WOW!!! HIV is resurgent among Homosexual men, "reaching epidemic"

Make a contradictory point if you can

 

If men who have sex with men are 28 times more likely to contract HIV than the rest of the population, then 28 times what - what is the risk of contracting HIV for the rest of the population?

Like I said before, you haven't even identified what it is that puts a person at risk in the first place. What makes you think that simply taking the percentage of infections represented by the MSM population, and then dividing it by the percentage of the whole population that MSM represent somehow tells you their odds of becoming infected, much less that it's "28% greater risk"? The 56% wasn't produced by the 2%, but a fraction thereof. You haven't even bothered to find out how many people that 56% of infections represents. Furthermore, claiming that MSM have a 28% greater risk appears to presume that merely being a man having sex with another man is the thing producing the risk, which is BS, since they don't all engage in the same acts, don't all have unprotected sex, don't have sex with the same frequency or number of partners, etc. etc. etc.

So two problems at a minimum: You haven't identified what creates the risk, and your calculation doesn't say what you think it says. You're making almost zero effort to convince us. Instead all you have is the empty, worthless rhetoric in which you try to claim it's "self-evident", through which nonsense you're attempting to make yourself appear smarter than everyone else (or at least me), when you most definitely are not.

 

They know the risks, all the power to them.

Anal sex is anal sex. There's the same chance of contracting HIV through it no matter the genders of those involved.

 

Irrelevant to my point of the relative risk of having sex with a woman as opposed to sex with a man who has sex with men

 

What nonsense the gays and their supporters have convinced themselves of. No wonder the rate of infection continues to climb among men who have sex with men. Anal sex with a woman poses a fraction of the risk of anal sex with a man. Just because men in the US have a higher incidence of HIV, anal sex with them poses a higher risk of contracting HIV because they are more likely to be HIV positive. Add to that fact that it isnt just a man, but instead a man who has sex with men, the chances of them being infected goes through the roof.

 

Today's British figures show a slight rise in HIV diagnosis, with the biggest rise (of 19%!) in women of 50 years and over.

 

Yeah, I think this state of denial among homosexuals is unique to the US. Im not aware of ANY country other than the US where 56% of the HIV cases are men who have sex with men. The rest of the gay world outside of the US seems to have grasped the concept.

 

I'm only a supporter of gays in that I think that government has no business being in marriage at all, and that if two adults want to f*** each other madly, they should be able to.

Anyway, I meant in a medical sense. An anus is an anus. If a HIV positive man has anal sex with a woman or a man, there's the same chance of that partner contracting HIV.

 

I will rephrase using your original statement with the updated number (originally "about 19", but now updated to "28"), and will give you one last chance:

If unprotected sex between men is 28 times more dangerous than unprotected sex between a man and a woman, what is the relative risk of contracting HIV for a man who has unprotected sex with a woman?

28 x ? <- What is that number?

This is very much relevant, and if you fail to provide a responsive answer, I will take whatever action I deem appropriate.

 

Nooooo 28 times would be in comparison to the entire population, not MSM which is what the 19 times referred to.

 

You mean anal sex with a woman or a man that is HIV positive there's the same chance of that partner contracting HIV. But of course, with unknown HIV status, the man is much more likely to be HIV positive than the woman.

 

Yeah, that's true. I'd definitely advise men thinking of having sex to get themselves checked for STDs, same as I would heterosexual partners. That's not necessary though. If they consent they consent. It only gets complicated if one partner knew and failed to disclose that he/she had HIV.

 

Majority of men who have sex with men who are HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex. Have no idea if they are informing the other partner

 

So the claim keeps changing. We have:

1) MSM 19 x more dangerous than sex between men and women

2) A man having sex with another man 19 x more likely to be infected than a woman who has sex with a man

3) MSM 28 x the risk of being infected as the average of all people being infected (And when I respond to this specific claim, the only response from you is that it's irrelevant to some other claim you made.)

4) the risk of a woman being infected would be somewhere between 19 to 28 times the risk

5) 28 times would be in comparison to the entire population, not MSM which is what the 19 times referred to

In other words, it doesn't matter which claim I respond to, your answer will seemingly always be a dodge that asserts some different claim, or labels my response irrelevant, or claims you said something else. There is zero consistency between the several claims. There is no attempt to address any of my points. So I will take the aforesaid action that I deem appropriate.

 

What are you babbling on about? I haven't changed any of my claims and have instead made more than one claim. And in all your posts in response, you still haven't presented a shred of evidence that contradicts those claims.

