Weekend question
Reported TriCityHerald.com yesterday:
Planned Parenthood of Central Washington’s [State] Teen Council spread the word about National HIV Testing Day today to about 250 people in Richland’s Howard Amon Park, though the peer education group had to switch locations.
The teens had originally planned to distribute information at Richland’s Wal-Mart about free HIV testing that will be at the Kennewick Planned Parenthood clinic Tuesday.
But after threats of a protest by a grass-roots Catholic anti-abortion organization, the American Life League, Wal-Mart requested Thursday that the PP-affiliated council not distribute information at the store….
In March, PPCW named Harrison Pride as its Youth Volunteer of the Year. Stated PP’s press release:
His involvement in sexuality education began at age 14: his mom gave him a box of condoms and told him not to leave his room until he could put them on in the dark with one hand tied behind his back.
Since then, he’s become quite comfortable talking about sexual and reproductive health. He is fondly known around Bend as Condom Man.
“To me, condoms are pretty freaking sweet,” says Pride. “At school, I always had a bag of condoms with me. I once wore a suit with 200 condoms pinned on it.”…
Whether writing articles for the school paper or providing condoms in the student lounge on World Aids day, he persistently looks for a way to help others, make change, and promote health.
What connection do you see, if any, between Planned Parenthood’s promoting condoms and promoting HIV testing?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Ummmmmmmm both prevent the spread of HIV?
Ever see the size of an actual HIV virus?
It’s absolutely miniscule compared to sperm.
Given that so many people are promoting condom usage (and the efficacy of them is not 100%) it’s highly unlikely you’ll see solid microscopic imagery of an HIV virus against both sperm and the best condoms.
I’m sure I’ll get responses regarding how latex is safe, how surgical gloves are made of the same materials and doctors wouldn’t operate without safety etc. bla bla bla.
Try doing serious research on this topic and you get summarized wave-offs and no real data.
All I’m saying is – go look at the size of the HIV compared to a white blood cell, then look at the lacey structure of latex and do the research.
Abstaining from sex until marriage makes undeniably more sense.
I truly hope this mom gets what she so richly deserves for corrupting her young son. May the Lord have mercy on her soul.
14 years OLD?!? She must have expected that her son would be having sex at that age. That’s disgusting. Instead of teaching values like respecting women and not using them to stop the hormones from raging, she’s probably sent her son down on a trail of promiscuity. Quite sad. :(
Yes, this is why condoms have worked so wonderfully in Africa in the prevention of HIV and other STD’s. We can certainly look there if we really want to find out how well condoms work.
It is my sincerest hope that any self respecting young woman stay out of this guy’s way.
It wouldn’t surprise me if mommy dearest purchased a lifetime subscription to you-fill-in-the-blank porn mag for this kid. In case he can’t put his condoms to use.
Honestly, shouldn’t he be in Eagle Scouts or something?
Chris- condoms are effective at preventing the spread of HIV.
I know how big the HIV virus is compared to a cell.
I could help you look for studies on how latex is perfectly capable of preventing HIV from spreading…but unfortunately I’m on my way to work and after work off to my parents’ house for my mom’s birthday.
But believe me- I will look up some studies on it by tomorrow.
I’m just surprised he survived high school if he ran around wearing condoms pinned to himself.
MHM, enough condoms will stop a bullet.
We can’t put too much blame on the kid, his Mother was a nut.
Rae,
Be sure to look up the studies about how the PROMOTION of condom use IS NOT good at preventing AIDS. Whereas, family values combined with abstinence is very effective.
Somehow, without sexual intercourse or intravenous drug use, its pretty hard to contract AIDS.
Good for him for getting involved. And guys, don’t make judgements about what he may or may not be doing, or speculate on what his mom has taught him. You don’t know if she only taught him about condoms and not about other methods.
It’s also hard to catch AIDS if you’re in a monogomaus relationship (which I suppose is the “family values” part?)
Chris,
All I’m saying is – go look at the size of the HIV compared to a white blood cell, then look at the lacey structure of latex and do the research.
It’s a shame this misinformation is still floating around, and you’re not helping anyone by continuing to spread it.
