"But they making birth control pills for men!" 
Nearly half of new HIV infections are among young, black males
- Thread starter Skooby
- Start date
Its hard to argue with someone who doesnt understand the research they are hanging onto. In that case, I will make one final attempt to make this clear.
In regards to insertive anal sex:
This is from the link I quoted that you claim doesn't support what I'm saying. Yet here it is refuting itself, yet putting the rankings in a way that does not reflect that. When you actually look at data and understand it, you find out more than when you only skim it for points that you hope back up your argument.
HIV & AIDS Information :: Risk - HIV risk levels for the insertive and receptive partner in different types of sexual intercourse
More evidence in the link above. Scroll down and see yet another breakdown that makes it pretty explicit that insertive anal sex is far more risky than reported numbers for receptive vaginal sex.
HIV & AIDS Information :: Blood viral load predicts HIV transmission better than semen viral load in small study among MSM
More evidence in the link above. This study isnt about the type of sex (receptive or insertive) as much as it is the transmission depending on the substance. It makes it clear that blood viral load is a far greater predictor and transmitter of the HIV than semen. And of course, if you are open to using deductive reasoning, youd put it together than since membrane tearing is some 50-100x more likely in anal sex than vaginal, transmission is more risky in anal of both types than vaginal.
STD Rate Much Higher For Homosexual Men
This study shows that there is a higher prevalence of STDs amongst MSM. And it is of course well documented that chance of HIV transmission is increased when the partner has other STDs. Goes to reinforce that the connection to a riskier group has a huge effect on the probability of transmission. NOT simply whether they are inserting on receiving, because in vaginal sex it is highly unlikely regardless unless other cofactors are at hand.
Finally:
Brings home the point that there is clearly a connection between risk of transmission and the high risk level of the group. So when researchers include the studies in which males are exposed to a higher risk group (sex workers) similar to the way women are exposed to the highest risk group (MSM) their transmission rate increases and is in fact higher than M to F transmission! Again, when you look further, and use deductive reasoning, things become clearer. But when you have an agenda I guess why would you look deeper into research that might disprove your point
Now you might ask why would the CDC choose to rank risk as it did despite all data and even with the conflicting evidence from the metanalysis they used. An opinion piece was done by a scientists a while ago that suggested its being done in an attempt to keep HIV from being labeled a gay disease. Ill post this up when I find a link to it that isnt only on a restricted academic database. But basically this theory can also in a way be supported by the sheer number of tests done on vaginal receptive as opposed to any other sex method. It is more than all the other tests COMBINED (10 to 9).
(And please, dont try to act as if my bringing up a theory is somehow denying statistics, I'm merely actually analyzing the numbers. Which is what any smart person is encouraged to do, rather than take everything they see at face value. And seeing as how the statistics you are holding onto come from 2 tests on insertive anal and 3 on insertive vaginal, there would literally be no reason to not look further. That isn't even enough research or barely enough for a meta-analysis to be done. Its why I have been asking you to actually look at the research they are drawing the numbers from, rather than quote them blindly and then act like you have some understanding that I don't.)
You are taking bits and pieces of studies and painting a picture to support your position. I have read the reports that say insertive anal is more risky than they previously thought it was. And it makes since given our anatomy and knowing how the disease is transmited it sounds reasonable. And I have always said the numbers are cooked to make it not look like a "gay" disease. As I said before I think most of the so-called "straight men" with HIV are either lying or they got it from drug abuse. All I said originaly was that females and gay males account for the most cases of HIV, which is true. You tried to counter this argument by saying black males numbers disprove my statement. So i gave a bunch of reasons as to why black people's numbers are high, it's not more sex, or more risky behavior, it's poverty. That has been proven and well documented.
You have admitted that gay sex is by far riskier, due to anatomical, and biological reasons, but you won't admit that receptive vaginal is more risky than insertive for the same reasons. You admit that black men are most likely to lie about ther sexuality, but you won't admit that this is reflected in the numbers. You admit that researchers and a scientists understand that it is a rare occurance for males to contract it from females, yet you keep trying to say women are giving it to men at a substantial rate.
The fact is after all these paragraphs back and forth we've only proven my first statement. Women and gay men account for most new aids cases.
PartyHeart
All Star
So then you in fact simply think that there are far more gay Black men than any other race. Tell me your theory as to how and why that could be?
No, first of all you were as disingenuous as possible, by splitting the male group into the most risky group and not the female. That is where I corrected you. From there, you started to use the numbers as a means to try to justify your theory that straight men are untouchable by HIV/AIDS. I told you that its not as dependent on insertive and receptive as you might hope, and have given you several studies and even the data you are clinging to that disprove your theory.
And I'm still waiting on you to show me a study that says if you are poor you are more likely to just wind up with HIV without having ever engaged in risky behavior. Again, it is a case of you reading the headline of an article/study, but not going into depth to actually read it.