 

You haven't produced anything that directly supports them. Anyone following this conversation can easily see how many times you have moved the goalposts and avoided the points made in response by selective quoting or labeling them irrelevant.

Twist and turn, flop about all you like. It's pretty clear what you have been doing, especially when your claims are laid out together in one place.

 

I produced a link to the CDC report that showed 56% of the people with aids in the US are men who have sex with men, and MSM make up only 2% of the population, which indirectly supports my assertion. Youve presented nothing that contradicts the assertion. And Ive freely admited I couldnt locate the paper that put the risk at 19 times that of women and have avoided nothing. AND the actual risk is irrelevant to my claims of the relative risk. Whether the risk is 1 out of 100 women with HIV and 19 out of 100 for MSM, or 2 out of 100 for women and 38 out of 100 for MSM, the relative risk is the same in both cases even though actual risk is double. I doubt you could understand.

 

Which of your many assertions would that be?

I doubt that you know crap about what I am or am not able to understand, and what you think about that particular matter is completely irrelevant.

My chief complaint, which you continue to ignore, is that the relative risk doesn't tell us anything about an individual's likelihood of actually becoming infected. It doesn't consider at all differences in behavior within the group.

You're trying to get people to believe that merely being in the MSM group means an individual is more likely to become infected as a mere consequence of being a member of that group. You're pretending that being a man who has sex with another man is what creates the risk of infection, while ignoring that the real risk comes from the type of sexual act in tandem with using or not using protection to reduce that risk, nevermind the sexual acts between men that carry little to no risk at all.

As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

This- this exactly.

While within the population of gay men the risk is higher, the risk for two gay men who are HIV negative and monogamous is zero. In that case the risk for a non-monogamous person of any sexual preference is higher.

What I don't get is why a certain select group of posters wants to ignore what I have posted- that there is a general trend within all population groups not to practice safe sex. Rates of STD's are going up because of this.

Heterosexual persons are not safe just because they aren't having sex with a gay man- they may be somewhat safer- but as per my earlier analogy- is it any more responsible to play Russian Roulette with only 1 bullet in the gun than with 3 bullets in the gun?

More effort needs to be made to promote safer sex in general, and yes, this means focusing more promotion of safe sex practices to gay men- and monogamy- i.e. marriage.

 

Both of them.

That's because differences in behavior are irrelevant to my assertion. Even protected sex with a MSM has 19 times(or whatever it is) the risk of protected sex with a woman. Just as unprotected sex with a MSM has 19 times the risk of unprotected sex with a woman.

???? Noooooo having sex with someone in the MSM group means someone is more likely to become infected as a mere consequence of having sex with a member of that group. Because members of that group are more likely to be infected with HIV. Afterall, MSM make up only 2% of the population and yet account for 56% of all HIV cases in the US and continue to account for an even larger percentage of the new cases of HIV. Fascinating to watch you convince yourself there is no more risk to engaging in sex with a MSM. Between most MSM continuing to have unprotected sex and many of the MSM without HIV having convinced themselves there is no higher risk, it no wonder HIV among MSM is so elevated in the US compared to other countries. Here in the US we have a habit of suspending reality in order to avoid offending the homosexuals.

 

Gay monogamy: I love you but I can't have sex with only you.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20069497
found that none of the gay couples in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. In fact, they all engaged in sex with outside partners, even though they professed to be in a monogamous relationship.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy

 

So should we encourage monogamy or not as part of an overall strategy to combat HIV?

 

Monogamy as many homosexuals define monogamy? wouldn't make any difference in the incidence of AIDs among MSM. Monogamy among animals and humans is really only important for establishing paternity.
I think our natural human sexuality is probably similar to Bonobo chimps where sex is frequent, with many different partners of both sexes and providing and caring for the offspring is purely the domain of women. Monogamy and paternity are irrelevant. Society, religion, culture has molded us to be more like mountain gorillas where females have sex with only one male, and both the mother and father with the offspring.

 

There were more than two. Whatever.

Your assertion is what's irrelevant, and has been so since you first selectively quoted another poster way back on page 6, ignoring the rest of his statements.

Still ignoring my points, I see.

Overgeneralizing again, in an effort to do exactly what I said you were doing.

Blah, blah, blah. We've heard this song before - will someone please change the record?

Really boring watching you assign a position to me that is the polar opposite of my actual stance - which you might know if you had actually read some of my earlier posts.

Repetition. I see you have nothing useful to contribute, so I'm not going to waste my time recovering this same ground.

 

Monogamy exists in the gay community. I know this to be fact, because I'm in a truly monogamous relationship, and have been for 13 years - from the very beginning of this relationship. So I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what your BS study says.