Nearly half of new HIV infections are among young, black males

[Piff Perkins]

Not surprised by this. There's no excuse for this in 2012, in this country. We laugh about the shyt but a lot of dudes simply won't wear condoms. You can't prioritize 10-20 minutes of unprotected sex over being sick for the rest of your life. I don't care if its Beyonce, I'm wrapping up.

Also these gay nikkas? Lets be real: a lot of "straight" nikkas are fukking trannies and getting head from gays. Everyone looking to feel good not thinking about what they doing. It starts with having female friends who have gay friends. You make fun of him, he makes fun if you, pretty soon you friends with this gay nikka and he offers you head. I've seen this shyt happen breh, these gay nikkas are predators of weak desperate dudes.

Not all gay people are like this, I'm talking about the flamboyant ones who sit around gossiping with ugly bytches

 

[PartyHeart]

Any way you cut it. There are less heterosexual men living with the desease then there are women. My graph shows that it is HOMOSEXUAL men first then women, then everybody else. Black men are most likely to go to jail, and lie about their sexual experiences, the numbers on this chart are most likely an over estimate. And even with their high numbers there are still more women who have the disease. The only way to catch HIV is through a mucus membrane, the urethra is a small protected opening that isn't very susceptible to outside infection. Anus's and vaginas are made up of ALL mucus membrane which is why they contract diseases at a much higher rate. It is the person who is being penetrated who is more at risk.

The same studies show that it has NOTHING to do with one goup being more promiscuous than another. Black men are having the same amount of unprotected sex as anyone else. The biggest factor in talking about std's is poverty. Black people are more likely to be living without access to healthcare, therefore they are more likely to spread disease, it has nothing to do with a highly sexualized culture.

It is a complete fallacy to think that behavior has nothing to do with it and its as simple as biology and membranes. If I am a woman, and I have one partner whom I have protected sex with, and you are a man whom has a lot of sex with a lot of different partners, you are higher risk to contract the disease than I am. And it is a recipe for disaster to think otherwise. If you want to get deeper into it, categories actually break down even further than simply homosexual and heterosexual, and those categories include high risk behavior (beyond injection drug use) which includes promiscuity. And there are other factors that aren't even being considered such as uncircumcised and not, level of HIV in the blood at the time of intercourse, etc.

 

[superunknown23]

It's something I just can't understand: nikkas still don't wanna use condoms

 

[MeachTheMonster]

It is a complete fallacy to think that behavior has nothing to do with it and its as simple as biology and membranes. If I am a woman, and I have one partner whom I have protected sex with, and you are a man whom has a lot of sex with a lot of different partners, you are higher risk to contract the disease than I am. And it is a recipe for disaster to think otherwise. If you want to get deeper into it, categories actually break down even further than simply homosexual and heterosexual, and those categories include high risk behavior (beyond injection drug use) which includes promiscuity. And there are other factors that aren't even being considered such as uncircumcised and not, level of HIV in the blood at the time of intercourse, etc.

not if your one partner is out getting his culo blasted on the weekends

I'm not saying behavior has nothing to do with it. I'm saying black men and women's behavior isn't any different from white people's behavior when it comes to sex. All of the other contributing factors is what causes the disparity between groups. If you ignore race and gender, you will see that those who live in poverty are at a greater risk to contract the disease, and it's not because they are having more sex. Diagnoses and treatment make the desease much harder to spread. Black people are less likely to be diagnosed or have proper treatment, therefore they are more likely to spread the desease.

Here, something else from the CDC.

Today, AIDS continues to directly affect thousands of gay and bisexual men and injecting drug users every year, but it has also become a serious problem among Black Americans and, more recently, among the Hispanic/Latino population. However, it is not necessarily individual behaviour, but rather a person's sexual network which determines an individual's HIV risk in the USA. Therefore, black males are much more likely to be infected because of the high prevalence in this community and a tendency to choose racially similar partners as opposed to simply high-risk behaviour.

Wealth status also determines the likelihood of HIV infection in the USA. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2010 showed that in America's poorest urban neighbourhoods HIV prevalence was 2.1 percent among heterosexuals, or more than 4 times the national average.8 Race or ethnicity did not account for any significant differences within the high-poverty groups studied. Rather, higher HIV risk within poor urban areas was attributed to, among other factors, high HIV prevalence, limited access to health care and other basic services, and high rates of substance abuse and incarceration. Socioeconomic status and HIV prevalence are also linked among men who have sex with men.

 

[PartyHeart]

Keep in mind I am not attempting to refute the idea that gay males are not primarily at risk, they absolutely are, because they engage in the most dangerous form of sex. I'm refuting the idea that it is so negligible of a concern for straight males because of transmission rates. As shown, vaginal transmission is very improbable either way. It is about exposure (particularly to a high risk or already infected group), which is actually what the figures you posted base all their numbers on. Its all about exposure in short. Heterosexual females are more exposed to the most at risk group (often unbeknownst to them) than heterosexual males, and thus the numbers look the way they do. Its not a membrane or penis thing, if it were the differences btwn hetero male and female would be as insignificant as their transmission rates are in some tests.