The HIV virus travels inside infected cells. It can not fly out of the body and through latex all by itself.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940506.html
What connection do you see, if any, between Planned Parenthood’s promoting condoms and promoting HIV testing?
Both save lives.
Don’t play roulette with A.I.D.S. [- original edited by moderator]
beeeeeeeeeeeeeep beeeeeeeeeeep beeeeeeep beeeep beeep beep beep beep beep……
Aha! We’ve found it! The long lost “Only gay people get AIDS” philosophy.
Perhaps you should seek a little harder for the truth there, truthseeker.
truthseeker – I edited your comment. Keep the comments clean and non-inflammatory. Thanks.
This kid’s mom scarred him for life. Condoms are great and everything, but not THAT great. And they “affectionately” call him “condom man”? More like “condom boy” as they chase him around the basketball court and throw things at him.
beeeeeeeeeeeeeep beeeeeeeeeeep beeeeeeep beeeep beeep beep beep beep beep……
Aha! We’ve found it! The long lost “Only gay people get AIDS” philosophy.
Perhaps you should seek a little harder for the truth there, truthseeker.
Posted by: JKeller at June 28, 2008 11:58 AM
JKeller,
Once disease are out there, they can be transmitted to all types. But the behaviour of heterosexual sex does not “create” the AIDs virus. Two males, neither of which has AIDs, can give each other AIDs through anal sex. One mans body see’s another mans DNA as an invasion and attacks it. Thus the overwhelming evidence that homosexual behaviour leads to AIDS.
truthseeker – I edited your comment. Keep the comments clean and non-inflammatory. Thanks.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 28, 2008 12:03 PM
Chris,
Anal sex between men breeds death.
From the PP Press Release (linked above) :
…”Pride
This kid’s mom scarred him for life. Condoms are great and everything, but not THAT great. And they “affectionately” call him “condom man”? More like “condom boy” as they chase him around the basketball court and throw things at him.
Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2008 12:05 PM
Too funny! Like Condom wrapped dodge balls? :) Good to hear from you, hope you are doing well!
reality @ 11:22 AM
Lennart Nilsson must have had some sort of special event happen when he took the photos that are in his book.
Oh wait – there’s another amazing once in a lifetime event that occurred in another photograph on this page about HIV/AIDS!
To be honest reality – I’m not claiming I know for certain the transmission of HIV. I am saying that the photographic evidence I’ve seen suggests that such transmission is not outside the realm of possibility.
If you were intellectually honest, you’d concede that point, or provide definitive scientific proof against it. As for Cecil – I’ve seen this article many times before. While the analysis is lacking, it clearly doesn’t make the case that condoms are fool-proof against infection. In fact, it substantiates the point that Jill is making with her PP observation: that abstinence is really the only sure-thing against infection, so playing games with condoms without full disclosure of the risk is completely disingenuous.
Safer sex is a matter of degrees. It’s like saying there’s only a little poison in the water – you want a sip?
The smart move is: “No-thanks, I’ll get my own pure source”
truthseeker @ 12:24 PM
That’s fine to say that – your other post was inflammatory.
The Feb 2005 issue of Consumer Reports highlighted the problem with Planned Parenthood’s low quality condoms. They were at the bottom of the heap, with much easier failure and breakage during testing.
Those African countries with a real interest in HIV prevention, because they have insufficient funds for treatment, are encouraging abstinence and monogamy rather than liberal sex practices relying on an imperfect method of prevention such as condoms. They’re 80 percent effective for preventing pregnancy.
So who thinks this (or lower) percentage is good enough to prevent the HIV protracted, expensive, and painful death syndrome?
Who thinks the owner of SoMG should have to pay treble damages to AlGore for the carbon dioxide it produces?
Two males, neither of which has AIDs, can give each other AIDs through anal sex. One mans body see’s another mans DNA as an invasion and attacks it. Thus the overwhelming evidence that homosexual behaviour leads to AIDS
Truthseeker,
Got anything to back that up like, I don’t know, an article or study or something? Or is that just your opinion?
