HIV study results released

[coyotedude]

This is a sobering reminder of why safe sexual practices are so important for our community...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100923/ap_on_he_me/us_med_aids_urban_gays

Peace

[DuckiesDarling]

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5937a2.htm?s_cid=mm5937a2_w

For a bit more info scroll down the tables where it lists which 21 cities in the US, the age of those tested and the exact number of Hetero, Homo and Bisexual men as well as broken out by race.

[Long Duck Dong]

I used the yahoo link...... not DD's link

based around the numbers....... if less than half of 1% of americans have aids....

the us population is supposed to be 300 mill.... 1% is 3m.... so less than 1.5 mill have aids / hiv, now they say one in 5 gay / bi men have aids / hiv that would give us around 7.5 mill bi / gay males.... if every person with hiv / aids is gay / bi

apparently, the total gay / bi / les population of the us, is only 1.5% or 4.5 mill people....... ( 2006 numbers ).....

so if we divide it into 3 equal groups of les, gay and bi..... with 1.5 mill in each group and 1 /5 bi and gay are hiv / gay..... thats 600,000 infected people.... and if 44% of them do not know they are infected.... thats just under 300k people .......

so the odds are if you hook up with a bi or gay person, you have a 1 in 5 chance they are hiv / aids positive.....

and thats not working out the heterosexuals with hiv / aids that are listed as hetero, not gay or bi....

[bisexual Bill]

I found this on a site I read.

Keep in mind that lots of straight people have HIV and do not know it, get tested, and do not have safer sex.

This is typically the problem with all research that deals with LGBT people. Always skewed toward gays who are urban and mainly into going to bars. It's lazy sociology, is what it is.

Considering the interviews were taken at specific venues in certain urban neighborhoods (65% bars, 22% clubs, rest health clinics/gyms/etc.), the study focused on those who frequent these establishments and are more prone to engaging in more frequent and higher risk sexual behavior along with already HIV positive men who are going to health clinics for treatment/testing.

It's akin to polling on alcohol consumption by polling people at popular bars and night clubs...

While the intention and message from this study is completely accurate and while ALL people should take steps to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy/STD's despite sexual orientation (there's no excuse for not wearing a condom), the skewed results are often used by anti-gay organizations to justify their continued animus.

The CDC does many great things. Still, they suck at operating a study that truly reflects correct statistics.

I have observed that gay men who a regular clubbers have a higher tendency of being single and are more prone to having multiple sexual partners. Combine that with the presence of drugs and alcohol and you have the precise situation that lower inhibitions and unsafe sexual practices.

People who are single and go clubbing have more sex with more people barring online hook ups.


The study reports [The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations.] and here are just 2

1. They picked cities with above average HIV postive results. Nothing wrong with that, it was just part of the study design. That is how the study gets to 19% [Overall, they found that 19 percent of gay men are infected with HIV.]
2. The study is NOT representative of the overall gay population. Of the study, they notes say [ the results are not representative of all MSM. A lower HIV prevalence (11.8%) has been reported among MSM in the general U.S. population (8)..]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/23/904713/-The-CDCs-big-flawed-gay-HIV-study

Their conclusion is astonishing -- that 19% of gay men in big cities are infected with HIV. That is enough to set off a great deal of alarm. However this is exactly what the CDC study is: a bunch of bunk. In fact, other CDC data makes this claim preposterous. There is, in reality, no need for the alarm that the CDC's study may unwarrantly set off.

Let's go into the flaws of this study:

First this is a convenience sample. Convenience samples are always trouble when you try to generalize from such a sample to a larger population. The sample was recruited from gay bars, clubs, and social organizations. Let's think about the first two: bars and clubs.

While gay bars and clubs are a good place to go to meet other gay guys, there not such good places to go to conduct scientific research on the gay community as a whole. Lot's of guys go to gay bars looking for one night flings, they are people who engage in very risky behavior,... Maybe about 20 years ago gay bars and clubs may have been a bit more representative because they were the only way for g/bi men to congregate. But we have the internet, we have gay coffee shops, restaurants, gay resorts, and being publicly gay, especially in the 21 cities listed, is a lot easier than it was decades ago. You don't have to sneak into the gay bar to try and meet up with other gay people. Further, the CDC doesn't tell us what gay bars they recruited these men from. It would make a big difference to me, if I were in New Orleans, as to whether they recruited from Good Friends, the Oz, or the Phoenix. Each club could produce very different results because they have very different clientele.

Want proof that a convenience sample recruited from gay bars and clubs might not be representative and might skew towards a more promiscuous set of gay men?

1. 2/3rds of the sample were men who lived alone. No roommates anything. Two things this indicates: they are single men, and many of them may lack sufficient social support. Such people, of any sexual orientation, are more likely to be engage in risky behavior.

2. 30% had household incomes under $20,000 a year. No median household income was provided in the CDC report. This is particularly interesting because there is very good research that we could compare these numbers to find out just how representative this sample is of most gay men. In the cities surveyed, places like Boston, New York, San Francisco, Washington, DC, etc, with the high cost of living in those areas, you are talking people either in poverty or quite near to it. The sample skews to low income gay and bi men. Poverty is one of the big predictors of HIV infection. So, a sample that skews to low income gay and bi men would be problematic.

3. The median age of gay men in this study was 32 years old. So, this sample skews young. Younger people are generally more promiscuous than older people, particularly when those younger people are living at or near poverty levels, are living alone, are single, etc...

Finally, there is some astounding CDC data that makes a 19% infection rate for gay men, even in big cities, highly unlikely. The CDC estimates that there are 1.1 million Americans living with HIV, and about a half of those got HIV through MSM contact (male to male sexual contact). That means that about 550,000 men with HIV got it from MSM contact. Some studies show that up to 14.2% of men have sex with other men in a single year.That would mean that roughly 23 million men a year have MSM contact. Simple math says 2.4% of those men have HIV. One would have to presume that HIV rates in major cities is almost 8 times as high as the national average to believe the CDC's numbers. While I can believe that the rates would be higher because HIV patients may be able to find more support services in the city and thus move to the city, there's no reason to believe the CDC's numbers which come from a highly questionable convenience sample.

Convenience or Accidental Sample:

Accidental sampling is a type of nonprobability sampling which involves the sample being drawn from that part of the population which is close to hand. That is, a sample population selected because it is readily available and convenient. The researcher using such a sample cannot scientifically make generalizations about the total population from this sample because it would not be representative enough.

Further, the CDC also didn't include anyone in the sample who didn't answer the behavioral survey portion of this research. What's wrong with this? The most modest people are the ones who might be less likely to complete such surveys. Those people might be at a lower risk for HIV.

I do believe that there is one bit of data from the CDC's study that we can find to be useful. That is the data the shows that a significant proportion of their subjects weren't aware of their HIV+ status. That information is useful. However, the 19% HIV rate for gays in the big city is not useful, and calls for unnecessary alarm.

Update: In the editorial notes of this report the CDC does limit the extrapolations of this data only to a segment of the gay/bi community, but does not make this distinction clear in the body of its report. It is a distinction that is necessary to keep the alarmist type thing that is happening at Huffington Post from happening.

[Cats_Kit]

Hello Coyotedude;

We recently had a gentleman come into our hospital who had been in a car accident. He was injured badly, and required surgery as soon as we could find a blood donor with his type match. He told us that the man in the car with him had the same blood typing. We checked his friend's blood, and found the man had AIDS. When we told the first man, he was completely shocked. Neither man knew. We checked the man that needed surgery, and discovered that he did not have Aids. I felt badly for the man who was told he had aids, because he asked one of the aides to end his life, as he did not want to go on with this horrible disease. It was very difficult to hear.

Thank you for posting this very sobering artical.
Kit

[slipnslide]

It's such a preventable crisis.

[Realist]

I read recently that a lot of retirees in the Miami area have contracted AIDS, too. No one ever thinks that an older person will get it, but they are no more immune to it than anyone else.

No one is safe and this is one of the few things I get fired up about. Sex with strangers, one-nighters, and sex with anonymous people is dangerous, dangerous!

Even a person you know well, should be certified safe before you have unprotected sex with them. Even that's not fool-proof these days!

[BobbyGlendinning]

Over the years I've tried not to get into arguments on statistics. Whether it's 19% or 9% or 90%, the point is, you have to get to know your partners and make sexual choices that match the amount of risk you are willing to take on.

http://colorfulconservative.blogspot.com/2010/08/condoms-and-leftist-politics.html

In the above piece, which is the 2nd article most often viewed on my blog, I argue against the campaign for condoms. I am not a denialist; I know that condoms can effectively stop the spread of HIV if used correctly. But I think the safe-sex movement has made so many people experience sex as a less-than-pleasurable yet utterly available event, with the result that they either tire of sex altogether or rebel in unhealthy ways against condom use.

The problem with arguing about numbers is that you concede at the beginning of the discussion, the criteria by which you are going to judge sex. If sex is about statistics, then I'm not really interested in talking about sex -- because I don't screw based on statistics. If sex is about interpersonal intimacy, then I'm willing to put the numbers away and have a meaningful conversation.

