It is interesting reading alot of these posts. One finds a common thread of those championing the cry the redcoats are coming.
I continue to wonder what is the behavioral impetus behind those that beat the STD/HIV drum to heterosexuals.
There is no doubt that there are risks associated with many things, from driving one's car, to having sex, to playing golf. The question really is what are the relative risks?
As an example, people have been killed playing lawn darts, people have been killed playing in 1 foot high surf, people have been eaten by sharks, and people are killed every year by lightning.
It is curious to read about dental dams here and condoms for oral sex, but I have never seen them used EVER at a swing club. One wonders what the benefit is from those holding themselves out to be the protector of all mankind yet they themselves do not use condoms or dental dams during oral sex.
In the case of HIV, which used to be called GRIDS which stood for gay related immunodeficiency syndrome, this virus is a HIGHLY DISCRIMINATORY virus in spite of the slogans ACT UP! and other homosexual political extremists groups have sloganeered to the contrary.
So what are the relative risks of a heterosexual aquiring HIV? A more accurate term is seroconverting. Like most pathogens, they must vector themselves in sufficient quantities to overwhelm a person's natural immune system. As an example, people ingest pathogens every day, yet we are not in a state of perpetual sickiness. HIV is no different. Aside from being an extremely fragile virus, it must be vectored in huge quantities necessary to seroconvert it's host. What are the best means of vectoring a retrovirus? In the case of HIV, getting a large viral load into the bloodstream of an immunocompromised host. So think for a moment what behaviors lend themselves during sex to direct access to the bloodstream. Which do you think is more effiicent, anal sex or vagianl sex? So who practices anal sex more, male homosexuals or heterosexuals? Who practices rectal fisting more, heteros or homos?
Who is immunocompromised more?
The fact remains that due to their average sexual partner statistics exceeding 1000 partners throughout their sexual careers, male homosexuals remarkably increase their exposure levels. Because they practice anal sex far more, they are far more likely to engage in behaviors that directly acess the bloodstream. Because they ingest feces in proportions highly disparate from the heterosexual community, they tend to have a bewildering array of fecal pathogen borne diseases. Because they are remakrably more likely to be durg abusers, all these factors combine to make them highly immunocompromised in COMPARISON to heterosexuals.
Another behavior that increases their risks is engaging in both insertive and receptive anal sex. This cannot be done by heterosexuals unless they are functioning hermapthrodites. Epidemiology cannot yet explain why simultaneous rectal insertive/receptivity has a synergistic effect in vectoring HIV.
So getting back to relative risks, repeated studies have shown that male homosexuals seroconvert at about 20% by the age of 20, and about half of all male homosexual will HIV seroconvert by age of 50. Now these studies were performed prior to the widespread use of protease inhibitors which apparently have now caused a reversion to non-condom sex by male homosexuals.
The glaring question remains, if "AIDS Doesn't Discriminate" and Anyone Can Get It" and "It is Not Just a Gay Disease Anymore" and all the other propaganda slogans created by homosexual AIDS strategists, then why do female homosexuals not have HIV at the same rates as male homosexuals? Why do heterosexuals not have HIV at the percentage rates shown above unless AIDS is in fact a highly discriminatory disease?
So what are in fact the percentage rates for heterosexuals? One can see the relative risks based upon the well regarded Paladin study, which took a control group of couples wherein one partner was seropositive and one was not. Over the multiple year study, it showed that it took an average of 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse with ejaculation by a seropositive male into his female partner to statistically seroconvert her.
Now that the CDC has publically admitted to exaggerating the hetero HIV risks, (would you like the name and date of the CDC person stating such?)why does the CDC's daily AIDS summaries show the risk to heterosexuals is almost non-existent?
So why would homosexual activists want the heterosexual public to think they are at risk?
Well, since the government controls funding, and that funding level exceeds that of cancer funding even though 10 times more will die from cancer, who do you think controls and receives alot of this funding? The AIDS activists who have self labeled themselves the "Pink Mafia" as a result of being the recipients, that's who.
The AIDS fearmongering that is done by homosexual acitvists and ignorant , duped heterosexuals who don't study epidemiology nor study homosexual activism is the tool they use to convince heterosexuals are at risk as a means of releasing money to a group that is otherwise rejected by society.
As to other STD's, one has to wonder why condoms are used for intercourse but not oral sex, which is probably practiced even more in swing clubs, yet diseases are just about unheard of at swing clubs.
<small>[ 06-24-2002, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Regularguy ]</small>
[ 06-24-2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Regularguy ]