Admit unique behaviors that act as symbolic borders. These borders must not be blurred, thereby avoiding the introduction of a (reprehensible) element on the street (illness, condom) inside the dwelling space.Prevention methods: “risk groups, lady in the residence, and condom”We have noticed that minimizing the severity of AIDS didn’t avoid its which means 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 can be inside the middle of PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21261711 this array of meaning that the protection methods, stated by the respondents, achieve sense and orientation major towards the adoption of exclusive (but unprotected) sex together with the “woman of the house”, or perhaps the use of condoms with “women of your street”. People today identified by respondents as belonging to “risk groups” nonetheless refer for the classic groups identified by epidemiologists during the initial phase from the epidemic, in the late 1980s: homosexuals, drug customers, and sex specialists. Respondents exclude “women on the house” and themselves from these groups, indicating low self-perception of danger. She (wife) has the self-confidence that I am on the road, but alone. And I also have self-confidence that she also respects me and is alone. (…) We’re not (…) part of the danger group (…) they may be men and women who use drugs (…) with a lot of partners. (r. 10, 51 years old) Hence, avoiding sexual relations with numerous people especially, “prostitutes, females in the street, and fags” restricting them (pretty much) exclusively for the “woman on the house”, was viewed as by respondents as a very good preventive approach, even when it really is of challenging execution. I assume it prevents [AIDS], when you don’t go out with any lady but the lady from the residence. (…) By way of the lady a single gets it as well, but in the fag is additional guaranteed. (r. 7, 49 years old) Respondents categorize subjects and conditions, present in their contexts of social interaction, to measure different degrees of risk. The category “woman of the house” isn’t restricted only for the wife, also involving women that have particular attributes with the space in the “house”. This is, consequently, a “language of relations” (greater than substantive attribute!) as Goffman advocates about stigma a language produced inside a broader internet of meanings. Certainly one of the respondents, one example is, will not use condoms inside the extramarital connection using a “girlfriend”. The truth that the “girlfriend” is married to one more man (taking the spot of “woman from the house”), moreover towards the long-term “dating”, justifies for him the unprotected sex. When I am dating in some cases it passes, devoid of a condom. But not anybody (…) There is a woman … but I know her for nine years (…) Sometimes, I don’t use condom, no. But if I get a lady I don’t know, I have to work with. (…) She’s a married woman. (…) I usually pass by there, I see her each of the time. (r. 12, 54 years old) We see that the usage of condoms, despite the fact that not consistent, is extra associated towards the space of your “street”, as a strategy to meet the BAY-876 so-called “men’s needs” for sex, possibly extra present in lengthy routes. Quite a few from the girls who populate the contexts of social interaction of truck drivers, in particular these involved with sexual service, are considered to be “anyone”; thatDOI:ten.1590S1518-8787.Vulnerability of truck drivers to HIVAIDSMagno L Castellanos MEPis, as an individual without having bonds and who has no key concerns with all the threat of infection by diseases “rotten women” within the words of a inte.