View Full Version : Homosexuality, Homophobia and Evlolution
CORed
11-26-2003, 02:42 PM
This post is related to the thread on the Massachusets gay marriage ruling, but I am making some more general points, so I decided to start a new thread. What I am about to say will likely annoy people on both sides of the gay rights issue.
What is homosexuality? We can make one broad breakdown here. There is homsexual behavior, i.e. acts of sexual gratification between members of the same sex, and homsexual orientation, i.e. a person with homsexual orientation is sexually attracted exclusively or primarily to people of the same sex. When I refer to homsexuals, or homosexuality, I am referring to orientation, although as a practical matter, homosexual behavior nearly always goes with homseexual orientation.
Homosexuality is a harmless disfunction. I know that in calling it a disfunction, I am annoying the gay rights purists. So be it. Sex serves many funtions in human beings, but the primary function is reproduction. Homosexual behavior not reproductive. So, I am saying that homsexuals are disfunctional, abnormal people. On the other hand, I also said it is harmless. Therefore, I don't think that discriminating against homosexuals, whether by passing laws against homsexual behavior, or denying them employment or housing, is in any way excusable, nor do I see any great harm in allowing them to get married, if they so desire.
What causes homosexuality? The only rational answer at this time: We have no idea. There is some evidence to suggest that it may be biological, possibly genetic in origin, but it is by no means conclusive. Human behavior is a complex interaction between biology and environment. Most likely, there are biological factors that cause a prediposition to homsexuality, that may be triggered by something in a person's upbringing or experience.
Should homosexuals be "cured"? Well, as a practical matter, though there are some people (charlatans, IMO) who claim otherwise, we don't know how to "cure" homsexuality. Suppose, hypothetically, that science finds a surefire way to cure homosexuality. In that case, for adults, I would leave it up to individuals whether to accept or decline such treatment. Would a homsexual adult in a long-term loving relationship want to be cured? Would you (assuming your are heterosexual and married) want to be "cured" of loving your husband or wife? For young children, assuming that homosexuality could be diagnosed and cured at that stage, I would leave it to their parents to decide. Of course, risks of undesirable side effects (all medical or psychological treatments have some risks of undesirable side effects)
Homophobia: This is what gay rights advocates accuse anybody that disagrees with them of having. However, since a "phobia" is an irrational fear, I think they they may not be too far off the mark.
Evolution: Those who oppose tolerance of homosexuality and equal rights for homosexuals mostly do so on religious grounds. In this country, they are mostly Christian fundamentalists. They believe homosexuality is sinful, primarily on bilical grounds. However, there seems to be an underlying fear, usually unstated, that homosexuality, if not vigorously repressed will run rampant. There seem to be a belief that discriminatory laws and the disapproval and intolerance of our peers is the only thing preventing a large portion of the population from turning gay. Relax, folks, it ain't gonna happen. The vast majority of us are "wired" to be attracted to the opposite sex, just as we are "wired" to love and care for the children that are produced as a result. Homosexuality, regardless of the cause, is self limiting. Yes, gay people sometimes have children. Gay people sometimes have heterosexual relationships, and marriages, because they are trying to conform to the expectations of society. Lesbian women may have themselves artificially inseminated, or have sex with a man, because they want children. Nonetheless, gay people are never going to be as good at reproducing as heterosexual people. They have to make a determined effort to have children. Heterosexuals have to make a determined effort not to have children. The "invisible hand" of evolution will always ensure that the vast majority of human beings will be heterosexual. Any factor, be it bioligical or social, which promotes homosexuality, will tend to be selected out. Of course, Christian fundamentalists don't like the theory of evolution. It doesn't agree with their strict interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Nonetheless, it is just as much a proven scientific theory as the "Round Earth Therory" or the "Heliocentric Theory" (which Galileo got in trouble with the Catholic church for espousing). Christian fundamentalists see homosexuality in terms of sin and temptation, and fail to realize, that for the vast majority of humans, homosexual behavior simply isn't a temptation.
