Trot out the line? I'm sorry, are you saying that half the world's AIDS sufferers aren't women? Because nothing you post refutes that.

So basically, if you focus on one specific area, you suddenly get to only look at what statistics you want to see?

This all started because you said what homosexuals are like by nature... not what a specific subset of homosexuals are like.

That would make it about 40% gay men, 30% straight men, and about 30% women.

Since, as was explained to you earlier, AIDS is much easier to contract via semen than via vaginal fluid, how does this add up to an innate promiscuity in gay men? (Which, if you'll recall, was your initial point?) If anything, for straight men (for whom it is a much more difficult disease to contract) to be so close, percentage-wise, to gay men, it would certainly seem to indicate a greater promiscuity amongst straight people than amongst homosexuals.

And again, if you pick and choose what cases you want to acknowledge, you can suddenly reach whatever conclusions you want.

If you'd like, we can go to a hospice, ask what men there are gay, wait until they raise their hands, and say, "okay, if we only look at those guys, we see that 100% of all AIDS patients are gay men. But you tried to imply that it was a fifty/fifty split!" It'll mean absolutely nothing, but it'd be a neat little exercise in fact-twisting.

From which you conveniently cut the line "a study that found a high prevalence of HIV and associated risks among MSM aged 15--22". Again... how does this not add up to problems with youth?

At the time of diagnosis, Steve. You are aware of how long it takes for HIV to develop into AIDS, right?

There is again, Steve. Where are you getting rampant promiscuity from? Remember that bit you summarily ignored earlier, about how even if you don't have all that many partners, STDs can still spread like wildfire?

Edited in note: just read Dean's breakdown of your crap math, which makes several points here better than I could. Go, Dean.

Jack, what are you talking about? Was that diatribe aimed at me? If it was fine i'll duck and you can call the CDC homophobic since all i've done is took the liberty to post some of thier readily available information here... it seemed pertinent as it seems to corroborate my "preconcieved notions".


So far as what the stats prove, ehhh.. statistics, make of them what you will, that's what folks normally do anyway.

Dean, the graph i attempted to post (not totally satisfied with the way it posted) has listings for both new (2003) cases and cummulative (thru 2003, doesn't say when the tracking began). So you can get a glimpse as to who the new cases are as well as the historic evidence.
9,605 new cases of HIV in 2003 for ages 25-34. 311,137 since study's inception.
17,633 new cases for 2003 (the most of any age group). 365,432 cummulative (also the most ofr any group, meaning they are currently at most risk, and historically have been as well)
10,051 new cases for 2003, 148,347 cumulative. I was most surprised by this group. middle aged going on senior citizens and they are the second highest category according to the CDC study.

Since that last chart went over so well i'll post another (from the same CDC web page) that speaks more to "risk by exposure category" i'll make no assertions about it and let the statistics do the talking instead.
Category - New Male cases- New female cases- Total.

Steve

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

This is the site Steve got his table from.

He didn't do a good job posting it, making the numbers ambiguous.

At any rate about 42% of the new dianoses in 2003 were from male/male sexual contact. Another 26% to IV drug use, 12% men getting it from contact with women, and 19% women getting it from contact with men.

Of the new diagnoses - 5% are in people under the age of 25.

But we know from the other citation where the pertinent data was ignored that about half of the infections occure below 25.

The only reasonable explanation assuming both statements are true, is that many of the infections go undiagnosed until after the infected reach age 25.

Steve -

I realized what was going on and wrote my last post.

But statistics are statistics, and if you have a better explanation for your own sources assertions that most infections occur before 25 and that most diagnoses occur after 25, than a gap between infection and diagnosis, I'd love to hear it.

Also, you haven't proven that "rampant promiscuity" is to blame. At most you've proven that it's easier to transmit aids from male to male (which was really never in doubt), not that gay males are more promiscuous.

Wait, are you actually trying to pass off your selective picking and choosing of statistics as excusable because it's "what folks normally do anyway"?

That would be funny if you weren't doing it while complaining that the facts support your preconceived notions.