G’sMom,
How aboutb the fact that when AIDS first became prevalent the emperical evidence showed the incidence of infection was greatest among those who engage in male homosexual actvity. Of course it has spread throughout the population since, but it has remained greatest among said demographic. That, coupled with the fact that when a man injects sperm into another man, the receiver sees the other man’s sperm as foreign DNA and attacks it. It seems logical to me that this could produce the adverse effect of one’s own antibodies attacking the host just like AIDS behaves.
If he is able to pull an article out of thin air, I have a guess as to who the author will most likely be. Fred Phelps, the patron saint of delusional homophobes.
Still no actual articles, studies, etc. saying ANYTHING about your claims truthseeker?
That’s what I thought.
JKeller,
Wasn’t it the homosexual male demographic that showed an overwhelmingly greater incidence of AIDS occurence when the AIDS epidemic first began getting recognition or do you consider that to be a part of a delusion?
No G’sMom. It is my own conclusion. Does that make it untrue? Since you can’t point out any part that is wrong or illogical, then you must believe I could be right.
No, truthseeker, that isn’t part of the delusion. We all know that engaging in homosexual sex makes the incidence of contracting HIV much higher. But NOT when both partners don’t have HIV. Your claim that HIV just spontaneously appears is ridiculous, and I have never read ANYTHING claiming this.
If I am right then all of humanity is suffering through the scourge of AIDS because of male homosexual sex. Doesn’t that concern you at all?
I would consider it a more legitimate conclusion if you had read things claiming this by you know, researchers, or doctors who spend their whole LIVES studying this disease.
G’sMom,
I would consider a more “legitmate” conclusion if their were stidies done also…but in the mean time people are dying. Why haven’t they taken a control group of homosexual men and figured it out. AIDS is costing bilions of dollars and untold pain and suffering. We deserve such a study.
It would concern me more if you could back up these insane statements, with maybe a SHRED of evidence.
Maybe because the people who know way more about this disease than you do know that has NOTHING to do with it. I would trust them a little bit more.
No, truthseeker, that isn’t part of the delusion. We all know that engaging in homosexual sex makes the incidence of contracting HIV much higher.
Then why haven’t we done a study on a control group of monogamous homosexual men without AIDS. And why does the medical community still recommend Condoms to said demographic if it is not a possibility. Are there any homosexual males out there who have had a lifetime of unprotected sex in a monogomous relationship and never got AIDS?
G’sMom,
Why does the medical community still recommend condoms use for said demographic if it is not a possibility of contracting AIDS?
Are there any homosexual males out there who have had a lifetime of unprotected sex in a monogomous relationship and never got AIDS?
Simple questions with complex answers.
Nobody said getting AIDS wasn’t a possibility. But they have no idea who is in a monogamous relationship and who isn’t. So they recommend them. Duh. What about other STD’s? They don’t just appear if you DON’T HAVE THEM, so why would AIDS?
If I am right then all of humanity is suffering through the scourge of AIDS because of male homosexual sex.
And this statement just shows that you want to demonize gay people and blame them for all the horrible things going on in this world.
But using your own logic, how is all of humanity suffering if only gay people get it? You know, because it just appears if you’re having homosexual sex? Hmmm…
If God has mercy on HP’s mom’s soul, then she clearly won’t get what she deserves for misleading and contributing to the delinquency/destruction of him and every other minor he influences.
Back to the original question: PP’s number one priority is POPULATION CONTROL (REDUCTION) through decreasing the birth rate AND INCREASING THE DEATH RATE. Abortion does both, and so does homosexual sodomy. Remember Frederick Jaffee, former PP officer, and his list of initiatives to reduce the world population? Topping that nefarious/pernicious list were promoting abortion and homosexual behavior.
Given that background, it stands to reason that condoms and hiv testing are two sides of a search and destroy mission. promote condoms since they don’t prevent HIV transmission, and test for HIV since…hey, anyone remember Tuskegee?…
To be honest reality – I’m not claiming I know for certain the transmission of HIV.
You can say that again.
I am saying that the photographic evidence I’ve seen suggests that such transmission is not outside the realm of possibility.
I’m not sure what photographic evidence you’re talking about. The photo you linked to showed HIV on the surface of an infected cell, not flying through a condom.
