Where did AIDS come from?

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: ndee
Yeah, guess why? They think if they fvck with a Virgin, they're cured.

That is why it is an epidemic in San Francisco. The nearest virgins are about 700 miles away.

I'm talking about AFRICA. The people there aren't as educated. Actually, neither are you.

Wow, you just don't get tongue-in-cheek comments do you?

I bet I have more of an education than you do. Also, I would be a years salary that I make more than you do. Plus, I bet I can run faster and swing higher.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: pinion9

No, you don't need tears. However, AIDS can enter the body much easier that way.

sure, but its actually much more common for a man to pass it to a women (or a women to a man) through vaginal intercourse than two gay men doing it anal style. in all practicality, you share the exact same chance of contracting it no matter your sex style preference.

so remember children, wrap it before you tap it

Funny, it may be "theoretically" more common, but these statistics indicate that 185,326 AIDS cases were from Homosexual contact, whereas onlu 35,671 came from heterosexual contact. And the CDC seems to have similar percentages.

Hmm..

Its pretty much common sense, you don't need statistics to really make your case. I remember me and a friend argued about this at one point, and I did some analysis and downright proved - from multiple angles - why gay men spread disease (not just AIDS) more so then any other group of people. This isn't speaking of homosexuals in general, simply gay men. I remember one of the things I found was that the proliferation of AIDS was more apparent in San Francisco then in any other part of the US in the last 10 years. That pretty much wraps it up.

well, not really. the fact that AIDS got a strangle hold in the gay community in the West (USA, Europe) was just a matter of bad luck. (A very promiscuous flight attendant picked the virus up in Africa, came back to the USA, and screwed his way through hundreds of gay men, passing on the virus as he went.) Keep in mind that in Africa, where there are over 40 million people infected, the HIV virus is a heterosexual phenomenon.

I understand what you mean - but I did my analysis based solely on how it spread in the US. Not in the world. What I found was pretty conclusive, and I even got my friend who I referenced to change his stance on it.

Besides, I have yet to meet a gay guy who isn't that promiscuous. I'm sorry, I don't mean to make a blanket statement - and I don't want to offend anybody. But from personal experience, every gay guy I've known was down right promiscuous.

EDIT: I want to add, it may be because of my age - I'm younger and the gay guys I know are younger. So that may have something to do with it.

lol at gay men are promiscous - as if this is some kind of revelation about gay men. you think straight men wouldn't be more promiscuous, if the women would let them? women are the rate-limiting factor in the amount of heterosexual sex that takes place. if all women were sluts, then straight men would be just as promiscuous as gay men. straight men would LOVE to be able to be as promiscuous as gay men. the women wouldn't have it, tho.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: ndee
Sometimes, I could just puke around about the people here. AIDS came from the gays? etc. and all those other "facts"

No such thing as bad publicity. At least "the gays" have something to show for their hardships. "We didn't send a man to the moon, but have you heard of AIDS? Yup, that was us." Think of it as a trophy.

You're just homophobic, that's all.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: ndee
Sometimes, I could just puke around about the people here. AIDS came from the gays? etc. and all those other "facts"

No such thing as bad publicity. At least "the gays" have something to show for their hardships. "We didn't send a man to the moon, but have you heard of AIDS? Yup, that was us." Think of it as a trophy.

You're just homophobic, that's all.

I'm not afraid of you.

 

[pinion9]

I love it when people throw out the "you're homophobic" card. That is a classic. I don't like the lifestyle much, but I am not afraid of it. I am afraid of getting stung to death by scorpions in my sleep, or as I call it, stung-to-death-by-scorpions-in-my-sleep-aphobic, as well as many other things. Not gays.

You are just homophobic-phobic is all, Ndee.

 

[Rill22]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Rill22
AIDS was developed and instigated by the government to be used as a means of population control.

At that time, we didn't have the gene manipulation technology to perform the genetic engineering required to manufacture a virus.

You only THINK that.

