CDC - 2/3 of Homosexual Men Who Know They Are HIV Positive Won't Wear Condoms

The CDC has released a report showing that 2/3 of homosexual men who know they are HIV positive and/or have AIDS do not use a condom during sexual intercourse. Although we don't hear much about HIV/AIDS anymore and there have been great advances in medicine to manage the symptoms, HIV/AIDS is still on the rise. Considering that 2/3 of those who are positive don't use condoms even after finding out .... I can see why.

Four percent of the population is homosexual and two percent is bi-sexual (latest info) . Homosexual men are 44% more likely to be diagnoses with HIV/AIDS then the heterosexual population.

** I didn't see anything in the report that says that those who are HIV positive and know it only have sex with others who are HIV positive. That isn't discussed (that I could see).

CDC Report - Information

2/3 of Homosexual Men Who Know They Have Aids, Have Sex Without Condom

The report, which was released on the Friday after Thanksgiving, analyzed data gathered in 2011.

According to the report, the percentage of men with HIV/AIDS having sex with other men without a condom had increased from 55 percent in 2005, to 57 percent in 2008, to 62 percent today.

Trying to get HIV-positive gay men to use condoms may prove difficult, as their use has plummeted among homosexuals. Anal sex without condoms increased by 20 percent among homosexual men between 2005 and 2011.

As a result, the rate of AIDS infection among homosexual males has remained an epidemic. Between 2008 and 2010, the number of homosexuals with HIV/AIDS rose by 12 percent, with an especially large increase among young men having sex with other males

Side note - There are those who are out 'chasing the bug' Info Here.. I was going to post some links but some had 'cookies' attached and I didnt' want to link to them.

The CDC would say this after testing how many percent of HIV positve men?

What they should really attempt to convey is that:

From a small percentage, of a number they cannot know, they found a majority.

This would be comparable to saying you are a bad person because of the 3 times your mother called you while you were eating dinner, you ignored 2 of them. Then, going on to say you only answer all of your mother's calls 2/3 of the time.

Agenda agenda, what is they agenda?

reply to post by FlyersFan

Dear FlyersFan,

Good thread, and I'll probably be back to it after I calm down. I had a number of thoughts not approved for public expression by the US Dep't of Good and Proper Thinking, and I don't want to get into trouble.

So, let me focus on some mild, inoffensive comment. You wrote:

Four percent of the population is homosexual and two percent is bi-sexual (latest info) . Homosexual men are 44% more likely to be diagnoses with HIV/AIDS then the heterosexual population.

That may have been a typo.

From your source:

Although MSM are a small proportion of the population, they represent the majority of persons diagnosed with HIV in nearly every U.S. state.

48 states to be exact. It would not be unreasonable to start with the figures that 4% of the population have 60% of the diagnoses. That leaves 96% of the population having 40% of the diagnoses.

That means gays account for 36 TIMES more HIV/AIDS than straights.

Excuse me while I take a quick break and get my thoughts more in line with government issued standards.

With respect,
Charles1952

I remember when they went through the big push scare all of us in grade school with the idea that AIDS was the next big heterosexual epidemic, that it was just waiting to break out into the heterosexual population the same way it was epidemic in the homosexual one.

Somehow it never happened, and this report sort of shows why.

The sexual habits of homosexuals and heterosexuals tend to be quite a bit different. That's not to say there isn't behavior overlap, that there aren't hookup cultures in both groups, that there aren't homosexuals who do commit and tend to avoid being promiscuous.

But in general, if homosexuals followed the same patterns of sexuality that heterosexuals tend to (fewer partners, more monogamy), the HIV/AIDS infection rate would be lower. It's a lot harder to catch something if you are only having sex with one person and that one person is clean like you are.

I would think that homosexuals would especially want to start being more careful, more selective considering that anal sex is so much more risky for passing the disease given that it's nature makes it more likely than some other forms of contact to pass the disease.

All I can say is misery loves company.

This is going to be unpopular......


But maybe this is natures way of telling us that this kind of life style or at least the gay cruiseing culture is not healthy.


Its why as a hetrosexual i dont sleep around like most my age as i think STI are a warning. The same warning i would get through food posioning that eating rotton meats bad.

