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

[PartyHeart]

If it was all about different pools white women would have similar rates. There are more white men with aids then there are black men, so why are white women's rates so low? It's poverty and healthcare not pools.

Because white women are not exposed to a high risk pool of white men who were incarcerated and could have had sex with men.

Your conclusion is flawed because HIV rates are down for EVERYBODY but gay men. If your conclusion was correct rates would be up across the board but they are not

That coincides with my point. If it were just about membranes and who is the receptive partner, it would be hard for the gay population to continue to sustain growth in their rates, unless you assumed that very few were ‘tops’, who all have AIDS, and they are just spreading it to thousands of ‘bottom’ gay men.

Again I never said men were impervious. I said it is not very likely which I have proven to you. One more time it's about poverty and healthcare. Black women are more likely to get it because they are more likely to be living in poverty.

Its not likely, because getting it from hetero sex is not likely period, but not for the reasons you are trying to say. You mean to tell me that a poor Black woman who has no healthcare but doesn’t mess with a high risk pool of men has more chance of getting it than a wealthy Black woman who has great health care and sleeps with a high risk pool of men? And its because she is poor?

there rates are going up because they are having booty sex and they are spreading it amongst each other. Let me ask you this if it's not about anatomy and transmission rates, then what makes the gay communty high risk? Shouldn't they be at the same risk as everyone else?

Anal sex is the riskiest in terms of transmitting the disease. If you think I’m disagreeing with you on that, I’m not, I’ve said that from the beginning. Where I am disagreeing is your assertion that heterosexual male numbers are low because of the anatomy of the penis and because they are the inserters. The numbers are the way they are because they are further removed from the high risk group. If hetero women become a high risk group because of their exposure to MSM, hetero men are not safe because they are the inserters. The safety net hetero men think they have is not static. Hetero Black men's numbers prove it.

No they engage in anal sex so they get the disease. I'm talking about the racial disparities in the numbers. Black people are more likely to catch the disease because they are more likely to live in poverty. Again I'm not making this up, this is the analysis of the CDC, you can ignore it if you want.

The quote you gave from the CDC even said its about the person’s sexual network. And no study I’ve ever read has ever had poverty listed as a reason one might get AIDS above exposure. Please link one.

It's much less accepted in the black community to be gay. And black men are more likely to go to prison. How many dudes come home from jail admitting that got their culo blasted?

Not many. Which is how Black women get it. And then how hetero Black men in turn get it. Is this not exposure to a high risk group to you?

You don't understand your own argument. If it was all about exposure black men and black women would have similar numbers. It wouldn't matter who's homosexual or not because the disease would be spreading equally. Hetero black men would have a much higher rate, they don't because women aren't passing the disease on, men are.

Again, heterosexual Black women and heterosexual Black men are not equally exposed to the disease! A Black women can behave as a normal female heterosexual would (having sex with men) and be exposed to the highest risk group unbeknownst to her. Is there a situation that you are thinking of that I am not in which a heterosexual man can behave as a normal male heterosexual would and be exposed to the highest risk group unbeknownst to him??

You have basically said this yourself in not so many words in other posts. You just keeping getting stuck on the idea that this is happening because they are women and they have vaginas made of membrane, ignoring the fact that hetero Black men don’t have vaginas and yet STILL have higher rates than other race hetero women. You’re attempting to attribute that to level of poverty, but it fails the sniff test. (Latinas have higher levels of poverty and still less than Black men).

In conclusion gay men and women have higher rates because it is much easier for the person being penetrated to catch the disease. Black people have higher rates due to higher rates of poverty. I have provided scientific, biological, and statistical proof to back up my point. You have provided nothing but speculation to refute my point.

