Center for Disease Control Aids Info

[K2]

A while ago I put together a webpage for people who wanted the straight poop on HIV/AIDS and I extracted most of the information from the United States Center For Disease Control.

I edited it down for fast reading and included some very revealing charts.

Do you know the difference between HIV, HIV-1, HIV-2 and AIDS?

Did you know that using products containing Non-Noxyinol 9 actually INCREASE the chances of a woman contracting AIDS/HIV?

If not, you may want to check this out.

http://www.swingerzone.com/aids.html

Peace, over and out

[ColoCpl]

We read it and found it to be quite interesting. A lot to think about I guess. Thanks for the link.

[Regularguy]

Paul,

You certainly did alot of work on that web page, however the statistics listed are misleading and many are half -truths.

Now as an example, if I said that men are more likely to sustain National Football League professional footabll injuries, that would be a half truth. The fact remains it is true, but because it ignores the fact that there are no women in the NFL, it is a half truth.

Your AIDS cases pie chart is deeply flawed, as it does not break down the remaining women and men assumed to not be homosexual into intravenous drug abusing or non-intravenous drug abusing risk groups. Homeosexual extremists have capitalized on using such half truths by creating half truthful or misleading slogans like; "Straights are the fastest rising" (iv drug abusers), "Women are the fastest rising", (again, iv drug abusers) "young people are the fastest rising" (young male homosexuals)etc. It was any group was the fastest rising except for male homosexuals of course. Now if 25k male homosexuals seroconverted in 1 year, while 100 heterosexuals did, and the following year 50k male homosexuals seroconverted and 204 heterosexuals did, one could issue a half truth and say that heterosexuals were the fastest rising group. Do you see how this is misleading? That is the point, they want to mislead you as a tool to extort funding homosexual activists control.

Although the CDC has publically admitted exaggerating heterosexual AIDS risks, unlike your pie chart, they do break it down based upon more defined vectors, speciically, risk groups. If you peruse extensively though the Daily AIDS Summaries, you will see that it is almost all male homosexuals who are seroconverting, followed by intravenous drug absuers, with heterosexuality is the lowest risk group.

What is interesting is heterosexuals who engage in homosexual behavior are less likely to report it than a homosexual might admit to engaging in the predominant sexual choice, heterosexuality. This further skews such stats in favor of lessening the risk to heterosexuals.

For the average non-iv abusing, non-blood product recipient, non-partner of a male homosexual, the average risk of aquiring HIV is about 3 time greater then being struck by lightning.

Your website also states; "Think about this for one second; "What if you are having group sex with several couples and a man who is wearing a condom just switched from another partner who is unknowingly HIV positive?" The bodily fluids of an infected person may well be on the outside of his condom and still be able to infect you!"

You may read the entire Paladin study which showed it takes an average of 1000 acts of intercourse between a seropositive male and a seropositive female before she will statistically seroconvert. Your web page statement makes it seem like it is easy to seroconvert.

[ 06-26-2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Regularguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by K2:
I edited it down

---

You edited down what is commonly referred to as data. You cannot say 18% rate without mentioning percent of *what*. The original data was useful. This data might as well be coming from a bible thumper knocking at my door.

[Quin]

quote:

---

The Good and the Bad. The good news is that if the HIV virus is detected early, steps can be taken to prevent it from becoming full blown AIDS if you have a great physician and expensive medication. The bad news is that it takes a lot of money to keep the HIV virus from developing into full blown AIDS.

Magic Johnson has had HIV for many years and is still healthy.

John and Jane Doe, from Nowhere USA that get HIV, usually develop full blown AIDS and die. Sucks Huh?

Moral of the story: "If you are rich you live, if you are poor you die." What else is new? If you are just an average person, with normal health insurance, you are screwed. Guard your health with a vengeance!

---

This is an outright LIE. As the sister of brother who is not only homosexual but also HIV positive, I know what I'm talking about. My brother is an average person with normal health insurance and he is by no means SCREWED. His health insurance is extremely generous with his routine testing, his medicines, and in fact provides a 24 hour hotline for HIV/AIDS patients to call in with questions about insurance, billing, medicines, courses of therapys, counseling, references etc etc And if you're poor, you don't die...there are MANY organizations throughout the US that make sure HIV/AIDS patients DO NOT have to go without any medicine, tests, hosptial or hospice care, or anything they need even.