So, I'm going to offer a suggestion to everyone who believes gay people are sinners. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Let God punish the sinners. You may not approve of their behavior, and that's OK, but tolerating their behavior isn't going to cause civilization to collapse.
elwoodblues
11-26-2003, 02:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There is homsexual behavior, i.e. acts of sexual gratification between members of the same sex, and homsexual orientation, i.e. a person with homsexual orientation is sexually attracted exclusively or primarily to people of the same sex
[/ QUOTE ]
I would argue that there is a bell curve of sexuality from exclusively heterosexual on one end and exclusively homosexual on the other end. There are probably very few people who are at either end of the spectrum.
My wife and I decided to make a chart one time and "plot" the people that we know as to where we thought they would fall (okay it was a boring car ride from Minneapolis to Chicago). The chart had on one end of the Y axis Sexually disinterested on the other Nympho; on one end of the X axis completely Heterosexual on the other completely Homosexual. When we started putting people that we knew in the chart, very few people were on the edges of the graph.
[ QUOTE ]
Sex serves many funtions in human beings, but the primary function is reproduction
[/ QUOTE ]
That might be the primary biological function, but if you think reproduction is the primary function of sex in humans, you're crazy.
[ QUOTE ]
What causes homosexuality?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm one who thinks it is probably an inherent trait. What I can't yet figure out is why hasn't natural selection gotten rid of homosexuality entirely (I would suspect that the answer lies somewhere in my first point which is that sexuality is better viewed as a spectrum than an either/or proposition).
CORed
11-26-2003, 03:27 PM
I think your point about there being a spectrum between hetero and homo is valid.
As far as the hypothetical "homosexuality gene" not being selected out, it may be something like a lethal recessive. It takes a long time for lethal recessives to be selected out because they are only lethal if an individual is homozygous for the lethal version (both copies of the gene are the lethal version). Also, it turns out that some lethal recessives have survival value for individuals who are heterozygous (one copy is the lethal version, one copy is the normal version). For example, the sickle cell gene: Heterozyougs individuals are more resistant to Malaria. Cystic fibrosis: heterozygous individuals are more resistant to water-borne diahreal diseases.
What the survival value of the hypothetical gay gene might be for heterozyogous heterosexuals (that's a mouth full) might be is anybody's guess. Maybe better fashion sense helps them attract women. Maybe they keep their living quarters cleaner while single, and are less likely to succumb to bacterial infections before they have children.
CORed
11-26-2003, 04:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What about aids?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's a nasty virus. However, one of two things will eventually happen: Either medical science will find a cure or preventative, or, as humans and the AIDS virus co-evolve, it will become less virulent. The latter will take thousands of years, thought, and it could be bad in the mean time.
If you are suggesting that AIDS somehow justifies discrimination against gay men, then you have a very poor understanding of the disease.
'If you are suggesting that AIDS somehow justifies discrimination against gay men, then you have a very poor understanding of the disease. '
so u think having hundreds of 'lovers' and blood contact (eg anal sex) has nothing to do with it?
you think gay men get aids at rate only seen by iv drug users is just a coincidence?
CORed
11-26-2003, 04:30 PM
Certainly, promiscuity and unprotected anal sex increase one's risk of getting AIDS. If people (of whatever orientation) indulge in such risky behavior, they have only themselves to blame if they get AIDS, or some other nasty disease.
elwoodblues
11-26-2003, 04:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
so u think having hundreds of 'lovers' and blood contact (eg anal sex) has nothing to do with it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Right...all gay people have hundreds of lovers. No wonder they're gay.
You should probably support gay marriage then because it encourages monogomous relationships.
so u dont think gays are more promiscuous than heteros ?
(i mean lets face it its the women who r the limiting factor /images/graemlins/smile.gif )
CORed
11-26-2003, 04:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
so u dont think gays are more promiscuous than heteros ?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's likely that, on average, gay men are more promiscuuos than heteros, but as with everything, there's a lot of individual variation. Also, a lot of gay men eventually "settle down" into a monogamous relationship.
elwoodblues
11-26-2003, 04:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
so u dont think gays are more promiscuous than heteros ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. Some are probably really promiscuous, but the majority aren't. If your only experience with gay men is seeing/hearing about what happens at a gay bar/club, I suggest you go hang out at a night club that is frequented by young straight folks and make a fair comparison.