Lets kill this once and for all. I knew the receptive vaginal compared to insertive anal was fishy:

Putting a number on it: The risk from an exposure to HIV | CATIE - Canada's source for HIV and hepatitis C information

Look at the table. First of all, you will see, as I stated, that the transmission rates vary wildly. In addition, you will notice that the range of insertive anal sex is much higher on both the low and high end than receptive vaginal sex. The researchers basically took what would be a little more than the median number to come up with a general risk estimate for hetero females, .08%. They then just decided to take the absolute lowest possible range number for insertive anal sex and rank them that way. Despite the fact that insertive anal men’s lowest risk and highest risk, mean, and median are all much higher than hetero female’s.

Similarly, you will notice that on the low end, insertive vaginal is actually more risky than the lowest of receptive vaginal, almost by two fold. The researchers in this case, decided at least to do meta-analysis on the 3 studies available for insertive vaginal transmission (in comparison to 10 for receptive vaginal ) and came up with a modest .04%.

This goes to prove that the numbers have very little to do with who is being penetrated as opposed to who is having anal sex or more exposed to the riskiest group.

 

[PartyHeart]

And just as a final note, if we were to go with your hypothesis that its about poverty, it would actually serve to disprove your point about receptive vs. insertive transmission.

Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per s... [Lancet Infect Dis. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

Studies show that the disease is actually more efficient female to male in lower income countries.

 

[Zach Lowe]

Sucks for them

For gay people, specifically (and I guess especially for gay black men), the best bet (it seems) is to not have sex at all the odds are just not working in their favor

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

 

[NZA]

prison is not a high source of HIV infection, if i am not mistaken, prisoners are tested when admitted and before leaving, and their contacts are notified if they ever test positive. HIV+ inmates are segregated.

this is almost exclusively a problem for un-incarcerated, queer citizens and IV drug users. probably some form of nihilism that comes from the self hate they may be getting from all the homophobia in their communities.

 

[superunknown23]

The sexual lives of blacks, whites and latinos aren't different.
It's just that too many nikkas are too stupid and don't wear condoms...
Way too many nigs just avoid them and go raw (straights and gays)

 

[Will Ross]

Why do people act like black women are only having sex with black men? If anything gay rich white men are the ones spreading it to black women. Back in slave days the white master did not just rape the black woman.

 

[killacal]

Why do people act like black women are only having sex with black men? If anything gay rich white men are the ones spreading it to black women. Back in slave days the white master did not just rape the black woman.

no my nikka. Its downlow dudes going out on weekends trynna get p*ssy and when they cant are fukkin trannys. You remember them sidney starr threads

 

[bouncy]

And just as a final note, if we were to go with your hypothesis that its about poverty, it would actually serve to disprove your point about receptive vs. insertive transmission.

Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per s... [Lancet Infect Dis. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

Studies show that the disease is actually more efficient female to male in lower income countries.

I think it showed that bisexual men are messing with straight women, and those women are giving hiv to the straight men, and it seems anal sex is playing a big part because the study showed that receptive anal intercourse was much higher than everything else examined. Which makes sense because the hiv virus is located in the immune system and the gut is where most of your immune system is located. The intestines is made to excrete out viruses and bacteria, while the vagina is made to defend against them. Having anal sex put's you into close contact with the virus as some fecal matter will always be in the anus, and the deeper you go or the more orgasms she gets the higher your chance of coming into contact with the virus because more mucus will be excreted and the virus will be part of that mucus ready to be excreted, but instead it goes to your penis, and because the rectum is so tight, it will cause a small opening of the urethra which means the hiv can get into your system much easier then vaginally.