BTW, my brother was diagnosed LONG before Magic Johnson was and my brother has lived 16 years being HIV positive and has been virtually symptom free for the last 6 or 7 years. Explain that one, will ya?

BTW, I didn't see where you mention that the HIV virus CAN NOT live outside of the body (proven fact, check the CDC or any of the truthful HIV/AIDS websites) but yet you attempt to put fear in someone. Granted anyone indulging in sexual relations outside of a monogamus spousal relationship should use a condom, your attempts at scaring someone are, at best, lame to those who are knowledgable on the subject.

Also, I believe you stated in your website that a heterosexual couple is MORE likely to spread the HIV virus by anal sex and that vaginal sex maybe more *safe* (at least you hinted very strongly at this). Wrong again, Bub vaginal sex creates the same tears and lesions on the vagina walls that anal sex does on the intestinal walls...hence NEITHER is any safer than the other in the terms of the potential for transmitting the HIV virus.

IMHO, while you may have a few things halfway correct, your website just furthers the prejudices and falsehoods which are spoken and promoted by the religious right ad nauseum.

VOTE FOR JULIE!!

Quin

[Regularguy]

Quin wrote: "... the HIV virus by anal sex and that vaginal sex maybe more *safe* (at least you hinted very strongly at this). Wrong again, Bub vaginal sex creates the same tears and lesions on the vagina walls that anal sex does on the intestinal walls...hence NEITHER is any safer than the other in the terms of the potential for transmitting the HIV virus."

This is the only statement that I must take exception to as it is highly erroenous. The fact is the cellular geomtery of the vginal versus the rectal mucosa explains why there is a differing level of acess to the bloodstream. The vaginal mucosa employs columnar cellular geometry which is remarkably more conducive to stretching and penetration, being designed so robustly that it can withstand chilbirth. The rectal mucosa is comprised of circular cellular geometry, is extremely fragile, does not come with a built in lube system and thus tears extremely easy, availailng viruses direct access to the bloodstream. That and the lack of immunocompromization levels statistically experienced by male homosexuals is why there is no heterosexual AIDS epidemic and there never will be. As to HIV, viruses are not technically "alive", as they are merely genetic information that invades a host cell, reprograms its DNA and make the cell turn out more virlal information rather than more healthy cells.

[Quin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Regularguy:
Quin wrote: "... the HIV virus by anal sex and that vaginal sex maybe more *safe* (at least you hinted very strongly at this). Wrong again, Bub vaginal sex creates the same tears and lesions on the vagina walls that anal sex does on the intestinal walls...hence NEITHER is any safer than the other in the terms of the potential for transmitting the HIV virus."

This is the only statement that I must take exception to as it is highly erroenous. The fact is the cellular geomtery of the vginal versus the rectal mucosa explains why there is a differing level of acess to the bloodstream. The vaginal mucosa employs columnar cellular geometry which is remarkably more conducive to stretching and penetration, being designed so robustly that it can withstand chilbirth. The rectal mucosa is comprised of circular cellular geometry, is extremely fragile, does not come with a built in lube system and thus tears extremely easy, availailng viruses direct access to the bloodstream. That and the lack of immunocompromization levels statistically experienced by male homosexuals is why there is no heterosexual AIDS epidemic and there never will be. As to HIV, viruses are not technically "alive", as they are merely genetic information that invades a host cell, reprograms its DNA and make the cell turn out more virlal information rather than more healthy cells.

---

eeeekkkk I have a degree in history and avoided anything and everything that had to do with chemistry/biology...hell the whole science area in general like the plague. So I can't argue with what you said tho I can say that in EVERYTHING I have read about HIV/AIDS (and believe me, it's been probably 100X more than any normal heterosexual person has specifically due to my brother being HIV positive), sexual activity within the vagina does produce abrasions, tears and the like which allow for the transmission of the disease. What the original poster's website hints at, in my intrepretation, was that indulging in anal sex was almost a given that one has/or will contracted the HIV/AIDS virus or that some sexual activities are more *safer* than other sexual activities when in fact, the only 100% guarantee is abstinence. Nor does the difference in mucosa or anything else in the vagina or intestines negate the fact that the website is scare propoganda...it's intent is to put fear into people who don't know the *truth*, which can be evidenced by the flashing skull and crossbones and the statement that swing clubs are a breeding ground for STD's, which has NOT been my experience nor the experience of anyone within the *lifestyle* that I know personally and am more than acquiantances with. Having patronized only four to five clubs over my 20 years in and out of the life, that statement is false and generates an unwarranted fear.