Every single gay person that I know (I know quite a few...I attended an all male college, have many close friends who are gay, and attend Gay cultural events frequently...e.g. the Twin Cities Gay Men's Chorus) is either single and doesn't date anyone, is a serial monogomist (i.e. someone who is always in a relationship - dating someone - but does so for an extended period of time), or is in a long-term monogomous relationship.
'Nope. Some are probably really promiscuous, but the majority aren't.'
how do u explain aids decimating homo population then? heteros have anal sex too although i suppose not at rates of gays.
you think god is striking them down or something?
adios
11-26-2003, 04:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. Some are probably really promiscuous, but the majority aren't. If your only experience with gay men is seeing/hearing about what happens at a gay bar/club, I suggest you go hang out at a night club that is frequented by young straight folks and make a fair comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey we actually agree on something.
elwoodblues
11-26-2003, 04:57 PM
That usually means it's time for you to re-evaluate your position.
Michael Davis
11-26-2003, 04:59 PM
"The "invisible hand" of evolution will always ensure that the vast majority of human beings will be heterosexual."
-This seems inconsistent with your assertion that sexuality is environmentally determined.
CORed
11-26-2003, 05:10 PM
How do you explain AIDS decimating the (mostly heterosexual) population of Africa? Does God hate Africans? Are Africans more promiscuous?
Although promiscuity is certainly a risk factor for AIDS, the notion that only the promiscuous (or only gay men) are at risk is laughable. AIDS has a very long incubation period. A serially monagamous population can easilty sustain an epidemic. We are seeing the first stage of the epidemic here. The disease has been in Africa much longer. Whether we will start seeing it spread into the heterosexual population in America remains to be seen. There is some epidemiological evidence that male circmcision reduces the risk of female to male heterosexual transmission, which appears to be the weak link in heterosexual transmission. Also, the presence of other STD's in a male increases his risk of catching the disease from a woman, which may account for the higher rate of heterosexual AIDS in the third world, where such diseases are not as well controlled as here.
Michael Davis
11-26-2003, 05:17 PM
Different types of sex carry different risks of AIDS. This has nothing to do with sexuality, although if you look at it entirely illogically, you might conclude such.
Perhaps if the powers that be weren't so foolish, AIDS could have been a lesser problem. At least, if you believe the melodrama of And the Band Played On.
-Mike
'Although promiscuity is certainly a risk factor for AIDS, the notion that ...only gay men ... are at risk is laughable.'
yeah ok. sure.
gays and iv drug users are not at a higher risk than general population. if you really know gay people you would know better than that.
btw, why do u assume afrikans are not promiscuous? other cultures have differents mores about these things. look at south africa.
'Different types of sex carry different risks of AIDS. This has nothing to do with sexuality, although if you look at it entirely illogically, you might conclude such.'
how is it illogical?
if groups A is statistically more promiscous and engage in 'higher risk' sex than group B,
then
what is wrong with recognizing that (at least at one point in time) , these groups are also divided along homo/hetero lines?
andyfox
11-26-2003, 05:33 PM
So that we can be entertained.
Michael Davis
11-26-2003, 05:37 PM
Because it is the practice of different types of sex that you are identifying. This is only an accidental quality of sexuality and is certainly no requirement. It is correct to say that people who engage in anal sex are at more risk for AIDS. It may also be correct to say that homosexuals are, but it is much less clear than the first statement.
Promiscuity=increased risk. Sexuality doesn't matter. Anal sex=increased risk. Sexuality doesn't matter.
-Mike
how do u then explain the fact that aids has totally decimated the homosexual population in the US?
my main point is that if youre a gay man u better watch out or you will freakin die.
if youre a hetero you need to watch out for disease and pregnancy, but you just need to take basic precautions.
if youre a gay man, you need to take much more than basic precautions.
the worst possible advice to give a young gay man is to tell him that he is at no greater risk of aids than a hetero and that he doesnt hav to worry.
Michael Davis
11-26-2003, 05:56 PM
"if youre a gay man, you need to take much more than basic precautions."