Good day to all!

[slipnslide]

Over the years I've tried not to get into arguments on statistics. Whether it's 19% or 9% or 90%, the point is, you have to get to know your partners and make sexual choices that match the amount of risk you are willing to take on.

http://colorfulconservative.blogspot.com/2010/08/condoms-and-leftist-politics.html

In the above piece, which is the 2nd article most often viewed on my blog, I argue against the campaign for condoms. I am not a denialist; I know that condoms can effectively stop the spread of HIV if used correctly. But I think the safe-sex movement has made so many people experience sex as a less-than-pleasurable yet utterly available event, with the result that they either tire of sex altogether or rebel in unhealthy ways against condom use.

The problem with arguing about numbers is that you concede at the beginning of the discussion, the criteria by which you are going to judge sex. If sex is about statistics, then I'm not really interested in talking about sex -- because I don't screw based on statistics. If sex is about interpersonal intimacy, then I'm willing to put the numbers away and have a meaningful conversation.

Good day to all!

Who can read that article? It's so long-winded and convoluted. Get to the point!

Orwell's Rules for Writing (http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/)

[littlerayofsunshine]

Some people get drunk to fuck. Some people get drunk to speak. Some people get drunk to speak about fucking. Some people drink while they write.

Some people should do none of the above in any particular order. *laughs and mumbles something about conservatives*

No I couldn't 'bare' to read the whole blog, and would never 'back' anything so stoopid. Good luck with ur blog thoz, nice self promotiunz. Oooohzzz.. Viewdzzzz and redzzz isn't teh same thingzzz.

[void()]

Not attacking the idea of practicing safe sex. All for safe sex, here. Life is short, I'm living, not wasting it on cowering. Love requires protection.

I have difficulty in believing numbers. Often they are given as defense and support of biased view/s. Not saying that is or, isn't the case here. Only stating the obvious. Media fumbles sometimes as well.

[slipnslide]

What is so wrong with the idea of cutting out the anal sex? It's the best method of exchanging diseases - if guys stop it, HIV infections will plummet. It's not like they need to be banging each other in the ass to make babies.

I genuinely don't get why there isn't a big campaign to get guys to stop it.

The commercial could go like this:

Guy 1: Who do I limit my chances of getting AIDS?
Guy 2: Don't do needles and don't get fucked in the ass.
Guy 1: Simple enough.
Guy 2: Yeah it's kinda brain dead simple.

[bisexual Bill]

What is so wrong with the idea of cutting out the anal sex? It's the best method of exchanging diseases - if guys stop it, HIV infections will plummet. It's not like they need to be banging each other in the ass to make babies.

I genuinely don't get why there isn't a big campaign to get guys to stop it.

The commercial could go like this:

Guy 1: Who do I limit my chances of getting AIDS?
Guy 2: Don't do needles and don't get fucked in the ass.
Guy 1: Simple enough.
Guy 2: Yeah it's kinda brain dead simple.

It's not the anal sex that gives people HIV and other STDs.

It's not using condoms and barebacking that does. As well as attitudes like BobbyG has.

You can have protected anal sex with someone who is HIV+ and as long as you are using a condom correctly and all the time, you will be fine.

I know people who are in relationships with a partner that is poz and they use condoms for anal sex and oral sex and they remain HIV neg. They have done this for decades.

The problem is not anal sex itself. It's idiots like BobbyGlendinning who are all for barebacking and think that it's hot, "heroic", not a big deal, and excusable.

Giving oral sex and swallowing or taking cum in your mouth also accounts for some HIV infections.

Telling men not to have anal sex would be pointless. It would be like telling straight men and women, "Just don't fuck! Don't put the penis into the vagina ever at all!" Vaginal sex also spreads lots of STDs including HIV but you're not suggesting that people stop doing that. Lots of straight people are into ass fucking too.

If you are sexually active with men and women statistically chances are you have had sex with someone that is Poz but you don't know it or do not want to accept it. Lots of people especially straight people do not practice safer sex or get tested.

There are some Poz men who are out and completely open about their sero-status but most do lie. There are also straight women who know that they are Poz but lie about it.

[AidanS57]

I admit there were times I did my share of unsafe sex due to just things happening when I wasn't prepared. That was in late teens, since then I've always practiced safe sex with both genders and get tested regularly as I know it can take years for HIV to show up positive in your system. I am a full advocate of safe sex and wish more people would practice it, the hell of it is even if you are in a monogamous relationship you can't really trust your partner to always be safe as evidenced by the fact that many bisexuals of both genders do cheat on their spouses. Sign of the times I guess, it appears to almost be me accepted now than it was years ago. I'm not sure if that is a change for the better or the worse.

[slipnslide]

It's not the anal sex that gives people HIV and other STDs.

It's not using condoms and barebacking that does. As well as attitudes like BobbyG has.

You can have protected anal sex with someone who is HIV+ and as long as you are using a condom correctly and all the time, you will be fine.

I know people who are in relationships with a partner that is poz and they use condoms for anal sex and oral sex and they remain HIV neg. They have done this for decades.

The problem is not anal sex itself. It's idiots like BobbyGlendinning who are all for barebacking and think that it's hot, "heroic", not a big deal, and excusable.

Giving oral sex and swallowing or taking cum in your mouth also accounts for some HIV infections.

Telling men not to have anal sex would be pointless. It would be like telling straight men and women, "Just don't fuck! Don't put the penis into the vagina ever at all!" Vaginal sex also spreads lots of STDs including HIV but you're not suggesting that people stop doing that. Lots of straight people are into ass fucking too.

If you are sexually active with men and women statistically chances are you have had sex with someone that is Poz but you don't know it or do not want to accept it. Lots of people especially straight people do not practice safer sex or get tested.


The hetero folks are passing around STDs at a rate 1/50th of gay/bi guys.

The doctors here (http://www.medhelp.org/posts/HIV-Prevention/Another-Oral-Question/show/1350902) wouldn't agree with your oral sex statement. (Where did you even get that information?!)

"Even if your partner had HIV (and this is statistically unlikely) the quoted figure for HIV risk, if one has oral sex with an infected partner is less than 1 in 10,000 and, in my estimation that is too high. Some experts state there is no risk at all from oral sex. Neither of us on this site have ever seen or reading the medical literature of a convincing instance in which HIV was passed by oral sex. " - Edward W Hook, MD (Specialties: HIV Prevention, STDs)

I don't want STDs so I don't have sex. I've got a hand - I can take care of myself. If it's just that simple for me, why is it so difficult for others?

Condoms break and leak.

[DuckiesDarling]

Funny, I read the other day an article talking about the prevelance of HIV in Africa and how the areas where male circumcision was practiced routinely showed significant improvement in the decrease of new cases of HIV. In areas where circumcision was not practiced there was no change in the amount of new cases. Food for thought, eh?

[littlerayofsunshine]

Possibly, but then again... If there is male circumcision going on, that can also lead one to believe it's in an area with easier access to medical and also more education. Which could slow the progression. and those not circumcised could benefit and show the same decline. Having access to those two things, but instead live in a more impoverished area where little to none exist.


There is so much abuse that goes on in the areas with lower or no education in Africa. The female circumcision. Which is not like the male's kind, only removing foreskin. They completely remove the clitoris on the girls from what I understand. They also have a practice of Breast Ironing. Where they take hot rocks and press it on a girls budding breasts, to flatten and retard the signs of development. Though it causes scarring and is very painful.

[bisexual Bill]

Funny, I read the other day an article talking about the prevelance of HIV in Africa and how the areas where male circumcision was practiced routinely showed significant improvement in the decrease of new cases of HIV. In areas where circumcision was not practiced there was no change in the amount of new cases. Food for thought, eh?

Male and female circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation.

Condoms and safer sex education work better at preventing HIV transmission and infection than any genital mutilation does.

I've read studies where it showed that male and female circumcision does nothing to prevent HIV. Men think that they can get their genitals mutilated and do not have to use condoms.

Or they'll get their genitals mutilated and think that this somehow makes them immune to getting HIV. They ignore the fact that they have an open wound on their cock.

Male circumcision does nothing to prevent HIV transmission among bisexual and gay men.

If circumcision is so effective, then why are there six African countries where the circumcised men in those countries are more likely to be HIV+ than the intact men in those countries? Doesn't sound very effective to me.

It's not like HIV strikes people at random. Circumcision can only possibly help men who have unsafe sex with HIV+ partners, so why this bizarre obsession with genital surgery when we know that ABC works better than circumcision ever could? (ABC=Abstinence, Being Faithful, Condoms).

It's not like we've already tried the things that do work. In Malawi for instance, only 57% know that condoms protect against HIV/AIDS, and only 68% know that limiting sexual partners protects against HIV/AIDS. There are people who haven't even heard of condoms. Btw, Malawi is one of the countries where circumcised men are more likely to be HIV+ than intact men (13.2% v 9.5%).