Stop it. I have said it is more risky a long time ago. What I am trying to get you to understand is that it isn't simply that that is causing Black women's numbers to look that way, because even receptive vaginal contraction of the disease is unlikely if all other factors are held constant, so using logic there is something else at play. So I went on to show you that hetero Black men's is higher than all other races of women, so it can't just be about that, and you again became intellectually dishonest and tried to just paint them all as gay men whom the surveys just couldn't weed out
Because much research shows that they are, including the higher F to M transmission rates in poorer countries. Ironically you keep saying that poverty is the reason why Black people's rates are higher, yet I gave you a wealth of research that shows exactly how HIV is being transmitted in poorer regions (with F to M transmission being higher than M to F), only for you to turn on your heels and just say all the guys getting it are gay
Somehow, you KNOW its only poverty that is driving Blacks numbers, yet when research isolates it to poverty stricken regions, you have excuses for the transmission rates that are available because they point against your theory. Then you just somehow KNOW all the guys getting it are actually gay and not getting it from women like the research says they are lol.And its still just as disingenuous now as it was then. First of all, about 75 to 80% of new cases are gay men, but you of course tried to frame it as if the two groups (gay men and women) were even close to as at risk as the other because they are receiving. Further, you chose to group all women after segregating the riskiest group of men because you know if you broke all groups down it goes Gay men --> hetero Black women --> hetero Black men. Your refusal to examine why that could be just shows you don't know and don't want to know. Thinking hetero men are simply impervious to HIV/AIDS makes you sleep better at night, so you'll ignore all obvious signs that point to there being more to it than that.
There's nothing more I can do for you if you are going to both ignore numbers and not use logic. I think our dialogue is done
PartyHeart
All Star
lol maybe it sounds crazy but its true. General protocol is, if with the research design it is impossible to go back and retest that person with obviously fake data, the data is thrown out. They won't just include it in the sample when it makes no sense.
So then you in fact simply think that there are far more gay Black men than any other race. Tell me your theory as to how and why that could be?
No, first of all you were as disingenuous as possible, by splitting the male group into the most risky group and not the female. That is where I corrected you. From there, you started to use the numbers as a means to try to justify your theory that straight men are untouchable by HIV/AIDS. I told you that its not as dependent on insertive and receptive as you might hope, and have given you several studies and even the data you are clinging to that disprove your theory.
And I'm still waiting on you to show me a study that says if you are poor you are more likely to just wind up with HIV without having ever engaged in risky behavior. Again, it is a case of you reading the headline of an article/study, but not going into depth to actually read it.
Stop it. I have said it is more risky a long time ago. What I am trying to get you to understand is that it isn't simply that that is causing Black women's numbers to look that way, because even receptive vaginal contraction of the disease is unlikely if all other factors are held constant, so using logic there is something else at play. So I went on to show you that hetero Black men's is higher than all other races of women, so it can't just be about that, and you again became intellectually dishonest and tried to just paint them all as gay men whom the surveys just couldn't weed out
Because much research shows that they are, including the higher F to M transmission rates in poorer countries. Ironically you keep saying that poverty is the reason why Black people's rates are higher, yet I gave you a wealth of research that shows exactly how HIV is being transmitted in poorer regions (with F to M transmission being higher than M to F), only for you to turn on your heels and just say all the guys getting it are gay
And its still just as disingenuous now as it was then. First of all, about 75 to 80% of new cases are gay men, but you of course tried to frame it as if the two groups (gay men and women) were even close to as at risk as the other because they are receiving. Further, you chose to group all women after segregating the riskiest group of men because you know if you broke all groups down it goes Gay men --> hetero Black women --> hetero Black men. Your refusal to examine why that could be just shows you don't know and don't want to know. Thinking hetero men are simply impervious to HIV/AIDS makes you sleep better at night, so you'll ignore all obvious signs that point to there being more to it than that.
There's nothing more I can do for you if you are going to both ignore numbers and not use logic. I think our dialogue is done
Your stuck trying to make this a competition between men and women. You took my original statement as an attack on women and as me excusing men for their actions. To me it's not about that, my origianal statement didn't imply any of that stuff your trying to say it did. If anything my original statement implies that gay people need to quit fukking it up for all of us.
As for all these studies and info. Consider this.
One trend that is true no matter where you look is that if the community is poor the studies say there is more female to male transmission. Why is it that poor females are the only ones giving it to men? The poorer a country is the more likely a man is to catch HIV from a woman as opposed to another man.
Another constant is the more open a community is to homosexuality the less straight men who have the disease. In most African countries homosexuality is shunned and even ilegal, in the same countries the female to male transmision rate is higher than the norm. In a lot of European countries where homosexuality is embraced the rate amongst heterosexual men is next to nothing.
Another constant is the poorer a community is the less likely they are to have proper testing and reporting procedures.
I've already given you my conclusion from all the data and info we have discussed. You have concluded something different so i guess we will agree to disagree.