What do you mean by this? Homosexuals can prevent the spread of HIV by taking the same precautions as heterosexuals. Getting into specifics isn't really necessary, but perhaps wearing a double or triple condom is more necessary for this group, because of the type of intercourse.
If you mean to say that it is more likely that a homosexual's partner has AIDS, this is true. Thus, it is more important that they take basic precautions, but I don't understand what you mean by saying they have to do more than this.
-Mike
'but I don't understand what you mean by saying they have to do more than this.
'
responsible gay men who are not in a monogamous relationship (and have been for some time)
should get tested for hiv and other stds at least yearly, preferebly 6months.
and really gay men need to be almost fanatical about sex, eg, no unprotected sex ever. youd be surprised at the cavalier attitude among (really both gays and nongays), but the difference is that gays are just a high risk group, youre opinion not withstanding.
to sum up, unwanted pregnancies and abortions are the mark of lazy hetero sex , but death by aids is mark of lazy homo sex.
elwoodblues
11-26-2003, 06:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
to sum up, unwanted pregnancies and abortions are the mark of lazy hetero sex , but death by aids is mark of lazy homo sex.
[/ QUOTE ]
Any heterosexual who has unprotected sex with someone that they are not 100% sure is free from STDs is an idiot. No different than a homosexual.
'Any heterosexual who has unprotected sex with someone that they are not 100% sure is free from STDs is an idiot. No different than a homosexual. '
sure but my point is
a) heteros are often 100% sure no std but they forget about pregnancy /images/graemlins/smile.gif
b) homos have *much* higher chance of being infected so any error is magnified there
c) most people are idiots. unfortunately, homos are punished much more severely for mistakes everyone makes
d) because of c), homos must be much more careful.
elwoodblues
11-26-2003, 06:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
homos must be much more careful
[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that you're either careful or you're not. There really isn't a middle ground. It might be safer to play Russian Roullette with a six-chamber gun than a (imaginary) 12-chamber gun, but It's stupid to play either way.
my point, as borne out by facts (such as aids deaths) , is that
similiar to folding on river for one bet in super large pot versus tiny pot -
the consequences are magnitudes graver for homos.
heteros are not careful all the time (as evidenced by abortions if nothing else) and yet there is no real aids explosion among heteros. (in US)
another way to look at it is that almost all adults have herpes - cold sores - orally. im sure i do as many girlfriends and relatives have had them (many children are infected by innocent kisses from relatives), yet i have never had an outbreak. so its not such a big deal as not really any consequences.
MMMMMM
11-26-2003, 07:13 PM
"How do you explain AIDS decimating the (mostly heterosexual) population of Africa? Does God hate Africans? Are Africans more promiscuous?"
I've read in numerpous places (including newspapers) that in (is it Kenya?, where AIDS is so rampant--I forget which African country) that in that country which is so decimated by AIDS, that anal sex is a very common practice amongst the straight population. Maybe it's used as a method of birth control in that impoverished area--I don't know, but I'm sure I read this in mainstream magazines and newspapers. Also it's common medical knowledge that anal sex carries a high risk for transmission of the AIDS virus--higher than vaginal intercourse. Might has to do with the fact that the lining of the intestine absorbs directly into the bloodstream.
'for transmission of the AIDS virus--higher than vaginal intercourse. Might has to do with the fact that the lining of the intestine absorbs directly into the bloodstream.
'
ive heard it has to with small tears in anal tissue which bleed a bit and so you know.
also prostitution is rampant in africa ive heard. (even among married men, etc.)
ACPlayer
11-26-2003, 09:21 PM
Correection:
The worst possible advice to give a young straight man/woman is to tell him/her that he is at less risk of aids than a homosexual and that he does not have to worry.
ACPlayer
11-26-2003, 09:22 PM
I suspect it is a "cultural" thing.
not true. its really not necessary for normal people who take moderate precautions to get tested for hiv once or twice a year, for example.
in any event i have facts to back up my position, (eg, aids statistics.)
if you go around trying to scare people (a la smoking pot makes u crazy) you'll just lose your audience.
if you want to talk to heteros you talk about pregnancy , herpes, gen. warts, throw in some hep C and the clap maybe, and use aids as 'the worst case'.
for homos (at least in big cities) aids is a fact of life and many of their friends or friends of friends are hiv+.
