NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious, why is this treated as such a shocking statistic? Am I missing something? I really don't understand it.

It's treated as shocking because the common notion is that the homos are generally the carriers, while that hasn't been a very accurate generalization since the late '80s.

Eh with society's liberal view on sex, I'm not suprised.

Thanks God, Jesus, Mary, and the Saints that I am a virgin and STD free.

It's treated as shocking because the common notion is that the homos are generally the carriers, while that hasn't been a very accurate generalization since the late '80s.But I mean, still. People are running around with this statistic and I am supposed to be shocked and awed?

But I mean, still. People are running around with this statistic and I am supposed to be shocked and awed?
well, clearly if you the the AIDS, then you must have had the gay first:rolleyes:

honestly, it is because people are stupid. people assume that whites can't get that disease and that its only people in Africa and those poor people and the gays that get it. In other words, people are trapped in the 80's. They don't seem to understand that AIDS doesn't care what your orientation or color or SES is. Actually, I think AIDS may have a better idea of how to treat people than humans. Aside from that whole "slow painful death" thing.

although...

But I mean, still. People are running around with this statistic and I am supposed to be shocked and awed?

If they're expecting you to be shocked, they're probably assuming you've been in a cave since the 1980's.. that's my guess.

As women make up more then half of most populations it is not surprising that they have 50% of the HIV-1 cases...

News flash: Roughly 50% of a nations milk consumption is done by women.

Eh with society's liberal view on sex, I'm not suprised.

Thanks God, Jesus, Mary, and the Saints that I am a virgin and STD free.

Hey, which side of Concord are you on? I'm in Charlotte, but right on the border with Concord :-)

actually i would expect the rate in women to be higher, because i'd think the risk for women to infect teirselves, when having sex with infectious men is much higher than vice versa, because, usually, the men will leave behind a bodyfluid in a warm and wet spot inside the women, where the viruses contained in the fluid can survive for some time and have ample time to move into the womens blood. also in the place where the sexual contact happens, the skin the women has there (actually i think it is not really "skin" but a mucous membrane) would be more permeable, as it lies protected inside her body. the part the man makes sexual contact with lies outside his body and therefore the skin on it would be less permeable to things like virusses.

actually i would expect the rate in women to be higher, because i'd think the risk for women to infect teirselves, when having sex with infectious men is much higher than vice versa, because, usually, the men will leave behind a bodyfluid in a warm and wet spot inside the women, where the viruses contained in the fluid can survive for some time and have ample time to move into the womens blood. also in the place where the sexual contact happens, the skin the women has there (actually i think it is not really "skin" but a mucous membrane) would be more permeable, as it lies protected inside her body. the part the man makes sexual contact with lies outside his body and therefore the skin on it would be less permeable to things like virusses.
actually, both the vagina and penis are mucous membranes.

Vaginal fluids (which are released before and during intercourse) contain the HIV virus, as does male pre-ejaculate and semen. Therefore, the mix of fluids from the start to finish of intercourse all contain HIV. The risk of contraction is equal for both sexes. It also takes nearly no time for either the penis or vagina to absorb liquids...In other words, if you begin intercourse without a condom and the male is infected, but pull out before orgasm, it is almost assured that the woman will contract HIV. A single HIV virus is enough to cause full blown HIV.

There is, however, hope. If you begin AZT treatment within 36 hours, there is a decent chance you won't develop HIV or AIDS. The sooner you are treated, the better your chances.

In other words, wrap it up.

EDIT: in this case, "contract" means to have an HIV virus present in the system, whereas "infect" means being HIV positive. Should have made that clear from the start...my bad.

actually i would expect the rate in women to be higher, because i'd think the risk for women to infect teirselves, when having sex with infectious men is much higher than vice versa...
And I would assume that the rate in men could be higher because around here most of the HIV cases are linked to prostitution. One woman can infect such a large number of men and some idiots even pay extra if they don't have to wear a condom.

But then those men go back home and have sex with their wives and...nice present from abroad! and the rates equalize again.

You can transmit type 1 herpes by kissing.

You can transmit type 1 herpes by kissing.
you can transmit any kind of herpes by kissing if there is a sore on the spot you are kissing. And yes, we all know Herpes Simplex is a cold sore.

Oddly, Oral herpes (Simplex) can occur on genitals, and genital herpes can occur orally. It just tends to be a bit rare.

screw women, too complex, Rosie palm and her 5 sisters will always be there for me.

The risk of infection is equal for both sexes. It also takes nearly no time for either the penis or vagina to absorb liquids...In other words, if you begin intercourse without a condom and the male is infected, but pull out before orgasm, it is almost assured that the woman will contract HIV. A single HIV virus is enough to cause full blown HIV.you are wrong. first even if you have completely unprotected sex with an infectious partner, the chance of infection is relatively small. and second, searching the web shows, that wwomen indeed have twice the chance of infecting themselves as men:

# Vaginal intercourse - infected men to uninfected women: One study put the risk at about 1 chance in 100,000 unprotected sexual encounters but again, the one might be the first contact you have.

# Vaginal intercourse - infected women to uninfected men: Studies seem to confirm that the risk is quite low, about 1 in 200,000 but of course the risk is not zero.

from http://aids.about.com/od/hivaidsstats/f/infectionrisk.htm

you are wrong. first even if you have completely unprotected sex with an infectious partner, the chance of infection is relatively small. and second, searching the web shows, that wwomen indeed have twice the chance of infecting themselves as men...
Interesting figures. I knew that the chance of infection is quite small but THAT small. Odd.

you are wrong. first even if you have completely unprotected sex with an infectious partner, the chance of infection is relatively small. and second, searching the web shows, that wwomen indeed have twice the chance of infecting themselves as men:

# Vaginal intercourse - infected men to uninfected women: One study put the risk at about 1 chance in 100,000 unprotected sexual encounters but again, the one might be the first contact you have.

# Vaginal intercourse - infected women to uninfected men: Studies seem to confirm that the risk is quite low, about 1 in 200,000 but of course the risk is not zero.

from http://aids.about.com/od/hivaidsstats/f/infectionrisk.htm

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are reading what I said wrong. Contraction and infection, in the way that I am using them, are two different things (I'll go back and add that in a second...just let me explain a bit here).

The risk of contraction is equal. As I said, contraction is very very easy, and occurs equally. Contraction involves as simple as a single HIV virus being passed. Infection implies that the HIV virus takes hold.
It's commonly mistaken, but the human immune system can handle small numbers of HIV virus.

In that way, your original post was correct...women are more likely to develope the HIV infection. However, both sexes are equally likely to contract HIV.

sorry if it seemed like my whole post was correcting yours...that was bad formatting on my part. The part that I ment to correct was that the penis is also mucous membrane, not just the vagina. And i did use the wrong word in one spot...sorry about that.

you are wrong. first even if you have completely unprotected sex with an infectious partner, the chance of infection is relatively small. and second, searching the web shows, that wwomen indeed have twice the chance of infecting themselves as men:

# Vaginal intercourse - infected men to uninfected women: One study put the risk at about 1 chance in 100,000 unprotected sexual encounters but again, the one might be the first contact you have.

# Vaginal intercourse - infected women to uninfected men: Studies seem to confirm that the risk is quite low, about 1 in 200,000 but of course the risk is not zero.

from http://aids.about.com/od/hivaidsstats/f/infectionrisk.htm
I think the numbers are 1 in 100 and 1 in 200, respectively. At least that's what I knew.

I'm curious, why is this treated as such a shocking statistic? Am I missing something? I really don't understand it.

Not in America they don't, In 2003, the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS in the United States was 43,171. Adult and adolescent AIDS cases totaled 43,112 with 31,614 cases in males and 11,498 cases in females. The cumulative estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS through 2003 in the United States is 929,985. Adult and adolescent AIDS cases total 920,566 with 749,887 cases in males and 170,679 cases in females.

However, you didn't say that, are you talking about European or World statistics or African statistics?

I think the numbers are 1 in 100 and 1 in 200, respectively. At least that's what I knew.
That sounds much more likely to me. I think that if it would be 1 in 200 000 HIV would be much rarer than it is.

Hey, which side of Concord are you on? I'm in Charlotte, but right on the border with Concord :-)

I'm near downtown Concord. Off of Highway 3.