Is HIV not a major hetero issue?

[RW1F]

HIV had to be made into a "hetero" disease so that funding would be allocated to research it and find a cure. If it was labeled a gay/I.V. drug user problem you wouldn't have seen 10% of the money that has been spent on it. Getting it from transfusions in the U.S. is extremely rare anymore. Besides if you're in bad enough shape to need a transfusion it's worth the slight risk of getting the disease. The stats I've seen lead me to believe that the odds of getting HIV from normal man woman vaginal sex are slim to none.
On a slightly political note why has there been such massive funding of a disease that is so easily preventable yet everyone points at smokers with lung cancer and says "what a dipshit"? Is this strange to anyone else but me?

P.S. I'm not HIV positive or a smoker I just see irony in this

[Brit_Pair]

Originally Posted by RW1F

On a slightly political note why has there been such massive funding of a disease that is so easily preventable yet everyone points at smokers with lung cancer and says "what a dipshit"?

Because humans have to procreate, but don't have to smoke?

[SluttyWife]

Originally Posted by VegasLee

Yes, you can get HIV from hetro sex. It is not near as common as in the gay community or with drug users but it can happen.

It is happening right now in the California porn business that is all but shut down for the next 60 or more days.

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...ntent_ID=82667

That is the latest article.

Thank you Vegas Lee,

You took the words right out of my mouth! Note..that X Performer contracted HIV from a Brazilian porn star while filming a hetero scene. So did John Stagliano, aka "Buttman" years ago. Anal sex?! Lots of men do it...HAVE ANAL WITH WOMEN. Some even travel to foreign countries on sex vacations and do it! Some pay prostitutes for something they are afraid to get at home. Some pay to play with prostitutes even if they *are* getting it at home. Not to say that having sex with prostitutes instantly makes you a candidate for contracting HIV. Actually there have been nearly *zero* AIDS cases reported in any of the Nevada brothels. Widespread use of condoms and other latex protections...perhaps! I sincerely believe this is one area hets totally disregard! Anal sex. No longer just a "gay" sex act!
I haven't even tapped on male bisexuality either.

;-*

[Miss_Piggy]

Originally Posted by De and Ci

From everything I've read-in the absence of an open sore or something, its extraordinarily difficult for a man to get it from a women, very difficult like 1 in 2000 for a woman.

From what I've studied I gather that it is much harder for men to get HIV from women than for women to get it from men.

What confuses me is that you say that it seems almost impossible for HIV to be transmitted through hetorosexual sex, except in the absense of an open sore (did I get that right?). What I don't understand is why it matters? The risk of having an open sore is there. Expecially ones in places you can't easily see. So if there is a risk of transmitting HIV when there exists open sores then there is a risk of transmitting HIV through heterosexual sex period.
True, the highest rates of transmission are between homosexual men, IV drug users, and babies born of mothers with HIV. From what we know of how HIV is transmitted it is extremely naive to think that HIV can't be transmitted from heterosexual sex. It exists in bodily fluids such as blood, semen, vaginal and cervical secretions, and breast milk. When the fluids of two people come into contacts there is a risk of infection regardless of whether the contact is heterosexual or homosexual.

[RW1F]

Originally Posted by Brit_Pair

Because humans have to procreate, but don't have to smoke?

Just a wild guess here but........ Statistically I'd bet more people have given up sex than have given up cigarettes

[Miss_Piggy]

Originally Posted by RW1F

The stats I've seen lead me to believe that the odds of getting HIV from normal man woman vaginal sex are slim to none.
On a slightly political note why has there been such massive funding of a disease that is so easily preventable yet everyone points at smokers with lung cancer and says "what a dipshit"? Is this strange to anyone else but me?

..... normal?

Are you meaning by "so easily preventable" that the disease is easily preventable by abstaining from non-normal sex?

[RW1F]

MissPiggy,

Normal sex to me is a man and a woman engaging in vaginal sex. Non-normal sex would be anal in this case. Even with anal sex be it a man or woman it is still an "easily preventable disease" much like smoking and lung cancer. If your not sure that your in a monogamous relationship with someone who does not have the disease......Use a condom, yes they fail but it's fairly rare. I just find it interesting that most people have the exact opposite reaction to people who knowlingly risk health problems from smoking. That's all I was saying....