It just seems really misguided to be hailing genital surgery as the way forward. It would help if some of the major aid donors didn't refuse to fund condom education, or programmes that involve talking to sex workers.

According to findings of the Kenya Aids Indicator Survey (Kais), North
Eastern and Coast provinces, where 97 per cent of males are circumcised, registered an increase in HIV prevalence.

Within a span of five years, HIV prevalence in North Eastern and Coast provinces increased from 0 to 1.0 per cent and from 5.8 per cent to 8.3 per cent respectively. In the same period, HIV prevalence in Nyanza Province, where about 48 per cent of males are circumcised, stood at 15 per cent, the highest in the country.

These are sobering statistics for young men who have rushed to get circumcised in he belief that doing so would provide complete protection from HIV infection.

If circumcision is effective in preventing HIV, we should see an effect similar to other interventions in similar diseases. For instance, the polio vaccine is only 70% effective yet wiped out the disease in a single generation.

In contrast to HIV, polio is an easily transmittable disease and is transmitted by casual contact. HIV requires intimate contact and the transfer of bodily fluids. If circumcision was even nearly as effective as claimed, the vectors of transmission would be sufficiently broken that the disease couldn't survive in The US without constant and massive re-introduction from Africa. That has simply not happened.

Indeed, the ethnic group in The US with the highest circumcision rate, African Americans, also has the highest HIV infection rate with a reported 80% of all infected females in The US being African Americans. This is simply not possible if circumcision has any prophylactic value at all.

Circumcision throughout it's history in The US has been claimed to be the preventive to the most dread disease of the day. These studies are just a continuation of the same myths. After more than 130 years of trying to find a justification for male circumcision, if none has been found yet, it is highly unlikely that one will be found now. However, they will keep trying as exhibited by these studies and others.

[Long Duck Dong]

and yet the places you mention like kenya, are places where sub standard health care such as reusing needles, is going on........

you really have to question the high rate of aids / hiv... unless about 80% of the country is gay or bi......

the studies are ignoring aspects like drug usage and focusing on sexual transmittance..... as admitting that the us has a epidemic drug problem is not a good look unless you can blame gay / bi people and make the results look better....

and thats something that no condom can prevent against

[bisexual Bill]

The hetero folks are passing around STDs at a rate 1/50th of gay/bi guys.

The doctors here (http://www.medhelp.org/posts/HIV-Prevention/Another-Oral-Question/show/1350902) wouldn't agree with your oral sex statement. (Where did you even get that information?!)

"Even if your partner had HIV (and this is statistically unlikely) the quoted figure for HIV risk, if one has oral sex with an infected partner is less than 1 in 10,000 and, in my estimation that is too high. Some experts state there is no risk at all from oral sex. Neither of us on this site have ever seen or reading the medical literature of a convincing instance in which HIV was passed by oral sex. " - Edward W Hook, MD (Specialties: HIV Prevention, STDs)

I don't want STDs so I don't have sex. I've got a hand - I can take care of myself. If it's just that simple for me, why is it so difficult for others?

Condoms break and leak.


The hetero folks are passing around STDs at a rate 1/50th of gay/bi guys.

"Even if your partner had HIV (and this is statistically unlikely) the quoted figure for HIV risk, if one has oral sex with an infected partner is less than 1 in 10,000 and, in my estimation that is too high. Some experts state there is no risk at all from oral sex. Neither of us on this site have ever seen or reading the medical literature of a convincing instance in which HIV was passed by oral sex. " - Edward W Hook, MD (Specialties: HIV Prevention, STDs)

I don't want STDs so I don't have sex. I've got a hand - I can take care of myself. If it's just that simple for me, why is it so difficult for others?

Condoms break and leak.

From TheBody.com:
If you are receiving oral sex from someone else you are only being exposed to saliva. The concentrations of the virus in saliva are so low that nobody has ever been infected from saliva. Keep in mind, however, that you can get other sexually transmitted diseases (like herpes) by receiving oral sex. However, as far as HIV is concerned, receiving oral sex is extremely low risk.
Giving Oral Sex

If you are giving someone oral sex, there is a risk of infection, since pre-cum, semen, vaginal secretions and menstrual blood can get into your mouth. The more of these body fluids you are exposed to, the greater the risk of infection there would be. If you have any open sores, cuts, abrasions or gum disease in your mouth, the virus can get into your bloodstream. The risk is less than if you had vaginal or anal intercourse, but the risk is real, and transmission can occur. There have already been reported cases of HIV infection specifically through giving oral sex.

I learned about HIV and the risk from giving oral sex from actual gay male doctors and from other medical professionals that deal directly with HIV and STDs.

They do not sugar coat things or deny that yes you can get HIV from giving oral sex. Your risk for getting HIV goes up if you engage in fluid exchange.

I have also been sexually active with bisexual and gay men for decades during the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Keep telling yourself that straight people do not have HIV or other STDs and that gay and bisexual men are walking Petri dishes for HIV and other STDs. You're in just as much denial as BobbyGlendinning the barebacker is.

I have never had a condom break or leak in all the decades I have been using them.

I have used all types and brands of them. I also fuck hard and sometimes for long periods of time. I also use condom safe lubes. My penis is big and thick. You would think that would make a condom more apt to break but it does not matter.

Condoms do not break if you use them correctly and use the correct type of lube with them since not all types of lube are compatible with whatever the condom is made out of.

[bisexual Bill]

and yet the places you mention like kenya, are places where sub standard health care such as reusing needles, is going on........

you really have to question the high rate of aids / hiv... unless about 80% of the country is gay or bi......

the studies are ignoring aspects like drug usage and focusing on sexual transmittance..... as admitting that the us has a epidemic drug problem is not a good look unless you can blame gay / bi people and make the results look better....

and thats something that no condom can prevent against

Not all countries in Africa still reuse needles. I'm sure that some do but it is not nearly as widespread as all the lack of condom use by both men and women in Africa.

In some African populations, multiple sexual partners are expected as part of cultural expression. This increases the risk of transmission because of the shear number of sexual contacts, most of them between parties who are unaware one or both of them is HIV infected.

Condoms have historically not been a part of sexual relations in African societies. Indigenous African technology never produced a device whose aim was to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases at the same time.

Natural methods were used for birth control. This situation led to a culture in which condoms, ever since they became part of sexual mores in Africa, have remained an essentially urban phenomenon. Many people in rural Africa have never seen a condom, let alone used one.

The fact that condoms are often seen as a social taboo means that political leaders in Africa do not want to be seen a mile near one - in public at least. As one African leader reportedly told UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, "I can't utter the word condoms. I'm the father of the nation".

In Africa men and women do not always use condoms even if they are given out to them.

These studies are about the transmission of HIV via sex, not IV drug use. That's a moot point.

Not all people who IV drugs share needles. I have friends that once did IV drugs and they never shared needles at all.

Then you have people like the Pope telling people of Africa and the world that condoms are useless. :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7947460.stm

[slipnslide]

From TheBody.com:
If you are receiving oral sex from someone else you are only being exposed to saliva. The concentrations of the virus in saliva are so low that nobody has ever been infected from saliva. Keep in mind, however, that you can get other sexually transmitted diseases (like herpes) by receiving oral sex. However, as far as HIV is concerned, receiving oral sex is extremely low risk.
Giving Oral Sex

If you are giving someone oral sex, there is a risk of infection, since pre-cum, semen, vaginal secretions and menstrual blood can get into your mouth. The more of these body fluids you are exposed to, the greater the risk of infection there would be. If you have any open sores, cuts, abrasions or gum disease in your mouth, the virus can get into your bloodstream. The risk is less than if you had vaginal or anal intercourse, but the risk is real, and transmission can occur. There have already been reported cases of HIV infection specifically through giving oral sex.

I learned about HIV and the risk from giving oral sex from actual gay male doctors and from other medical professionals that deal directly with HIV and STDs.

They do not sugar coat things or deny that yes you can get HIV from giving oral sex. Your risk for getting HIV goes up if you engage in fluid exchange.

I have also been sexually active with bisexual and gay men for decades during the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Keep telling yourself that straight people do not have HIV or other STDs and that gay and bisexual men are walking Petri dishes for HIV and other STDs. You're in just as much denial as BobbyGlendinning the barebacker is.

I have never had a condom break or leak in all the decades I have been using them.

I have used all types and brands of them. I also fuck hard and sometimes for long periods of time. I also use condom safe lubes. My penis is big and thick. You would think that would make a condom more apt to break but it does not matter.

Condoms do not break if you use them correctly and use the correct type of lube with them since not all types of lube are compatible with whatever the condom is made out of.

Oooh you're all about defending your own behavior. I get it now.

And your comprehension seems kinda low. I never said heterosexuals don't have STIs. They do, but in miniscule numbers by comparison since gay and bi guys comparatively are promiscuous whores.

[bisexual Bill]

Oooh you're all about defending your own behavior. I get it now.

