4 ms·

I presume it would only be recommended for those who are sexually active (particularly homosexuals like me) and those who regularly use needles.

floatingatoll 6y ago
Many who are 'sexually active' are also unwillingly so. By that criteria, it would be best to recommended it to all women and all prisoners in the United States, due to how common rape is among those populations here. I'd like to say "we are better as a society" but that's not true yet, and in the meantime, at least I won't have to worry about AIDS when it's my turn to be raped.
- capableweb 6y ago
  I feel confident enough that I don't have to look this up, but I might be wrong. Most women in the US surely aren't raped right? Not even 0.1% of women in the US get raped no? So I don't think you need to forcibly vaccinate people because of any rape risks. Most people who are sexually active are voluntary so, so let's just assume people are not talking about sexual assault when talking about an active sex life.
  - mistersquid 6y ago
    > Most women in the US surely aren't raped right? Not even 0.1% of women in the US get raped no? You’re presumption is so bad it’s not even wrong. > “Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration. [0] [0] https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    > Most women in the US surely aren't raped right? Not even 0.1% of women in the US get raped no? It's closer to 15%. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem EDIT: Wow people really hate rape statistics.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      For the purposes of HIV, I would think that “attempted” is not very informative?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - floatingatoll 6y ago
        Irrelevant. If I successfully defend myself from a rape attempt by biting the attacker, that will be recorded as "attempted", and yet I will still be exposed to the risk of HIV infection.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        I guess that’s the question: does “attempted rape” really expose one to risk of HIV infection? What fraction of attempted rape victims go on to contract HIV compared to those who were actually raped? What gets counted as “attempted rape”? If the victim escapes before anyone’s clothes are off, does that get recorded as attempted rape? Presumably in that scenario omens risk of contracting HIV isn’t meaningfully increased?
        floatingatoll 6y ago
        If the rapist spits on them, maybe. If the person being raped bites them in self-defense, maybe. If the rapist is wounded and bleeds on them (and others!), maybe. The statistic you seek is "unsuccessful rape attempts that did not result in fluid transfer risk to the person being raped, bystanders, or emergency responders". If you are able to find it, feel free to link it here. I suspect you will find that no such data is collected. Fortunately, this is irrelevant. Given the severity of HIV, the full 18% figure can be safely taken at face value, for society-level disease prevention purposes. HIV is both expensive and deadly and vaccination is cheap.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- throwaway8581 6y ago
  Penetrative rape outside of prison is incredibly rare in the US. What inflates statistics is counting any unwanted sexual contact reported in surveys as sexual assault. So you answer “yes” in a survey to “has someone ever touched your boob when you’d didn’t want them to” or even “has someone ever kissed you without your permission” and now the press is counting a failed make-out escalation as a “sexual assault” and then it’s a small lexical jump to “rape.” Never mind that the “victim” would never themselves call it either of those things or even think of themselves as a victim of anything.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    I was considering the penetration category statistics alone, which was at least once in their life for 18.3% of all women in the country: https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics Since one time is all it takes to get HIV, that's 18.3% of the female population that are vulnerable to infection from an attacker at some point in their life. Best to get vaccinated and not take that risk.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
      - floatingatoll 6y ago
        Unwanted sex occurs so frequently in the US that, as I said above, "sexually active" essentially includes all women and all prisoners, in the context of this conversation about which populations should receive this vaccine. This is not the place to litigate over statistics provided by NSVRC. This is not the place to debate whether the women were intoxicated or not. This is not the place to debate whether all rape is truly rape or is not. Whether you label it rape or label it unwanted sex or label it unplanned intoxicated sex is irrelevant.
    - throwaway8581 6y ago
      I'd look at the definitions closely, especially for what counts as rape by intoxication. What ordinary women think of as too drunk to consent and what sexual assault activists think is very different.

floatingatoll 6y ago

Many who are 'sexually active' are also unwillingly so. By that criteria, it would be best to recommended it to all women and all prisoners in the United States, due to how common rape is among those populations here. I'd like to say "we are better as a society" but that's not true yet, and in the meantime, at least I won't have to worry about AIDS when it's my turn to be raped.

capableweb 6y ago
I feel confident enough that I don't have to look this up, but I might be wrong. Most women in the US surely aren't raped right? Not even 0.1% of women in the US get raped no? So I don't think you need to forcibly vaccinate people because of any rape risks. Most people who are sexually active are voluntary so, so let's just assume people are not talking about sexual assault when talking about an active sex life.
- mistersquid 6y ago
  > Most women in the US surely aren't raped right? Not even 0.1% of women in the US get raped no? You’re presumption is so bad it’s not even wrong. > “Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration. [0] [0] https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  > Most women in the US surely aren't raped right? Not even 0.1% of women in the US get raped no? It's closer to 15%. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem EDIT: Wow people really hate rape statistics.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    For the purposes of HIV, I would think that “attempted” is not very informative?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      Irrelevant. If I successfully defend myself from a rape attempt by biting the attacker, that will be recorded as "attempted", and yet I will still be exposed to the risk of HIV infection.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        I guess that’s the question: does “attempted rape” really expose one to risk of HIV infection? What fraction of attempted rape victims go on to contract HIV compared to those who were actually raped? What gets counted as “attempted rape”? If the victim escapes before anyone’s clothes are off, does that get recorded as attempted rape? Presumably in that scenario omens risk of contracting HIV isn’t meaningfully increased?
        floatingatoll 6y ago
        If the rapist spits on them, maybe. If the person being raped bites them in self-defense, maybe. If the rapist is wounded and bleeds on them (and others!), maybe. The statistic you seek is "unsuccessful rape attempts that did not result in fluid transfer risk to the person being raped, bystanders, or emergency responders". If you are able to find it, feel free to link it here. I suspect you will find that no such data is collected. Fortunately, this is irrelevant. Given the severity of HIV, the full 18% figure can be safely taken at face value, for society-level disease prevention purposes. HIV is both expensive and deadly and vaccination is cheap.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway8581 6y ago
Penetrative rape outside of prison is incredibly rare in the US. What inflates statistics is counting any unwanted sexual contact reported in surveys as sexual assault. So you answer “yes” in a survey to “has someone ever touched your boob when you’d didn’t want them to” or even “has someone ever kissed you without your permission” and now the press is counting a failed make-out escalation as a “sexual assault” and then it’s a small lexical jump to “rape.” Never mind that the “victim” would never themselves call it either of those things or even think of themselves as a victim of anything.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  I was considering the penetration category statistics alone, which was at least once in their life for 18.3% of all women in the country: https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics Since one time is all it takes to get HIV, that's 18.3% of the female population that are vulnerable to infection from an attacker at some point in their life. Best to get vaccinated and not take that risk.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      Unwanted sex occurs so frequently in the US that, as I said above, "sexually active" essentially includes all women and all prisoners, in the context of this conversation about which populations should receive this vaccine. This is not the place to litigate over statistics provided by NSVRC. This is not the place to debate whether the women were intoxicated or not. This is not the place to debate whether all rape is truly rape or is not. Whether you label it rape or label it unwanted sex or label it unplanned intoxicated sex is irrelevant.
  - throwaway8581 6y ago
    I'd look at the definitions closely, especially for what counts as rape by intoxication. What ordinary women think of as too drunk to consent and what sexual assault activists think is very different.