I think the reason it's higher in poor countries is because they don't have much living space between gay,bisexual, and heterosexual people, as well as hard drug users, as much as wealthy countries, meaning in places like the U.S., we can separate ourselves from each other as far as dating by going to functions that cater to what we like while poor countries can't do this as easy at least in the poor parts of the cities. Also, they can't come out without being ostracized, so they will look straight, but having sex secretly with other men, and because they don't take it seriously as they would if they was in a serious relationship or being out with who they are, they don't carry protection with them. This is most likely the reason why poor communities in the U.S. seem to be so high in hiv. That, and more blacks get tested due to being in high risk groups such as not being married, and being black. I read a study where doctors don't ask married people or white and asian women to get tested due to being in low risk groups. Remember it costs money to test people so you have to have a certain group where the chances of hiv being prevalent is high according to studies so in this case it's black people, iv drug users, and gay men which is why the numbers will always be high for these groups. It is basically a wheel being turned, that is not going to go in reverse because easy money is being made. It doesn't mean hiv isn't high for other groups, it just isn't found as they don't get tested as much.

Another thing to think about is how anal sex is done in Latin and Muslim or very religious communities as a way to prevent pregnancy and maintain virginity. Combine that with different types of people mingling with each other out of necessity, you can see how these communities have more cases of hiv or other std's then more wealthy and liberal communities.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Because white women are not exposed to a high risk pool of white men who were incarcerated and could have had sex with men.

So only black gay dudes are having sex with women. White gay dudes don't have sex with white women.

That coincides with my point. If it were just about membranes and who is the receptive partner, it would be hard for the gay population to continue to sustain growth in their rates, unless you assumed that very few were ‘tops’, who all have AIDS, and they are just spreading it to thousands of ‘bottom’ gay men.

you are assuming that a gay man has to always pick one roll or another, when in reality they are both "tops" and "bottoms"

Its not likely, because getting it from hetero sex is not likely period, but not for the reasons you are trying to say. You mean to tell me that a poor Black woman who has no healthcare but doesn’t mess with a high risk pool of men has more chance of getting it than a wealthy Black woman who has great health care and sleeps with a high risk pool of men? And its because she is poor?

so if it's not about membranes then why is it not likely to be spread through hetero sex? Your taking the idea of poverty the wrong way. It's not the fact that she's poor that makes her more likely to catch the disease. It's all the things that come with being poor. No treatment means her partner will pass on HIV at a higher rate. People in poverty don't get tested properly, so her mate probably wouldn't even know he had HIV. Lower immune systems due to other untreated diseases makes her more at risk.

Anal sex is the riskiest in terms of transmitting the disease. If you think I’m disagreeing with you on that, I’m not, I’ve said that from the beginning. Where I am disagreeing is your assertion that heterosexual male numbers are low because of the anatomy of the penis and because they are the inserters. The numbers are the way they are because they are further removed from the high risk group. If hetero women become a high risk group because of their exposure to MSM, hetero men are not safe because they are the inserters. The safety net hetero men think they have is not static. Hetero Black men's numbers prove it.

This idea doesn't hold up because if it was all about being "exposed to a high risk group" then white women's numbers would be similar to black women's. There are plenty of gay white dudes to give it to the women, so why aren't they getting it?
the only thing hetero male numbers prove is that the desease isn't transmited from woman to man very often. Across the board no matter how you look at it hetero males have lower numbers than women.

The quote you gave from the CDC even said its about the person’s sexual network. And no study I’ve ever read has ever had poverty listed as a reason one might get AIDS above exposure. Please link one.

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.

Not many. Which is how Black women get it. And then how hetero Black men in turn get it. Is this not exposure to a high risk group to you?

white women are in the same boat. Their men have aids too. Is this not exposure to a high risk group to you?

Again, heterosexual Black women and heterosexual Black men are not equally exposed to the disease! A Black women can behave as a normal female heterosexual would (having sex with men) and be exposed to the highest risk group unbeknownst to her. Is there a situation that you are thinking of that I am not in which a heterosexual man can behave as a normal male heterosexual would and be exposed to the highest risk group unbeknownst to him??

My point is, if it wasn't about the transmission rates in the first place, no one group would be more risky than any other group. Transmission rates are what makes one group more risky than another.