And your comprehension seems kinda low. I never said heterosexuals don't have STIs. They do, but in miniscule numbers by comparison since gay and bi guys comparatively are promiscuous whores.

I'm not defending anything. It is called living in reality and being educated about HIV/STDs and being educated and practicing safer sex for decades.

I do not bareback and I have not had a one night stand in years. I do not swallow or take cum in my mouth because I find that to be gross.

I'm very monogamous and I only have sex when in a relationship with a partner who I know is monogamous with me. We talk about our sexual history, get tested, do safer sex, and then get tested again. I do not bareback at all.

There are tons of ways to have sex with men that do not involve bareback sex or fluid exchange. The same goes for sex with women.

Yes I have had hook ups and one night stands. I never did a lot of them but I have had more than a few.

I do not know anyone who never has had one, even if it was just once.

None of this puts me at risk for HIV or STDs. You can have sex with someone who you do not know and there are ways to have safer sex that does not put you or the other person at risk for HIV or other STDs.

You are correct about one thing. If you are this scared and paranoid about HIV and STDs you should not have sex with anyone else at all ever.

I'm being realistic about condoms and safer sex. You're not.

You seem to have a prejudice against bisexual and gay men. Calling them whores. You have written other posts about how you do not like being bisexual at all and want to ignore this aspect of yourself.

I know straight men and women who are very promiscuous. They have HIV and other STDs.

Keep thinking like lots of straight people do, that HIV and STDs can't happen to you and could never happen. :rolleyes:

[void()]

What is so wrong with the idea of cutting out the anal sex? It's the best method of exchanging diseases - if guys stop it, HIV infections will plummet. It's not like they need to be banging each other in the ass to make babies.

I genuinely don't get why there isn't a big campaign to get guys to stop it.

The commercial could go like this:

Guy 1: Who do I limit my chances of getting AIDS?
Guy 2: Don't do needles and don't get fucked in the ass.
Guy 1: Simple enough.
Guy 2: Yeah it's kinda brain dead simple.

Well, you can have that view. Some of us enjoy getting and giving though. And by the way, we're on a bisexual site. Um, we discuss male homosexual sex at times, that sort of implies there will be actual banging each other in the ass and discussion of it.

Void wanders off even more lost than usual.

[Bluebiyou]

... It's not like they need to be banging each other in the ass to make babies...

a slip of the tongue?
Ignoring all other points of your thesis I ask:
Why do we need to make babies? 6, going on 7 billion and increasing as though breeding will help the future? It will make the human die-off in 40 years more abrupt. Perhaps more 'humane' because the die off will be more abrupt with more babies. Yes... and waste as much petrol as you can as fast as you can.

Excellent point.

[slipnslide]

Well, you can have that view. Some of us enjoy getting and giving though. And by the way, we're on a bisexual site. Um, we discuss male homosexual sex at times, that sort of implies there will be actual banging each other in the ass and discussion of it.

Void wanders off even more lost than usual.

Bingo! That's the problem, too many guys are putting a selfish notion of "I like it so I'll do what I want" above public health.

It's a similar situation in many way to drinking and driving. Lots of drunk people behind the wheel insisting they're fine and they're not the problem - It's the other guy - but leaving a trail of dead and wounded behind them.

[slipnslide]

You seem to have a prejudice against bisexual and gay men. Calling them whores. You have written other posts about how you do not like being bisexual at all and want to ignore this aspect of yourself.

I know straight men and women who are very promiscuous. They have HIV and other STDs.

Keep thinking like lots of straight people do, that HIV and STDs can't happen to you and could never happen. :rolleyes:

I keep saying that yes, heterosexual people have HIV and STDs but in DRAMATICALLY lower infection rates and you keep ignoring it and claiming that I think it can't happen to them. Hence, when on the rare occasion I do have sex it's protected and with a woman. That's the lowest risk factor there is for me.

The gay and bi community's proclivity to many partners and dangerous sexual practices does seem very whore-like to me. It's not a prejudice - as this is all well documented already - but me screaming on the rooftop that this needs to stop and it's not that difficult.

You've well documented your sexual practices of monogamy and regular testing. If everyone was like that my local sexual health clinic wouldn't be pleading for more money with line-ups of guys going out the door on many days.

[slipnslide]

a slip of the tongue?
Ignoring all other points of your thesis I ask:
Why do we need to make babies? 6, going on 7 billion and increasing as though breeding will help the future? It will make the human die-off in 40 years more abrupt. Perhaps more 'humane' because the die off will be more abrupt with more babies. Yes... and waste as much petrol as you can as fast as you can.

Excellent point.

Ask couples with children why they wanted to have a baby. Why are you asking me?

[void()]

Bingo! That's the problem, too many guys are putting a selfish notion of "I like it so I'll do what I want" above public health.

It's a similar situation in many way to drinking and driving. Lots of drunk people behind the wheel insisting they're fine and they're not the problem - It's the other guy - but leaving a trail of dead and wounded behind them.


Public health?

Aren't you just a daisy? And what I'm not part of the public?

People like you irritate me. You go espousing these grand altruistic platitudes that mean fuck all to every day people that live in reality, and then play the ace victim when one says boo.

Yes I can admit to having a hedonistic facet. Can you? Do you really love yourself? Do you have mental issues? Are you a danger to the public?

It is alright to love yourself, to take care of yourself. Go on, disagree.

All I need or want to say. Done.

[texasman6172003]

Face it y'all,there is only 1 thing that can REALLY ruin sex for you,DEATH!!! Just my :2cents:

[Long Duck Dong]

I agree with you void_dweller.

There seems to be way too much paranoia and scare mongering about HIV and STDs on this site.

It's to the point where people are posting that condoms do not work, and that you should just be celibate or non-sexual and just not have sex with anyone rather than have safer sex, use condoms too, get tested, and not get infected with HIV or other STDs.

It seems like these people who are full of fear and into scare mongering about HIV and STDs, celibacy and being non-sexual, are putting down everyone else that's a sexually active adult here that practices and has safer sex.

how about you stop trolling the forum and twisting words.... but what would I know, I am the one you called a celibate barebacking bug chaser then made remarks about my sister using drugs etc.... which she never did...... and now you are implying things like people endorsing celibacy ??? when the remark I made to you, was you are quick to slam people for unsafe sex ...yet you are happy to go off with multiple people yourself....... but you are the one that beleives that you are safe sleeping around cos of a condom....

even the condom companys do not say that condoms are 100% safer.... they are just safer than not using them...... so the risk is still there....and to you that appears to be fine, as long as your dicks in somebody.....

[Long Duck Dong]

show me where I said its impossible for lesbians to get aids / hiv....... I said there is multiple ways to get aids / hiv, you are the one saying that if you use a condom you are safe and I asked what lesbians are supposed to hang it on.....cos my sisters partner got aids thru a medical center, and I am fucked if I know how lesbians using condoms would have stopped that cos it was transmitted and not thru sexual misconduct.....

as for a person not trolling, you started a thread and attacked other forum posters for their idea of consentual adult sex..... and now you tell me that I can not accept others different views ????? I do not have to accept anybodies point of view.... but I am not starting threads attacking people when i have joined a site only 2 days before

[void()]

"There seems to be way too much paranoia and scare mongering about HIV and STDs on this site."

That I can agree with.

I can also agree people fear what is different. That fear can ferment into hate. Sorry if being a responsible adult is different but I'll keep on keeping on. I don't understand what there is to fear in that. Perhaps, it is jealousy. I have a wife that loves and understands me. Also got a decent job and am working toward a better one. I'm shooting at switching from blue collar to white collar. I have faith in my ability to do it, too.

Yes, in this case I do suppose it could be jealousy. To which I reply with a story (http://tinyurl.com/ghtxt). This story is also known as the secret to success. Once I had a box with the secret in it. It was actually two wooden blocks on a hinge. The top one had painted on it "Secret of Success", and the bottom one after lifting the top had, "Hard Work". So, maybe those who are jealous are afraid of hard work? Which is funny when they're not the ones to be doing it, but I am. Ah, I see they're saying they lack faith in my abilities to do hard work. "Go be a doubting Thomas somewhere else, then. Or rather just piss up a rope."

[Long Duck Dong]

If lesbians or bisexual women use sex toys like dildos or vibrators when they have sex with women, then they should be using condoms on toys. If lesbians and bisexual women want to have safer sex when they are engaging in fingering and fisting gloves are used.

When my wife has sex with women she uses gloves and dental dams. Or she'll cut up flavored condoms to use as a barrier for giving a woman oral sex or getting oral sex. If they use any sex toys condoms are used on those.

My wife and I have vibrating sex toys that we use with each other. We use condoms on those since they make for easier clean up and if we want to switch the orifice the toy is in we just slap a rubber on it.

You never said just how your sister or her lesbian partner got HIV until now.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You'll just deny that you claimed and implied that lesbians and bisexual women can not get HIV from having sex with other women.

