obviously its not insignificant if women are catching HIV more than hetero males.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.
I never said women had the highest cases. I said women AND homosexual males have the highest rates. Both have higher rates than hetero men. My point wasn't even about women, it was about homos. Woman catch aids more than hetero men because they come in sexual contact with homosexual men and heterosexual men don't.
I never said it was impossible, just not very likely. You continue to mock and ignore human anatomy and biology, when its all there for you to see. I didn't make it up, I provided a link to proof and you ignored it.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.
Show me a study with widely different transmission rates. HIV rates are actualy going down amongst all demographics except gay men. Like I said without gay men the desease wouldn't be transmited enough to make a big impact on society.
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 MSM 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)?? It shouldn't be, because THEIR pool is riskier. And as I said, it is likely that the number is under-reported for hetero Black males, and it is even more of a cause for concern with promiscuous behavior is prevalent and encouraged, since that also increases chance of exposure.
Why does the CDC disagree with you? According to them it has more to do with poverty and access to healthcare than anything else. And these numbers aren't of "reported" cases they are all estimations and they go by people admitting to their sexual experiences. I'm sure both the black men and black women numbers are overstated.
Also again black men are more likely to lie about anal sex and drug use. If we subtract drug use and down low brothers the black men numbers would be even lower. If it was all about exposure black men and women's numbers would be equal but they are not