Maybe as a microbiologist i spend too much time round petri dishes, but i think microbes can be natures way to tell us things or even fix things.


Dont get me wrong people should be free to do what they like, what two concenting adults do is none of my concern. Just dont moan if there are consequences.

(Bitter sarcasm alert)

The following material has been approved for public viewing by the US Department of Good and Proper Thinking. Any edits to, or comments on this material must be pre-approved by requesting permission on Form 17-486(b). The approved material begins now./////

Thanks to the care and concern shown by our benevolent government, GLBTQQs have been provided much information showing how to safely have sexual relations with that person they just met at the Lavender Bar, to whom they are committed and deeply in love.

Some members of the warm, friendly, and creative gay community use their judgment, and decide to engage in unprotected sex. That is perfectly fine. No one has any right to tell anyone else that they are making a bad decision when it comes to their sexual lives or the results thereof.

Since the government has been constant in it's loving regard for those in the GLBTQQ community, and since that sensitive group of people are clearly not at fault. It is time for us to name the real culprits behind this public health disaster.

Yes, the villains are the Republican Party controlled by evil Wall Street Bankers, Zionist International moneymen, and greedy corporations led by Monsanto. They have gotten away with this vile plot by stealth and cunning, vile Capitalist running dogs that they are.

The geneticists (including Monsanto), and Big Pharma have been deliberately holding back a cure for HIV/AIDS, while telling the GLBTQQ community that a cure will arrive in the next few weeks, guaranteed. We even have a video of them telling such a convention that "If you like your sex unprotected, you can keep it. Period." Thereby lulling the poor, frequently victimized GLBTQQ community in to believing that any disease which may occur could be healed easily.

Why do they do this? Simple. Voter Suppression. The old Republican trick. Here, they are trying to kill of the young, the GLBTQQ, the intravenous drug user, and the promiscuous, all people who traditionally vote Democrat. //////////

Material approved by the US Department of Good and Proper Thought ends here. Comments may be submitted to our website located by clicking on our link at healthcare.gov. Thank you, citizen.

Homosexual men are far more likely to get tested for HIV. That's why the numbers look off in some respects.

As for the sex without condoms? I wonder how many are men who are having sex with only HIV infected partners.

In the report, many MSM said they tried to reduce their risk of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections by only having sex with other men who are HIV-positive.

As states above. Did they remove those men from their statistics?

Their study is interesting:

* Neither the respondent nor his sex partner used a condom all the time.

† Percentages might not add to 100 because of rounding; numbers might not add to total because of missing data.

§ Adjusted p-values for the 2005 to 2011 trend; all models include year, age, race/ethnicity, and city and interactions for year × age and year × race/ethnicity. Interactions for year × age and year × race/ethnicity were not statistically significant, suggesting that no overall difference in trend existed between race/ethnicity categories, likewise for age categories. P

The problem with that report ultimately is only looking at one group and not all of the different groups. The question should be, why is there a lack of protection being used during sex?

While they are focused on those with HIV/AIDS positive, they fail to take into account one small factor, it takes 2 to have sex, and what of the person who is not infected having HIV/AIDS, why are they not taking steps to protect themselves? Why is it that the CDC is no holding both sides responsible for their actions?

The reality is that in this day and age, the government should not be attempting to legislate human behavior and the we all should be under the belief of the following:

If you drink and drive, you go to jail. If you do drugs, and get caught you go to jail. If you break the law and run into a cop, you may be shot. If you smoke, you could get cancer. And if you have sex with another person, you have to be under the belief that the other person has ever STD out there, including HIV/AIDS and take the action to protect yourself.

To expect one person to take all of the responsibility for actions of 2 people is just unreasonable and ultimately, that mind set has to change. It is like the very view point on teenage smoking. We hear about it, we see it and every one blames the retailor yet no one wants to hold the child or his family responsible for those actions. The way to change is that they should look at the prevalence of the spread of such across the entire population, not just one group, in correlation to say the rate of unwed mothers, and other STD's.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


But, in this day and age, you have to be dumber than a box of rocks to not know how to avoid both HIV/AIDS and unplanned pregnancy. There has been so much in the way of education on both things.