I will copy and paste what was said, since you are getting things twisted


One would think that because you had a sister that died from AIDS that you would be against barebacking and bug chasing since it involves more people compromising their health, the health of their sexual and relationships partners too and the spread of HIV.
.





now I has a LESBIAN sister die from aids..... and she had a LESBIAN partner..... so I should have a stance against barebacking...???? ok, explain to me how two females bareback....... do they fuck each other in the ass with their clits ????????


they were both pos when they got together..... so safe sex between two lesbians with aids, is not gonna change much now is it.......

btw in the other thread, post 10, I told you how my sisters partner got aids...... it was contracted thru a medical center...... not sex.... and in this thread you are saying that I never said how she got aids until now ????
make up your mind




as for the as long as you have safe sex, no iv drugs, use condoms ????... tell that to the 18 year virgin that contracted aids thru blood transfer from a car accident.... tell that to eve the nzer that died from aids at the age of 12.... tell that to my sisters partner that died from aids, that she contracted thru a medical center... tell that to the female in australia that got aids from going to the dentist ( the dentist was hiv+ and never knew it )..... and tell that to my friend who contracted aids thru a one off sexual encounter with a male where a condom was used.....


so again... you got it wrong, not me......

[NotLostJustWandering]

I thought the issues raised by Bobby Glendinning's piece warranted a new thread, so I created one:Shall we just censor Bobby Glendinning, or burn him at the stake as well? (http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?p=183427#post183427)

[NotLostJustWandering]

since then I've always practiced safe sex with both genders and get tested regularly as I know it can take years for HIV to show up positive in your system.

Years? I've always heard six months. Where did you hear it can take years?

[NotLostJustWandering]

I don't want STDs so I don't have sex. I've got a hand - I can take care of myself. If it's just that simple for me, why is it so difficult for others?

Can't wait for the release of Slipnslide's new book, "I, Wanker."


:tongue:
Atiq

[slipnslide]

Years? I've always heard six months. Where did you hear it can take years?

In fact at 6 weeks 90% of those with HIV will show up positive - and it goes up rapidly from there. I believe 8 weeks is brushing up against 100%, but 3 months is considered conclusive.

[slipnslide]

Can't wait for the release of Slipnslide's new book, "I, Wanker."


:tongue:
Atiq

I'll send you an advanced copy.

[NotLostJustWandering]

I'll send you an advanced copy.

Then I'll write the first review.

Atiq Zabinski predicts that Slipnslide's debut work will be remembered as "a seminal piece of 21st century literature."

[slipnslide]

Then I'll write the first review.

Atiq Zabinski predicts that Slipnslide's debut work will be remembered as "a seminal piece of 21st century literature."

Haha! Clever.

[coyotedude]

People, grow up!

I didn't post this to start stupid flame wars. We can have strongly differing opinions and still be respectful of each other's common humanity.

Supposedly we're all adults on here. It would be nice if we all acted like it...

Peace

[coyotedude]

For my part...

I am well aware that there are flaws in any study. As bisexualBill pointed out, even if the findings are completely accurate for this particular study, you can't necessarily extrapolate HIV infection rates for the gay and bisexual populations as a whole from these findings.

Nonetheless, I think that we as a community need to be aware that HIV continues to be a very real threat during same sex encounters. That's not paranoia; that's simply reality, whether we like it or not.

The question then becomes "what do we do about it"? That is a matter of personal choice. But it seems to me that there are three basic responses:


Ignore it;
Hide from it;
Take what protective measures are available, understanding there is always risk in life.


Each response has trade-offs. It's not for me to judge you for picking one response over the other.

BTW, condoms are not the only protective measure out there. Testing, monogamous relationships, etc. are also protective measures. Again, each of those measures has its own risks and trade-offs.

For me, life is all about risk. You cannot eliminate risk, but you can take steps to mitigate it. Perhaps that's all we can reasonably expect of ourselves and each other.

Peace

[swmnkdinthervr]

After reading all the above I've still don't see what scares me most!!!

Men, women or couples that think condoms are proof against STD's and confidently have sex with anyone!!!

How about the people that won't allow intercourse without the use of a condom, yet won't use one for oral sex and they think they are safe!!!

These "studies" are largely perpetrated by the straight/vanilla community and it wasn't all that long ago that it was obviously an attempt to label anyone outside their "norm" as a deviant! Remember when HIV was considered punishment from God?

What we're not being told is how lousy condoms are as protection against anything but pregnancy!!! In studies done just a few years ago it was proven that you can't make a totally non-porous condom!!! Most STD's are contracted by contact with bodily fluids and unless you wear a condom over your entire body you are at risk!!!

I'm not for a moment suggesting anyone stop using condoms but the only really way to stay safe from STD's is to abstain from sex altogether!!! Short of giving up sex careful choice of partners is WAY more effective than condom use either with or without!!!

[Long Duck Dong]

This is more scare mongering and false information.

Condoms, unless they are made out of lambskin are not going to be non-porous at all.

Multiple studies have shown that nobody has ever gotten HIV from reciving oral sex or from giving it. There are things you can do during oral sex that make it safe sex that do not include using a condom.

No the studies are not done by the straight or vanilla "communit" since no such thing exists. Straight people and vanilla folk even though they are the majority do not consider themselves to be a community or collective and there is no such thing as straight pride or anything like that.

It's not that hard to avoid contact with body fluids. Even if someone does cum on your body unless you have broken skin, or fresh bleeding cuts you are not going to get HIV.

I know men who got HIV from men who swore up and down they were neg and they thought they really knew this person and could trust them then it turns out the guy they thought they knew really well was lying about being Poz.

I know men who got HIV the very first time they had sex with a man and anyone at all because the other guy said how it was OK to bareback and he was neg too.

I know lots of men who got tested with a new partner and the results were negative then and they decided to bareback just because of one test. Then 6 months later they both turned up Poz, because the guy that was "neg" was poz but the HIV antibodies that are tested for had not been produced in his body yet.

These men all thought that they were being careful and picky about their partners and if they had used condoms everytime they had sex, and used them correctly they would not have became Poz.

People are not going to stop having casual sex or hooking up. They should do it safely and use condoms.

If you are this paranoid about HIV and STDs only have sex with a spouse, stay completely monogamous, and do not have sex with anyone else at all.

You should educate yourself more about condoms, about HIV/STDs, and about how to have safer sex since you are just relying on scare mongering and giving out completely false information about HIV and safer sex.

so the CDC are full of shit now ?????

can aids be contracted thru oral sex (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/transmission.htm)

scroll down to the question and it states


Yes, it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through performing or receiving oral sex, though it is a less common mode of transmission than other sexual behaviors (anal and vaginal sex). There have been a few cases of HIV transmission from performing oral sex on a person infected with HIV. While no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is, evidence suggests that the risk is less than that of unprotected anal or vaginal sex.


now who is spinning shit, the switch

[slipnslide]

so the CDC are full of shit now ?????

can aids be contracted thru oral sex (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/transmission.htm)

scroll down to the question and it states


Yes, it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through performing or receiving oral sex, though it is a less common mode of transmission than other sexual behaviors (anal and vaginal sex). There have been a few cases of HIV transmission from performing oral sex on a person infected with HIV. While no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is, evidence suggests that the risk is less than that of unprotected anal or vaginal sex.


now who is spinning shit, the switch

This comment comes without sufficient evidence but I've read in the past that some doctors and researchers completely disagree with the CDC on this point. The concern was that the CDC's position was based more on what the lawyers think they should say to protect themselves over the medical science.

If I remember correctly the "few cases" were people self-reporting their sexual activities. As Dr. House points out, "everybody lies". It would appear that there is a theoretical risk at best, yet no study has ever found a definitive case of HIV transmission via oral sex. The doctors at medhelp.org suggest that the generally accepted risk of contracting HIV from an infected individual via performing oral sex on them is 1 in 10,000. However, they quickly point out that they think this number is too high and question whether there is really a risk at all.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol I am of the opinion that they are the experts not me.... so i can not truely say for sure what the true facts are.........

all I know is that there is risk and no risk..... and while people will talk in percentages and numbers..... to me, there is 50% / 50%, you will get it or you will not....... and while you can maximise the chances or minimise them, there is still the 50% / 50% chance.....

when i drive a car, i can minimise the risk of a accident.... but I can never rule them out.... and there is always going to be the 50% / 50% chance of a car accident.... be it my fault or somebody elses fault........

so i let others argue the risks and dangerous of getting aids / hiv and what is safe and what is not....... cos it doesn't matter...... there are only 2 types of people, those with aids / hiv, and those without.......
and all the percentages and risk reduction in the world means nothing, if you contract aids / hiv.........

