HIV, Bisexuality and the Gender Conundrum [Archive] - Page 2

IanBorthwick

May 15, 2012, 7:20 PM

`
This has now turned disgusting. I can understand where a few guys whom are misogynistic will lie about, twist and contort what I say to suit their pathetic and sick agenda but their willful and deliberate ignorance on a topic that has life and death repercussions is an affront not only to bisexuals and the LGBT, but entire human race. These are not rational people.

“Shaky Data” – Huh? The CDC or Centers for Disease Control is the number one organization in the world on information regarding the existence and transmission of all diseases. There is nothing better. When I see desperate people attempt to semantically parse or obfuscate a statement by the CDC to suit their own ideology, it scares the hell out of me. Their rationalization here is so egregious as to be deadly.

The CDC itself states;

“There are three essential ways to reduce
your risk:
1. Don’t have sex (i.e., anal, vaginal or oral)
2. Only have sex (i.e., anal, vaginal or oral) if you’re in a
mutually monogamous relationship with a partner you
know is not infected
3. Use a condom every time you have anal, vaginal or oral
sex. (Correct and consistent use of the male latex condom
is highly effective in reducing HIV transmission.)”

At least one of the protagonists here is so full of personal rage it has affected his ability to reason and he had become a living example of the bisexual males worst nightmare. If one cannot change the reality of facts, then divert peoples attention away from them, which appears to be his mantra, as the two posts above plainly show. Rather than confront an issue, it’s far easier (and cowardly) to cast aspersions and misinformation. A dangerous person.

Sites and forums like this can be a good source of information and discussion but beyond that, every bisexual should be aware that there are those can and will distort such information for their own gain, which is why nothing should be taken verbatim and should be researched. Safer sex is possible but it's up to the individual to decide what works best for them. Don't allow yourself to get bullied into do something you are not comfortable with.

And the Re-BRanding is complete. The entire denial of what she said and did before, as well as how she was pushing the issue and her facts have no been conveniently dispensed with. And people acted like I was just barking...Well here it IS!I'm done with this thread and Aeonpax's insanity.

darkeyes

May 15, 2012, 7:47 PM

No dear, I'm not using that bed you used. I don't care how strong the posters were against ropes.
Different place daffy... Gleneagles is an infinitely posher place in Perthshire... have been to a weddin' ther an all an' the plonk wos more than acceptable... but didn't get laid and ended up at me nunc an nanties.. an no fun ther I can tellya..:(. stockin's not needed...:eek2:

Gearbox

May 15, 2012, 10:06 PM

Different place daffy... Gleneagles is an infinitely posher place in Perthshire... have been to a weddin' ther an all an' the plonk wos more than acceptable... but didn't get laid and ended up at me nunc an nanties.. an no fun ther I can tellya..:(. stockin's not needed...:eek2:
Well I'm quite overcome by your good taste and seeing us such posh shaggers.:wacko: Rest assured the shagging will be quite refined. No "Fuck yeh! Fuck yeh!"'s! Oh no! It'll be "That's most agreeable! That's most agreeable!" throughout! Then a round of golf.:tongue:

By the sounds of it, the clientèle there don't know a good time when they see one! How dare they not seduce you into their room! And at a wedding too! I've been a spare dick many a time, and I KNOW the pain of going through all that biz and not getting any benefit at the end. Your not alone there! I feel your pain.:eek2:

Oh Dafydd sugar lips, sort your box out! You know how Drew likes us to douche it regularly these days. Bless him.:suave:

ExSailor

May 16, 2012, 1:54 AM

This has now turned disgusting. While this statement may be controversial, I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. Aeon this whole thread and your flawed and completely wrong arguments based on your own bigotry towards bisexual men, HIV+ people, and how you know nothing about safer sex or how anyone of any race, gender, or sexual preference can be HIV+ is what's vulgar and disgusting. You and others here who are biphobic and pozphobic are the real danger to bisexual men and a bisexual man's worst nightmare since you're the ones who are distorting information for your own personal gain and agendas that are nothing but biphobia and pozphobia. People such as yourself who are within the LGBT community yet who are biphobic and pozphobic are not rational people. Aeon biphobic and pozphobic attitudes like yours and how you're spreading wrong information about HIV, safer sex, and bisexual men are actually a danger towards LGBT people and greater humanity since you claim that having safer sex does not work or does not prevent HIV transmission or infection, and with your biphobia and pozphobia you're claiming that bisexual men alone are responsible for HIV infections and transmissions to bisexual and straight women. I heard enough of this false BS in the 80s and it was not true then and it's not true now in 2012. I'm a bisexual man, I've been HIV+ for 27 years and I have never infected anyone with HIV or given them another strain of HIV if they are HIV+ and we had sex together because I practice safer sex. My girlfriend is HIV- and remains so because we practice safer sex and we've been very sexually active with each other for decades. Your bigoted claims of "While this statement may be controversial, I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great." is flawed because there are a lot of straight men who are HIV+, and even if someone is HIV+ if you're having safer sex correctly and consistently with them then HIV infection and transmission is not going to happen. Slipnslide's comments about bisexual and gay men being cesspools just shows how he has issues with his own sexuality and has lots of internalized homophobia and biphobia. Just because someone is HIV+ or has an STD it does not mean that they're a "cesspool" or "not clean". His claims that if he has sex with straight white women that he's not going to have sexual partners who are or could be HIV+ also shows how little he knows about HIV and having safer sex. Now why don't you both run along and do something that will benefit both of you like join the Right wing Conservative groups, donate money to the Bachmanns or other ex-gay groups, donate money to pozphobic HIV/AIDS denialists, or join the Westboro Baptist church? Bigots such as yourselves who have biphobic and pozphobic agendas are not for LGBT equality or rights, sexual freedom, are hypocrites, and do not belong in the LGBT community.

void()

May 16, 2012, 5:09 AM

æonpax, dafydd, gearbox, darkeyes,

I need to apologize. Have not done as I expect of myself. You all have
a good one.

darkeyes

May 16, 2012, 6:35 AM

Aeon biphobic and pozphobic attitudes like yours and how you're spreading wrong information about HIV, safer sex, and bisexual men are actually a danger towards LGBT people and greater humanity since you claim that having safer sex does not work or does not prevent HIV transmission or infection, and with your biphobia and pozphobia you're claiming that bisexual men alone are responsible for HIV infections and transmissions to bisexual and straight women.
She claims nothing of the sort.. there may well be flaws in her arguments but this is not one of them.. ur not alone in twisting what people say to suit ur position but doing so helps no one...

æonpax

May 16, 2012, 8:31 AM

She claims nothing of the sort.. there may well be flaws in her arguments but this is not one of them.. ur not alone in twisting what people say to suit ur position but doing so helps no one...

My dear Fran, the lioness does not concern herself with the fleas and flies. That is why nature gave her a tail, to swat them while she focuses her attention on infinitely more pressing matters.

The lioness considers such small and insignificant pests to be completely unworthy of her attention.

Food for thought.

dafydd

May 16, 2012, 9:12 AM

dafydd

May 16, 2012, 9:33 AM

Well I'm quite overcome by your good taste and seeing us such posh shaggers.:wacko: Rest assured the shagging will be quite refined. No "Fuck yeh! Fuck yeh!"'s! Oh no! It'll be "That's most agreeable! That's most agreeable!" throughout! Then a round of golf.:tongue:

By the sounds of it, the clientèle there don't know a good time when they see one! How dare they not seduce you into their room! And at a wedding too! I've been a spare dick many a time, and I KNOW the pain of going through all that biz and not getting any benefit at the end. Your not alone there! I feel your pain.:eek2:

Oh Dafydd sugar lips, sort your box out! You know how Drew likes us to douche it regularly these days. Bless him.:suave:

Er G, stop hijacking-off the thread with humour, friendliness, flirtation, good natured-news, titillation and fresh air: just so you can spread your light hearted and generally chilled-outedness around to dilute some rather vile communications: where do you think you are? An online community of people who all share experiences of inequality and similar dreams for enancipation? We're liberal enough here to look right through that. We eat our own.
Being hung doesn't mean u can just say or do what u like
(in principle).

Inbox douched and ready.

D

ExSailor

Jun 1, 2012, 1:13 AM

It's 2012 you should know by now how to have safer sex and how not infect someone with HIV or get infected with HIV. I remember when AIDS/HIV was new and how everyone learned about how it was transmitted, and how to have safer sex. Aeon and others who are living in an 80s AIDS panic want to completely revise history and spread their own agendas about bisexual men and people who are HIV+. Someone's sexual orientation, race, and gender have nothing to do if they're HIV+ or at high risk for being HIV+ since you get infected with HIV by having unprotected sex not by the the fact that your sexual partner is a gay or bisexual man, and yes there are many straight people who are HIV+. Despite the HIV denialists, biphobes/homophobes, and pozphobes like the OP and another who are posting in this thread most people worldwide who are HIV+ are heterosexual and they were infected via unprotected heterosexual sex. Yes white hetero women of all ages can and are HIV+. The OP isn't nearly as intelligent or worldly as she claims to be, and it's clear to everyone here that she has her own agendas and wants to spread biphobia about bisexual men, homophobia about gay men, and wrong information about HIV and how safer sex does not prevent HIV transmission or infection which is false. She was a teen mom and already has multiple kids and isn't even in her early 30s yet and spends more time getting knocked up on purpose-remember folks it takes two to tango when it comes to safer sex and birth control- than actually learning about how to prevent HIV/STDs and pregnancy, and how to have safer sex correctly by using condoms. She has no other ambition in life than to be some dude's baby mama and leech off of him for child support. She and others posting about how bisexual men spread HIV all while completely ignoring the fact that people have safer sex with HIV+ people all the time and don't get infected. No this is not an attack on them, it's a fact. Safer sex, birth control, and HIV/STDs are not something that aeon knows anything about and she can scream from the rooftops about how those icky bisexual men are HIV+ and go around infecting women after we have sex with gay men, and those horrible bisexual men posting here have their own agendas, don't actually present studies or facts-when actually we do and they are based on over 30 years of studies done about HIV/AIDS and safer sex and partnerships like ExSailor has where one person is HIV+ the other is HIV- and they practice safer sex and the HIV- person remains HIV- and they've done this for decades. As others have posted, it's a virus. It does not care about your race, gender, sexual orientation, or age. It does not care about your or the OP's bigotry, issues with biphobia, or flawed statistics and flawed logic either that you and aeon are claiming is factual to promote your personal agendas of biphobia and pozphobia. You get HIV not from having sex with certain people of a gender, race, or sexual orientation; but because of having unprotected sex. Try telling all of the millions of heterosexuals who have died from AIDS or who are living with HIV that they contracted from having unprotected sex with hetero partners that heterosexuals have low risk for HIV or that vaginal sex is somehow less risky than anal sex. I know hetero men and women who had unprotected sex just once with a heterosexual partner and they were infected this way. You are assuming that hets don't have unprotected anal sex which isn't true. Also not all bisexual or gay men even engage in anal sex with each other. Most bi and gay men do not despite the stereotypes about bisexual and gay men and how people think that when two men get together we're just going to have anal sex. The only people who should not be having sex at all are people like yourself and aeon who don't know about safer sex and are in complete denial about how HIV can and does infect people of all ages, genders, sexual orientations, and races and who have your heads buried in the sand with denial about HIV and how it can even infect straight men and women, and people of all races. You know your stuff about HIV and STDs, unlike the original poster and a few others in this thread who resort to biphobia, their bigoted agendas, and their own issues with people such as myself who are HIV+.

BiBrandon

Jun 8, 2012, 12:03 AM

While this statement may be controversial, I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. The key here is promoting “safe sex” and while even that is not fool proof, it is a start. [/FONT][/SIZE] That was a very ignorant, wrong, and dumb statement. Come out of your 1985 cave of ignorance.

jcsbox244

Jun 8, 2012, 5:33 AM

i agree here how many bi and lesbian females use or share needles to be honest with you that is the number one reason for deseases is dirty needles and i also see so many people drinking after their friend that was taught to us in kindergarden not to share combs or drink or eat after anyone guess what about 50% are doing just that i dont like to drink after my gfriends or wives even then when they contract aids and give it to their bisexual or straight male friend and go sleep with half does lesbian or bifemales and they all find out they are ful blown hiv who gets the blame had to be the mail right that is just one senario how many more can we come up with we all have to be held accountable for our actions dont do drugs is a good start dont get so drunk you are not responcible for what happens to you that happens too dont fool with anyone you know doest take care of themselves or someone that uses drugs or anyone that takes risk of being wiith someone that does that is one thing i surely look for and know who you are sleeping with whether they can be trusted or notlook for signs of risk ask around chances are somone you know may know the character of them if in doubt dont mess is my motto been safe this long but could sctew up tommorrow as well never know just do the best you can i needed blood and didnt hget it may been a good thing people cantract it like that as well there is no sure way except refrain from all activities in life and be in a paddedroom caue if you need blood it could be tainted lol keep safe

BiDaveDtown

Jun 8, 2012, 5:22 PM

[QUOTE=jcsbox244;231285 i also see so many people drinking after their friend that was taught to us in kindergarden not to share combs or drink or eat after anyone guess what about 50% are doing just that i dont like to drink after my gfriends or wives even then when they contract aids and give it to their bisexual or straight male friend and go sleep with half does lesbian or bifemales and they all find out they are ful blown hiv who gets the blame had to be the mail right that is just one senario how many more can we come up with we all have to be held accountable for our actions[/QUOTE] You're correct that we should be responsible for our own actions and that having safer sex is someone's responsibility. You're not going to get HIV from sharing drinks or combs with someone, even if that person is HIV+. It's not that easy to get, and there's tons of wrong misinformation in this thread starting with the first post about how in Aeon's ignorant and bigoted opinion hetero men are somehow going to be HIV- but bisexual men are not and spread HIV to others which is BS and a throwback to the 80s. :rolleyes:

æonpax

Jun 8, 2012, 5:58 PM

You're correct that we should be responsible for our own actions and that having safer sex is someone's responsibility. You're not going to get HIV from sharing drinks or combs with someone, even if that person is HIV+. It's not that easy to get, and there's tons of wrong misinformation in this thread starting with the first post about how in Aeon's ignorant and bigoted opinion hetero men are somehow going to be HIV- but bisexual men are not and spread HIV to others which is BS and a throwback to the 80s. :rolleyes:
`
`
http://i.imgur.com/OA51N.jpg

BiBrandon

Jun 8, 2012, 11:25 PM

I am SMH at the original poster æonpax's bigotry, biphobia, heterosexism, and her very dated attitude of
I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. No her bigotry and being wrong about HIV and bisexual men are all not surprising to me. In my experience some of the most biphobic people, and people who are highly ignorant about HIV and safer sex despite how they should know better than to practice bigotry and biphobia, and should know by now how to have safer sex correctly are other LGBT people who are within the so called LGBT "community". :rolleyes:

æonpax

Jun 9, 2012, 1:55 AM

I am SMH at the original poster æonpax's bigotry, biphobia, heterosexism, and her very dated attitude of No her bigotry and being wrong about HIV and bisexual men are all not surprising to me. In my experience some of the most biphobic people, and people who are highly ignorant about HIV and safer sex despite how they should know better than to practice bigotry and biphobia, and should know by now how to have safer sex correctly are other LGBT people who are within the so called LGBT "community". :rolleyes:

`
`
http://i.imgur.com/JLwaQ.jpg

Long Duck Dong

Jun 9, 2012, 2:12 AM

incidently and I know that its slightly off topic..... recently in NZ, in auckland, a issue has started to arise with the spread of gonorrhea in gay and bi males.... and there are serious concerns that the strain the medical experts are seeing, is becoming drug resistant...... this is also being matched by the spread of hiv/ aids in auckland and the number of previously undiagnosed cases of HIV infection....

what was interesting to note for me, was the fact in the reports that more and more males are not showing any symptoms of infection from gonorrhea so they are unaware that they have it and cos its being passed by anal and oral sex.....

there is now a call for gay and bi males in auckland to get tested.... not so much cos of the fact that they are gay and bi and their sexual preferences, but cos its gay and bi males that are showing the highest transmission and infection rate of gonorrhea......and while safe sex is a good idea, oral sex without condoms has become one of the main ways the disease is being spread.....

all I can say, is once again, its a bad look for the gay and bi community when the actions of a few people make headlines for the LGBT community in the very way that we do not want to make headlines....

darkeyes

Jun 9, 2012, 6:53 AM

Gonorrhoea becoming resistant to antibiotics has been warned about for some years.. like any disease we use antibiotics to treat. it mutates into new strains and our overuse of antibiotics is increasingly making them less effective and in time may make the useless,,,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/31/sexually-transmitted-infection-rates-soar
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/world-health-organisation-warns-there-could-soon-be-no-effective-treatment-for-gonorrhoea-7820730.html

Long Duck Dong

Jun 9, 2012, 7:41 AM

true darkeyes..... but evidence of that was first seen in the nam war with some of the vets coming down with strains of STIs that the medics had never seen before.... and all it is, is a case of constant reinfection and cross infection, the same with the hiv virus....

in NZ we have some variations of viral strains that are more resistant to the drugs and treatment, one of them is the common cold and the flu viruses.....and the same with some STIs and the trouble is that we treat them with treatments that come from overseas, while the drugs may work on the strains overseas, they are less effective on strains here.....

this is the 2011 sti report for NZ, with auckland have more of the highest rates of infection for a number of STI's in NZ... and it makes reference to the strain of gonorrhea that they are having trouble treating with conventional meds..... the reports with the gay and bi infection rates, is something that the NZAF is sitting on and not releasing to the general public as they try to push the message to be tested, to gay and bi guys without making it a public statement

http://www.nzaf.org.nz/news/view/untreatable-clap-hitting-aucklands-gay-men

ESR NZ health clinic date for 2011 on reported cases of STI infection... this report doesn't include the people that were by a private doctor
http://www.surv.esr.cri.nz/PDF_surveillance/STISurvRpt/2011/2011AnnualSTIRpt.pdf

this is more mention of the strain of gonorrhea that is drug resistant and surfacing in other countries around the world
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gonorrhea-20120607,0,2300767.story

for me its not really a issue of the sexuality of the people involved, but the fact that STIs are spreading like wildfire amongst the gay / bi community in NZ......

darkeyes

Jun 9, 2012, 8:21 AM

I am not green Duckie.. I know how it works.. diseases adapt and mutate into new, often much far dangerous strains at a greater rate because they must to survive the onslaught of the drugs humankind has developed to combat and destroy them.. TB, Malaria, pneumonia, pleurisy, the flu, measles and a whole host of diseases we once thought were being eradicated or were no longer the threat they once were are fighting back with a vengeance.. and it isn't just New Zealand.. it is all over the place.. that they mutate in different places at different rates and in different ways makes sense to me, and each disease does need to be treated on its own "merits" with the treatments which are most appropriate to it.. but in this global village of ours, it doesn't take too long for strains to be spread from one little corner of the globe to the entire planet with potentially devastating results.. and they mutate at ever increasing rates, often to such a degree that even with our advanced technologies, medical and scientific research and drug development we are finding it difficult to keep pace.. we shouldn't be surprised that STD's are among those diseases which are fighting back and that's a warning to us all no matter our sexuality..

tenni

Jun 9, 2012, 7:50 PM

slipnslide

Jun 10, 2012, 12:30 AM

there is now a call for gay and bi males in auckland to get tested.... not so much cos of the fact that they are gay and bi and their sexual preferences, but cos its gay and bi males that are showing the highest transmission and infection rate of gonorrhea......and while safe sex is a good idea, oral sex without condoms has become one of the main ways the disease is being spread.....

Oral sex without a condom is becoming a higher and higher risk activity all the time. With so many bi/gay guys refusing to accept this fact the problem is only going to get worse.

slipnslide

Jun 10, 2012, 12:31 AM

this is the 2011 sti report for NZ, with auckland have more of the highest rates of infection for a number of STI's in NZ... and it makes reference to the strain of gonorrhea that they are having trouble treating with conventional meds..... the reports with the gay and bi infection rates, is something that the NZAF is sitting on and not releasing to the general public as they try to push the message to be tested, to gay and bi guys without making it a public statement

Why are the not releasing the report? My hunch is that it would only fuel the public's view of the MSM community as irresponsible so they keep the report quiet.

Long Duck Dong

Jun 10, 2012, 1:16 AM

its standard tactics for NZ, slip,......there is a old saying about NZ that nothing exists south of the bombay hills and so much of the focus in NZ on issues, uses auckland stats, if a good look is wanted, and the rest of NZ is added in if a bad look is wanted...... but with the STI issue, the auckland STI numbers make up close to 1/2 of the NZ total of STI infections and with the bi and gay male community in auckland, they are responsible for close to 3/4 of total NZ infections and its listed as MSM sexual contact by most other groups, its mainly the NZAF ( NZ aids foundation ) that are listing it as gay and bi males

even the non sexuality stats of NZ show that its more males than females, that are spreading the STI infections

the trouble is there are no stats that are showing if its casual sex partners or partners in committed relationships with FB / FWB / casual hook up options.. that are the main group that is contracting and spreading the infections.... and the unofficial word amongst the LGBT community is that its the casual sex people that have the more risque approach to sex.....IE not practising safer sex....

the trouble there, is its still a bad look for the LGBT community as a whole....and the fact that its generally happening in auckland is interesting.... auckland has about 1.2 mill people and its estimated that there is around a 150k-200k lgbt community there.....but it still doesn't explain why the numbers are much higher for STI infections, unless there is less of a safer sex approach in auckland amongst the gay and bi males in auckland and once again, that looks bad for the majority of gay and bi males that are practising safer sex....

personally it doesn't worry me what the people in auckland do, its their lives, their lifestyle..... but it will become another feather in the cap of the anti LGBT crew that are constantly looking for reasons to oppose any LGBT activities and social involvement, and bit by bit, they are slowly winning their fight against the LGBT

BiBrandon

Jun 10, 2012, 1:46 AM

Oral sex without a condom is becoming a higher and higher risk activity all the time. With so many bi/gay guys refusing to accept this fact the problem is only going to get worse. Who wants to suck a condom when sucking dick or use a dental dam out of latex when eating a pussy? OR wear a condom when they get their dick sucked or if they're a female put a dental dam on their pussy when they get it eaten out? Not me! Gonorrhea is not a bisexual or gay male disease but it's something that many heterosexuals have too. So it's a human disease. Now, cases in heterosexual men have also passed the 5% threshold, according to new data from the CDC's Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project.

slipnslide

Jun 10, 2012, 2:08 AM

personally it doesn't worry me what the people in auckland do, its their lives, their lifestyle..... but it will become another feather in the cap of the anti LGBT crew that are constantly looking for reasons to oppose any LGBT activities and social involvement, and bit by bit, they are slowly winning their fight against the LGBT

Yeah, they're definitely losing the PR battle.

Long Duck Dong

Jun 10, 2012, 3:51 AM

Who wants to suck a condom when sucking dick or use a dental dam out of latex when eating a pussy? OR wear a condom when they get their dick sucked or if they're a female put a dental dam on their pussy when they get it eaten out? Not me! Gonorrhea is not a bisexual or gay male disease but it's something that many heterosexuals have too. So it's a human disease. Now, cases in heterosexual men have also passed the 5% threshold, according to new data from the CDC's Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project.

yeah its a human disease..... but its the sexuality that makes it appear worse......

its generally been seen as a disease of the unclean for god knows how many decades, and that has encompassed the heterosexual aspect of infection...... a bit like hiv / aids was seen as the * gay * virus but suddenly the group more responsible for spreading gonorrhea in auckland, is gay / bi males and I am not sure how small the percentage of them, it is, but they are just making it worse for the other gay / bi males that have a working brain and try to be safe and sti free for themselves and their partners.....

the * why should I use a condom* type thinking....that applies to any person, any sexuality.. and thats the reason why the STIs are spreading... I was reading a NZ blog about the gonorrhea issue and the poster made the remark * its a simple test, a single treatment and you are good to go again, just get tested every 3-6 months... and the moralists that talk about monogamy and abstinence should learn to shut up and get off their high horse, cos its not a big deal, its just a STI..*

I immediately wondered how many times that guy has been treated for STIs...... and the answer was 3 times.... I can only wonder how many people hes infected
but it takes two to tango and only 50% of the blame lays with that guy, the other 50% rests on the shoulders of the people he slept with, that also practised unsafe sex

darkeyes

Jun 10, 2012, 8:12 AM

What I read on this thread are what are in reality attacts on all sexually active bisexual men. There is some truth that having sex witha bisexual may increase your risk of being exposed to HIV. As hasbeen pointed out it is possible to have sex with an HIV man using precaution to reduce the risk. It is something that I might not becomfortable with if I knew his status. Personally, I do have sex with other bisexual men. I would not campaign like theOp in many of her threads with suchbigoted views against bisexual men but her personal chice is just that. We onlycommentat her overt campaign and psuedo intellectual pretense of superiority.
6
As far as I can determine, none of thefollowing are likely to be involved sexuallywithabisexual man. Readers should judge their viewsand possible bigotryunderstanding who theypresent themselvesas. They self describe themselves as: an asexual man who has no desire for sex, a bisexual man who has difficulty and self loathing for his bisexauality to the point of abstaining from m2m forms of sexual expression, a lesbian, a bisexual woman who is the mistress to a man and is acting as his handmaden to bear a male child but isrestricted from having sex with men who are not approved by master (not sure oc what term she might want him called).

Sorry for the typos as I'm working on a tablet that is making it hard to correct errors.
I may be fond of u, tenni, but I don't take too kindly to u hinting that I may be a bigot.. I agree readers should make their own judgements about anything we may say in print, but having a different view or questioning or criticising either the views of others or the prevailing wisdom does not of itself make anyone a bigot.. u may question and criticise anything I say whenever u wish I have no objections to that, but would expect it done with a little more discernment than to attach the word bigotry to my motives for any view I may express.. others will answer for themselves if they so wish, but ur own prejudicial slip shows in the above, but while It may be prejudicial, I do not at least think it stems from bigotry on ur part, but at times u do sail close to the wind on that score..

tenni

Jun 10, 2012, 12:28 PM

Sorry darkeyes no I do not think of you as a bigot at ALL unless you believe all bisexual men should be avoided sexually out of fear that a woman might get HIV? I do think that everyone is entitled who they have sex with. Although everyone may comment on every thread I find the premise thatall bisexual men should be avoided sexually bigotted. I wish bidave had not brought this offensive thread back up. Just let it vanish insteadof posting slightly off topic about other STDs.

slipnslide

Jun 10, 2012, 1:41 PM

the * why should I use a condom* type thinking....that applies to any person, any sexuality.. and thats the reason why the STIs are spreading... I was reading a NZ blog about the gonorrhea issue and the poster made the remark * its a simple test, a single treatment and you are good to go again, just get tested every 3-6 months... and the moralists that talk about monogamy and abstinence should learn to shut up and get off their high horse, cos its not a big deal, its just a STI..*

I immediately wondered how many times that guy has been treated for STIs...... and the answer was 3 times.... I can only wonder how many people hes infected
but it takes two to tango and only 50% of the blame lays with that guy, the other 50% rests on the shoulders of the people he slept with, that also practised unsafe sex

Those guys are everywhere. I call them the "You Just Take a Pill" crowd.

There might be a shift happening though. I've been chatting with more guys who report having not had sex in a year or so because of number of people they saw picking up infections. Their numbers are still very small though.

You really get a good grasp of how stupid our species is when they will risk disease for a moment of pleasure.

BiBrandon

Jun 10, 2012, 5:43 PM

What I read on this thread are what are in reality attacts on all sexually active bisexual men. There is some truth that having sex witha bisexual may increase your risk of being exposed to HIV. As hasbeen pointed out it is possible to have sex with an HIV man using precaution to reduce the risk. It is something that I might not becomfortable with if I knew his status. Personally, I do have sex with other bisexual men. I would not campaign like theOp in many of her threads with suchbigoted views against bisexual men but her personal chice is just that. We onlycommentat her overt campaign and psuedo intellectual pretense of superiority. 6 As far as I can determine, none of thefollowing are likely to be involved sexuallywithabisexual man. Readers should judge their viewsand possible bigotryunderstanding who theypresent themselvesas. They self describe themselves as: an asexual man who has no desire for sex, a bisexual man who has difficulty and self loathing for his bisexauality to the point of abstaining from m2m forms of sexual expression, a lesbian, a bisexual woman who is the mistress to a man and is acting as his handmaden to bear a male child but isrestricted from having sex with men who are not approved by master (not sure oc what term she might want him called). Sorry for the typos as I'm working on a tablet that is making it hard to correct errors. Yes you are correct. Aeonpax the OP is a bigot, she is an http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/134652d1268380669-funny-strange-random-pics-44266966_unsuccessful_troll.jpg and http://www.resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/denialist-AIDS11.jpg?d9c344

BiBrandon

Jun 10, 2012, 5:46 PM

I find the premise thatall bisexual men should be avoided sexually bigotted. Agreed, Aeon the OP and others who think that bisexual men are mainly all HIV+ while LMAO straight men are not HIV+ at all or are somehow much less likely to have HIV or an STD, and that safer sex does not work: http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/20031382.jpg and http://www.binetusa.org/Images/People/Misc/StopBiphobiaNow_200.gif

æonpax

Jun 10, 2012, 8:05 PM

Agreed, Aeon the OP and others who think that bisexual men are mainly all HIV+ while LMAO straight men are not HIV+ at all or are somehow much less likely to have HIV or an STD, and that safer sex does not work:
`
`
Would you like some delicious, aged Wisconsin cheese, with your whine?
`
`
http://i.imgur.com/Ye3iw.jpg

darkeyes

Jun 10, 2012, 8:12 PM

`
`
Would you like some delicious, aged Wisconsin cheese, with your whine?
`
`
http://i.imgur.com/Ye3iw.jpg

*giggles*:smilies15

æonpax

Jun 10, 2012, 8:17 PM

Yes you are correct. Aeonpax the OP is a bigot, she is an
`
`

http://i.imgur.com/lWbvu.jpg
`
`

Every site online, regardless of it's intention, orientation, race, gender, nationality or ideology, has a few people whom are...well, not quite up to the task of displaying any intellectual acumen but none the less, distinguish themselves in other, less than cerebral ways. Some have personal axes to grind, others are socially dysfunctional and still others just were not blessed with a lick of common sense.

