MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I notice you did not list lesbians.
Lesbians aren't included in the chart at the link.
I notice you did not list lesbians.
Lesbians aren't included in the chart at the link.
'Skuze me for chiming in here. Maybe I'm not reading back far enough. But it seems that people are making an argument that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the transmission of HIV. Well, it does. From the CDC:
Transmission Category - Stats for 2008 Diagnoses
Male-to-Male Sexual Contact: 22,469
Drug Use Males: 2,539 -- Females: 1,571 = 4,110
Male-to-Male Sexual Contact and Drug Use: 1,141
Heterosexual Contact with a person who either has HIV or is at high risk: Men: 4,496 -- Women: 8,864
Other: Men: 110 -- Women: 77
From th CDC: Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS
Male to Male sexual contact is more causitive than all other reasons combined. If I'm missing something, please forgive me. I may have misread posts.
Ok, let me ask you a question.
If two gay men who do not have HIV, are monogamous with each other, can they give each other HIV?
Hopefully you can see that it would be impossible for them to contract HIV from one another. Having gay sex does not magically create HIV.
Fact 1: To get HIV you have to come in contact with someone who has the disease.
Okay, Fact 2: The leading cause of the transmission of HIV is unprotected anal sex, due to the ease by which tears and fissures occur in anal tissue. Condoms greatly reduce the risk.
As such, men who have sex with men, represent the group with the highest risk of acquiring HIV, namely due to their likelihood in engaging in the behavior of anal sex. For the record, not all gay men engage in anal sex.
Still with me?
Fact 3: Men who have sex with men represent a small population. In fact, at most they represent 3-5% of the population of men. That means that they are a much smaller pool, and it is much more likely for a diease to get around.
Still with me?
Conclusion: It is not homosexuaity that leads to HIV risk. It is the combination of unprotected anal sex, a smaller population pool, and promiscuity that lead to Men who sex with men being a higher risk group for HIV.
Homosexuality can be practiced with 0 risk of getting HIV. All that is needed is that a gay man know his partner is clean, practice monogamy with that partner, and not engage in unprotected anal sex with that partner until they are sure that they pose no risk to their health. If they do those three things, than they can never get HIV from practicing homosexuality.
'Skuze me for chiming in here. Maybe I'm not reading back far enough. But it seems that people are making an argument that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the transmission of HIV. Well, it does.
Now, back to the partly right. I don't agree that it has anything to do with there being a smaller pool. It has only to do with the fact that homosexual men are more apt to engage in risky behaviors. If they don't engage in those behaviors, they probably have zero chance of contracting HIV. The fact that gay men contract HIV at the numbers shown in that chart shows merely that it's epidemic (due to behavior). Not that any one gay guy is more apt to get HIV.
I don't want to underestimate the fact that men who have sex with men are a smaller pool. If we assume that most MSM (Men who have sex with Men) will only have sex with other MSM, in other words, identify as gay, then you have a pretty small community and the chance for a disease to spread more rampantly is more likely. But I do agree that if MSM didn't engage in risky sexual behaviors such as promiscuity and unprotected anal sex at all, then the fact that they were a smaller pool would be irrelevant.
My main point, which I believe we do agree on, is sexual orientation is irrelevant to HiV infection. It is risky sexual behaviors that is the primary culprit.
For instance, if patient zero (if accurate) were heterosexual, we'd be talking about this disease in opposite terms - much as it is in Africa.
Homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality, does not make one any more likely in and of itself to be able to contract HIV. If you expose a straight person and a homosexual person to HIV they have the exact same likelihood of gaining the disease. This obvious tells us its something else in the community that is causing disproportionately large numbers of homosexual men to have HIV rather than heterosexual men, and that said thing can not simply be their status as homosexuals because it can easily be proven that being homosexual in and of itself doesn't make you more or less prone to gaining the disease. Thus, there is likely an additional factor/factors that is more prevalent in the homosexual male community than in heterosexual male communities. Most evidence seems to point to a high proliferation of more casual sex mixed with the smaller community pool of potential partners to engage in said sexual style with, leading to the higher proliferation of this. Both factors can arguably be contributed to the fact that society and the rule of law denies them the traditional incentives for monogamous relationships while also ostracizing them from being "normal" thus increasing the seeming need to require them to go about things more "discreetly" and on the down low than possible rather than traditional relationships.