I have attended at a car accident where a hiv pos person was injuried and bleeding heavily and needed urgent medical attention..... I acted, without gloves and any protection to save a life....... and got blasted for my actions.... apparently I was in the wrong for saving a human life cos of the risk of contracting aids / hiv......
but again its the 50% / 50% thing.... I would either contract it or not..... but there was a 10% chance of the guy surviving, and a 90% of them dieing......
I never contracted aids / hiv, but I saved a life..... actually 3 lives that day......

now before anybody berates me for my actions..... remember.... even with protection, people still risk themselves in the name of getting laid..... and say they are safe yadda yadda yadda...... but it only takes a issue like i dealt with,..... to contract aids and all the condoms in the world mean nothing, cos you have aids now.......

thats the 50% / 50% that really matters.....

[slipnslide]

all I know is that there is risk and no risk..... and while people will talk in percentages and numbers..... to me, there is 50% / 50%, you will get it or you will not....... and while you can maximise the chances or minimise them, there is still the 50% / 50% chance.....

Well, your statistical reasoning is off here. There are two possible outcomes, but their weighting is not equal, so the chances are not 50/50.

[Long Duck Dong]

ok..... so you are one of the sort of people that think that a light is not on or off..... its 73% on, 27% off but you can change that if you adjust the pressure on the light switch, you change the percentage to 15% and 85% off.......

but there are only 2 states, on or off....... regardless of the percentages.....
people use percentages as a way of justifing actions and thoughts.... and as a form of mental protection.......

either way, you either have aids or you don't..... arguing the percentages of transmission, means nothing.... cos you can argue them until you are blue in the face.... if you do not have aids, you do not have aids, if you do, you do..... there is no 25% have aids and 75% do not have aids option for the human body....

my sisters partner got aids thru a medical center.... no percentages for safe sex or using condoms etc, mattered, no findings on oral, anal virginal sex, mattered...... so yeah people can argue safe sex all they want.... its not the only way it can be transmitted

so people can argue safe sex till the cows come home..... my sisters partner got aids.... not thru sex but thru a medical center..... the odds were 50% 50% that she would get it thru sex or not thru sex..... she never got it thru sex..... regardless of what percentages there were about contracting it thru a medical center and who argues what..... simple case is, she got it... it killed her... and all the percentages in the world.... meant absolutely nothing

[slipnslide]

A binary system like a switch cannot be compared here. Very different - you're equating states with probability

[Long Duck Dong]

no, its called realism......

while stats and probilities are in our every day life...... but stats are possibities and chances of events....... my thinking is realistic...... if I put myself in a situation that can yield a pos or neg result,... its either going to be one or the other.......

there could be a 1-10,000 chance of getting aids thru oral sex...... but that doesn't mean I can do 9999 bj jobs and stop and say I am fine..... it means that is a 1- 10,000 chance i could get it...... but there is a 50% / 50% chance I will or will not, every BJ....... because I am placing myself in the situation

stats mean absolutely nothing when something happens..... its like winning the lottery, there could be a 1-13 bill chance of winning the lottery, but there is a 100% chance you will not win if you do not buy the ticket..... and a 50% / 50% chance you will win or somebody else will win if you buy the ticket..... cos you will either win or you will not.... there is no 1-13 bill chance you will not win so the odds are likely that you will not win..... but you still have a 50/50 chance.... cos you can either win or not win.... you can not partly win and partly lose.......

now if I have that 1-10,000 bj.... all bets are off, it now becomes the 50 /50... I am either going to get aids / hiv or I am not..... the other 9999 bjs do not matter now..... as they do not factor in .... I am dealing with the one blowjob that could give me aids / hiv......
regardless of the condoms, and stats and the colour of the moon last friday at 8.13 pm on the north east coast of australia...... it all comes down to the 50 /50 %.......

its a bit like russian roulette.... the percentages of you pulling the trigger on a loaded chamber mean nothing.... it now comes down to either the bullet will kill you or it will not kill you.... regardless of the stats on surviving head injuries for the average male over the age of 20 with a collage education and higher level income.......
you can survive or not, but you just become another stat on a forum as to the risks on pointing a loaded gun at your head....... but that only matters to the people that do not have holes in their heads..... or enternal rest in a coffin......

[slipnslide]

no, its called realism......

there could be a 1-10,000 chance of getting aids thru oral sex...... but that doesn't mean I can do 9999 bj jobs and stop and say I am fine..... it means that is a 1- 10,000 chance i could get it...... but there is a 50% / 50% chance I will or will not, every BJ....... because I am placing myself in the situation


There is not a 50/50 chance. There is a 1 in 10,000 chance. There are two possible outcomes, yes, but their likelihood is not equal so it can't be 50/50. For every bj the chances we are going with here are 1 in 10,000. Each and every bj has the same probability (if the receiver has HIV).

Flipping a coin is 50/50 because both outcomes are equally weighted for a standard coin - but that doesn't imply that EVERY situation with two possible outcomes has a 50% chance of either result.

Are there any math teachers here who can explain this better than I can? I'm genuinely trying to share the knowledge gained through too many years in math classes.

I think you're confusing combinations and probability...maybe?

[Long Duck Dong]

There is not a 50/50 chance. There is a 1 in 10,000 chance. There are two possible outcomes, yes, but their likelihood is not equal so it can't be 50/50. For every bj the chances we are going with here are 1 in 10,000. Each and every bj has the same probability (if the receiver has HIV).

Flipping a coin is 50/50 because both outcomes are equally weighted for a standard coin - but that doesn't imply that EVERY situation with two possible outcomes has a 50% chance of either result.

Are there any math teachers here who can explain this better than I can? I'm genuinely trying to share the knowledge gained through too many years in math classes.

I think you're confusing combinations and probability...maybe?

I am not confusing anything.........

you can have a 1-10000 chance of getting aids from a blowjob........ but only a 50 /50 chance of getting it or not..... you can either get it or not.... .

you are arguing that its not equal....... that there is a unequal chance that you will get it or you will not....... and thats your stats and numbers playing into it again.......

its like the light switch, its either on or its not ( my stance )...... there is no 70% chance its on and 30% chance its not on....... ( your stance )

it doesn't matter what the odds are ..... if you are in a situation where aids can be transmitted, you have a 50 / 50 chance of contracting it..... regardless of what the odds are of the chances of transmission and how minimal they are and what the stats are against it....... you can defy the odds and get it, or you can not get it.........

there is no possible outcome......

you have a one in 10,000 chance of getting aids from a bj ..... but if the aids virus is transmitted cos of that 1-10,000 bj.... then you have a 50 / 50 chance that in the morning you will be infected or you will not be....... regardless of the stats and fiqures about the rate of infection...... you will either have it, or you will not......

it amuses me the way people will argue that they are safer cos they use condoms.. .... yes they are safer, but they are still at risk by their actions.......

people that bareback and bug chase, may have a higher risk factor of contracting aids / hivs..... but it doesn't mean they will get it..... it means they have a higher risk.......
people that use condoms and fuck hiv+ people may have a lower risk but still a high risk
people that do not fuck hiv+ people have a lower risk....
people that abstain from sex, have no risk.........

any of the people having sex have varied risks of contracting aids / hiv.... but the risk can only exist if they are having sex with hiv+ pos....... and if they are not... they have a 0% chance of contracting the hiv virus from a person that doesn't have it.......
but if they unknowningly sleep with a person that is hiv + and knows it or doesn't know it.....and many factors happen, like the condom bursts or leaks yadda yadda yadda yadda
than you have a 50 / 50 chance of getting aids...... the odds may be 75% chance you will not but they are still only 50 /50 as you will either get it or you will not......

[NotLostJustWandering]

LDD, I think you are making a good point about how people use statistical information in dismissing danger. But it is an odd way to make a point, to insist on something that is clearly untrue, according the most basic principle of probability. One should consider a deadly risk even if it is very unlikely to occur. But that doesn't make all situations with 2 possible outcomes a 50%-50% probability. If there were really a 50%-50% chance of catching HIV every time we have sex, the entire species would be HIV+.

(Except for the wankers among us, of course. Let's have a "big hand" for Slipnslide! :tongue:)

Maybe some of you will remember my post on synchronicity and think it odd that I am defending the Law of Probability. I do believe in the Law of Probability, I just think it is incomplete as a theory on causation; synchronicity is another causative force and is not subject to probability.

[Long Duck Dong]

its not untrue..... its correct... it depends on your viewpoint.......

the odds such as the 1-10,000 of getting hivs / aids when you suck a cock..... do not apply to the chances of the virus infecting you if the virus enters into your system..... the 50 / 50 does.....

but the way people argue, its as if there is 3-4 different options....

1) I got aids
2) it got lost on the way over and reinfected the same guy that had it in the first place
3) due to a fuck up in the time space continium, I have the aids virus but its not going to appear in my body until the year 2345
4) I did not get aids.......

even medical people, that prick themselves on a needle that has been in contact with blood from a infected person, have to be tested...... but with all the stats that say the odds of contacting it that way are.. 200 trillion to one..... there is still that ONE odd that needs to be factored in.....
and while you have 199 etc trillion odds against having contacting it..... there is still the 50 / 50 thing.... you either have it or you don't.... regardless of the odds against you catching it.....

if I have unprotected drunken sex with one man once for about 5 minutes that does not know he has hiv+, while the risk factor is higher of me getting it.... the odds are still in my favour of not getting it.........
unfortunately, the odds failed my sister....and she died 4 years ago, from aids.......

remember, all the stats you have about the dangers and the odds etc, are based around other peoples misfortunes...... and thats why i say, regardless of the stats and odds, if you fuck people with hiv/aids, you will either get it or not get it and that, dear people is the 50 / 50..... you getting or not getting it....

