I don’t see anything wrong with quoting accurate statistics on the incidence of STDs in various populations. Forwarned is forearmed, and all that.
What I do have an issue with is people who use these statistics to discriminate against gays rather than trying to help them.
The reality is that you can be perfectly safe and healthy in your sex practices, regardless of whether you are straight or gay. Sexual orientation isn’t the issue, safe sex is.
[quote]forlife wrote:
What I do have an issue with is people who use these statistics to discriminate against gays rather than trying to help them.
[/quote]
SAVE US FROM OURSELVES!
congratulations on the gay thread Op.
[quote]shookers wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Yea! Another winner on PWI! (BTW nice illuminati comments HH)
Child, no one is stopping you from talking, nor is anyone trying to cover up any facts.
Here’s some facts from the CDC if anyone is interested:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
PDF: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/PDF/us.pdf
OP, you may want to read this if you think it’s a “gay disease”:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa21.htm
These are all gov websites. I trust them like I trust Obama and his boss Nancy.
If HIV causes AIDs, why isn’t ‘Magic’ Johnson dead? Why do a lot of people have this benign virus and live? Its like a village where half die from bubonic plague while the other half have the same germ but are alive. HIV is unique in the history of virology?
Its all a scam, and is a lust for power. Its like a new religion, with lots of fanatical true believers.
Please prove anything you just said. You don’t stand up in the face of years of medical research, spout controversial opinions and expect people to believe you without backing it up with TONS of proof.[/quote]
You either believe it (by thinking for yourself) or let others dictate your beliefs. If its 17 below zero outside my house, should I belive my own eyes or Al Gore?
"The first popular misunderstanding to clear up is that “AIDS” is not something new that appeared suddenly around 1980. It’s a collection of old diseases that have been around for as long as medical history, that began showing up in clusters at greater than the average incidence.
2 An example was Pneumocystis carinnii, a rare type of pneumonia caused by a normally benign microbe that inhabits the lungs of just about every human being on the planet; it becomes pathogenic (disease-causing) typically in cancer patients whose immune systems are suppressed by chemotherapy. And, indeed, the presence of other opportunistic infections such as esophagal yeast infections confirmed immunosuppression in all of these early cases.
Many of them also suffered from a hitherto rare blood-vessel tumor known as Kaposi’s sarcoma. All this came as a surprise to medical authorities, since the cases were concentrated among males aged 20 to 40, usually considered a healthy age group, and led the conditions being classified together as a syndrome presumed to have some single underlying cause.
The victims were almost exclusively homosexuals, which led to a suspicion of an infectious agent, with sexual practices as the main mode of transmission. This seemed to be confirmed when other diseases associated with immune deficiency, such as TB among drug abusers, and various infections experienced by hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, were included in the same general category too, which by this time was officially designated Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or “AIDS.”
Subsequently, the agent responsible was stated to be a newly discovered virus of the kind known as “retroviruses,” later given the name Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV."
Now its your turn to pooh-pooh it as a conspiracy website, he’s full of shit, blah, blah, blah.
The problem will never be solved as long as everything else is addressed but the core of the problem.
They say the first step to overcome a problem is to admit that its there. Alot of these men who sleep with other men and say they are heterosexual dont admit to having a problem, and until thet admit to having a problem, it can never be cured. To quote Malcolm X:
"If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, that’s not progress. If you pull it all the way out, that’s not progress. The progress comes from healing the wound that the blow made. They haven’t even begun to pull the knife out. They won’t even admit the knife is there.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
And ask yourself this, if straight women are being infected at such a high rate, why arent straight men being infected at the same rate?[/quote]
What are you, retarded?
The female body absorbs a large quantity of the ejaculate, while the male body only rubs with his mucous membrane -the glans- against his partner’s counterpart.
Man is luckier in that department. Big Deal.
If you’re into anal (which, judging from the SATMA Forum, practically the majority of posters are) the risk increases, for both (although it’s again far, far higher for the passive lover) because more blood is involved through countless micro traumata.
This has nothing to do with being gay per se.
Not all gays have anal intercourse, just like heterosexual couples.
According to your logic, lesbians enjoy somehow the “cleanest”, thus the moral superior sex.
A hetero man with a strong sex drive and promiscuous attitude can infect dozens of women easily while a HIV positive woman has to be a hard working prostitute to come up with similar numbers.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
They say the first step to overcome a problem is to admit that its there. Alot of these men who sleep with other men and say they are heterosexual dont admit to having a problem, and until thet admit to having a problem, it can never be cured.
[/quote]
I agree. Once society makes a place for gays by showing them respect and granting them equal civil rights, it will be a lot easier for people to come out of the closet instead of living a lie due to social/religious pressures.
So the solution to the problem of gay people is that gay people stop being gay?
Don’t feed the trolls.