If you were intellectually honest, you’d concede that point, or provide definitive scientific proof against it.
Concede what point? That you don’t know how HIV is transmitted? Because it’s not a mystery. Condoms are, in fact, highly effective in preventing HIV transmission.
abstinence is really the only sure-thing against infection, so playing games with condoms without full disclosure of the risk is completely disingenuous.
The facts are right there on the condom wrapper. And while abstinence certainly is a good way to avoid infection, most people like sex and aren’t interested in waiting for marriage. It’s much easier to convince someone to wear a condom than to abstain. Wearing condoms prevents HIV transmission almost as well as abstinence, so condoms are important life-saving tools.
It’s like saying there’s only a little poison in the water – you want a sip?
Sure. My tap water has a little bit of chlorine in it, but I still drink it.
Wow. just looking at this guy’s face, and picturing him in a leotard covered with condoms, one can’t help thinking of another name for PP…Pied Piper. Fits like a leotard.
One can only imagine the look on his face, and his mom’s, when confronted with all the deaths — abortion, STD, suicide, etc., ad nauseam- to which their idiology has contributed.
Flynn,
A while ago Jill had posted a PP ad with a superhero who went around shooting pro-life counselors with condoms. Harrison Pride should claim royalties. He could also make some money hiring himself out for a floats in the gay pride parade in Chicago this week.
ts said: If I am right then all of humanity is suffering through the scourge of AIDS because of male homosexual sex.
G’sMom said: And this statement just shows that you want to demonize gay people and blame them for all the horrible things going on in this world. Just not true G’sMom
But using your own logic, how is all of humanity suffering if only gay people get it? You know, because it just appears if you’re having homosexual sex? Hmmm… G’sMom, All of humanity is suffering because once a persons is infected then disease can be transmitted to non-homosexuals too.
G’sMom says: Duh. What about other STD’s? They don’t just appear if you DON’T HAVE THEM, so why would AIDS? G’sMom, cause different STD’s ahve different origins.
G’sMom says: Duh. What about other STD’s? They don’t just appear if you DON’T HAVE THEM, so why would AIDS? G’sMom, cause different STD’s ahve different origins.
Posted by: truthseeker at June 28, 2008 2:57 PM
………………………..
Like everyone knows that having sex with chickens causes chicken pox.
Like everyone knows that having sex with chickens causes chicken pox.
Posted by: Sally at June 28, 2008 3:08 PM
And a visit from PETA.
Truthseeker,
So it’s only tragic when non-homosxuals get AIDS?
G’sMom, cause different STD’s ahve different origins.
ummm, yeah, BUT you only get them if you’re having sex with someone that has them. Hence SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES.
Well, Truthseeker, don’t be making up stories on the mechanism of HIV transmission.
For a number of others: be sure what you’re talking about. HIV is human immunodeficiency virus. It’s very strongly linked with AIDS, which is the outwardly perceivable complex of symptoms called Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome.
A person may have HIV and not have AIDs. Some people, due to differences in the receptors on specific classes of T cells don’t ever get AIDS, though they can carry HIV.
So, yes, guys who do not have AIDS, may transmit the cause of AIDs, and elicit the AIDs at a later time, or perhaps not at all.
Again…… HIV retro-viruses (more than one strain) are strongly linked with producing AIDs. HIV and AIDs are not the same thing.
Watch yer language. ;-) Be precise.
TS – thank you SO much for proving what hatred and fear of gay people is REALLY about…
clueless, blind, pathetic, baseless, uneducated, self-righteous, evidence-less IGNORANCE.
go read a book. a biology book, preferably, about how the creation of VIRUSES has absolutely NOTHING to do with sex or human DNA.
And are you seriously asking if there are couples out there who have had unprotected monogamous sex for years and not contracted HIV? I know four, just in my circle of friends and family. I know 2 dozen gay people off the top of my head, and yet I know ONE person with HIV – and she’s straight. Wrap your head around that one, and try not to explode.
This place has turned in to a gay bashing gossip hole instead of an abortion debate. I’m done.
Liz&Rae, I love you both. See you on FB.
I fergot!!