You have basically said this yourself in not so many words in other posts. You just keeping getting stuck on the idea that this is happening because they are women and they have vaginas made of membrane, ignoring the fact that hetero Black men don’t have vaginas and yet STILL have higher rates than other race hetero women. You’re attempting to attribute that to level of poverty, but it fails the sniff test. (Latinas have higher levels of poverty and still less than Black men).

you ignore all the factors that put both black men AND women at a higher risk. Answer this. Why do black people have higher rates of infection? White people have just as much gays and just as much sex. What makes their risk so low?

Lets kill this once and for all. I knew the receptive vaginal compared to insertive anal was fishy:

Putting a number on it: The risk from an exposure to HIV | CATIE - Canada's source for HIV and hepatitis C information

Look at the table. First of all, you will see, as I stated, that the transmission rates vary wildly. In addition, you will notice that the range of insertive anal sex is much higher on both the low and high end than receptive vaginal sex. The researchers basically took what would be a little more than the median number to come up with a general risk estimate for hetero females, .08%. They then just decided to take the absolute lowest possible range number for insertive anal sex and rank them that way. Despite the fact that insertive anal men’s lowest risk and highest risk, mean, and median are all much higher than hetero female’s.

Similarly, you will notice that on the low end, insertive vaginal is actually more risky than the lowest of receptive vaginal, almost by two fold. The researchers in this case, decided at least to do meta-analysis on the 3 studies available for insertive vaginal transmission (in comparison to 10 for receptive vaginal ) and came up with a modest .04%.

This goes to prove that the numbers have very little to do with who is being penetrated as opposed to who is having anal sex or more exposed to the riskiest group.

From your link

Receptive anal sex carries a much higher risk of HIV infection than receptive vaginal sex.
Research shows that the risk of*HIV transmission from receptive anal sex is up to 18 times higher than from receptive vaginal sex.
Receptive anal sex is riskier than insertive anal sex.
Research suggests the risk of HIV transmission from receptive anal sex is 3 to 23 times higher than from insertive anal sex.
Receptive vaginal sex is riskier than insertive vaginal sex.
The risk from receptive vaginal sex is about twice as high as that from insertive vaginal sex.

I don't see any wildly different exposure rates. Your data is pretty much the same as what I posted.

For the last time. If it wasn't about biology/anatomy We would all be at the same risk. No group would ever become more risky than another because we all would be spreading it equally. The only reason you can say that one group is more risky than another is because of the way the disease is spread.

 

[Jesus]

 

[PartyHeart]

So only black gay dudes are having sex with women. White gay dudes don't have sex with white women.




you are assuming that a gay man has to always pick one roll or another, when in reality they are both "tops" and "bottoms"




so if it's not about membranes then why is it not likely to be spread through hetero sex? Your taking the idea of poverty the wrong way. It's not the fact that she's poor that makes her more likely to catch the disease. It's all the things that come with being poor. No treatment means her partner will pass on HIV at a higher rate. People in poverty don't get tested properly, so her mate probably wouldn't even know he had HIV. Lower immune systems due to other untreated diseases makes her more at risk.

So we will just continue to pretend that simply being gay and acting out your lifestyle is the same as GOING TO PRISON, engaging in MSM and other risky behaviors, and then coming out and engaging in different behaviors? Yes, let’s just assume that the white males who engage in MSM without incarceration exhibit the same sexual behaviors and same propensity to have sex with women as Black males who do go to prison, engage in MSM under tenuous circumstances, expose themselves to the disease, and then come out and go back to hetero sex. Let’s do that even though you yourself have noted far more pressures on black males than others to “not admit to their culo being blasted” once leaving jail.

Its unlikely to pass through hetero sex because its not as risky! You act as if after anal sex there has to be some tiered leveling from group to group. Truth is, after anal sex, you’re splitting hairs in terms of risk. Poverty doesn’t matter until after you have already caught the disease, which has nothing to do with what you are trying to prove, and that is the risk of actually getting it.