 

[pinion9]

Is it possible to get stung to death by gays in your sleep?
If so, I may be homophobic. Someone get back to me on that, please.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Its pretty much common sense, you don't need statistics to really make your case. I remember me and a friend argued about this at one point, and I did some analysis and downright proved - from multiple angles - why gay men spread disease (not just AIDS) more so then any other group of people. This isn't speaking of homosexuals in general, simply gay men. I remember one of the things I found was that the proliferation of AIDS was more apparent in San Francisco then in any other part of the US in the last 10 years. That pretty much wraps it up.

well, not really. the fact that AIDS got a strangle hold in the gay community in the West (USA, Europe) was just a matter of bad luck. (A very promiscuous flight attendant picked the virus up in Africa, came back to the USA, and screwed his way through hundreds of gay men, passing on the virus as he went.) Keep in mind that in Africa, where there are over 40 million people infected, the HIV virus is a heterosexual phenomenon.

No, you cannot simply gloss over facts. Just like the fact that there are more African Americans with AIDS in the US than Caucasiona. That's *total,* not per capita, which means significantly larger percentages of homosexuals and African American have AIDS than do heterosexuals and Caucasions.

That is correct in the West. But it's hardly some kind of revelation. What isn't widely known, apparently, is that the vast bulk of people infected with HIV/ AIDS live in Africa, where the disease is a heterosexual phenomenon.

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
You can't just say "Ah, that's just due to bad luck." You have to address the reasons for such things in order to correct them, not wave them away with a flick of the hand. Sorry if feelings get hurt along the way, but denial will get us nowhere.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You appear to be misinterpreting my statements.

 

[pinion9]

If you are afraid of gays, i.e. homophobic, but you LOVE lesbians, even to the point where you are thinking about purchasing one or two for your living room, are you still homophobic?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Its pretty much common sense, you don't need statistics to really make your case. I remember me and a friend argued about this at one point, and I did some analysis and downright proved - from multiple angles - why gay men spread disease (not just AIDS) more so then any other group of people. This isn't speaking of homosexuals in general, simply gay men. I remember one of the things I found was that the proliferation of AIDS was more apparent in San Francisco then in any other part of the US in the last 10 years. That pretty much wraps it up.

well, not really. the fact that AIDS got a strangle hold in the gay community in the West (USA, Europe) was just a matter of bad luck. (A very promiscuous flight attendant picked the virus up in Africa, came back to the USA, and screwed his way through hundreds of gay men, passing on the virus as he went.) Keep in mind that in Africa, where there are over 40 million people infected, the HIV virus is a heterosexual phenomenon.

No, you cannot simply gloss over facts. Just like the fact that there are more African Americans with AIDS in the US than Caucasiona. That's *total,* not per capita, which means significantly larger percentages of homosexuals and African American have AIDS than do heterosexuals and Caucasions.

That is correct in the West. But it's hardly some kind of revelation. What isn't widely known, apparently, is that the vast bulk of people infected with HIV/ AIDS live in Africa, where the disease is a heterosexual phenomenon.

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
You can't just say "Ah, that's just due to bad luck." You have to address the reasons for such things in order to correct them, not wave them away with a flick of the hand. Sorry if feelings get hurt along the way, but denial will get us nowhere.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You appear to be misinterpreting my statements.

Originally posted by: mugs

The odds of a man getting HIV from a woman via vaginal intercourse are pretty low.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission

According to the French ministry for health, the probability of transmission per act varies from 0.03% to 0.07% for the case of receptive vaginal sex, from 0.02 to 0.05% in the case of insertive vaginal sex, from 0.01% to 0.185% in the case of insertive anal sex, and 0.5% to 3% in the case of receptive anal sex

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
You can't just say "Ah, that's just due to bad luck." You have to address the reasons for such things in order to correct them, not wave them away with a flick of the hand. Sorry if feelings get hurt along the way, but denial will get us nowhere.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You appear to be misinterpreting my statements.

What you seemed to be saying is that the *only* reason homosexuals in the West have higher cases of AIDS is because of some flight attendant who started it in homosexual circles. Are you saying that if during the first 6-months of infection, if it staying within heterosexual relations before "crossing over," the numbers would be significantly skewed in the opposite direction? I find that very hard to believe.

The reason for the percentages is not the "flip of a coin" chance of a single person's partners, but the entire homosexual lifestyle 20-30 years ago.