[Long Duck Dong]

now I am going to try ( god help me ) to explain something very simple .....and knowing the way i confuse the hell out of people.... this should be good.....

life is a 50 / 50 scenerio... we will or we will not, we do or we do not, we have or we have not......

to that we add probabilities and averages and chances and %'s as factors to our life....... but we still come back to the 50 / 50

if we use the lottery as a quide, we buy our ticket, we check the odds, find they are 100 mill to one of us winning, and the average chance of us holding the winning ticket is 600 million to one... and the probability of us choosing the right numbers in the right order are 2 bill to one........

but all of those odds indicate one thing and one thing only, we have either won or not....... we either hold a winning ticket or we do not...... 50 /50

another example is I smoke... compared to a non smoker, i have a higher risk of lung cancer and heart problems....... due to stress and other issues, I have a even higher risk factor...... so I can reduce the risk factor down or I can increase it..... but one of two outcomes will happen.... I will either develop cancer or I will not.... 50/50.....

and so the same applies to the chances of getting aids, I am not sexually active, my partner is not with me at the moment, and I am not having casual sex..... but I could sneak out and go sleep with somebody with aids.... use a condom or not use a condom, swallow cum or not swallow cum.... bare back or not bare back...... the changes in the risk factor and odds vary so greatly..... but I will either get hiv or not get hiv 50 /50

so the 50 / 50 are the two possible outcomes..... there is no 3rd outcome....
3rd outcomes exist for people that can not say yes or no. they say BUT.....

however there is no BUT with a lottery ticket, it wins or it doesn't...it can not BUT

there is no but with cancer, you either have cancer or you do not.... there is no BUT

and with hiv ... well, people, you either have hiv or you do not.... you do not have BUT.....

leaves everybody to argue over that now and how when you flip a coin in the air once and it lands, the laws of probability dictate that it will not land on heads on tails..... it will land on BUT

[NotLostJustWandering]

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

[void()]

I understand his point and have used similar in a way to wind up as something of an athiest.

It's a programming function used to check on cases.

if X == Z
then A == B
else X == Y

An the version I used was

If X exists
then I doesn't
else X doesn't

So far I'm still existing.

And yes it's boiled down to 50/50 like he says.

Gray skies indicate it may rain. What's the chance? It might, or might not.

[Long Duck Dong]

sodomandgorromah.... you can argue the stats and chances and probabilities all you want.... it still comes down to you either get it or you do not..... all the other factors surround the chances of you getting it and what risk there is based around maths......

I could have a 1-50 chance of getting aids.... but I will still either get it or not

the person that told me the 50 / 50 thing was the doctor who sat at his desk and confirmed my sister had hiv from a single unprotected sexual encounter with a person that had no idea they were hiv+......

he told me and my sister that people will argue all the probabilities and stats and fiqures and numbers...... but its a simple rule of thumb.... you either get it or you do not... as there is a risk of contracting it.... and that means there are only two outcomes.... you get it... or you do not.....

I could have oral, not anal, I could bare back or not, I could use condoms or not, I could be in a long term relationship or not...... hell I could go on all night...... but they are all meaningless when you get hiv/ aids.. and the reason is simple, if the hiv/aids virus is present, you will either catch it or you will not..... the only two possible outcomes

btw the testing of the hiv/ aids virus...... I know 3 people that have died from recieving the hiv virus from tested blood...... the tests were faulty..... but the blood was tested.....

using your argument that people lied about how they contracted it..... prove they lied,.... prove that there is zero risk of oral hiv / aids transmission by oral....... cos by that argument if the risk of oral is nil and risk by anal is high..... then any bisexual that has anal sex, be it by safe or unsafe means..... is palcing themselves and their partners at risk....... and that ( using the switchs words ) makes them all stupid and ignorant.... cos there is a risk of transmission......

now I am celibate as my partner is not with me.... and even I am not stupid enough to say that I am 100% safe from getting hiv/ aids...... cos I am involved in some high risk roles ( all legal ) and that means I too are the same as everybody else..... I will either get it or not.... regardless of the odds and chances and stats.....

[DuckiesDarling]

You know you can argue percentages til the cows come home but in the end the only thing that matters to a person being told they are HIV+ is they are told they are HIV+.

There are a lot of different strains of it out there, some are very virulent and don't respond well to meds, some respond well to meds and people can live as close to a normal life as possible after diagnosis.

But how they got it doesn't change the fact they recieved a death sentence :2cents:

[Long Duck Dong]

I understand his point and have used similar in a way to wind up as something of an athiest.

It's a programming function used to check on cases.

if X == Z
then A == B
else X == Y

An the version I used was

If X exists
then I doesn't
else X doesn't

So far I'm still existing.

And yes it's boiled down to 50/50 like he says.

Gray skies indicate it may rain. What's the chance? It might, or might not.

thank you.... you understand what I am saying........

I am a lil surprised with so many intelligent people in the forum, that they are struggling with the simple concept that a person is either hiv neg or hiv +....
and all the numbers and stats and figures and odds in the world, meant nothing the moment the virus was transmitted from one person to another.....

my sister found out the hard way, that all the odds in the world mean nothing if you get hiv/aids..... and the odds against her getting it, were something like 50,000 to one

it only takes one time to transmit the virus.... regardless of how many times you have sex.....

[DuckiesDarling]

You claimed your sister got HIV from a blood transfusion or from some medical work done at some NZ medical center, and not from sex. Get your lies straight.

Who did she have sex with then? You said she's Lesbian and claimed that women can't spread HIV to each other even if one of them is HIV+.

NZ must have very very poor medical care and standards for medicine if they don't even test blood that well for HIV and the HIV tests do not detect HIV in the blood that contains the disease, doctors or quacks in your case claim that all sex acts carry the exact same amount of risk for contracting HIV and that with HIV it's a 50/50 chance at contracting the virus which is not true.

You're just talking out your ass and lying.


Switch, can you not read? He said his sister's partner who was also a lesbian got it from a medical center. His sister got it from a one night stand with someone who didn't know they were infected. So go crawl back under your rock until you improve your reading comprehension skills. Or til Drew catches on to the fact our troll is back.

[Long Duck Dong]

You claimed your sister got HIV from a blood transfusion or from some medical work done at some NZ medical center, and not from sex. Get your lies straight.

Who did she have sex with then? You said she's Lesbian and claimed that women can't spread HIV to each other even if one of them is HIV+.

NZ must have very very poor medical care and standards for medicine if they don't even test blood that well for HIV and the HIV tests do not detect HIV in the blood that contains the disease, doctors or quacks in your case claim that all sex acts carry the exact same amount of risk for contracting HIV and that with HIV it's a 50/50 chance at contracting the virus which is not true.

You're just talking out your ass and lying.


I said my sisters partner got it from a medical center......

my sisters partner was a lesbian, my sister was a bisexual that later ided as a lesbian.....and my sister got hiv from a single sexual encounter

I have done the honour of copying both parts of my posts in this very thread....... so you can clearly see I am refering to two different people

if I have unprotected drunken sex with one man once for about 5 minutes that does not know he has hiv+, while the risk factor is higher of me getting it.... the odds are still in my favour of not getting it.........
unfortunately, the odds failed my sister....and she died 4 years ago, from aids.......

my sisters partner got aids thru a medical center.... no percentages for safe sex or using condoms etc, mattered, no findings on oral, anal virginal sex, mattered...... so yeah people can argue safe sex all they want.... its not the only way it can be transmitted


now I never said that two lesbians can not transfer the hiv virus, as my sister and her partner died from aids.......

remember me saying these two things to you ????

ok, I have a non sexual lifestyle....and now I am a barebacking bug chaser.....
just curious..... do you listen to the voices in your head or do they also do the typing for you too

now I has a LESBIAN sister die from aids..... and she had a LESBIAN partner..... so I should have a stance against barebacking...???? ok, explain to me how two females bareback....... do they fuck each other in the ass with their clits ????????

show me where I said its impossible for lesbians to get aids / hiv....... I said there is multiple ways to get aids / hiv, you are the one saying that if you use a condom you are safe and I asked what lesbians are supposed to hang it on.....cos my sisters partner got aids thru a medical center, and I am fucked if I know how lesbians using condoms would have stopped that cos it was transmitted and not thru sexual misconduct.....


now you can either lay off the personal attacks and trolling bs, or I will report you for breachs of rule 2......

2. Be polite - flame the idea if you feel you must, but not the person.

cos you are clearly a fucking troll

[Long Duck Dong]

It's impossible to read any of the tripe you post that you call writing. It's completely unorganized and it looks as though you are very drunk or high when you write posts.

