Question - Aids and Gays

[Autodidact]

In order of number of lifetime sex partners: Gay men, Straight men, straight women, lesbians. Men are more interested in having sex with more partners than are women. Women are the limiting factor on straight men, which is why they have fewer partners than gay men. Straight men who are not so limited, that is, who have access to as many partners as they like (think Wilt Chamberlain) often have many, many partners.

And, as Smoke points out, it took gay men a while to realize there was any reason to use condoms, for the obvious reason.

And of course, by far, the group with the lowest incidence of HIV is lesbians, not that anyone ever mentions it.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Women are the limiting factor on straight men, which is why they have fewer partners than gay men.

Don't forget, every now and then us bisexual males come along and just make all those gender barriers disappear.

 

[Mike182]

If gays are the minority, why are there more HIV positive gays than heterosexuals?

My first guess is that gays are on average more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals. Am I way off here?

Firstly, there aren't more gay people with HIV than straight people, gay and bisexual men have a higher population percentage - that does not equate to more people, just a higher percentage of people who fall into that category.

Secondly, gay and bisexual women have the lowest of all STD rates.

Thirdly, are you talking about one society in specific, or the whole world? Countries like Africa would quickly even out the difference in percentage between gays and straights for HIV if included in the analysis.

Fourthly, anyone who chooses to sleep with multiple people is taking the same risk of infection.

Fifthly, we don't actually have a decent historical sample to take from. In the past, HIV death rates were incredibly low, simply because HIV is a deficit of the immune system. Deaths were signed and recorded as the other disease that finally killed the person, without reference to HIV.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sorry, you're focusing in on the wrong minourity to troll here. The highest AIDs rates are in black heterosexual females.

Why?

And why are HIV rates so high in Africa?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This issue has lead to some controversy recently about blood donations. The FDA does not let you donate blood if you are a male who has had sexual contact with another male since 1977. A lot of gay rights and advocacy groups seem to be united in saying this is a civil rights issue. I'm afraid they could not be more wrong.

When AIDS first broke out, there was a known connection to the male gay community. Hate groups exploited this tragic fact against the gay community of course, but even more tragically, the blood banks were hesitant to take the most prudent action and risk being accused of discrimination. People with bleeding disorders, or about 1 in every 10,000 people (which would have been around 30,000 Americans at the time) depended regularly on donated blood plasma at that time. The vast majority of them got HIV and have since died, while people treated this as a "civil rights issue" instead of an emergency medical issue. The ban came too late. The attitude that the issue of blood donations is about discrimination and civil rights, instead of being strictly a deadly medical issue requiring any and all measures of caution, was precisely what caused a holocaust in the bleeding disorders community. We should be committed to "never again" before any other principle, and I'm deeply suspicious and saddened that this is again becoming a political issue.

 

[Autodidact]

Firstly, there aren't more gay people with HIV than straight people, gay and bisexual men have a higher population percentage - that does not equate to more people, just a higher percentage of people who fall into that category.

Secondly, gay and bisexual women have the lowest of all STD rates.

Thirdly, are you talking about one society in specific, or the whole world? Countries like Africa would quickly even out the difference in percentage between gays and straights for HIV if included in the analysis.

Fourthly, anyone who chooses to sleep with multiple people is taking the same risk of infection.

Fifthly, we don't actually have a decent historical sample to take from. In the past, HIV death rates were incredibly low, simply because HIV is a deficit of the immune system. Deaths were signed and recorded as the other disease that finally killed the person, without reference to HIV.

Sixthly, what kind of person takes an illness as come kind of evidence of immorality, or what is the point of the OP anyway?

 

[Autodidact]

This issue has lead to some controversy recently about blood donations. The FDA does not let you donate blood if you are a male who has had sexual contact with another male since 1977. A lot of gay rights and advocacy groups seem to be united in saying this is a civil rights issue. I'm afraid they could not be more wrong.

When AIDS first broke out, there was a known connection to the male gay community. Hate groups exploited this tragic fact against the gay community of course, but even more tragically, the blood banks were hesitant to take the most prudent action and risk being accused of discrimination. People with bleeding disorders, or about 1 in every 10,000 people (which would have been around 30,000 Americans at the time) depended regularly on donated blood plasma at that time. The vast majority of them got HIV and have since died, while people treated this as a "civil rights issue" instead of an emergency medical issue. The ban came too late. The attitude that the issue of blood donations is about discrimination and civil rights, instead of being strictly a deadly medical issue requiring any and all measures of caution, was precisely what caused a holocaust in the bleeding disorders community. We should be committed to "never again" before any other principle, and I'm deeply suspicious and saddened that this is again becoming a political issue.

Well they wouldn't let me donate because I have an ex who lived in Nigeria in 1980, and when I pointed out to them that there are zero cases of female to female transmission of HIV (not to mention that neither of us has HIV and it's 30 years later) they agreed their policy was completely irrational.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well they wouldn't let me donate because I have an ex who lived in Nigeria in 1980, and when I pointed out to them that there are zero cases of female to female transmission of HIV (not to mention that neither of us has HIV and it's 30 years later) they agreed their policy was completely irrational.

But, that's not the policy I was talking about.

 

[Autodidact]

But, that's not the policy I was talking about.

Uh, true. Good point. Still a dumb policy, though.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

But, that's not the policy I was talking about.

I always just lied when they asked me the part about having sex with other men. I used to donate a lot of plasma and, at the time, I really needed the few extra bucks I got from doing it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I always just lied when they asked me the part about having sex with other men. I used to donate a lot of plasma and, at the time, I really needed the few extra bucks I got from doing it.

While I think it's great that you wanted to donate plasma, and I'm happy you were able to get a few bucks from it, I think you must not have realized how serious this is. Now that you know, I hope you and everyone here will please refrain from lying when donating blood. A lot of people are dead now because the blood supply was contaminated, even though all the evidence showed it should have been safe, people continued to get diseases like hepatitis from the blood supply even after the AIDS epidemic. The rules are meant to err on the side of caution and to prevent that disaster from ever happening again, I hope people will follow them. Even since 1993 there have been 9 documented cases of people getting HIV from blood donations, the rules are meant to mitigate the risk.

 

[Alusky]

If gays are the minority, why are there more HIV positive gays than heterosexuals?

My first guess is that gays are on average more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals. Am I way off here?

I would say (if your statement is true) there could be some factors:

-No pregnancy risk means that is there is trust to be clean there's no need for condoms.

-Promiscuity and I would say that is result of homosexual couples and marriages not been tolerated (yet) if you can't marry or have a couple, all is left is sex with anyone as many times as you like.

-Smaller population = faster a disease spread among that population.

-For male homosexuals I would say, they are hornier than girls and a man with a man will have sex more times per day, more sex per day = more risk of infection, even if protection is used.

BTW: I don't think your statesmen is true, at least not for every country in the world.