This was me, dare I say, almost 30 years ago. You're in a not so great family situation, maybe it's abusive or maybe your mom spends all of her time keeping things afloat because your dad is mentally ill and your sister is going off the deep end with drugs and boys every weekend, and stealing the family car to do it. So you burrow deep, get straight A's and keep a very tight lid on things, emotionally speaking. And while you're still in high school you meet this guy who seems like such a free spirit with an engaging personality, and really, he cares for you and cares what you think and looks up to you for your achievement (unlike your sister who just thinks your weird and stunted because you haven't lost your virginity yet).

And then your hard work is rewarded and you go to college on very beneficial terms and you realize after a few years that the boy was just what you needed then, and now . . . he's not. He's different, wants different things, but perhaps you still love him, and he still loves you, and what's more he seems needier than you ever were. You know what? Even thinking the thought that "he's a loser" is a sign -- that he's not going to be all that he can be so long as you are around. My guy was Peter Pan. He wouldn't grow up so long as his Wendy (that would be me) indulged him. And you won't be all that you can be either, with this crutch of a relationship.

And here's the key to the door that took me forever to unlock: When your family gives you virtually no emotional support, it's almost impossible to abandon the support you found when you needed it most, imperfect and clearly ill-suited to your needs and wishes it might seem at any given time. It's hard to be independent, it's especially hard when your family is always in crisis or can't be bothered to be there for you. But it's still better than dragging yourself and your SO down because you're so afraid of being abandoned. It's not the basis for a relationship. It just isn't.

In order for LW to "move on" emotionally and in order to rebuild his reputation, LW needs at some level to understand how other people see him, not just how he sees himself. One of the steps that LW could take in line with Cary's advice is to recognize how objective circumstances appear to be inconsistent with his perception of reality: he finally has a decent job and is playing in bands. Presumably someone attends performances of these bands. So he has not been completely ostracized by at least some people whose approval he deems to be important. That's an important point, because it seems to me that LW has an Overlay Complex -- He exaggerates the importance of facts that are consistent with a very strongly entrenched pre-existing template that he calls "reality", and contrary facts disappear from view as they are crushed by its weight. We all do this, especially as it pertains to politics, but it's a matter of degree, and it's important to recognize when we are doing this. For instance, whether someone is a "stalker" is subject to interpretation; the interpretation of a "local gem" who might receive a lot of unasked for attention from many men not just LW is likely to be quite different from LW's. Over time, a reputation can be rebuilt. It might even be possible to find the right circumstances for issuing apologies. But not if LW's instincts keep prompting him to undertake the same kinds of behaviors that got him into trouble to begin with.

Clearly, circumcision is not a panacea for reducing the rate of HIV. The rate of HIV is much higher in the U.S. where most men are circumcised than it is Western Europe, where most men are not. The likelihood that circumcision will be used as a justification for not using condoms seems to be somewhere between almost certain and inevitable. At best, assuming no other change in behavior, circumcision would reduce the prevalence of HIV in many African countries from apocalyptic to merely disastrous, and still far higher than most countries would consider acceptable from the perspective of individual or public health. The likelihood that circumcision will be performed by local healers who don't observe sterile technique is yet another cause for alarm -- many Africans are infected with HIV through non-sterile medical procedures.

Considered in this light, stressing circumcision seems like not much more than a diversion from better, and certainly much better tested strategies, for combating HIV.

There are multiple reasons why circumcision is a distraction. There are many countries where men are circumcised in very low numbers but where HIV rates are very low. Condom use is not a complete answer -- but that's what works, primarily, in those countries. And circumcision isn't the simple, antiseptic procedure in Africa that it is in the West, and the chance for circumcision to spread HIV is real and substantial so it might even be counterproductive, and that's not including other usual (if uncommon) potentially adverse consequences of any surgical procedure, even a minor one. Studies so far have been done in true laboratory conditions. Finally, we are talking about countries that find it already difficult to meet public health priorities. It isn't going to be "all of the above," there already aren't enough resources to undertake the proven strategies. I hope I'm wrong about all of this, but I'm skeptical that putting so many eggs in the circumcision basket is the right approach.