 

[GeekDrew]

It all came from me. I've infected as many men as I've been able to.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: pinion9
If you are afraid of gays, i.e. homophobic, but you LOVE lesbians, even to the point where you are thinking about purchasing one or two for your living room, are you still homophobic?

No, but you just need to get a life actually.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
It all came from me. I've infected as many men as I've been able to.

I had the flu on that day.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
It all came from me. I've infected as many men as I've been able to.

I had the flu on that day.

Sorry to hear that. Swing by my office during lunch tomorrow, and I'll make it up to you.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: mugs
According to the French ministry for health, the probability of transmission per act varies from 0.03% to 0.07% for the case of receptive vaginal sex, from 0.02 to 0.05% in the case of insertive vaginal sex, from 0.01% to 0.185% in the case of insertive anal sex, and 0.5% to 3% in the case of receptive anal sex

What do those ratios even mean?

Is that the odds of contracting the virus if you have sex with someone who is HIV positive?

Or is it the odds of contracting the virus if you are having sex with some random member of the general public? If the odds refer to this second option, then the odds are going to be influenced by the level of HIV in the population. Those odds might apply to France however they wouldn't apply to Africa where a much higher number of people in the community have HIV.

 

[Shame]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: ndee
Sometimes, I could just puke around about the people here. AIDS came from the gays? etc. and all those other "facts"

No such thing as bad publicity. At least "the gays" have something to show for their hardships. "We didn't send a man to the moon, but have you heard of AIDS? Yup, that was us." Think of it as a trophy.

You're just homophobic, that's all.

Just out of curiousity ndee: Was your New Years Resolution to post, but not really say anything at all? Or does it just appear that way from your last couple of posts?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs
According to the French ministry for health, the probability of transmission per act varies from 0.03% to 0.07% for the case of receptive vaginal sex, from 0.02 to 0.05% in the case of insertive vaginal sex, from 0.01% to 0.185% in the case of insertive anal sex, and 0.5% to 3% in the case of receptive anal sex

What do those ratios even mean?

Is that the odds of contracting the virus if you have sex with someone who is HIV positive?

Or is it the odds of contracting the virus if you are having sex with some random member of the general public? If the odds refer to this second option, then the odds are going to be influenced by the level of HIV in the population. Those odds might apply to France however they wouldn't apply to Africa where a much higher number of people in the community have HIV.

Door number 1. "Probability of transmission" denotes that there is something TO transmit.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Shame

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: ndee
Sometimes, I could just puke around about the people here. AIDS came from the gays? etc. and all those other "facts"

No such thing as bad publicity. At least "the gays" have something to show for their hardships. "We didn't send a man to the moon, but have you heard of AIDS? Yup, that was us." Think of it as a trophy.

You're just homophobic, that's all.

Just out of curiousity ndee: Was your New Years Resolution to post, but not really say anything at all? Or does it just appear that way from your last couple of posts?

Yep, you guessed it. Nah, I just came here to ATOT, picking a maybe controversial thread and I just see so many retarded posts, I don't even bother to post alot more, just pointing out the obvious.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs
According to the French ministry for health, the probability of transmission per act varies from 0.03% to 0.07% for the case of receptive vaginal sex, from 0.02 to 0.05% in the case of insertive vaginal sex, from 0.01% to 0.185% in the case of insertive anal sex, and 0.5% to 3% in the case of receptive anal sex

What do those ratios even mean?

Is that the odds of contracting the virus if you have sex with someone who is HIV positive?

Or is it the odds of contracting the virus if you are having sex with some random member of the general public? If the odds refer to this second option, then the odds are going to be influenced by the level of HIV in the population. Those odds might apply to France however they wouldn't apply to Africa where a much higher number of people in the community have HIV.

they apply to having sex with an hiv positive person.. there is no way you could have up to 3% chance from receptive anal if 3% of the population doesn't have hiv to begin with

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
You can't just say "Ah, that's just due to bad luck." You have to address the reasons for such things in order to correct them, not wave them away with a flick of the hand. Sorry if feelings get hurt along the way, but denial will get us nowhere.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You appear to be misinterpreting my statements.

