Admit different behaviors that act as symbolic borders. These borders have to not be blurred, thereby avoiding the introduction of a (reprehensible) element in the street (disease, condom) within the household space.Prevention strategies: “risk groups, woman in the house, and condom”We have observed that minimizing the severity of AIDS didn’t protect against its which means as a threat. However, this threat is bounded by the notion of “risk group” and by the category of “street” (as opposed to “home”). So, it really is within the middle of PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21261711 this array of meaning that the protection techniques, stated by the respondents, obtain sense and orientation major towards the adoption of exclusive (but unprotected) sex together with the “woman of your house”, and even the use of condoms with “women on the street”. Folks identified by respondents as belonging to “risk groups” still refer for the classic groups identified by epidemiologists through the initial phase from the Cosmosiin epidemic, inside the late 1980s: homosexuals, drug customers, and sex professionals. Respondents exclude “women of the house” and themselves from these groups, indicating low self-perception of threat. She (wife) has the confidence that I am on the road, but alone. And I also have confidence that she also respects me and is alone. (…) We are not (…) part of the threat group (…) they’re people today who use drugs (…) with several partners. (r. ten, 51 years old) Consequently, avoiding sexual relations with various people today in particular, “prostitutes, women of your street, and fags” restricting them (nearly) exclusively to the “woman from the house”, was regarded as by respondents as a great preventive method, even though it is of tough execution. I believe it prevents [AIDS], once you never go out with any lady but the woman of the house. (…) By means of the lady 1 gets it too, but in the fag is more assured. (r. 7, 49 years old) Respondents categorize subjects and situations, present in their contexts of social interaction, to measure unique degrees of threat. The category “woman of the house” isn’t restricted only for the wife, also involving women which have specific attributes of your space in the “house”. That is, for that reason, a “language of relations” (more than substantive attribute!) as Goffman advocates about stigma a language produced within a broader web of meanings. One of the respondents, one example is, does not use condoms within the extramarital relationship with a “girlfriend”. The truth that the “girlfriend” is married to a different man (taking the location of “woman on the house”), moreover to the long-term “dating”, justifies for him the unprotected sex. When I’m dating from time to time it passes, without a condom. But not anybody (…) There’s a woman … but I know her for nine years (…) In some cases, I don’t use condom, no. But if I get a woman I do not know, I have to utilize. (…) She’s a married lady. (…) I constantly pass by there, I see her each of the time. (r. 12, 54 years old) We see that the use of condoms, although not constant, is far more connected to the space of your “street”, as a approach to meet the so-called “men’s needs” for sex, possibly additional present in lengthy routes. Several of your girls who populate the contexts of social interaction of truck drivers, specially those involved with sexual service, are regarded as to be “anyone”; thatDOI:10.1590S1518-8787.Vulnerability of truck drivers to HIVAIDSMagno L Castellanos MEPis, as somebody without bonds and who has no important concerns with all the risk of infection by ailments “rotten women” in the words of a inte.
