Are homosexuals more at risk for STI and HIV ?

[JimR-OCDS]

Fenny the Fox

NO HIV present means no AIDS.

Actually it's been around forever. Science merely became capable of detecting HIV anti-bodies, which is all that HIV is.

O

h yes...and this little beauty is the virus particle itself!

This is what they think the AIDS virus looks like based on computer generated images as you see here.

However, they have yet to actually find the virus.

So yes, we have found the virus HIV is the infection, AIDS is a syndrome caused by that infection - not a disease in and of itself.

The virus can remain dormant for many years. And with proper drug treatments, the virus load can be kept down to a level that it is virtually non-existent within the patient's system, thereby they my never actually develop AIDS.

And this flies in the face of science.

Even untreated, many people do not show signs of AIDS development for upwards of ten or fifteen years after testing positive for HIV.

And they never do unless they continue to attack their immune system through various behaviors which destroy it.

HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS:
A Summary of Current Research Findings
(The Arguments are Still Valid Today, Read and Learn) by James DeMeo, PhD *
Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab
Ashland, Oregon, USA

HIV IS NOT THE CAUSE OF AIDS

Jim

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Actually it's been around forever. Science merely became capable of detecting HIV anti-bodies, which is all that HIV is.

This is what they think the AIDS virus looks like based on computer generated images as you see here.

However, they have yet to actually find the virus.

Incorrect. We have found the ACTUAL virus particle.

It was isolated and identified by two separate and independent groups as early as 1983 - named HTLV-III and LAV. Turns out, upon further review, the two found the same particle. It was later renamed HIV in 1986.

And this flies in the face of science.

No, it doesn't. Many viruses have "incubation" periods where they remain dormant or latent in the body and where they do not yet show symptoms (or show such vague and minor symptoms no on gets them checked) after the initial infection.

One case of poliovirus showed a incubation period of around 12 years.
Poliovirus with a twelve year incubation period

There has been a case of rabies having a possible 25 year or so incubation period.
Rabies viral encephalitis with proable 25 year incubation period! Shankar S K, Mahadevan A, Sapico SD, Ghodkirekar M, Pinto R, Madhusudana S N - Ann Indian Acad Neurol

Shingles is another example, a very common one. It is caused by the same virus that causes chickenpox. The person is infected, typically as a child, and the virus causes the illness. The virus then frequently can remain dormant in the patient until a time when the immune system is compromised enough to re-emerge, where it then causes illness once again.

This shows a dormancy period of even decades!


So no, it most certainly does NOT "fly in the face of science".

And they never do unless they continue to attack their immune system through various behaviors which destroy it.

Right...no. Well, yes but no. Sure, certain behavior may cause affect - drug use, over-exhaustion, over-stressing, not seeking medical attention for other infections, etc.

Sex - be that gay or not? Not one of them.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Fenny the Fox

Incorrect. We have found the ACTUAL virus particle.

It's a hypothesis that it's the HIV particle, but they're all over the map on the issue.

HIV - It looks like this!


HIV ? Of course we all now know what it looks like!

It was isolated and identified by two separate and independent groups as early as 1983 - named HTLV-III and LAV. Turns out, upon further review, the two found the same particle. It was later renamed HIV in 1986.

See the article I linked. It's not isolated for they found multiple particles and none look like each other.

No, it doesn't. Many viruses have "incubation" periods where they remain dormant or latent in the body and where they do not yet show symptoms (or show such vague and minor symptoms no on gets them checked) after the initial infection.

That's because they are actual viruses, which HIV is not.

The virus has an incubation period, and either ends up active or dormant, but in either case it can be isolated and looked at.

No so in HIV, In the case of HIV, the claim is that the virus hides, but suddenly appears.


A person who test positive with HIV, merely shows that they have anti-bodies which fought off an infection and this effects the immune system, which has a limited number of assaults which it can endure.

The infection is the result of unsanitary causes, including anal sex, dirty needles or other causes.

Jim

 

[JBMM]

Yes, they are more at risk. Homosexual copulation isn't natural and it's unsanitary.

 

[Genersis]

Yes, they are more at risk. Homosexual copulation isn't natural and it's unsanitary.

Homosexual copulation is natural and can be just as sanitary and have health risks equal to, and sometimes lower than heterosexual copulation.

Specifically, it's anal sex that is the culprit for more health risks than vaginal and oral sex; but it is still natural.

 

[JBMM]

Homosexual copulation is natural and can be just as sanitary and have health risks equal to, and sometimes lower than heterosexual copulation.

Specifically, it's anal sex that is the culprit for more health risks than vaginal and oral sex; but it is still natural.

How is anal sex natural?

 

[Genersis]

How is anal sex natural?

It's naturally occurring in both humans and most animals?

Not really relevant though, the appeal-to-nature fallacy and all...

 

[JBMM]

It's naturally occurring in both humans and most animals?

Not really relevant though, the appeal-to-nature fallacy and all...

Fair enough.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It's naturally occurring in both humans and most animals?

Not really relevant though, the appeal-to-nature fallacy and all...

Anal copulation whether between males or male and female, is not natural and animals don't generally engage in it.

It's also unsanitary.

Doctors give warnings on it.