[Brit_Pair]

Originally Posted by RW1F

Just a wild guess here but........ Statistically I'd bet more people have given up sex than have given up cigarettes

Then the smokers would deserve to be called "dipshits".

[Brit_Pair]

Originally Posted by SluttyWife

Thank you Vegas Lee,

You took the words right out of my mouth! Note..that X Performer contracted HIV from a Brazilian porn star while filming a hetero scene. So did John Stagliano, aka "Buttman" years ago. Anal sex?! Lots of men do it...HAVE ANAL WITH WOMEN.

IIRC, Stagliano became HIV positive after having anal sex with a Brazillian "he-she" (pre-op transexual) on a recreational trip to a Rio bordello. I don't think it qualfies as an example of hetero sex.

[IndyGirl2004]

About ten years ago, I volunteered some at a facility for people living with HIV/Aids. While there, I met people who contracted the disease in many ways: gay sex, blood transfusions, heterosex, dirty needles, needle punture (nurse after taking a patient's blood), and a very young lady born of a drug using mother who had the disease. So yes, it's all possible and it all happens. Those who are better educated about the disease, and who take precautions, are the ones who are less likely to be infected. It's that simple. One of the people I knew was a lady who had a one night stand with a classy businessman. She said that this was the only time she'd been with someone other than her husband. She would never have known by looking at this man that he had HIV. Her belief, at that time, was that it "didn't happen to straight people" so she'd be safe.

It's fine to have fun. Just be informed, be honest, be thoughtful, and take precautions.

[Miss_Piggy]

Originally Posted by RW1F

MissPiggy,

Normal sex to me is a man and a woman engaging in vaginal sex. Non-normal sex would be anal in this case. Even with anal sex be it a man or woman it is still an "easily preventable disease" much like smoking and lung cancer. If your not sure that your in a monogamous relationship with someone who does not have the disease......Use a condom, yes they fail but it's fairly rare. I just find it interesting that most people have the exact opposite reaction to people who knowlingly risk health problems from smoking. That's all I was saying....

I won't call homosexual sex, "knowingly risk[ing] health problems"

[Mr. Bliss]

Originally Posted by De and Ci

But I do not know or know of a single person who got it through straight sex. I suspect the HIV fears have been largely exagerrated. I may be wrong but haven't been convinced by any anecdotal evidence.

I'll take my chance with sientific evidence instead of anecdotal evidence.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0800505.html

Look at Africa 29 million out of 42 infections are in africa.
58 % of the infections is female.
Worldwide 50% is female.
main transmission worldwide is MF sex.
rich countries--> mm sex (but not only!)

[RW1F]

Originally Posted by Miss_Piggy

I won't call homosexual sex, "knowingly risk[ing] health problems"

Shall we do a poll? Maybe word it like this.....

#1 Do you think having anal sex without a condom is a risky behaviour?

Yes or No



I think I'll just re-post my original thoughts and consider this thread dead. Somehow, I think if I keep going, I'll be called homophobic any minute now.

Here it is...........Either agree with it or don't it's just my two cents nothing more




HIV had to be made into a "hetero" disease so that funding would be allocated to research it and find a cure. If it was labeled a gay/I.V. drug user problem you wouldn't have seen 10% of the money that has been spent on it. Getting it from transfusions in the U.S. is extremely rare anymore. Besides if you're in bad enough shape to need a transfusion it's worth the slight risk of getting the disease. The stats I've seen lead me to believe that the odds of getting HIV from normal man woman vaginal sex are slim to none.
On a slightly political note why has there been such massive funding of a disease that is so easily preventable yet everyone points at smokers with lung cancer and says "what a dipshit"? Is this strange to anyone else but me?

P.S. I'm not HIV positive or a smoker I just see irony in this

[Miss_Piggy]

Originally Posted by RW1F

Shall we do a poll? Maybe word it like this.....

#1 Do you think having anal sex without a condom is a risky behaviour?

Yes or No

How about this, would you define homosexual sex as having anal sex without a condom? The only thing I'm taking offense to here is the implication that homosexual sex is necessarily risky. Sex without a condom is risky whether it be homosexual sex or heterosexual sex.

[misterbates]

well.i look at it like this.....we cn try to justify all the reasoins for not wearing a condom and all the reasons why hetero sex is safe..but i ask everyone this......would you have unprotected sex with someone if you know they are hiv positive????...i didnt think so!!!