Ron 10 #76 February 28, 2005 QuoteThis is NOT true I had an MD (who is gay) tell me this. You have proof to the contrary? QuoteThe spread of this myth (i.e. "women don't get AIDS from sex") is the primary reason that more than half of new AIDS cases are women. That bit of misinformation is literally killing people. Did you see me say that "women don't get aids from sex"? No. I said that the transfer risk was greater with anal than vaginal. So: 1. Please don't say I said things I did not say. 2. Provide proof if you call me a liar."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakyrat 1 #77 February 28, 2005 Hey folks I'm posting this link to Rex Wockners column concerning this rare HIV strain as a public service. http://www.365gay.com/opinion/wocknerWire/wocknerWire.htm He kinda gives people hell and tells them to have some personal responsibility. This should apply to everyone gay or straight. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #78 February 28, 2005 QuoteIt is just good to see these morons are wiping themselves off the face of the Earth. Quote Please. Like heterosexuals dont make the same mistakes. Two months ago my co-worker was freaking out. Why. Because he had unprotected sex and was worried since she was late. I know several of my friends who get drunk and forget to use condoms. Idiots, yes. Luckily they didn't catch anything or got the girl pregnant. The same thing has happened to me. As I'm sure its happened to many people out there. Am I an idiot for letting it happen, YES. Will it happen again, hell no. QuoteIf you have HIV or AIDs Why the Fuck would you run around with multiple partners and not protect yourself??? I have no sympathy. Ever been out to a bar, gotten loaded and come across what you think is a cute girl. One thing leads to another and your at her place. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going to happen next. Shit happens, people act like idiots once in a while and especially when alcohol is involved. QuoteAll three New York men who had the illness diagnosed recently, officials said, are HIV positive and have had multiple male sexual partners. How many parteners have you had within the last year? How many partners does the average single sexaully active male or female between the ages of 18-35 have in a given year? Out of those encounters how many involved alcohol or some other drug. Another simple question too. How many sexually active single men and women out there have gotten tested for stds within the last 6-12 months. Don't be too quick to judge people when we too can make the same mistakes they have made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #79 February 28, 2005 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is NOT true -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I had an MD (who is gay) tell me this. You have proof to the contrary? Although it's true a tear in the rectum can more quickly facilitate HIV infection, mucus membrane is a very receptive organ and can just as easily allow infection when infected sperm is retained in either a vagina or rectum.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #80 February 28, 2005 QuoteAlthough it's true a tear in the rectum can more quickly facilitate HIV infection, mucus membrane is a very receptive organ and can just as easily allow infection when infected sperm is retained in either a vagina or rectum. If you had to pick one...Which would be more likley to cause a transfer of the virus? Are you an MD?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #81 February 28, 2005 QuoteAre you an MD? He's not, but I have a pretty strong feeling that Keith knows this information pretty well.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #82 February 28, 2005 QuoteIf you had to pick one...Which would be more likley to cause a transfer of the virus? Prolonged retention because people ignorantly believe they're safer without apparent damage to the mucus membrane. QuoteAre you an MD? Just because one is an MD doesn't make him/her an HIV/AIDS expert.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #83 February 28, 2005 QuoteJust because one is an MD doesn't make him/her an HIV/AIDS expert. No, but based on no other info...I'll tend to go with an MD in medical matters (and the one I talked to was also gay). I tend to go trust riggers for rigging info over jumpers."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #84 February 28, 2005 Yeah I guess you're right. Should I ever get proctitis I'll consult a Neurosurgeon. Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #85 February 28, 2005 QuoteYeah I guess you're right. Should I ever get proctitis I'll consult a Neurosurgeon Well, just because you might be gay does not make you a medical expert. While a Dr. might not be an expert in every area...I tend to trust them more than the average joe. Of course I could care less about the topic...But people always claim that those that don't agree with the lifestyle don't know about it....But when you actually try to be informed they claim you can't know since you don't get reamed in the butt. I asked for someone to provide PROOF that shows the MD in question was inncorrect, and all I have gotten so far is grief. Don't blame me for being uninformed when the best you can do is insult me when I ask questions."