One thing that remains true, and all the liberals in the world won’t change it:
It is much easier to transmit HIV through anal intercourse, and this phenomenon is worsened by the practice of cruising/ multiple partners.
Go to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm Do the math. Gay men bear significant responsibility for the rapid transmission of HIV among western populations.
Some homosexual groups with a conscience really did try to discourage the cruising behavior and really extreme sex practices which lead to this rapid spread.
And the ACT UPs need to pay treble damages to AlGore for their production of CO2, same as the owner of SoMG.
Sheesh…
AIDS = Acquired Immunodeficiency Sydrome.
goes to get some caffeine
This place has turned in to a gay bashing gossip hole instead of an abortion debate. I’m done.
Posted by: Amanda at June 28, 2008 3:27 PM
Amanda,
I seem to be the only one making a point about the possibility of AIDS being one man’s sperm being injected into another man. Sorry if it openly discussion about the origins of AIDS hurts your sensibilities. I am comfortable discussiong this precisiely because I have no animosity towards gays so I know I am looking at it objectively. Go figure.
Amanda,
I seem to be the only one making a point about the possibility of THE ORIGIN of AIDS being one man’s sperm being injected into another man. Sorry if it openly discussion about the origins of AIDS hurts your sensibilities. I am comfortable discussiong this precisiely because I have no animosity towards gays so I know I am looking at it objectively. Go figure.
Well, Truthseeker, don’t be making up stories on the mechanism of HIV transmission.
KB, I am not making up stories. I am proposing a theory. Can you discount it?
Oh, and my theory is not about the transmission, it is about the origin of the disease.
Amanda said: clueless, blind, pathetic, baseless, uneducated, self-righteous, evidence-less IGNORANCE.
go read a book. a biology book, preferably, about how the creation of VIRUSES has absolutely NOTHING to do with sex or human DNA.
Amanda, I’ve read lots of books on diseases and viruses and I had chemistry, physics, botany, and biology courses in both hig school and college. It is my understanding that at this point not even the scientific community can tell us the “origins” of many diseases…eg cancers, HIV, etc….
kb,
Who/What owns SoMG? You lost me.
Amanda,
Come back. There’s more to this blog than private theories of viral origins and your input is valued, by me anyways.
Please reconsider.
Think of the times I’ve had to hear horrendous lies/smears about my spiritual mother, the Catholic church. I’m sticking it out for the time being in spite of the ignorance. For me, it’s an opportunity to pray for those poor souls.
Do what you want to do, but know that I for one would hate to see you go.
And Truthseeker,
So far it’s mainly been speculation on your part re: where HIV originates. Some legitimate studies/scientific articles to back this up, please.
Otherwise it’s going nowhere fast.
So it’s only tragic when non-homosxuals get AIDS?
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at June 28, 2008 3:18 PM
G’sMom, I never implied or said that.
TS,
Your theory that AIDS comes from one man’s sperm being injected into another is idiotic and inconsistant. You say it’s because a man’s body will attack sperm (which is foreign DNA) and will spontaneously “create” AIDS in a person, even if the two men are both clean.
Putting aside the fact that AIDS is a syndrome, NOT a virus, why then, does a clean heterosexual couple having anal sex not develop AIDS? I mean, the MAN is injecting sperm into the woman, which is a foreign DNA. Why doesn’t the woman’s body then attack it and cause AIDS?
And don’t give me BS about a woman being “made for” accepting foreign DNA to make babies.
And Truthseeker,
So far it’s mainly been speculation on your part re: where HIV originates. Some legitimate studies/scientific articles to back this up, please.
Otherwise it’s going nowhere fast.
Posted by: carder at June 28, 2008 3:59 PM
Carder, this is truly a theory I have come to on my own. As I stated in my previous posts, there are no scientific articles or studies to my theory that AIDS originates from homosexual sex. But I haven’t seen anybody post a more logical alternative. What else are they saying? A hunter in Africa got bit by a monkey, or a hunter in Africa ate some tainted monkey meat, or a humter in Africa had sex with a monkey???? The human strain of HIV is in fact different then the monkey form of HIV. I don’t buy it. I think my theory stands up to scrutiny a lot better than the currently accepted monkey theories.
