im pretty sure you definitely can get hiv through vaginal sex but the odds are power. someone here quoted a 10% chance and that seems like it could be accurate. thats (probability of white hetero woman having hiv)*.10 so the odds are still low.
Can you contract AIDS from a vagina?
Quote: (06-08-2013 11:21 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:
I agree with MikeCF on this one, it sounds like all bullshit.
I'm 33 and I have never met a straight person with AIDS or HIV in my life (that I know of)
Name a famous straight person who died of AIDS??
Magic Johnson's wife isn't even infected, nor was Liberace's BF....
I'm assuming the prostitutes in Ukraine are offering anal sex.....
We discussed Magic in this thread too.
http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-22421-...ic+Johnson
Quote: (06-09-2013 12:57 AM)Travelsick Wrote:
Now the incidence (meaning how many new cases per year are recorded) lies at around 50k a year. 50'000 new HIV cases a year in US. From those 30k are from gay sex, 3600 from IV drug use, 1400 the two mixed above/unsure which it was, 13'400 from heterosexual contact (4'600 men and 8'800 women), "other" - such as accidents, bloodproducts etc amounts for 50 cases a year.
So 5,000 straight men (at most, because we must remember that the numbers are based on survey data and there are a lot of men on the down low) get HIV a year. The real number is likely closer to 10% of that. There are probably 500 cases a year of legit straight men getting HIV.
But let's compare that 5,000 number with the leading causes of death of men.
An American straight man has a greater risk of dying by climbing up on a chair to change a light bulb (falls are a leading cause of death of men) than having unprotected hetero sex.
http://www.idph.state.il.us/menshealth/h...hreats.htm
(10 Leading Causes of Death of Men).
Sorry, guys, but the stats are what they are.
Notice that no one has answered my question:
What are the odds that a straight man who engages in unprotected sex with a random girl will get HIV?
What are the odds that a straight man who has unprotected sex with a random white girl will get HIV?
No one has, because they know it'd be something like 1 in 10,000 for the first question and closer to 1 in 50,000 for the last one.
HIV = non-issue for straight white men.
Of course if anyone who disagrees can use the stats to prove my argument wrong, I'd like to see it. If I'm wrong, my behavior will change.
You guys could start by answering those two emboldened questions.
Let's have an honest, red pill discussion of this stuff rather than throw around words like "risk" without any context.
Yes, 1 in 10,000 is a "risk," but it's a nominal risk and not something that I would stress over.
I rawdog girls I know little about and generally don't even think about HIV
That said, in the last year I have twice turned down notches from girls who told me they were meth users because of the IV issue
That said, in the last year I have twice turned down notches from girls who told me they were meth users because of the IV issue
"If anything's gonna happen, it's gonna happen out there!- Captain Ron
It's very easy to say that HIV now at this present moment isn't a danger to western circumcised heterosexual males who only sleep with white women.
But viruses have a habit of mutating and changing from time to time, and new illnesses enjoy popping up wherever there is a biological-disease vacuum.
Syphilis came out of nowhere and struck down a lot of people hard, people who used to think that the worst that would happen is some gonorrhoea...
HIV came out of nowhere and hit the western gay community hard, guys who honestly thought that nothing that serious could ever happen...
It's the turkey problem that Nassim Taleb describes - a bunch of turkeys being overfed the day before thanksgiving will probably be unable to predict their slaughter the next day, but will rather predict yet more feasts.
Just because there is no risk of getting HIV based on your behaviour patterns today, doesn't mean that some new black swan disease won't appear out of nowhere to devastate the heterosexual white community.
MikeCF keeps asking about what are the actual risks, but in the mutating world of diseases, I'm more concerned about the risks of things that we have no idea exist or are about to come into existance.
Since sexual fluids are a major way of transmission for many types of diseases, some of which we don't even think of as 'sexually transmitted' (eg Hepatitis B), it is reasonable to assume that at some point some virus or bacteria will mutate to take advantage of this mode of transmission and the large pool of healthy young western white adults that it represents.
And as an extension of the argument, just because HIV is not a huge risk in white heterosexual raw dogging, doesn't mean it won't become a risk at some point in the future.
But viruses have a habit of mutating and changing from time to time, and new illnesses enjoy popping up wherever there is a biological-disease vacuum.
Syphilis came out of nowhere and struck down a lot of people hard, people who used to think that the worst that would happen is some gonorrhoea...
HIV came out of nowhere and hit the western gay community hard, guys who honestly thought that nothing that serious could ever happen...
It's the turkey problem that Nassim Taleb describes - a bunch of turkeys being overfed the day before thanksgiving will probably be unable to predict their slaughter the next day, but will rather predict yet more feasts.