This idea doesn't hold up because if it was all about being "exposed to a high risk group" then white women's numbers would be similar to black women's. There are plenty of gay white dudes to give it to the women, so why aren't they getting it?
the only thing hetero male numbers prove is that the desease isn't transmited from woman to man very often. Across the board no matter how you look at it hetero males have lower numbers than women.

Across the board hetero males do not have the disease less than hetero women. You keep putting your hands in your ears and ignoring the damning evidence of Black males but it’s not going away. They get the disease at a greater rate than three different groups who you claim are more susceptible (all races of non-Black women) because of their biology. And you want everyone to throw away logic and ignore the obvious correlation between their riskier pool just to say “oh, well, its gotta be because they’re poor”. Despite the fact that Latina women are poorer and still have it less than hetero Black men.

white women are in the same boat. Their men have aids too. Is this not exposure to a high risk group to you?

NO THEY AREN'T. A MSM who is so on his own volition in the general public does not behave the same sexually as a MSM from incarceration. Are you genuinely trying to say that you don’t understand the difference between these things? Or are you being intellectually dishonest?

My point is, if it wasn't about the transmission rates in the first place, no one group would be more risky than any other group. Transmission rates are what makes one group more risky than another.


you ignore all the factors that put both black men AND women at a higher risk. Answer this. Why do black people have higher rates of infection? White people have just as much gays and just as much sex. What makes their risk so low?

Black people are at a higher risk because unlike in other populations, the MSM (riskiest) group is far more uncontained. Less incarceration, where HIV/AIDS is 20+ times more prevalent than in the general population, of white males ensures there is some type of barrier between white women and this high risk group. Same for Latinas. With Black women the lines get blurred more because of Black men's incarceration.

From your link
I don't see any wildly different exposure rates. Your data is pretty much the same as what I posted.

You did not even understand what you read. The part you took from my link is essentially a reiteration of the meta-analysis, which simply combines all the different study results into one output. Look at some of the different studies individually in the references yourself and see how different the results often came to be. There is a reason why those range gaps are there, and its because of the variance in the studies.

And not surprisingly, you didn't address the fact that insertive anal sex is actually riskier than receptive vaginal sex, which kills your theory Nor that the least risky number obtained for insertive vaginal is higher than the least risky number in the range for receptive vaginal sex.

For the last time. If it wasn't about biology/anatomy We would all be at the same risk. No group would ever become more risky than another because we all would be spreading it equally. The only reason you can say that one group is more risky than another is because of the way the disease is spread.

It is about biology/anatomy to the extent that anal sex is riskier. When you get to hetero sex, you are essentially splitting hairs unless you talk about exposure to the high risk group. Hetero females are more exposed at the moment because they can be exposed to the highest risk group easier and without their knowledge. Black women are the most exposed of women because even further intermixing with the high risk group, due to prison and incarceration rates of Black males.

Lastly, you didn’t address the study I posted that shows female to male transmission being more prevalent in poor countries by a significant margin. Why not? Is biology/anatomy in humans different overseas, or might it have something to do with behavior and exposure?

 

[Will Ross]

So we will just continue to pretend that simply being gay and acting out your lifestyle is the same as GOING TO PRISON, engaging in MSM and other risky behaviors, and then coming out and engaging in different behaviors? Yes, let’s just assume that the white males who engage in MSM without incarceration exhibit the same sexual behaviors and same propensity to have sex with women as Black males who do go to prison, engage in MSM under tenuous circumstances, expose themselves to the disease, and then come out and go back to hetero sex. Let’s do that even though you yourself have noted far more pressures on black males than others to “not admit to their culo being blasted” once leaving jail.

Its unlikely to pass through hetero sex because its not as risky! You act as if after anal sex there has to be some tiered leveling from group to group. Truth is, after anal sex, you’re splitting hairs in terms of risk. Poverty doesn’t matter until after you have already caught the disease, which has nothing to do with what you are trying to prove, and that is the risk of actually getting it.



