5 ms·

Sexual intercourse of any kind spreads disease. AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse. It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually tra

Sexual intercourse of any kind spreads disease. AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse. It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spread just as well from almost any kind sexual activity, and many of them -- including AIDS -- spread from any transfer of bodily fluids at all. Going further, I'd wager that any form of interpersonal contact, even non-sexual, is as likely to spread some form of disease. Why not enact a law which requires any person to don a hazmat suit before venturing into public space? Or better yet, a law which forbids any person from entering public space?

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
They used to lock you up for adultery, too, right up to the 60s. Disease was a consideration. So it's not just a matter of targeting gays. > AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse Yes it did. This is not remotely controversial. Aids and many other STDs are spread chiefly by buggery. This is why the red cross does not want blood donations from homosexuals.
- WA 13y ago
  Red cross (in the US) doesn't want blood donations from people who lived in Europe for long enough. Because they have HIV? No. You got something wrong with correlation and causation there in several ways.
  - pandaman 13y ago
    http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts... FDA is pretty clear on why they don't want blood donations from men who had sex with other men.
    - auctiontheory 13y ago
      What they say may seem clear, and yet not reflect what they really believe. I give blood every two months. As I recall the questionnaire, you can do almost anything imaginable (sex with prostitutes, accidental needle stick, receiving blood transfusion, etc.) and get a one year deferral. But if you are a man who had oral sex with a man one time twenty years ago, that's a permanent "deferral." No science behind this.
      - pandaman 13y ago
        Did you read their explanation at all? A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. Looks like science, namely statistics and medicine. If 61% of new HIV infections are coming from MSM then it's higher chances than then other criteria you've listed combined (i.e. non-MSM new HIV infections are only 39%, which is much less than 61%).
        auctiontheory 13y ago
        Exactly what conclusions do you draw from those stats? Yes, I remember from my mathematics degree that 39<61, but what does that have to do with anything? What groups do you think you are comparing? (Especially) If a man has not had sex with another man for a year, and has tested clean during that time, the stats you cite do not support excluding him from donation. Again, this is considering that blood transfusions, sex with prostitutes (!!), and accidental needle sticks only earn a twelve-month deferral. Do you see a stat that says a gay man is more likely to be HIV+ than an active prostitute? Because that seems to be a relevant comparison. I donate blood to save lives. No blood transfusion is risk-free, but there is also a risk/cost to excluding healthy willing donors of clean blood.
  - rmc 13y ago
    Ireland doesn't allow people who lived in the UK for a while from donating blood.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
cperciva 13y ago
It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spread just as well from almost any kind sexual activity, and many of them -- including AIDS -- spread from any transfer of bodily fluids at all. It's clear that HIV can spread via a wide range of sexual activities, but some are much higher risk than others. At the extremes, receptive anal intercourse has a transmission risk roughly 50 times higher than insertive vaginal intercourse, while the risk of oral sex is believed to be non-zero but too low to be accurately measurable.
- Steko 13y ago
  Wikipedia gives estimates on differences between anal and vaginal transmission are about 8-1 but also admits the numbers could be off by a factor of 10. What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.
  - cperciva 13y ago
    I was going by Health Canada numbers -- either way, there's a difference. What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission. Agreed.
    - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
      It is spread by widespread heterosexual sodomy in Africa in addition to homosexual sodomy.
mynameishere 13y ago
I grew up around the time teens were force-fed sex education regarding AIDS, and the message was loud and clear and consistent: Ordinary sex is a great way to contract HIV. This, in fact, was always a lie--and a coordinated lie--and the scientists knew about it. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-odds-of-getting-aids-from-ordinary-heterosexual-sex http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-od... the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million. (Sorry for the crummy source, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this BS.) The original infections seen by doctors weren't just homosexuals, but those who had sometimes dozens of sexual encounters per week. It was clear from the beginning how this disease was spread--reciprocal anal sex. So why the contrary propaganda? Well, if a disease primarily effects a small, ultra-promiscuous portion of two percent of the general population, research funding tends to lose popular support.
- e12e 13y ago
  The risk of being infected with hiv by someone who doesn't carry the virus is obviously very small. Very few people have hiv, so you probably won't be infected if you have sex. That's how I read that quote, anyway. Are you saying that advocating never having sex with the same partner more than once would have been better advice for reducing the spread of STDs? The unique thing about hiv is the high moortality rate (and cost of treatment). It makes perfect sense to reduce transmission before it becomes a true global epidemic.
- makomk 13y ago
  Obviously. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the scientists wanting to make sure that widespread HIV infection didn't break out within heterosexual communities - which it could easily have done as we've seen in Africa. If heterosexual people had been taught they didn't need to worry about HIV, we could easily have had similar outbreaks here which would rapidly have made the odds a lot worse. (Also, it's impossible to reliably tell if the person you're having sex with is a member of a high-risk group anyway.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

They used to lock you up for adultery, too, right up to the 60s. Disease was a consideration. So it's not just a matter of targeting gays. > AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse Yes it did. This is not remotely controversial. Aids and many other STDs are spread chiefly by buggery. This is why the red cross does not want blood donations from homosexuals.

WA 13y ago
Red cross (in the US) doesn't want blood donations from people who lived in Europe for long enough. Because they have HIV? No. You got something wrong with correlation and causation there in several ways.
- pandaman 13y ago
  http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts... FDA is pretty clear on why they don't want blood donations from men who had sex with other men.
  - auctiontheory 13y ago
    What they say may seem clear, and yet not reflect what they really believe. I give blood every two months. As I recall the questionnaire, you can do almost anything imaginable (sex with prostitutes, accidental needle stick, receiving blood transfusion, etc.) and get a one year deferral. But if you are a man who had oral sex with a man one time twenty years ago, that's a permanent "deferral." No science behind this.
    - pandaman 13y ago
      Did you read their explanation at all? A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. Looks like science, namely statistics and medicine. If 61% of new HIV infections are coming from MSM then it's higher chances than then other criteria you've listed combined (i.e. non-MSM new HIV infections are only 39%, which is much less than 61%).
      - auctiontheory 13y ago
        Exactly what conclusions do you draw from those stats? Yes, I remember from my mathematics degree that 39<61, but what does that have to do with anything? What groups do you think you are comparing? (Especially) If a man has not had sex with another man for a year, and has tested clean during that time, the stats you cite do not support excluding him from donation. Again, this is considering that blood transfusions, sex with prostitutes (!!), and accidental needle sticks only earn a twelve-month deferral. Do you see a stat that says a gay man is more likely to be HIV+ than an active prostitute? Because that seems to be a relevant comparison. I donate blood to save lives. No blood transfusion is risk-free, but there is also a risk/cost to excluding healthy willing donors of clean blood.
- rmc 13y ago
  Ireland doesn't allow people who lived in the UK for a while from donating blood.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

cperciva 13y ago

It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spread just as well from almost any kind sexual activity, and many of them -- including AIDS -- spread from any transfer of bodily fluids at all. It's clear that HIV can spread via a wide range of sexual activities, but some are much higher risk than others. At the extremes, receptive anal intercourse has a transmission risk roughly 50 times higher than insertive vaginal intercourse, while the risk of oral sex is believed to be non-zero but too low to be accurately measurable.

Steko 13y ago
Wikipedia gives estimates on differences between anal and vaginal transmission are about 8-1 but also admits the numbers could be off by a factor of 10. What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.
- cperciva 13y ago
  I was going by Health Canada numbers -- either way, there's a difference. What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission. Agreed.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    It is spread by widespread heterosexual sodomy in Africa in addition to homosexual sodomy.

mynameishere 13y ago

I grew up around the time teens were force-fed sex education regarding AIDS, and the message was loud and clear and consistent: Ordinary sex is a great way to contract HIV. This, in fact, was always a lie--and a coordinated lie--and the scientists knew about it. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-odds-of-getting-aids-from-ordinary-heterosexual-sex http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-od... the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million. (Sorry for the crummy source, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this BS.) The original infections seen by doctors weren't just homosexuals, but those who had sometimes dozens of sexual encounters per week. It was clear from the beginning how this disease was spread--reciprocal anal sex. So why the contrary propaganda? Well, if a disease primarily effects a small, ultra-promiscuous portion of two percent of the general population, research funding tends to lose popular support.

e12e 13y ago
The risk of being infected with hiv by someone who doesn't carry the virus is obviously very small. Very few people have hiv, so you probably won't be infected if you have sex. That's how I read that quote, anyway. Are you saying that advocating never having sex with the same partner more than once would have been better advice for reducing the spread of STDs? The unique thing about hiv is the high moortality rate (and cost of treatment). It makes perfect sense to reduce transmission before it becomes a true global epidemic.
makomk 13y ago
Obviously. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the scientists wanting to make sure that widespread HIV infection didn't break out within heterosexual communities - which it could easily have done as we've seen in Africa. If heterosexual people had been taught they didn't need to worry about HIV, we could easily have had similar outbreaks here which would rapidly have made the odds a lot worse. (Also, it's impossible to reliably tell if the person you're having sex with is a member of a high-risk group anyway.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]