VOTE FOR JULIE!!

Quin

[nikkisix69cpl]

I got to admit, I went to this site and read some of what it had to say. I had to stop reading because it wasn't helping to inform me, it was scaring me!! My husband and I were just talking about protected sex or unprotected sex and what was the point if we were not using protection for oral sex. My real concern was that we have met a couple where the male is bi. Now I have laid down the law of NO body fliuds exchanged between us in any way. He was bummed but honored my request. What is my chances of getting something from him since he is bi?? Realguy??? Got some thoughts on this??

[Flori_DAMAN]

Very good posts IMHO, Regularguy and Quinn. While as concientious adults we cannot bury our heads in the sand ignoring the various STD threats neither can we succomb to those that would distort facts to furthur a political or religous adendum.

The *lifestyle* has no official major orginazation that acts as a spokesperson for us do to the fact that there is no such organization that could possibly have a membership that would overwhelmingly support us.

Many people have never had a reason to actively research the lifestyle and base there opinions on what exposure they may have had. As a result I suppose when you mention swinging to someone they visualize a bunch of drunken doped up good for nothings having orgies and passing on diseases with no regard for safety.

Swinging would be a natural target for bible thumpers or others with agendas that include any type of sexual repression. Maybe because we have no political clout? Or because it is so misunderstood. When the shit hit the fan in Detroit a few years ago with clubs being raided the club owners and managers I talked with said in the aftermath of all the publicity their phones were ringing off the hook with people that saw how neat the clubs were and the high class of patrons that attended on TV news clips. I attended one of the clubs about 4 months after they got raided and they were operating at full capacity and had to turn down many people at the door.

This site is a non-pay site that no one can say pushes an agenda on anyone else. Julie has to my knowledge allowed this to be an uncensored place to anonymously post opinions pro or against the lifestyle. After all the arguments are thrown into any subject I have seen my belief that swinging is basically just a fun harmless activity engaged in with consenting adults seems to be re-affirmed. John.

[Regularguy]

Sex is an interesting thing, in that it is a source of pleasure. Regardless of whether you subscribe to theocratic or evolutionary ideology, everyone is in agreement that we are designed to receive pleasure from sex to ensure we continue to do it and crave it.

What is remarkable is how highly controlling, repressive societies first control pleasure. Drugs are illegal, sex is more or less illegal, you cannot be topless at beaches, nipples must be hidden, guys cannot wear speedos at the beach without women deriding them, thongs are illegal in many places, nude beaches our mostly outlawed, booze is highly controlled.

In societies that supress pleasure, violence is the result.

Now look at societies that are pleasure based. Take a look at Bonobos. Wonder why you don't know what Bonobos are? Because society has taken great steps to make sure you don't. Bonobos are a type of ape close in appearance to a chimpanzee, but darker, and taller with longer legs and arms. Bonobos are a pleasure based society that resolves disputes by copulating with or masturbating other Bonobos. They do this about 40 or so times a day. (they CAN do this as intromission lasts about 12 seconds...)

Bonobos are also more intelligent then chimpanzees. The concept that there are very high primates that have almost no incidence of violence or fratricide because they have replaced it with sexual pleasure is a concept that controlling societies cannot stand, as they profit from violence as it justifies their existence.

Take masturbation in socieity for example. Everyone does it, unless they are mal-adjusted. Yet frank discussion of sex is taboo. Guys have to cloak playing with themselves in violent terms, such as "beating off, jerking off, choking the chicken, floggin the log", etc. As long as we call it something violent that we do to our selves it is more acceptable to talk about it. Cops call things "indecent exposure", but before you rail against the government, society reinforces the controlling government...ala women say "he EXPOSED himself. If I had a dollar for every women's tits I saw through their top, through their armhole or through their neckline......

Then take swingers whose hobby revolves around pleasure.......boy, what a societal mold breaker! No wonder why swingers are relegated to the underground.......too much fun!

I am loath to harp on people with religious beliefs as I know it gives such great meaning to so many peoples lives, but there are many groups with political agendas in many religions, there are agnostics and atheists who push their agenda on religious people (9th circuit court of appeal ruling pledge is unconstitutional) there are homosexuals who push their homophlie agenda onto little children, (fistgate)etc.