Not even the scientific community has been able to pinpoint the “origins” of many diseases…eg cancers, HIV, etc…. So what you are asking for me to prove what our science has been unable to prove.
Putting aside the fact that AIDS is a syndrome, NOT a virus, why then, does a clean heterosexual couple having anal sex not develop AIDS? I mean, the MAN is injecting sperm into the woman, which is a foreign DNA. Why doesn’t the woman’s body then attack it and cause AIDS?
And don’t give me BS about a woman being “made for” accepting foreign DNA to make babies.
Posted by: Stephanie at June 28, 2008 4:28 PM
That’s not BS Stephanie. Evolution and survival of the species has endowed women’s bodys with mechanisms that enable them to be receptive to the DNA of others. Otherwise, for example, they would be unable to carry babies. What part of that is BS?
Um, TS.
The scientific community does know where cancers come from…it’s uncontrolled cell growth due to mutations in DNA.
This is pretty much taught in every biology course you will take in college.
And I hear that scientists are close to creating “female” sperm (sperm with an X chrosome). That Y chromosome may be what triggers a lot of the receptive mechanisms in a woman to intiate after conception. Watch out for a lot more diseases down the road if we are not careful.
Um, TS.
The scientific community does know where cancers come from…it’s uncontrolled cell growth due to mutations in DNA.
This is pretty much taught in every biology course you will take in college.
Posted by: Stephanie at June 28, 2008 4:41 PM
Stephanie, my son just went through a battle with non-hodgkins large T cell lymphona and my doctors couldn’t tell me how my son got it.
If it’s true that women are MADE to be more receptive to the DNA of others, then that’s great! That means they can recieve the wrong blood type without their bodies trying to destroy the cells, or recieve anyone’s organs in a transplant without having to supress their immune systems, right?
If it’s true that women are MADE to be more receptive to the DNA of others, then that’s great! That means they can recieve the wrong blood type without their bodies trying to destroy the cells, or recieve anyone’s organs in a transplant without having to supress their immune systems, right?
Posted by: Stephanie at June 28, 2008 4:53 PM
I would say that if the same mechanisms that are triggered when a woman becomes pregnant, could be triggered at the time of an organ transplant, then that would greatly reduce the chances of rejection.
The woman’s body goes through some amazing changes to prepare for/cope with pregnancy.
TS,
I never claimed that the scientific community knows where EVERY SINGLE cancer and disease originates from in detail. I just said that in general, cancers come from uncontrolled cell growth. Most of the time it’s from mutations due to carcinogens, etc, but there are some diseases that are still a mystery. I’m glad your son is OK.
thx Stephanie
Children ages 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17 are developmentally adolescents, not adults. They are underage youth, ie boys and girls. Teens become emancipated at 18 because not until then are they ready to exercise the duties of freedom.
Young teenagers do not neurologically possess the abstract cognitive ability to adequately analyze decisions with life-long consequences such as sexual activity. The adolescent frontal cortex has not yet matured for the skill of adult judgment. They cannot fully integrate emotions with sound decisions subject to self-control.
“Research now supports what parents have long suspected?that the teenager?s brain is different than the adult brain. Recent research by scientists at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has found that the teen brain is not a finished product, but is a work in progress.”
“New findings show that the greatest changes to the parts of the brain that are responsible for functions such as self-control, judgment, emotions, and organization occur between puberty and adult-hood. This may help to explain certain teenage behavior that adults can find mystifying,such as poor decision-making, recklessness, and emotional outbursts.”
“The brain is still developing during the teen years. Dr. Jay Giedd of the NIMH has reported that brain ?maturation does not stop at age 10, but continues into the teen years and even into the 20?s. What is most surprising is that you get a second wave of overproduction of gray matter, something that was thought to happen only in the first 18 months of life (Begley, 2000).?
“Following the overproduction of gray matter, the brain undergoes a process called ?pruning? where connections among neurons in the brain that are not used wither away, while those that are used stay?the ?use it or lose it? principle.”
