[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Um, anyone who treats people for AIDS worth his or her salt would first answer the question, “How did HIV get into humans?” long before wondering about the gay population.
No sport, you would look at the first human and determine the mode of transition first. That is where you would get into the lifestyle thing. The “gay” thing has nothing to do with it. It would be the mode of transmission; vector, direct contact with blood, etc…
Your objection is baseless.
Anal sex is only a catalyst in the spread of communicable diseases due to the highly-absorptive environment of the rectum–it doesn’t necessarily correlate to primary infection and any scientist with the merest understanding of human physiology would know that. Infection could have been concurrent with heterosexual populations, but because of the nature of anal sex, rapid transmission and proliferation of the virus was made possible.
Well, first, because of the colon’s absorption capabilities is the reason for it being a primary route of infection. Why do you think a number of medications are administered by suppository? Duh! Time to open your eye my friend.
Next, it could be true that a concurrent exposure occurred in heteros and is just spread exponentially slower because it is not spread through vaginal sex. That “could” be true if we didn’t already have documented cases of this occurring, which we do. The primary source of AIDS in woman (except for blood transfusions) is through vaginal sex with a gay man.
So although this is not consistent with current research on the issue, I will say that it could occur because much is still not known about this virus.
As far as origins are concerned, original transmission from a monkey (if that is believed to be the original case of infection) could have easily come from saliva/blood mixing during a bite or any other transfer of bodily fluids between species, irregardless of the sexual orientation of both parties involved, monkey or human. Inter-species infection through anal sex is an incredibly biased, if not incredibly unlikely and offensive way of looking at things.
I don’t recall saying that it came from gay men having sex with monkeys. Perhaps that is your own idea?
Also, since when is the CDC the ultimate authority on BEHAVIOUR in homosexuals? Are you saying that the CDC is the ultimate authority on the behaviour of heterosexuals as well? This is such shallow mirepresentation that I don’t even feel the need to explain.
Dude, the CDC is a well respected authority on disease. You trying to slam them just shows your pathetic lack of information and understanding on the issue.
I guess any source, no matter how credible, would be bogus to you if you didn’t agree with the outcome. Sad![/quote]
Either you didn’t understand what I was trying to say, or you took what I was saying too personally. I’ll try to reconcile the differences:
I think, in the first case about transmission, we’re both agreeing that it’s about method of initial transmission and not sexuality. Even before you use the word “lifestyle”, you admittedly use the terms “first human” and “mode of transmission”. Lifestyle is secondary.
Perhaps my use of the term “long-before” was misleading, but my point is that it is definitively wrong when concerning the case of primary infection to be wondering “why gays?” until we’ve answered “why humans?”.
As of right now, we do not know who what that first case was, and based on the fact that there is a large majority of heterosexuals running around this planet, it doesn’t make any sense to pin the INITIAL CASE (in all humans to have ever existed) on homosexuality more than any other demographic at this point. At any rate, I think we have both agreed, each in our own way.
In my opinion, the colon being the primary route of infection is far less likely than through blood to blood contact via cut, bite, open wound when we’re talking about INTERSPECIES transmission. However, once the HIV virus is introduced into humans, anal sex (as far as disease transmission is concerned) is a much more efficient way of spreading the virus.
It is very possible that the HIV virus first existed in hetero populations only, almost unnoticeable due to the slower rate of transmission and it being undiagnosed for so long–perhaps being passed from mother to child for several generations–but when (as probabilities might eventually dictate) it is finally passed on to someone who practiced a higher-risk lifestyle (drug user sharing needles, hetero or homosexual practitioner of anal sex) the rate of that transmission would be greatly increased and the disease would become more prevalent.
Naturally, members of those same high-risk lifestyle demographics would be at much higher risk for both contracting and spreading the disease and so it makes sense that it would initially appear as a gay disease (minorities are rather visible/easily identifiable by nature). But labelling it a disease only or almost exclusively experienced by homosexuals is grossly negligent of medical fact.
I never said that I thought it came from monkeys or any other specific vector–that was a prior example brought up in someone else’s post and also discussed by you. The point is, it doesn’t matter what the species of origination was as much as it matters that it’s in humans now.
Whether you said it or not, Lorisco, there currently is no scientific basis for believing that INITIAL INFECTION came via the rectum versus any other biological barrier. I think that it wouldn’t if only based on my astute observation that nothing that doesn’t first pass through my digestive tract (something that HIV cannot survive) ever touches my rectum (which is INSIDE of me and therefore more difficult to reach, thank God!) and that I would be more prone to infection through some open cut or other external avenue of transmission.
Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but chances are, if you get close enough to a live, wild animal such as a monkey (who are often much stronger physically than humans) that you aren’t going to be having anal sex with it, and that if you even tried, it would probably get pissed off that you’re doing something as aggressive as directly approaching it and take a swipe at you or try to gnash you with it’s teeth.
Also… ANAL SEX DOES NOT INDICATE HOMOSEXUALITY. I don’t think it would be tough finding many red-blooded straight dudes who’d give their right testicle for a chance to pop Britney in every available orifice… so even if we did find out that primary transmission was from anal sex, it still doesn’t say anything about the gay population, so who cares about lifestyle IN THE CASE OF PRIMARY INFECTION?
Yes… it matters greatly in tracking subsequent cases, but not in the primary case. And based on what I’ve stated previously, there’s more than 10 to 1 odds that it was a heterosexual in the first case.
Lorisco, you need to pay attention to what I’m saying–yes, primary transmission via the rectum is a very distinct possibility, duh!, but for people to single that out as the LONE possibility, or even the MOST LIKELY possibility in the case of INITIAL INFECTION (here, “initial infection” means the first case of any human being anywhere in the world being infected with the HIV virus ever) is simply heresay and unproveable at this point.
If you’re talking about initial infection on a case-by-case basis, yes, then it makes perfect sense to ask questions about their lifestyle, and, yes, I don’t think that anyone would disagree that people who practice anal sex are at a much higher risk for both contracting and spreading the HIV virus.
But my understanding is that this argument is about WHERE HIV INITIALLY CAME FROM, with the insinuation being that gays were somehow being punished or singled-out by God. AND THIS IS INDEED A BASELESS AND HATEFUL THING TO SAY, JUST AS MUCH AS IT IS BASELESS AND HATEFUL TO SAY THAT THE PEOPLE OF NEW ORLEANS WERE BEING PUNISHED BY GOD WITH THE FLOOD, OR THAT AFRICANS ARE BEING PUNISHED BY GOD WITH SICKLE-CELLED ANEMIA.
In fact, even if someone were to say that God was punishing people in those three cases, I would argue that God did not punish any of them: God made human bodies such that anal sex to be a pleasureable experience for some (in some men, stimulation of the prostate via the rectum can be a very pleasureable and in some women, nerve endings in the vagina can also be stimulated via the rectum–God certainly didn’t make it painful in and of itself); sickle-celled anemia was a biological way of counteracting malaria which is much more prevalent in areas Africa than elsewhere; and the flood… well, at least now there is a time to rebuild, and a time to address the tragically huge disparity between the impoverished and the rich, is there not? Perhaps good can come out of New Orleans–the opportunity now presents itself.
God works in mysterious ways, so to make presumptions that one act or another was intended for just one purpose or another is just symptomatic of the noble, yet ever-failing attempt of us mortals to try and make sense of this strange world we share… and we must always be ready to question our attempts.
Finally, (gasp) I’m not slamming the CDC–I’m saying that it’s false to conclude that the CDC is the expert about BEHAVIOUR of homosexuals. Disease management is not about psychology or sociology, although there may be a correlation. Therefore it is a misrepresentation to use the term BEHAVIOUR. I capped the word so you notice the distinction.
In that respect, I don’t think I’m saying anything too profound, but I felt that the original post was misleading in how it was worded. If you had gone further and qualified the behaviour with something “how homosexual behaviour affects the transmission of STDs” then I wouldn’t have had any problems.
The point I make might be academic, but it is easy for others to then make wrong assumptions and then correlate homosexuality solely with anal sex and HIV transmission, which is a misrepresentation–for instance, do you think lesbians practice anal sex much more than heterosexuals do? I doubt it. I know what a clitoris is. I’m sure that most lesbians do too.
The CDC is not a final authority–it is just another resource that can be abused and misused by anyone such as yourself or I. I do not often question the sources themselves… but I do watch carefully for the inferences that other make based on those sources because they are often narrow and prejudiced.
Statistics are difficult to read and qualify. It may seem easy to look at two numbers and draw a conclusion, but there is still much careful interpretation to be done–scientists and experts in the field are always challenging the veracity and relevance of even the most basic sets of results, so why can’t we?
Once again, I don’t challenge the CDC… I challenge the label that you have applied to CDC’s findings.
I hope that clarifies my position. I can find nothing wrong in the logic I have presented here, but I present it so that others may help me to refine it, just as I may challenge others to refine their positions.
Thank you.
BTW: I’m not a “sport”, Lorisco. And my eyes are open, as well as my mind.
Also, your sentence, “The primary source of AIDS in woman (except for blood transfusions) is through vaginal sex with a gay man,” is completely ridiculous. If you don’t understand why, try opening your eyes and re-read it. Perhaps you meant to say “bisexual”, or “bi-curious”? I can’t believe that there are so many gay men out there subjecting themselves to something that defies the definition of their sexuality. This conclusion, as you have framed it here, is highly suspect at best.
Treat me with some respect, okay? Believe it or not, I’m not trying to make any ad hominem attacks on you, Lorisco. I tried to not be condescending, but I find that many of your responses in return were condescending and this troubles me. I would like to continue to discuss this topic, but if people cannot be mature enough to refrain from using tones of derision and spite, then there really isn’t much point in continuing.
I apologize if you read that in my post, but my challenge was in pointing out what I thought had been obvious and then asking for clarification–and I try to refrain from rhetorical questions unless I feel there is some humour to be had in posing them (see: lesbians and their clitorises).