Anyone who winds up either way - infected or suddenly a little pregnant - pretty much has to be willfully stupid outside a few, very rare and narrowly defined circumstance.

So does this mean that the vast of them are selfish, homicidal maniacs? Doesn't this prove the theory that it is a mental illness and not a choice, or orientation??

reply to post by Fylgje


No.

Theeastcoastwest
Agenda agenda, what is they agenda?

I don't know if the CDC would have an agenda on this. I don't know what it could be.
They aren't exactly a hate filled conservative group or a whacked out far left group ...
I can see them having agendas with big pharma .. but this doesn't effect anything
in that area.

reply to post by charles1952

I pulled the statistics from the websites. I didn't misquote them. If there is a math error,
then that would be with the stats. Not my keyboarding. If you think the stats are different
then please let us know what they would be.

ketsuko
in this day and age, you have to be dumber than a box of rocks to not know how to avoid both HIV/AIDS and unplanned pregnancy.

YEP.

Fylgje
So does this mean that the vast of them are selfish, homicidal maniacs? Doesn't this prove the theory that it is a mental illness and not a choice, or orientation??

NOPE

reply to post by crazyewok


I agree. I feel i am one of VERY few who care. Almost every women I know is dealing with bad Papsmears.

reply to post by ketsuko

I think that more to the point is why are people not using protection, and why is it only being expected on one group or another. The danger of this kind of study is that ultimately it will be used and referenced by those who would point to it and say see it is this group that is causing problems that leads to more legalized discrimination.

sdcigarpig
reply to post by ketsuko

 

I think that more to the point is why are people not using protection, and why is it only being expected on one group or another. The danger of this kind of study is that ultimately it will be used and referenced by those who would point to it and say see it is this group that is causing problems that leads to more legalized discrimination.

Well it's a cultural issue isn't it? The sexual practices of a certain culture lead to it being far more likely to contract this disease than other cultures in this country.

You have the same issue in Africa. The sexual practices of certain cultural groups there also lead to them being far more likely to contract this disease.

The difference between the two is that one group is homosexual and other hetero, but neither is keen on using protection or practicing monogamy apparently. So, the lesson is that having sex with lots of partners and without protection is very likely to get you HIV/AIDS, especially if you are part of certain population groups. Not liking the non-PC nature of that doesn't change the truth of it.

reply to post by ketsuko

Yes, but if you look at Africa, then you would see what I am talking about. People killed or imprisoned for being homosexual. Watching how people are ostracized for being infected with HIV, the records used to justify such.

We have seen this kind of work before, and it starts with the best of intentions, to separate the population, it starts with a simple report, then someone in power needs scapegoat, uses those records and that group to blame the woes of what ever is affecting society on such. Then the idea, lets separate that group from the rest all to protect the rest of society.

That is how it plays out and all done legally, after all perhaps if you look at history, it becomes clear, and even in the USA this has been done multiple times over. So you would advocate legalized segregation or an aparthide in the USA? Would you be so willing to see your own family divided cause one person is in the demographic group that is found to be unacceptable?

reply to post by sdcigarpig


So in your opinion everyone should just ignore a problem cause its non pc?

sdcigarpig
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Yes, but if you look at Africa, then you would see what I am talking about. People killed or imprisoned for being homosexual. Watching how people are ostracized for being infected with HIV, the records used to justify such.

We have seen this kind of work before, and it starts with the best of intentions, to separate the population, it starts with a simple report, then someone in power needs scapegoat, uses those records and that group to blame the woes of what ever is affecting society on such. Then the idea, lets separate that group from the rest all to protect the rest of society.

That is how it plays out and all done legally, after all perhaps if you look at history, it becomes clear, and even in the USA this has been done multiple times over. So you would advocate legalized segregation or an aparthide in the USA? Would you be so willing to see your own family divided cause one person is in the demographic group that is found to be unacceptable?

And I think you are overreacting.

This is what the purpose of education is. We went through our scare phase with HIV/AIDS a long time ago. Remember Ryan White? People now know how you get it, and most people know how to avoid getting it.

For average day to day contact with anyone, I am no more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than I am any other STD from them. So I think you're jumping at shadows and trying to make this into more than it is an unpleasant truth about the sexual behaviors of certain communities.