MMMMMM
11-26-2003, 09:34 PM
Well whatever it is due to, it is true that hetero anal sex is a rampant practice in that country or in that part of Africa (far more so than in the US for example). Look it up if you don't believe me. And I guess since it isn't due to genetics it must be due to cultural practices in that region, just as you say--eh, ACPlayer? Only two possible causes for rampant prevalence of that practice there: either genetics or culture. Obviously not genetics in this case, right? So just WHAT is your problem anyway ACPlayer???
M is right every time i travel to africa i end up [censored] in the ass.
MMMMMM
11-26-2003, 09:43 PM
brad here is a surefire preventive method for you: just get an athletic cup and put it on backwards and wear it all the time even while you are sleeping. You'll be just fine on your next trip I guarantee it.
MMMMMM
11-26-2003, 09:47 PM
ACPlayer you can't do math correctly if you try to do math politically correctly
ACPlayer
11-26-2003, 10:36 PM
I doubt that you are speaking from factgs on this one.
I dont know if anal sex is more prevalent in Africa or not and neither do you, except from some vague article you claim to have read. Give what I have seen of your reading comprehension I will just take it with a grain of salt
ACPlayer
11-26-2003, 10:43 PM
Any responsible person advising a younger sexually active person of either the gay or straight kind will provide exactly the same advice.
Now it is true that for men vaginal intercourse is less risky than anal (whether with an infected man or woman) for women unprotected sex is just as risky with an infected man.
Making a differentiation based on sexual orientation is nonsensical.
If you have facts, please state your position clearly and back them up.
John Cole
11-26-2003, 10:57 PM
From Tony Kushner's Angels in America.
Roy Cohn: I'm not a homosexual; I just like to f*ck men.
MMMMMM
11-26-2003, 11:10 PM
Well you're ignorant and unwilling to look it up. The country in Africa that is hardest hit by AIDS has an astoundingly high rate of anal sex among heterosexuals--and I'm surprised you haven't read this somewhere by now. Also, it's not the sort of thing one is likely to misunderstand when reading it. Your ridiculous predilection for political correctness is causing you to make a very erroneous assumption on this point.
ACPlayer
11-26-2003, 11:24 PM
You are offering it as a conjecture for the reason for high AIDs in Africa. Back it up please, or i will continue to right it off as another example of your bigotted viewpoints.
The real reasons for AIDS in Africa is a lack of understanding of the need for safe sex practices, anal, vaginal or oral. Until recently, Mbeki in S. Africa refused to even accept that AIDs existed.
The moral majority in this country fights tooth and nail to prevent education, tying up funding of programs usually over some aspect of the abortion battle.
Brad and you need to get over your homophobia and understand that AIDS is an equal opportunity killer.
MMMMMM
11-27-2003, 02:34 AM
"You are offering it as a conjecture for the reason for high AIDs in Africa. Back it up please, or i will continue to right it off as another example of your bigotted viewpoints."
Write it off, then--I'm just telling you what I've read. Could be what I've read is wrong or out of date, too. Also, I don't have any bigoted viewpoints--I just try to look at the facts, the way things are--rather than how I think things are supposed to be. Some people prefer to start with how they think things are supposed to be...but that is the common path to delusion.
"Brad and you need to get over your homophobia and understand that AIDS is an equal opportunity killer."
I'm not homophobic nor have I written anything to indicate homophobic views. If you think I have, perhaps you should try re-reading what I've written with an open mind, and try taking things more literally.
Also, obviously AIDS is an equal opportunity killer, but certain behaviors carry higher risks. Also, when talking about averages, certain groups are higher risk groups for AIDS. Get over being offended and just deal with the facts please.
nicky g
11-27-2003, 08:54 AM
"Well whatever it is due to, it is true that hetero anal sex is a rampant practice in that country or in that part of Africa (far more so than in the US for example). Look it up if you don't believe me"
Whatever you do, don't look it up on a search engine when you're at work.