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Q:

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Is having anal sex bad for your health in any way? Can having too much anal sex lead to stretching or any other unwanted results?[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

This is a complicated question to answer as there are many people for whom anal intercourse is a regular and enjoyed sexual activity. But it is medically risky behavior nevertheless, even if condoms are used as a barrier for STDs.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

The anal sphincter muscle is not anatomically designed to comfortably admit external objects--it is designed to relax and stretch when stimulated internally by rectal fullness from stool. The automatic reflex is for it to contract and tighten when pressure is applied externally. So relaxation of the sphincter for external penetration is learned over time because otherwise it is very uncomfortable, and must only be done with gentle continual pressure, and lots and lots of lubricant. The risks, even with gentle insertion, are laceration of the anal tissue, and rectal mucosa, resulting in pain, bleeding, and difficulty passing stool comfortably.​

Any presence of blood can potentially expose the insertive partner to bloodborne STDs like Hep. B, Hep. C, and HIV. In addition, exposure to stool can result in urethral infections in a male insertive partner.​

The receptive partner is at more risk for contracting STDs if there is trauma (even microscopic) to the anus or rectum due to the potential presence of virus in sperm, if [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] takes place in the rectum. Human papilloma virus also is likely to be spread anally due to this trauma to the anal and rectal tissue, and some of the most difficult persistent HPV infections we see are chronic anal warts, both external and internal to the anal sphincter and they are exceptionally difficult to treat, often requiring surgery to remove.

​

Aside from the traumatic and infectious risks, there is the risk of sphincter tone (tightness) loss over time due to repeated dilation for insertive intercourse. Many receptive partners experience stool incontinence (leaking of stool or poor control) when they have anal sphincter tone decrease. This, needless to say, is very bothersome and uncomfortable and has to be surgically corrected if it becomes chronic.

​

Lastly, there is increased risk of spreading gastrointestinal pathogens through anal contact--whether it is bacterial infections like salmonella or E. Coli, or parasitic infections like Giardia.

​

The bottom line (pun not intended) is that having anal sex is a form of sexual
expression enjoyed by some people, and that involves potential discomfort and risk to both partners.​

[/FONT][/FONT]


http://www.wwu.edu/chw/ask_the_doc/post/1-1000/0599.html​

[/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT]

Jim

 

[Miss Shelby]

Depends. Are we talking about all homosexuals, specifically male homosexuals, specifically female homosexuals? Women who have sex with women have the lowest rates of HIV and STD transmission. Men who have sex with men have the highest.

This I believe.

 

[Elysium]

lol @ the comment about homosexuals being more promiscuous
clearly you havent been paying attn to how promiscuous heteros are
its not like monogamy is a strictly hetero thing
its the heteros who are coming up with the concept of open relationships and polygamy and polyamory
lust is an issue for everyone and heteros get pretty bad when it comes to promiscuity

lets not pretend that just bc someone is gay that means their promiscuous by nature

 

[AMDG]

Of course long before no-fault divorce and "passion pit" dates to drive-in movies, marriage vows for keeps meant for keeps and there were chaperones to make sure the two daters weren't getting intimate. Back then heteros weren't so much like "rutting animals." That's what was probably referred to--not now when even grade-school children are given a "how-to" course and not just a "don't fool around or you could get diseases" course. You are correct, nowadays morals have gone to "the place of eternal punishment" in a handbasket.

 

[MikeK]

Homosexual women are at the least risk.
Heterosexuals are in between.
Homosexual males are at the most risk.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Homosexual women are at the least risk.
Heterosexuals are in between.
Homosexual males are at the most risk.

You left out one category.

Monogamous heterosexuals have zero risk, within the context of sexual behavior being the source for STD's and HIV.

Jim

 

[Michie]

What animals engage in anal sex purposely? This is news to me.

 

[MikeK]

You left out one category.

Monogamous heterosexuals have zero risk, within the context of sexual behavior being the source for STD's and HIV.

Jim

Monogamous homosexuals who avoid anal sex would fall into the same category, right? Similarly, monogamous heterosexuals who practice anal sex would be kicked out of the safe camp?

The CDC has stated that nearly half of heterosexuals under 45 have had anal sex, it isn't what you'd call a homosexual behavior. Unsanitary perhaps, but not remarkably indicative of homosexuality.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Some wild populations of giraffes have been seen to exhibit a high level of such. Sometimes upwards of 75% of pairings were male-male, from necking (a courting behavior) to full on anal intercourse to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
[Sorry if that was a bit graphic in nature, trying to stay as clinical as possible here though.]

 

[Michie]

Some wild populations of giraffes have been seen to exhibit a high level of such. Sometimes upwards of 75% of pairings were male-male, from necking (a courting behavior) to full on anal intercourse to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
[Sorry if that was a bit graphic in nature, trying to stay as clinical as possible here though.]

Never heard of such a thing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Never heard of such a thing.

Because it doesn't happen.

At most, animals in a stressed situation will touch by rubbing up against another of the same sex. We see dogs exhibit such behavior, but it's not normal.

It's sexual disorientation.

We shouldn't equate it in a human perspective.



Jim

 

[Michie]

Because it doesn't happen.

That's what I thought.

At most, animals in a stressed situation will touch by rubbing up against another of the same sex. We see dogs exhibit such behavior, but it's not normal.

Humping rubbing from what I've read is a dominance/marking type of behavior.

It's sexual disorientation.

We shouldn't equate it in a human perspective.

Yes animal behavior cannot be compared to human behavior morally.

I've been an animal lover my whole life & work with animal orgs. Butt sex has never been an issue that has come up.



Jim[/quote]