What you seemed to be saying is that the *only* reason homosexuals in the West have higher cases of AIDS is because of some flight attendant who started it in homosexual circles. Are you saying that if during the first 6-months of infection, if it staying within heterosexual relations before "crossing over," the numbers would be significantly skewed in the opposite direction? I find that very hard to believe.

The reason for the percentages is not the "flip of a coin" chance of a single person's partners, but the entire homosexual lifestyle 20-30 years ago.

it is a combination of improved technology leading to cheaper international flight, cheaper international travel, combined with the increased levels of promiscuity within the gay community during the gay sexual revolution of the 1970s. cheaper international flights allowed the virus to be brought back from Africa. High levels of promiscuity in the gay community occurring in the 1970s provided a good environment for the virus to flourish. The confluence of these various factors is "chance" - or just the way history happened to play itself out - in my book. The sexual revolution within the gay community could have taken place 20 years earlier or 20 years later. That might have completely changed the way the virus expressed itself in the west.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs
According to the French ministry for health, the probability of transmission per act varies from 0.03% to 0.07% for the case of receptive vaginal sex, from 0.02 to 0.05% in the case of insertive vaginal sex, from 0.01% to 0.185% in the case of insertive anal sex, and 0.5% to 3% in the case of receptive anal sex

What do those ratios even mean?

Is that the odds of contracting the virus if you have sex with someone who is HIV positive?

Or is it the odds of contracting the virus if you are having sex with some random member of the general public? If the odds refer to this second option, then the odds are going to be influenced by the level of HIV in the population. Those odds might apply to France however they wouldn't apply to Africa where a much higher number of people in the community have HIV.

Door number 1. "Probability of transmission" denotes that there is something TO transmit.

If you can't provide a link with more information on what those stats represent and how they were obtained, then I have to dismiss them as essentially meaningless.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs
According to the French ministry for health, the probability of transmission per act varies from 0.03% to 0.07% for the case of receptive vaginal sex, from 0.02 to 0.05% in the case of insertive vaginal sex, from 0.01% to 0.185% in the case of insertive anal sex, and 0.5% to 3% in the case of receptive anal sex

What do those ratios even mean?

Is that the odds of contracting the virus if you have sex with someone who is HIV positive?

Or is it the odds of contracting the virus if you are having sex with some random member of the general public? If the odds refer to this second option, then the odds are going to be influenced by the level of HIV in the population. Those odds might apply to France however they wouldn't apply to Africa where a much higher number of people in the community have HIV.

they apply to having sex with an hiv positive person.. there is no way you could have up to 3% chance from receptive anal if 3% of the population doesn't have hiv to begin with

in some areas of Africa, more than 50% of the popualtion is infected with HIV...

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
You can't just say "Ah, that's just due to bad luck." You have to address the reasons for such things in order to correct them, not wave them away with a flick of the hand. Sorry if feelings get hurt along the way, but denial will get us nowhere.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You appear to be misinterpreting my statements.

What you seemed to be saying is that the *only* reason homosexuals in the West have higher cases of AIDS is because of some flight attendant who started it in homosexual circles. Are you saying that if during the first 6-months of infection, if it staying within heterosexual relations before "crossing over," the numbers would be significantly skewed in the opposite direction? I find that very hard to believe.

The reason for the percentages is not the "flip of a coin" chance of a single person's partners, but the entire homosexual lifestyle 20-30 years ago.

it is a combination of improved technology leading to cheaper international flight, cheaper international travel, combined with the increased levels of promiscuity within the gay community during the gay sexual revolution of the 1970s. cheaper international flights allowed the virus to be brought back from Africa. High levels of promiscuity in the gay community occurring in the 1970s provided a good environment for the virus to flourish. The confluence of these various factors is "chance" - or just the way history happened to play itself out - in my book. The sexual revolution within the gay community could have taken place 20 years earlier or 20 years later. That might have completely changed the way the virus expressed itself in the west.

Eep! I just came very close to invoking Godwin's Law.

So yes, we agree that the homosexual lifestyle at the time was the main reason for the virulent spread of HIV in the West. I thought that was what this sub-thread was about.

 

[Trikat]

D@mn someone had sex with monkies.