Just because there is no risk of getting HIV based on your behaviour patterns today, doesn't mean that some new black swan disease won't appear out of nowhere to devastate the heterosexual white community.
MikeCF keeps asking about what are the actual risks, but in the mutating world of diseases, I'm more concerned about the risks of things that we have no idea exist or are about to come into existance.
Since sexual fluids are a major way of transmission for many types of diseases, some of which we don't even think of as 'sexually transmitted' (eg Hepatitis B), it is reasonable to assume that at some point some virus or bacteria will mutate to take advantage of this mode of transmission and the large pool of healthy young western white adults that it represents.
And as an extension of the argument, just because HIV is not a huge risk in white heterosexual raw dogging, doesn't mean it won't become a risk at some point in the future.
Does this mean it's ok to do raw anal if a girl is young and fresh?
I like Thomas the Rhymer's cautionary post just above. You never know how a disease, and the statistics that record it, will change. But of course HIV/Aids may change in a way that makes the Straight and/or White vs Gay and/or Black ratio of the disease even more pronounced.
As for the racial issues, the stats out of Southern Africa seem to bear out MikeCF's views. Straight White people in this region have HIV/Aids rates very similar to other White people in developed countries (i.e. extremely low). Black people, and gay people of any race have extremely high rates of HIV. The incidence amongst gay people can be explained by the bio-mechanical effects of anal sex and absurdly extreme rates of promiscuity amongst a subset of gay men. But the high rate of incidence amongst straight Black people in the region has not been adequately explained in my opinion. It is the reason there is a strand of "Aids Denialism" among some Black politicians here as well. Most famously the ex-president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki.
The problem is in explaining disparities, especially racial. The way Aids/HIV is conventionally explained almost implies that a communities incidence of the disease is a referendum on it's rate of promiscuity. The higher the rate, the more slutty the community. Now in Toronto, and other pseudo-liberal places, pretending to be a slut and organising walks proclaiming this may be the height of liberal expression. But in Africa Black people are not represented, and spoken on behalf of, by Whites and/or their interests as is the US (Democratic party, "Liberal" Media), and are able to speak for themselves. And accepting what the Aids rates supposedly say about their communities is not attractive to them, whether true or not.
In my opinion there is something screwy about the HIV/Aids rates among straight Black people in Southern Africa and it does not accurately indicate their level of "promiscuity" compared to others. The "Dry Sex" issue mentioned is a red-herring. While that kind of practice would indeed increase transmission, the actual level of this practice in society is overstated.
But, yes, the rate of HIV transmission is very low from straight female >>> Straight male almost everywhere (Black people in Southern Africa apparently an exception). Among White/Asian people in the developed world it is vanishingly small.
Here's something else I've thought about in the past. Maybe someone can enlighten me. How do anti-retroviral drugs help to reduce the rate of HIV? I mean, it seems to me that since they allow people with the disease to live much longer than they otherwise would, while still remaining infectious, they would instead result in a massive INCREASE in the overall incidence of HIV. For obvious reasons that can be summarised as: Dead people don't fuck. I'm aware that anti-retroviral drugs do slightly reduce the likelihood of transmission, but is that small reduction really enough to counteract the increase in partners and sexual instances that the person on anti-retroviral drugs will effect?
As for the racial issues, the stats out of Southern Africa seem to bear out MikeCF's views. Straight White people in this region have HIV/Aids rates very similar to other White people in developed countries (i.e. extremely low). Black people, and gay people of any race have extremely high rates of HIV. The incidence amongst gay people can be explained by the bio-mechanical effects of anal sex and absurdly extreme rates of promiscuity amongst a subset of gay men. But the high rate of incidence amongst straight Black people in the region has not been adequately explained in my opinion. It is the reason there is a strand of "Aids Denialism" among some Black politicians here as well. Most famously the ex-president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki.
The problem is in explaining disparities, especially racial. The way Aids/HIV is conventionally explained almost implies that a communities incidence of the disease is a referendum on it's rate of promiscuity. The higher the rate, the more slutty the community. Now in Toronto, and other pseudo-liberal places, pretending to be a slut and organising walks proclaiming this may be the height of liberal expression. But in Africa Black people are not represented, and spoken on behalf of, by Whites and/or their interests as is the US (Democratic party, "Liberal" Media), and are able to speak for themselves. And accepting what the Aids rates supposedly say about their communities is not attractive to them, whether true or not.
In my opinion there is something screwy about the HIV/Aids rates among straight Black people in Southern Africa and it does not accurately indicate their level of "promiscuity" compared to others. The "Dry Sex" issue mentioned is a red-herring. While that kind of practice would indeed increase transmission, the actual level of this practice in society is overstated.