If more heterosexual females continue to contract the disease, numbers will increase for hetero males because they will be more exposed to it. Their penis won't protect them, and if even less so if they are promiscuous, which yes our community encourages. What I'm saying is that this immunity hetero men think they have isn't something that is static or biological at all. Right now it seems so, because the pool they choose from isn't that risky of a group by the number.

 

[BrothaZay]

In 2010, 72 percent of the estimated 12,000 new HIV infections in young people occurred in young men who have sex with men, and nearly half of new infections were among young, black males.

smh, we are so in denial about this gay sh1t.

4,320

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Keep in mind I am not attempting to refute the idea that gay males are not primarily at risk, they absolutely are, because they engage in the most dangerous form of sex. I'm refuting the idea that it is so negligible of a concern for straight males because of transmission rates. As shown, vaginal transmission is very improbable either way. It is about exposure (particularly to a high risk or already infected group), which is actually what the figures you posted base all their numbers on. Heterosexual females are more exposed to the most at risk group (often unbeknownst to them) than heterosexual males, and thus the numbers look the way they do. Its not a membrane or penis thing, if it were the differences btwn hetero male and female would be as insignificant as their transmission rates are in some tests.

male to female transmission rates are double that of woman to male. And female infections are more than double that of heterosexual males. This is a statistical truth, and the biology, and science behind the issue supports these numbers.

If more heterosexual females continue to contract the disease, numbers will increase for hetero males because they will be more exposed to it. Their penis won't protect them sory, and if even more so if they are promiscuous, which yes our community encourages. What I'm saying is that this immunity hetero men think they have isn't something that is static or biological at all. Right now it seems so, because the pool they choose from isn't that risky of a group by the number.

so we just ignore proven science, biology, and statistics and just go with your opinion?

 

[superunknown23]

Infected gay nikkas staying in the closet and fukking our women

 

[Silver Surfer]

downlow brother

 

[PartyHeart]

male to female transmission rates are double that of woman to male. And female infections are more than double that of heterosexual males. This is a statistical truth, and the biology, and science behind the issue supports these numbers.


so we just ignore proven science, biology, and statistics and just go with your opinion?

Double as in .08% to .04% for women and men in vaginal sex. How much of a difference in your life savings would you put on a chance of .08% in comparison to .04%

Also, read for yourself that those studies did not control for the factors I listed above, including level of HIV in the blood or circumcision. Look, many studies have been done of this subject, and many variants in the transmission rates have been found between all of the groups. Hetero women are more at risk in comparison to hetero men, no one has disputed that, hell lesbians are the least at risk of all, but my first post to you was correcting you about your use of numbers.

As for infections, I explained that in my post. You cannot use numbers to prove what you are trying to prove because as I stated the risk of exposure is clearly different for heterosexual males and heterosexual females because of the intermixing of MSM in the hetero female dating pool. This will obviously skew the numbers in practice.

 

[Chris.B]

Double as in .08% to .04% for women and men in vaginal sex. How much of a difference in your life savings would you put on a chance of .08% in comparison to .04%

Also, read for yourself that those studies did not control for the factors I listed above, including level of HIV in the blood or circumcision. Look, many studies have been done of this subject, and many variants in the transmission rates have been found between all of the groups. Hetero women are more at risk in comparison to hetero men, no one has disputed that, hell lesbians are the least at risk of all, but my first post to you was correcting you about your use of numbers.

As for infections, I explained that in my post. You cannot use numbers to prove what you are trying to prove because as I stated the risk of exposure is clearly different for heterosexual males and heterosexual females because of the intermixing of MSM in the hetero female dating pool. This will obviously skew the numbers in practice.

Just admit it...you like to take it up the ass....

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Double as in .08% to .04% for women and men in vaginal sex. How much of a difference in your life savings would you put on a chance of .08% in comparison to .04%

Also, read for yourself that those studies did not control for the factors I listed above, including level of HIV in the blood or circumcision. Look, many studies have been done of this subject, and many variants in the transmission rates have been found between all of the groups. Hetero women are more at risk in comparison to hetero men, no one has disputed that, hell lesbians are the least at risk of all, but my first post to you was correcting you about your use of numbers.

As for infections, I explained that in my post. You cannot use numbers to prove what you are trying to prove because as I stated the risk of exposure is clearly different for heterosexual males and heterosexual females because of the intermixing of MSM in the hetero female dating pool. This will obviously skew the numbers in practice.

Double is double. The chances are already low either way. One is 2x that of the other, and real life statistics back up the science. The level of HIV in the blood stems back to poverty and proper healthcare. Less treatment= more infections. Most black men are circumcised so I don't know how that would increase our numbers. Circumcision effects other STD transmission but not so much with HIV.

You came in to try to defend women, cause you thought I was blaming them for the spread of the disease. Women don't spread the disease very much at all, which is why lesbians don't contract it at all. It is the men who get analy penetrated who are spreading the desease. If it was just left up to all hetero sex, the desease wouldn't even be worth addressing.