Switching gears, someone asked as a women what my opinion would be on the relative safety of them having sex with a bisexual male. Although risk of HIV seroconversion is very low, it is all the other diseases that run rampant among male homosexuals that would concern me such as cryptoccoal menigitis, cryptosporidium, gonorrhea, herpes progenitalis I and II, nongonococcal pharyngitis (chlamidia and others), oral condyloma acuminatum, syphilis, hepatitis B, enteric diseases, lymphogranuloma venereum, granuloma inquinale, chancroid , Herpes type 1 and 2, nongonococcol urethritis (Chlamidia and others), gonorrhea, neisseria meningitidis.
nongonococcol urethritis, escherichia coli, hepatitis A, B, non-A/ non-B, warts -molluscum and condyloma, trichomoniasis, fungal infections, granuloma inguinale, cytomegalovirus, gonorrhea, condyloma and molluscum (rare), nonspecific proctitis corynebacterium, helminthic parasites, amebiasis, giardiasis,salmonellosis ...

I hope I didn't repeat myself trying to remember all this stuff.....these are all disease phenomenally more prevalent in the male homosxual community due to there higher likelyhood of being immunosupressed, and their higher likelihood of traveling to thrid worl type places due to their higher discretionary income levels borne out by the fact they cannot reproduce so are elss likely to have families which are financial drains.

In my own personal opinion if I were you I would pass unless he was strictly bisexual with you 2 only. It really depends on his numbers of multiple anonymous male partners and frequency. As an example, if he is married and only swings bi as a couple, things are statistically safer then if he goes and hangs out at gay bars by himself without his wife.

[nikkisix69cpl]

I'm sorry I guess I left out some inportant variables. Yes this bi male is married with 5 children. Both him and the spouse are bi. As for me and my husband only I am bi and my husband is straight. The fact that he is openly bi leads me to feel safer, if you can, in regards to their honesty since most bi males keep this part of their life a secret. Which leads to the type of behavior you talk about and is true having gay male friends and witnessing their secret sex lives. Do you think condoms are effective in this case??

[Regularguy]

Well, in spite of the disinfrmation from teh doomsday-sayers, the safest sex is where a huge amounts of body fluids are transferred between two people during sex, providing they are both disease free.

As to the guy, if he occassionally does bi strictly in the company of his wife who is also bi, then the risks are significanlty reduced. If he goes to homosexual male bars and does stuff not with couples but with guys, I wouldn't risk it. At that point one wears condoms, it sort of defeats the purpose....there is nothing like a women's warm wet pussy gripping our dicks na dmaking it shiny till eventually we fill it with a load of hot come, and women who I have been with or talk to that are good lovers love sucking a guy off till he shoots in their mouth and she revels in his pleasure.

[JustAskJulie]

According to this article, studies have shown that oral sex is safe in regards to the transmission of AIDS.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=97&97&e=4&u=/hsn/20020628/hl_hsn/is_oral_sex_safer_sex_

quote:

---

135 heterosexual couples who had unprotected oral sex an estimated 19,000 times during a 10-year period.

In each couple, either the man or woman was HIV ( news - web sites)-positive. Yet not one uninfected person contracted the virus that causes AIDS, the researchers say.

---

[K2]

Wow, I never expected to create so much controversy by posting some general information extracted from a report.

I suppose that I should just be happy that people are reading the dang thing and following up with their own 2-cents.

Just for the record, the pie chart was assembled with the raw data that the center for disease control provided in the report. I just converted the 3 categories to a visual instead of making it in writing.

And for the gal who has a brother with AIDS and his health insurance is wonderful, FANTASTIC!

My sister is an adminstrator for Blue-Cross Blue Shield and she told me that although the health care is good, the rich get much better health care opportunities and treatments afforded to them.

Let's face it, people with money have always been able to purchase the best of ANYTHING... Kind of a no brainer.

I would spend the hours to redo that page, but I just don't have the time to do so. I am very happy though that even if flawed or can be picked apart, it is still creating open discussion about a serious subject.

Julie. About oral sex.... I also read where there are zero documented cases of a person who received oral sex contracting HIV.

However, I beleive that there are reported cases of people contracting HIV who give oral sex.

That is why the CDC suggests a person who gives oral sex use a condom or a dental dam.

However, I don't use either and assume the risk is very low.

Many escorts though won't give BBBJ's (Bare Back Blow Job's) and I can't blame them.