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #86 February 28, 2005 I didn't inslut you, I disagreed with you. I also gave you no grief for attempting to be informed. If all you're looking for is agreement in a conversation you should so state at the begining of said conversation.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #87 February 28, 2005 QuoteI didn't inslut you....I also gave you no grief for attempting to be informed QuoteYeah I guess you're right. Should I ever get proctitis I'll consult a Neurosurgeon QuoteIf all you're looking for is agreement in a conversation you should so state at the begining of said conversation If all you are looking for is to insult people...You should just do it....I'd respect you more. I asked for proof, and you provide none...Then you respond in a smart aleck way when I AGAIN ask for some proof. You make claims that people who don't know are wrong, and then when people try to learn you belittle them. Nice."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #88 February 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteThis is NOT true I had an MD (who is gay) tell me this. You have proof to the contrary? QuoteThe spread of this myth (i.e. "women don't get AIDS from sex") is the primary reason that more than half of new AIDS cases are women. That bit of misinformation is literally killing people. Did you see me say that "women don't get aids from sex"? No. I said that the transfer risk was greater with anal than viginal. So: 1. Please don't say I said things I did not say. 2. Provide proof if you call me a liar. Ron you are quite right, the facts are the facts and while there are many cases of females contracting aids it's clear to most people there are a lot more hetero females than gay men. Once again we should be cautious about using unfactored data to draw a dangerously irresponsible conclusion. Responsible health professionals have been advising for years that unprotected anal intercourse is a particular risk factor for the very reasons you stated. Additionally some hetero females do drugs and/or have unprotected anal sex and/or have sex with many partners placing themselves at grave risk of infection. The contention over your post is a classic example of trying to replace the factually accurate information that is out there with inaccurate information that will affect human behavior to force the social change that is desired. In short scare the heck out of everyone with bad information because it's for their own good. By telling everyone they are all equally at risk do you get the desired change or do you blow the credibility of the health services trying to mitigate the risk to all? Worse, do you increase the risk because gay men no longer see themselves as a high risk group and do you endanger young women because bad information has misled them to believe that anal sex is not particularly risky? The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. Just put the information out there and stand by it and don't bend in the political winds that want to doctor the facts presented to send the "right message". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #89 February 28, 2005 >You have proof to the contrary? CDC report, 2001. In the US in the year 2000, 11,000 new cases of HIV via heterosexual contact, 13,000 new cases of HIV via homosexual contact. >I said that the transfer risk was greater with anal than vaginal. While you are literally correct, the odds are not much better with heterosexual contact. (only 18% greater.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #90 February 28, 2005 Quote>You have proof to the contrary? CDC report, 2001. In the US in the year 2000, 11,000 new cases of HIV via heterosexual contact, 13,000 new cases of HIV via homosexual contact. Are there more heterosexuals than homosexuals in the US? I think so. So, a higher number of cases (13,000 vs 11,000) in a group that has less members shows my point that the rate is higher in homosexuals than in heterosexuals....Hell even if both groups had the same number of members (Which we both know is not true) my statement would still be correct."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #91 February 28, 2005 Quote>You have proof to the contrary? CDC report, 2001. In the US in the year 2000, 11,000 new cases of HIV via heterosexual contact, 13,000 new cases of HIV via homosexual contact. >I said that the transfer risk was greater with anal than vaginal. While you are literally correct, the odds are not much better with heterosexual contact. (only 18% greater.) That's not proof. You don't know how many unprotected homosexual vs heterosexual acts between infected people there were. Moreover anal sex between a man and a woman is a heterosexual act. He's literally and absolutely correct probably by at least an order of magnitude. You're abusing this data terribly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #92 February 28, 2005 >While you are literally correct, the odds are not much better with heterosexual contact. (only 18% greater.) Have you gone completely nuts Bill? The last time I checked there was WAY more heterosexuals than gays. Rethink your math. Gay's are at a much higher risk accrording to your own data. MUCH. DO you ever stand down and admit your wrong? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #93 February 28, 2005 >The last time I checked there was WAY more heterosexuals than gays You're right; I put that the wrong way. Heterosexual contact results in about as much infection as homosexual contact, but there are far more heterosexuals to begin with. The next question is - what's the _relative_ risk? In the US, there are fewer women than men who are positive for HIV. So while your odds of contracting HIV with any randomly-chosen person are lower if that person is of a different sex, the odds of contracting HIV from a _known_ carrier may well be different. In fact, if men who carry HIV greatly outnumber the number of women who carry HIV in the US, then the above data suggests that you are _more_ at risk with heterosexual contact than with homosexual (since the odds are so much lower to begin with.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #94 February 28, 2005 Quote>While you are literally correct, the odds are not much better with heterosexual contact. (only 18% greater.) Have you gone completely nuts Bill? The last time I checked there was WAY more heterosexuals than gays. Rethink your math. Gay's are at a much higher risk accrording to your own data. MUCH. DO you ever stand down and admit your wrong? There are actually two ways to view this risk. There's the risk of having unprotected anal vs vaginal intercourse with a stranger of your sexual persuasion and there's the risk of being infected if you have unprotected anal vs vaginal sex with an individual who is infected. The total population only matters when considering the former. Assuming the discussion is about the latter then the total population does not matter. The specific acts between individuals in the infected population matter and you cannot know this accurately (or more vaguely the size of the infected populations and their behavior). Even given this, my observation that heterosexual couples have unprotected anal sex is a completely valid one (as is a bisexual's unwillingness to admit gay partners, or a drug addict's unwillingness to fess up). Statistics can easily catch you out both ways. You have to be clear what you mean by risk and what your're discussing because it affects the outcome massively. Abusing raw data to attempt to refute the long established recommendations and knowledge of researchers in the field is never right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #95 February 28, 2005 QuoteHIV from a _known_ carrier may well be different. In fact, if men who carry HIV greatly outnumber the number of women who carry HIV in the US, then the above data suggests that you are _more_ at risk with heterosexual contact than with homosexual (since the odds are so much lower to begin with.) More abuse of numbers? I'm still trying to figure this one out. A guy's risk from unprotected sex with a woman is there, but limited. Obviously, the opposite isn't true, and since lesbians are at virtually no risk, it's a trivial statement to make that women are safer as homosexuals. And quite wrong to say that men would be. For straight folk in the US, herpes seems to be the strongest reason to stick with the glove. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #96 February 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteHell, go by your DZ and chat with Betsy, she knows HH and a lot of the mods personally maybe she'll see it your way and help you continue your crusade. Oh no you don't mister, you aren't draggin' me into this! My Momma always told me...don't discuss religion or POLLY TICKS. That advice has served me well. Don't worry, I would never drag anyone else into this. Dunno why he would try to drag you into it....... that's a lie - I do know why he did.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #97 February 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteOh no you don't mister, you aren't draggin' me into this! My Momma always told me...don't discuss religion or POLLY TICKS. That advice has served me well. I knew that would be your answer, but I was kinda hoping that would be found out if he went to you to chat about it. Are you serious? Do you think I would drive to the DZ to say, "Hey, check out what Aggiedave wrote...." Are you really friken serious? I think Tx is a little more chatty like that, so maybe that explains why you might think that. No slam intented, just different culture.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #98 February 28, 2005 QuoteAre you really friken serious? Nope. The only serious post I've posted in this entire thread is my comment that I'm sure Keith knows a LOT about the ins and outs about HIV and AIDs and that even though he's not a MD I trust his opinion in this matter. Beyond that, you're apparently the only one who's taking my jokes seriously and quite honestly its got me rolling with laughter!