Makkun
[quote]1000rippedbuff wrote:
Sounds to me like you are trying to justify your bigotry. By saying AIDS is a gay disease, it makes people think they can’t get it if they aren’t gay, which is not at all true. Lesbian sex is actually the safest sex, so you could turn the tables.
In the end it isn’t about gay or straight, it is about a deadly disease.[/quote]
Lesbian sex is also win.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Why is it that you can praise gayness all day long, say how wonderful homosexuals are, say that we need to look pass who they choose to sleep with and see who they are on the inside and all that bullshit and you can be praised and have the world cheer you on, but the moment you spaek out against it you are censorsed, shut up and told how much of a bigot you are?
Why is it that you cant say AIDS is a primarily gay disease, but you have to say “anyone can get it”? Which is only half true? An earthquake, a very minor one that you could barely feel it, occured here in Michigan about 1998 or so.
Now we all know much more serious and devastating earthquakes can happen in California, but saying “Michigan can get an earthquake too” is to imply that Michigan has an equal chance of having an earthquake that destroys everything just like in California, when in reality, Michigan has nowhere near the same chance.
So saying a white farmgirl in rural North Dakota is at as much of a risk for catching HIV as a flaming gay black man in south central Los Angeles is utterly looney, but its portrayed or implied that they have the same risk.
If you say AIDS is a gay disease, which for all intent and purposes it is, you will be silenced and labeled as homophobic?[/quote]
Not homophobic. Just moronic. Anal sex does transmit AIDS much more easily than vaginal sex. Never heard anyone argue otherwise. But anyone who has unprotected sex can and does get AIDS. I have never heard anyone say straight people are as at much risk of getting AIDS as gay people. But it’s a real risk and should not be diminished.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Otep wrote:
clip11 wrote:
What is failed to be mentioned by them is that it is extremely difficult for a man to contract it from a woman. Kevin De Cock, director of World Health Organization stated that “It is very unlikely that there will be a heterosexual epidemic outside Africa”.
http://americansfortruth.com/news/fumento-was-right-on-the-myth-of-heterosexual-aids.html
Read Mr. Fumentos book called “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS”
So if you happen to be a woman…
Because of the way sex is a heterosexual woman is at a much higher risk to get it then a PURELY heterosexual man.
And I use the word purely for a reason. They say black women 25-44 are the fastest growing AIDS group and that they get it from heterosexual sex. But thats only a half true statement. What they fail to mention is that these women are getting it from MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN, BUT STILL REFER TO THEMSELVES AS HETEROSEXUAL!
So when these men are researched, they claim to be heterosexual for whatever reason. But since they claim to be heterosexual, it is assumed that if they have HIV, they got it from a woman, which is not true. They got it from having gay sex. These men who re passing it to women are heterosexual in name, but homosexual (or bisexual) in deed.
There are very rare cases in which a non-drug using, purely heterosexual man who sleeps with women only and have always slept with women only, have caught HIV from heterosexual sex.
[/quote]
You’re an idiot. The reason these women get it is because the men have CONTRACTED it (likely from unprotected gay sex). This is clear proof (along with a plethora of other proof) that the ACT of unprotected heterosexual sex transmits AIDS plenty readily when one partner has it.
The tragic thing is that these women don’t think they need protection because they think they’re in a monogamous relationship. And men do get AIDS for unprotected sex with infected women all the time. Not sure where you are getting your statistics and evidence. Narnia? The Land of OZ? The Kindom of Never Never Land?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
clip11 wrote:
And ask yourself this, if straight women are being infected at such a high rate, why arent straight men being infected at the same rate?
What are you, retarded?
The female body absorbs a large quantity of the ejaculate, while the male body only rubs with his mucous membrane -the glans- against his partner’s counterpart.
Man is luckier in that department. Big Deal.
If you’re into anal (which, judging from the SATMA Forum, practically the majority of posters are) the risk increases, for both (although it’s again far, far higher for the passive lover) because more blood is involved through countless micro traumata.
This has nothing to do with being gay per se.
Not all gays have anal intercourse, just like heterosexual couples.
According to your logic, lesbians enjoy somehow the “cleanest”, thus the moral superior sex.
A hetero man with a strong sex drive and promiscuous attitude can infect dozens of women easily while a HIV positive woman has to be a hard working prostitute to come up with similar numbers.
[/quote]
That was the point I was making by asking that question, with the exception that it has nothing to do with being gay because it does.
I never said men cant get it from women, Im saying its a very rare occurence, and it doesnt happen as nearly as much as a man getting it from a man, and women who get most likely get it from a man who practices homosexuality.
Like I said before yes, a hetrosexual woman in rural North Dakota or Wyoming can contract the virus, but her chances of getting it arent anywhere near as high as a drag queen in L.A. despite what the liberal media may have you to believe.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
I never said men cant get it from women, Im saying its a very rare occurence, and it doesnt happen as nearly as much as a man getting it from a man, and women who get most likely get it from a man who practices homosexuality.
