Admit distinct behaviors that act as symbolic borders. These borders will have to not be blurred, thereby avoiding the introduction of a (reprehensible) element in the street (illness, condom) within the household space.Prevention tactics: “risk groups, lady from the property, and condom”We have noticed that minimizing the severity of AIDS did not stop its meaning as a threat. Nevertheless, this threat is bounded by the notion of “risk group” and by the category of “street” (as opposed to “home”). So, it truly is inside the middle of PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21261711 this range of meaning that the protection methods, stated by the respondents, obtain sense and orientation major towards the adoption of exclusive (but unprotected) sex together with the “woman in the house”, or perhaps the use of condoms with “women from the street”. Men and women identified by respondents as belonging to “risk groups” nevertheless refer towards the classic groups identified by epidemiologists during the initial phase of the epidemic, in the late 1980s: homosexuals, drug customers, and sex professionals. Respondents exclude “women with the house” and themselves from these groups, indicating low self-perception of threat. She (wife) has the confidence that I am around the road, but alone. And I also have self-assurance that she also respects me and is alone. (…) We are not (…) part of the risk group (…) they may be folks who use drugs (…) with lots of partners. (r. ten, 51 years old) As a result, avoiding sexual relations with several people today particularly, “prostitutes, women of your street, and fags” restricting them (nearly) exclusively towards the “woman of the house”, was considered by respondents as a fantastic preventive tactic, even when it truly is of tricky execution. I believe it prevents [AIDS], any time you don’t go out with any lady but the woman of the house. (…) By way of the woman one gets it as well, but from the fag is far more assured. (r. 7, 49 years old) Respondents categorize subjects and scenarios, present in their contexts of social interaction, to measure unique degrees of risk. The category “woman of the house” just isn’t MedChemExpress ZL006 restricted only for the wife, also involving women which have certain attributes with the space in the “house”. This really is, hence, a “language of relations” (more than substantive attribute!) as Goffman advocates about stigma a language developed inside a broader web of meanings. Certainly one of the respondents, for instance, doesn’t use condoms in the extramarital connection with a “girlfriend”. The truth that the “girlfriend” is married to an additional man (taking the spot of “woman from the house”), additionally towards the long term “dating”, justifies for him the unprotected sex. When I am dating occasionally it passes, without the need of a condom. But not any individual (…) There’s a woman … but I know her for nine years (…) Often, I do not use condom, no. But if I get a woman I do not know, I’ve to make use of. (…) She’s a married woman. (…) I always pass by there, I see her each of the time. (r. 12, 54 years old) We see that the use of condoms, while not consistent, is a lot more connected towards the space of the “street”, as a way to meet the so-called “men’s needs” for sex, possibly far more present in lengthy routes. Several from the females who populate the contexts of social interaction of truck drivers, specifically these involved with sexual service, are deemed to become “anyone”; thatDOI:ten.1590S1518-8787.Vulnerability of truck drivers to HIVAIDSMagno L Castellanos MEPis, as an individual without bonds and who has no significant concerns together with the threat of infection by diseases “rotten women” in the words of a inte.