--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #99 February 28, 2005 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is NOT true -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I had an MD (who is gay) tell me this. You have proof to the contrary? Although it's true a tear in the rectum can more quickly facilitate HIV infection, mucus membrane is a very receptive organ and can just as easily allow infection when infected sperm is retained in either a vagina or rectum. Although it's true that rectum tissue has a high rate of absorption, it is not an organ to my knowledge. An organ is comprised of 2 or more differnt tissues, and I believe it is just 1 type of tissue. Suppositories get shoved up for quick absorption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #100 February 28, 2005 Quote>You have proof to the contrary? CDC report, 2001. In the US in the year 2000, 11,000 new cases of HIV via heterosexual contact, 13,000 new cases of HIV via homosexual contact. >I said that the transfer risk was greater with anal than vaginal. While you are literally correct, the odds are not much better with heterosexual contact. (only 18% greater.) Right, and what about hetero backdoor action? Also, the rate of hetero sex is higher than is the rate of gay sex, so the overall rate for contraction of AIDS would be higher based upon the frequency of heteor sex as compared to that of gay sex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Keith 0 #79 February 28, 2005 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is NOT true -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I had an MD (who is gay) tell me this. You have proof to the contrary? Although it's true a tear in the rectum can more quickly facilitate HIV infection, mucus membrane is a very receptive organ and can just as easily allow infection when infected sperm is retained in either a vagina or rectum.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #80 February 28, 2005 QuoteAlthough it's true a tear in the rectum can more quickly facilitate HIV infection, mucus membrane is a very receptive organ and can just as easily allow infection when infected sperm is retained in either a vagina or rectum. If you had to pick one...Which would be more likley to cause a transfer of the virus? Are you an MD?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #81 February 28, 2005 QuoteAre you an MD? He's not, but I have a pretty strong feeling that Keith knows this information pretty well.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #82 February 28, 2005 QuoteIf you had to pick one...Which would be more likley to cause a transfer of the virus? Prolonged retention because people ignorantly believe they're safer without apparent damage to the mucus membrane. QuoteAre you an MD? Just because one is an MD doesn't make him/her an HIV/AIDS expert.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #83 February 28, 2005 QuoteJust because one is an MD doesn't make him/her an HIV/AIDS expert. No, but based on no other info...I'll tend to go with an MD in medical matters (and the one I talked to was also gay). I tend to go trust riggers for rigging info over jumpers."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #84 February 28, 2005 Yeah I guess you're right. Should I ever get proctitis I'll consult a Neurosurgeon. Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #85 February 28, 2005 QuoteYeah I guess you're right. Should I ever get proctitis I'll consult a Neurosurgeon Well, just because you might be gay does not make you a medical expert. While a Dr. might not be an expert in every area...I tend to trust them more than the average joe. Of course I could care less about the topic...But people always claim that those that don't agree with the lifestyle don't know about it....But when you actually try to be informed they claim you can't know since you don't get reamed in the butt. I asked for someone to provide PROOF that shows the MD in question was inncorrect, and all I have gotten so far is grief. Don't blame me for being uninformed when the best you can do is insult me when I ask questions."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #86 February 28, 2005 I didn't inslut you, I disagreed with you. I also gave you no grief for attempting to be informed. If all you're looking for is agreement in a conversation you should so state at the begining of said conversation.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #87 February 28, 2005 QuoteI didn't inslut you....I also gave you no grief for attempting to be informed QuoteYeah I guess you're right. Should I ever get proctitis I'll consult a Neurosurgeon QuoteIf all you're looking for is agreement in a conversation you should so state at the begining of said conversation If all you are looking for is to insult people...You should just do it....I'd respect you more. I asked for proof, and you provide none...Then you respond in a smart aleck way when I AGAIN ask for some proof. You make claims that people who don't know are wrong, and then when people try to learn you belittle them. Nice."