“According to Dr. Giedd, this is exciting news for teens.??unlike infants whose brain activity is completely determined by their parents and environment, the teens may actually be able to control how their own brains are wired and sculpted.? Kids who ?exercise? their brains by learning to order their thoughts, understand abstract concepts, and control their impulses are laying the neural foundations that will serve them for the rest of their lives…Dr. Giedd. “You are hard-wiring your brain in adolescence. Do you want to hard-wire it for sports and playing music and doing mathematics?or for lying on the couch in front of the television?”
“[T]hese findings add new dimensions to issues facing young people, as well as their parents and teachers,and they pose a challenge to policy makers (NIH, 2000). If the choices adolescents make…have long-term and irreversible consequences for the development of their brains, then discouraging harmful choices and encouraging healthy ones is all the more urgent…”
Pasted from> http://www.actforyouth.net/documents/may02factsheetadolbraindev.pdf
Adolescents also lack the life experience to make complex choices. Teenagers are unable to responsibly consent to adult decisions such as reproductive safety. Their developmental stage prevents them from being able to commit to a permanent love relationship or to be self-sufficient. They are financially unable to provide for a spouse and babies until the completion of their education and establishment of a career.
Sexual intercourse in children is detrimental and dangerous. Premature sexual activity damages self-respect and self-esteem due to their lack of readiness. Give boys and girls the tools of chastity to free them to succeed as strong individuals with self-determination, not to fail as slaves mastered by lust.
Children need protection, not with condoms, but with love. Involved parental supervision, athletics, and wholesome social activites prepare them for a bright future. Society must raise the bar, and expect young people to love rightly and develop responsible self-control over their actions.
Do not betray kids by re-defining their condition of youthful dependency as one of maturity.
It is our collectve duty to model for teens how to achieve goals, prize chastity, and be monogamous in marriage. Children should have such high regard for their own value, that they never place themselves at risk of mortal exchange of body fluids.
The medical community condemns the promotion of teen sexual activity and sexual exploitation of children and adolescents.
Childhood sexual abuse has dire consequences, esp. psychological trauma associated with difficulty bonding with one partner for a lifetime. Male childhood sexual abuse has been shown to lead to massive promiscuity.
“Recent reports of sexually transmitted infection-rate increases among men indicate the need for renewed study of male sexual risk behavior to aid development of…risk reduction interventions. Men who have childhood sexual abuse (CSA) histories consistently report frequent sexual risk behavior. “Sexual partnership patterns unique to men with CSA histories and comorbid PTSD/depression appear to lead to substantially higher numbers of ”lifetime sexual partners”…” (Holmes, 2005)
Promiscuity is antithetical to health and wellness.
I am old enough to recall the first AIDS patients at our hospital. My compassion was not enough to save them from the ravages of this burgeoning epidemic.
Healthy choices and self-discipline CAN prevent AIDS. Practice chastity until marriage and monogamy in marriage. Joyfully express sexual love as a stable unity of husband-wife in the context of family life. Renounce the exploitation of youth. Act with personal responsibility. Build a future with dignity.
References
-Begley, Sharon. (February 28, 2000). Getting inside a teen brain. Newsweek, 135 (9), 58-59.
-Giedd, J., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N., Castellanos, F., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., Paus, T., Evans,A., and Rapoport, J. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A lon-gitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2 (10), 861-863.National Institutes of Health (2000).
– NIH News Release, available on line at http://www.hih/gov/news/pr/feb2000/niaaa-14.htmNational Institute of Mental Health (2001).
-Teenage Brain: A work in progress. National Institute of Mental Health http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/teenbrain.cfm.White, A. (2001)
– Journal of Urban Health. 2005
“Men”s pathways to risky sexual behavior: role of co-occurring childhood sexual abuse, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression histories.” Holmes WC, Foa EB, Sammel MD.
ProLifeMD,
A wedding band on your finger does not protect you from HIV or any other STD.
reality @ 2:35 PM
You didn’t read the very article you cited – did you?
Sure. My tap water has a little bit of chlorine in it, but I still drink it.
And salt is made up of two poisons. Neither of them are the HIV virus. “Deadly” as a concept eludes you, because you avoid willingly it.
Here’s one for QOD:
“Almost as well as abstinence”? “Life-saving tools”?
I’d laugh, but the thought of people dying because they believe such nonsense is all too real.