BiBrandon

Jun 10, 2012, 8:31 PM

Every site online, regardless of it's intention, orientation, race, gender, nationality or ideology, has a few people whom are...well, not quite up to the task of displaying any intellectual acumen but none the less, distinguish themselves in other, less than cerebral ways. Some have personal axes to grind, others are socially dysfunctional and still others just were not blessed with a lick of common sense. You're only describing yourself completely with this post. ;) You can run your mouth all you want about how horrible bisexual men are, how you want to claim that we have HIV and don't practice safer sex and infect others, but this just shows that you're nothing but a member of the LGBT community who despite being bisexual is biphobic and bigoted, and you have your own agenda with members of the opposite gender of your own sexuality, and with people who are HIV+ and *gasp* sexually active. So don't act like your shit doesn't stink and that bisexual men and women are not going to call out your agendas of biphobia, your disdain for HIV+ people, and how you're nothing but a bigot. I'm not even going to go into how you're nothing but a racist hypocrite who is not nearly as intelligent as she thinks she is.

BiBrandon

Jun 10, 2012, 8:35 PM

a bisexual woman who is the mistress to a man and is acting as his handmaden to bear a male child but isrestricted from having sex with men who are not approved by master (not sure oc what term she might want him called). She's a snow bunny and his baby mama. She's also racist which is not surprising. Nothing unique to see here folks.

æonpax

Jun 10, 2012, 8:40 PM

*giggles*:smilies15

I just don't know how else to describe such juvenile behavior. I don't want to be insulting but when someone keeps repeating the same thing, over and over, uses various different ID's saying the same exact thing, with nary an attempt to qualify such an opinion, I have to call it the way I see it.

BTW, I got back from Milwaukee about an hour ago. Me and my brood (my oldest brought two of her friends along) went to Pridefest. Perfect weather, good music and excellent company.

darkeyes

Jun 10, 2012, 8:41 PM

She's a snow bunny and his baby mama. She's also racist which is not surprising. Nothing unique to see here folks.
Is there no depth to which u won't stoop? A racist? *laffs*.. have it ur own way.. u usually do and no one listens anyway.. no one with half a brain at least...

BiBrandon

Jun 10, 2012, 8:44 PM

deleted troll drivel Of course massa! Whatever you say boss! BLECH. SMH Some of the most patronizing and racist white people I’ve met call themselves inter-racial this or inter-generational that. You're a snow bunny and you like to suck and get fucked by black cock. Big whoop. That doesn’t mean you think we’re equal, that you're not racist, and surely doesn’t absolve you of a colonial “let me help the natives” attitude. You're not even black or bi-racial with a black heritage, and yet you think you're somehow qualified to be speaking for all black people/African Americans! First off, the whole BS you wrote about how we black people have only celebrities and sports stars as role models is false. Secondly you seem totally shocked that OMGWTFBBQ!!1 not all black people like hip hop music, and yet you think that hip hop music or rap music is somehow "racist", "Bad" or not upper middle class enough (or WHTIE), or that black male musicians and sports stars want to come off as "Thugs" and are somehow "leaders" for black people in America. ROTFLMAO! Women like you who are snow bunnies are one major reason why myself and many other black men do not get with racist white women such as yourself, and why we as black men avoid having sex with white people since we've had lots of white women and some white men get racist towards African Americans the way you are. The African American community already has both political and religious leaders, and we do not need a racist white woman such as yourself to speak for us or defend us. Also you do not speak for all bisexual men and you're completely delusional if you think that most or more bisexual men are HIV+ and that HIV+ people want to either knowingly or unknowingly infect others, while those heterosexual men are less likely to be poz, and when confronted with the fact that if you have sex with someone that's HIV+ you can have safer sex and use condoms correctly and you will not get infected you and others dismiss it as BS. You're nothing but a biphobic, racist, and poz-phobic troll who is trying to spread wrong information about bisexual men, HIV, and safer sex. http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4dtmxsiuL1qdj2ybo1_400.jpg

slipnslide

Jun 10, 2012, 8:47 PM

Aeon, these are hilarious. Can you make one for Brandon that says "I got my ass handed to me by science"? :)

æonpax

Jun 10, 2012, 8:52 PM

What I read on this thread are what are in reality attacts on all sexually active bisexual men. There is some truth that having sex witha bisexual may increase your risk of being exposed to HIV. As hasbeen pointed out it is possible to have sex with an HIV man using precaution to reduce the risk. It is something that I might not becomfortable with if I knew his status. Personally, I do have sex with other bisexual men. I would not campaign like theOp in many of her threads with suchbigoted views against bisexual men but her personal chice is just that. We onlycommentat her overt campaign and psuedo intellectual pretense of superiority.
6
As far as I can determine, none of thefollowing are likely to be involved sexuallywithabisexual man. Readers should judge their viewsand possible bigotryunderstanding who theypresent themselvesas. They self describe themselves as: an asexual man who has no desire for sex, a bisexual man who has difficulty and self loathing for his bisexauality to the point of abstaining from m2m forms of sexual expression, a lesbian, a bisexual woman who is the mistress to a man and is acting as his handmaden to bear a male child but isrestricted from having sex with men who are not approved by master (not sure oc what term she might want him called).

Sorry for the typos as I'm working on a tablet that is making it hard to correct errors.
`
`

How precious. But the lack of anything informative and substantial in your posts, plus the fact you are resorting to "ad hominems" lead me to believe that this forum should require some kind of IQ test be done before allowing a person like you and your ilk, to post. I happen to have one just for you. I hope it's not too difficult, just follow the instructions.
`
`

http://i.imgur.com/Tz9XG.jpg

Gearbox

Jun 10, 2012, 8:55 PM

`
`

http://i.imgur.com/lWbvu.jpg
`
`

Every site online, regardless of it's intention, orientation, race, gender, nationality or ideology, has a few people whom are...well, not quite up to the task of displaying any intellectual acumen but none the less, distinguish themselves in other, less than cerebral ways. Some have personal axes to grind, others are socially dysfunctional and still others just were not blessed with a lick of common sense.
I don't get how you separate yourself from that, if you do?
You start out by stating that in the interest of 'safer sex' your shying away from bi males. No 'bi-dar', and know how some bi males are 'hetero' when it suits them, so no practical way to do that.
You also (inadvertently) make out that casual 'safer sex' sex with HIV+ & HIV- males is different, even though you have no way to know which is witch, and should be the same for both.

So you can't really blame the net for providing senseless prejudice ramblings when it only supplies the opportunity.
Roll on the day when they invent a HIV+ home tester, so we can all BB with piece of mind. But until then, sadly everyone's a suspect. Not just bi's, or males.:tongue:

æonpax

Jun 10, 2012, 9:13 PM

Aeon, these are hilarious. Can you make one for Brandon that says "I got my ass handed to me by science"? :)

`
In reality, responding to people like tenni, Bidave, BiBrandon, et al, only feed into their magnificent but debilitated obsessions. They have abandon civil and academic etiquette and protocol in lieu of name calling and insults. Consider the fact that none of theses individuals have the intellectual capacity to just let go...agree to disagree...but keep coming back like freakin yo-yo's, at least tells me the complete lack of character they have. I only degrade myself answering their childish spew.

One thing this does prove is that the human capacity for gross stupidity cuts across all lines, even sexual orientation.
`
`
http://i.imgur.com/mMBuh.jpg

æonpax

Jun 10, 2012, 9:48 PM

I don't get how you separate yourself from that, if you do?
You start out by stating that in the interest of 'safer sex' your shying away from bi males. No 'bi-dar', and know how some bi males are 'hetero' when it suits them, so no practical way to do that.
You also (inadvertently) make out that casual 'safer sex' sex with HIV+ & HIV- males is different, even though you have no way to know which is witch, and should be the same for both.

So you can't really blame the net for providing senseless prejudice ramblings when it only supplies the opportunity.
Roll on the day when they invent a HIV+ home tester, so we can all BB with piece of mind. But until then, sadly everyone's a suspect. Not just bi's, or males.:tongue:
`

Please re-read my OP. I gave MY opinion which only applies to me. I provided academic justification on top of it. Just so we are on the same page here, an opinion is a subjective belief and may be supported by an argument but is not required. If a person thinks I'm wrong, cool. If they use a rational explanation as to why they believe I am wrong, then this becomes the crux of why forums exist...DISCUSSION and hopefully, learning.

Were I advocating all females from having sex with bisexual males for fear of HIV, then yes, outrage would be expected. But such was not the case. Making matters worse, some people read and assume things into a discussion that do not nor ever did exist. Even worse than that, a few people started getting so emotional about it, they lost all objectivity and what could have been a good, albeit heated discussion, turns into a waste.

If the idea of an adult discussion or argument is to learn something, you have to start off with the concept that the other person is misinformed. It's not my problem if some people cannot read correctly, lack the ability to maintain civil discourse or just cannot construct a coherent argument.

I've posted on some seriously controversial topics here and while with certain people, I've had intense and impassioned disagreements, at least we came to some kind of consensus and they've earned my silent respect. Not so with a few in this thread here. Present company excluded, but I'm fond of using the word "looney" to describe such individuals.

æonpax

Jun 10, 2012, 10:10 PM

Actually all your self made memes and images prove is that you're a professional troll and that nobody should take anything you write seriously at all. <snip>.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Gearbox

Jun 11, 2012, 9:38 AM

`

Please re-read my OP. I gave MY opinion which only applies to me. I provided academic justification on top of it. Just so we are on the same page here, an opinion is a subjective belief and may be supported by an argument but is not required. If a person thinks I'm wrong, cool. If they use a rational explanation as to why they believe I am wrong, then this becomes the crux of why forums exist...DISCUSSION and hopefully, learning.

Were I advocating all females from having sex with bisexual males for fear of HIV, then yes, outrage would be expected. But such was not the case. Making matters worse, some people read and assume things into a discussion that do not nor ever did exist. Even worse than that, a few people started getting so emotional about it, they lost all objectivity and what could have been a good, albeit heated discussion, turns into a waste.

If the idea of an adult discussion or argument is to learn something, you have to start off with the concept that the other person is misinformed. It's not my problem if some people cannot read correctly, lack the ability to maintain civil discourse or just cannot construct a coherent argument.

I've posted on some seriously controversial topics here and while with certain people, I've had intense and impassioned disagreements, at least we came to some kind of consensus and they've earned my silent respect. Not so with a few in this thread here. Present company excluded, but I'm fond of using the word "looney" to describe such individuals.
Yes it did run off the beaten track as far as discussion is concerned.lol It's hardly surprising though. If you went on a cooking site and posted a thread about how you personally feel that it's safer to avoid female cooks between 20-30yo because they are unhygienic in the kitchen and you'd be more likely to get food poisoning, you'd attract the 20-30yo female cooks who see themselves as hygienic and safe.
If you notice, not one bi male has posted about how he BB's, yet we know they exist.:rolleyes:

I personally have never met/hooked up with a bi that even hinted at bb'ing. So if that's usual, you'd get viewed as biphobic and the 'evidence' tainted too.
I personally will not meet any who has 'needs discussion' ticked on 'safe sex?' on their profiles. I dumped a fuckbud for BB'ing with a group of blokes, even though he was a long term FB with my ideal body type etc.
But does that make me safer? NO it doesn't! I don't know what any bloke I meet gets up to when not with me, but it gives me the impression of 'control' to filter the known BB'ers. I still treat all as HIV+ to be on the safe side, so it's really makes no difference. So my discrimination could be viewed as pointless. I still do it though.

æonpax

Jun 11, 2012, 12:15 PM

Yes it did run off the beaten track as far as discussion is concerned.lol It's hardly surprising though. If you went on a cooking site and posted a thread about how you personally feel that it's safer to avoid female cooks between 20-30yo because they are unhygienic in the kitchen and you'd be more likely to get food poisoning, you'd attract the 20-30yo female cooks who see themselves as hygienic and safe.
If you notice, not one bi male has posted about how he BB's, yet we know they exist.:rolleyes:

I personally have never met/hooked up with a bi that even hinted at bb'ing. So if that's usual, you'd get viewed as biphobic and the 'evidence' tainted too.
I personally will not meet any who has 'needs discussion' ticked on 'safe sex?' on their profiles. I dumped a fuckbud for BB'ing with a group of blokes, even though he was a long term FB with my ideal body type etc.
But does that make me safer? NO it doesn't! I don't know what any bloke I meet gets up to when not with me, but it gives me the impression of 'control' to filter the known BB'ers. I still treat all as HIV+ to be on the safe side, so it's really makes no difference. So my discrimination could be viewed as pointless. I still do it though.

The contentious point was my statement that I "shy away" from sex with bisexual men because of a rational fear, based on the increased possibility of contacting HIV. Funny thing though, I shy away from sex with "all men" (hetero and homosexual) outside my circle of acquaintances because I'm just not that interested male sex anymore and as I cannot tell if a guy is bisexual just by looking at him, this method works well for me.

Unfortunately, I seriously question the reading skills of a few posters here. I did not say I "never" will have sex with a bisexual male, because I have but I know these guys and trust them. Sex with any stranger is extremely risky and avoiding it is something I do advocate that all people, regardless of gender, do.

As you pointed out, there is a big difference between people picking and choosing their partners based on their own tastes and proclivities and the problem of "Biphobia" of which that term has been cheapened by the its misuse here. It is also a legal and logically defensible position to err on the side of caution when it comes to avoiding possible harm to ones self.

The art of conversation seems to be lost here amongst the fury of false accusation and name calling. Making matters worse, it's only a few people but more likely, one person using multiple identities, who is doing this.

darkeyes

Jun 11, 2012, 12:53 PM

I have never found your posts on this thread, or on most others particularly contentious, Joan.. not once I have read beneath the often combative and sometimes prickly writing style... that others do, in particular some guys, is one of those things with which up u will have to put... all of us live our lives as best and as safely as we can.. we weigh up the risks based on evidence we believe and try and get through unscathed if we can.. that on this thread at least is your basic premise and one, reading Gear's last post is in fact his too.. how rigidly we live with that premise is up to each of us, but it appears that some less bright and somewhat dim people think that by doing so, we are open to accusations of biphobia.. it is a case of people not reading clearly what has been said and jumping up and down because they are unable to understand or have misread the language.. some, or one or 5 or 3 or 110, but mostly the same person, deliberately twist what is said to suit his/their/its position which is one of misogynistic loathing, and I suspect that being bisexual and a man of the distant past.. he does not believe that u, me or any other woman, being not male, have the right to choose those with whom u have sex or to devise our own criteria for living our own lives..an age old attitude, one adopted by many.. rapists for instance.. only one gender in his/their/its view has the right to decide our fate, and it is not ours..

If that sounds harsh, it is.. not to every man, because the majority of men are not the misogynists some make them out to be, and so this judgement applies only to those who think we are less than nothing and seek the right to control the way we live... and if we have half a brain and are able to challenge their warped thinking then we are doubly nothing and must be ridiculed, misrepresented, humiliated, discredited and crushed underfoot... and there are far too many of them even now...

ExSailor

Jun 11, 2012, 4:56 PM

I give up. Let the cesspools fuck the cesspools and spread their diseases to each other. Let those who know better, be healthy. Calling HIV+ people "cesspools" is pozphobic and not to mention mean and incredibly cruel. You don't even really know those people or how they became HIV+. Even if they did get it from sex it is not necessarily always their fault. Most bisexual and gay men who I knew in the 60s, 70s, and 80s are dead from AIDS. I know a lot of bisexual and gay men, and hetero men and women who were not sexually active with a lot of people and got infected by a partner. I know men who got infected with HIV by the first or second person they had ever had sex with. I got infected with HIV when I was raped. Back then nobody knew about HIV/AIDS or safer sex, and at first in the 80s it was labeled as a bisexual and gay men's disease which is something that is false and only shows how hate speech, biphobia, and homophobia towards bisexual and gay men allowed hets to believe then and still delusionally believe "HIV is something that mainly only bisexual and gay men need to worry about! If I'm hetero or my partners are hetero there's not nearly as much of a risk at all!" Fools. As a doctor told me, HIV is the great equalizer. I have noticed that a few people here are so uncomfortable with being bisexual that they are full of their own self loathing and biphobia that this comes out as bigotry towards bisexual men as was expressed in the OP and the "Cesspools" comment. These few people are pozphobic and very uncomfortable with the fact that people of all genders and sexual orientations are HIV+ and are sexually active but having safer sex with HIV- people, and that you can have safer sex, do it correctly, and you won't get infected with HIV or other STDs. The main important part is that HIV IS NOT A DEATH SENTENCE! As someone who is HIV+ and has been living with HIV for 27 years I'm still the same person I was even before I became poz but now I'm a healthy person living with HIV. I just happen to be HIV+ and it's not a defining factor of who I am as a person. People who are HIV+ are not walking monsters or "Cesspools".
Their response is incredible too, and always the same, "it's not big deal, you just take a pill and you're fine." I've never met a woman that irresponsible. The one pill comment that HIV+ people are talking about is the fact that they've now combined 3 HIV medications into one medication called Atripla. If you're prescribed all 3 meds that it contains then you no longer have to take those meds all at once and it does majorly cut down on the number of pills you have. I remember having to take 7 pills 3 times a day at the same time everyday. Also you do not get nearly as many horrible side effects on it or the 3 meds as you did with the very early meds like AZT.

void()

Jun 11, 2012, 5:56 PM

6098

Simply because and also to note I'm not anyone but me. Thanks, and excuse me to bow out again, have a good one.

N.B. Used Gimp to add a line. If it was a copyright image, sorry.

slipnslide

Jun 11, 2012, 7:24 PM

Calling HIV+ people "cesspools" is pozphobic and not to mention mean and incredibly cruel.

The "cesspools" here are the members of the MSM community who drive up the STI-infection rate to several magnitudes over the heterosexual community, not HIV+ people.
You don't even really know those people or how they became HIV+. Even if they did get it from sex it is not necessarily always their fault. Most bisexual and gay men who I knew in the 60s, 70s, and 80s are dead from AIDS.

You can't imply that being pozhobic is bad, and then point out that most MSM guys you knew are now dead from AIDS. That is a non sequitur. Fear of something that can kill you is not bad. It's Darwinian.
I know a lot of bisexual and gay men, and hetero men and women who were not sexually active with a lot of people and got infected by a partner. I know men who got infected with HIV by the first or second person they had ever had sex with. I got infected with HIV when I was raped. Back then nobody knew about HIV/AIDS or safer sex, and at first in the 80s it was labeled as a bisexual and gay men's disease which is something that is false and only shows how hate speech, biphobia, and homophobia towards bisexual and gay men allowed hets to believe then and still delusionally believe "HIV is something that mainly only bisexual and gay men need to worry about! If I'm hetero or my partners are hetero there's not nearly as much of a risk at all!" Fools. As a doctor told me, HIV is the great equalizer. I have noticed that a few people here are so uncomfortable with being bisexual that they are full of their own self loathing and biphobia that this comes out as bigotry towards bisexual men as was expressed in the OP and the "Cesspools" comment. These few people are pozphobic and very uncomfortable with the fact that people of all genders and sexual orientations are HIV+ and are sexually active but having safer sex with HIV- people, and that you can have safer sex, do it correctly, and you won't get infected with HIV or other STDs.

As you can see earlier in this thread, when it was pointed out that drug-resistant gonorrhea that is often asymptomatic is being spread by unprotected oral sex the response was, to paraphrase, "who wants a bj with a condom on?" So when you say "safer sex" you do mean fully-protected oral sex right? These guys in this thread don't. That's the problem.
The main important part is that HIV IS NOT A DEATH SENTENCE! As someone who is HIV+ and has been living with HIV for 27 years I'm still the same person I was even before I became poz but now I'm a healthy person living with HIV. I just happen to be HIV+ and it's not a defining factor of who I am as a person. People who are HIV+ are not walking monsters or "Cesspools". The one pill comment that HIV+ people are talking about is the fact that they've now combined 3 HIV medications into one medication called Atripla. If you're prescribed all 3 meds that it contains then you no longer have to take those meds all at once and it does majorly cut down on the number of pills you have. I remember having to take 7 pills 3 times a day at the same time everyday. Also you do not get nearly as many horrible side effects on it or the 3 meds as you did with the very early meds like AZT.

No, that's not what was meant at all by "one pill". The prevailing attitude in the MSM community right now is that bacterial STIs are no big deal. You just "pop one pill" and you're good to go out and suck strange dick again.

ExSailor

Jun 11, 2012, 8:13 PM

She claims nothing of the sort.. there may well be flaws in her arguments but this is not one of them.. ur not alone in twisting what people say to suit ur position but doing so helps no one... You're engaging in selective thinking here. I agree with IanBorthwick that you and the OP are are totally 1,000% wrong! Anyone living today in 2012 no matter what their gender or sexual orientation with any sort of intelligence at all knows that being heterosexual, or having sex with only heterosexual partners does not make it so you're any less likely to get HIV. You get HIV from having unprotected sex which is something aeonpax did at a young age and got pregnant from. You don't get HIV from the fact that you're having sex with a bisexual man or having sex with anyone that's not heterosexual. æonpax's blatant disregard for the fact that HIV and AIDS effect everyone of all genders, sexual orientations, races, and even ages is not only very foolish, very ignorant and full of denial about HIV; but it's dangerous thinking too. It's the sort of opinion-along with the opinion that people who are HIV+ or who have other STDs or who are sexually active are "Cesspools" that you'd expect to hear from Rick Santorum, or Rev. Fred Phelps but the OP and others with these bigoted opinions about bisexual men and HIV+ people are on the same level with their bigotry and hate speech as politically Conservative people who spew hate speech about LGBT people are. Her own words speak for her since they show her agendas and bigotry against all bisexual men and HIV+ people, and they demonstrate her biphobic, pozphobic, and heterosexist opinions. Her opinion also states that even if someone is HIV+ and a bisexual man as I am, that it's impossible for an HIV- person to have safer sex correctly, and not get infected with HIV. My girlfriend and I have been sexually active for decades with each other. I happen to be HIV+ she's HIV- and remains that way. We know of many other couples where one person is poz and the other is neg and the neg person stays neg since safer sex works.
I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great.

ExSailor

Jun 11, 2012, 8:19 PM

The "cesspools" here are the members of the MSM community who drive up the STI-infection rate to several magnitudes over the heterosexual community, not HIV+ people. You can't imply that being pozhobic is bad, and then point out that most MSM guys you knew are now dead from AIDS. That is a non sequitur. Fear of something that can kill you is not bad. It's Darwinian. As you can see earlier in this thread, when it was pointed out that drug-resistant gonorrhea that is often asymptomatic is being spread by unprotected oral sex the response was, to paraphrase, "who wants a bj with a condom on?" So when you say "safer sex" you do mean fully-protected oral sex right? These guys in this thread don't. That's the problem. No, that's not what was meant at all by "one pill". The prevailing attitude in the MSM community right now is that bacterial STIs are no big deal. You just "pop one pill" and you're good to go out and suck strange dick again. What about heterosexuals? They too are responsible for the increase in Gonorrhea yet you conveniently ignore that and all the other STDs-including HIV that hets infect each other with. :rolleyes: It's an STD it does not care about your age, gender, race, or sexual orientation as it effects everyone. I happen to be HIV+. I am healthy and if you've read my previous posts about taking meds and how I have a very high CD4 count and an undetectable viral load. I am not dying from HIV. If you're alive as a human then you're in the process of dying even if you are HIV-. Stop living in so much fear and being so bigoted and judgmental. We all take risks everyday yet this does not stop most people from walking down a public street, or getting into a car as a driver or passenger on a daily basis. Sex is the same way. It's good to know about HIV and STDs but don't take it to the level of paranoia and bigotry the way you and the OP have done with bisexual men and HIV+ people and now people who have other STDs. Yes being pozphobic is bigotry, and so is the opinion that bisexual and gay men or "MSM" who have sex with strangers or are sexually active are "Cesspools".

slipnslide

Jun 11, 2012, 8:27 PM

What about heterosexuals? They too are responsible for the increase in Gonorrhea yet you conveniently ignore that and all the other STDs-including HIV that hets infect each other with. :rolleyes: It's an STD it does not care about your age, gender, race, or sexual orientation as it effects everyone. I happen to be HIV+. I am healthy and if you've read my previous posts about taking meds and how I have a very high CD4 count and an undetectable viral load. I am not dying from HIV. If you're alive as a human then you're in the process of dying even if you are HIV-. Yes being pozphobic is bigotry, and so is the opinion that bisexual and gay men or "MSM" who have sex with strangers or are sexually active are "Cesspools".

Why don't you explain to us then why these infections disproportionately affect MSM. No one is denying anyone can get them, but I'd like to know why you think they affect MSM moreso.

ExSailor

Jun 11, 2012, 8:31 PM

Why don't you explain to us then why these infections disproportionately affect MSM. No one is denying anyone can get them, but I'd like to know why you think they affect MSM moreso. STDs don't disproportionately effect "MSM" or bisexual or gay men. I know a lot of heterosexual men and women who have had or are infected with various STDs from gonorrhea, syphilis, HPV, different types of hepatitis, and herpes. The idea that these STDs besides HIV are diseases that mainly effect bisexual and gay men is one that's not only completely false it's bigoted, biphobic, and homophobic. Stop living in so much fear and being so bigoted and judgmental. We all take risks everyday yet this does not stop most people from walking down a public street, or getting into a car as a driver or passenger on a daily basis. Sex is the same way. It's good to know about HIV and STDs, and that they're out there but don't take it to the level of paranoia and bigotry the way you and the OP have done with bisexual men and HIV+ people and now people who have other STDs. It's more important to know how to have safer sex and actually practice it in reality instead of in theory like the OP did when she goes on about how bisexual men are somehow in her bigoted and pozphobic opinion more likely to be poz, yet she got pregnant at a young age and was not practicing safer sex then, and has demonstrated how she knows nothing about human sexuality, HIV, or safer sex despite claiming otherwise and revising her statements with circular logic that simply reinforces her biphobia, bigotry, pozphobia, and show how little she knows about safer sex and HIV.

ExSailor

Jun 11, 2012, 8:50 PM

Post hoc . It's wishful, illogical, delusional-thinking and self-deception on your part that just because a man is heterosexual that this means that he'll actually be HIV- or that he'll be less likely to be HIV- than a bisexual or gay man will be. Then again I'm sure your friend will chime in and claim that because you've posted links to studies or because they've met a few gay and bi men who are not even their friends, who happen to be HIV+ and take HIV meds or who have or have had other STDs that in their own pozphobic words they called "Cesspools" that this is all true. :rolleyes:
considering there are 33.5 million people worldwide living with HIV and nearly 16 million of them are women, I really have to wonder how you could expect anyone in their right mind to conclude HIV is a gay and bisexual men's disease! The fact is that worldwide HIV/AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease transmitted primarily by what you term "normal every day heterosexual sex", and by heterosexuals. ^This guy knows his stuff when it comes to HIV and who is actually at risk for it.^

slipnslide

Jun 11, 2012, 10:31 PM

STDs don't disproportionately effect "MSM" or bisexual or gay men. I know a lot of heterosexual men and women who have had or are infected with various STDs from gonorrhea, syphilis, HPV, different types of hepatitis, and herpes. The idea that these STDs besides HIV are diseases that mainly effect bisexual and gay men is one that's not only completely false it's bigoted, biphobic, and homophobic. Stop living in so much fear and being so bigoted and judgmental. We all take risks everyday yet this does not stop most people from walking down a public street, or getting into a car as a driver or passenger on a daily basis. Sex is the same way. It's good to know about HIV and STDs, and that they're out there but don't take it to the level of paranoia and bigotry the way you and the OP have done with bisexual men and HIV+ people and now people who have other STDs. It's more important to know how to have safer sex and actually practice it in reality instead of in theory like the OP did when she goes on about how bisexual men are somehow in her bigoted and pozphobic opinion more likely to be poz, yet she got pregnant at a young age and was not practicing safer sex then, and has demonstrated how she knows nothing about human sexuality, HIV, or safer sex despite claiming otherwise and revising her statements with circular logic that simply reinforces her biphobia, bigotry, pozphobia, and show how little she knows about safer sex and HIV.

