Admit distinct behaviors that act as symbolic borders. These borders ought to not be blurred, thereby avoiding the introduction of a (reprehensible) element from the street (disease, condom) inside the dwelling space.Prevention strategies: “risk groups, lady of the residence, and condom”We have seen that 20-HETE Epigenetics minimizing the severity of AIDS did not protect against its meaning as a threat. On the other hand, 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 selection of meaning that the protection approaches, stated by the respondents, get sense and orientation leading towards the adoption of exclusive (but unprotected) sex together with the “woman from the house”, or perhaps the usage of condoms with “women of your street”. People today identified by respondents as belonging to “risk groups” still refer towards the classic groups identified by epidemiologists throughout the initial phase of the epidemic, in the late 1980s: homosexuals, drug customers, and sex pros. Respondents exclude “women from the house” and themselves from these groups, indicating low self-perception of danger. She (wife) has the confidence that I’m around the road, but alone. And I also have self-assurance that she also respects me and is alone. (…) We’re not (…) a part of the danger group (…) they’re persons who use drugs (…) with many partners. (r. ten, 51 years old) For that reason, avoiding sexual relations with quite a few persons specially, “prostitutes, females of the street, and fags” restricting them (practically) exclusively to the “woman from the house”, was thought of by respondents as a superb preventive strategy, even though it truly is of complicated execution. I think it prevents [AIDS], any time you never go out with any lady however the woman from the home. (…) Through the woman one particular gets it as well, but in the fag is more assured. (r. 7, 49 years old) Respondents categorize subjects and scenarios, present in their contexts of social interaction, to measure diverse degrees of threat. The category “woman of your house” isn’t limited only to the wife, also involving ladies that have certain attributes of your space of your “house”. This really is, consequently, 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 example, does not use condoms within the extramarital connection having a “girlfriend”. The fact that the “girlfriend” is married to another man (taking the place of “woman of the house”), in addition for the long-term “dating”, justifies for him the unprotected sex. When I am dating at times it passes, without the need of a condom. But not any individual (…) There is a woman … but I know her for nine years (…) Sometimes, I never use condom, no. But if I get a woman I never know, I’ve to use. (…) She’s a married woman. (…) I normally pass by there, I see her all the time. (r. 12, 54 years old) We see that the use of condoms, while not consistent, is a lot more related to the space of your “street”, as a strategy to meet the so-called “men’s needs” for sex, possibly more present in lengthy routes. Quite a few of the females who populate the contexts of social interaction of truck drivers, especially these involved with sexual service, are thought of to be “anyone”; thatDOI:10.1590S1518-8787.Vulnerability of truck drivers to HIVAIDSMagno L Castellanos MEPis, as someone without the need of bonds and who has no significant concerns with all the risk of infection by illnesses “rotten women” inside the words of a inte.