Admit various behaviors that act as symbolic borders. These borders will have to not be blurred, thereby avoiding the introduction of a (reprehensible) element of your street (disease, condom) inside the dwelling 
space.Prevention methods: “risk groups, woman of your house, and condom”We have noticed that minimizing the severity of AIDS didn’t prevent its meaning as a threat. Even so, this threat is bounded by the notion of “risk group” and by the category of “street” (as opposed to “home”). So, it is within the middle of PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21261711 this range of which means that the protection tactics, stated by the respondents, acquire sense and orientation major towards the adoption of exclusive (but unprotected) sex with the “woman of your house”, or even the usage of condoms with “women in the street”. People identified by respondents as belonging to “risk groups” still refer towards the classic groups identified by epidemiologists throughout the initial phase on the epidemic, inside the late 1980s: homosexuals, drug users, and sex experts. Respondents exclude “women in the house” and themselves from these groups, indicating low self-perception of danger. She (wife) has the confidence that I’m on the road, but alone. And I also have self-confidence that she also respects me and is alone. (…) We are not (…) part of the danger group (…) they may be men and women who use drugs (…) with numerous partners. (r. 10, 51 years old) Therefore, avoiding sexual relations with several individuals in particular, “prostitutes, women of the street, and fags” restricting them (virtually) exclusively for the “woman of your house”, was regarded as by respondents as a good preventive strategy, even though it really is of difficult execution. I consider it prevents [AIDS], if you don’t go out with any woman but the woman of the home. (…) Via the woman one gets it also, but in the fag is a lot more assured. (r. 7, 49 years old) Respondents categorize subjects and conditions, present in their contexts of social interaction, to measure distinct degrees of threat. The category “woman in the house” will not be limited only towards the wife, also involving women that have specific attributes in the space from the “house”. This can be, as a result, a “language of relations” (greater than substantive attribute!) as Goffman advocates about stigma a language developed within a broader net of meanings. One of the respondents, for instance, doesn’t use condoms inside the extramarital connection with a “girlfriend”. The truth that the “girlfriend” is married to one more man (taking the spot of “woman in the house”), furthermore for the long term “dating”, justifies for him the unprotected sex. When I am dating often it passes, without having a condom. But not any person (…) There’s a woman … but I know her for nine years (…) Occasionally, I don’t use condom, no. But if I get a woman I never know, I have to use. (…) She’s a married woman. (…) I often pass by there, I see her all of the time. (r. 12, 54 years old) We see that the use of condoms, MedChemExpress [DTrp6]-LH-RH despite the fact that not consistent, is extra associated towards the space from the “street”, as a technique to meet the so-called “men’s needs” for sex, possibly far more present in lengthy routes. A lot of with the ladies who populate the contexts of social interaction of truck drivers, specifically those involved with sexual service, are thought of to be “anyone”; thatDOI:ten.1590S1518-8787.Vulnerability of truck drivers to HIVAIDSMagno L Castellanos MEPis, as someone without having bonds and who has no major concerns with the risk of infection by ailments “rotten women” within the words of a inte.