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #88 February 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteThis is NOT true I had an MD (who is gay) tell me this. You have proof to the contrary? QuoteThe spread of this myth (i.e. "women don't get AIDS from sex") is the primary reason that more than half of new AIDS cases are women. That bit of misinformation is literally killing people. Did you see me say that "women don't get aids from sex"? No. I said that the transfer risk was greater with anal than viginal. So: 1. Please don't say I said things I did not say. 2. Provide proof if you call me a liar. Ron you are quite right, the facts are the facts and while there are many cases of females contracting aids it's clear to most people there are a lot more hetero females than gay men. Once again we should be cautious about using unfactored data to draw a dangerously irresponsible conclusion. Responsible health professionals have been advising for years that unprotected anal intercourse is a particular risk factor for the very reasons you stated. Additionally some hetero females do drugs and/or have unprotected anal sex and/or have sex with many partners placing themselves at grave risk of infection. The contention over your post is a classic example of trying to replace the factually accurate information that is out there with inaccurate information that will affect human behavior to force the social change that is desired. In short scare the heck out of everyone with bad information because it's for their own good. By telling everyone they are all equally at risk do you get the desired change or do you blow the credibility of the health services trying to mitigate the risk to all? Worse, do you increase the risk because gay men no longer see themselves as a high risk group and do you endanger young women because bad information has misled them to believe that anal sex is not particularly risky? The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. Just put the information out there and stand by it and don't bend in the political winds that want to doctor the facts presented to send the "right message". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #89 February 28, 2005 >You have proof to the contrary? CDC report, 2001. In the US in the year 2000, 11,000 new cases of HIV via heterosexual contact, 13,000 new cases of HIV via homosexual contact. >I said that the transfer risk was greater with anal than vaginal. While you are literally correct, the odds are not much better with heterosexual contact. (only 18% greater.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #90 February 28, 2005 Quote>You have proof to the contrary? CDC report, 2001. In the US in the year 2000, 11,000 new cases of HIV via heterosexual contact, 13,000 new cases of HIV via homosexual contact. Are there more heterosexuals than homosexuals in the US? I think so. So, a higher number of cases (13,000 vs 11,000) in a group that has less members shows my point that the rate is higher in homosexuals than in heterosexuals....Hell even if both groups had the same number of members (Which we both know is not true) my statement would still be correct."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #91 February 28, 2005 Quote>You have proof to the contrary? CDC report, 2001. In the US in the year 2000, 11,000 new cases of HIV via heterosexual contact, 13,000 new cases of HIV via homosexual contact. >I said that the transfer risk was greater with anal than vaginal. While you are literally correct, the odds are not much better with heterosexual contact. (only 18% greater.) That's not proof. You don't know how many unprotected homosexual vs heterosexual acts between infected people there were. Moreover anal sex between a man and a woman is a heterosexual act. He's literally and absolutely correct probably by at least an order of magnitude. You're abusing this data terribly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #92 February 28, 2005 >While you are literally correct, the odds are not much better with heterosexual contact. (only 18% greater.) Have you gone completely nuts Bill? The last time I checked there was WAY more heterosexuals than gays. Rethink your math. Gay's are at a much higher risk accrording to your own data. MUCH. DO you ever stand down and admit your wrong? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #93 February 28, 2005 >The last time I checked there was WAY more heterosexuals than gays You're right; I put that the wrong way. Heterosexual contact results in about as much infection as homosexual contact, but there are far more heterosexuals to begin with. The next question is - what's the _relative_ risk? In the US, there are fewer women than men who are positive for HIV. So while your odds of contracting HIV with any randomly-chosen person are lower if that person is of a different sex, the odds of contracting HIV from a _known_ carrier may well be different. In fact, if men who carry HIV greatly outnumber the number of women who carry HIV in the US, then the above data suggests that you are _more_ at risk with heterosexual contact than with homosexual (since the odds are so much lower to begin with.