Ah, we've found the problem. You're just misinformed. We've discussed as a group the infection rates of MSM vs. other groups. The number I found by researching public health data across North America is that MSM have STI infection rates around 40x that of their heterosexual counterparts. Tenni did some research and found the same numbers.

A comparison of sexual behavior patterns among men who have sex with men and heterosexual men and women - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22522237

Men who have sex with men (MSM) have higher rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections than women and heterosexual men. This elevated risk persists across age groups and reflects biological and behavioral factors; yet, there have been few direct comparisons of sexual behavior patterns between these populations.

CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men - http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.
The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

U.S. Gay Men's Astonishing HIV/STD Rates - http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_gay_mens_astonishing_hivstd_rates.php

These are completely preventible diseases. We are not preventing them (granted, I have one of them). For openers, I'll throw out some questions:

Have we stopped caring about ourselves and our partners? Have we lost our self-respect?
Have we simply accepted that as gay/bi/dl(down low) men, this is the price we pay?
Do young gay men know what a pain in the ass it is to have HIV? Are PWH telling them?
Are we STD ignorant?Syphilis can be just as deadly as HIV.
Are men just stupid in the face of sex?
Are we just tired?
What can we do to stop the infection of our community? What will work?

You can of course Google all this yourself and see that these are facts - plain and simple. So you see that I'm correct.

Those Bilerico questions are really good ones. Ones that the MSM community is too busy to answer because they'd rather hook up with a stranger.

Gearbox

Jun 12, 2012, 3:49 AM

You can of course Google all this yourself and see that these are facts - plain and simple. So you see that I'm correct.
It's a FACT that it's an ESTIMATE. Which is a 'scientific'/statistical term for 'GUESSWORK':
CDC has estimated the rates of these diseases for the first time based on new estimates of the size of the U.S. population of MSM.
Change the 2% and you could make the MSM population seem like safe sex OCD cases.:rolleyes:
But how the Hell can a range between 522-989 per 100,000 MSM, and definite 12 & 13 per 100,000 for hetro male & women, NOT ring your little 'Bolox Bell'?

It's great that the lovely president wants to crack down on Gonorrhoea and HIV+ in America, but it would be even better if the CDC quit pissing about with guesstimates and spindoctoring, and devised plans to make testing routine for ALL.
A little jiggling of percentages could make them look really effective, when they've done bugger all. And that's how you get funding these days.;)

No matter whether their 'research' is factual or fictional though, it's not 'safe' to have casual sex with anybody of any sexuality without precautions, despite what they imply.

darkeyes

Jun 12, 2012, 4:50 AM

You're engaging in selective thinking here. I agree with IanBorthwick that you and the OP are are totally 1,000% wrong! Anyone living today in 2012 no matter what their gender or sexual orientation with any sort of intelligence at all knows that being heterosexual, or having sex with only heterosexual partners does not make it so you're any less likely to get HIV. You get HIV from having unprotected sex which is something aeonpax did at a young age and got pregnant from. You don't get HIV from the fact that you're having sex with a bisexual man or having sex with anyone that's not heterosexual. æonpax's blatant disregard for the fact that HIV and AIDS effect everyone of all genders, sexual orientations, races, and even ages is not only very foolish, very ignorant and full of denial about HIV; but it's dangerous thinking too. It's the sort of opinion-along with the opinion that people who are HIV+ or who have other STDs or who are sexually active are "Cesspools" that you'd expect to hear from Rick Santorum, or Rev. Fred Phelps but the OP and others with these bigoted opinions about bisexual men and HIV+ people are on the same level with their bigotry and hate speech as politically Conservative people who spew hate speech about LGBT people are. Her own words speak for her since they show her agendas and bigotry against all bisexual men and HIV+ people, and they demonstrate her biphobic, pozphobic, and heterosexist opinions. Her opinion also states that even if someone is HIV+ and a bisexual man as I am, that it's impossible for an HIV- person to have safer sex correctly, and not get infected with HIV. My girlfriend and I have been sexually active for decades with each other. I happen to be HIV+ she's HIV- and remains that way. We know of many other couples where one person is poz and the other is neg and the neg person stays neg since safer sex works.

U babes can agree with whom u like... and actually, u can get HIV or any other STD not from having unprotected sex with a partner irrespective of gender but having unprotected sex with a partner, irrespective of gender who carries the virus... the OP knows this and has taken her decision on the basis of the evidence as she sees it... that is for her to decide, no one else.. and what her having become pregnant at a young age by having unprotected sex has to do with the argument I have no idea... its a bit old hat slagging a woman off for having had a child out of wedlock as a young girl in an effort to discredit her don't u think? My own partner became pregnant at a young age by having unprotected sex and neither is she HIV positive.. it is irrelevant since pregnancy is not a cause of catching any STD.. I often had unprotected sex myself with men, and I hadn't a clue what their sexuality was, and a dose of thrush is all I ever caught... if I was having sex with men now, I very much doubt I would be quite so laissez- faire... like u, or the OP I would make my own risk assessment and act accordingly.. what u do is ur affair, and she her's.. you argue ur case on the basis of the evidence as u see it and that hun is right and proper... u argue that she has no right to act and argue as she does on her own behalf on the basis of evidence that she accepts and understands... interesting ole world is it not?

darkeyes

Jun 12, 2012, 5:00 AM

It's a FACT that it's an ESTIMATE. Which is a 'scientific'/statistical term for 'GUESSWORK':
Change the 2% and you could make the MSM population seem like safe sex OCD cases.:rolleyes:

It's a bit more than guesswork, Gear babes... be fair.... research does go in to coming up with those estimates.. the problem is how thoroughly the research is undertaken and how untainted the results of that research by the personal integrity or otherwise of those who undertake the research and those who commission it...

æonpax

Jun 12, 2012, 6:06 AM

You're engaging in <snip>
You're engaging in selective thinking here.

His opinion which I may add, is based on what? Care to cite an example? Of course not as it would require critical thinking skills.

I agree with IanBorthwick that you and the OP are are totally 1,000% wrong!

Birds of a feather, do tend to flock together. Thinking someone is wrong, is one thing. Proving it, another, which this poster is incapable of doing.

Anyone living today in 2012 no matter what their gender or sexual orientation with any sort of intelligence at all knows that being heterosexual, or having sex with only heterosexual partners does not make it so you're any less likely to get HIV.

Opinion. Anyone starting a statement with an unproven generalization is already headed in the wrong direction.

You get HIV from having unprotected sex which is something aeonpax did at a young age and got pregnant from.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and his attempt at character assassination.

You don't get HIV from the fact that you're having sex with a bisexual man or having sex with anyone that's not heterosexual.
Huh???? This makes no sense but fits in well with the rest of his spew.

æonpax's blatant disregard for the fact that HIV and AIDS effect everyone of all genders, sexual orientations, races, and even ages is not only very foolish, very ignorant and full of denial about HIV; but it's dangerous thinking too.

His personal opinion based on his misogynistic bias and hatred of women, especially those smarter than he is…and that’s a lot of females. Also, he again fails to cite the words which leaves him to make such a erroneous statement. This child is long on delusions and non-existent on proof.

It's the sort of opinion-along with the opinion that people who are HIV+ or who have other STDs or who are sexually active are "Cesspools" that you'd expect to hear from Rick Santorum, or Rev. Fred Phelps but the OP and others with these bigoted opinions about bisexual men and HIV+ people are on the same level with their bigotry and hate speech as politically Conservative people who spew hate speech about LGBT people are

A rather senseless opinionated rant which has nothing to do with the topic but I daresay he doesn't even know what the topic is.

.Her own words speak for her since they show her agendas and bigotry against all bisexual men and HIV+ people, and they demonstrate her biphobic, pozphobic, and heterosexist opinions.

Now here’s where this guy goes over the wall. He makes claims his “mind” has already contorted. I would ask him to quote "my own words" but he can't, because they don't exist.

My girlfriend and I have been sexually active for decades with each other I happen to be HIV+ she's HIV- and remains that way. We know of many other couples where one person is poz and the other is neg and the neg person stays neg since safer sex works.

He sums up his garrulous, nonsensical post by citing a personal examples. That’s nice but he still doesn’t understand it’s not proof of anything.

********************

Commentary - Aside from this person's skewed agenda, it's painfully obvious he lacks the educational discipline required to understand the difference between opinion and facts. This rant only serves to plainly show this posters deep rooted bias and prejudice.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If a person does not like my opinion, they can a) ignore it, b) whine about it or c) prove it wrong. This poster only accomplishes "b)" I challenge it's veracity and honesty. Now I might wait around for his proof but there is a saying about "hell freezing over" which applies here.

æonpax

Jun 12, 2012, 6:50 AM

Simply because and also to note I'm not anyone but me. Thanks, and excuse me to bow out again, have a good one.N.B. Used Gimp to add a line. If it was a copyright image, sorry.
`

Pro-Tip;

Many digital images have digital watermarks, other meta data or steganographic information embedded inside the images code. In some images, they can even contain small "phone home" programs used to indicate ownership. Digimarc does that.

Also, such images also contain embedded information about the camera that took the picture, the date and any image manipulations done to the image such as with Adobe Photoshop or even Gimp (not to be confused with "Pulp Fiction")

There is a free program called "Hex Editor XVI32" which when used to scan an image (in this case) breaks it down to both it's its basic hexadecimal and ASCII (text) representations. All the above information becomes available. Handy little program to have, especially to see if a picture has indeed been altered...but wait...there's more.

IF a person knows that they are doing...in other words, knows how to use hexadecimal, she or he can either delete, add to or change any embedded information contained inside the image. It is of course illegal to "deliberately" remove any copyright data an image has, but accidents happen

æonpax

Jun 12, 2012, 7:11 AM

U babes can agree with whom u like... and actually, u can get HIV or any other STD not from having unprotected sex with a partner irrespective of gender but having unprotected sex with a partner, irrespective of gender who carries the virus... the OP knows this and has taken her decision on the basis of the evidence as she sees it... that is for her to decide, no one else.. and what her having become pregnant at a young age by having unprotected sex has to do with the argument I have no idea... its a bit old hat slagging a woman off for having had a child out of wedlock as a young girl in an effort to discredit her don't u think? My own partner became pregnant at a young age by having unprotected sex and neither is she HIV positive.. it is irrelevant since pregnancy is not a cause of catching any STD.. I often had unprotected sex myself with men, and I hadn't a clue what their sexuality was, and a dose of thrush is all I ever caught... if I was having sex with men now, I very much doubt I would be quite so laissez- faire... like u, or the OP I would make my own risk assessment and act accordingly.. what u do is ur affair, and she her's.. you argue ur case on the basis of the evidence as u see it and that hun is right and proper... u argue that she has no right to act and argue as she does on her own behalf on the basis of evidence that she accepts and understands... interesting ole world is it not?

Fran, it's fairly obvious what this child, under his various different aliases, is doing. He has no wish to present facts, no desire to inform where there may be misinformation and no intention to discuss anything. He (in his various manifestations) is here to attack me. I represent for him and them, the worst possible enemy this ilk can imagine, an educated woman. I wear that as a badge of honor.

Bereft of any honor, he is an amorphous anachronism, obsessed with any woman (me, in this case) who dares violate his conception of reality. Poor sod. The world is passing him by and all he can do is make faces at people.

slipnslide

Jun 12, 2012, 9:06 AM

It's a FACT that it's an ESTIMATE. Which is a 'scientific'/statistical term for 'GUESSWORK':

Wrong.

slipnslide

Jun 12, 2012, 9:08 AM

darkeyes

Jun 12, 2012, 10:53 AM

Fran, it's fairly obvious what this child, under his various different aliases, is doing. He has no wish to present facts, no desire to inform where there may be misinformation and no intention to discuss anything. He (in his various manifestations) is here to attack me. I represent for him and them, the worst possible enemy this ilk can imagine, an educated woman. I wear that as a badge of honor.

Bereft of any honor, he is an amorphous anachronism, obsessed with any woman (me, in this case) who dares violate his conception of reality. Poor sod. The world is passing him by and all he can do is make faces at people.
Right, Joan.. can I have me eggs now please for a lil suck? *laffs*

Gearbox

Jun 12, 2012, 11:10 AM

It's a bit more than guesswork, Gear babes... be fair.... research does go in to coming up with those estimates.. the problem is how thoroughly the research is undertaken and how untainted the results of that research by the personal integrity or otherwise of those who undertake the research and those who commission it...
Unless every single gay&bi male has registered themselves on some database, the gay&bi population figures is a guess. Anything that leads from a guess is 'guesswork'. That's fair.:bigrin:
Shouldn't we all be decimated by birdflu by now? No, because of the marvellous job the CDC must have done tackling it.;)

It doesn't take a psychologist to see that if he accepts the numbers he has to accept his own bad behaviour. So it's simple, deny the numbers, deny the bad behaviour.
Please have a heart for us poor nymphomaniacs. We just can't help it you know? And I blame the Devil anyway, so it's not MY fault.:stoned:

tenni

Jun 12, 2012, 12:22 PM

I re read the Op. I have not read all the recent posts. I did note that the Op has now restated her position that she is referring to herself when avoiding sex with all bimen.

I think from what she has indicated that as a personal choice it makessense to me. Its unfortunate thather personal choice came across as it did. Her reasons seemtohave more to do with her needs than a political stance? She stated that her Op might be contraversial. She must have knownthat shewas poking biguys. Over two hunred posts later,it continues.

The academic studies that she presented are interestingwith limitations on their extrapolation. I don't recall her admittingto their limitations? That might have limitedthesensationalism to her position beingunderstood as ofensive bigoted postings.

Whether she is atroll or not, I don't know. It does matter that sheseemsto go about posting with slurs on others.
I am happy to read that she does only mean that thisisabout her decison. If phraesed better she would beseen asabisexual woman who is content with getting sex as a misstress with one man. She is unhappy that some political lesbians will not have sex with because they thinkthat they mightget HIV. That would make those lesbians appear

tenni

Jun 12, 2012, 12:24 PM

biphbic and bigotted.....not her.

darkeyes

Jun 12, 2012, 12:32 PM

Unless every single gay&bi male has registered themselves on some database, the gay&bi population figures is a guess. Anything that leads from a guess is 'guesswork'. That's fair.:bigrin:
Shouldn't we all be decimated by birdflu by now? No, because of the marvellous job the CDC must have done tackling it.;)

Please have a heart for us poor nymphomaniacs. We just can't help it you know? And I blame the Devil anyway, so it's not MY fault.:stoned:
Regarding sexuality and in particular bi and homosexuality, Gear you are as right as u are wrong,,, surveys of sexuality are carried out and research done into numbers.. so it is more than a guess, yet in a sense because of the large number of secretly gay and bisexual people who either do not reply, or complete "heterosexual" in the appropriate box for fear of discovery.. it doesn't matter how confidentiall such surveys and studies are there will always be those out of fear of discovery and shame will lie... and sometimes I would argue they have something to be afraid of, depending on who undertakes the survey or study and what the research is for.. it isn't quite like doing a POP on who people are going to vote for... there is much more uncertainty as to the result and fear among too many of our number for such surveys to be accurate to within +/- x %. I know u are prob aware of that and its a bit like teaching Grannie to suck eggs, So humour me...

Research into the actual number of people who are gay or bi is incrediblly hit and miss... studies seem to show that between around 2-5% of the population is either gay or bi and that the ratio of the two sexualities within that number is around 2:1 with gay people in the majority.. my own feeling, and it is only that, but from personal observation there are probably more bisexual people than gays in this world and also that there are more queer people as a whole than the stats, such as they are, keep telling us..... but fear among many gay people, and the even greater fear among bisexuals, and bisexual men in particular of coming out or being honest when asked the question confidentially, squees the stats.. so they are simply too unreliable to be fit for task.. but as long as it is felt research is needed, and most (by no means all) feel such research is needed, then researchers and social scientists, anthroplogists and the rest will have to make do with research and stats which are not quite a guess as u imply, but certainly a guesstimate.. and a great deal of work and research actually goes into producing research and surveys which will produce stats ever more accurately... and yet.. they remain guesstimates.. more than guesses.. more than educated guesses, but nowhere near sufficiently accurate to be of real use to anyone... except of course those who would do gay, bisexual and transgendered people harm.... accuracy means nowt to them and owt will do....

ExSailor

Jun 12, 2012, 3:31 PM

snip There's no sense in trying to educate someone who won't listen or learn, and who thinks that their opinion is always right even though they have a bigoted opinion about bisexual men and are still pozphobic in 2012. You have proven how you are biphobic, and pozphobic. I'm not a misogynist and I don't hate women however it is not surprising that you'd pull out this accusation since you do this with all men who happen to disagree with you and call you out as a bigot. Quit trying to rebrand yourself as someone who isn't biphobic or pozphobic, it's not working for you. ;) You can claim all you want that you're educated yet anyone can see that you're not. You have every right to be biphobic, pozphobic, and a troll on this site but that does not mean that the people who you're bigoted towards have to take what you say seriously or that we will not challenge your biphobia and pozphobia.

ExSailor

Jun 12, 2012, 4:17 PM

snip If someone wants to engage in unprotected sex today or for the past 27 years, that's their choice but they're an idiot. Today with the large number of people who are HIV+ who don't know it, they're highly ignorant if they think that the gender or sexual orientation of their sexual partner(s) matters in them getting or not getting infected with HIV when they have unprotected sex. I am out as being Poz but not everyone is, and a lot of people are HIV+ but don't know it. The real danger is that there are people like the OP who think that because they have sex with a hetero partner that there's no way this person could be HIV+ and these biphobic and pozphobic bigots spread this dangerous information as fact like she and others are doing. This is heterosexism, biphobia/homophobia, and just shows how the people who have this bigoted opinion about bisexual and gay men and HIV do not know any facts about HIV or actual facts about bisexual and gay men and think that HIV is something that mainly effects bisexual and gay men just like we heard in the 80s and early 90s. :rolleyes:

Gearbox

Jun 12, 2012, 4:58 PM

Regarding sexuality and in particular bi and homosexuality, Gear you are as right as u are wrong,,, surveys of sexuality are carried out and research done into numbers.. so it is more than a guess, yet in a sense because of the large number of secretly gay and bisexual people who either do not reply, or complete "heterosexual" in the appropriate box for fear of discovery.. it doesn't matter how confidentiall such surveys and studies are there will always be those out of fear of discovery and shame will lie... and sometimes I would argue they have something to be afraid of, depending on who undertakes the survey or study and what the research is for.. it isn't quite like doing a POP on who people are going to vote for... there is much more uncertainty as to the result and fear among too many of our number for such surveys to be accurate to within +/- x %. I know u are prob aware of that and its a bit like teaching Grannie to suck eggs, So humour me...

Research into the actual number of people who are gay or bi is incrediblly hit and miss... studies seem to show that between around 2-5% of the population is either gay or bi and that the ratio of the two sexualities within that number is around 2:1 with gay people in the majority.. my own feeling, and it is only that, but from personal observation there are probably more bisexual people than gays in this world and also that there are more queer people as a whole than the stats, such as they are, keep telling us..... but fear among many gay people, and the even greater fear among bisexuals, and bisexual men in particular of coming out or being honest when asked the question confidentially, squees the stats.. so they are simply too unreliable to be fit for task.. but as long as it is felt research is needed, and most (by no means all) feel such research is needed, then researchers and social scientists, anthroplogists and the rest will have to make do with research and stats which are not quite a guess as u imply, but certainly a guesstimate.. and a great deal of work and research actually goes into producing research and surveys which will produce stats ever more accurately... and yet.. they remain guesstimates.. more than guesses.. more than educated guesses, but nowhere near sufficiently accurate to be of real use to anyone... except of course those who would do gay, bisexual and transgendered people harm.... accuracy means nowt to them and owt will do....
We can meet each other half way and agree that something a little more than 'guesswork' doesn't make a 'fact'.:bigrin:
Yet 'Factual' is how the CDC estimates are being peddled here. That's what I'm getting at. And you really don't need to be a mathematician to see how vague the CDC actually is, but how definite they make themselves out to be, not just regarding HIV+ & STD's, but in other estimations they carry out.
Here's what a few extra pounds will get you, or maybe not?....or perhaps...ye but, no but, ye but..: http://stats.org/stories/will_a_few_extra_pounds_may24_05.htm

Their findings really have no relevance to anybody who knows how to use a condom. Those types are not included in the 'research' and are part of the foggy forest of Guestimation.
That maybe a good thing though? If the CDC reported that 12 per 100,000 MSM were diagnosed with HIV+, I'd be more likely to take my chances.
Thank fek I'm not hetero!:tongue:

tenni

Jun 12, 2012, 5:37 PM

darkeyes

I agree with muchthat you write about the percentage of the population that are non hetero. Did not the Sanfransico Human Rights report state that the largest group within nonheteros was bisexual notgays?

tenni

Jun 12, 2012, 6:04 PM

slipnslide

Jun 12, 2012, 6:56 PM

darkeyes

Jun 12, 2012, 7:42 PM

darkeyes

As to you opinion that the Op is being rationale with herbelief that to avoidsex with bi men is a good approachto avoid HIV is at point of disagreement. Imo based on her needs andpersonal choice she is reasonable. Recent posts have her stating that she is losing interest with men. That is different than stating avoiding sex swith bimenasher Op made. She has basedher original position on adifferent rationale. Many bi men havefound her irrationale with her fear about getting HIV from bimen. You disagree. Wefind the position irratioanlly based. That is why such a position is biphobic...irrationale fear. If all women held her Op position, would you find that rationale?

It is a good approach for Joan.. that's what is important... she has researched and found studies which have convinced her that acting as she does is her best way of avoiding the contraction of HIV..

We can go on about safer sex all we like but even safer sex does not guarantee absolute protection against HIV or any other STD.. and in respect of HIV at least but other STD's also, I find the evidence that within the gay and bisexual community, these diseases are more likely to be contracted by (women) having (unprotected) sexual relations with bisexual men persuasive if not quite conclusive.. it is probably true that numerically they are more likely to contract the disease from a heterosexual man, but statistically.the odds are stacked higher when it comes to having sex with bisexuals... Joan is persuaded, and no one on this site or elsewhere has managed to convince her otherwise because no one on this site has come up with one iota of evidence to contradict that which she has presented... anecdote and opinion is what we have had in reply.. and refusal to accept evidence (however good or bad) because it does not meet with the personal opinions and dare I say it, prejudice of others... it is a good approach for her as she sees it as her best option... it is perfectly rational however much u or anyone else disagrees with it. It is not based on biphobia, nor is it founded on what people now call pozphobia.. phobia remember is an irrational fear.. it is hardly irrational not to want to become HIVpos is it? U may think her approach is wrong but u cannot accuse her of being irrational.. if all women took her approach, no, I would not find that irrational either, but that will never happen yet the point isn't quite moot...and let me explain why...

...a point most seem to have missed is this... evidence, such as it is, points to gay and bisexual men being more likely to be HIVpos than those of the heterosexual community... evidence based on current, yes, inadequate stats and information.. yet we know that large numbers of men living as heterosexuals are indeed no such thing, and closeted as they are for often very good reasons, are having sex with gay and bisexual men, and probably as often as not unprotected.. some of those men are gay, but most are likely to be bisexual.. it is likely that as a result of this squeeing of information and statistics because of the unknown value of adjusting the balance between infected men within each of the the heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual communities, that the evidence that Joan has presented, is more than likely to be strengthened, not harmed by any improvement in accuracy in such information.. which if I may teach u also to suck an egg, in my book lessens the numbers of heterosexual men infected and increases the numbers of those infected who are actually gay or bisexual...

We should be careful then when making claims such as those made by people such as BiBrandon and ExSailor and even yourself, tenni, because the reality may just get up and slap us in the face... we do a disservice to all if we deny what in my view is likely to be a very unpleasant reality... there is nothing irrational about Joan's position in the least.. however much people don't like it, it is a very rational position based on our societies present levels of knowledge however inadequate they may be...

What I will say is that I believe Joan's position to be a tadge excessive and certainly restrictive.. I know that were I to return to canoodling with guys, my personality is such that I could not deny myself that which mine eye beholds no matter his (or her) sexuality.. it is something historically I have never been able to do as long as I lived the life of the free spirit... but I am not she.. and I am not going to condemn her because she lives her life in a way differently from mine and has views about who she will fuck I do not share... and I will defend her to the enth degree to have that right, to express her views without those views being twisted and misrepresented and her being slagged off in ways which have been often quite appalling,,,

ExSailor

Jun 12, 2012, 8:09 PM

these diseases are more likely to be contracted by (women) having (unprotected) sexual relations with bisexual men persuasive if not quite conclusive.. it is probably true that numerically they are more likely to contract the disease from a heterosexual man, but statistically.the odds are stacked higher when it comes to having sex with bisexuals... Joan is persuaded, and no one on this site or elsewhere has managed to convince her otherwise because no one on this site has come up with one iota of evidence to contradict that which she has presented.. You and Joan are bigots, biphobic, and pozphobic. Safer sex does work against transmission of HIV, however you must do it correctly and consistently. My girlfriend and I have had safer sex many, many times since I first was diagnosed with HIV in 1985. She remains HIV-. Blaming transmission of HIV to women on bisexual men as you are doing shows how you are nothing but a bigoted biphobe, pozphobe, and how you know little to nothing about HIV. Heterosexuals transmit HIV to each other. Most people in the world who are HIV+ are heterosexual and they were infected via unprotected heterosexual sex. You and Joan can keep your heads buried in the sand all you want about HIV and keep running your mouths with your biphobic and pozphobic agendas however this does not change the fact that you're bigoted towards bisexual men and HIV+ people such as myself, and that neither of you are actually educated about HIV or safer sex.

darkeyes

Jun 12, 2012, 8:49 PM

You and Joan are bigots, biphobic, and pozphobic. Safer sex does work against transmission of HIV, however you must do it correctly and consistently. My girlfriend and I have had safer sex many, many times since I first was diagnosed with HIV in 1985. She remains HIV-. Blaming transmission of HIV to women on bisexual men as you are doing shows how you are nothing but a bigoted biphobe, pozphobe, and how you know little to nothing about HIV. Heterosexuals transmit HIV to each other. Most people in the world who are HIV+ are heterosexual and they were infected via unprotected heterosexual sex. You and Joan can keep your heads buried in the sand all you want about HIV and keep running your mouths with your biphobic and pozphobic agendas however this does not change the fact that you're bigoted towards bisexual men and HIV+ people such as myself, and that neither of you are actually educated about HIV or safer sex.
I do wish u would take your head out of your own arse and try and understand what people say and pack in denying a reality.. no one is saying that heterosexuals do not pass HIV to each other.. no one is saying that there are not more people with HIV and other STD's who are heterosexual right across the planet than there are gay or bisexual.. the OP has never said that, and I have never said it.. what she is saying and I concur is that statistically, even allowing for the inadequacy of statistics as we have them, we believe there is a greater percentage of gay and bisexual men within those communities who are HIVpos than there are within the heterosexual, at least within the developed world... and what I am saying, is that there are large numbers of men who claim to be heterosexual and live as such, who are nothing of the kind... and that this further adds to the strength of the OPs case.. deny it if u like.. call us biphobic, pozphobic if u like.. but ur hysterics and head up your own arse attitude does this community and the fight against HIV and other STD's no favours whatsoever because of your denial of your own kind's share of culpability...

ExSailor

Jun 12, 2012, 11:46 PM

we believe there is a greater percentage of gay and bisexual men within those communities who are HIVpos than there are within the heterosexual, at least within the developed world... I am angry at the level of discrimination, bigotry, biphobia, and pozphobia that us bisexual people living with HIV/AIDS have to endure even from people that are supposed to be supporting us but are just pretending to be allies to bisexual men, the LGBT community, and HIV+ people. There are more heterosexuals with this disease world wide than bisexual men or even gay men. Why is the truth being ignored? What is it about bisexual men and gay men that most of the United States and the world finds so intimidating? Blaming bisexual and gay men isn't going to stop this disease. It's only going to scare people from seeking testing and treatment. It's not a bisexual male or gay male disease either. Even if those bisexual or gay men are not out that does not mean that they are having unprotected sex with people who are HIV+. It's a human virus. You would think after 31 years this topic would no longer need be clarified. Wake up everybody. This is the reality of HIV and HIV infection, it's a disease that more and more straight people (even in "Developed countries" as you put it) are getting infected with from having unprotected sex with other hets who are HIV+. The gay and bisexual men's communities warned heteros about this in the 80s and 90s but they refused to listen then and still refuse to listen to people like myself who have been living with HIV for decades.

