It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CDC Homosexuals account for 61% of new HIV infections.

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Nikola014
 


The number of homosexual people is the same everywhere, since people are born with their sexual orientation - cca 4% of the population are homosexual. Number of homosexuals is the same in Canada like its in Serbia or Iran. Its the same now like it was 50 years ago.

In USA or Canada they just dont have to hide anymore. Thats the only difference.


edit on 22/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleak
 





I think he's just talking about liberalism in general. Again, "what's next?" Think about it.


As soon as liberals starts to support something I dont agree with I will oppose it. But not before. Being afraid of the improbable far future is not the reason to not do the right thing now.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nikola014
It's funny people.
In the USA and Canada,you have the largest number of gay and lesbian people.
Why is that?


We do not kill people for being gay.
It is amazing what that does to the willingness to come out.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Bleak
 



I think he's just talking about liberalism in general. Again, "what's next?" Think about it.

As soon as liberals starts to support something I dont agree with I will oppose it. But not before. Being afraid of the improbable far future is not the reason to not do the right thing now.

Okay, well said.

You see? It's possible to defend your positions and engage in a debate without coming off sounding like a childish, pushy bastard. lordtyp0 - are you getting this?

But really, I'm a bit perplexed by that particular word you used - "improbable." I mean, are you really sure about that? The normalization of pedophilia isn't improbable or infeasible to me at all; with the way things are going, at this rate, it's practically inevitable. Now admittedly, talk of this is off topic, but certainly not unwarranted.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I don't attribute new infections to a lack of sexual education. It's more a lack of caring.

HIV, AIDS isn't seen as being the threat it once was. Gay/bi porn frequently shows barebacking & some guys feel a bit tame, sexually, if they choose to rubber up for anal. And anal's just about the only thing gay/bi guys rubber up for at all ... even though there's still a possibility of infection via oral too.

No point denying it either. It's a public health problem.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Niall197
 

I think you raise many interesting points.
There are many unique social and psychological factors that play a part in communities highly affected and infected by HIV, which navigates their response to various types of HIV education.
As an outsider to the US I cannot say for sure what the factors are currently in the American gay scenes.
As in SA there may be some people who are sociopaths and deliberately spread HIV to others, while some are "bug chasers" who deliberately seek out infection for whatever reason.
However, by the narrative of most people it is not spread or acquired by choice.
People may use condoms or avoid certain sex acts, but the fact is that people do slip up, and often they go into self-denial about this, perhaps like some militant vegetarians have a steak every couple of years, or militant non-smokers who sneak a cigarette after some special occasion. Most people block that dark side out of their own narrative.
Unfortunately with HIV it only takes one slip-up.
I recall that CDC statistics are very much based on urban gay enclaves, where one will find the visible "gay" culture. Not all gays are based around visibility, and this may ignore gays in the suburbs or rural areas.
Furthermore, not all men who have sex with men identify as gay, and the UN organizations now refer to MSM sex, rather than gay sex. Some of these men may be married and have such deep-seated internalized homophobia that they simply deny having sex with men to themselves, let alone having safe sex.
I think in the US they call it being on the "low down".

Most of the porn I see is actually very consistent regarding condom use for penetration.
Unfortunately "barebacking" does seem to be a new fetish, mainly from people who post their own porn, rather than the major studios. However, there is also straight material like that, so I'm not sure how much of a role it specifically plays in higher gay HIV statistics. But yes, that is a concern.

As for oral sex - that is a major debate. I was one an HIV information site (not exclusively gay, but linked to a major medical insurance) that claimed the CDC was wrong on oral sex being a risk factor, and they linked to several studies showing that oral sex was safe. Once again one would think that oral sex is also common amongst heterosexuals, so the gay risk factors still remain with penetration without protection.

One thing one does note in a lot of documentaries is a spike in HIV when people start using methamphetamine. Especially in gay clubland it is known as a "sex drug" that has led to a whole new wave of infections due to the sexual stamina it provides, and the complete lack of inhibitions. Traditionally HIV was linked to heroin, but this newer drug seems far more insidious. Then one also hears that regular users get a condition called "meth mouth", which may make oral sex unsafe indeed, although few studies seem to have been done on this. During my last visit to gay urban clubland in the city I was quite shocked by some of the things I saw (although straight clubs around the corner weren't much better). It seems that many young gay people who leave home very early to find freedom are not prepared at all for what goes on. It's sad, because just as the established HIV-prevention messages were starting to sink in after we had faced the first wave of the epidemic, along comes this new scourge that brings people back to square one.

In SA we've had huge debates about HIV education, and campaigns that focused on death, but they simply made people feel stigmatized, fatalistic and uncaring, especially in communities that already faced risky jobs in the mines and political violence. The dangers of a disease that might kill them in a decade when their outlook was already bleak didn't concern them too much. Then we had campaigns that showed the wonders of ARV treatments and that normalized living with HIV. This fared better, but could also lead to over-casual attitudes.
And then we still have conspiracy theorists, and religious and alternative medicine gurus who claim they can cure AIDS, or tell people it simply doesn't exist. Their influence is still powerful, and can destroy all the education of one person on HIV, although it is luckily no longer the official response in SA.

Sadly, the debates on HIV statistics on ATS usually threaten to become gay bashing sessions, and gay friendly people thankfully writing back, rather than any discussion of causes, patterns and solutions.
The fact is that everyone is at risk, and the heterosexual statistics are also very high (higher then I thought in the US by the statistics in the OP).
The most dangerous attitude with HIV is to let statistics fool people into thinking it can only happen to someone of a certain group, or the "other".
By 1994 HIV was framed as a "black disease", and that misleading idea didn't work out too well for several white people. When you test HIV positive, statistics and whether you've hit small or big odds simply don't matter.

edit on 23-8-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Just a comment on the side-issue of gay-rights-today will lead to pedophile-rights-tomorrow stepping-stone debate above (which crops up in every gay themed thread).

Since I'm very disgusted by pedophilia, and also how some dodgy organizations like Nambla tried to attach themselves to gay marches on the basis of the equal rights concerning sexual consent (although they were booted out when their motives became apparent), I often consider the basis on how to keep the practice illegal forever.

There is no age of consent in religion, and for most of religious history child-brides were common. In fact "childhood" did not exist as a modern construct, and what we would consider children today were sent to war, driven into mines or sold and married away as sex-slaves. In fact, in parts of the world this is still the norm (I could write about child-brides in South African traditional culture, but that would be a major tangent).

Religious conservative forces today have no real basis for protecting children, and much child-abuse still occurs in religious settings. The paradigm they use around pedophilia is a modern construct.
This construct divides adults and children along a certain age.
I thinks it's important that we keep this binary that allows the freedom of sexual choice for all adults, and allows children to develop free from adult sexual interference.
The lines should be clear for everyone, and hence it is crucial to have sexual equality between adults regardless of gender identity, to ultimately protect children.
Pedophiles should never be able to hide in wider, needlessly criminalized groups, or attach themselves to any adult sexual group on the basis of unfair persecution.
To say that by creating a criminalized minority of gays, children will be protected from pedophiles is just ridiculous.
There are many societies today where homophobia and child/adult sex is institutionalized (in fact, the two seem to be linked).

One could also well turn the stepping-stone argument around.
If ultra-conservatives get their way, and homosexuality is criminalized and persecuted on the basis of religion, then who says they won't say the Bible allows child-brides and sexual slavery, and it was common in "the good old days"?
Who says they won't interfere with the sexual lives of all adults soon?
Maybe they will prescribe the sexual positions of married couples, and even the days they can and can't have sex (as was done by the churches for centuries)?
Who says they won't ban porn and masturbation, and eventually divorce and adultery or miscegenation (as we had in SA in my youth)?
What will they attack after they are done with the gays?
Equality in adult sexuality is therefore unconditional, and the only way to divide the adult from the child in sexual matters.

It's in any case strange that a discussion on US HIV statistics has a detour on pedophilia, but I find it highly relevant to explain the sluggish response to HIV/AIDS in so many countries and communities, and how a simple virus can become a hot potato that is circumvented and denied with the strongest possible stigmas attached to sexuality.
At least it's not the gays who will be bringing the poor HIV-positive children into the world.
There are drugs now to prevent a lot of mother-to-child transmissions, but what a struggle it has been to get them.
As usual, gay men were in the front-line of the treatment activism.
And it still happens in SA every day.
People who claim to care about children should get more involved.

edit on 23-8-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Nikola014
It's funny people.
In the USA and Canada,you have the largest number of gay and lesbian people.
Why is that?


We do not kill people for being gay.
It is amazing what that does to the willingness to come out.


Are you saying we do?

This your imaginary "democracy" will destroy you people.

I blame parents and society.Parents should take care of theirs children,but they don't.That's why you have the largest LGBT population in USA.
It's a shame people.
edit on 23-8-2011 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2011 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2011 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Nikola014
 





Are you saying we do?


Serbia is one of the least tolerant countries in Europe when it comes to homosexuality. There are elements in your society that would support killing or harrasing homosexuals.

www.huliq.com...




I blame parents and society.Parents should take care of theirs children,but they don't.That's why you have the largest LGBT population in USA.


If you think so. The reality is that there is as much homosexuals in Serbia as in the US, they just dont come out.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Nikola014
 





Are you saying we do?


Serbia is one of the least tolerant countries in Europe when it comes to homosexuality. There are elements in your society that would support killing or harrasing homosexuals.

www.huliq.com...




I blame parents and society.Parents should take care of theirs children,but they don't.That's why you have the largest LGBT population in USA.


If you think so. The reality is that there is as much homosexuals in Serbia as in the US, they just dont come out.


Don't talk about something if you don't know the whole story.
People doesn't want homosexuals on the streets.They don't mind of they do what ever they want in their house.But you know,children watch a television.
But no,they wanted to have a "Gay pride" so "hooligans" stood up against this "parade of shame",and the rest is history...



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
fact remains 1 in 4 American gays are HIV+.

(actual probably even higher than above statistic)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

This is indeed somewhat of a tangent that we're going on here, but the whole "homo-pedo" thing demands a bit more scrutiny. It's true that I'm not completely comfortable with homosexuality, but it's at least a hundred times more benign than pedophilia. Really, there's just no comparison. And I could never comprehend how certain cultures (from what I hear) seem to have a downright venomous hatred of gays, all the while freely engaging in acts of child molestation. The hypocrisy is just too much to handle.


reply to post by Maslo
 

I'm inclined to make it clear that the talk of "childish, pushy bastards" was not actually directed at you.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SigilOfLux
 


2%?


October 8, 2002
What Percentage of the Population Is Gay?
by Jennifer Robison, Contributing Editor

In his 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred Kinsey shocked the world by announcing that 10% of the male population is gay. A 1993 Janus Report estimated that nine percent of men and five percent of women had more than "occasional" homosexual relationships. The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?

It may be that no one will ever know for sure. To some people, homosexuality is a matter of perception and definition. Furthermore, many people have trouble admitting their homosexuality to themselves, much less to a researcher. But when Gallup asked Americans for their best estimate of the American gay and lesbian population, the results made all the figures mentioned above look conservative.


From Gallup

Also, the CDC report was focusing on young, Black gay men, not all gay men. I think the fact that they are Black (with all the trappings of poverty and low education and imprisonment - they don't give you condoms in prison) has more to do with the increase, than not. Also, it stated that 50,000 new cases per year, so even if 2% of the population were gay, and we figure roughly 300,000,000 people in the US, and of the 50,000 new cases, 61% are gay males (so, 30,000 - roughly), then we are looking at 30,000 new gay male cases out of an estimated gay male population of 3 million gay men. ...1% of the gay male population (though that's each year, but you have to figure new gay males are born every day...so...)

Numbers can be misleading.
edit on 23-8-2011 by Sphota because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2011 by Sphota because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Wild guess here. Because it is a disease that primarily spread among homosexuals? That's why it used to be called the gay cancer. The CDC should be working on how the other 39% is being spread. Doing a study to find out homosexuals are the ones spreading aids among themselves is a waste of money.


Bisexuality. That is why we have to pay attention to the "gay cancer", and because even though homosexuality from a heterosexual perspective is [snip] scik/disgusting, they are still human beings/human animals and it would be far more depraved to do nothing.
edit on 24/8/11 by masqua because: Edited censor circumvention



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
NOTE

The topic is CDC Homosexuals account for 61% of new HIV infections, Not what was happening 50 years ago nor what you think of each other as ATS members.

Please stay on topic.


sorry to quote a mod (not really but ya kno..) but its sad to see the thread to be derailing off again (are some people trying to get it closed?)

anyways the topic states that 11% more homosexuals are involved in HIV infection than heteros,

and to reiterate, numerous sources have reported that 1 in 4 (25%) of homosexuals have HIV/AIDS.

to me, the 61% homosexual rate for HIV infection together with the 1 in 4 indicates at least a quarter of homosexuals will end up with HIV in their lifetimes despite all the pride, parades, awareness, openness, and other sexuality support groups. (which brings me to question what people are really supporting when they support whatever sexuality in contect of social change, yada yada, back to the topic though, the homosexual community gets at best, 75/100 in terms of responsible healthcare - thats 'poor' in my book! cuz it means in any group of homosexuals friends, 25% are possibly continuously spreading around their HIV - what kind of pride and friendship or 'love' is that???)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Heteros have anal sex too.

Pretty pathetic to use this subject for gay bashing.


Except male homosexuals (which is really what the OP is talking about) all have a Tab A to insert into Slot B. Add in their generally promiscuous lifestyle and there's your HIV epidemic. I'm sorry reality offends you. Ever think maybe the problem is you?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Observer99
Except male homosexuals (which is really what the OP is talking about) all have a Tab A to insert into Slot B. Add in their generally promiscuous lifestyle and there's your HIV epidemic. I'm sorry reality offends you. Ever think maybe the problem is you?


How is that statement any different when it comes to heterosexual people? Heterosexuals don't have a "part A" that goes into a "part B" (or a "part C" for that matter)? You think all heterosexual people are church-going folks that never take part in orgies, join swingers clubs, cheat on their spouses or have one-night stands? You think that the entire prostitution industry is just aimed at homosexual people?

IMO Heterosexual people are in the minority when it comes to HIV infections because they've got twice the reason to wear protection. Unwanted pregnancies and STDs. I'm willing to bet that if the issue of birth control wasn't around, then those HIV infection numbers would differ dramatically...


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 24-8-2011 by Gemwolf because: SP



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 


World-wide in sheer numbers-Heterosexuals are the majority when it comes to HIV infections.
It is seen as a "Gay disease" in the U.S. just because that was the face of it when the disease first hit. At that time Reagan out right refused to devote any resources to halt or impede in anyway-the spread of the disease and in fact actively inhibited research funds and similar.

People laugh when Islam is called the religion of Peace. Many others laugh when Christianity is called the religion of love. Its all very Orewellian.

That being said: A portion of the European bloodline is immune to the virus AND they recently came up with a treatment that could render viruses in general a threat of the past.

It was a disease that was spread by arrogance in many populations and allowed to continue spreading because of hate. All the posturing in the world wont change those facts.

Soon though it will no longer be a disease that even gives people the sniffles.

What will the ignorant use to demonize then?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 




AND they recently came up with a treatment that could render viruses in general a threat of the past.


That treatment is unfortunately ineffective against retroviruses such as HIV.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Gemwolf
 


World-wide in sheer numbers-Heterosexuals are the majority when it comes to HIV infections


so the title of this thread is false? (reference pls)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join