Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You just have to be willing to lie.

Also, sleeping with a straight guy (though seriously, what?) does not ensure that you are HIV negative. There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV.

[lemon10]

You just have to be willing to lie.

Also, sleeping with a straight guy (though seriously, what?) does not ensure that you are HIV negative. There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV.

CDC estimates that MSM (Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men) account for just 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in 2009. MSM accounted for 49% of people living with HIV infection in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data are available).

You are technically right, but (according to these statistics), gay men are so much more likley to have HIV that they are almost equal to the rest of the population combined, and are will probably reach 50% total soon. This is only in the US though, and I am not quite sure how different it is in the rest of the world (although I imagine its quite different in Africa).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If I recall correctly, in the US the major HIV transmission vector is blood-to-blood contamination through sharing needles and the like, but that in Africa it is as an STD.

[Urist Imiknorris]

There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV.

There are also more straight people than gay people.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV.

There are also more straight people than gay people.

Not the point.

[lemon10]

There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV.

There are also more straight people than gay people.

Not the point.

The point is that your argument is terrible and fallacious.
Gays males are FAR more likely to have HIV then everyone else, that is a fact.
According to a 2008 study (US only, so obviously completely wrong outside of the US), a whopping 19% of men who had sex with men (which is significant I suppose in that not all gay men are sexually active, and those that have a active sex life are probably more likley to engage in high risk behaviors that could also spread STD's), had HIV. That's a huge percentage, and its only less then totals in absolute terms because there are 50 times as many non-gay males as there are gay males, and even then the total is about tied.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So, just so I've got this straight, my argument that Euld sleeping with a straight guy is not a safeguard against HIV is terrible and fallacious because gay men are more likely to have HIV than any other demographic. Yeah, no.

[lemon10]

You didn't say that gay men aren't more likely to have HIV, which if you had said would have been merely completely wrong.
You said that there were less total gay people with HIV then total straight people with HIV, which is completely irrelevant to everything, and trying to work it into a argument makes the argument bad.

Its like me going:
A) There are more smart straight men then smart gay men.
B) Therefore straight men are smarter.

While part A is true, using it to prove/argue pretty much anything is nonsensical.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You said that there were less total gay people with HIV then total straight people with HIV, which is completely irrelevant to everything, and trying to work it into a argument makes the argument bad.

It isn't an argument! It's pointing out that sleeping with a straight guy is still a HIV risk! Gah!

[lemon10]

You said that there were less total gay people with HIV then total straight people with HIV, which is completely irrelevant to everything, and trying to work it into a argument makes the argument bad.

It isn't an argument! It's pointing out that sleeping with a straight guy is still a HIV risk! Gah!

Yeah, that's totally fine and correct, but it seemed like you saying "There are more straight people with HIV than gay people with HIV", was intended to be about more then just euld.
It is also my fault a bit because I was partially combining part of another thread (also talking about HIV and gay men) in my head accidentally, so I kind of thought that you were partially talking about something else.
Sorry for jumping on you and being completely incorrect about what you were trying to say. 

[Euld]

fake edit: got ninja'd by you guys sorting it all out yourselves    Thanks for keeping it calm guys, I don't like starting ragey arguments.  I'll just post what I was going to say anyway:

Woah woah slow down guys, we're not having a ragey argument about this.  We're actually dealing with facts and statistics here, so there shouldn't be anything to argue or be confused by.

My sexual encounter was over a year ago, he and I were very drunk, so that's how that happened.  I had the blood test done last week, and it came back HIV negative.  I'm still in contact with said friend, and he's had no symptoms.  Quick note: I'm not willing to lie about pretty much anything anymore.  I had enough of lying about my sexuality, I'm not going to hide behind more lies.  I just can't do it.

So let me try to sort this out: there are more straight men than gay men.  There are also statistically more HIV positive straight men than HIV positive gay men.  But percentage-wise, gay men are more likely to be HIV positive in the US?

real edit: let me ask a different question.  So is the FDA justified in refusing non-virgin gay men from giving blood?

[penguinofhonor]

I'd say they aren't. All blood is tested no matter what.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

More importantly, when the ban was first instituted there was no reliable method to test if blood was HIV-infected. Now we have a simple and reliable method. The rationale behind the ban's imposition is no longer vaild, and thus neither is the ban.

[Sirus]

This may be out-of-date information, but I was under the impression that HIV has a latency period, during which time it is very difficult to detect. If that's true, someone giving blood shortly after contracting the disease could pass it on to someone else.

Now, this isn't a reason to ban gays. I'd say that as long as the parties involved aren't sleeping with a different stranger every night, anyone should be allowed to donate blood. The questionnaire should really be asking about the number of different partners in a certain time frame, say one year. If you're a total slut (man or woman), perhaps you should make sure you haven't caught anything before donating.

[Dutchling]

This may be out-of-date information, but I was under the impression that HIV has a latency period, during which time it is very difficult to detect. If that's true, someone giving blood shortly after contracting the disease could pass it on to someone else.

That is the reason sexually active gay men aren't allowed to donate blood in the Netherlands either. Well, weren't allowed to. The parliament recently decided that it should become legal, mainly because in nations were queer blood is legal (Sweden, Italy, Spain) there are no increases of risks regarding blood donations.