Across the board hetero males do not have the disease less than hetero women. You keep putting your hands in your ears and ignoring the damning evidence of Black males but it’s not going away. They get the disease at a greater rate than three different groups who you claim are more susceptible (all races of non-Black women) because of their biology. And you want everyone to throw away logic and ignore the obvious correlation between their riskier pool just to say “oh, well, its gotta be because they’re poor”. Despite the fact that Latina women are poorer and still have it less than hetero Black men.





NO THEY AREN'T. A MSM who is so on his own volition in the general public does not behave the same sexually as a MSM from incarceration. Are you genuinely trying to say that you don’t understand the difference between these things? Or are you being intellectually dishonest?




Black people are at a higher risk because unlike in other populations, the MSM (riskiest) group is far more uncontained. Less incarceration, where HIV/AIDS is 20+ times more prevalent than in the general population, of white males ensures there is some type of barrier between white women and this high risk group. Same for Latinas. With Black women the lines get blurred more because of Black men's incarceration.



You did not even understand what you read. The part you took from my link is essentially a reiteration of the meta-analysis, which simply combines all the different study results into one output. Look at some of the different studies individually in the references yourself and see how different the results often came to be. There is a reason why those range gaps are there, and its because of the variance in the studies.

And not surprisingly, you didn't address the fact that insertive anal sex is actually riskier than receptive vaginal sex, which kills your theory Nor that the least risky number obtained for insertive vaginal is higher than the least risky number in the range for receptive vaginal sex.



It is about biology/anatomy to the extent that anal sex is riskier. When you get to hetero sex, you are essentially splitting hairs unless you talk about exposure to the high risk group. Hetero females are more exposed at the moment because they can be exposed to the highest risk group easier and without their knowledge. Black women are the most exposed of women ecause even further intermixing with the high risk group, due to prison and incarceration rates of Black males.

Lastly, you didn’t address the study I posted that shows female to male transmission being more prevalent in poor countries by a significant margin. Why not? Is biology/anatomy in humans different overseas, or might it have something to do with behavior and exposure?

Damn you are a stupid black woman.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

So we will just continue to pretend that simply being gay and acting out your lifestyle is the same as GOING TO PRISON, engaging in MSM and other risky behaviors, and then coming out and engaging in different behaviors? Yes, let’s just assume that the white males who engage in MSM without incarceration exhibit the same sexual behaviors and same propensity to have sex with women as Black males who do go to prison, engage in MSM under tenuous circumstances, expose themselves to the disease, and then come out and go back to hetero sex. Let’s do that even though you yourself have noted far more pressures on black males than others to “not admit to their culo being blasted” once leaving jail.

You can't have it both ways. On one hand you admit to why straight black men have higher rates. Incarceration, drugs, risky behavior, etc. Then later your gonna say straight black men rates are higher because they are getting it from women. it can't be both ways. Black people have higher infection rates for a multitude of different reasons, most resulting from poverty, not hetero sex.

Its unlikely to pass through hetero sex because its not as risky! You act as if after anal sex there has to be some tiered leveling from group to group. Truth is, after anal sex, you’re splitting hairs in terms of risk. Poverty doesn’t matter until after you have already caught the disease, which has nothing to do with what you are trying to prove, and that is the risk of actually getting it.

The CDC and every other organization that has ever done a study disagree with you. Even the study you posted disagrees with you. Why do you ignore facts and statistics, and the analysis of those statistics by professionals?