ExSailor

Jun 12, 2012, 11:49 PM

pozphobia and HIV denialist BS deleted Why do I know more POZ Str8 people than I know POZ gay and bisexual men? I wasn't aware that diseases had a sexual orientation. I thought a disease was a disease and like many viruses, they don't really care who their host is. This is outrageous!

æonpax

Jun 13, 2012, 1:29 AM

1 - You and Joan are bigots, biphobic, and pozphobic.
2 - Safer sex does work against transmission of HIV, however you must do it correctly and consistently.
3 - My girlfriend and I have had safer sex many, many times since I first was diagnosed with HIV in 1985. She remains HIV-.
4 - Blaming transmission of HIV to women on bisexual men as you are doing shows how you are nothing but a bigoted biphobe, pozphobe, and how you know little to nothing about HIV.
5 - Heterosexuals transmit HIV to each other. Most people in the world who are HIV+ are heterosexual and they were infected via unprotected heterosexual sex.
6 - You and Joan can keep your heads buried in the sand all you want about HIV and keep running your mouths with your biphobic and pozphobic agendas however this does not change the fact that you're bigoted towards bisexual men and HIV+ people such as myself, and that neither of you are actually educated about HIV or safer sex.

1 – He thinks if he repeats it enough times, it will become true. Sort of like throwing shit on the wall hoping some of it sticks.

2 – This is a classic senseless response; “you must do it correctly and consistently.” Abstinence from sex with real or perceived “high risk” people is correct and consistent. Duh!

3 – Personal experiences, however important it is to the individual, is not proof or evidence. A part can never be greater than the sum total of all such parts. Elementary logic for many, but lost on this one.

4 – Once again, if a person lacks facts and is unable to construct a coherent reply, launch into an attack mode, which is the first refuge of the incompetent.

5 – No one is disputing this but it’s not the topic here. Nothing like dragging in something irrelevant.

6 – This marks the third time in his response his repeats his “biphobic and pozphobic” mantra and again, fails to provide evidence. More of the same mindless repetition

In their rush to falsely paint themselves victims, people such as “ex” here ignore some of the most common sense prevention techniques such as a person’s choice to abstain from sex, regardless of the reason . This is being promoted by the CDC and other HIV awareness groups, such as this one - http://www.womenshealth.gov/hiv-aids/preventing-hiv-infection/practice-safer-sex.cfm - I’m sorry of such things offend the overly sensitive, but that’s life.

Here is another in-depth study, female centric, on HIV and it’s prevention. - http://66.199.228.237/boundary/Sexual_Addiction/Amaro_LoveSexPower.pdf.pdf

Lastly, there are legal reasons why women should choose a method of prevention that suits them, regardless of the whining of the PC extremists. - http://hivlawproject.org/resources/cwha/Better-Late-Than-Never-05072009.pdf -

When “ex” whines about the effects of the discrimination of HIV positive people, true to form, he does NOT define it. I will. For starters it does NOT apply to a person’s choice of sexual partners….for whatever reason. No person, especially female, should feel bullied or coerced into having any sex they don’t want and for any reason…even if it is based on misinformation. Such prejudice against HIV+ manifests itself most acutely in health care, employment and housing, not sexual choice. - http://www.socialworkers.org/practice/hiv_aids/AIDS_Day2002.pdf

Lastly, let me introduce the “ilk” to a new word…It’s called “Serosorting”, to wit;

Serosorting is the practice of using a person’s HIV positive status as a determining basis for choosing relationship and sexual partners. Of course, prejudice is nothing more than excluding a whole group of people for whatever determining factor one deems fit. So what is the difference between serosorting and being prejudice? - http://www.examiner.com/article/serosorting-old-prejudice-or-new-conscious-social-method

I guess people will have to read the whole article to understand. I shall not hold my breath.

MelissaPDX

Jun 13, 2012, 2:40 AM

MelissaPDX

Jun 13, 2012, 2:48 AM

Hence heterosexuals having such lower rates of HIV. Statistics, science, and math mean nothing to HIV. I am not heterosexual but I have not had that many sexual partners and I never injected drugs, yet I wound up getting HIV. When I first tested poz I had a very ignorant Canadian doctor tell me 'You don't look like the type who would test positive for HIV, the test result has to be a false positive!'. I did get tested again and this confirmed that I am poz. How I was infected does not really matter in the long run but I was not infected by a bisexual man. If you saw me you would not know that I am HIV+. Being HIV+ has shown me how HIV effects all people from all walks of life. It does not effect mainly only bisexual or gay men even if people like Aeon who are ignorant about HIV and pozphobic want to claim that it mainly does. BTW Canda's educational system is a joke. I went through 13 years of school, briefly attended a University in Canada for a few years, and then moved to the United States. I was very behind my fellow American students when I attended a university here in the United States.

MelissaPDX

Jun 13, 2012, 3:29 AM

I am angry at the level of discrimination, bigotry, biphobia, and pozphobia that us bisexual people living with HIV/AIDS have to endure even from people that are supposed to be supporting us but are just pretending to be allies to bisexual men, the LGBT community, and HIV+ people. There are more heterosexuals with this disease world wide than bisexual men or even gay men. Why is the truth being ignored? What is it about bisexual men and gay men that most of the United States and the world finds so intimidating? Blaming bisexual and gay men isn't going to stop this disease. It's only going to scare people from seeking testing and treatment. It's not a bisexual male or gay male disease either. Even if those bisexual or gay men are not out that does not mean that they are having unprotected sex with people who are HIV+. It's a human virus. You would think after 31 years this topic would no longer need be clarified. Wake up everybody. This is the reality of HIV and HIV infection, it's a disease that more and more straight people (even in "Developed countries" as you put it) are getting infected with from having unprotected sex with other hets who are HIV+. The gay and bisexual men's communities warned heteros about this in the 80s and 90s but they refused to listen then and still refuse to listen to people like myself who have been living with HIV for decades. I agree with you completely! People here who are pozphobic like Aeon are not gong to understand what it's like to be HIV+ and what we go through. I am bisexual woman that is poz. I have been on meds for about 10 years now. I agree that Aeonpax's opinion is not only biphobic and pozphobic; but it is completely wrong and she is in complete denial about how HIV effects everyone that's human no matter their sexuality or gender. Her posts do smack of the whole dangerous thinking of "HIV is a disease that only gay and bisexual men and IV drug users have to worry about, it's not something that straight people have to worry about!" argument that many people who are in denial about HIV use to advocate biphobia, homophobia, and hate speech like this thread against bisexual men and people like us who are living with HIV. What's worse is that Aeonpax and another woman here darkeyezs are using the guise of Feminism and women's rights as a launchpad for their hate speech and misandry towards bisexual men, and people who are HIV+. Women like Aeonpax and darkeyes are NOT for women's rights and are not feminists at all even if they want to pretend that they are. Yes it is being pozphobic if you say that you won't have safe sex, date, or have a relationship with someone that's HIV+. I agree with you that it's both pozphobia and biphobia saying that avoiding any and all sexual contact (even safer sex) with bisexual men because they may have HIV is totally backwards and discriminatory thinking. As someone that is HIV+ I do not want to infect you and there are tons of ways that a man and a woman or two women can have safer sex together. You should fear more all those supposedly negative people than someone who bravely tells you they’re positive – at least you can better assess your risk. If you want to live life like an ostrich with your head stuck in the dirt, thinking that HIV only mainly effects bisexual and gay men and that by avoiding sex with Bisexual men that you'll somehow stay HIV- it’s your decision to do so. Unfortunately, consider yourself in the majority of the population, the major reason why this world still has so many problems – like HIV. Fear is a disease. One day though you’ll have to face your own mortality – it’s inevitable. The real problem with this common reaction, "I won't have sex with an HIV-positive person, or a bisexual man!" is that it encourages everybody to lie about their HIV status and it also shows how you think of HIV as being a disease that mainly only effects bisexual and gay men when it does not and it effects people of all orientations and genders. This makes so-called serosorting strategies worthless except for partners who have been together long enough to see and trust each other's HIV test results. Also Serosorting is something that people who have unprotected sex or barebacking do. As an HIV+ person I do not bareback or have unprotected sex even with other HIV+ people since I do not want to get reinfected with the strain of HIV I have or get infected with a strain of HIV, or infect another HIV+ person with a new strain of HIV or mess up our meds from working.

æonpax

Jun 13, 2012, 3:44 AM

This woman is insane! HIV is a sexually transmitted disease! Not a disease of bisexual and gay men! That was an irresponsible statement claiming that bisexual men are somehow more likely to be HIV+ and spread HIV to others. I can attest that I have met many HIV positive women, and Men that are Heterosexual. This woman is a fool, we all need to protect our selves and her comment on bisexual men as the problem is foolish. Telling people to be abstinent from sex is not going to work.

Another new ID joins in and just plows right in with the stupid comments. Great.

I don't suppose you read any of the links I provided from the CDC and other academic sites that promote abstinence as a method to avoid HIV? Of course you didn't. You apparently know more than these people and everyone should follow what some kind of anonymous voice says in a forum instead of sound medical advice from professionals.

"HIV is a sexually transmitted disease! Not a disease of bisexual and gay men!" -
Good to know. Nobody in this forum knew that.

"That was an irresponsible statement claiming that bisexual men are somehow more likely to be HIV+ and spread HIV to others." -
Again, there have been a plethora of links here pointing out studies by medical professionals that such a disparity sadly exists, but hey, why let facts get in the way of an uninformed rant.

"I can attest that I have met many HIV positive women, and Men that are Heterosexual." -
So can I but what does that have to do with this issue?

"This woman is a fool, {Moi} we all need to protect our selves and her comment on bisexual men as the problem is foolish." -
The blind leading the blind.

"Telling people to be abstinent from sex is not going to work" -
You are correct, it doesn't work with animals who operate on instinct but we are dealing with cognizant humans here who are able to think and reason. If you are implying bisexuals and gays are no more than animals, you are the real fool here.

****

You are repeating the exact same spew being dished out by ex, tenni, bidave, et al. I wish when they set-up one of their new fake ID's, they'd at least try a different tact.

Pro-tip: Paragraphs..use them.

darkeyes

Jun 13, 2012, 10:15 AM

Another new ID joins in and just plows right in with the stupid comments. Great.

I don't suppose you read any of the links I provided from the CDC and other academic sites that promote abstinence as a method to avoid HIV? Of course you didn't. You apparently know more than these people and everyone should follow what some kind of anonymous voice says in a forum instead of sound medical advice from professionals.

"HIV is a sexually transmitted disease! Not a disease of bisexual and gay men!" -
Good to know. Nobody in this forum knew that.

"That was an irresponsible statement claiming that bisexual men are somehow more likely to be HIV+ and spread HIV to others." -
Again, there have been a plethora of links here pointing out studies by medical professionals that such a disparity sadly exists, but hey, why let facts get in the way of an uninformed rant.

"I can attest that I have met many HIV positive women, and Men that are Heterosexual." -
So can I but what does that have to do with this issue?

"This woman is a fool, {Moi} we all need to protect our selves and her comment on bisexual men as the problem is foolish." -
The blind leading the blind.

"Telling people to be abstinent from sex is not going to work" -
You are correct, it doesn't work with animals who operate on instinct but we are dealing with cognizant humans here who are able to think and reason. If you are implying bisexuals and gays are no more than animals, you are the real fool here.

****

You are repeating the exact same spew being dished out by ex, tenni, bidave, et al. I wish when they set-up one of their new fake ID's, they'd at least try a different tact.

Pro-tip: Paragraphs..use them.

Joan!!!! I'm shocked atya!! U r takin' the wee we now!!! Naughty girl..smack hands an' face...

An' lil question..rya tellin' me a load of guys has lost 'is knob somewer down the line?? Ouchies... poor ole sod(s)!!! Will have word in Kate's ear'ole..she triff wiv needle an thread...:bigrin:

..and they expect us to take them seriously... jeez....

Gearbox

Jun 13, 2012, 1:17 PM

I agree with you completely! People here who are pozphobic like Aeon are not gong to understand what it's like to be HIV+ and what we go through. I am bisexual woman that is poz. I have been on meds for about 10 years now. I agree that Aeonpax's opinion is not only biphobic and pozphobic; but it is completely wrong and she is in complete denial about how HIV effects everyone that's human no matter their sexuality or gender. Her posts do smack of the whole dangerous thinking of "HIV is a disease that only gay and bisexual men and IV drug users have to worry about, it's not something that straight people have to worry about!" argument that many people who are in denial about HIV use to advocate biphobia, homophobia, and hate speech like this thread against bisexual men and people like us who are living with HIV. What's worse is that Aeonpax and another woman here darkeyezs are using the guise of Feminism and women's rights as a launchpad for their hate speech and misandry towards bisexual men, and people who are HIV+. Women like Aeonpax and darkeyes are NOT for women's rights and are not feminists at all even if they want to pretend that they are. Yes it is being pozphobic if you say that you won't have safe sex, date, or have a relationship with someone that's HIV+. I agree with you that it's both pozphobia and biphobia saying that avoiding any and all sexual contact (even safer sex) with bisexual men because they may have HIV is totally backwards and discriminatory thinking. As someone that is HIV+ I do not want to infect you and there are tons of ways that a man and a woman or two women can have safer sex together. You should fear more all those supposedly negative people than someone who bravely tells you they’re positive – at least you can better assess your risk. If you want to live life like an ostrich with your head stuck in the dirt, thinking that HIV only mainly effects bisexual and gay men and that by avoiding sex with Bisexual men that you'll somehow stay HIV- it’s your decision to do so. Unfortunately, consider yourself in the majority of the population, the major reason why this world still has so many problems – like HIV. Fear is a disease. One day though you’ll have to face your own mortality – it’s inevitable. The real problem with this common reaction, "I won't have sex with an HIV-positive person, or a bisexual man!" is that it encourages everybody to lie about their HIV status and it also shows how you think of HIV as being a disease that mainly only effects bisexual and gay men when it does not and it effects people of all orientations and genders. This makes so-called serosorting strategies worthless except for partners who have been together long enough to see and trust each other's HIV test results. Also Serosorting is something that people who have unprotected sex or barebacking do. As an HIV+ person I do not bareback or have unprotected sex even with other HIV+ people since I do not want to get reinfected with the strain of HIV I have or get infected with a strain of HIV, or infect another HIV+ person with a new strain of HIV or mess up our meds from working.
Well you maybe rubbished, but IMO what you say is very relevant to how bi's&gays are viewed in relation to HIV, and those who are HIV+.
IMO it IS fear! Mixed with a natural need to feel 'in control' of ourselves, and our mental/biological health. Sadly, that can evoke irrational judgements that only have a 'feel good'/emotionally comforting result, that doesn't really benefit us at all in a practical sense.

For eg: I'm HIV- and practice 'safe' sex. I'm promiscuous, and meet (mostly) the promiscuous bi&gay males for sex. I avoid any who state that their HIV+ or BB. That makes me feel as if I'm cutting down my risks (in control).
But I'm not daft enough to think that I haven't already had sex with some HIV+ and BB'ers. Not everyone with HIV+ know they have it, and I wouldn't know either. I may have contacted HIV+ the last time I had sex. All that keeps me feeling 'safe' is the fact that I play 'safe'. And THAT is all anybody can do in a practical sense with casual sex, anything else is irrelevant.

Only recently I wondered if I'd date someone with HIV+. To be brutally honest, the only downside to that would be that we couldn't BB. I'd really love to be able to do that for once, and having a partner could allow me.lol Yes I know how charming that makes me (:oh:), but I'd be lying if I said different.
BUT I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a deal breaker if they were lovely. At least I like to think that I wouldn't fear them.

tenni

Jun 13, 2012, 1:48 PM

I don't find it irrational. The data shows it's incredibly rational.

You're biased because you don't want to admit to be part of a group that has disproportionate infection rates because you see that as a reflection of yourself. You need to step back from that and see reality for what it is.

The fact that the idiots on here even want to dispute this data is embarrassing for them. It shows the state of their intelligence. (Notice how many are products of the US education system!)

I was thinking about this thread today and see parallels to debating with religious people. No matter how much science proves your point they cling to whatever "faith" as "proof" of their opinions. You'll never come to a resolution with them and those of us on the science side are debating those on the faith side.

Congratulations to them. They've created a new religion: The Gay Reality Deniers United

You are correct that I do not consider myself as part of a group that has a disproportionate infection rate any more than you are slippy. You are a self identified bisexual man that the OP will not have sex with. Itdoes not matter that you are celebate, abstaining from sex with men but not women, she will have nothing to with you sexually.

tenni

Jun 13, 2012, 2:05 PM

darkeyes

Jun 13, 2012, 3:01 PM

Well you maybe rubbished, but IMO what you say is very relevant to how bi's&gays are viewed in relation to HIV, and those who are HIV+.
IMO it IS fear! Mixed with a natural need to feel 'in control' of ourselves, and our mental/biological health. Sadly, that can evoke irrational judgements that only have a 'feel good'/emotionally comforting result, that doesn't really benefit us at all in a practical sense.

For eg: I'm HIV- and practice 'safe' sex. I'm promiscuous, and meet (mostly) the promiscuous bi&gay males for sex. I avoid any who state that their HIV+ or BB. That makes me feel as if I'm cutting down my risks (in control).
But I'm not daft enough to think that I haven't already had sex with some HIV+ and BB'ers. Not everyone with HIV+ know they have it, and I wouldn't know either. I may have contacted HIV+ the last time I had sex. All that keeps me feeling 'safe' is the fact that I play 'safe'. And THAT is all anybody can do in a practical sense with casual sex, anything else is irrelevant.

Only recently I wondered if I'd date someone with HIV+. To be brutally honest, the only downside to that would be that we couldn't BB. I'd really love to be able to do that for once, and having a partner could allow me.lol Yes I know how charming that makes me (:oh:), but I'd be lying if I said different.
BUT I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a deal breaker if they were lovely. At least I like to think that I wouldn't fear them.
I have never knowingly had sex with a bisexual man.. neither have I ever had sex knowingly with a man who was HIVpos.. in those days I made assumptions and took risks I doubt i would now.. and it was impolite to ask of anyone "Are u bi?" "Do u have a dose of the clap?" or "Are u HIV?" And none volunteered the information.. so looking back I took the most awful risks.. being older now and wiser, I would approach things differently but I would still find it difficult to ask someone of their health status of sexuality.. because I was brought up not to be so rude.. but times are diifferent and I don't think anyone can afford not to if the info is not volunteered..

In respect of women and girls a similar approach was taken.. although trust me, make a false move a straight woman will soon tell me where to get off.. but bi and gay women would at least tell me that they were bi or gay.. and of course there are those who would say demurely "I've never done this before".. some even told the truth... u just know the difference... and romping in their or your own bed u know sure as hell they aren't straight.. I have never knowingly slept with a woman who was HIVpos.. but I did have a brief relationship with a girl who was. I was 17, she a little older and it was she who made it clear to me what she would and would not do... kissing and heavy petting was as far as she was prepared to go and I don't deny such was the high she could bring me to I bloody well wanted more, but equally don't deny being scared stiff that she said yes...... but in my own mind I am quite sure had she said yes I would have gone much further than we did.. at that time my knowledge of safer sex was extremely limited, and tbh I didn't really care knowing that it was far more difficult, although not impossible, to contract HIV from a woman than a man.

I am not afraid of HIV nor of any STD no matter what anyone says or thinks.. certainly not irrationally.. I am knowledgeable enough not to be, but I am much more wary and sensible than when I was in my teens and early 20s.. even in my middle 20s when I began to develop a much greater appreciation of the dangers... and whatever anyone thinks I have no phobia about HIV in man or woman.. I socialise with a number of HIVpos men and women and hug and kiss most of them when we meet, treating them not as invalids but as valued human beings and friends.. there is much more to human relationships than sex and those who accuse I and others of bigotry and biphobia should remember that sex is but one small but important aspect of human relationships.

Each of us deal with HIV in those we know differently.. and upon discovering that those we first meet are pos. Dealing with the whole aspect of HIV in a human being is far more than whether or not we are prepared to fuck them.. treating them with the same respect and decency that we would do any other person is more important that whether or not we have sex with them..laughing and crying with them, talking to them, sharing our dreams together, helping them through crises as one HIVpos guy helped me once upon a time.. treating them normally in everyday life. That having sex with a person who is HIV, and in particular a man who is HIV can never be quite normal if we are negative is a sad fact of life for the present and each of us must deal with that eventuality as we think best for ourselves.. being abusive to those who deal with sex in their own way yet deal with HIVpos people decently and normally in every other way is not something likely to help anyone and certainly does nothing to aid the HIVpos community whether they be gay, bisexual or heterosexual... human beings are much more than the sex they may or may not be willing to provide.. by fixating on the sex, we dimish the value of both ourselves and the human beings we discuss...

I've said me peace.. and on this thread I am done and will say no more... it is much too contaminated and should be left die..

BiDaveDtown

Jun 13, 2012, 4:35 PM

Sorry about the multi posts damn tablet. Another point, slippy & darkeyes is that those of us who decide to have casual sex with other men are not all participating in high risk behaviour like anal sex. We are in the trenches with our wits about us making decisions who to have sex with or not. Yes, dicks some times rule but not comletely hismone controlled out of control. There is a risk ofany woman who has sex with a man of getting pregnant, Is that risk higher than her chance of getting HIV? That is how I kind of see casual sex with other men. I make my sexual decisions based onwho what I decide to have sex with whether a man or woman. Guys are just easier and less hassle. The Op has her cock lover. She does not need cock. She even prostitutes herself to please her cock man. She is like a bi married guy. He does not look for pussy. He wants what he does not have....cock. She wants pussy but is POed because they accuse her of spreading HIV. She turns and creates this thread to piss of bi men. If this was JUST a personal decision, there is no need to create such a thread. There is no rational reason to create such a thread if you make a personal decision and do not have an agenda to bash bimen. She plays for pay with men. She wants play for pleasure with lesbians and they will not play with a bisexual. You make an excellent point tenni. Just because a man is bisexual or even gay that does not mean that he's having unprotected anal sex with men who are HIV+ or of unknown status, or unprotected vaginal or anal sex with women who are HIV+ or of unknown HIV status. Heterosexuals have unprotected anal and vaginal sex all the time and like to think that this is not risky for HIV because they're not bisexual or gay men; but they're wrong. Aeon conveniently ignores the fact that unprotected vaginal and anal sex between two or more hetero people who are HIV+ or unknown is just as risky for contracting HIV, yet she blames bisexual men for infecting women and thinks that we are somehow more at risk for HIV even though most people in the world who are HIV+ are heterosexual and they were infected via heterosexual sex.

darkeyes

Jun 13, 2012, 4:39 PM

She plays for pay with men. She wants play for pleasure with lesbians and they will not play with a bisexual.
... except to say that the first sentence is below the belt, Tenni, and with regard to the second, many lesbians would happily play for pleasure, whether she be bisexual or not... not all gay people, men or women are as u would like them painted....

IanBorthwick

Jun 13, 2012, 6:22 PM

.many lesbians would happily play for pleasure, whether she be bisexual or not...

Many? No, some, a few, a couple...bu tnot many, and by FAR not all.

What amazes me is the pair of you disagree, but Joanie is willing to not criticize your biphobia so long as it concurs with hers, and even then, when she knows your head is so far up your ass it's popping out of Joan's, you still stick to gather in your bigotry. Rather like the KKK being cool with the Skinheads because they hate he same things and barely stand each other.

Wisdom won't bend you because your BELIEF is "better" than the facts, and no one's life experiences or facts will change your mind. Fine, then be done with this thread and stop tossing in your opinions as facts. It's a pissing match and there are people far more enlightened and experienced than yourselves that have stepped in JUST to tell you what wanders the pair of you are. You've proven you're ok with being the way you are, now stop flouting it to the world. You're gynocentric, biphobic, ignorant, pozphobes claiming ANY wake up call to the world we call REAL LIFE is Misogyny so you can play the victim when in reality the victims are the ones you're mashing on..us.

You have no credibility, no facts, no figures to support you. You have only your bankrupt rhetoric and opinions, and allow ME to be the first one to explain to you and Joan. We're not trying to convince YOU to join us in some tawdry sex game, oh no. From the stuff we've heard from the both of you we'd none of us want to test the depth of any of that with any measure you care to use. Indeed, we're just never going to let you lie unchallenged. We're not going to let you natter on like this is fact and we should all bend to it because the Female has said so. As I've said so many times, we're not going to allow you push a thought process on us anymore whereby you can find another sleazy way to say,"Female=Divine, Male=Evil".

You've been seen for what you are and those who back you. Bigots, misandrists, manginas and white knights.

Keep it up boys and girls. I'm proud of you for not letting the haters win, but don't sink to their level, ok? Keep it cool.

slipnslide

Jun 13, 2012, 6:51 PM

Another new ID joins in and just plows right in with the stupid comments. Great.

Haha! I was thinking the same thing.

slipnslide

Jun 13, 2012, 6:56 PM

You are correct that I do not consider myself as part of a group that has a disproportionate infection rate any more than you are slippy. You are a self identified bisexual man that the OP will not have sex with. Itdoes not matter that you are celebate, abstaining from sex with men but not women, she will have nothing to with you sexually.

And I wholeheartedly understand why she has that position. I'm not offended in the least. It's smart. It's informed. It's science.

slipnslide

Jun 13, 2012, 7:03 PM

I've said me peace.. and on this thread I am done and will say no more... it is much too contaminated and should be left die..

Same here.

darkeyes

Jun 13, 2012, 7:03 PM

Keep it up boys and girls. I'm proud of you for not letting the haters win, but don't sink to their level, ok? Keep it cool.What? Like u do? Welcome to the debate, Ian...:bigrin:

MelissaPDX

Jun 13, 2012, 10:04 PM

I don't suppose you read any of the links I provided from the CDC ... I am writing on my phone and it does not allow me to post in paragraphs. 1.I did read the links, and actually I am a medical professional. I'm an RN, and telling people to be abstinent does not work nearly as well as actually practicing safer sex correctly does. However you're a nobody and just a bigot with her own agenda about bisexual men and people like myself who are HIV positive. 2.Apparently you did not. You're the one claiming that bisexual men as a whole are so HIV+ and such a risk for giving you HIV that bisexual men and by proxy gay men are to blame for HIV transmission to other bisexuals, heterosexuals, and other gay men and lesbians. Only someone who does not practice safer sex and who does not know the facts about HIV, and how HIV effects everyone regardless of their gender or sexual orientation would argue something like this. I agree with the person who suggested that you and other bigots should go join NOM (National Organization for Marriage), vote for Romney, support Rick Santorum, or go join the Westboro Baptist church since your bigoted and wrong arguments against bisexual men and HIV+ people are what those hate groups and bigots would completely agree with. 3.You can find studies done by scientists and medical professionals that will prove anything. The one study you cited was from Brazil! Even in Brazil there are A LOT more heterosexual men and women who are HIV+ and who were infected via unprotected vaginal or anal sex, or from blood. There are even studies where it's claimed by professionals that bisexuality does not exist in men and that someone's sexuality even if they're monosexual can easily be changed. Based on your comments that "They're studies done by professionals!" I guess you'd believe those studies too. BTW medical professionals who are my colleagues since I work as an RN agree with me that HIV is a human disease and that most people in the world who are HIV+ are heterosexual and got it from heterosexual sex. Or they got it from blood which is how I got infected. 4.If you know so many heterosexual men and women who are HIV+ why do you blame bisexual men for transmitting HIV? I agree with Tenni why the need for this thread then if you know that most people in the world who are Poz are hetero? Do the HIV+ people that you know who are hetero know how you blame HIV on bisexual men and how you think that you'll be somehow a lot less likely to be infected with HIV if you have sex with a hetero guy than if you have safer sex correctly with a bisexual man, or even if you have safer sex correctly with a bisexual man or woman who is HIV+, on meds, and has a low or undetectable viral load and high CD4 count? 5.You're the only foolish one here who doesn't seem to understand that HIV is a human disease, and that bisexual men and gay men are not to blame for HIV infection like you and other posters here want to claim especially the bigoted Canadian who wrote all about how you're a "Cesspool" if you're HIV+ or have an STD. You can sugar-coat your bigotry, biphobia, and pozphobia all you want but you're not fooling anyone. 6.I wrote nothing of the sort and I have not claimed that people of my own sexuality (bisexuals) are animals or that gay men or lesbian women are. You're pulling this accusation out of your ass so deep down inside you must think that bisexual and gay men are wild with lust and will have unsafe sex with just anyone who comes along. You also have stated how you believe that a large number of bisexual men are HIV+, don't practice safer sex, and will willingly and knowingly infect others with HIV. All of this being said you still deny that you can have safer sex correctly with an HIV+ person and not get infected. If anyone is the fool here, it's you sweetie.

