution will still exist is like saying alcohol should be illegal because there will still be poisonous bootleg alcohol available even if alcohol were legalized. That's true, but the legal stuff will be safer, for both customer and provider.

and if anyone disagrees with that they better start by refuting the very detailed report I quoted from.

All I'm saying is that religion *should* have nothing to do with this.

If Brazil wants the money, they make prostitution illegal.
If Brazil doesn't want the money, then no harm, no foul.

It makes "scientific" sense to stop having sex with multiple partners and not reuse needles to reduce your risk of AIDS.

Morals and religion have nothing to do with those basic scientific facts.

Now it just so happens that Christianity and Judaism happen to believe that you shouldn't have sex without being married and you should only be married once unless your partner dies, and that your body is your temple and you shouldn't be putting recreational drugs into it.

But the scientific fact remains that abstinence or monogamous sex (and no drug use if possible) are the best way to avoid ANY STD.

So although people are trying to make it a relgious issue, in fact it is not. It *is* a strings attached offer, and they chose to decline. BFD. Keep your prostitutes and AIDS over in Brazil. Thanks.

That's not the question. The question is simply does legalizing prostitution raise or lower the AIDS infection rate - all other variables equal.

I read the studies cited by jag and found the connection between the legality or illegality of prostitution to be tenuous. Thailand, where prostitution has been legal since before the AIDS epidemic, had the highest rate of AIDS infection in the world (outside of Africa). Only after the government made AIDS prevention a public policy matter with a massive budget did the rate go down. Public policy programs (awareness/prevention/treatment) are NOT limited to environments where prostitution is legal.

And until someone explains why many countries in Latin America where prostitution is illegal have a fraction of the AIDS rate of Latin American countries where prostitution is legal then I will continue to assert that there is reason to question the claim that legalizing it lowers it.

I honestly can't be sure what effect legalized prostitution has on the rate of AIDS infection and nothing I've seen in this thread other than a lot of wishful thinking, selective evidence picking and ignoring data that refutes the hypothesis justifies a conclusion either way.

The prostitutes and AIDS are everywhere, but in Brazil, the prostitutes get tested. Abstinence and monogamous sex are personal behaviors that cannot be legislated, and will never be successful on their own as a nationwide strategy. They are important parts, but they are only parts.

Does anyone know which came first, the higher AIDS rates or the legalized prostitution?