But, yes, the rate of HIV transmission is very low from straight female >>> Straight male almost everywhere (Black people in Southern Africa apparently an exception). Among White/Asian people in the developed world it is vanishingly small.
Here's something else I've thought about in the past. Maybe someone can enlighten me. How do anti-retroviral drugs help to reduce the rate of HIV? I mean, it seems to me that since they allow people with the disease to live much longer than they otherwise would, while still remaining infectious, they would instead result in a massive INCREASE in the overall incidence of HIV. For obvious reasons that can be summarised as: Dead people don't fuck. I'm aware that anti-retroviral drugs do slightly reduce the likelihood of transmission, but is that small reduction really enough to counteract the increase in partners and sexual instances that the person on anti-retroviral drugs will effect?
Quote:MikeCF Wrote:
Notice that no one has answered my question:
What are the odds that a straight man who engages in unprotected sex with a random girl will get HIV?
What are the odds that a straight man who has unprotected sex with a random white girl will get HIV?
My guess: not enough data at the precision required.
What are the odds of catching HIV from a white girl, aged 22-30 that you are likely to meet and have sex with? Not the same as a statistically random sample from the entire population of white women aged 18-54.
Thomas the Rhymer:
You speak the truth about Viruses changing. They don't give one specific drug for HIV (that targets entry into cell, RNA replication, etc etc) anymore, but a series or combination of drugs to target different life cycles of HIV. Why? Because the virus can create a gene for resitance extrememly fast. Between the high rate (less than a few days) of reproduction of the HIV and the lack of proofreading when it comes to RNA replication, the virus can change very easily.
Bad Hussar:
To answer your first question...One main anti viral drug for people who have HIV is to prevent the HIV virus from entering the white blood cell. Therefore the number of Viral HIV particales won't increase SIGNIFICANTLY vs. not taking the drugs and having that number increase exponentially. So that means their immunie system (aka White blood cells or WBC) count will remain high and have the ability to fight off other diseases. We all know that HIV/AIDS does not directly kill people, correct? It's mainly from opportunistic diseases like funal infections and pneumonia that kill the IMMUNO-COMPROMISED HOST. Again..there are more types of drugs for HIV out there that are currently being currently tested..
I'm confused by your second question. It's as if you are asking if the person has an increase in sexual partners will the number of individuals he will infect decrease or stay the same vs. if he had not taken the medicine. If so, then I believe it does reduce the transmission of particles. As others have said, its harder for males who do not have anal, or participate in needle sharing or gay sex. Why? There is a certain number of viral load that a person has to recieve to become infected. If that total number of viral particles is kept very low then that chance is very low.
Too busy to read some of these links but are they saying..
a.) Black males are more on the down low than other ethnicities, therefore participate in gay sex more often. Therefore, since they are more likely to have sex with black females that would mean an increase in transmission to black females and other black males? B.) black males have a higher rate in drug abuse (ie using needles) so therefore they have a higher rate of transmittioing HIV through that avenue?
You speak the truth about Viruses changing. They don't give one specific drug for HIV (that targets entry into cell, RNA replication, etc etc) anymore, but a series or combination of drugs to target different life cycles of HIV. Why? Because the virus can create a gene for resitance extrememly fast. Between the high rate (less than a few days) of reproduction of the HIV and the lack of proofreading when it comes to RNA replication, the virus can change very easily.
Bad Hussar:
To answer your first question...One main anti viral drug for people who have HIV is to prevent the HIV virus from entering the white blood cell. Therefore the number of Viral HIV particales won't increase SIGNIFICANTLY vs. not taking the drugs and having that number increase exponentially. So that means their immunie system (aka White blood cells or WBC) count will remain high and have the ability to fight off other diseases. We all know that HIV/AIDS does not directly kill people, correct? It's mainly from opportunistic diseases like funal infections and pneumonia that kill the IMMUNO-COMPROMISED HOST. Again..there are more types of drugs for HIV out there that are currently being currently tested..
I'm confused by your second question. It's as if you are asking if the person has an increase in sexual partners will the number of individuals he will infect decrease or stay the same vs. if he had not taken the medicine. If so, then I believe it does reduce the transmission of particles. As others have said, its harder for males who do not have anal, or participate in needle sharing or gay sex. Why? There is a certain number of viral load that a person has to recieve to become infected. If that total number of viral particles is kept very low then that chance is very low.
Too busy to read some of these links but are they saying..
a.) Black males are more on the down low than other ethnicities, therefore participate in gay sex more often. Therefore, since they are more likely to have sex with black females that would mean an increase in transmission to black females and other black males? B.) black males have a higher rate in drug abuse (ie using needles) so therefore they have a higher rate of transmittioing HIV through that avenue?
A man is only as faithful as his options-Chris Rock
Quote: (06-10-2013 01:21 PM)CThunder86 Wrote:
...
I'm confused by your second question. It's as if you are asking if the person has an increase in sexual partners will the number of individuals he will infect decrease or stay the same vs. if he had not taken the medicine. If so, then I believe it does reduce the transmission of particles. As others have said, its harder for males who do not have anal, or participate in needle sharing or gay sex. Why? There is a certain number of viral load that a person has to recieve to become infected. If that total number of viral particles is kept very low then that chance is very low.
...
Ja, I didn't phrase it well. The questions can pretty much be rolled into one: If anti-retroviral drugs allow a person with HIV to live longer, while still remaining infectious, surely this would simply mean that an infected person has more opportunities to have sex with more people, and therefore spread the virus further?
My second part was just acknowledging the fact that anti-retroviral drugs do reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission. But I was expressing doubt that this reduction would mathematically "make up" for the increased chance of infection due to the infected person having more opportunity to have sex with more people than he otherwise would. I'm afraid I'm pretty cynical, and don't think that a HIV diagnosis will necessarily result in someone changing their behavior. A newly infected person may want to be the kind who would change, and think about the people he's having sex with, but the sex drive has the power to overcome most things, including peoples best intentions.
As an example of what I mean I'll point to a case some years back in Canada where a man who knew he was "HIV positive" was prosecuted for giving HIV to several women over a number of years because he never told them of his status. Part of his defense was something like: "Well, I've had HIV for x number of years but I'm taking the medication I'm prescribed and not doing too badly. The women in the lawsuit should just do the same and stop complaining." There have been a few case broadly the same as this one.
While it's great for the people with the disease to live better lives, I think there is a risk that it will stop being taken seriously. And as Thomas has mentioned. things change in medicine. The drugs that work today may not wok tomorrow. And who want to live a lifeon chronic medication anyway? I understand there are some "self-hating" gay men who do indeed want to live this way and intentionally infect themselves. But that is their psychological failure and not a prescription for how 99% of the world wants to live.
PS:
In case it needs to be mentioned: I'm just musing, not actually suggesting that sick people are not helped when help is available. I imagine infectious diseases are a big problem for medical ethicists.
Quote: (06-08-2013 06:55 PM)cardguy Wrote:
It is super hard to get people to admit to things they may be ashamed of in surveys.
There is an ingnious solution. But it is so clever that most people would probably misunderstand it. So - it may never take off. But I admire the ingenuity of it.
Imagine you wanted to know how many men have had gay sex at least once in their lives. now - a lot of men might be afraid to admit this. For whatever reason.
So - the idea is this.
You approach a thousand guys and ask them to toss a coin.
You tell them to remember which side the coin came up. And to keep it a secret.
If the coin comes out 'heads side up' - they are to answer 'YES' to the following question. Irregardless of whether or not that is the correct answer.
If the coin comes out 'tail side up' - they should answer the question honestly. Giving a 'YES' or a 'NO' - whichever is correct.
You then ask all 1000 guys if they have ever had sex.
Let's imagine that 664 guys said 'YES'.
Well - statistically - we would expect 500 of those 'YES' responses due to the fact that the coin landed 'heads side up'.
So - we can toss them aside.
So - we are left with 164 guys saying 'YES' out of the (new) sample of 500 men.
Which would give a percentage of 32.8% - just to use these made up figures.
So - the idea is that the tossing of the coin provides a way for the person responding to answer the question honestly - whilst also being able to be anonymous - since he may only be saying 'YES' since his coin landed heads side up.
Like I say it is a brilliant idea that I read somewhere once. But it is probably too clever to be used widely since I think alot of people would still lie since they are so paranoid about not giving any hint of their secrets.
Yeah its called Randomized Response Technique. Social desirability is a huge problem in designing surveys and this method is one of many ways to get honest answers out of ppl. At the end of the day they will stilll lie though I believe. Because theyre paranoid or simply dont understand the technique.
Quote: (06-10-2013 01:17 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:
MikeCF keeps asking about what are the actual risks, but in the mutating world of diseases, I'm more concerned about the risks of things that we have no idea exist or are about to come into existance.
Since sexual fluids are a major way of transmission for many types of diseases, some of which we don't even think of as 'sexually transmitted' (eg Hepatitis B), it is reasonable to assume that at some point some virus or bacteria will mutate to take advantage of this mode of transmission and the large pool of healthy young western white adults that it represents.
And as an extension of the argument, just because HIV is not a huge risk in white heterosexual raw dogging, doesn't mean it won't become a risk at some point in the future.
Fair point.
On the other hand, how many people were freaking out over bird flu?
And swine flu?
I'm glad people study these issues, but the fear and hysteria of these "mutating" diseases has not been correlated with risk.
Incidentally, going to a hospital is more dangerous than raw dogging a woman.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/...794461.php (U.S. deaths from staph infections surpass AIDS.)
So, yeah, there are a lot of nasty bugs out there and we could stay up all night living in fear.
Or we could rationally examine and assess risk.
HIV = non-issue for heterosexual males.
I have proven my case and none have refuted it. Many have tried changing the scope of the discussion. "Well, what if the disease changes?! Then what?!"
I'll continue not living in fear of terrorists, swine flu, or HIV.
I will, however, remain somewhat afraid of doctors:
Quote:Quote:
http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2012/0...treatment/
As a medical student, I never heard of the problem of medical error or overtreatment discussed, let alone quantified. Later, the Institute of Medicine reported the estimate that those problems result in up to 98,000 deaths each year. Proud of my profession, I, along with my peers, disputed the figure.
But study after study by respected institutions have shown that the highly-cited 98,000 deaths figure vastly understated the problem.
More recent, more valid studies put the figure far higher.
The latest Institute of Medicine report cites a leading study that quantifies the problem at nearly double the prior estimate (180,00 deaths) among Medicare beneficiaries alone, which would rank preventable harm as the number 3 cause of death in the U.S. after cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Quote:TravelSick Wrote:
As for transmission risk:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/law/transmission.htm
from yours truly, the CDC.
penis in vagina 5/10000 = 0.005% according to that. 1 time. Have a partner, who is HIV+, have intercourse with them 100 times, you go into those single digit percentages.
Remember these are theoretical estimates.
Your source only has "theoretical estimates," which means the CDC really has no idea and is just guessing. And the number given is so small, that you probably have more chance of being struck by bird shit from the sky than you do catching HIV (if you're a straight white male).
![[Image: icon_lol.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/icon_lol.gif){kind=icon}
How could anyone possible consider this a serious issue with such non-existent research? This is as bad as global warming.
Quote:Speakeasy Wrote:
MikeCF, although you may be limited your scope to the USA, keep in mind that HIV is exploding in Ukraine and Russia, one of the most coveted spots in the this forum for flagging. And these are whites and heteros.
Speak, that's because drug use is exploding in those countries. Many people there are poor and destitute and use drugs to escape from their shitty reality. Given the research we already know about IV needles, it's safe to assume similar things are happening in Ukraine and Russia.
Also, anal sex spreads AIDS, this is true, but only for the receiver... so even if you buttfuck some woman, your chances of getting HIV is insanely low.
Quote:ThomasTheRhymer Wrote:
MikeCF keeps asking about what are the actual risks, but in the mutating world of diseases, I'm more concerned about the risks of things that we have no idea exist or are about to come into existance.
By definition, you cannot assess the risk of something that does not exist. Worrying about the unknown is completely irrational.
There is an equal probability that some new mutation will grow wings out of my back and allow me to fly as there is that some new disease will come along and wipe out the human race. In other words, there's no sense in worrying about the unknown since it is just as likely to be good as it is bad.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Those probabilities are an educated guess, probably the best educated guess, meaning the top leading experts on HIV and epidemiology sat together in a lecture hall for a week debating this, and this is what they come up with. If you or anyone else believes they know better, who am I to tell you otherwise?
Someone brings up a good point, viral mutation. There already are some HIV strands that respond far worse to treatment, some patients contract HIV-1+2 which vastly complicates treatment and increases the risk of cross mutation. It's not impossible a new strain will mutate that won't react to certain types of antiretroviral agent anymore. Someone today died of HIV because their virus became immune to HAART.
You could argue that HIV is "under control" in europe and US, they're major cost factors but they're not threatening the populus and economy. That's a different matter in africa, the caribbean and a lot of other developing nations, as well as china, recently russia. You don't want 10-15 % of your workforce infected with a disease that will cost 5-15k a year to treat and inadvertently lead to a loss of productivity on a national scale.
Someone brings up a good point, viral mutation. There already are some HIV strands that respond far worse to treatment, some patients contract HIV-1+2 which vastly complicates treatment and increases the risk of cross mutation. It's not impossible a new strain will mutate that won't react to certain types of antiretroviral agent anymore. Someone today died of HIV because their virus became immune to HAART.
You could argue that HIV is "under control" in europe and US, they're major cost factors but they're not threatening the populus and economy. That's a different matter in africa, the caribbean and a lot of other developing nations, as well as china, recently russia. You don't want 10-15 % of your workforce infected with a disease that will cost 5-15k a year to treat and inadvertently lead to a loss of productivity on a national scale.
Quote: (06-10-2013 03:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:
By definition, you cannot assess the risk of something that does not exist. Worrying about the unknown is completely irrational.
Yep. But that's how the medical establishment keeps its power - it makes people live in fear of the unknown.
Doctors could clean up their own houses. They could get rid of incompetent surgeons. They could start washing their hands. (Even today thousands of people die each year because doctors refuse to practice basic hygiene.)
There are proven ways that doctors could save lives.
Instead, doctors walk around like god and make people live in fear of demons and unknown threats.
More proof that science is far from rational.
Quote: (06-10-2013 03:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:
Quote:ThomasTheRhymer Wrote:
MikeCF keeps asking about what are the actual risks, but in the mutating world of diseases, I'm more concerned about the risks of things that we have no idea exist or are about to come into existance.
By definition, you cannot assess the risk of something that does not exist. Worrying about the unknown is completely irrational.
Yes, but is it not reasonable to take steps to avoid potentially fragilising behavior?
If you are heavily in debt your risk of bankruptcy is greater.
If you are constantly raw dogging your risk of STD's is greater.
In either case, why bother exposing yourself to such risks in the first place?
It's not so much about worrying about the unknown, but rather about making yourself either resilient against it or potentially strengthened by it.
I would also argue that it is rational to think about the unknown, because it forces one to question the limits of one's own knowledge and experience. Thus a useful tool for personal and professional growth.
Quote: (06-10-2013 11:26 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:
Yes, but is it not reasonable to take steps to avoid potentially fragilising behavior?
If you are heavily in debt your risk of bankruptcy is greater.
If you are constantly raw dogging your risk of STD's is greater.
In either case, why bother exposing yourself to such risks in the first place?
If you accrue debt and invest it wisely, your wealth ceiling increases exponentially.
If you are raw dogging wisely, your sexual satisfaction increases exponentially.
Both cases involve some risk, but if fruitful, reward you with a significantly higher quality of life.
Quote: (06-10-2013 05:13 PM)MikeCF Wrote:
Quote: (06-10-2013 03:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:
By definition, you cannot assess the risk of something that does not exist. Worrying about the unknown is completely irrational.
Yep. But that's how the medical establishment keeps its power - it makes people live in fear of the unknown.
Doctors could clean up their own houses. They could get rid of incompetent surgeons. They could start washing their hands. (Even today thousands of people die each year because doctors refuse to practice basic hygiene.)
There are proven ways that doctors could save lives.
Instead, doctors walk around like god and make people live in fear of demons and unknown threats.
More proof that science is far from rational.
Sure, people die every day because doctors make mistakes.
The thing is though, everyone makes mistakes, in their private and their professional life. Obviously when an airline pilot or a doctors makes a severe professional mistakes the consequences can cost lives. It's still going to happen though. And surgeon still need to be trained. Medicine is indeed far from being an exact science. Mistakes are made, inaccuracies are told (that could later be perceived as lies), opinions and facts changed.
For whatever reason you're convinced you can't contract HIV through vaginal sex. 20% of subsaharan africa has contracted HIV mostly through vaginal sex. The reason you perceive your risk is much lower is because people where you live are on a whole lot more responsible and most people practice safer sex with new partners. If everyone around you felt there was no risk and raw dogged constantly your risk would be higher.
The situation is similar to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. Hey, no one gets measles, why should I vaccinate, my kids might get ill. Well, if all parents thought this way, measles or mumps would still be a huge problem.
Here are some basic stats, based on data from 46 states that accounts for 92% of AIDS diagnoses:
White women:
There's about 25.5 thousand cases of HIV among age 13+ white women from heterosexual contact or Other, not including those cases due to injection drug use. I estimate there are about 80 million such white women - US is 70% whites, 50% female, and 80% 13+, 300 million = 77 million. Let's subtract 2 million, arbitrarily, to account for the women who are druggies.
Adjust the 25.5 thousand figure up a little, to account for that 8% of HIV diagnoses unaccounted for, and you get 26.5 thousand. Divide that by 75 million, and you get about 3-4 per ten thousand. So there are about three to four white women per ten thousand that have HIV. You'd have to fuck about 2,000 white women to get a 50% chance of even coming into contact with HIV. That ignores the low female to male rate of transmission even if she has it. Plus, HIV prevalence peaks among people in their 40s, so younger girls are even less likely to have it.
BUT WAIT... THERE'S MORE
In almost all of those cases, about 24 thousand, are stated as being from heterosexual contact. But it has a strange note next to that, reading, "Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection." Reading up in the intro, the study states "Persons whose transmission category is classified as heterosexual contact are persons who report specific heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection (e.g., an injection drug user)." p15. So if you're not fucking druggies or confirmed fag hags, you shouldn't even be counting those cases anyway!
So instead of 25.5 thousand, maybe it's more like 530. Using 530 as the numerator, you get one AIDS case out of every ~150,000 white females who don't inject drugs or fuck sodomites. You'd fuck 100,000 of these girls before you'd meet one that had HIV. And even when you did fuck this 100,000th girl, your odds of getting AIDS are low, because the female to male transition rate is low, unless you're doing some really weird shit.
Admittedly, I'm still not sure what the CDC means by 'heterosexual contact.' If it really means what it says, then it really just means 'sex with sodomites and druggies.' And not 'sex with normal straights.' And decidedly not 'sex with normal straight whites.' You're more likely to die in your next ride to work than get AIDS from fucking a white girl who isn't a druggie or an avowed fag hag.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/reso...vol_22.pdf p58
White women:
There's about 25.5 thousand cases of HIV among age 13+ white women from heterosexual contact or Other, not including those cases due to injection drug use. I estimate there are about 80 million such white women - US is 70% whites, 50% female, and 80% 13+, 300 million = 77 million. Let's subtract 2 million, arbitrarily, to account for the women who are druggies.
Adjust the 25.5 thousand figure up a little, to account for that 8% of HIV diagnoses unaccounted for, and you get 26.5 thousand. Divide that by 75 million, and you get about 3-4 per ten thousand. So there are about three to four white women per ten thousand that have HIV. You'd have to fuck about 2,000 white women to get a 50% chance of even coming into contact with HIV. That ignores the low female to male rate of transmission even if she has it. Plus, HIV prevalence peaks among people in their 40s, so younger girls are even less likely to have it.
BUT WAIT... THERE'S MORE
In almost all of those cases, about 24 thousand, are stated as being from heterosexual contact. But it has a strange note next to that, reading, "Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection." Reading up in the intro, the study states "Persons whose transmission category is classified as heterosexual contact are persons who report specific heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection (e.g., an injection drug user)." p15. So if you're not fucking druggies or confirmed fag hags, you shouldn't even be counting those cases anyway!
So instead of 25.5 thousand, maybe it's more like 530. Using 530 as the numerator, you get one AIDS case out of every ~150,000 white females who don't inject drugs or fuck sodomites. You'd fuck 100,000 of these girls before you'd meet one that had HIV. And even when you did fuck this 100,000th girl, your odds of getting AIDS are low, because the female to male transition rate is low, unless you're doing some really weird shit.
Admittedly, I'm still not sure what the CDC means by 'heterosexual contact.' If it really means what it says, then it really just means 'sex with sodomites and druggies.' And not 'sex with normal straights.' And decidedly not 'sex with normal straight whites.' You're more likely to die in your next ride to work than get AIDS from fucking a white girl who isn't a druggie or an avowed fag hag.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/reso...vol_22.pdf p58
Quote: (06-10-2013 11:26 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:
Quote: (06-10-2013 03:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:
Quote:ThomasTheRhymer Wrote:
MikeCF keeps asking about what are the actual risks, but in the mutating world of diseases, I'm more concerned about the risks of things that we have no idea exist or are about to come into existance.
By definition, you cannot assess the risk of something that does not exist. Worrying about the unknown is completely irrational.
Yes, but is it not reasonable to take steps to avoid potentially fragilising behavior?
STD's aren't going to harm you. Other than HIV, all STD's are at most a few weeks out of the game. It's basically no different than getting a little sick.
Quote:TravelSick Wrote:
For whatever reason you're convinced you can't contract HIV through vaginal sex. 20% of subsaharan africa has contracted HIV mostly through vaginal sex. The reason you perceive your risk is much lower is because people where you live are on a whole lot more responsible and most people practice safer sex with new partners. If everyone around you felt there was no risk and raw dogged constantly your risk would be higher.
It has nothing to do with safe sex.
1. Africa has dry sex as MikeCF pointed out, which tears vaginal walls.
2. The reason AIDS is less prevalent among whites is the same reason AIDS is less prevalent among the the Orient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_China
They do not drill condom use into girl's heads in China, girl's just get abortions there like it is no big deal. They do unsafe sex all the time and yet AIDS occurs at a lower frequency than in most European countries.
Condom's are probably one of the more overrated devices of all time.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Quote: (06-08-2013 02:55 PM)cardguy Wrote:
Would be interested to hear from the older guys. Did the AIDS panic make it more difficult to pull back then?
Not in the late 80's through the 90's for me.
People have inherent desires regardless the propaganda fed them.
I was a fearless rawdogger before fearless rawdogging was cool.
Quote: (06-08-2013 02:12 PM)kosko Wrote:
which whole prison blocks of African men where infected with the virus as a means for testing since in those days an African inmate was cheaper to run medical tests on than animals here in the West.
circumcision is more common in Africa ... but I am just guessing
No way, you are just making stuff up. Circumcision is common in the U.S.
Health advocates could not get public support for a disease that primarily afflicts gays, intravenous drug addicts, and perhaps prostitutes. So selfish gay advocacy groups like Act Up spread the distortion that everyone is at risk.
Quote: (06-08-2013 01:19 PM)Yano Wrote:
buddy's dad witnessed a car accident on the highway so ... The mans blood got on my buddy's dad's hand. Three months after the accident he discovered he had AIDS.
Or perhaps that was his cover story.
Yes, that is ludicrous. It's like getting VD from a toilet seat.
Quote:Quote:
STD's aren't going to harm you. Other than HIV, all STD's are at most a few weeks out of the game. It's basically no different than getting a little sick.
You're right. People don't actually die in hospitals either. What happens at most is they get murdered by doctors, don't get me started on organ havest. 1-5% of people who contract Hep B+C develop a fulminant hepatitis, 50-75% of which die from it. There still are plenty people out there with stage 3 and 4 lues (syphilis) because it goes undetected, they become demented, have seizures, they heart gives out. But indeed, most people that get STDs are absolutely fine after. It just sucks to be that guy who wasn't fine.
Quote:Quote:And you're spot on again. China has no HIV problem. None they admit to at least. Though they did recently announce a huge campaign to combat HIV, because any expert on HIV will tell you HIV is exploding in Asia. Google around a little. HIV infections have been rising by 30% a year in certain areas of china, because they've only just started admiting that HIV exists in china.
The reason AIDS is less prevalent among whites is the same reason AIDS is less prevalent among the the Orient.
You guys seem to be convinced the CDC and goverment is intent on spoiling your fun and it's impossible for you to contract HIV. I'm not fan of condoms myself. But I make sure who I'm sleeping with before I go without them. I've seen people my age and younger die of hiv both in africa and europe and it's not pretty. And I'm not going to be one of them.
The CDC can't give you an exact risk, case number. They keep anonymous statistics of hiv diagnosis. Doctors and labs report them, then they ask the patient if they're hetero or not and if they're IV drug users. Do people lie? Do they say they're straight when they're gay or using? Who knows.
No one's been telling you there's a grave risk of straight white men contracting hiv. But to be adament that it's impossible for you to contract it is quite naive.
Quote: (06-11-2013 02:35 AM)Emmanuel Goldstein Wrote:
In almost all of those cases, about 24 thousand, are stated as being from heterosexual contact. But it has a strange note next to that, reading, "Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection." Reading up in the intro, the study states "Persons whose transmission category is classified as heterosexual contact are persons who report specific heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection (e.g., an injection drug user)." p15. So if you're not fucking druggies or confirmed fag hags, you shouldn't even be counting those cases anyway!
Wow!
I'm learning something new every day.
As we suspected, even the official government numbers exaggerate the risk.
Worst case, we are looking at a 1 in 10,000 (or lower) risk.
If we could actually get clean numbers (i.e., take out the druggies, the down low gays, and prostitutes) and we'd probably be looking at a 1 in 100,000 chance of contracting HIV.
That's about the same odds of dying from a bee sting.
Some boogeyman!
AIDS fearers:
This is not a message board of soccer moms who live in terror of every threat and will do anything "for the children!" We're a pretty logical group of guys.
Prove your case using facts, data, statistics. Make a cogent argument.
Why not show us - again, using logic and data - why HIV is a risk to us.
You could start by explaining what the odds are that any of us are going to be infected.
Note that no one has accepted my challenge to state our risk of contracting HIV.
Gee...I wonder why?
It's almost as if they konw their arguments would collapse like a house of cards once they were left saying, "Well, it's a 1 in 59,142 chance, but you should still care!"
This is not a message board of soccer moms who live in terror of every threat and will do anything "for the children!" We're a pretty logical group of guys.
Prove your case using facts, data, statistics. Make a cogent argument.
Why not show us - again, using logic and data - why HIV is a risk to us.
You could start by explaining what the odds are that any of us are going to be infected.
Note that no one has accepted my challenge to state our risk of contracting HIV.
Gee...I wonder why?
It's almost as if they konw their arguments would collapse like a house of cards once they were left saying, "Well, it's a 1 in 59,142 chance, but you should still care!"
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)