MelissaPDX

Jun 14, 2012, 3:44 PM

I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. What's really dangerous is how you want to blame bisexual men for spreading HIV to people of other sexual orientations, or as being THE major high risk group for HIV despite the fact that most people in the world who are HIV+ are heterosexual and get infected via heterosexual partners. It's 2012! People know all about HIV now and you should know by now how it's transmitted, how to practice safer sex, and how not to get infected with HIV and that HIV effects everyone not just the biphobic and homophobic attitude of "It's mainly a disease that effects only gay and bisexual men!" If you want to see someone who has a very provincial and limited perspective, not to mention a bigoted opinion about HIV and bisexual men go look in the mirror. You'd have to be stupid, VERY naive and foolish about sex and HIV and STDs to actually believe that this is somehow true since HIV effects everyone regardless of their sexual orientation or gender. You're entitled to believe whatever you want however this does not mean that you're correct, that you're actually educated, have an actual interest in learning, and that you're not a bigot who is full of biphobia and pozphobia.

slipnslide

Jun 14, 2012, 4:52 PM

I just noticed that ExSailor and MelissaPDX both confuse "effects" and "affects" in the exact same way!

How convenient is that? Haha! The new account that just magically showed up and has the exact same opinion!

LMFAO

MelissaPDX

Jun 14, 2012, 6:08 PM

Slipnslide that's from auto-correct on my phone. There's no need to nitpick. If you actually read my post and understood how HIV is a human disease not one that primarily concerns bisexual and gay men. You'd stop living in denial thinking that even women who are white Canadians are not at risk for HIV infection at all, and stop being such a bigot towards bisexual and gay men, and people who are poz like myself and other people here.

csrakate

Jun 14, 2012, 6:16 PM

There's no denying it....the writing style is exactly the same....sigh.

darkeyes

Jun 14, 2012, 6:44 PM

There's no denying it....the writing style is exactly the same....sigh.
Together with a few others Mumsie...;)

csrakate

Jun 14, 2012, 6:55 PM

Together with a few others Mumsie...;)

Oh....definitely!! Just hate seeing that there is yet another one joining the ranks.

slipnslide

Jun 14, 2012, 7:10 PM

There's no denying it....the writing style is exactly the same....sigh.

And when reading the excuse of "auto-correct" *LMAO* only one thing came to mind. . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-fK7GVrHW0

tenni

Jun 14, 2012, 7:20 PM

... except to say that the first sentence is below the belt, Tenni, and with regard to the second, many lesbians would happily play for pleasure, whether she be bisexual or not... not all gay people, men or women are as u would like them painted....
Yes, I agree that it does feel a little below the belt to me as well and has bothered me since I posted it. U
It is part of who and what she is though. It has led her to make the conclusion that she and made her controversial opinion on this site...not just in one thread but at least two threads she has attacted bimen who are not living a hetero pure life. She , herself, has byfar lived a very unorthodox alternative lif3 and slurs with what you have referred to as prickly . Wanting academic discussion and consensual discussion wnd then attacks when acad3mic critique is made onher evidence. There is clearly contradiction and hypocracy in her writings.

MelissaPDX

Jun 14, 2012, 8:41 PM

And I wholeheartedly understand why she has that position. I'm not offended in the least. It's smart. It's informed. It's science. *laughs* More like the type of BS and psuedoscience I see from idiots who are in complete denial about how HIV is a human disease and that even straight people are at risk for getting infected. Self determination and cause of infection means something to those who have HIV regardless of gay or bisexual men Vs hetero statistics. If your and AeonPax's message is to reinforce that HIV/AIDS is a gay male and bisexual male disease, you've just moved that agenda forward a lot. People will not hear subtle distinctions - they'll only hear that HIV/AIDS is a gay and bisexual male disease and that will bring gay and bisexual men greater retribution and violence, and cause more heterosexual people not to practice safer sex, not to get tested, not to seek treatment/meds, and it just shows how neither of you understand HIV.

MelissaPDX

Jun 14, 2012, 8:44 PM

"HIV is a gay and bisexual men's disease." This is a myth that refuses to die. Misinformation, fear, ignorance and media sensationalism continue to fuel this myth in North America. For every one person like me trying to tell the truth about HIV transmission, there seems to be a dozen shrieking, simpleminded, natural-born dullards with a staggering inability to grasp reality. HIV is not a gay or bisexual men's disease. Nope. All of us are at risk in getting HIV from unsafe sex or other modes of blood to blood contact, like sharing needles. Television talk shows and all those fundamentalist/conservative/family values groups are chock full of flaky, clueless lightweights who made up their minds twenty years ago that HIV is a product of the so-called "bisexual and gay male promiscuity". These poor creatures are so invested in this myth that they are incapable of hearing the truth. They continue to spew their self-righteous, delusional feculence to the detriment of all humanity. They are, in fact, shameless, insidious prevaricators driven solely by their irrational loathing and fear of gay and bisexual men.

slipnslide

Jun 14, 2012, 9:06 PM

LOL he's keeping up the ruse even though we all know it!! THIS IS PRICELESS. He's so angry at the world!! HAHA.

Spouting the same nonsense from multiple accounts! MY EYES ARE TEARING UP FROM LAUGHTER!!

Again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-fK7GVrHW0

And he's picked up a thesaurus. . oh fuck me this is too funny!!

ExSailor

Jun 15, 2012, 12:22 AM

snip You know, I kind of pity people so wilfully ignorant and hateful as you have demonstrated, life must be awful for you. You’re no better than those who oppose LGBT rights. Why is it wrong for bisexual men and HIV+ people to be offended by the language in the orignal post and in the posts that call us and people who are HIV+ or who've had an STD "Cesspools"? Aeon and Slip it is YOU who are ignoring HISTORY in your childish attempts to support your vile biphobia and pozphobia. You ignore everything except your own hatred and prejudice towards bisexual and gay men, and people who are poz. It must be awful to be so hateful. Throwing around wild insinuations and lashings of prejudice, people like you are why there are many negative stereotypes of bisexual and gay men, and people who are poz or who have an STD. I prefer FACTS and HISTORY over the hate and propaganda you embrace. Oh and I’m a Buddhist, Scientology or Fundamentalist Christianity seems more appropriate for you: they like to twist reality to suit their own fantasies as well. Farewell hateful ones. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out…Also, you appear to harbor a lot of hatred towards bisexual and gay men, as well as people who happen to be HIV+. You can bury your head in the sand, Aeon and Slip (while both claiming to be bisexual), but biphobia and pozphobia are real, they do occur. And we WILL speak out against them. The original post and Aeon and slip's posts about bisexual men and HIV uses language associated with biphobia and pozphobia, and that is why several of us have spoken out about it.

ExSailor

Jun 15, 2012, 12:24 AM

slipnslide

Jun 15, 2012, 1:08 AM

You know, I kind of pity people so wilfully ignorant and hateful as you have demonstrated, life must be awful for you. You’re no better than those who oppose LGBT rights. ... You ignore everything except your own hatred and prejudice...It must be awful to be so hateful. Throwing around wild insinuations and lashings of prejudice, people like you are why there are many negative stereotypes of bisexual and gay men, and people who are poz or who have an STD. …Also, you appear to harbor a lot of hatred towards bisexual and gay men, as well as people who happen to be HIV+

Uh oh. . .someone is projecting. I don't think he even realises he is angry at himself but takes it out on others.

Notice that he has chosen to not address that we know of at least two separate accounts he posts under now.

Gee, I wonder what *Melissa* would have to say about this. . .lol.

slipnslide

Jun 15, 2012, 1:49 AM

Long Duck Dong

Jun 15, 2012, 2:53 AM

I have been reading the thread..... and this thread reminded me of the glenn mills case in NZ ( one of 3 cases )....

bisexual hiv pos guy that had sex with 14 people and infected 7 of them, knowing that he was HIV pos.....
between him and the other two cases, 3 bi guys infected close to 30 people, some of them heteros...

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/36/article_8256.php this is a victims statement about having sex with glenn

from the article.....

So one night you and Glenn tumbled into bed together?

Yeah. A can't remember the exact month, but it would have been around November or December [2008] and my relationship with my partner was pretty much dead by then.

With Glenn it was like any other hook-up really, nothing was out of the ordinary. We were kissing. His exact words were 'Oh, do you mind if we don't use a condom, it hurts my dick'. I said 'No, I want to use a condom'. I didn't know enough about him to trust him like that. I've got this stance with new people, if we're hooking up for the first time, there's no way I'm going to have unprotected sex with them.

What was his reaction when you said ‘No’?

He pushed it a bit. He went on more about how it hurt his dick, and that he lost sensitivity and found it hard to maintain an erection. So I stood up to leave the room. Then he said 'OK, that's fine', and he put a condom on. And as far as I knew, we had protected sex. I was on my stomach so there was no way I could be 100% sure. But I saw the condom go on so I was quite satisfied that we were having protected sex. I had no suspicions or qualms about it.

the guy contracted hiv....

footnote at the end of the interview

Glenn Mills eventually faced 28 charges relating to knowingly exposing 14 young sex partners, 12 of them young gay men including teenagers, to HIV. It may never be known how many young men he actually infected with HIV. Early Monday morning Mills was found dead in his remand jail cell, police have not sought anyone in relation to his death.

my reason for posting this, is not about making bi / gay guys look bad, cos so many people are not like glenn mills..... its more to do with the fact that using condoms doesn't mean that you are having safe sex, it means that as far as you know, the person had a condom on.......

tenni

Jun 15, 2012, 4:08 AM

Slippy
I do agree with you that it is about choice as to whom you have sex with. I do not agree with excluding ALL people of a certain gender or sexuality as potential sex partners. I believe in some form of caution and factor in gut feelings and statements made by potential sex partners. I also believe in excluding certainhigh risk sex activity from casual sex. That maybe where I differ from you? I respect your right to use your own criteria but see your chice as too exlusionary and maybe missing out on fullfilling youself but that is your life decision and choice.

æonpax

Jun 15, 2012, 9:36 AM

I put my Freud hat on and I believe I have a good theory about ExSailor / MelissaPDX:
Aeon and I have expressed an idea that angers him, likely unconsciously. That idea is choice. We choose to mitigate risk. ExSailor has told us that he contracted HIV from sexual assault. He ended up with HIV because that choice was taken away from him in a horrific way. Unconsciously he wants that choice to be taken away from everyone. He's angry at the world because someone took away his choice of sexual partner and as a result he ended up with an infection that today has no cure. One can sympathize for sure. I'm going to assume that someone on this forum would not lie about something this serious.
That anger bends and distorts reality. If he can convince people to engage in risky sexual behaviours it increases the chance of them also becoming HIV+. This is Freud's id in action.
I'm pretty certain based on this that he never addressed the anger and feelings associated with the sexual assault. The anger is unconsciously festering in him as though this horrific assault happened yesterday.
Looks at how he wants to portray me. My gay friends would not recognize me in his description - the ones who know about my sex life and wholly support it and understand. But his caricature of me is a reflection of the treatment he's received from people over the years. As an anonymous individual on the internet I become a lightning rod to release some of that anger.
My thoughts are known and aren't going to change because someone calls me names and attributes attitudes to me that are untrue.
And with that, I believe it's time for me to let this thread die.

`
`
There's a saying; "Never teach a pig how to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig." It would appear that the pompous, unenlightened are against any method or rationale which slows down the spread of HIV, that does not conform to their myopic ideology. That whole line of thought and their subsequent arguments seem neurotic and dangerous. To even suggest a person needs to qualify their reasoning for choosing a certain method in which to avoid contracting HIV/STD, past a group of angry extremists, smacks of stupidity and callousness that is beyond belief.

You are correct, there is lot of raw anger these people represent although I daresay I'm not qualified to analyze the causes. Still, such blatant displays of irrationality, intolerance and mindless repetitions are indicative to personalities suffering certain human disorders.

If only one person can avoid contracting HIV/STD's, even for the wrong reasons, then it is good. For someone to pass by later and pass judgement on them according to their skewed standards, is hateful.
`

Gearbox

Jun 15, 2012, 10:34 AM

tenni

Jun 15, 2012, 2:17 PM

With regard to post 375 intentional? infecting men with HIV, I think that these type of people are vile mentally ill people but this is not limited to just m2m sex. In my country we have had two extreme clases of intentionally knowingly spreading HIV. The first case involved a man infecting 8 women and two died from AIDs before the trial began. He had been repeatedly informed of his statusand nto to have unprotected sex.. Even whenasked directly by a woman wat his HIV status was he lied to her. She died of AIDs from having sex with a hetrosexual man. He was found guilty ofaggravated sexual asault insix cases and guilty of manslaughter. He hasbeen declared a special type of offender (dangerous offender)and will never permitted out of jail(I think thst he was..but I may bewrong..case my not yet resoljved on that matter)

The second incident involved awoman who went to military bases and infected male military personnel with HiV. She lied to the men(young and dumb horny buggers). Aparently she had actually snuck on to tbe bases to seduce soldiers. She was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault (euivalent to rape or forced sex with a weapon).

Neither case involved bisexual men or women. As others have posted HIV is not a male sexually transmitted disease only...it is a human sexually transmitted disease and caution is needed but celebacy is not the way either..well it wil save you...lol but for what?

ExSailor

Jun 15, 2012, 4:18 PM

snip Here come the excuses for your biphobic, homophobic, and pozphobic agenda yet again. :rolleyes: HIV is a human disease. Telling people to be abstinent and not have sex at all does not work. It didn't work for you as a teenager and you were sexually active then, had unprotected sex intentionally, and got pregnant and have done this multiple times and you're not even 30. Avoiding sexual partners who are bisexual men because you think that most of us are HIV+ and you believe that safer sex when done correctly does not work at preventing HIV transmission shows how you don't know anything about human sexuality, HIV, or safer sex. None of your arguments are going to stop or slow down the spread of HIV. You're not preventing anyone from getting HIV by having a biphobic and pozphobia agenda. Because of ignorant bigots like you who have the biphobic and homophobic opinion that "HIV is a disease that only bisexual and gay men have to worry about! If I don't sleep with bisexual or gay men I don't need to worry about it!" more and more heterosexuals will get infected with HIV because they think that as hets they don't need practice safer sex, get tested, and think that because they're not having sex with a bisexual or gay man there's no way that their partner could be poz. Your posts in this topic just show how you're very ignorant about HIV and how HIV is a human disease, and how you're nothing but a person filled with hate towards bisexual and gay men, and HIV+ people. What really smacks of stupidity, bigotry, biphobia, pozphobia, and skewed standards is how in 2012 you want to claim that HIV is still a disease that bisexual and gay men need worry about and by having sex with hetero men you're somehow protecting yourself against it. :rolleyes: You're the neurotic and dangerous one here.

ExSailor

Jun 15, 2012, 4:31 PM

he never addressed the anger and feelings associated with the sexual assault. Nope I'm not angry at the world and I did address being raped. I do however get very angry when I see bigots such as yourself and the OP going on and on with biphobia and pozphobia with BS such as "HIV is a bisexual and gay men's disease!" as you've both done and still do in this thread. The CDC doesn't have epidemiological information on bisexuals for HIV nor does anyone else. As Gearbox wrote it's a guestimate with the CDC and the actual number of bisexual and gay men who are HIV+ as well as HIV+ hets but at the CDC they do know how worldwide most people who are HIV+, or living with HIV/AIDS are heterosexual and that HIV is a human disease that infects everyone no matter what their sexual orientation, gender, or race is.

ExSailor

Jun 15, 2012, 4:39 PM

my reason for posting this, is not about making bi / gay guys look bad, Then why post a scaremongering interview that paints HIV+ people as liars, predators, and as though we want to knowingly infect others?

æonpax

Jun 15, 2012, 4:57 PM

Here come the excuses for your biphobic, homophobic, and pozphobic agenda yet again. :rolleyes: HIV is a human disease. Telling people to be abstinent and not have sex at all does not work. It didn't work for you as a teenager and you were sexually active then, had unprotected sex intentionally, and got pregnant and have done this multiple times and you're not even 30. Avoiding sexual partners who are bisexual men because you think that most of us are HIV+ and you believe that safer sex when done correctly does not work at preventing HIV transmission shows how you don't know anything about human sexuality, HIV, or safer sex. None of your arguments are going to stop or slow down the spread of HIV. You're not preventing anyone from getting HIV by having a biphobic and pozphobia agenda. Because of ignorant bigots like you who have the biphobic and homophobic opinion that "HIV is a disease that only bisexual and gay men have to worry about! If I don't sleep with bisexual or gay men I don't need to worry about it!" more and more heterosexuals will get infected with HIV because they think that as hets they don't need practice safer sex, get tested, and think that because they're not having sex with a bisexual or gay man there's no way that their partner could be poz. Your posts in this topic just show how you're very ignorant about HIV and how HIV is a human disease, and how you're nothing but a person filled with hate towards bisexual and gay men, and HIV+ people. What really smacks of stupidity, bigotry, biphobia, pozphobia, and skewed standards is how in 2012 you want to claim that HIV is still a disease that bisexual and gay men need worry about and by having sex with hetero men you're somehow protecting yourself against it. :rolleyes: You're the neurotic and dangerous one here.
`

Even by your standards, that one very long, uninterrupted, diatribe. Nothing new was added but that was no surprise.

Linguistically, you are getting better at victimizing yourself, at the usual expense of facts and knowledge, but I'm glad to see you are trying. Practice makes perfect.

Dr. Æon now needs to give you a prescription;

http://i.imgur.com/HaXVu.jpg

ExSailor

Jun 15, 2012, 8:37 PM

victimizing yourself, at the usual expense of facts and knowledge This is coming from an immature, childish, and silly woman who rambles on with nonsensical posts that are devoid of actual facts or knowledge about HIV or safer sex, who blames bisexual men for HIV infection, refuses to learn about HIV and safer sex thinking that abstinence actually works, and whenever a person or people of the male gender do not agree with her biphobic, pozphobic, and bigoted opinions she pulls out misandry and plays the PC victim card of "You're a misogynist!" :rolleyes: She also will claim such false notions that ALL women are somehow "victims" of men, that as far as oppression goes women somehow have it the worst, and the tiresome stuff I heard in the 70s and early 80s from misandrist lesbians who would claim "It's still a man's world!" when in reality if you're bisexual or gay, and a man, or an HIV+ person it's NOT your world and you're a pariah.

Long Duck Dong

Jun 15, 2012, 11:32 PM

@LDD- Yes I can sadly see how this thread reminds you of a bisexual who goes around spreading HIV+ on purpose.:rolleyes:
Not that I'm without my little paranoia's concerning STD's and the behaviour of those I meet, but dear God bi males are not as thick or malicious as made out in general here, thank fek! Neither are gay males either. Not in my experience anyway. But MY experience is as the one who puts the condom on, so that prob has it's advantages.

People will continue to have casual sex, no matter what is said by those against it. The only positive influence for those is proper 'safe sex' education. Not streams of paranoia, ridicule or any kind of phobic selectiveness (of which I use). That might work for some, but not for all. It might not work at all for anybody.

my sister died from a single sexual encounter with a male that had no idea he was infected....... the victim in my post, wanted to have and believed he was having safe sex, and got infected.....

yes safe sex is great, being selective of partners is great, hell anything that limits the risks, is great.... but it doesn't eliminate the risks.... so my message was simply, be careful out there.... the new hiv meds may work bloody well on the hiv virus... but you still have to have the virus for the meds to work........

ExSailor

Jun 16, 2012, 12:27 AM

The early warnings about HIV and AIDS targeted us bisexuals as a 'high risk group', when the real risk is not about who you are, it's about what you do. Bisexuals have taken this personally and have taken the lead in educating about safer sex and HIV. The blunt truth is this: * Bisexuals don't spread HIV * Sex with Bisexuals doesn't spread HIV * Bisexuals are not "the bridge" for HIV infection between gay and straight people. * Unsafe sex and sharing needles spreads HIV, regardless of sexuality

Long Duck Dong

Jun 16, 2012, 12:44 AM

Then why post a scaremongering interview that paints HIV+ people as liars, predators, and as though we want to knowingly infect others?

guess you missed the part of my post that said * my reason for posting this, is not about making bi / gay guys look bad, cos so many people are not like glenn mills *..

my own sister contracted hiv and died, it was the result of a single unprotected sexual encounter with a ( as far as we know ) hetero male, and the guy committed suicide when he found out he was poz and have infected another person......and I do not view the guy as a complete asshole, I view it as something that happened that had a tragic outcome for two people and more.... and I can only imagine the hell that poor guy went thru when he found out he was poz and had infected somebody else... but I do not have issues with HIV+ people cos of it......

yes I think glenn was a asshole... but it doesn't mean that I have any issues with you or melissapdx

so yeah, not everybody is* out to get you * or trying to portray hiv+ people as something they are not.....but the way you reacted to what I posted, speaks volumes about you and your own issues.

I will say it again.... be safe out there, even the best laid plans can go wrong.... I hope that never happens, to ANYBODY...

æonpax

Jun 16, 2012, 5:00 AM

Here come the excuses for your biphobic, homophobic, and pozphobic agenda yet again. HIV is a human disease. Telling people to be abstinent and not have sex at all does not work. It didn't work for you as a teenager and you were sexually active then, had unprotected sex intentionally, and got pregnant and have done this multiple times and you're not even 30. Avoiding sexual partners who are bisexual men because you think that most of us are HIV+ and you believe that safer sex when done correctly does not work at preventing HIV transmission shows how you don't know anything about human sexuality, HIV, or safer sex. None of your arguments are going to stop or slow down the spread of HIV. You're not preventing anyone from getting HIV by having a biphobic and pozphobia agenda. Because of ignorant bigots like you who have the biphobic and homophobic opinion that "HIV is a disease that only bisexual and gay men have to worry about! If I don't sleep with bisexual or gay men I don't need to worry about it!" more and more heterosexuals will get infected with HIV because they think that as hets they don't need practice safer sex, get tested, and think that because they're not having sex with a bisexual or gay man there's no way that their partner could be poz. Your posts in this topic just show how you're very ignorant about HIV and how HIV is a human disease, and how you're nothing but a person filled with hate towards bisexual and gay men, and HIV+ people. What really smacks of stupidity, bigotry, biphobia, pozphobia, and skewed standards is how in 2012 you want to claim that HIV is still a disease that bisexual and gay men need worry about and by having sex with hetero men you're somehow protecting yourself against it. You're the neurotic and dangerous one here.
`

Ye gods.....
`
http://i.imgur.com/mlePC.jpg

ExSailor

Jun 29, 2012, 3:02 PM

It is far better to confront misunderstanding and fear with knowledge and facts. As we can expect no help from government and private sources, we Bisexuals, as a community, must do it ourselves and work past our own biases. That's not your goal here as you've shown with your agendas that you're biphobic, pozphobic, and think that safer sex (when done correctly) doesn't work when it comes to preventing HIV transmission.
I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great.

MelissaPDX

Jul 6, 2012, 7:56 PM

Many? No, some, a few, a couple...bu tnot many, and by FAR not all. What amazes me is the pair of you disagree, but Joanie is willing to not criticize your biphobia so long as it concurs with hers, and even then, when she knows your head is so far up your ass it's popping out of Joan's, you still stick to gather in your bigotry. Rather like the KKK being cool with the Skinheads because they hate he same things and barely stand each other. Wisdom won't bend you because your BELIEF is "better" than the facts, and no one's life experiences or facts will change your mind. Fine, then be done with this thread and stop tossing in your opinions as facts. It's a pissing match and there are people far more enlightened and experienced than yourselves that have stepped in JUST to tell you what wanders the pair of you are. You've proven you're ok with being the way you are, now stop flouting it to the world. You're gynocentric, biphobic, ignorant, pozphobes claiming ANY wake up call to the world we call REAL LIFE is Misogyny so you can play the victim when in reality the victims are the ones you're mashing on..us. You have no credibility, no facts, no figures to support you. You have only your bankrupt rhetoric and opinions, and allow ME to be the first one to explain to you and Joan. We're not trying to convince YOU to join us in some tawdry sex game, oh no. From the stuff we've heard from the both of you we'd none of us want to test the depth of any of that with any measure you care to use. Indeed, we're just never going to let you lie unchallenged. We're not going to let you natter on like this is fact and we should all bend to it because the Female has said so. As I've said so many times, we're not going to allow you push a thought process on us anymore whereby you can find another sleazy way to say,"Female=Divine, Male=Evil". You've been seen for what you are and those who back you. Bigots, misandrists, manginas and white knights. Keep it up boys and girls. I'm proud of you for not letting the haters win, but don't sink to their level, ok? Keep it cool. I agree with you 100%! As the OP and others in this thread have shown they are pozphobic and biphobic, and bigoted hypocrites.

ExSailor

Jul 22, 2012, 3:48 PM

careful, you will be called bi phobic... Actually she is biphobic, homophobic, and pozphobic, and a self hating bisexual.

ExSailor

Aug 8, 2012, 5:53 PM

This is not saying you believe it? I also understood you did not say all. The sweeping generalization behind the bias is offensive of those whom do not fit the typecasting. It offended me, I said something. No I don't think I overestimate myself. It seems in another thread someone else is bothered enough to leave due to me pointing out some obvious facts. Then again, I am probably following the stereotypical crazy person's reaction and misunderstanding them. I get so fucking tired of stereotypes,biases,labels ... people are people.. As to doing something about the belief, I'll keep not fitting the typecast and living as best able. People learn by example. I agree with you she's not only biphobic and homophobic; but she's pozphobic and has her head buried in the sand of denial when it comes to HIV.

ExSailor

Aug 8, 2012, 5:54 PM

Bisexuals aren't plague dogs The early warnings about HIV and AIDS targeted us as a 'high risk group', when the real risk is not about who you are, it's about what you do. Bisexuals have taken this personally and have taken the lead in educating about safer sex. The blunt truth is this: * Bisexuals don't spread HIV * Sex with Bisexuals doesn't spread HIV * Bisexuals are not "the bridge" for HIV infection between gay and straight people. * Unsafe sex and sharing needles spreads HIV, regardless of sexuality It's not who or what you are, it's what you do. Q: Bisexual people spread HIV/AIDS because they have sex with gay people, then go pass AIDS on to straight people. True or False? A: 9) Bisexual people spread HIV/AIDS because they have sex with gay people, then go pass AIDS on to straight people. True or False? False. Dishonest and irresponsible people spread diseases of many kinds, including HIV/AIDS, by having unprotected sex with infected partners and passing diseases on to uninfected partners. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. People who are not honest about their sexual behavior or desires may also not be honest about their need to protect themselves with safer sex, as if it can't hurt them if they don't really admit it's true that they want or like something they don't think they are "supposed to" like or want. Being honest about whether or not you are engaging in a sexual act that might put you at risk for an STD (including AIDS), and using appropriate safer sex methods, is the only way to help cut down on your risk of contracting an STD or of getting infected and passing it on to someone else. Germs and viruses can't tell what your sexual orientation is, what your sex is, who you are, how old you are, or who you sleep with. They don't care. The only thing you can do - whether you consider yourself bi, gay, lesbian, straight, or something else entirely -- is be honest with yourself about when you need to protect yourself and the people you have sex with, and have safer sex at all times.

Paddarick69

Aug 10, 2012, 10:10 AM

æonpax

Aug 19, 2012, 9:21 PM

Let's be honest Aeon ....

I think I’m getting to understand you now. For whatever reason, I think you’re hurting inside and what you say here, is just a release mechanism you use to vent all that hurt. I understand such things and maybe I can help.

What I’m about to post may cause you to quiver but just follow me with this….

Who are the women at risk for HIV infection?

• Women who have unprotected sex; Additionally, more than one sex partner increases the risk of catching any sexually transmitted infection, including HIV. The more partners one has, the greater the risk.
• Women whose sex partners are not monogamous; particularly those partners who have had sexual contact with other partners. Some men who have had sexual contact with sex workers have transmitted HIV to their female partner.
• Women whose sex partners are bisexual or homosexual men; Approximately 10% of men identify as homosexual and it is estimated another 10% are bisexual [both male and female partners].
• Women whose sex partners have hemophilia; Many hemophiliacs have been exposed in the past to HIV.
• Women who inject drugs and/or share needles for any other purpose, and women whose sex partners inject drugs and/or share needles for any other purpose [such as steroid use]; Injection drug users are at very high risk for exposure to HIV because of shared needles. Women whose partners share needles can be exposed to HIV through unprotected sex.
• Women who have undergone donor insemination for pregnancy; HIV can be transmitted through semen donated by infected men.
• Women who have received blood transfusions [or blood products] prior to 1985;
http://www.csun.edu/studenthealthcenter/pdfs/education/women_aids.pdf

This is from a brochure that is handed out to students at the California State University – Northridge but the same exact information is across college campuses throughout the US and even in many high schools. It’s purpose is to prevent harm, that’s it. No biphobia, no anti male conspiracy, just a sincere desire to help people.

