AIDS: The Facts.
http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/368.html
In the commentary of Ron Jeremy's movie, Ron said AIDS was mostly a homosexual male's disease and IV drug users' disease in North America. He explained that at the HIV clinic he would get his monthly tests at, ( Read more... )
In the commentary of Ron Jeremy's movie, Ron said AIDS was mostly a homosexual male's disease and IV drug users' disease in North America. He explained that at the HIV clinic he would get his monthly tests at, ( Read more... )
That's scary that 300 (or more) people here have it. Regardless, I have no regrets, if I somehow contracted HIV through one of the women I've been with. I'll tell you why: there are women married to their husbands for 30 years who end up getting it because their husband went out and had homosexual affairs and passed it on to her. How do you come to terms with that? That was on Oprah. And I simply refuse to concern myself with the possibility of STDs from oral sex - the day I do that is the day I worry about an asteroid hitting Thunder Bay.
I think a lot of people who come out with this documentation are either very religious or very jealous. I'm sure if they could have lots of hot young sex they would do it, but if they can't, why should anyone, right? Muscular Development magazine actually made that point because the chances of STDs through oral sex is a lot weaker than other forms of sex. They questioned the motivations as to why even warn people of something of such little medical and scientific concern.
However, HIV seems to be more like diabetes these days; the side effects are manageable with medication and the side effects of the medication are also manageable. It's not a death sentence as it was 20 years ago.
Yes, straight men can get HIV, but it is just less likely from a medical and scientific point of view than other demographics (lesbians are the least likely to contract virus).
If you do the math, 7,000 people in Canada with HIV are heterosexuals. What the propaganda page from AIDS Thunder Bay fails to tell us is that 58,000 people in Canada have HIV, and even then, 2/3 of the 7,000 heterosexuals with HIV are women. Further still, of the ~2,300 straight males with HIV, how many of them were not reporting homosexual activity of some kind or drug use? Now what makes me particularly offended by what is said on the link you posted is that globally 70% of HIV cases are hetero - this stat is obviously useless so why is it posted? Because 70% is a lot scarier to report than 12%. Pathetic. The fact remains that in Canada (last I checked I lived there), 88% of HIV cases are NOT amongst heterosexuals. So I don't appreciate having fear mongering inflated and useless numbers thrown at me.
I'm most concerned with herpes. It reminds me of a running gag Peter and I had about this girl we knew - her crabs got so big she actually fed them special feed and took them to the vet, lol.
You want truth? If you're straight person and you enjoy having raw sex just pull out.
Lastly, Linda I'm not sure what you mean by your quote:
"Why encourage this train of thought that could put a lot of people in danger if they take what you say as truth?"
You mean if they take truth as truth?
I'm saying that the only way for us to progress as a society is to encourage speaking the truth, and only the truth. No propaganda and tired rhetoric. If I support a few lies or exaggerations in this case, where do I draw the line? Next someone will be encouraging me to support all types of Reefer Madness type "debating" techniques. Would you say that the lies prevent more STDs? Because if that is true, I can respect it in some sort of utilitarian manner.
Keep in mind I'm not against anything you have to say here. I would like to see safe sex encouraged too. But I don't want the basis in which it is encouraged on to be lies. Like the exploding arms documentary on TLC - steroid use for kids is bad - but for crying out loud (!!) Gregg did NOT put steroids in his bloody arms, he filled them up with a synthetic oil called synthol, FFS. And the old school Mr. Universe on that show...well he's a smart guy, what with him being a FORMER MENTAL PATIENT.
We should not be brainwashing our children with lies. There are other ways to encourage them to do the right thing.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Intriguing.
I got the stats from that link you posted, although I had read it before. Propaganda and brainwashing are stupid, but yes, people should have safer sex.
Reply
Would you be able to direct me to your source for this please?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I won't accept that. I would be throwing my critical thinking skills out the window if I did. Transmission of HIV from male-to-female is about 1 in 1,100. This means you would have to have 1,100 males with HIV ejaculate into you before the odds strike that you contract the virus yourself. Female-to-male transmission is at least three times less efficient than that. I would need to literally have sex with upwards of 5,000 women with HIV before the odds hit that I get the virus.
Yes, it can happen after one try. Just like I can win the lottery with one ticket. It is possible.
However, for anal-receptive sex, the odds are about 1 in 125 (0.8% per-contact transmission).
Not to mention, Canada-wide, over half of people with HIV are homosexual and only about 12% are heterosexual. I would like to know why Thunder Bay's stats are exactly the opposite.
My main concern when having sex: pregnancy. The odds of me getting HIV or any other STD for that matter are low - male-to-female transmission of any STD is very inefficient. But the odds of pregnancy are much, much higher.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The 85% of people with HIV who are heterosexuals in my educated opinion would probably be IV drug users. Regardless, the stats for Thunder Bay (presuming they are real) are far different than the Canadian average. And I heard we have a very high chlamydia rate here, although I didn't get verification on that.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I would tell you to go ask a doctor about this, but the problem is, not every doctor is well versed in STD transmission efficiency and some are also old fashioned with their beliefs. All I can say is this: if you check out scientific studies in peer reviewed journals on the matter, you will see that I am in fact telling the truth - at least as far as science has found so far (we learn new things every day). Female-to-male transmission efficiency is second last - female-to-female transmission efficiency is the lowest of all. Transmission efficiency through oral sex is also incredibly low. So low it's not even really worth worrying about AT ALL.
Safe sex is good, especially to start off with, but if I have known a girl for six months or more and she is definitely on the pill I'm not opposed to having unprotected sex. Plus coitus interruptus is pretty effective (assuming she is lying about the pill). I'm more concerned about pregnancy, but that's not to say I would have unprotected sex after not knowing the girl for quite a while - although I'm sure we've all made mistakes before, but definitely not something I make a habit of.
In general, I don't think people are asking to see STD tests for people they've known for months or years. E.g., I don't think Ryan asked Linda or vice versa. One night stands are a lot different than long term relationships though.
Reply
Through natural selection, our bodies have created protection systems to prevent us from not passing on our genes to our best possible mate.
An example of this is in the ABO blood system. Lets assign a B blood type for you. B blood type denotes that you have A blood type antibodies. Therefore, as a B blood type, you cannot pass on your genes to anyone of the A blood type, or the AB blood type. This is because your genes will not be acceptable to the egg due to your partners antibodies attacking your sperm, and your sperm attacking the wombs antibodies. There is still a small chance of egg fertilization, but the rate of fetal death would be astronomical.
It's like all out war. The only thing is that if your partner is an O blood type. An O blood type carries no antibodies for either A or B. A woman with an O blood type is natures breeder.
Remember, we're all animals after all.
Reply
Leave a comment