ACPlayer
11-27-2003, 11:46 AM
IN today's NYTimes as reported from the CDC
New HIV exposures in US:
gay: 42.1%
straight: 35.2%
Needles: 17.1%
If you have been f'ing around go get tested.
MMMMMM
11-27-2003, 01:00 PM
LOL
andyfox
11-28-2003, 02:00 AM
Well, he and his mentor bad old Joe sure f*cked a lot of 'em.
andyfox
11-28-2003, 03:02 AM
"an astoundingly high rate of anal sex"
I don't know what I wanted to post about this. Jut struck me as an unusual turn of phrase. I guess it's that what would be astoundingly high to one person wouldn't be to another. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
a careful read will almost certainly reveal that that is the *increase* in cases in the subgroups.
i'll let others elaborate.
MMMMMM
11-28-2003, 10:01 AM
higher than other regions or countries, andy...maybe 'astoundingly' isn't the best word...feel free to substitute another if you wish...
ACPlayer
11-28-2003, 12:46 PM
Huh?
I doubt if others can elaborate on that non-specific vague statement.
new hetero hiv infections increased 50% --- from 5000 cases to 7500, for example.
meanwhile in that case still hetero infections could be a totoal of like 6% of all new hiv infections.
its a common statistical reporting alarmist practice. (sids (sudden infant death syndrome) is up 1000% from 1990 !!, reads the headline. meanwhile that means 1/million in 1990 to 1/100,000 now, not quite the epidemic some would think from the headline.)
p.s. all numbers made up just to explain the concept, obviously
ACPlayer
11-28-2003, 01:56 PM
THat study was a break down of the NEW cases of HIV infection reported to the CDC. 35% of the NEW cases were hetero. This was not a baseline comparison.
maybe. maybe not. no link provided.
still. even if thats true. think about it.
even if we take the outrageous case that homos are 10% of population,
then adjusted for populations (hetero population 20 times greater than gay men population)
that means that gays are 40 times more likely to be newly diagnosed with hiv than a hetero couple.
which is significant.
of course you could argue that the homo hiv new cases pretty much cover all of them , whereas in the hetero population much hiv is not detected since they dont get tested as much (or at all). but of course that is an opinion and not a fact based argument.
----------
bottom line. stats u cited say you are 40 times more likely to get hiv if you are a gay male than if you are a hetero. (and this even leaves out risk factors in hetero, such as if their lover was a bisexual male or an iv drug user, or if they dont admit to being or having tried iv drugs.)
ACPlayer
11-28-2003, 02:18 PM
CDC study (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/table3.htm)
For the year 2002:
Number of new HIV cases from hetero contact (men+women)= 12413
Number of new HIV cases from homo contact = 16,944
Total adult HIV cases 42044
off top of my head homos like 100 times more likely to get hiv, and iv drug users like 10000 times more likely (im assuming iv drug use fairly uncommon) than 'average' 'hetero'.
thats all i meant.
the following from cdc pretty much says it all
btw these are estimeates but still they show that gay males have like a 100 (50 times?) times greater risk than straight males. what can i say.
---------------------------------
Male adult or adolescent
Male-to-male sexual contact
16,944
Injection drug use
6,945
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use
1,898
Heterosexual contact
4,937
MMMMMM
11-28-2003, 04:07 PM
"For the year 2002:
Number of new HIV cases from hetero contact (men+women)= 12413
Number of new HIV cases from homo contact = 16,944
Total adult HIV cases 42044"
This just illustrates brad's point, ACPlayer. If the populations of gay and straight were closer to equal, it would be one thing. But they're not. Since the hetero population is perhaps 10 times greater than the homo population, divide the number of hetero cases by 10 (or else multiply the number of homo cases by 10) to get a realistic comparison based on populations. Then it can clearly be seen that homos are at far greater risk (on average).
yes but also thats an 'upper bound' that 10% gay figure.
maybe if u include 'college fooling around' (which heavily weights girl-girl) then 10% sure,
but
when it comes to male-male homo sex vis a vis aids risk,
its probably more like 1-2% of population that has that 'equal risk' with heteros.