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #94 February 28, 2005 Quote>While you are literally correct, the odds are not much better with heterosexual contact. (only 18% greater.) Have you gone completely nuts Bill? The last time I checked there was WAY more heterosexuals than gays. Rethink your math. Gay's are at a much higher risk accrording to your own data. MUCH. DO you ever stand down and admit your wrong? There are actually two ways to view this risk. There's the risk of having unprotected anal vs vaginal intercourse with a stranger of your sexual persuasion and there's the risk of being infected if you have unprotected anal vs vaginal sex with an individual who is infected. The total population only matters when considering the former. Assuming the discussion is about the latter then the total population does not matter. The specific acts between individuals in the infected population matter and you cannot know this accurately (or more vaguely the size of the infected populations and their behavior). Even given this, my observation that heterosexual couples have unprotected anal sex is a completely valid one (as is a bisexual's unwillingness to admit gay partners, or a drug addict's unwillingness to fess up). Statistics can easily catch you out both ways. You have to be clear what you mean by risk and what your're discussing because it affects the outcome massively. Abusing raw data to attempt to refute the long established recommendations and knowledge of researchers in the field is never right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #95 February 28, 2005 QuoteHIV from a _known_ carrier may well be different. In fact, if men who carry HIV greatly outnumber the number of women who carry HIV in the US, then the above data suggests that you are _more_ at risk with heterosexual contact than with homosexual (since the odds are so much lower to begin with.) More abuse of numbers? I'm still trying to figure this one out. A guy's risk from unprotected sex with a woman is there, but limited. Obviously, the opposite isn't true, and since lesbians are at virtually no risk, it's a trivial statement to make that women are safer as homosexuals. And quite wrong to say that men would be. For straight folk in the US, herpes seems to be the strongest reason to stick with the glove. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #96 February 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteHell, go by your DZ and chat with Betsy, she knows HH and a lot of the mods personally maybe she'll see it your way and help you continue your crusade. Oh no you don't mister, you aren't draggin' me into this! My Momma always told me...don't discuss religion or POLLY TICKS. That advice has served me well. Don't worry, I would never drag anyone else into this. Dunno why he would try to drag you into it....... that's a lie - I do know why he did.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #97 February 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteOh no you don't mister, you aren't draggin' me into this! My Momma always told me...don't discuss religion or POLLY TICKS. That advice has served me well. I knew that would be your answer, but I was kinda hoping that would be found out if he went to you to chat about it. Are you serious? Do you think I would drive to the DZ to say, "Hey, check out what Aggiedave wrote...." Are you really friken serious? I think Tx is a little more chatty like that, so maybe that explains why you might think that. No slam intented, just different culture.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #98 February 28, 2005 QuoteAre you really friken serious? Nope. The only serious post I've posted in this entire thread is my comment that I'm sure Keith knows a LOT about the ins and outs about HIV and AIDs and that even though he's not a MD I trust his opinion in this matter. Beyond that, you're apparently the only one who's taking my jokes seriously and quite honestly its got me rolling with laughter!--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #99 February 28, 2005 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is NOT true -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I had an MD (who is gay) tell me this. You have proof to the contrary? Although it's true a tear in the rectum can more quickly facilitate HIV infection, mucus membrane is a very receptive organ and can just as easily allow infection when infected sperm is retained in either a vagina or rectum. Although it's true that rectum tissue has a high rate of absorption, it is not an organ to my knowledge. An organ is comprised of 2 or more differnt tissues, and I believe it is just 1 type of tissue. Suppositories get shoved up for quick absorption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #100 February 28, 2005 Quote>You have proof to the contrary? CDC report, 2001. In the US in the year 2000, 11,000 new cases of HIV via heterosexual contact, 13,000 new cases of HIV via homosexual contact. >I said that the transfer risk was greater with anal than vaginal. While you are literally correct, the odds are not much better with heterosexual contact. (only 18% greater.) Right, and what about hetero backdoor action? Also, the rate of hetero sex is higher than is the rate of gay sex, so the overall rate for contraction of AIDS would be higher based upon the frequency of heteor sex as compared to that of gay sex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