Across the board hetero males do not have the disease less than hetero women. You keep putting your hands in your ears and ignoring the damning evidence of Black males but it’s not going away. They get the disease at a greater rate than three different groups who you claim are more susceptible (all races of non-Black women) because of their biology. And you want everyone to throw away logic and ignore the obvious correlation between their riskier pool just to say “oh, well, its gotta be because they’re poor”. Despite the fact that Latina women are poorer and still have it less than hetero Black men.

you already admitted above, why black men have higher rates. Incarceration, drug use, etc. Now you wanna say they are getting it from a riskier pool. Which is it? You are making conflicting arguments to try to prove your point. If it's all about a risky pool then white women would have similar rates to black women. To combat that point you say black men go to jail and take drugs. But that notion conflicts with your argument that black men have higher rates cause they are getting it from black women.

NO THEY AREN'T. A MSM who is so on his own volition in the general public does not behave the same sexually as a MSM from incarceration. Are you genuinely trying to say that you don’t understand the difference between these things? Or are you being intellectually dishonest?

Just like above. You can't have it both ways. Either there are circumstances outside of just hetero sex that are raising black people infection rates, or there aren't.

Black people are at a higher risk because unlike in other populations, the MSM (riskiest) group is far more uncontained. Less incarceration, where HIV/AIDS is 20+ times more prevalent than in the general population, of white males ensures there is some type of barrier between white women and this high risk group. Same for Latinas. With Black women the lines get blurred more because of Black men's incarceration.

You are only proving my point here. Black straight male numbers are high for many reasons other than hetero sex.
Men who go to prison and catch HIV never identify themselves as gay, so their numbers get included with straight men. Black men live in poverty at higher rates so they are more likely to catch it through drug use. Black men live in poverty at a higher rate so they have less a chance of diagnoses and treatment, therefore they have more a chance of spreading the disease.

Again the CDC and any other group that has done a study disagrees with you. Why are you the only one who has come to this conclusion?

You did not even understand what you read. The part you took from my link is essentially a reiteration of the meta-analysis, which simply combines all the different study results into one output. Look at some of the different studies individually in the references yourself and see how different the results often came to be. There is a reason why those range gaps are there, and its because of the variance in the studies.

And not surprisingly, you didn't address the fact that insertive anal sex is actually riskier than receptive vaginal sex, which kills your theory Nor that the least risky number obtained for insertive vaginal is higher than the least risky number in the range for receptive vaginal sex.

You can't compare the low end of one study to the high end of another. Yes there is a variance in the rates, but the one thing that stays consistent in each individual study is that the receptive person is more at risk.

Find a study that says insertive sex is more risky than receptive, and I will concede your point and admit I was wrong.

It is about biology/anatomy to the extent that anal sex is riskier. When you get to hetero sex, you are essentially splitting hairs unless you talk about exposure to the high risk group. Hetero females are more exposed at the moment because they can be exposed to the highest risk group easier and without their knowledge. Black women are the most exposed of women because even further intermixing with the high risk group, due to prison and incarceration rates of Black males.

so biology/anatomy does matter when talking about gay people, but not when talking about straight people?

This is another instance of you trying to have it both ways. Either biology/anatomy matters or it doesn't. You can't say it raises rates for one group of people but has no effect on another.

Lastly, you didn’t address the study I posted that shows female to male transmission being more prevalent in poor countries by a significant margin. Why not? Is biology/anatomy in humans different overseas, or might it have something to do with behavior and exposure?

Again you can't compare numbers for one study to numbers from another. Here is a quote from your link:

Low-income country estimates were more heterogeneous than high-income country estimates, which indicates poorer study quality, greater heterogeneity of risk factors, or under-reporting of high-risk behaviour. Efforts are needed to better understand these differences and to quantify infectivity in low-income countries.

It admits those numbers are flawed, and need to be studied more. The results of the tests conflict with what we know about the transmission of the desease, so there must be some outside factors that are affecting the numbers. In most low income countries homosexuality is illegal so they don't even ask people if they are gay.

All of the info is there yet you choose to ignore it.

 

[superunknown23]

Black people have higher infection rates for a multitude of different reasons, most resulting from poverty, not hetero sex.

They're too poor to buy condoms?