Heterosexual people performing the same type of irresponsibility also are more likely to catch STD's than other heterosexuals. For example, individuals that are college aged are more likely to contract an STD than those that are in their 30's and 40's. Shall we suggest then that college causes STD's? Or is it perhaps that the atmosphere and sexual standards at most colleges are different than those that are older and it is that, not necessarily college itself nor the age of the people, that are responsible for the variations?
Similarly with basketball, you'll see that those players who most routinely average double digit points are also the ones that tend to have given the most fouls in a season. One could incorrectly assume then that fouling people leads to scoring more points. OR, you could be more intelligent and look for a more direct relationship, namely that those who play more minutes are both more likely to score points and more likely to have more opportunities to get fouls and thus it is not the fouling but the time played (The behavior) that is the issue.
You have a link to back that up or is this your opinion?
I don't understand that at all.
It's pretty much common sense. Which part of it do you require link for?
It's pretty much common sense. Which part of it do you require link for?
Patient zero - the one who spread the virus in the West was a gay flight attendant - thus, it was gay men who were picking it up as he had sex "in every port" (this was in the late 1970s mind you, when a LOT of people were sleeping around).
What I'm saying is that if said person were a straight male, we'd be talking about how it affects straight women (as it does in Africa).
Show facts opinions mean nothing
I do not wish to report CC. I asked a question to see what was customary. Ease off on the MOD button there Redress. You won't intimidate me. If I am banned for my contributions here, it will be a loss to DP, and I will have lost a place for me to learn from others that express differeing views than I. In other words, we both lose.
Tim-
I'm not sure you understand his point but am pretty confident you don't understand what a risk factor is. A risk factor implies no causal relationship. In what you quoted, Hicup did not claim that "homsexuality itself" causes HIV.Again, that is either intentionally dishonest or ignorant. The reality is that while it is a certain type of behavior which causes you to be more prone to being infected. That behavior is called 'promiscuity'. Stating that homosexuality is a risk factor is as redundant as saying heterosexuality is a risk factor. The overwhelming majority of infections in Africa are from male to female relationships. Does that mean that heterosexuals are a risk factor for HIV? No. Promiscuity is. I'm tired of your silly word games now.
I'm not sure you understand his point but am pretty confident you don't understand what a risk factor is. A risk factor implies no causal relationship. In what you quoted, Hicup did not claim that "homsexuality itself" causes HIV.
Whether or not that is true, saying you believe homosexuality is a risk factor does not imply that you believe there is a causal connection.Homosexuality itself isn't a risk factor. Homosexual acts may be, not always though.
Whether or not that is true, saying you believe homosexuality is a risk factor does not imply that you believe there is a causal connection.
In epidemiology, causality is often not known. So the above is actually not true. For example, small stature was recently identified as a risk factor for developing heart disease. There may or may not be a causal relationship there, and by making the connection we are in no way saying that being short "causes" heart disease.In order to be a factor, it would have to have some causal relationship. Otherwise, by definition, it would not be a factor.
CC - you appear to be utterly ignorant on what a "risk factor" is. A "risk factor" implies no causal relationship whatsoever. It refers simply to a variable that is related to increased risk. The relationship can be causal OR correlational.
That you would accuse someone of "lying" for using a term YOU did not understand is quite simply outrageous.
I'm sure he'd appreciate a public apology.
In epidemiology, causality is often not known. So the above is actually not true. For example, small stature was recently identified as a risk factor for developing heart disease. There may or may not be a causal relationship there, and by making the connection we are in no way saying that being short "causes" heart disease.
Male homosexual sex clearly shows it makes it far more likely to contact HIV.
“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC[/B]
No.. he posted an analogy illustrating problems with correlational data. It was not relevant to the issue I was raising with my post.
Show me where Hicup claimed that it wasn't unprotected sex that causes HIV, but "homosexuality itself."
Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV.