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.

 

GOP lawmaker: Virtually impossible to get AIDS through heterosexual sex

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Same source for my above stats.


25% of all AIDS diagnoses were women, and 85% of the women were heterosexual.




thanks :-)

I was just amused by Mr. Razors omission

because of course - it only matters that straight men are (mostly) safe
edit on 8/24/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)


Unless we are talking about homosexual women having homosexual sex with men, women are not relevant to the OP topic. Just in case you missed it, you can't have homosexual sex between a man and a woman, that is considered heterosexual. The rest of the context of the comment in the OP is all about men, he talks about homosexual men, not homosexual women. Here is the "omission" you speak of.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Women will get HIV from sex with a man, a man getting HIV from a woman is extraordinrily rare.

So what did I omitt?




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Way to dismiss the obvious and blaring fact.

That member said 98% of ALL AIDS diagnoses were either gay men or male drug users.

That is completely inaccurate based on the fact 75% of all AIDS Diagnoses were men.

You responded to someone critiquing his post as inaccurate.

Acknowledge you were wrong to give your support to his premise, and we will go from there. Otherwise you're trolling.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Way to dismiss the obvious and blaring fact.

That member said 98% of ALL AIDS diagnoses were either gay men or male drug users.

That is completely inaccurate based on the fact 75% of all AIDS Diagnoses were men.

You responded to someone critiquing his post as inaccurate.

Acknowledge you were wrong to give your support to his premise, and we will go from there. Otherwise you're trolling.


My belief is he meant 98% of all MALE AIDS diagnoses were gay or drug users. If that is not what he meant he would be wrong. The OP is discussing MALE HIV, so in context of that I do not see that persons post saying what you think it is saying. Every comment must be taken in context to understand it. So as I said earlier, I do not know what women have to do with this thread, including the comment you responded to. Just to toss it out there I believe the odds of a woman getting HIV from unprotected heterosexual intercourse is 1:600. Still extremely low, but not quite the rediculously low odds for a man to get it from a woman.

ETA: Just to make it clear, I support the premise VERY few men get HIV outside of homosexual sex and drug use. The same is not true for women, at least not quite. I also support the premise that if HIV was targeted differently we could have severely limited its' impact. Unfortunately it was marketed as a gay disease, and hey if I'm not gay I don't need to worry. That's wrong. The gay lifestyle is anathema to me, it disgusts me, but I was taught to love everyone. That means whether it's a gay disease or not (which is isn't), the response should have been immediate and effective to control the spread. We failed, and then we continued to fail in an effort to be PC.
edit on 24-8-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


According to the local health department the risk of infection is

Hiv- Homosexual Male top Hiv+ male bottom 0.06%
Hiv - Heterosexual Male Hiv + Female 0.05%

Hiv+ Homosexual Male Top Hiv- Male Bottom 0.80%
Hiv+ Heterosexual Male Hiv- female 0.78%

Monogamous HIV- relationships whether homosexual or heterosexual is virtually non existent.
The lowest risk group from what I understand it is lesbians.



I will say some stuff that both the religious folk and the gay community won't like. This isn't any statistical quote but, from just personal observation. I see religious people all the time saying for gays to marry straight people to be equal. This already happens and personal observation is that most men that I have met that claim to be heterosexual and see men on the side are usually bottom (receiver) and don't use protection. I saw some statistics once on this but, can't find them any more.




edit on 24/8/12 by toochaos4u because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Things like this in the US government have always concerned me. Mainly because THESE PEOPLE ARE RUNNING THE COUNTRY. But then again due to the events that have taken place throughout the world brought by America. Its just sad that people are not waking up. My greatest concerns to the general populace of America



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I think I see what the rep did... I read thru a lot of the comments (not all), and it seems he did his job. (just like the last one that "shoved his foot in his mouth") He created division through his supposed idiot ramblings. Dont believe me? Read thru the replies. I cannot help but wonder who this fool is catering to.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u
 



This already happens and personal observation is that most men that I have met that claim to be heterosexual and see men on the side are usually bottom (receiver) and don't use protection.


What country and what nationality are these men? If you don't mind me asking.

It's an unfortunate thing this "if you're a top you're not gay"....

Sexual orientation isn't defined by the act of sex (or how you define sex with top and bottom). It's about the underlying attraction.

In the scenario you described they are gay or bisexual. Regardless of being a bottom or a top.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Facts are this.

AIDS has been linked to non-human primates.
There was a male flight attendant who is suspected as being the carrier. This was in the late 1970's. This was widely reported at the time. The reports at that time stated he contracted it from apes/monkeys.

Gaëtan Dugas (French: [ɡaetɑ̃ dyˈɡa]; February 20, 1953 – March 30, 1984) was a French Canadian who worked for Air Canada as a flight attendant.[1] Dugas became notorious as the alleged patient zero for AIDS, though he is now more accurately regarded as one of many highly sexually active men who spread HIV widely before the disease was identified.

It is virtually impossible for a male to be infected with HIV by having heterosexual sex with a woman.

Where was the state senator wrong?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by toochaos4u
 



This already happens and personal observation is that most men that I have met that claim to be heterosexual and see men on the side are usually bottom (receiver) and don't use protection.


What country and what nationality are these men? If you don't mind me asking.

It's an unfortunate thing this "if you're a top you're not gay"....

Sexual orientation isn't defined by the act of sex (or how you define sex with top and bottom). It's about the underlying attraction.

In the scenario you described they are gay or bisexual. Regardless of being a bottom or a top.


I was basically saying that from personal observation mostly because I used to sit on gay chat rooms and such and that most of the people that weren't regular chat visitors were men claiming to be heterosexual and wanted privacy but, looking for a man to top them. Married men also still hit on me even though I have been in a relationship for some time. Most of these were married white men from North Carolina or South Carolina.

I've heard this If you're top you are not gay mostly from latinos. Most of the married white guys considered "gay" to be the flaming stereotype and they were married so they were heterosexual (yes weird).

Yes I know what gay is. I am gay.

The statistics are from the local Health Department Greenville, South Carolina.







edit on 24/8/12 by toochaos4u because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 





It's an unfortunate thing this "if you're a top you're not gay"....


This is the mindset of prisoners.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

My belief is he meant 98% of all MALE AIDS diagnoses were gay or drug users. If that is not what he meant he would be wrong.


Even if that is what he meant...

75% of all male AIDS diagnoses were homosexual/bisexual men. So 25% were heterosexual. Do the math... 98% of ALL male AIDS were gay?


The OP is discussing MALE HIV, so in context of that I do not see that persons post saying what you think it is saying.

And I don't understand your point. The context isn't that confusing. He stated facts and I posted similar yet opposing facts.. Context "ALL AIDS diagnoses...". Not much wiggle room.


That's wrong. The gay lifestyle is anathema to me, it disgusts me, but I was taught to love everyone.


What's wrong is believing the issue is homosexuality and not AIDS in of itself! If someone is coming from a position of love they are coming from a position of compassion and if someone comes from a position of compassion they desire addressing the root cause and not uncontrollable matters like sexual orientation.


the response should have been immediate and effective to control the spread. We failed, and then we continued to fail in an effort to be PC.

What should have been the 'response'?
edit on 24-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u
 



I've heard this If you're top you are not gay mostly from latinos. Most of the married white guys considered "gay" to be the flaming stereotype and they were married so they were heterosexual (yes weird).

Yeah I have also mostly heard that from Latin culture! It's a lack of education I suppose... don't know what else to call it. If you're educated on what sexual orientation is you wouldn't have a 'bottom is for the gay guy' understanding. I stand by my belief, those men are gay or bisexual.


Yes I know what gay is. I am gay.

Didn't mean to imply anything other than questioning the 'top doesn't make you gay' aspect in general.

I support LGBT completely myself, please don't infer otherwise



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

edit on 24-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: How the hell did I get a duplicate! Gah! lol



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Just fyi, every single figure you quoted above is FACTUALLY incorrect.

I'll let you do a 5min google search so you can figure that out for yourself instead of reading pseudo-scientific books lie the one of Mr Fumento.




How about you do a google search and let us know what the odds are of a man getting HIV through heterosexual transmission.


Too lazy to educate yourself?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



Unless we are talking about homosexual women having homosexual sex with men, women are not relevant to the OP topic. Just in case you missed it, you can't have homosexual sex between a man and a woman, that is considered heterosexual. The rest of the context of the comment in the OP is all about men, he talks about homosexual men, not homosexual women. Here is the "omission" you speak of.


lol!

the OP's topic is about this statement - made by Senator Stacey Campbell - from the Great State of Tennessee :
Tennessee state Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) falsely claimed on Thursday that it was nearly impossible for someone to contract AIDS through heterosexual contact.

You want to focus on men - and so in some way make the Senator's statement work out - well, go ahead and try

The rest of us can read

And Occams, women are incredibly relevant to the OP - maybe just not as important to Sen. Campfield or all the posters in this thread



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
The politicians comment is especially interesting if you know this fact: Some people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection. Remember, that old conspiracy that HIV was created to do ethnic cleansing?

Sources:
www.wired.com...

There was a recent news special; covering the virtually unknown epidemic of HIV among African Americans:

www.itlmedia.org...

Full PBS video: www.pbs.org...



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Here is another case of an idiot who is holding an office seat that has no clue. It just so happens that he is GOP so the lame stream media jumps on it. If the Liberal office holder said something stupid it would be hushed up and swept under the rug.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Reply to post by sandmannc40
 


I doubt a liberal would say something so stupid and backwards. Only because liberals tend to be educated about social issues thats one of their biggest selling points. If you can find me an example of a liberal saying something so dumb I will glady admit I am wrong. It would not be swept under any carpet faux news would jump on it at once.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 



Some people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection.

That article calls AIDS an infection and a virus. AIDS is a syndrome. HIV is the virus.

Thanks for the links I am going to watch them now



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I'm one of the lucky few that can't get it because of genetics, I thought the syndrome part referred to the wasting effect, not AIDS itself, the information I provided has been known for quite some time, but didn't get released so people don't take the gamble. But honestly, I am a bit ignorant on current research, naming convention etc. as I'm sort of bubbled in since contracting it personally can't happen. Although, I do keep up when the MSM releases something, out of care and concern for friends and family.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join