Well Dan, i suppose putting our collective heads in the sand is an option, but i seriously doubt it would save any lives.

Taking all the evidence in, i feel totally vindicated in making the statement about homosexual promisciuity being at play. And that's not an attempt to demean gay men any further, i've told you first hand accounts of gay men that were totally comfortable with thier promiscuity and bandied thier exploits about as trophies. Much the same as heterosexual men do when recounting sexual exploits. I repeat, the homosexuals are comfortable with thier promiscuity... so why the hell are you so up in arms about it Dan?

Secondly, looking at the stats, the fact that 17,000 new cases of HIV ( the largest individual category) can be attributed to gay men, while only 5,133 new cases can be attributed to hetero men while knowing that gay men only make up (liberally) 5-10% of the U.S.population speaks to something. That 7.5% (we'll call it for the sake of argument) accounts for 3 times as many new cases of HIV in the United States as the other 92.5% of men. That's not equitable, that's not 50-50 and that says to me "something else must be at play". I find it most likely that "homosexual promiscuity" may very well be that "something else".

Steve

Okay here is a study from the UK that indicates that in HIV diagnoses in men who have sex with men, the median time from HIV infection to diagnosis was more than 6 years


http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/cmo/annualreport2003/notime.htm

And if I read the chart right, it looks like 65% are more than 2 years.

Which tends to explain why the diagnoses are heavily in the older parts of the demographic charts. It's a UK study, so if anybody has different numbers for the US I'd like to see them.

It also explains why this tatooing idea is fairly pointless, since it indicates that most of the infections are probably transmitted by people who don't realize they are infected.

That's only a valid conclusion if it is as easy for a man to get AIDS from a man as it is for a man to get AIDS from a woman.

Given the higher virus counts in semen vs. vaginal fluids, and the greater ease of transmission via rectal tissue vs. penile tissue, I'd say that's a bad assumption.

Seems to me the "something else at play" might very well be the differing ease of transmission mechanisms.

It's clear that it's not 50-50 in all cases or there would be as many cases for hetero sexual women as there are for hetero sexual men, since it takes two to tango. So it seems to reason that transmission from semen to vaginal tissue is more likely than transmission from vaginal fluid to penile tissue. Or are you suggesting that heterosexual women are more promiscuous than heterosexual men?

Then why on Earth would you want to paint it as a gay problem, as opposed to a human problem?

When did you do that, exactly? You quite specifically excluded swaths of evidence from your analysis.

Good gravy. Have I ever said that there aren't any promiscuous gay men? Even once?

I have objected to your bullshit statement that homosexuals are promiscuous by nature. I have further objected to your bullshit implication that promiscuity and AIDS are somehow something within the gay community, as opposed to something that applies to everyone.

But I do absolutely adore you speaking to two gay guys, and proudly proclaiming that "the homosexuals are comfortable with their promiscuity". It's fantastic. Would this be another instance of you "taking all the evidence in"?

And as was explained to you several times, AIDS is much easier to contract via semen than via vaginal fluid. Those who have sex with women would, statistically, have to fuck way more often to contract it than those who have sex with men. The fact that there isn't a much wilder disparity (even in the select grouping you've chosen to examine... funny how if we look at everyone, the numbers suddenly don't even remotely support your ideas anymore...) would indicate, if anything, that straight people are doing some serious fucking.

As was additionally explained to you several times, it is not necessary to engage in wild promiscuity to contract AIDS. An average, or even relatively low number of sexual partners would very easily spread any STD. So the issue of who's fucking more becomes irrelevant when looking at the stats you've tossed up, since they say nothing about the level of promiscuity involved. Promiscuity was a conclusion you jumped to all on your own.

You are ignoring facts which contradict the conclusion you want to reach.

Taking all the evidence in, i feel totally vindicated in making the statement about homosexual promisciuity being at play.

And I freely retort that you are an ignorant homphobic idiot. Clueless too.

If you aren't going to discuss AIDS without being an asshole about it, then shut the fuck up....comprende?