Do you think this is wrong?

tenni

Aug 20, 2012, 1:05 PM

æonpax

Aug 20, 2012, 1:21 PM

Aeon
What you posted is not wrong. It is not what you post and promote.

It states that women are at risk rather than do not have sex with ALL bisexual men, unprotected sex partners(no mention of gender btw), those who have more than one sex partner (that's Aeon herself isn't it?), sex partners that are not monogamous(again that's Aeon and it doesn't distinguish between the gender of non monogamous), partners with hemophiliacs, etc.

Although you did eventually clarify that it is your personal choice, you fail to acknowledge that you should reject sex partners based upon their individual sex practices rather than their sexuality and gender. That is where your reasoning feks up. ;):yikes2: Then again, you have all the dick that you want anyway from your main male lover. Why go through his vetting practice when you really want pussy anyway...right?

You best take remedial reading for adults.

What you just did is classic tenni: Read and twist things words agrees with your warped ideology.

As I said, it's from a university health clinic and is a "WARNING" to students, in particular; females. I didn't write it you ********** besides, it's all on the page I linked to. Grow up. Your childishness, while amusing at times, is getting old.

MelissaPDX

Aug 20, 2012, 8:22 PM

What is this 1983? Having a sexual partner who happens to be a hemopheliac does not put you at risk for HIV infection. Blood that's donated for hemophiliacs is tested for HIV and other diseases. Take your pozphobic agenda Aeon and stick it where the sun don't shine. I'm sure the CDC would totally agree with you that your personal method of having sex with multiple partners without condoms and getting pregnant by them, as well as having bareback sex with random men you who you meet at sex parties is actually a valid method of staying HIV- and not getting infected with STDs. Congratulations you probably have HPV, herpes, and I would not be surprised if you are HIV+.

Gearbox

Aug 20, 2012, 8:36 PM

Please Malissa, it's on a pamphlet so it MUST be true! We all know how women catch AID's, and that's by having a bi or gay husband. Not because the woman has acted irisponsible or behaved in a sexually dangerous manner. Bi and gay men do that, NOT women!!
Now I'm off to watch Starskey and Hutch.:rolleyes:

IanBorthwick

Aug 20, 2012, 9:15 PM

I have to input my two cents, mainly because I have had this niggling the back of my mind for a long long time.

When I sat down to think this through I think what I had to face was the reality that the NAME and the ACTUALITY are two different things, in fact they are far apart. So the name implies sone thing and definition another thing entirely, and that's the arguing point that many here are standing on. It is, make no mistake, morally bankrupt and completely lacking in logic, but I am forced to agree on that fact.

Take for instance the Holocaust. The original definition was a complete destruction of a group due to war or genocide. The term was modified to mean slightly less when it was appended to the attempted genocide of the NAzis of anyone who did not agree with them in the Concentration Camps of IG Farben. Essentially slave labor and guinea pigs of Jews, LGBT, other faiths. That definition also seems too clean...far too clean for the attrocity of what actually occurred, but that changed and now we're accepting of its changes. I, for one, disagree. It makes it sound too clean, too NICE by far when confronted with that occurred and needs a name befitting what it is. What it was. Perhaps creating a word to match the vulgarity of the acts. But that's my opinion, and I humbly keep it to myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

Phobias are pyschological, irrational, knee-jerk, uncontrollable. You cannot rationalize them away, nor reach in and pluck them out. They simply are, and they are powerful. As motivations go people with them have to have BALLS to overcome them and allow them to face them in any manner, whether it is visual or proximity. I forced myself to overcome a phobia I had of sharks, even swam with them without a cage. It is like nothing I can explain to you, as I have no way to describe that form of terror and how immersing yourself in it to try and reduce it or fight through it feels.

Now, someone said that if you do not have experience or are in a position to appreciate the situation you do not get to define it. Well this is also TRUE, and feminists have used that rationale for ages. They neglected to tell anyone else out there when they came up with it that only THEY got to use it. See, it's a privilege to use an isomorphic, opinion based, tautology and only they are allowed to access it. Essentially it's the trump card, the socket that fits every hole in the puzzle board, being both explanation and excuse for conflicting polarities. So we can't touch that anymore. No no. Leave it to them. I concede your irrationality 100% and you get to use it.

But on the flip side you don't get to say your opinion is better than fact, no matter how you pule.

So in closing I'll let you have your demesne of the deranged and from here forward we will no longer call you a Pozphobe, or a biphobe or anything based on fear where it comes to bigoted behavior based on cool, irrational opinion that is calmly applied without heat or supposed emotion, but also without an eye to their own failings of those creating this icy detachment from both reality and understanding.

No, from now on we'll just call it what it is: Being an asshole.

kidgloves12

Aug 20, 2012, 10:54 PM

Yes of course of you didn't write it but promote it as an excuse! You know a lot of people (not me) also think of having sex with "black" men!*** make you HIV positive also...but I guess as long as you HATE "gays" it ok, but don't let me preach to the choir. Of course you get an "entitlement" give for vagina sake.

***this is to show absurd to the crazy, "aeonpax".

kidgloves12

Aug 20, 2012, 11:01 PM

Actually, just a self hating person who thinks they are "open minded" but hating on Bi/Gay men (they are all the same to "it") ...of course "lesbians" aren't gay..you know the routine. If you say a lie enough the truth it becomes.

Actually she is biphobic, homophobic, and pozphobic, and a self hating bisexual.

tenni

Aug 21, 2012, 12:54 AM

You best take remedial reading for adults.

What you just did is classic tenni: Read and twist things words agrees with your warped ideology.

As I said, it's from a university health clinic and is a "WARNING" to students, in particular; females. I didn't write it you ********** besides, it's all on the page I linked to. Grow up. Your childishness, while amusing at times, is getting old.

I'm sorry. Let me try to clarify. I did not write that you wrote it. I wrote that what you posted (from the publication) was not wrong.

In other words the publication was right to state that there is risk. It is your own theory and beliefs that are wrong and inappropriate. It was appropriate to state that women are at risk. It doesn't state that they should avoid sex with any of the categories. The difference with you and us is that bimen are well aware of these risks and many take precautions when having certain sex activities with men. Women may follow the same practices if they wish. I see your sexual history and sex practice is relevant to your discriminatory theory that you promote. You have what you want. Fuck the rest of us. (or don't fuck us because we are a diseased infested group..lol)

What you wish to see as twisting I see as discussion and presenting alternative perspectives from your own. Instead you react by throwing out insults and slurs to posters that do not agree with you. Read rule 2 again.

You are no where near as intelligent as your self promotion wishes people to believe. You may be flying with your own wings but I'm not sure if you are flying in the right direction half the time? I was agreeing with the pamphlet.

btw I taught reading to people your age. Yes, it was remedial reading for children.

BiDaveDtown

Aug 21, 2012, 12:59 AM

my, my what a contentious thread... living and loving are so much more interesting than splitting hairs over this stuff... I will enter the fray, however, just enough to say Aeon's description of her life was kinda disturbing... seems to be a lot of treating people as a means to an end instead of an end in and of themselves in her circle... Immanuel Kant might hold his nose I agree then again the OP has shown herself to be a bigot, user/manipulator of others, and pathological liar. When she first joined this site she claimed she was "lesbian" and wrote some highly racist things against African Americans and Asians, and said how she's basically a professional gold-digger and prostitute to a black man who is her "Master". Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Then again as someone who got knocked up on purpose as a teenager at age 13 since she wanted to really set the world on fire and have her life's goal to be multiple men's babymama and milk them for all they're worth in child support money the OP is the last person who would know anything about how to have safer sex, owning up to the consequences of not having safer sex, and taking personal responsibility for once in her life. I know someone will claim that I'm a misogynist but this is not true since this is a cop out accusation that this person brands ALL men as if they write things she does not agree with, and in this case what I wrote about her is all true.

æonpax

Aug 21, 2012, 7:47 AM

see below

I'm sorry. Let me try to clarify. I did not write that you wrote it. I wrote that what you posted (from the publication) was not wrong.
The article was quoted for a question, (which wasn’t directed to you) asking if it was wrong. What you replied was “What you posted is not wrong.” (ergo, it must be true, which is what I’m getting at, Caution must be taken with SOME bisexual males) Then you babble on with an inane comment; “It is not what you post and promote.” That comment has absolutely nothing to do with post and is “Non sequitar.” You have an strange thinking method.

In other words the publication was right to state that there is risk. It is your own theory and beliefs that are wrong and inappropriate.
You mean the theory you THINK I have? That must have come from your super-duper mind reading skills and has nothing to do with the topic.

It was appropriate to state that women are at risk. It doesn't state that they should avoid sex with any of the categories.
Did I say that? No. That’s your problem in a nutshell, you read things into stuff that does not exist. That’s why I’m constantly referring to your lack of reading and thinking skills, such a thing does not exist except in your mind. Let me repeat the offending quote and explain it to you….

Who are the women at risk for HIV infection?
This states to women that if you have sex with any of the following groups of people, you are “at risk” meaning you stand a greater chance of getting HIV. Then it lists the groups, among them….

Women whose sex partners are bisexual or homosexual men; Approximately 10% of men identify as homosexual and it is estimated another 10% are bisexual .

You have already stated that this is true. Since you admit that, this entire argument is moot. Problem solved. So to deflect from that truth, (for egotistical purposes I think) you attack me (which I don’t mind) assuming the reason I’m posting it is because I hate men and bisexual men, which I don’t and you have not even tried to prove, other than take my words out of context. But lets go on.

The difference with you and us is that bimen…..
Again I must say, thankfully, you don’t represent anyone except yourself, unless you’re the spokesperson for the misogynist crowd here and even then, your group represents less than 0.000000001% of all the bisexual men in the US., most of whom are infinitely more capable of reaching conclusions based on critical thinking skills, which I find strangely absent in your replies.

…are well aware of these risks and many take precautions when having certain sex activities with men.
If you mean ALL bisexual men are aware the consequences of unsafe sex, you are again wrong. First off you don’t read my links and the reports I’ve posted. I also know you and your ilk hate facts as they upset your unreality but time and again, in almost every research and study done in regards to bisexual males, it comes out incomplete because the majority of bisexual men are not out or public.

You cannot accurately gauge behavior of the whole when most of it is hidden. (gestaltism) But even among those whom are out, there is a large enough percentage of them who engage in risky sex so that as the student brochure I used as an example said, a women must exercise caution.

Women may follow the same practices if they wish.
I imagine women everywhere are rejoicing to hear you say that.

I see your sexual history and sex practice is relevant to your discriminatory theory that you promote. You have what you want. Fuck the rest of us. (or don't fuck us because we are a diseased infested group..lol)
Cool, aside from being able to read minds, you now claim to be an online psychiatrist. Then you falsely assume I do not empathize or help my homosexual and bisexual brothers. You get weirder by the moment.

If the kind of discrimination you accuse me of ends up saving just ONE life, man or woman, then you can accuse me all you want.

What you wish to see as twisting I see as discussion and presenting alternative perspectives from your own.
No, what I see is you twisting and distorting words to fit your rather confusing and perverted beliefs.

Instead you react by throwing out insults and slurs to posters that do not agree with you. Read rule 2 again.
Again, you are wrong. You are referring to an ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), which is an attempt to negate a fact or the truth of a claim by pointing out a preceived negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. That’s YOUR domain. I merely use exacting terminology to describe the unnatural pervasiveness of your arguments.

You are no where near as intelligent as your self promotion wishes people to believe.
Never said or implied I was. I'm actually pretty dumb. There's a lot I don't know. But again, it is YOU who made that determination based on your anomalous perspectives.

You may be flying with your own wings but I'm not sure if you are flying in the right direction half the time? I was agreeing with the pamphlet.
You analogy is flawed. “She flies with her own wings” ([B]Alis volat propriis) refers to “independence of thought or action” and can apply to both men as women. Outside of it be being the motto for Oregon (states, like ships are referred to in the feminine tense), Latin words are not inflected for gender. Apples and oranges.

btw I taught reading to people your age.
So the Tea party told me. That explains a lot.

Yes, it was remedial reading for children.
If it works for them, it can work for you.

Out of curiosity, are you finished yet? From here on;

http://i.imgur.com/yFjp9.jpg

darkeyes

Aug 21, 2012, 9:00 AM

No, from now on we'll just call it what it is: Being an asshole.

Well babes... as we say in this part of the world when people speak bollox.. it takes one to know one..

IanBorthwick

Aug 21, 2012, 2:58 PM

I know someone will claim that I'm a misogynist but this is not true since this is a cop out accusation that this person brands ALL men as if they write things she does not agree with, and in this case what I wrote about her is all true.

Ok, let's get this abundantly clear as the language needs to be brought up to a level that MUST be heeded. It's not a "cop out" it's an
isomorphic, opinion based, tautology. It's the ULTIMATE answer, being both excuse and explanation without rationale or fact. It simply is the boogeyman that explains away all their fears and at the same time decries anyone attempting to touch it and look it over for the red herring it is. It's the victim car and the the way hey point to opposite outcomes with one blame point as their "explanation".

For example:

Misogyny/Patriarchy is the reason for women being under/over-represented in the field of (fill in the blank) and proof that it exists.

OR

All men are misogynists that don't grovel when women claim they are hurt or upset by someone's words, BUT, men who DO grovel are still misogynists, but they are in control of their women hating tendencies and are no better tolerated.

All this in the name of women saying they are offended by something. You know what? SO what? So what? Who cares? You're offended? Does that give you the right somehow to say it's not factual just because you don't like what's being said? Cause you know the truth has a liberal bias, always has, and it stings when you see it, but it sure as hell won't kill you.

I'll leave you with a famous man's VERY wise words!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LHDxqigCco4/TpeLXt1w0GI/AAAAAAAADf8/4_aWa4D_QEE/s1600/fry.jpg

"It's now very common to hear people say,'I'm rather offended by that.'
As if that gives them certain rights; It's actually nothing more...it's simply a whine. It's no more than a whine.
'I fine that offensive.' It has no meaning. It has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.
'I'm offended by that,'

Well so fucking what?"

-Stephen Fry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bwGsOBTlhE&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02dXAkxbyQg&feature=player_embedded

darkeyes

Aug 21, 2012, 3:47 PM

Truth has no bias.. truth is truth.. the argument as it always has been is what is truth? Mine isn't your's, Ian, and your's sure as hell bears no relation to mine..

People get offended by things and from reading your diatribes of hysterical dross you are as big a whiner as any.. bitter, twisted, hating as much if not more than you accuse others of doing for reasons we know not.. contemptuous of those who are not man unless they bow down before your peculiar and particular vision of what is the role and status of women.. denying that patriarchy and misogyny are realities that our societies have endured and encouraged for centuries.. dreaming of a return to a world which has long since been lost where man's word is law and women no more than a cheap shoddy appendage to his being necessary to carry on his genes, do his washing up and dirty laundry and give him a shag whenever he wants one and do his bidding at all times.....selectively choosing from, bending and corrupting what people say to meet your own purpose.. whining and being offended in the extreme because we have made moves to address that historical unfairness in the treatment of half the human population.... that there are and have always been some areas which have been to the advantage of women is undeniable, but these are few and almost imperceptible compared to the great and overwhelming advantage enjoyed by men.. that we have addressed much is a great thing and in western society there is a much greater balance than ever before.. much still needs to be done including addressing those few inequalities which have been to the advantage of the female..

You are a fine one to talk of people whining and taking offence... with every word you write it is plastered over the page...

slipnslide

Aug 21, 2012, 4:30 PM

I wish this thread would get AIDS and die.

darkeyes

Aug 21, 2012, 5:01 PM

I wish this thread would get AIDS and die.
Wither and die certainly Slippy... the thread has long since become sterile and needs to be given a decent burial.. every time it seems to die someone applies the crash paddles and zaps "life" back into it and round we go again over the same ground... worse.. when it isn't sleeping.. there are the same, what Joan refers to as "the usual suspects" who carry it on elsewhere no matter the subject of the thread... and we are no nearer resolving the argument than when Joan first posted this thread... and if I may be so bold.. the "usual suspects" are no nearer to landing a glove on her than when they first entered the ring...

IanBorthwick

Aug 21, 2012, 7:07 PM

Truth has no bias.. truth is truth..

Lol. Translation, I don't want to be wrong.

People get offended by things and from reading your diatribes...

LOL again, and snipped for sanity.

Translation: Ad Hom attack with all the earmarks of-

Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples:

“You’re bitter!”
“You need to get over your anger at women.”
“You are so negative!”

Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women. Examples:

“You need to get over your fear.”
“Step up and take a chance like a man!”
“You’re afraid of a strong woman!”

Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) – The Crybaby ChargeDiscussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing “Chicken Little”). Examples:

“Stop whining!”
“Get over it!”
“Suck it up like a man!”
“You guys don’t have it as nearly as bad as us women!”
“You’re just afraid of losing your male privileges.”
“Your fragile male ego …”
“Wow! You guys need to get a grip!”

Charge of Puerility (Code Green) – The Peter Pan ChargeDiscussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male. Examples:

“Grow up!”
“You are so immature!”
“Do you live with your mother?”
“I’m not interested in boys. I’m interested in real men.”
“Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.

Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) – The Brown Shirts ChargeDiscussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples:

“You’re one of those right-wing wackos.”
“You’re an extremist”
“You sound like the KKK.”
“… more anti-feminist zaniness”

Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women. Examples:

“I’m not like that!”
“Stop generalizing!”
“That’s a sexist stereotype!”

And last but NOT least!

Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:

“You misogynist creep!”
“Why do you hate women?”
“Do you love your mother?”
“You are insensitive to the plight of women.”
“You are mean-spirited.”
“You view women as doormats.”
“You want to roll back the rights of women!!”
“You are going to make me cry.”

You are a fine one to talk of people whining and taking offence... with every word you write it is plastered over the page...

And you can guess what this last stab was.

You're pulling from a finite playbook, Franny. It's all been heard before. Hey, here's a new try for you: Stick to the topic rather than attacking the man. You may be able to get away with it here since Drew doesn't enforce his rules about sticking to a subject instead of attacking the person when it comes to a female, but it would be nice to see what you can come up with that isn't so tired and emotional.

As an aside, you don't know what I think a woman's role is in society as you've never asked, I've never said and I've never cared to talk to you or anyone about something that complex here as I have seen how you welcome anything like that with male or females bringing it up. So for you I create the new:

Code of Plaid

Where the feminist decries men and their supporters of things they do not know through psychic means of interpretation and scrying!

LOL.

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

MelissaPDX

Aug 21, 2012, 8:23 PM

I agree with Ian I am a woman and I get tired of so called feminists who are not really for gender equality at all but are misandrists and don't represent all women. They'll go on and on about male privilege in the United States and Western world; but this has not actually existed in the Western world since about 1980. Then they'll moan, cry, and become professional victims and claim "It's still a man's world!" but if you actually talk to men and really know men they don't control the world. Either way there's a lot of bigotry in this thread and it's coming from the OP who has shown herself to be a total bigot, and wrong about bisexual men and HIV.

darkeyes

Aug 21, 2012, 8:33 PM

Ho hum.. that the best u got, babes??? Smart arsery always shows itself up for what it is. Smart arsery...;) It is not u or I who will decide the right of it..

darkeyes

Aug 21, 2012, 8:35 PM

I agree with Ian I am a woman... Are u really? Riiiighht....

ExSailor

Aug 21, 2012, 8:50 PM

I wish this thread would get AIDS and die. How tacky and distasteful. You might as well have written "Got AIDS Yet?" :rolleyes: Neither you nor Aeon care about people who are HIV+, who are living with AIDS or who have died from complications due to HIV/AIDS. Instead you'd rather see us as a threat when there's such a thing as safer sex and it works at preventing HIV infection and transmission.

MelissaPDX

Aug 21, 2012, 9:06 PM

Are u really? Riiiighht.... :rolleyes: I'm as much of a woman as you and the OP are. Not all women are for what gets called "feminism" these days. Moving on I am not sure why the OP is going on and on about completely wrong and outdated info about HIV, and using it to promote her pozphobia and biphobia?

ALMOE

Aug 21, 2012, 11:51 PM

In a nut shell, don't have sex with anybody.:2cents:

darkeyes

Aug 22, 2012, 9:42 AM

:rolleyes: I'm as much of a woman as you and the OP are. Not all women are for what gets called "feminism" these days. Moving on I am not sure why the OP is going on and on about completely wrong and outdated info about HIV, and using it to promote her pozphobia and biphobia?... and just what does pass for feminism these days? Not all women are for any kind of feminism and that's a sad truth...

...and wrong about her info? I think Joan can argue that very easily.. so far no one has disproved anything she has said... u certainly haven't...

slipnslide

Aug 22, 2012, 2:52 PM

... and just what does pass for feminism these days? Not all women are for any kind of feminism and that's a sad truth...

...and wrong about her info? I think Joan can argue that very easily.. so far no one has disproved anything she has said... u certainly haven't...

When he posts as "Melissa" do you think he tucks it between his legs? :)

MelissaPDX

Aug 22, 2012, 2:53 PM

... and just what does pass for feminism these days? Not all women are for any kind of feminism and that's a sad truth... ...and wrong about her info? I think Joan can argue that very easily.. so far no one has disproved anything she has said... u certainly haven't... Actually a lot of people who have been posting on this thread including myself have disproved everything that Aeon/Joan has written. It's not our fault that she's a pozphobic bigot who hates bisexual men.

darkeyes

Aug 22, 2012, 3:08 PM

They have made claims.. they disproved nothing.and never offered a single fact to disprove anything..

MelissaPDX

Aug 22, 2012, 3:29 PM

They have made claims.. they disproved nothing.and never offered a single fact to disprove anything.. Riiiiiiiight. :rolleyes: It's not surprising that you'd completely ignore facts that people have posted that show that Aeon/Joan is wrong and that you'd completely support Joan's misandry, bigotry, pozphobia, and biphobic views.

Gearbox

Aug 22, 2012, 3:29 PM

They have made claims.. they disproved nothing.and never offered a single fact to disprove anything..
Does that mean we've all got AIDS now?:yikes2:

darkeyes

Aug 22, 2012, 4:21 PM

Does that mean we've all got AIDS now?:yikes2:Dunno Gear.. prob not;).. cos u at least read and try to understand what people say even if u think we r talking shite and are a bit more coherent than most... some peeps however open the cyber gob and let the cyber belly rumble and neither want to try and understand or to accept that peeps have a right to do what they think is right for them... God knows Joan at times frustrates the hell out of me with this and I could not act, neither would I argue as she does... but the one thing I know.. is that she uses what she knows to keep herself safe in her own way.. she does not tell anyone to act as she does... she simply says what is right for her and why. She does not bury her head in the sand, neither does she hate bi men or hate anyone, and neither does she ignore them,, and neither is she pozphobic.. and on those points I will not be budged because there is not one shred of evidence to show that she is...

The thread died several months ago and all we have now is a rehash of old arguments.. it spills into other debates and it is really boring the hell out of me.. not because it is not an important debate to have but because for now it has been done to fucking death... 400+ posts.. it is sterile and tired and needs put to bed... I butted out a couple of months go for that reason.. it has almost died several times but people for their own reasons keep bringing it back... enjoy it all.. from now on these peeps are talking to themselves... unless Joan decides she isn't finished withya.. but me? Well u can do without me... prob prefer to an all..;)

...and let me say this Melissa Knickers..contrary to popular opinion, Joan and I are not big m8s... I speak as I find whether I like or do not an individual... whether they are friend or foe if I see anyone criticised or slagged off unfairly then I will defend them if I think that is the right thing to do... I have done it on this site before and I will do it again,,, I do not agree with her on this issue except that I see it as her right to think and act as she does and what she says and how she lives her life stems not from her being any of the names u call her...if I had even the slightest suspicion she was what u say I would quite gladly see her sink and would throw her a few metaphorical lumps of concrete to help her on her way.... Joan is none of the things u and others claim her to be, but no doubt no amount of arguing will change your mind on that so I wont debate the issue... and with that.. I'm off...

darkeyes

Aug 22, 2012, 4:41 PM

When he posts as "Melissa" do you think he tucks it between his legs? :)
Slippy.. I'm shocked atya.. now I really am off...:tongue:

æonpax

Aug 22, 2012, 5:34 PM

Riiiiiiiight. :rolleyes: It's not surprising that you'd completely ignore facts that people have posted that show that Aeon/Joan is wrong and that you'd completely support Joan's misandry, bigotry, pozphobia, and biphobic views.

http://i.imgur.com/WkWuN.jpg

Gearbox

Aug 22, 2012, 5:34 PM

Dunno Gear.. prob not;).. cos u at least read and try to understand what people say even if u think we r talking shite and are a bit more coherent than most... some peeps however open the cyber gob and let the cyber belly rumble and neither want to try and understand or to accept that peeps have a right to do what they think is right for them... God knows Joan at times frustrates the hell out of me with this and I could not act, neither would I argue as she does... but the one thing I know.. is that she uses what she knows to keep herself safe in her own way.. she does not tell anyone to act as she does... she simply says what is right for her and why. She does not bury her head in the sand, neither does she hate bi men or hate anyone, and neither does she ignore them,, and neither is she pozphobic.. and on those points I will not be budged because there is not one shred of evidence to show that she is...

The thread died several months ago and all we have now is a rehash of old arguments.. it spills into other debates and it is really boring the hell out of me.. not because it is not an important debate to have but because for now it has been done to fucking death... 400+ posts.. it is sterile and tired and needs put to bed... I butted out a couple of months go for that reason.. it has almost died several times but people for their own reasons keep bringing it back... enjoy it all.. from now on these peeps are talking to themselves... unless Joan decides she isn't finished withya.. but me? Well u can do without me... prob prefer to an all..;)

...and let me say this Melissa Knickers..contrary to popular opinion, Joan and I are not big m8s... I speak as I find whether I like or do not an individual... whether they are friend or foe if I see anyone criticised or slagged off unfairly then I will defend them if I think that is the right thing to do... I have done it on this site before and I will do it again,,, I do not agree with her on this issue except that I see it as her right to think and act as she does and what she says and how she lives her life stems not from her being any of the names u call her...if I had even the slightest suspicion she was what u say I would quite gladly see her sink and would throw her a few metaphorical lumps of concrete to help her on her way.... Joan is none of the things u and others claim her to be, but no doubt no amount of arguing will change your mind on that so I wont debate the issue... and with that.. I'm off...
Fran, you try a debate on ANY site that suggests the majority of the members are sexually dangerouse and deserving of automatic contempt, you'll see much the same thing, I expect. The debate seemed to be "Who's the most insulted?".:rolleyes:
The CDC reports are hardly going to be accurate or represent the bi male population, due to the bi male populations 'discreetness'. Yet as seen here on a bi site, bi males are ignored when they say that's not the Gospel.
So we get a choir of "Gospel Yay!" & "Gospel Nay" going around like a holy war.lol
Basically I don't see how this thread's journey was any kind of shock for anybody. It was stupid at the start, and will always be till the end (if there is one?:eek2:).

MelissaPDX

Aug 22, 2012, 6:07 PM

< s n i p> I'm actually pretty dumb. There's a lot I don't know Back to trolling, and ignoring the facts about HIV and safer sex. You're a one trick pony, and I agree that there's a lot you don't know. Then again you're bigoted, pozphobic, and just as bad and on the same level as a homophobic and biphobic Conservative politician.

æonpax

Aug 22, 2012, 6:45 PM

The CDC reports are hardly going to be accurate or represent the bi male population, due to the bi male populations 'discreetness'. .

This poster claims the worlds most quoted and respected government health agency CDC (Center for Disease Control) is wrong "due to the bi male populations 'discreetness' which he no doubt has been academically researching for years.

He also implies that there are not enough facts gathered to reach a decisive conclusion about any male bisexual infidelity which the OP claims is becuase, the actual and greater male "bisexual population", will not or cannot come out. That, I can agree with. However, "discreetness" in this context, implies infidelity.

Jobelorocks

Aug 22, 2012, 6:54 PM

æonpax

Aug 22, 2012, 7:25 PM

Actually bisexual men aren't the threat, gay men aren't the threat, but unsafe sex is. Just because a man is straight does not make him HIV- and does not make it safe to have unprotected sex with him Condoms are a must! Actually 50% of those in this world with HIV are, bum bum bum...... women see statistic here http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm . Just because someone is from one group does not make them HIV positive or negative.

Actually, there is no way to be certain. From the same site you quote from....

http://i.imgur.com/Tjuh7.jpg
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

It would appear that heterosexuals and injection drug users are the only ones who infect females with HIV. That could equally mean that many men will not report themselves as bisexual.