Like I said before yes, a hetrosexual woman in rural North Dakota or Wyoming can contract the virus, but her chances of getting it arent anywhere near as high as a drag queen in L.A. despite what the liberal media may have you to believe. [/quote]
But I thought you said it was a gay disease? How can straight people get it if it only affects the gay-gene?
[quote]Otep wrote:
clip11 wrote:
I never said men cant get it from women, Im saying its a very rare occurence, and it doesnt happen as nearly as much as a man getting it from a man, and women who get most likely get it from a man who practices homosexuality.
Like I said before yes, a hetrosexual woman in rural North Dakota or Wyoming can contract the virus, but her chances of getting it arent anywhere near as high as a drag queen in L.A. despite what the liberal media may have you to believe.
But I thought you said it was a gay disease? How can straight people get it if it only affects the gay-gene?[/quote]
I said it was a primarily gay disease. Just like sickle cell anemia is a primarily african-american disease, but it affects some others. In the same way HIV is a primarily gay disease but it affects som others, and when yousay gay gene I have no idea what youre refering to.
And yes, even heterosexuals who do get it get it from having sex with a person who practices homosexuality. Yes I did say that.
Unless of course, the are IV drug users, then thats another story.
[quote]forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
They say the first step to overcome a problem is to admit that its there. Alot of these men who sleep with other men and say they are heterosexual dont admit to having a problem, and until thet admit to having a problem, it can never be cured.
I agree. Once society makes a place for gays by showing them respect and granting them equal civil rights, it will be a lot easier for people to come out of the closet instead of living a lie due to social/religious pressures.[/quote]
That would be like inviting the fox into the henhouse. Since ‘AIDs’ is mostly a gay disease, letting gays be all over the place invites more exposure to all those diseases which compose the AIDs scam. Do we want that?
There are reasons you’re kept in a closet, y’know.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
I never said men cant get it from women, Im saying its a very rare occurence, and it doesnt happen as nearly as much as a man getting it from a man, and women who get most likely get it from a man who practices homosexuality.
Like I said before yes, a hetrosexual woman in rural North Dakota or Wyoming can contract the virus, but her chances of getting it arent anywhere near as high as a drag queen in L.A. despite what the liberal media may have you to believe. [/quote]
The ‘liberal’ media has never said any such thing. What the ‘liberal’ media has stressed is that safe sex is important because any gender, race, religion, age, and socio-economic status can and does get AIDS. And you’re playing Russian roulette if you think you can just go banging women without a condom.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
clip11 wrote:
And ask yourself this, if straight women are being infected at such a high rate, why arent straight men being infected at the same rate?
What are you, retarded?
The female body absorbs a large quantity of the ejaculate, while the male body only rubs with his mucous membrane -the glans- against his partner’s counterpart.
Man is luckier in that department. Big Deal.
If you’re into anal (which, judging from the SATMA Forum, practically the majority of posters are) the risk increases, for both (although it’s again far, far higher for the passive lover) because more blood is involved through countless micro traumata.
This has nothing to do with being gay per se.
Not all gays have anal intercourse, just like heterosexual couples.
According to your logic, lesbians enjoy somehow the “cleanest”, thus the moral superior sex.
A hetero man with a strong sex drive and promiscuous attitude can infect dozens of women easily while a HIV positive woman has to be a hard working prostitute to come up with similar numbers.
That was the point I was making by asking that question, with the exception that it has nothing to do with being gay because it does.
[/quote]
Because they are more likley to practice anal sex, less likely to use protection, and the disease is already higher in their population.
Your problem is that you’re claiming the mainstream media is saying something it has never said. I challenge you to find me a single legitimate source that claims that AIDS in the straight population is as high as in the gay population or that vaginal sex transmits the disease as easily as anal sex. You’re not going to find that. The point the media, health professionals, and any reasonably intelligent person make is that AIDS can affect anyone and that unprotected vaginal sex can be dangerous. And these are both true.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Otep wrote:
clip11 wrote:
I never said men cant get it from women, Im saying its a very rare occurence, and it doesnt happen as nearly as much as a man getting it from a man, and women who get most likely get it from a man who practices homosexuality.
Like I said before yes, a hetrosexual woman in rural North Dakota or Wyoming can contract the virus, but her chances of getting it arent anywhere near as high as a drag queen in L.A. despite what the liberal media may have you to believe.
But I thought you said it was a gay disease? How can straight people get it if it only affects the gay-gene?
I said it was a primarily gay disease. Just like sickle cell anemia is a primarily african-american disease, but it affects some others. In the same way HIV is a primarily gay disease but it affects som others, and when yousay gay gene I have no idea what youre refering to.[/quote]
Just as there are slight differences between the races (not enough to prevent mingling), there are slight differences between gay people and straight people. Gay people appear slightly physical different to me, and I’ve also noticed a very faint scent difference. Those are subjective, to be sure, but I’ve experienced this effect many times. I can tell when someone near me, man or woman, is gay, and its freaky.