ACPlayer
11-28-2003, 05:28 PM
Well, anal sex is definitely riskier when having sex with an infected partner.
However, I took issue with Brad's view that hetero's who are sexually active can take a slightly more cavalier attitude.
The responsible position should be what i said earlier, all promiscuous people should be taking the same precautions and should be getting tested regularly, regardless of the sexual orientation.
CORed
12-01-2003, 06:51 PM
You say that you read somewhere that Kenya has "an astoundingly high rate of hetero anal sex". The logical question to ask anybody that makes such an assertion is "How do you know that?". Presumsabley, somebody took a survey. However, because this is something that people are very likely to lie about (or say "None of your damn business."), it is questionable whether anybody really has accurate data on the rate of hetero anal sex in Kenya, or anywhere else.
CORed
12-01-2003, 07:06 PM
If I am interpreting the statistics correctly, 42% of the new AIDS cases are in gay men, vs. 35.2% in hererosexual individuals. However, the 42% of new cases is in a much smaller population than the 35% of new cases in straight individuals. However, it's interesting (and scary) that there are apparently almost as many new cases in the straight population as in the gay population.
MMMMMM
12-01-2003, 08:05 PM
Well I'm glad you reminded me to comment on this thread.
Since that post I did indeed look it up and found that there is now significant doubt. However it was fairly widely accepted ten years ago that that was the case. One of the articles from a major source noted that it used to be commonly believed (even amongst many researchers). Sorry I didn't save the links, and what I thought true now is in doubt (though by no means disproven).
ACPlayer
12-01-2003, 08:42 PM
That is true. I interpreted the stats the same way.
However, If someone is hypothesizing that this because of the persons gayness then I would object. It is about risky behaviours and not about gayness that leads to HIV.
My earlier post:
The worst possible advice to give a young straight man/woman is to tell him/her that he is at less risk of aids than a homosexual and that he does not have to worry.
Response to earlier post:
not true. its really not necessary for normal people who take moderate precautions to get tested for hiv once or twice a year, for example.
I then found the stats that showed that of new cases the percentage of hetero AIDs is similar.
if u ask me this could indicate (eg, a pointer to further research, not a conclusion in itself)
that
most heterosexuals who become hiv positive through sex get it from association with a 'high risk' group.
i'll let others elaborate.
and note that my advice that heteros shouldnt be as concerned about aids as gays holds only for heteros who do not interact with high risk groups.
ACPlayer
12-02-2003, 03:22 AM
most heterosexuals who become hiv positive through sex get it from association with a 'high risk' group.
Correction: most heterosexuals (and homosexuals) who become HIV positive get it from UNPROTECTED SEX with an HIV positive personl.
Just state the facts. what is "association" "high-risk groups"
Cyrus
12-02-2003, 05:21 AM
Or variations thereof. Sounds like it could catch on 'round bars or in the bedroom.
It has a ring to it, gotta admit.
i can almost guarantee that at least 80% of heterosexual hiv transmission occurs when one partner is either an iv drug user or a bisexual man. ok throw in like prostitutes and 'extreme' promiscuity is u want too. (although i would just say that tremendously increases likelihood of running into one of the original two categories.)
p.s. i came across an article (figuratively of course) that said aids epidemic in africa from prevalence of iv drug use and rampant prostitution, with the unstated fact that condom use is very very low there.
ACPlayer
12-02-2003, 12:16 PM
What exactly is your point?
I can 100 percent guarantee that 100 percent of heterosexual transmission comes from a partner who is HIV positive.
Every time you have unprotected sex with a partner you are risking HIV transmission (and other STD transmission). Make an assumption of the chance that a partner has HIV (say 1percent or whatever) and BZ can calculate for you what is your chance of being HIV positive after 100 or whatever contacts with HIV positive persons.
'What exactly is your point?'
if youre not a member or dont associate with a high risk group you should be much more worried about unwanted pregnancy and ubiquitious genital warts and herpes.
why?
because most people are beat down to the point where they are fatalistic about big things (eg, death), but the thought of itching the rest of their lives must give us pause.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.