ExSailor

Aug 22, 2012, 8:06 PM

This poster claims the worlds most quoted and respected government health agency CDC (Center for Disease Control) is wrong "due to the bi male populations 'discreetness' which he no doubt has been academically researching for years. He also implies that there are not enough facts gathered to reach a decisive conclusion about any male bisexual infidelity which the OP claims is becuase, the actual and greater male "bisexual population", will not or cannot come out. That, I can agree with. However, "discreetness" in this context, implies infidelity. LMAO Like you'd know actually know anything about HIV, who it infects, how it infects people, and what it's like living with HIV/AIDS. :rolleyes: It does not matter if a man is bisexual and closeted, not out, DL, discrete, etc. What matters is if someone is practicing safer sex. I know you won't believe me but yes you can have safer sex with someone who happens to be HIV+ and you won't get infected.

ExSailor

Aug 22, 2012, 8:13 PM

It would appear that heterosexuals and injection drug users are the only ones who infect females with HIV. That could equally mean that many men will not report themselves as bisexual. Yeah because we all know that in your biphobic, homophobic, pozphobic, and wrong adenda bisexual men are solely responsible for infecting women with HIV, and that heterosexual men are "Clean" "DDF" or the other things and in your bigoted viewpoint hets somehow magically do not infect other heterosexuals, and in your bigoted opinion that if this happens it's because someone shot up drugs or was one of those evil closeted bisexual men. :rolleyes:

Jobelorocks

Aug 22, 2012, 8:14 PM

Actually, there is no way to be certain. From the same site you quote from....

http://i.imgur.com/Tjuh7.jpg
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

It would appear that heterosexuals and injection drug users are the only ones who infect females with HIV. That could equally mean that many men will not report themselves as bisexual.
It could mean that, but that would be making a whole lot of unfair assumptions, wouldn't it? You know to assume makes an ass out of u and me. The problem is that because we don't know, we can't say and to say for certain, is well making assumptions and creating fear and hatred of groups.

Instead of making unfair assumptions, lets just agree that people NEED to have SAFE SEX! Use a condom every time whether he is gay, straight, bi, or other.

Jobelorocks

Aug 22, 2012, 8:17 PM

Yeah because we all know that in your biphobic, homophobic, pozphobic, and wrong adenda bisexual men are solely responsible for infecting women with HIV, and that heterosexual men are "Clean" "DDF" or the other things and in your bigoted viewpoint hets somehow magically do not infect other heterosexuals, and in your bigoted opinion that if this happens it's because someone shot up drugs or was one of those evil closeted bisexual men. :rolleyes:
Yep, she seems to make assumptions that are unfair to fit the views she already has. She just seems to promote hatred and fear of bisexual men.

outintheworld

Aug 22, 2012, 8:23 PM

What matters is if someone is practicing safer sex. I know you won't believe me but yes you can have safer sex with someone who happens to be HIV+ and you won't get infected.

What is this "Safer Sex" you speak of? Because the research I have currently done, Does not make this "safer sex" sound as solid as you proclaim.

How effective is a male condom?

The typical use of male condoms, which is the average way most people use them, has a failure rate of 14-15%. This means that 14-15 people out of every 100 will become pregnant during the first year of use. Spermicidal agents increase the effectiveness to over 95% when used correctly and consistently. You should take a pregnancy test if you are experiencing any pregnancy symptoms.

Condoms provide no reduction in the transmission of the human papilloma virus (HPV) or Trichomonas vaginalis.
Syphilis transmission is reduced 29% for typical use. It is reduced 50 to 71% when condoms are used correctly 100% of the time.
Gonorrhea and Chlamydia transmission is reduced by approximately 50% even when condoms are used 100% of the time.
Genital herpes transmission is reduced by approximately 40%
HIV transmission is reduced by approximately 85% when condoms are used correctly 100% of the time.

Condoms help prevent the transmission of STD's by reducing the likelihood of partner exposure through genital contact or fluid secretions. Condoms only reduce the likelihood of exposure, they do not prevent exposure.

source: AmericanPregnancy.org (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html)

Jobelorocks

Aug 22, 2012, 8:41 PM

What is this "Safer Sex" you speak of? Because the research I have currently done, Does not make this "safer sex" sound as solid as you proclaim.

How effective is a male condom?

The typical use of male condoms, which is the average way most people use them, has a failure rate of 14-15%. This means that 14-15 people out of every 100 will become pregnant during the first year of use. Spermicidal agents increase the effectiveness to over 95% when used correctly and consistently. You should take a pregnancy test if you are experiencing any pregnancy symptoms.

Condoms provide no reduction in the transmission of the human papilloma virus (HPV) or Trichomonas vaginalis.
Syphilis transmission is reduced 29% for typical use. It is reduced 50 to 71% when condoms are used correctly 100% of the time.
Gonorrhea and Chlamydia transmission is reduced by approximately 50% even when condoms are used 100% of the time.
Genital herpes transmission is reduced by approximately 40%
HIV transmission is reduced by approximately 85% when condoms are used correctly 100% of the time.

Condoms help prevent the transmission of STD's by reducing the likelihood of partner exposure through genital contact or fluid secretions. Condoms only reduce the likelihood of exposure, they do not prevent exposure.

source: AmericanPregnancy.org (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html)

Well I just looked up stuff on Planned Parenthood's website, which is a reputable agency that most (atleast in the U.S.) are familiar with and I Have no idea what AmericanPregnacy is.

Here you can find that 2 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year with correct condom use every time and 18 out of a 100 when not used correctly. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/condom-10187.htm

I couldn't find statistics on the rest, but I did notice that the site you linked to had NO SOURCING for their information, so they could have made it up. Just because it is on a website that sounds like it could be a credible source, does NOT mean it is! Maybe if you found this info from a credible established source or a site that has sourcing from credible resources such as scientific journals or actual scientific studies done by CREDIBLE organizations, I would believe it, but as the CDC says, Condoms are effective in preventing (most) STDs when used consistently and correctly.
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

outintheworld

Aug 22, 2012, 9:08 PM

Well I just looked up stuff on Planned Parenthood's website, which is a reputable agency that most (atleast in the U.S.) are familiar with and I Have no idea what AmericanPregnacy is.

Here you can find that 2 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year with correct condom use every time and 18 out of a 100 when not used correctly. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/condom-10187.htm

I couldn't find statistics on the rest, but I did notice that the site you linked to had NO SOURCING for their information, so they could have made it up. Just because it is on a website that sounds like it could be a credible source, does NOT mean it is! Maybe if you found this info from a credible established source or a site that has sourcing from credible resources such as scientific journals or actual scientific studies done by CREDIBLE organizations, I would believe it, but as the CDC says, Condoms are effective in preventing (most) STDs when used consistently and correctly.
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

Hope this helps ya (http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/737/Samuel05.html)

7868

æonpax

Aug 22, 2012, 9:11 PM

It could mean that, but that would be making a whole lot of unfair assumptions, wouldn't it? You know to assume makes an ass out of u and me. The problem is that because we don't know, we can't say and to say for certain, is well making assumptions and creating fear and hatred of groups.

Instead of making unfair assumptions, lets just agree that people NEED to have SAFE SEX! Use a condom every time whether he is gay, straight, bi, or other.

unfair assumptions, wouldn't it? - No. Your use of "unfair" means there is something "fair." What do you think is "fair?"

assumptions - When assumptions can be proved to be factual, it changes playing field. Such is the "human condition.

Gearbox

Aug 22, 2012, 9:17 PM

This poster claims the worlds most quoted and respected government health agency CDC (Center for Disease Control) is wrong "due to the bi male populations 'discreetness' which he no doubt has been academically researching for years.

He also implies that there are not enough facts gathered to reach a decisive conclusion about any male bisexual infidelity which the OP claims is becuase, the actual and greater male "bisexual population", will not or cannot come out. That, I can agree with. However, "discreetness" in this context, implies infidelity.
Most respected does not mean ACCURATE. I have read the CDC reports that you linked to and have already pointed out the obvious inaccuracies/margin for error. By 'discreetness' I'm refering to 'closetness' and in my experience there are at least 10 closeted bi males to every 1 out bi male. That's a heavy underestimate IMO, but I don't know any out bi male in the UK so can't really guess. Same problem for the CDC.
Those 'bi males' who are not tested and found HIV+ are probably considered heterosexuals. So THAT bumps up the percentage of bi males who get infected due to m-m sex.

Jobelorocks

Aug 22, 2012, 9:29 PM

unfair assumptions, wouldn't it? - No. Your use of "unfair" means there is something "fair." What do you think is "fair?"

assumptions - When assumptions can be proved to be factual, it changes playing field. Such is the "human condition.

Fair would actually having the proper evidence to prove something scientifically not just assuming. Assuming is never fair. There really hasn't been many studies on bisexuals. Certainly not enough to prove the point that bi and gay men are the reason women get HIV.

æonpax

Aug 22, 2012, 9:31 PM

Most respected does not mean ACCURATE. I have read the CDC reports that you linked to and have already pointed out the obvious inaccuracies/margin for error. By 'discreetness' I'm refering to 'closetness' and in my experience there are at least 10 closeted bi males to every 1 out bi male. That's a heavy underestimate IMO, but I don't know any out bi male in the UK so can't really guess. Same problem for the CDC.
Those 'bi males' who are not tested and found HIV+ are probably considered heterosexuals. So THAT bumps up the percentage of bi males who get infected due to m-m sex.

Why would you think the CDC is inaccurate? Do you have proof?

æonpax

Aug 22, 2012, 9:36 PM

Fair would actually having the proper evidence to prove something scientifically not just assuming. Assuming is never fair. There really hasn't been many studies on bisexuals. Certainly not enough to prove the point that bi and gay men are the reason women get HIV.

What does "proper evidence" mean to you? What does "scientific evidence" mean to you? Is there a difference?

slipnslide

Aug 22, 2012, 11:17 PM

Jobelorocks

Aug 23, 2012, 12:25 AM

What does "proper evidence" mean to you? What does "scientific evidence" mean to you? Is there a difference?
Actual studies done with bisexuals and stds. Unfortunately there really haven't been too many studies done about bisexuals and their sexuality, practices, std transmission, ect. There are plenty of studies done with straight and gay people, but not really bisexuals. Generally people make the assumption that a bi must have been the one to transmit HIV solely because they sleep with both genders and bi men have sex with gay men and women, and they make the assumption that only gay men have HIV. They don't actually prove it by numbers and actual facts, just making logical assumptions.

Jobelorocks

Aug 23, 2012, 12:41 AM

Unfortunately the CDC (Center for Disease Control) as well as other organizations do not make the delineation between Gay/Lesbian and Bisexuals. Even groups like AVERT, clump bisexual women with lesbians (http://www.avert.org/lesbians-safe-sex.htm ) So there is really no clear way of knowing or proving any bisexual complicity or lack thereof.

See even you say that bisexuals tend to be lumped up with gays and lesbians so there really aren't studies done on them. You even say that there really is no clear way of knowing or proving bisexual complicity or lack thereof, so what are you arguing with me about? Unless you are calling yourself wrong. There is no scientifically derived proof, yet it is something that people still preach and use to attack bisexuals.

IanBorthwick

Aug 23, 2012, 1:49 AM

This whole thread has simply boiled down to an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

At this point the only guys arguing with Aeon are doing so because conceding the validity of her point would cause psychological distress from acknowledging their own behaviour is high risk.

Drew - Isn't it time to lock this thread down?

It's interesting you use the Cognitive Dissonance ploy so poorly. Mostly because what has happened here has been two groups going at it, once side using logic to pick apart every argument, shelf you stand on and claim you, Aeon and Fran have tried to stand on. Each time they crumble out from under you and you hear ANOTHER person pointing out your facts lack credibility and are in fact, opinions and assumptions, you get threatened and claim that we are some how disconnected from fact. In fact, your last post is amazingly disconnected as you claim that we would have to acknowledge that our behavior, by merely being bisexual mind you, is HIGH RISK. yet there is no proof, not data, not fact, only your golden opinion and it's worth more than ANY FACT, yes sir, better believe it!

This is Cognitive Dissonance, Slippy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Which is, by the way, a term I use for Feminists and their ideology a lot in the past, which is no doubt where you picked up the term without looking at it too deeply.

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the discomfort felt by a person seeking to hold two or more conflicting cognitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitions) (e.g., ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea), beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief), values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values), emotional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion) reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.

Funny, I feel none of the above. Guilt? Nope. Dread? Only when I see Aeon has posted ANOTHER argumentative post with no idea of the facts she's juggling in the hopes we don't look too close.

An example of this would be the conflict between wanting to smoke and knowing that smoking is unhealthy; a person may try to change their feelings about the odds that they will actually suffer the consequences, or they might add the consonant element that the smoking is worth short term benefits. A general view of cognitive dissonance is when one is biased towards a certain decision even though other factors favour an alternative.

Now this part would normally allow you to get away with your claim, except what we're doing is pointing out that your data has no facts behind it and you're pushing the isomorphic solution again, ie your opinion on bisexual men is the trump to anyone else's facts. And YOUR behavior may have been risky and that is all you know, so you project it onto others. Once again, however, you don't present any data, and I am forced to conjecture. If I am wrong, I apologize, but if it is not your behavior you're projecting, it is perhaps the lowest common denominators you have witnessed or read about and caused in your mind to reverse roles; the exception becomes the rule.

Now if none of this logic and seeking for truth has imparted anything, then why don't you stop posting your opinions here? If it comes down to two sides at war and you trying to take a moral high ground then do it. I left this thread to be dust but I keep getting asked back to see what is being smeared here. So far as I can see you're not contributing except derision and misinformation. People who are in a better place to know, who are HIV+ are TELLING you things and you are ignoring that data. THAT is Cognitive Dissonance.

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 4:42 AM

See even you say that bisexuals tend to be lumped up with gays and lesbians so there really aren't studies done on them. You even say that there really is no clear way of knowing or proving bisexual complicity or lack thereof, so what are you arguing with me about? Unless you are calling yourself wrong. There is no scientifically derived proof, yet it is something that people still preach and use to attack bisexuals.

Your logic is flawed. According to you, if male bisexuals get lumped in with gays for statistical purposes, it invalidates the research. I don't think so. You might want to read the entire article. Those statistics show the demographics of what has already happened, the transmission if HIV from an infected to a non-infected person. I don't agree with the way such facts are presented but it doesn't invalidate them.

The CDC acknowledges that there is a present danger HIV transmission within this group. Erring on the side of caution, by being cautious and/or discriminatory about having sex with that group, is prudent, rational and logical.

No one is attacking bisexuals by acting cautelous, except perhaps in your mind. You have no proof that such an act is detrimental.

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 4:54 AM

It's not surprising that you're for censorship while completely promoting your own biphobia, homophobia, and pozphobic agenda. Actually having safer sex with someone who is HIV+ is not high risk. What's high risk is thinking that bisexual men and gay men are to blame for HIV infection to people of other genders and sexual orientations, and that if you have sex with someone who is hetero that you simply can't or are less likely to get HIV so it's OK to do high risk sex acts. That's where certain people such as the OP refuse to acknowledge despite having unprotected sex with multiple partners, having sex with strangers at an orgy and getting gang banged, and then claiming "Oh it's OK they can't possibly be HIV+ they're hetero!" :rolleyes: Her points are not valid at all they're based on bigotry and insanity.

Slip, what you are witnessing in this gentleman's reply is called the "Dunning–Kruger effect": a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

This reply is just another pointless repetition of the same slop he's been regurgitating from day one. Nothing new, nothing insightful, nothing factual...just pure fanciful opinion based on what appears to be delusions.

Jobelorocks

Aug 23, 2012, 10:11 AM

Your logic is flawed. According to you, if male bisexuals get lumped in with gays for statistical purposes, it invalidates the research. I don't think so. You might want to read the entire article. Those statistics show the demographics of what has already happened, the transmission if HIV from an infected to a non-infected person. I don't agree with the way such facts are presented but it doesn't invalidate them.

The CDC acknowledges that there is a present danger HIV transmission within this group. Erring on the side of caution, by being cautious and/or discriminatory about having sex with that group, is prudent, rational and logical.

No one is attacking bisexuals by acting cautelous, except perhaps in your mind. You have no proof that such an act is detrimental.
Ya, I am saying that there is no proof because we don't know. You even said there was no proof yourself. You have no proof how bisexuals are culpable or not, yet they are to blamed anyway on the side of caution? Why don't we just blame all men on the side of caution? Let women just all sleep with each other and leave the men to find sex from each other and take the risk with their disease rods. It isn't fair to blame a group for anything negative without the proof. If there hasn't been studies done proving bisexuals are to blame (because bisexuals are always lumped with gay men and lesbians), how can we know? No proof.

I have faced the prejudice linked to this line of thinking many times where people think that I am a HIV+ venereal disease ridden whore because I am bi. When in fact most of the time I have slept with less people then they have. My husband and I are very very selective with our partners and really have both had very few. Also we screen our partners and always use protection when involved with them. Now, I know there are still risks, but everyone has to calculate their own risks. The fact of the matter is, even if you only sleep with straight men, you are not safe from STDs, even HIV. You need to use caution with ALL of your sexual partners, not just the bi men and gay men. That is unwise.

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 11:57 AM

Ya, I am saying that there is no proof because we don't know. You even said there was no proof yourself. You have no proof how bisexuals are culpable or not, yet they are to blamed anyway on the side of caution? Why don't we just blame all men on the side of caution? Let women just all sleep with each other and leave the men to find sex from each other and take the risk with their disease rods. It isn't fair to blame a group for anything negative without the proof. If there hasn't been studies done proving bisexuals are to blame (because bisexuals are always lumped with gay men and lesbians), how can we know? No proof.

I have faced the prejudice linked to this line of thinking many times where people think that I am a HIV+ venereal disease ridden whore because I am bi. When in fact most of the time I have slept with less people then they have. My husband and I are very very selective with our partners and really have both had very few. Also we screen our partners and always use protection when involved with them. Now, I know there are still risks, but everyone has to calculate their own risks. The fact of the matter is, even if you only sleep with straight men, you are not safe from STDs, even HIV. You need to use caution with ALL of your sexual partners, not just the bi men and gay men. That is unwise.

I think you need to go back to my OP, #1 and re-read it. In it, I (meaning a bisexual female) was being blamed as being a conduit for HIV to the lesbian community. Because I was bisexual, there existed a greater chance of contracting HIV because I had sex with men.

Their logic is sound. I've had sex with lesbians and for the most part, they do not have sex with men. So, if HIV crept into their community, it came from bisexual females who had sex with men…like me...or did it? To quote myself from #1,

If the spread of HIV into the lesbian community did come from bisexual females, where did they pick it up from? Certainly not gay men, at least directly, which means heterosexual or bisexual males. Herein lays the conundrum. Bias and prejudice many times comes from certain beliefs that are apparently true and in this case, it’s the belief that bisexuals are wanton in their pursuit of sexual self gratification. Men who hide their bisexuality behind a heterosexual marriage, women whom are careless in regards to choosing a partner and both not being honest and using common sense precautions.

Before this thread was hijacked by the loonies, I was asking if bisexuals “are wanton in their pursuit of sexual self gratification.” This is a problem the bisexual community needs to address. There are many that are but the question is, who?

You can’t look at a person and tell they are bisexual. Therein lays the conundrum. As the great majority of bisexual males do not and will not be public, it increases the unknown factors. Given the dead seriousness of HIV transmission, to act in a manner that insures self-preservation from harm, is NOT biphobic.

The lads here that jump on my statement; “I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. The key here is promoting “safe sex” and while even that is not fool proof, it is a start.” are looking for something to be offended by. That’s their problem. The fact still remains, it is prudent, logical and moral for any person to discriminate on sexual partners. To you, that may be phobic but you are in a stable relationship; many here, are not.

What’s worse than having the facts? Not having them.

ExSailor

Aug 23, 2012, 1:06 PM

hate filled rant deleted. What's worse than having the facts? Not having them. Jobel is correct you're full of hate. You don't have any facts at all, just bigotry and hate. The lesbian women you are describing are also biphobic but you've got a lot in common with them, and you learned biphobia from them which you now use on bisexual men. :rolleyes: Just because someone is OMG a bisexual man, or a bisexual woman that does not mean that they're HIV+ or are going to be HIV+. I'm also in a stable relationship and have been for decades, and yes a lot of other posters are as well.

ExSailor

Aug 23, 2012, 1:12 PM

Slip, what you are witnessing in this gentleman's reply is called the "Dunning–Kruger effect": a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes. This reply is just another pointless repetition of the same slop he's been regurgitating from day one. Nothing new, nothing insightful, nothing factual...just pure fanciful opinion based on what appears to be delusions. Actually he's right. You're the one who is posting fanciful opinions based on your own bigotry and delusions. You're not posting anything insightful or factual at all, and it's you who are unskilled and suffer from illusory superiority and mistakenly are rating your ability much higher than average. No you're not recognizing any mistakes or your bigotry either but that's to be expected. ;)

darkeyes

Aug 23, 2012, 1:23 PM

I did say I was staying out of this cos it is doin' me head in... I could never act as you Joan, not because I don't think you are right in what you do because it is right for you and not because I think you are phobic.. for all the facts and figures you have quoted and all the links and all your statements, my knowledge of bisexual men tells me this..

...most are closeted as are many, maybe even still, most gay men.. many, not all have sex with men who are also closeted (how I loathe that fucking word), many have unprotected sex and many are HIV. Many also fuck women other than their spouse frequently and contribute to the spreading of HIV and other std's into the community. Many women. also fuck men casually who may be straight or bisexual (out or not) and who do not use safer sex methods and many, being themselves bisexual or even lesbian, fuck women who equally do the same.. and moving on, some lesbian women are closeted bisexuals, very few that I know of, but at least two, so I do know that they exist, and equally some gay men are also closeted bisexuals. Heterosexual men and women are infected by having sex with heterosexual people because of the knock on effect of casual sex throughout the community, as bisexual and gay people are either directly or indirectly by having sex with heterosexual men and women. and many are infected, as are many bisexual and gay people by straying partners even although they themselves are monogamous. Sex, sexuality and the spread of std's and especially HIV is such a morass and it almost invalidates every piece of research ever done on any of it...

The whole picture is so muddied and confused and we have no idea really to what extent each group or sub group of humanity is infected with HIV or any other std... we may have overall numbers and we may have figures which tell us a breakdown of sexualities.. but because of the massive uncertainty of any of it, this information is to a great extent, almost useless... it isn't that I think u are phobic in the least or wrong in what u do.. it is that I believe that what u do is based on too many imponderables and your arguments are flawed. There is far too much interaction, directly or indirectly, between the sexualities for your argument not to be seriously flawed. The data simply doesn't exist in sufficiently accurate form to be properly useful. If u believe flawed data to be valid that's fine... but just accept how inaccurate it is but be very careful about deciding how to live your life based on such data..

That there are those who deliberately misrepresent what you say is true.. many of their arguments ignore the reality of the confusion of human sexuality and the spread of HIV or any other std also and their convictions of the "purity" of the bisexual male does no one any favours..some of your arguments allude to this confusion and yet u appear to misinterpret or ignore what they are telling u... so to a great extent your arguments are not as sound as you believe them to be for all the screeds we have seen and are as flawed as any other.

Not everyone uses safer sex methods.. even now.. whether they are straight, gay, bisexual, transgendered, man or woman, whether they are out or not... and many that do.. not always.. and that is a truth so many seem to ignore. It is all very well people being so pious about themselves and their own way of living and loving, they ignore the reality of the wider world and the fact that many of their own kind who they defend so vigorously are not as responsible as they..or as some do they place blame firmly at the feet of some other group... and even if everyone did religiously employ safer sex methods. and everyone was up front and honest about their sexuality, their sex life, who they fucked,, state of well being, and about safer sex, HIV and stds would remain in the community if on a vastly smaller scale, maybe, because like contraception, they are not foolproof, and like those who use contraceptive methods to safeguard against pregnancy, everyone is human and mistakes happen...

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 1:38 PM

IanBorthwick

Aug 23, 2012, 1:42 PM

The fact still remains, it is prudent, logical and moral for any person to discriminate...

I could spend a good day and a half making a post as long as my arm debunking your post, your illogic and the fact you make no sense to anyone here but yourself and Fran and Slippy.... Instead I am going to post this up right here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

Discrimination is the prejudicial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice) treatment of an individual based on his or her membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to a group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality (from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_actions) between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particularphilosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective) moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

Your very USE of these two words together to justify bad behavior and poor judgement puts you in a category of ignorance on par with Hitler, Nietzsche, McCarthy and others of their ilk who push an agenda based on fueled ignorance, propaganda and outright, cold loathing. The fact is Hate is not a moral, nor is it a value. Your actions show an AMORALITY, one where you wish to create the illusion that you are moral and right in your endeavor, alongside your lies we are the "loonies" who have taken exception to your venom. But you are, like your brownshirts, pushing this continuously because you're pushing The Big Lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 1:47 PM

A Drug Store Cowboy quote:

" I was alone and horny and needed relief the first time I did it. Sometimes I was with another man who was there looking for sex but it was at night and that's the only reason why men would go there then.Have you ever had sex in an adult bookstore or public bathroom? (I did but this was in the late 70s and very early 80s before AIDS was known about)"

This is one of the classic reasons why just not women, but especially men, should be wary about your partner. Anonymous sex can be a killer.

darkeyes

Aug 23, 2012, 1:49 PM

I could spend a good day and a half making a post as long as my arm debunking your post,
It has never stopped you before.. why now?

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 1:52 PM

It has never stopped you before.. why now?

An empty barrel makes the most noise.

darkeyes

Aug 23, 2012, 2:01 PM

So, what's your point in all of this?
Maybe cos I think u are wrong.. maybe cos I think it needed said and is pertinent to the discussion.. maybe cos I think everyone is wrong.. maybe cos no one has thought any of it through.. maybe to try and get people to do so.. maybe all of these things or none.. maybe cos I needed to say it... and maybe cos it's a truth no one gives fuck about... cos none of u will give a bugger... ur all too busy contemplating ur navels and full of urselves 2 give a sod what anyone says... and that's the saddest maybe of all... if maybe it is...

ExSailor

Aug 23, 2012, 2:12 PM

A Drug Store Cowboy quote:
This is one of the classic reasons why just not women, but especially men, should be wary about your partner. Anonymous sex can be a killer. Did you read his post? That happened before HIV/AIDS was known about or even widespread. If you were not around before AIDS you wouldn't know what it was like, back then you could have sex with a stranger and you would not get infected with HIV. I did this in the 60s and early 70s and HIV/AIDS was not even known about then. Furthermore it is completely possible to have safer sex with a total stranger, and even someone who is HIV+ and you won't get infected. If you want to be a hypocrite, pretend you're completely innocent, and a complete prude go right ahead that's your problem; but you wrote about being gang banged.
Re: The sluttiest thing you ever did??.. A very selfish Ganger.

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 2:43 PM

Maybe cos I think u are wrong.. maybe cos I think it needed said and is pertinent to the discussion.. maybe cos I think everyone is wrong.. maybe cos no one has thought any of it through.. maybe to try and get people to do so.. maybe all of these things or none.. maybe cos I needed to say it... and maybe cos it's a truth no one gives fuck about... cos none of u will give a bugger... ur all too busy contemplating ur navals and full of urselves 2 give a sod what anyone says... and that's the saddest maybe of all... if maybe it is...

In other words, you are straddling the fence. I understand such concepts.

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 2:49 PM

Maybe cos I think u are wrong.. maybe cos I think it needed said and is pertinent to the discussion.. maybe cos I think everyone is wrong.. maybe cos no one has thought any of it through.. maybe to try and get people to do so.. maybe all of these things or none.. maybe cos I needed to say it... and maybe cos it's a truth no one gives fuck about... cos none of u will give a bugger... ur all too busy contemplating ur navels and full of urselves 2 give a sod what anyone says... and that's the saddest maybe of all... if maybe it is...

...or maybe, I don't talk like you.

darkeyes

Aug 23, 2012, 2:57 PM

In other words, you are straddling the fence. I understand such concepts. Not so.. I just dont think like you in this neither do I agree with u.. I certainly don't agree with those who are so critical of you.. because someone sees things differently doesn't mean they straddle the fence.. it means they see things differently. A concept quite different.

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 3:07 PM

Not so.. I just dont think like you in this neither do I agree with u.. I certainly don't agree with those who are so critical of you.. because someone sees things differently doesn't mean they straddle the fence.. it means they see things differently. A concept quite different.

So you say. You are an "old timer" here in the forum and understandably have a vested interest in how it goes. You and I differ greatly on approach. You are a pacifist, I am not.

darkeyes

Aug 23, 2012, 3:09 PM

...or maybe, I don't talk like you.
Ahhh that old chestnut again... u can be such a pedant at times. And that does your arguments no good whatsoever. Maybe u should try and talk like me... u would have ever so much more fun. But if its a game of bitchy bitchy u want, I could provide it.. but it does neither u or I much good nor does it help any1 else and I don't like acting the cow.. so I suggest we just drop the childishness and behave like adults and if we do have to speak we speak as adults and try and show respect even it is but a charade.

