If you believe you have been exposed to HIV and want help to judge your risk, would like advice about HIV testing, or have questions about the effectiveness of condoms or risks associated with specific sexual practices, this is the site for you.
Has anyone seen this movie? It's where this retard of a guy, who in real life wouldn't be able to get to first base, has AIDS and is deflowering all these attractive young virgins and supposedly is giving all of them AIDS. Probably the stupidest movie I've ever seen.
That's crazy. But speaking about movies on HIV/AIDS related themes, I found Philadelphia, quite exaggerated and silly to great lengths. No disrespect to Tom Hanks but could they have portrayed the whole thing any more stupidly?
I'm a big movie buff and a film student, so I am very critical of the processes they project on screen as far as screenplay, editing etc.
monkeyflower brings up a valid point of the timeframe the movie was set against (late 80s and 90s), and how HIV touched not only the individual, but stigma in the society. And this one particularly attempted to be politically correct in the wrong ways. From that perspective, we know a lot more of this disease that people did back then, and when I look back at this movie I can only say that it is hardly much informative or suggestive of anything; other than that it is primarily a homosexual disease in a very subtle manner.
And on the physical aspects of things, the way they showed tom hanks losing weight, his red leisons all over his body in his conditions and deterioration seemed way too sporadic in my views. It clearly focused on one angle and his sufferings, thrown in with legal proceedings for drama effect was too much to digest. But then this is targeting commercial cinema...so that I can understand to say the least.
Nerviouskid, of all the people here that could comment on the film that can't believe their negative result somewhat baffles me. You don't think people today are not going through the same things that were portrayed in Philadelphia. You would be sadly mistaken if that is the way you feel. What kind of information would you have like the show to exhibit?
Yeah, it is indeed ironic that I'm commening on a movie which I have less appreciation towards, while my I struggle to overcome my personal trauma and accept my negative hiv results. This will take time because I did not expect such a thing to happen and to stand as a 'real' threat to my life. I've literally put my life on hold to overcome this for the past 3 months. Do you know how difficult it is? And how does one cope with the idea that HIV/AIDS is largely precieved as a gay disease, and that even in today's time gay people are looked at with contempt?
There has been a struggle on my on my part; a lot of it! But watching a movie like Philadelphia gives me the impression of it being manufactured as a guilt trip besides just being homophobic. In my humble opinion, I found the characters to be quite ignorant and synthetic. However, the situations did appear quite real.
I personally felt the movie should have focused on Tom Hanks' character a gay man overcoming for who he is and the disease, and not portray him as a lawyer embroiled in a war to save his position at work. It took away the main essence of his character's strength and dignity. The other characters that looked down upon him made everything look so foolish and did quite a harm to project homosexuality as a terrible thing, while going on trials-after-trials.
On top of all this, his partner's support was almost non-exisistent. And everytime there was an apparent showing of his physical-disability, it was a clear example of fear-inducing exercise for others to visualize. And you know how that works around here too!
But that's my take on the movie....I don't think it's a great one the way it is. I'd like to see a movie/docu-film made on concrete facts of HIV/AIDS virus and its growth and progression over the years. I haven't seen much of it.
You're 'critique' sounds like self-righteous B.S. - become a corporate lawyer. Do something you'd be good at.
It's starting to sound to me like all the advice on this forum is B.S., a product of the modern B.S. world. If someone is terrified because they made out with a stripper, even if their risks are one in a million, let them be terrified. Let them get over their own ego selves on their own, or pay someone to listen to their B.S.
Sure, there is still, apparently, an open question about the window period. And, unfortunately, there always will be, given that researches cannot deliberately infect a group of people to study the precise time at which each of them converts from a negative to a positive status (in terms of antibody tests).
Having said that, there is a body of knowledge that goes into determining the window period. It is comprised of individual experiences, all melded together to form shared wisdom, which in turn informs policy makers when they are making decisions about official government guidelines. Policy is certainly not written in a vacuum.
We are always going to have debates about the window period. They were being had x number of years ago, and they will be had x number of years from now. The only difference in the debates will be the length of the window period at that given point in time.
For instance, at some point in the past, official testing policy (in the US, anyway) was 6 months. Today, it is 3 months. In my opinion, we are in the midst of another paradigm shift in regards to HIV testing, with a consensus being formed that, with modern testing, 6 weeks is the up-to-date window period. What is causing the debate is that policy decisions take time, certainly longer than it takes to form a consensus about the length of the "new" window period. But, eventually, the policy will be changed to reflect the new window period reality.
Until that time, of course, 3 months is the official window period in the United States. Thus, people will cruise around the Internet and find some sites that advocate 6 weeks and others that advocate 3 months. On many sites, these same people will find people debating this topic, sometimes in a heated fashion (as we see here today). And, sadly, confusion will reign.
In the end, as funny as this sounds, everyone of us will need to make our own (hopefully) informed choices about when and how to test. Really, getting proper medical care is often up to the individual. So, read, study and ponder, and then, with all the facts in hand, make your own choice (6 weeks/3 months). I don't happen to push one or the other, because, after all, I'm just some dolt who posts to a Web site.
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.