Is it safe to say that the majority who arent gay, and are HIV+ share needles? I ask out of curiousity, but from what I have read, unless you end up in a long term relationship with an HIV+ women (read: 100's of encounters) it is (as my doctor once said) "similar odds of getting hit by lightening.." In other words, 1 night stands are very, very, very low on the scale...
It's nearly impossible for a straight male to acquire AIDS, so it goes without saying that AIDS is on the rise among US gay men. It's on the rise amongst women at an even faster pace, the result of males who double-dip.
I've never heard that kind of infrequency for males getting HIV from heterosexual sex. Any articles or documentation to read to back that up? I'm curious.
How appropriate that today is World AIDS Day: http://www.womenspress.com/newspaper/2004/2019aids.html AIDS on rise among women: http://usinfo.state.gov/wh/Archive/2004/Dec/01-759974.html http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1204/191441.html http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-550052.html I'm sure they're all getting AIDS from those "double-dipping" men...
From your own link: Now I should note that my "if you get AIDS, it's probably your own fault" doesn't apply to people in the 3rd world, who in most cases don't know any better, and it obviously doesn't apply to people who get AIDS without engaging in behavior that should put them at risk for it--for instance, women who have unprotected sex with their husbands/boyfriends, who they believe to be disease-free, in what they believe to be a monogamous relationship, without knowing that their partners are cheating on them with other men (or, for that matter, female prostitutes), or are using IV drugs. For that matter, I don't blame gay men who are in what they believe to be a monogamous relationship with a boyfriend who is getting some HIV lovin' on the side. And I don't blame people who get it thru blood transfusions obviously (altho that doesn't happen too much any more). But if you're having unprotected sex, whether homo or hetero, outside of a monogamous relationship, or if you're using IV drugs, I don't have much sympathy for you.
I concede I mispoke when I said "world". What I really meant was the US, especially as the article was addressing the rise in the US gay population. Again, my sympathy increases or decreases based upon the complicity of the individuals in their own fate and whereas my sympathy may not be great for the gay community in this country, the very community that is possibly most cognizant of the risks (they were on the forefront of learning about AIDS back in the 80s, for crying out loud), it certainly increases for uneducated victims in third world countries who may not even comprehend the disease, let alone understand how their own behavior is part of the problem (especially given the US financial restrictions upon educating them in any way other than counseling celibacy). I know you want to get all righteous and high and mighty on me, but how many of us have sympathy for Darwin Award winners - everyday people that snuff it through idiotic acts? I am not overly sympathetic to smokers with lung cancer, or obese people with hip problems either. If you want to think of me as callous, I can live with that.
I have on a handful of occasions, and have never contracted any disease from it, thank God. If I had, however, I would've had no-one to blame but myself.
Exactly. I admire all forms of legitimate medical research and those who carry out such research, but if you ask me, we as a society are far better off spending our time and money searching for cures/preventions for diseases like breast and prostate cancer, Lou Gehrig's Disease, and Alzheimer's Disease, that are equally horrific but not avoidable thru simple precautionary measures, which AIDS in most cases (particularly in the developed world) is.
HIV is spread thru the transfer of bodily fluids into the bloodstream. In male-female sex, that transfer is going from male->female, by and large. It's darn near impossible, for a male to catch HIV from a female. If a male had something like an open cut on his member, it is possible, but still very unlikely. I'm not saying off-the-wall here, it's just common knowledge. Of course, I'm not implying straight males should go off half-cocked (pun intended) and be irresponsible with the ladies.
Not everyone agrees that all breast cancer is caused by unfortunate genetics. I submit this link warily; please read at least a large portion before responding. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_23.asp
You said it is "the result of males who double-dip" making it seem if all were due to that when that is not the case. Please provide a link to your earlier assertion.
AIDS is a retrovirus, or more correctly HIV, no virus has ever been cured to my knowledge. If we were able to defeat a virus it would be a huge step forward in medicine and human society.
First, let me tell you that you (and anybody else, for that matter) should definitely continue asking your doctor any and all questions you want to about HIV and HIV transmission. I'll answer as best I can but as I said in my first post I'm not a physician. Based on my read of the literature and my interviews of HIV+ people, it's entirely possible for a single act of heterosexual intercourse (a man and woman in the missionary position with no extracurricular activity) to be an avenue for transmission of the HIV virus. Ideally, you always protect yourself and your partner unless you’re in a monogamous relationship with someone and you’ve both been tested and determined to be negative. I am completely straight and based on what I know now, if I were single I’d be using a condom every time I had sex until I wasn’t single anymore. Too many of the HIV+ people I talk to counted on the odds to save them. I make it a policy to take it easy on fellow Red Wings fans, but these statements are not only stupid, they are dangerous. You sound exactly like more than one HIV+ totally heterosexual male I know. If you have been acting on the assumption that you can have unprotected intercourse with multiple women and be safe just because the act is heterosexual, then you really need to go get yourself tested, for your sake as well as the sake of whoever you're having sex with. I mean, where do you think Darwin Award quality behavior comes from, if not from unthinkingly latching on to explanations that tell us exactly what we want to hear?
To be fair to Ian, he did explicitly say that that logic shouldn't be used to justify sleeping around unprotected.
I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here. Are you suggesting that it's just as easy for a male to get the virus from a female as it is for a female to get it from a male?
Classic ignorant, stereotypical, uneducated response to a statement that reflects a different opinion or belief. When did morality and common-sense become an exclusive "right-wing attitude"?
"Eleven years later, Details (the magazine) is asking: "Whatever Happened to AIDS and Straight Men?" The article states, "A disease-free man who has unprotected sex with a drug-free woman stands a one in 5 million chance of contracting HIV." The story by Kevin Gray also cites a joke that made the rounds of the New York City Department of Health as statistics came in showing that the predicted spread of AIDS to heterosexuals wasn't happening: Q: What do you call a man who got HIV from his girlfriend? . A: A liar." "In a 1988 publication, researchers took information of this nature and demonstrated that the odds were 5 million to one against a new HIV infection taking place in a single act of unprotected vaginal sex between two people who are members of that massive population which the CDC recognized and labeled as "heterosexuals without specific identified risk." (Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 22/29, 1988, Vol. 259/No. 16, pages 2428-2432)." Corroboration: http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1997/national-reporting/works/2.html What a surprise! Our federal gov't misuses money and misdirects resources!
I don't understand people who talk about the HIV/AIDS issue by focusing on the choices of individuals. It just doesn't seem productive to me and I don't see how it's personally satisfying, either. Infection is going to happen because in every population, there will be people infected blamelessly, stupidly, or malignantly, but it is most abetted by simple ignorance. Think about how hard it is to deliver even the simplest information to a population of any significant size. Ignore, for the moment, the fact that the information you want to transmit will interefere with people enjoying an activity virtually all of them want to do, or that the information is politically volatile, and focus on basic difficulties such language differences, barriers to good education, difficulty in getting funded...I mean, you name it. Again, you talk to somebody who's infected, the chances are VERY good they will tell you that until they tested positive, they thought HIV was something that happened to people not like them, that they were being safe, and they were confident they were not at risk. A lot of them also looked with contempt upon people with HIV. You don't have to be wilfully blind or extraordinarily stupid to get infected.
No, I want to live in a country where every person is valued. I don't think that's too much to ask for since most developed countries (pretty much) behave that way.