Based on your false logic your sister would have gotten HIV even if condoms were used and were used correctly if she was with a man and no matter what sex acts were done, or she would have gotten HIV from a woman if dental dams and other latex barriers used and they were used correctly no matter what sex acts were done and that it's somehow all a 50% chance of not getting HIV if the other person actually has HIV and no matter what is done for sex.

The 50/50 chance is not true. You really should study safer sex, HIV, and sexuality more since it's clear you're just talking out your ass and making things up when it comes to sex acts and getting HIV and how to have safer sex.

based on my logic, it only takes one encounter to open yourself up to the risk of getting aids / hiv if you are in a situation of intimate activity with a person with hiv / aids......

you will either get it or not....... and the same chance applies to every time, you place yourself back in that situation, .... the odds may differ..... but the chance is the same, you will either get it or you will not.......

its the same thing with a virgin getting pregnant the first time she has sex.... the odds are against it.... but it happens.......

so you can argue all you want, with your numbers and stats and abuse..... it will never change the fact, if you place yourself at risk, you risk getting the virus..... and you will either get it or you will not.... 50/50.....

[Long Duck Dong]

ok I want to clarify something here......

the stats that people are posting are dealing with the odds of transmission of the hiv / aids virus thru forms of sexual acts, safe and unsafe and the likeihood of infection........ so there is nothing wrong with them and I am not arguing them.......

but I am not dealing with the likeihood of getting aids based around safe or unsafe sex, oral or anal, bare backing or not......... and I am not looking at that aspect either......... and that is where the issue lays

when my sister had sex, she defied the odds of the hiv / aids virus entered into her body..... she then defied all the odds against actual infection by the virus... and the virus found a host..... that is where my 50 / 50 stance comes in..... it would either take to the host or die ........ and that is the 50 /50 outcome I am refering to......

we do not know the odds of the virus entering a human host and failing to take hold, as we only have the people that are neg and the people that are pos and we can only based the stats around the people that are pos and the people that are neg..... not the people that have had the virus in them and not take hold

personally I pay no attention to stats and odds and chances, as they do not matter to me...... I have the stance that if I am sleeping with a infected person, I will either get the virus or not.... regardless of what the odds are or the stats say.... and thats what I see and understand.....

[12voltman59]

Ok--its a pretty scary thing those figures--but ya know what else hit me about going through the link?? Did ya take time to read some of the responses that people posted??

Sure--some of that content with the things people said was scary---things like "we out to shoot em" or something of that nature-but what was really scary about that posting---did ya pay attention to the posts themselves?? I know that it is online stuff and people tend to not be as careful in the way they write in online postings than they do in regular things they do-but man--it is scary at how many folks on there totally neglected the basics of good grammar at all-like the person "Patriot" (he spelled it "Patirot")-- His posting was even worse because he used no proper sentence structure, had other misspellings all through his posting and such--to me---it is so scary that in a nation that prides itself as being so well educated--we seemingly have more and more people who are adults that cannot communicate at an adult level--more like maybe first grade or something!!! Of course his logic and content were scary as well.

It is things of that sort that make me have concern for the future of our nation.

One point I wish to make about those statistics regarding HIV/AIDS rates among gay/bisexual men---I know that there is this one mindset floating out there that with gay male sex--it is no longer a good thing to take precautions when having sex and to "go balls to the wall" as it were when having gay male sex----to just "go for it"and have sex with abandon without any concern for the consequences is simply a bit of insanity in regards to health for sure and a bit of out and out stupidity when it comes to the PR/cultural war going on regarding homosexuality.

We have elected officials of all sorts from the proverbial "dog catchers" to Congressmen and US Senators who say things like "homosexuals pose as great a threat to our national security as does any Al Qaeda terrorist!"--- making such comments in all earnestness. People arguing this can point to those stats to bolster their point.

I do have to say to the members of that one element of the gay male world who are advocates of unbridled and no limits gay male sexual activity--- advocacy of such behavior just plays well into the hands of those who argue that not only should gay people be denied their full rights due them as citizens--but that gays should be targeted for who and what they are and somehow----prohibited from such behavior and punished for what they do and for their status as gay people since being such is "so bad."

[void()]

Used to run with rescue squads. One of the neat little factoids the federal liaison brought to our attention has stuck with me. We clean the stretchers, disinfect. The fed said "if you ever have a confirmed, or suspected HIV patient, wipe the stretcher down with straight bleach, let it stand ten minutes, rinse it off ... no more HIV." Oh and potatoes can be used to clean up blood, even dry blood. Raw cut potatoes contain enzymes that attack human blood. Didn't learn that from squad calls but from other experience/s.

[Long Duck Dong]

HIV infection from sex doesn't work the way you claim it does.

There are sex acts that you can do with someone that's Poz and you're never going to get HIV from doing these sex acts or from having sex with the HIV+ person.

The Poz person can have the highest viral load ever and not be on any meds at all and you are never going to get HIV from that person by doing these types of sex with them.

Even if you are the Poz person and you have a high viral load and you're not on meds you're still not going to give a neg person HIV by doing these sex acts.

There's no 50% chance of getting HIV or 50% of not getting HIV this way.

If your argument for 50/50 were true you'd see a lot more people getting HIV from all types of sex acts including getting oral sex. They would not be getting HIV from having bareback vaginal or anal sex like you see happen and how HIV is mainly spread during sex.

HIV is not that easy to get as it is a rather fragile virus. Unless you are IVing drugs and sharing needles, get a blood transfusion with blood that is not tested properly which does not happen anymore in the USA and most countries, or are intentionally engaging in bareback anal or vaginal sex with people who you are not very monogamous with you are not going to become Poz.

to my understanding the hiv virus enters the human body, and it either finds a area that allows it to enter into the bloodstream or it doesn't

now unless the hiv / aids is now spreading by email and messenger, I am pretty sure that the way the med experts has told us, it is transmitted, is the way its contracted......

now there are multiple ways it can be transmitted and I would be a lil concerned if I go for a blood test and the nurse has a needle with a condom on it......

but you are talking about sex, and in your rush to tell me I am wrong, you actually stated what i have being saying, and actually proved me right

I am refering to remarks like this that you just made
Even if you are the Poz person and you have a high viral load and you're not on meds you're still not going to give a neg person HIV by doing these sex acts.


just cos the odds are higher of infection, doesn't mean you will get it, so even barebacking, while dangerous, can be safe ( not 100% safe )... as you are fine as long as you do not get infected......

my sister died from a single encounter.... she got infected.... but there are people out there that do bareback, with multiple people and still never get the virus....... so the stats exist as a breakdown of the rates of infection by groups of different races, classes etc etc..........but they still mean nothing.....

just cos a barebacking male taking multiple loads is statistically higher at risk than my sister, doesn't change the fact that my sister died.... that guy is still alive and hiv -

and that is my point, you will either get it or you will not....... no amount of arguing by anybody will change that........
things like the hiv / aids virus is fragile etc, and condoms are almost 100% safe etc.... do not mean anything, if you get the virus......as it only takes a freak event to defy all the odds, for a person to get infected.... and that is what really matters......

condoms and viruses never took maths class, humans did...... and it made them more stupid than I care to believe.......

[dafydd]

Hello Coyotedude;

We recently had a gentleman come into our hospital who had been in a car accident. He was injured badly, and required surgery as soon as we could find a blood donor with his type match. He told us that the man in the car with him had the same blood typing. We checked his friend's blood, and found the man had AIDS. When we told the first man, he was completely shocked. Neither man knew. We checked the man that needed surgery, and discovered that he did not have Aids. I felt badly for the man who was told he had aids, because he asked one of the aides to end his life, as he did not want to go on with this horrible disease. It was very difficult to hear.

Thank you for posting this very sobering artical.
Kit

Don't u mean they had HIV from looking at the blood samples? How could you tell they had AIDS from looking at the blood samples?

[Long Duck Dong]

a picture is worth a thousand words.... the words with the picture, could save 1000 lives..........

[NotLostJustWandering]

a picture is worth a thousand words.... the words with the picture, could save 1000 lives..........

How? Are there that many people putting condoms over their heads?

Maybe what we need is new legislation to make condom manufacturers put a new warning label on their products. "Improper use of this product may cause suffocation..." And of course, you would need a diagram with stick figures to dispel all ambiguity about what part of the body the rubber is supposed to cover.

[NotLostJustWandering]

a picture is worth a thousand words.... the words with the picture, could save 1000 lives..........

Actually, in the long run it might cause more deaths. Consider that this may be a case of natural selection. Just imagine the consequences of allowing the entire species to start carrying the "put condom on head" gene.

[Biguy91]

I thought the issues raised by Bobby Glendinning's piece warranted a new thread, so I created one:Shall we just censor Bobby Glendinning, or burn him at the stake as well? (http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?p=183427#post183427)


Haha mate nicely done :):flag3::flag3: