Holy fuck! You need to start taking notes during your own lectures, Prof. You're the one who thinks evil scientists used cows to make AIDS - and you're calling me ignorant? And you also seem to be the only one unaware of your own hostility.

Maybe in the Bizarro version of this thread, but I've seen no such attempt. Has anyone else? Am I missing something, or is the Green Llama just conjuring up some more bullshit here?

Again, self-awareness doesn't appear to be your strongest personality trait.

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could Have
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
(If You Wanna Make The
World A Better Place)
Take A Look At Yourself, And
Then Make A Change
(Take A Look At Yourself, And
Then Make A Change)
(Na Na Na, Na Na Na, Na Na, Na Nah)

Irony. It's what's for dinner.

Dan, so basically you just want to argue with me and forget about the thousands of gay Americans living with, and dieing from Aids? Yet im the uncaring homophobe....

I don't know about uncaring, I certainly wouldnt make that judgement, but your ignorance of the disease is more telling than your compassion.

i find that ironic.

Ignorance is not ironic, it's just ignorance.

And your "educate everybody" starting point is already in place and not saving many. The issue at hand is a sensible way for gay men to communicate to one another that they do, or do not, have HIV. That's the issue at hand. That's what this thread was originally about.

No it isn't. This thread is about mandatory branding of all gay men. It has nothing to do with "AIDS" at all.

That you'd choose to "stay the course" seeing as it's been so sucessful, to me, only proves the futility of even carrying on this conversation. I may be narrow minded for choosing to solely focus on Aids in the United States, but your being down right silly in continuing to only discuss Aids in parameters of the "whole world".

I know, that "pandemic" bullshit, what a hassle huh?

Here's a website that seems to speak directly to my "promiscuity" statement. Be warned it's a Christian site so be sure to prepare your delicate little sensibilities.
http://www.cprmd.org/Myths/Myth_Fact_002.htm in 1978, a study done by two homosexual doctors revealed staggering statistics. Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%) had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%. And 79% noted that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers. Source: Bell, A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. " Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women " (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)

Again, you are an ignorant, racist, homophobic moron.

a touch on the old side, but still, telling of homosexuality in the 70's early 80's i think. 26% had more than 1000 sex partners..... that is astounding... and damned promiscious too, i venture.

Prove it, or stop saying ridiculous shit. Let's see these promiscuity statistics. Let's see the numbers. To begin with where the fuck would you even get data to support such a moronic statement?

In a 6-month long daily sexual diary, gay men were averaging somewhere around 110 different sex partners per year. Source: Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K., " Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980; Vol. 302, pp. 435-38.

Boy, now I'm convinced...how compelling.

again, dated, but still New England journal of Medicine.. so repuatable atleast. Extreme promiscuity has in fact been a common occurrence among homosexual males for a long time. Back in 1982, homosexual author Dennis Altman even admitted: " now there is a move toward claiming that this (promiscuity) is part of a different, perhaps even superior, way of managing sexual relationships...(t) he assumption that it is desirable to have frequent and varied sex partners is increasingly seen as a positive part of gay life style." Source: Dennis Altman, " The Homosexualization of America, The Americanization of the Homosexual, (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1982) pp. 16-7.

Homophobic. Not based in reality.

see, they are comfortable with thier promiscuity.

Sorry, I don't see it.

Homosexuals still have 3-4 times as many partners as heterosexuals. Source: Laumann, FO. Gagnon, JH., Micheal, RT., Micheals, S., The Social Organization of Sexuality ( Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1994 ).

Known homophobes, and responsible for the deliberate manipulation of misinterperation of figures on more than one occasion.Not a trusted or reputable source at all.

The national gay and lesbian publication, The Advocate, reported " of 600 gay and bisexual male Milwaukeeans, 73% said they've had sex in the past six months with someone they never saw again." Source: The Advocate, June 14, 1994, p.16.

The national womens publication "cosmopolitan" recently reported that 92% of 1123 single women said that they'd had sex with someone they never saw again in the past 4 weeks (in last months issue as a matter of fact)

92 PERCENT!!!!!!!!!! and in the last MONTH.

Better start tattooing sluts before gay men, asshole.

Ya know i'd be happy to drop this entire "promiscuity" tangent and get on with the heart of the problem if you'd #1. admit there is a shread of truth to my assertion and #2 get over it.

Ya know I'd be happy to stop calling you an ignorant homophobic asshole if you'd just admit you are clueless, and get over it.

Evil isn't perpetrated by those who consider themselves evil, and if you see any half monkey/half cow creatures walking around, let the CDC know.

The quoting of a Michael Jackson song says it all.

You're a crybaby, and a moron.

Dean, in regaurds to your points.

#1) i didn't post the portion about "half the new cases being under 25", that was one of Dan's i beleive. I did see it, thought that it was a contradiction of the CDC graph and went with the CDC's findings. Mainly because i hold the CDC in higher reguard and secondly because it better substantiated my argument. I make no arguments as to whether either study's findings are acurate, i merely present the findings as posted by CDC. Still though, according to the CDC chart the second highest category of new cases was in "men aged 45-54", even if we agree that 6 years is the average time between infection and diagnosis, that would leave that sub group becoming infected between ages 39-48, clearly middle aged. The largest sub group of was men aged 35-44, minus the 6 year incubation and that's between 29-38... not exactly spring chickens.

#2)Gays guy's transmit Aids to each other, alot. Isn't that the point. I fail to see the connection your attempting to make about "semen vs. vaginal fluid". Gay sex is spreading aids at a greater percentage rate than hetero sex, i think we agree on that much atleast. I've asserted that some of that can be directly traced to homosexual sex habits (promiscuity) and you've countered that it's due to the virus passing on via semen easier than vaginal. No sweat, i don't dispute your assertion, i think it's medically documented that it does pass easier thru semen, but does that automatically discount the sex habits involved? Does that information prove conclusively that homosexuals are not promiscious? I don't think so, i think it more likely that both points are valid and added together tell us why we have 3 times the amount of gay men contracting Aids as hetero men... even though they only account for a small perentage of the overall population. I've not claimed any of you are "full of shit" "sloppy" or the like, i really wasn't intent on proving this "promisciuty" angle ( i thunk everybody accepted it as a given... i know gay guys that do) until i was summarily lambasted for it by Carroll. How this became a long winded chat on "who's getting more" i have no idea, but i'd happily stop that one and get on with the suggestions for solving the original dilemma if given half a chance.

Steve

I would say that the education systems in Western society have been working and many many people have been saved from sexually transmitted inflections (HIV or otherwise).

Education on safe needle injection has also helped limit the spread of diseases.

Religions organizations and governments that don't support contraceptives such as condoms (but are in favour of abstenence only programs) have effectively done less to save people from infection.

Says the guy who immediately started whining and tearfully hurling accusations as soon as someone called him out on his "Nazi" bullshit, and who also thinks that just because he read "Siddhartha" he's got some genius insight into the human condition. You're never going to realize you're just as much of a douche as Porta. That's okay, though, because anyone else of sound mind sure has.

"The quoting of a Michael Jackson song says it all."

Man, if you reach any further you'll be able to give yourself that much-needed enema without even having to sit down.

Steve -

Two potential problems with your studies (maybe if you look the actual citations up, the authors dealt with one of them)

1. Fully three of the citations are prior to the AIDS epidemic. It is entirely possible that the epidemic itself and education efforts have reduced promiscuity if it ever existed.

2. Are the selection criteria in any of the studies representative of men who have sex with men as a whole, or just those who are "out" or identify themselves as gay? This should have been dealt with in any reputable study, but since you posted the citations, I'm sure you won't mind finding that out for us.

Your more recent studies on promiscuity are also fairly meaning less if they don't take into account the prevalence of safer sex techniques vs. that of the heterosexual population.

At any rate - I did some research for you

http://snipurl.com/d13l


The article states that the research shows that unprotected receptive anal sex is 20-500 times greater than unprotected vaginal sex.

Based on your 7.5% population figure for men having sex with men, the incidence is only 43 times as much in gay men for new diagnoses in 2003.

Seems to me that it's likely that most if not all of the difference in infection rate can be explained by differences in the rate of vaginal vs. receptive anal transmission rates.

But that would undermine your thesis, so I suppose you'll ignore it.

When did I say I wanted to forget about the thousands of gay Americans who have AIDS? When I said that AIDS affects everybody, did you not think "everybody" included homosexuals?

Stop making shit up, and start addressing what I actually say.

Really? Again, what's with all those abstinence-only programs?

And that would not be a part of safe-sex education for what reason?

And the reason to single out gay men, instead of educating everyone to communicate to one another that they do, or do not, have HIV is?

Because things happen in a vacuum. What's happening in Africa can't possibly have any bearing on what's happening in America.

27 years ago? That's the best you can come up with to promote the idea that there's some sort of innate promiscuity to gay men?

And these 685 men were chosen how? Short of showing us some sort of methodology to the study, it really doesn't mean much. I can quite easily find you 685 straight people with similar statistics if you'd like. In those bars up on northside I mentioned earlier, for instance.

As it has been with straight people, Steve.

For the billionth time, your mistake is not in saying that there are promiscuous gay men. It is in the ridiculous notion that it is something innate and exclusive to gay men.

I'd be hard pressed to find anyone unmarried from the age of 18-29 in Chicago who can't say the same thing, gay or straight. What's your point?

The shred of truth that I've acknowledged from word one is that there are in fact promiscuous gay men. What I have bitch slapped you for is your ludicrous idea that promiscuity is both an innate fact of being gay, and something homosexuals engage in way more than heterosexuals.

You and Porta are cut from the same cloth--you're upset that I've pointed it out, and I've opposed your prideful ignorance--it's that simple. Now you imagine me crying while you give me an enema? Not gonna happen, Suzy. I'm not the one with Michael Jackson posters, and such delightful musical taste!

No, it was from one of your sources.

Someone get me some hand puppets.

Because you are attributing it to excessive promiscuity in gay men. You are mistaking causality. Those who have sex with men get AIDS easier. Therefore, gay men will be far more at risk of getting AIDS than straight men, no matter how much promiscuity is going on for either group. Therefore, the statistics for infection tell us nothing about promiscuity.

Again, only if we look at very specific areas, while ignoring the ones you don't want to see.

No, but it does mean you pulled the promiscuity angle out of your ass, with nothing to support it.