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 3:16 PM

Ahhh that old chestnut again... u can be such a pedant at times. And that does your arguments no good whatsoever. Maybe u should try and talk like me... u would have ever so much more fun. But if its a game of bitchy bitchy u want, I could provide it.. but it does neither u or I much good nor does it help any1 else and I don't like acting the cow.. so I suggest we just drop the childishness and behave like adults and if we do have to speak we speak as adults and try and show respect even it is but a charade.

Like I said, you straddle the fence.

darkeyes

Aug 23, 2012, 5:39 PM

LMAO a bigoted bisexual is calling a lesbian a "Fence sitter". :rolleyes: When I had sex in public bathrooms which didn't happen as much as you think, it was long before AIDS or what was first called GRIDs was even known about. Also the type of sex I had with men there is still even to this day considered safer sex and you're not going to get infected with HIV by doing it. Get off your paranoid moral high horse since you're the last person who should be judging others or all bisexual men as diseased pariahs even if we're not HIV+ at all, for having sex when you yourself have had unsafe sex and had sex with multiple random partners and you've had anon sex too.
She may be a tadge narky and nit picky, and a smidge over prickly, sometimes a bit stuck up, but I'd trust her judgement over yours any time.. she may not think very much of me, but many people feel that way, and I wish none of them the slightest ill-will, and that includes you, but I'd take her enmity any time over any words of yours which may bear the slightest affection and respect... not that I expect them... just saying... but for all her prickliness and even childishness, bigot she isn't nor is she phobic... but about people like you she is particularly perceptive.

Interesting quote though... she change it or u fake it...??:bigrin: Not fussed tbh cos it makes little sense to me... will leave u all now to ur nice fun and games...:impleased

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 6:41 PM

She may be a tadge narky and nit picky, and a smidge over prickly, sometimes a bit stuck up, but I'd trust her judgement over yours any time.. she may not think very much of me, but many people feel that way, and I wish none of them the slightest ill-will, and that includes you, but I'd take her enmity any time over any words of yours which may bear the slightest affection and respect... not that I expect them... just saying... but for all her prickliness and even childishness, bigot she isn't nor is she phobic... but about people like you she is particularly perceptive.

Interesting quote though... she change it or u fake it...??:bigrin: Not fussed tbh cos it makes little sense to me... will leave u all now to ur nice fun and games...:impleased

The way I see it, Drugstore, ex, tenni, et al, are the worst enemy of bisexuals. They use bisexuality as a reason to promote their anti-female agenda. If it isn't me, it might as well be you. Any woman who can think on their own is their target.

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 7:27 PM

Anti-female agenda Riiiiiight. :rolleyes: I don't have an anti-female agenda. It's not my fault that you're a bigot, biphobic, and that you know nothing about HIV and safer sex and you and your friend Fran can't think for yourselves and both of you are not nearly as educated as you like to pretend on the internet that you are. This is not an attack on women as there are a lot of highly educated women and women who can think for themselves such as Jobel and other women on this site, and other women I know personally. Even if you were a man and posting BS like you are about HIV and bisexuals, I'd still call you out on it. People like you who are bisexual yet are biphobic, homophobic, and poz-phobic and want to claim that most or all bisexual men are a major risk of infecting people with HIV and that those evil bisexual men whether closeted or not are to blame for hetero women getting infected with HIV. You're the worst enemy of bisexuals and LGBT people as a whole since you've let fear and hate consume you.

...or dementia...thanks for reminding me.

darkeyes

Aug 23, 2012, 7:58 PM

. This is not an attack on women as there are a lot of highly educated women and women who can think for themselves such as Jobel and other women on this site, and other women I know personally. There are a lot of educated women who will differ from me and do very often and Jobe very likely is one...I don't know her well enough to judge... I have the the greatest regard for them and their education. I have the greatest regard for them no matter how well educated or intelligent they are...as I have for men no matter their intelligence or education whether or not they agree or disagree with me... what is interesting is that it is women with whom u disagree who are referred to as being thick...a common enough trait in the misogynist with the anti-female agenda...women who challenge your superiority and your arrogance... put down, keep down and ridicule... always the way... people such as you I have much less regard for.. those such as you who rail against bigotry, phobias and hate.. and who appear to display all of these in such great measure...

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 8:32 PM

There are a lot of educated women who will differ from me and do very often and Jobe very likely is one...I don't know her well enough to judge... I have the the greatest regard for them and their education. I have the greatest regard for them no matter how well educated or intelligent they are...as I have for men no matter their intelligence or education whether or not they agree or disagree with me... what is interesting is that it is women with whom u disagree who are referred to as being thick...a common enough trait in the misogynist with the anti-female agenda...women who challenge your superiority and your arrogance... put down, keep down and ridicule... always the way... people such as you I have much less regard for.. those such as you who rail against bigotry, phobias and hate.. and who appear to display all of these in such great measure...

Drugstore is an anachronism....a dying breed of men. I should not have inferred dementia but it is true, which makes mentioning it, all the more fatal.

His issues though, about the liberation of women, resonate through a minority of others here whom are genuinely misogynistic.

Would it be that these men could discuss issues over gender, this forum might be an ideal environment to hash out and/or respectfully disagree, but as you know, such is not the case. When I am attacked, I will respond in kind. A friend once told me I reminded him of a female version of "Billy Jack." You, my friend, are too pacifistic which is your weakness but also your unyielding strength.

Men like drug, ex, bidave, see me as the quintessential enemy, which which I rather enjoy but realize is misplaced. You and I, though not alike, represent a greater threat; A Thinking Independent Female.

Gearbox

Aug 23, 2012, 8:39 PM

There are a lot of educated women who will differ from me and do very often and Jobe very likely is one...I don't know her well enough to judge... I have the the greatest regard for them and their education. I have the greatest regard for them no matter how well educated or intelligent they are...as I have for men no matter their intelligence or education whether or not they agree or disagree with me... what is interesting is that it is women with whom u disagree who are referred to as being thick...a common enough trait in the misogynist with the anti-female agenda...women who challenge your superiority and your arrogance... put down, keep down and ridicule... always the way... people such as you I have much less regard for.. those such as you who rail against bigotry, phobias and hate.. and who appear to display all of these in such great measure...
You have to look straight down at your feet sometimes to see where you really are. And at the mo, it's in a big old cyber field of bigotry aimed at bi MALES who are too thick to practice 'safer sex'. A FEMALE built it.:tongue:
When those particular males complain (bisexual ones who practice safer sex), they are called misogynists just because Aeon is a female. It's the last desperate grasp onto the crumblinge cliff edge of denial. It should be bombed and have a lovely memorial forest planted here instead.lol

æonpax

Aug 23, 2012, 9:19 PM

No I'm not a misogynist however in your warped view of misandry you call any man who does not agree with you or like you a misogynist and throw a temper tantrum with your pointless posts that you claim are "attacks" since you're a troll. I don't think of you as the enemy because you're a woman and neither do any of them men who are posting here. You are however biphobic, homophobic, and pozphobic as a lot of people on this site including Jobe, myself, and othersl have noticed. Quit having a complete persecution/martyr complex and thinking that people who are posting against your bigoted views are doing so because you're a woman. :rolleyes: You're bigoted and hate bisexual men, and you're pozphobic and now ageist. Women in the Western world at least already are liberated and have been for decades and that includes both your lifetime Aeon and Darkeyes' lifetime. Either way you're not fooling anyone with how you're claiming that all of the men who are posting in this thread are somehow hateful towards women when you are the actual bigot here which you have shown many times by showing how you don't like bisexual men, people who are HIV+ or who have AIDS, and how you'll shout and throw a temper tantrum that "OMG those horrible men on this site are misogynists!!!1" yet it's perfectly OK and excusable for you to be a misandrist, ageistic troll, biphobe, homophobic person, and pozphobe. Even darkeyes will sweep your hate into the closet and claim that you're not really biphobic, pozphobic, etc. but who's she kidding? Darkeyes, actually the quote I put in from Aeon after she attacked me first for having sex with men, (which later turned out to be completely safer sex when safer sex was invented after AIDS was known about) decades before AIDS was unedited and you can look up the thread yourself since I posted the title in.

I rest my case.

darkeyes

Aug 23, 2012, 9:21 PM

You have to look straight down at your feet sometimes to see where you really are. And at the mo, it's in a big old cyber field of bigotry aimed at bi MALES who are too thick to practice 'safer sex'. A FEMALE built it.:tongue:
When those particular males complain (bisexual ones who practice safer sex), they are called misogynists just because Aeon is a female. It's the last desperate grasp onto the crumblinge cliff edge of denial. It should be bombed and have a lovely memorial forest planted here instead.lol
A female built nothing.. what was constructed was an assault ladder to assail quite viscously and unfairly the walls of one persons view and how she conducts her life... many of the rungs of this ladder come from insecurity and much misogyny not to mention a little phobia.. I accuse no one of being thick, but do accuse them of being wrong, and do accuse some of using their intellectual gifts in such a manner as to accuse another of being a number of things she is not for reasons which have little do with very much other than their own deep seated prejudice. Let me make it clear, Gear, if the boot was on the other foot, and a man argued his case as has Joan, I would have no hesitation in defending him from accusations of misogyny, phobia and bigotry, and would, if the assailants were women arguing in a similar manner to some of those in this debate, have no hesitation in accusing those women who were deserving of the accusations of mysandry and of having an anti-male agenda... I repeat.. I do not agree with much of Joan's reasoning.. it relies on far too many imponderables and variables and is based on flawed data. But from nowhere in her argument is there anything which suggest phobia or bigotry, neither does it suggest misandry. I do not either accuse all in this debate who have criticised Joan as being misogynysts, but some.. too many are.

.

IanBorthwick

Aug 23, 2012, 9:38 PM

I rest my case.

I wouldn't rest anything, since you have nothing to rest. You cannot state a point, so your point is unstated, this because if you try to immerse yourself in an attempt to point out where we hate and you do not, your opinions are unearthed and see, thus allowing us MORE ability to pick you apart. Unlike you, I truly do wish this was a site where I could address your Isomorphic tautology and show you for the adult child you are. Make no mistake, that's exactly what you fear and as such there will never be true debate as I've proven repeatedly your play book is finite and you and Fran have run out of shaming measures and illogic based arguments to mash on us. All you have, all you really ever had, was misinformation, lies, shaming, innuendo, ad hom attacks of varied breed and running back scared to the "Rebrand and push histrionics" fallback position.

I truly have no problem picking your arguments both to pieces, however this will never edify you or Fran, as "The Big Scary Truth" is too much for you face and "The Big Lie" is already the big teddy bear where you cowards live, calling others to do your violence and threats, claiming both privilege and lack of power, victimhood and near godliness, because of the few
"untouchable" tenets upon which your entire ideology rests but can never question for fear of it falling apart.

So your plays are all run, and the result?

We haven't given up, we don't hate you, you can't get away with spreading more lies, there is no patriarchy, men's rights ARE human rights you cannot deny and the more you squeeze us the less tradition protects you from your own stupidity and the more you call for male disposability to shore you up in your Castles in the Clouds, but no men come to die for your call...To put it simply, none of us could be a misandrist because that requires hate, and we simply don't give a shit about you. That's ambivalence. All we care about is your lies are infectious, we'd like to see the world free from the disease of lies you are a current carrier of.

And....

I don't rest my case.

darkeyes

Aug 23, 2012, 9:58 PM

...and we simply don't give a shit about you.

..for peeps who don't give a shit, u don't half go on about us... still.. if it makesya happy...:bigrin:

slipnslide

Aug 24, 2012, 3:29 AM

..for peeps who don't give a shit, u don't half go on about us... still.. if it makesya happy...:bigrin:

LOL.

Funny.

slipnslide

Aug 24, 2012, 3:46 AM

ENOUGH ALREADY.

These old guys are/were part of the HIV problem and we all can see why - but their days are over. There's no point in arguing with them - they're old guys - a few years of arguing is all they have left before the grave. Let it go. Let them shake their fists at the heavens - they're irrelevant now. (Plus, old guys having sex with old guys, that's pretty disgusting).

It's the younger generation that we need to concern ourselves with now. Fortunately though, education has reached them. When you talk to guys in their 20s, as least Canadians, they're hardcore about safe sex. As I pointed out before, I know a few gay guys who won't have sex with guys anymore. Period. I'm telling visiting guys all the time to not have sex with local guys because this is the "STI capital of Ontario". They thank me for telling them, let out a sigh, and avoid sex. They don't take risks.

Hopefully this means that the current upwards trend of HIV in the MSM community is an anomaly and we have a sudden drop coming soon.

æonpax

Aug 24, 2012, 5:40 AM

..for peeps who don't give a shit, u don't half go on about us... still.. if it makesya happy...:bigrin:

Methinks the child doth protest too much, silly goose that he is.

æonpax

Aug 24, 2012, 5:51 AM

æonpax

Aug 24, 2012, 6:06 AM

Actually if you read the entire thread no man or woman has attacked Aeon/Joan a lot of us are sick and tired of her bigotry, misandry, biphobia/homophobia, and pozphobia. She was the one who posted about how she's full of hate and bigoted towards bisexual men, gay men, and people who are living with HIV/AIDS. The way she laughable claimed that because I had anon. sex-which happened to be safer sex long before safer sex was even invented- in the 70s and very early 80s somehow shows that bisexual men are not to be trusted and that we're all diseased pariahs to Aeon/Joan while women even if they are like Aeon and have bareback sex with random strangers and multiple partners are excused and it's somehow delusional to think that this somehow is not risky or safer sex, just like it is to think that by having raw sex with only heterosexuals you'll avoid getting infected with HIV. Of course you're not going to agree or claim that aeon is being bigoted, misandrist, pozphobic, or biphobic/homophobic but it's clear as day to everyone else here.

This is the part where this confused person, re-writes history. You will note, aside from repeating the same hyperbole, over and over (nothing new here), he claims to represent some kind of majority, which is true if the majority he is referring to is your classic old, undereducated misogynists whom are way in the minority here. They are a declining breed but refuse to go gentle into that good night. Instead, they rage, rage against the dying of the light.

One can almost see the spittle coming out of his mouth as he wrote that.

darkeyes

Aug 24, 2012, 6:58 AM

Actually if you read the entire thread no man or woman has attacked Aeon/Joan a lot of us are sick and tired of her bigotry, misandry, biphobia/homophobia, and pozphobia. She was the one who posted about how she's full of hate and bigoted towards bisexual men, gay men, and people who are living with HIV/AIDS. The way she laughable claimed that because I had anon. sex-which happened to be safer sex long before safer sex was even invented- in the 70s and very early 80s somehow shows that bisexual men are not to be trusted and that we're all diseased pariahs to Aeon/Joan while women even if they are like Aeon and have bareback sex with random strangers and multiple partners are excused and it's somehow delusional to think that this somehow is not risky or safer sex, just like it is to think that by having raw sex with only heterosexuals you'll avoid getting infected with HIV. Of course you're not going to agree or claim that aeon is being bigoted, misandrist, pozphobic, or biphobic/homophobic but it's clear as day to everyone else here.
Is that so? You must use a different dictionary from me... I use the Oxford English.. does Webster differ quite so much?

DuckiesDarling

Aug 24, 2012, 7:19 AM

17 pages of pretty much bullshit thrown over the fence at each other, can't we just agree to disagree about anything other than people are free to make their own choices regarding who they sleep with or don't without being asked why they won't and without being called names?

æonpax

Aug 24, 2012, 8:03 AM

Is that so? You must use a different dictionary from me... I use the Oxford English.. does Webster differ quite so much?

He's not too quick on the uptake either and is getting boring. But Duckie has a point. Him and his group just don't get it. They ignore facts, distort words, can't seem to read too well, lack critical thinking and keep repeating the same convoluted crap as if they keep saying it, it will magically become true.

Insulting them is child's play, they leave themselves open for it. I see no utility in this other than low grade amusement.

http://i.imgur.com/5d0Vq.jpg

darkeyes

Aug 24, 2012, 8:37 AM

Darlin' darlin' does have a point.. and I am no longer playing their game.. I suggest, Joan, that u don't either but that's up to u.. I have tried several times to extricate myself from this thread knowing it is long dead.. and I keep getting sucked in like a right dummie. They can rant and rave, twist corrupt and turn anything they like from now on I simply don't give a sod. To those that listen and read what people actually say but who disagree with anything I say thank u for your tolerance of my gobby vanity.. to those who think I am just a stupid cow, a misandryst, a bigot and phobic in any way.. play your games and enjoy.. life is too short for such stupidity and bitterness.. and the cause of the lgbt much too important.. 499 posts and not a millimetre moved... time to give it a rest... and so I do...

**Peg**

Aug 24, 2012, 10:28 AM

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

ok...I'm off to get the flamethrower now

blugirl789

Aug 24, 2012, 1:00 PM

with any study, you should look closely at the data and numbers and be weary. also, studies hold bias. they specifically try to prove or disprove something. another factor to consider is how forthright someone is about their sexuality. this would absolutely change the graph on the first page of this thread. many men and women that are known to be straight, could be bisexual or gay. but how would anyone know if they didn't offer that information. few ppl know that i'm bisexual. and so with studies regarding which sexual orientation carries the highest risk of infection, there's nothing anywhere near reliable.

SJMurph

Aug 27, 2012, 8:00 PM

Joan's Argument Reprise:

In considering Joan's Argument there are three elements that make up her position. The first is the idea that risk groups are the principle vectors or enablers to the transmission of STD's to include HPV, HIV, Herpes, Genital Warts and Venereal Disease such as Gonnarrhea. The second idea is that self preservation and control of such transmission requires behavior modification on the part of the individual. The third element is that there is a moral and personal responsibility in the control and transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.

Joan's argues that there are several basic risk groups that fall into low risk and upward to high risk. The lowest risk groups are obviously those who do not engage in drug use and who are not engaging in any sexual activity with another partner. The lowest risk groups was not the focus of her argument and not discussed here either. The highest being men who engage in sex with men and are drug users. The next group are men who have sex with men and have sex with women and are drug users. The next group are those men who have sex with men and are not drug users. And then men who have sex with men and women and are not drug users. Then the next group are men who have sex exclusively with women only. Then the final group, as being the lower of the groups discussed are the women who only have sex with women. While anyone can split these groups up into different categories or reconfigure them to analyze the data, the base line idea that she presented, controlling for other variables, is that the highest risk pool included men and drug use. The second highest risk group included men without drug use. The lowest risk groups other than abstinence include women in the absence of drug use. She never argued that there is no risk, but rather, if you review the individual studies, and then analyze the data in meta-analysis studies, these are the fundamental findings repeatedly for all studies. Joan also knows that statistical social studies do not talk and address people as individuals, but rather they address groups and cohorts; as statistics are mathematics derived to evaluate the laws of central tendency. Joan's fundamental argument was presented as a "conundrum" to introduce the idea that she sees an "intellectual or academic" problem with expressing bisexuality, specifically expressed sexual behavior, and the potential increased accompanying statistical risk. She presented the idea that reducing or eliminating sexual contact with bisexual men, would reduce the risk of exposure. She didn't argue the degree of risk exposure, but rather, was arguing that even controlling for all other variables, to include contraception and the potential to have a partner who had higher risk of exposure (human risk behaviors), that by controlling sexual behavior with bisexual men, then the risk would be lower. Furthermore, she argues the conundrum is exacerbated by the fact that bisexuality of men and women are at the very core of the human experience. She ignored the argument of gay and straight issues, because those two groups distinctly are outside the scope of the conundrum. As a matter of argument, her argument wasn't negatively targeted at bisexuality, rather it was bringing a bisexual issue to light.

The second idea she introduced as to self preservation is that she determined that based on her experience, research and other articles, the best practice was to consider, against popular descent, to avoid sexual relationships with bisexual men. And again she pointed out that was part of the "conundrum", in that she is attracted to men and women, and had no issue with men or male bisexuality aside from the categorical risk.

The third issue that Jone expressed is the moral and social responsibility that comes along with being a human being. Her position is that she is openly expressively sexual and she believes that there is a social responsibility to not pass the overriding categorical risk to others. Moreover, she agreed that there are many precautions that any one individual could take to reduce their exposure and their exposing others, but he fundamental argument was of categorial statistical risk. However, she addressed her personnel choice to deal with the categorical risk by selecting to be with women

Joan chose the word "conundrum" to title the argument. This wasn't by happenstance or chance. She chose the word because it shows that there isn't a definitive way to frame the argument and likewise there isn't a clear path to its resolution. Rather, it is an academic question that merits debate.

What I've done here is to eliminate all the hyperbole and distill her position down to its base elements. I think for this forum, she could have easily have named it the paradoxical bisexual male and gotten closer to that academic conflict of risk and human sexual behavior. However, she chose a different title, but it still demonstrates the same principle conflict.

IanBorthwick

Aug 27, 2012, 8:08 PM

Joan's Argument Reprise:.

Distill this down to the lowest number of moving parts:

Hello Joan's Sock Puppet!

No, you still don't get to backtrack and rebrand.

Say hello to the Ignore Phasers!

Jobelorocks

Aug 27, 2012, 8:26 PM

Distill this down to the lowest number of moving parts:

Hello Joan's Sock Puppet!

No, you still don't get to backtrack and rebrand.

Say hello to the Ignore Phasers!
I agree with you on this. This totally seems like Joan making a reappearance. Going to just ignore this person and save time.

Gearbox

Aug 27, 2012, 8:37 PM

8001
Come away honey!.......just step away.....mmkay?:eek2:

SJMurph

Aug 27, 2012, 9:18 PM

slipnslide

Aug 27, 2012, 9:35 PM

IanBorthwick

Aug 27, 2012, 10:16 PM

I find it interesting that when taking out the hyperbole out of the argument, that Ian, Jobelo and Gearbox would inject undue emotion back to the argument without further comment. Moreover, given that I did not induce name calling, that you would call and refer to me as a sock puppet rather than just make a comment on the subject. Is that appropriate? As a side note, I have no other name or identity than the one I listed here. Quite frankly, I'm surprised by that remark as I think it was unwarranted, and gets at the heart of why people don't post.

Classic Joan! Rewind, apply histrionics, feign innocence and victimization, add a dash of false outrage, claim the rest of us are emotional and unreasonable (all shaming tactics without merit, I might add and have in the past because as I said, a finite play book) and then have Slippy slide in and act like this is a Milton Bradley board game we're all aching to suck at in public, and what does it spell?

TROLL

We'll all take a page from the short story Kingdom of the Kind and let you blather to no one in your nowhere land while we happily have you on ignore.

Bye bye Slippy.

Mr Sulu, set phasers to Ignore!

littlerayofsunshine

Aug 27, 2012, 10:21 PM

While everyone is going all Chicken Little "The Sky is falling, The trolls are everywhere". The real ones are joining in the fun and laughing at you.

Just sayin.

slipnslide

Aug 27, 2012, 10:28 PM

While everyone is going all Chicken Little "The Sky is falling, The trolls are everywhere". The real ones are joining in the fun and laughing at you.

Just sayin.

Haha! Yes. I've received a few private messages thanking me for the laughs today.

void()

Aug 27, 2012, 11:29 PM

Joan's Argument Reprise:
<snip>
What I've done here is to eliminate all the hyperbole and distill her position down to its base elements. I think for this forum, she could have easily have named it the paradoxical bisexual male and gotten closer to that academic conflict of risk and human sexual behavior. However, she chose a different title, but it still demonstrates the same principle conflict.

Replied then and now, based upon personal experience my opinion remains that such idea presented was offensive and possibly prejudiced. Yes, I comprehend the argument. No, I'm not really emotional over the argument. I disagree with original poster's opinion. Mature adults can have differing opinions, agree to disagree. That's that, as far as I'm concerned.

As for trolling, verdict is still out here.

SJMurph

Aug 27, 2012, 11:31 PM

I think that is a fair assessment, and well said. I can appreciate that.

Thanks

blugirl789

Aug 28, 2012, 12:22 AM

While I was aware of my orientation in high school, I never came out with it. Being a single mom at the time, I had infinitely more pressing issues to contend with than to deal with the prejudices of the anti-gay contingent at school. However, due to my aunt who introduced me to the internet (1997), I was able to delve more into my own sexuality online, specifically Gay.com, which had a monitored chat room for female teens. It was there I first came face to face with a lesbian prejudice, if not enmity, for being bisexual.

As time went on, I joined an LGBT group and became very active in politically advancing the rights of all Gays (generic). I also confronted the same bias against being a bisexual female but this time, I also discovered the source of that bias; Lesbian Pride or hubris. But it didn’t end there. There was another creeping problem that surfaced and that was the slow spread of HIV into the Lesbian community.

Lesbians have always thought themselves as being immune to HIV as it was thought to be a male to male transmitted disease. When the first facts came out about Lesbians contracting HIV, many of them started targeting bisexual females as being the cause. I have to admit, even without direct proof, that would be a logical assumption as lesbians don’t have sex with men.

If the spread of HIV into the lesbian community did come from bisexual females, where did they pick it up from? Certainly not gay men, at least directly, which means heterosexual or bisexual males. Herein lays the conundrum. Bias and prejudice many times comes from certain beliefs that are apparently true and in this case, it’s the belief that bisexuals are wanton in their pursuit of sexual self gratification. Men who hide their bisexuality behind a heterosexual marriage, women whom are careless in regards to choosing a partner and both not being honest and using common sense precautions.

I have no problem with sex being done for the sake of pure enjoyment as I am a hedonist and far removed from the archaic and puritanical attitudes and while there is no such thing as absolutes in regards to personal protection, I do take extraordinary care in choosing the partner of my choice. Unfortunately, it does nothing to ally the fears of those whom see bisexuals as a high “at risk” group for being carriers, men especially.

While this statement may be controversial, I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. The key here is promoting “safe sex” and while even that is not fool proof, it is a start.

idk murph. it's pretty harsh. is she actually saying that she believes that bisexuals are wanton in their pursuit of sexual self-gratification? that's what it sounds like, harsh judgement. she's stereotyping. we all do it in varying degrees, but nobody openly admits doing it. we don't do it, because it simply hurts other ppl's feelings. i think it's something we innately do for self-preservation, as you say. but to openly say it here as a way to justify it, isn't wise. she obviously picked a fight here. so perhaps it was wise on her part. going back to my other comment in this thread, and also looking directly at what she initially posted, any study done to figure out which sexual orientation is the highest risk for carrying std's is tricky. the conundrum lies there. how can a study be performed where there is no way of getting accurate information when ppl aren't honest about how they contracted whatever std in the first place, i.e. from mm sex?

BiDaveDtown

Aug 28, 2012, 2:00 AM

Actually bluegirl aeon would go on and on about how bisexual men are responsible for infecting women with HIV since we're all going to cheat on our partners even if we're monogamous like I am. That we bisexual men get HIV from gay men since we don't practice safer sex or Aeon is paranoid and convinced that safer sex does not work so she does not practice it (see the posts about her being gang banged and getting pregnant at a young age by intentionally not using condoms, etc.) and other bigoted stuff that's not correct yet she tried to use studies to back up her bigotry but it was an ultimate fail for her.

SJMurph

Aug 28, 2012, 8:51 AM

And of course, there are some bisexual men who are reckless and show disregard for others in their pursuit of gratification, but my experience is that most bisexual men, are monogamous. So while Joan makes a number of provocative points, the challenge of this thread, as Blue points out, is how can one be sure of who they are dealing with. It isn't the risk group necessarily, rather its individual who shows no regard to take any preventative measures as a social responsibility.

darkeyes

Aug 28, 2012, 9:14 AM

While everyone is going all Chicken Little "The Sky is falling, The trolls are everywhere". The real ones are joining in the fun and laughing at you.
Just sayin. to which the Cowboy replies
It's not surprising you'd claim this considering you are a troll and have a puppet.

Pathetic aren't u Cowboy? Ray is a friend and u really have no idea do u? Except to flame anyone who may get in the way of ur vindictive bile.. u and ur thicko friends stopped me from making a huge mistake.. tyvm for that... I am obliged to u... I will be around every time u open that viscious, nasty, evil, anti bisexual, anti gay, anti heterosexual, anti human cyber gob of urs.. and every time u and ur ilk begin the process of flaming ne 1 with ur own particular brand of unpleasantries, Fran will be there... u know Fran... the misandrist.. the biphobe, the pozphobe.. the bigot.... u just carry it on don't u? Not giving a sod about any1 but urself and ur own warped sense of self and who u hurt, or for what reason... now u gett.. get me banned if u can... cos to stop me standing in ur way u will have to... and u will need better and more convincing lies and distortions about me than u ever did about Joan to succeed... and if Drew does ban me for swallowing u and ur kinds crap and self interested egotistical sludge, then to be honest.. this site isn't worth the time effort and leccy it consumes.. and that I do not and never have believed.

By having a go at Ray, u have just displayed and proven to a whole host of people who may have been on ur side about Joan, that u will try and discredit anyone who as much as blinks in opposition to ur own peculiar brand of bigotry and loathing.. I have always known it.... and as long as I remain a member of this site I make it my mission to open the eyes of every decent member to just what u and ur ilk are about..