 

[rapbeats]

OK, I've heard enough and its funny yall just now reading this stuff. me and the wife went round and round about these numbers 6 months ago with that CDC chart.

dont buy that "blacks are hyper sexual, etc" crap.
NONSENSE. remember who's quick to have oral sex and call it puritan sex? thats young white girls.

we all know a white girl will do the crazier stuff in bed then any other nationality. thats a known fact that cant be disputed. and we're not talking about outlier situations.

a white girl is quicker to jump on a threesome then any one else. quicker to allow anal then anyone else.

so miss me with that hyper sex talk when speaking about black folks.

black folks are broke, uneducated, therefore they dont have health coverage and dont know when to get tested, how to get tested, where to get tested, if they need to be tested, if they have the disease cause they never go to a doctor when they dont have insurance.
in addition black men are in jail at an alarming rate. we know what goes on in jail. anal sex. we know a lot of inmates have aids and pass it on to the next cat they jump behind. no matter if he calls himself hetero or homo sexual.

here's the reality.

God told yall dont mess around with homosexual sex. if this aint proof i dont know what is. he tried to tell you for your own good.

God told us to have sex with our spouse ONLY. again more proof that he only wants whats best for us.

so think about it. if you reallly want to not catch aids(assuming you dont already have it).

you can do two things assuming you aint married yet.

get tested, if you come up clean.
then never have sex with anyone not named your spouse. and get your spouse tested as well at that point.

now for yall that wont listen to biblical logic that will save your life.

the best advise for you is to. Stop having anal sex with men and/or with women.

thats right straight, hetero dudes. no more backdoor for you. stop having anal sex with these women.

downlow bros. tell the truth and come out of the closet. it aint fair yall spreading a disease yall contracted doing something you had no business doing. in addition you to stop with the anal with woman and men.

so here it is. NO MORE ANAL.
and wear a condom at all times.

that means.. no sex in the pool, no sex in the tub, no sex in the shower. cause if you do that you cant guarantee that you will bring a condom into that scenario. or if you do there's no guarantee it will stay on or work properly in water.

you spending nights over her house. take a box with you. if you forgot the box. goto the store and get a box. if you cant afford a box, you cant have sex. real simple.

ladies, have a box on deck at all times. check the expiration date on them. keep them in the right temperature(see the box for details).
ladies take them with you in the car.fellas do the same.

but again the only way to guarantee not catching it(assuming you dont have it already ) is to not have pre marital sex, not have anal sex, not have homosexual sex.

 

[PartyHeart]

Double is double. The chances are already low either way. One is 2x that of the other, and real life statistics back up the science. The level of HIV in the blood stems back to poverty and proper healthcare. Less treatment= more infections. Most black men are circumcised so I don't know how that would increase our numbers. Circumcision effects other STD transmission but not so much with HIV.

You came in to try to defend women, cause you thought I was blaming them for the spread of the disease. Women don't spread the disease very much at all, which is why lesbians don't contract it at all. It is the men who get analy penetrated who are spreading the desease. If it was just left up to all hetero sex, the desease wouldn't even be worth addressing.

If you double something and its still statistically insignificant, then....its still statistically insignificant. That's basically what you're talking about here.

And I didn't come in this thread to defend women, I corrected your assertion that women had the highest number cases of HIV. Thats still true.

Since then, we have moved on to you making assertions about it being impossible for straight males to catch HIV/AIDS because they have penises and its hard for penises to get it. Or something like that. Thats where we are now.

Last time: What I have been trying to explain to you is that you are putting to much emphasis on these transmission rates that differ wildly from study to study, and not enough on EXPOSURE. Heterosexual women have a higher number of incidences because they are more EXPOSED to the highest risk group, whether they know it or not. But, right now, in comparison to MSM, heterosexual women have fewer cases of the disease, and thus heterosexual men seem to go unaffected. But this is not static as you are claiming, if the HIV rates among women continues to rise.

If you don't believe it is more about EXPOSURE than statistically insignificant transmission rates, look no further than the figure you posted yourself with the breakdown of incidences by gender and orientation. It is no surprise that, unlike other races of women, Black women's rates of infection are astronomical, since they have a higher risk pool to choose from, considering the incarceration rates of Black men (their pool) and the males having sex with males that happens there. Now, isn't it curious that heterosexual Black men, in turn, have higher rates than all other heterosexual women (whom you keep saying are at risk and hetero men aren't) and all other heterosexual men?? It shouldn't be, because THEIR pool is riskier. And as I said, it is likely that that number is under-reported for hetero Black males. And even more of a cause for concern is promiscuous behavior prevalent and encouraged, since that also increases chance of exposure for hetero men.

 

[Rarely-Wrong Liggins]

It is a complete fallacy to think that behavior has nothing to do with it and its as simple as biology and membranes. If I am a woman, and I have one partner whom I have protected sex with, and you are a man whom has a lot of sex with a lot of different partners, you are higher risk to contract the disease than I am. And it is a recipe for disaster to think otherwise. If you want to get deeper into it, categories actually break down even further than simply homosexual and heterosexual, and those categories include high risk behavior (beyond injection drug use) which includes promiscuity. And there are other factors that aren't even being considered such as uncircumcised and not, level of HIV in the blood at the time of intercourse, etc.

Actually it's easier to get fukking one partner multiple times.