It’s pathetic you’re selling a “safer” sex agenda and sad when people buy that assurance then pay the price for it.
Stephanie,
True, true.
I know quite a few women who were virgins when they got married, and ended up with HPV mysteriously. Having a wedding band on your finger doesn’t guarantee you no STD’s
Amanda,
Noooo, don’t leave! I wuvs you! :(
I should also add at my 5:27 p.m. post:
That doesn’t mean I don’t think abstinence until marriage isn’t a good idea. Just that there are no certainties in this life. One should always find out the truth before walking into any situation. My future hubby will be tested for STD’s before we get married.
ProLifeMD @ 5:06 PM
Thanks for a very informative post!
I know quite a few women who were virgins when
they got married, and ended up with HPV mysteriously. Having a wedding band on your finger doesn’t guarantee you no STD’s A statement by Amanda.
That”s right a virgin may have HPV and not know it, since many humans are born with HPV. Ask the governor of Texas, and his family being infected with HPV. He wanted every citizen to get vaccinated for HPV. His ptoblems is your problems approach to HPV. That and being financially invested in the corporation that was going to market the mandatory vaccine.
So, Amanda spreads “mysteries” of virgins having HPV, from her lack of knowledge of familial transmission of HPV.
. They were born with the HPV, and never had a outbreak of warts to know they had HPV. That is just a guess,since the only way to know if you have HPV is to be tested for the virus. Amanda does not know or mention if those virgins she knew who got married had the HPV their whole life.
Another words, Amanda might have got the married couple into a fight about one or another cheating and lying about their new case of HPV.
The only respsonse to what I wrote for Amanda to deny familial HPV transmission, or actually write that those virgins were tested for HPV before marriage, and tested non-positive for HPV. She didn’t. Come on Amanda, be more specific when writing about virgins and HPV. You might be mystified, but many virgins carry the HPV and do not know it. Were those virgins tested for genital warts for a certain “strain” of HPV or not?
“Two males, neither of which has AIDs, can give each other AIDs through anal sex. One mans body see’s another mans DNA as an invasion and attacks it. Thus the overwhelming evidence that homosexual behaviour leads to AIDS.”
Truthseeker: You have to be one of the most stupid people I have ever met- and that’s really saying something.
1) Diseases are caused by microbes- viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites. Almost all *known* infectious diseases has a known source and it is one of the four culprits already listed.
You cannot get a disease if you don’t have the infection. For exmaple: if you are feeling achy and have a fever, yet you do not test positive for the influenza virus- you do NOT and can NOT have viral influenza. The only way to develop malaria is to be infected with the trypanosome.
2) AIDS is caused by the HIV virus. The HIV virus originated in AFRICA and the FIRST cases of HIV were in AFRICA in HETEROSEXUAL POPULATIONS. HIV is a derivative from SIV- which causes a similar illness in monkeys. It evolved and made a species jump due to African populations EATING monkey meat (similar to how Ebola is thought to have arised).
3) If you do not have the HIV virus- you canNOT develop AIDS. You can wish and hope that a gay individual or an individual that uses intravenous drugs gets AIDS but if they’re HIV negative and remain that way- then they WON’T develop the disease.
And by the way, Truthseeker (which is such a farking misnomer if I ever heard one)- cancer does have a known cause- mutations in your DNA- specifically in the DNA that produces cell growth/division regulatory genes.
Of course there is always this consideration re: the AIDS epidemic:
WHO Official Admits No Pandemic of AIDS amongst Heterosexuals
“men who have sex with men…is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously.”
By Peter J. Smith
LONDON, June 9, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An official with the World Health Organisation (WHO) is finally admitting what many AIDS experts have been saying for years – there is no threat of a world AIDS pandemic among heterosexuals.
According to a report by The Independent, a UK-based newspaper, Epidemiologist Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO’s department of HIV/AIDS, admitted to The Independent that AIDS is seen no longer as a risk to heterosexual populations outside sub-Saharan Africa, but rather is restricted to high-risk groups such as homosexual men, injecting drug users, prostitutes and their solicitors.
“It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries,” said de Cock. “Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia – China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn’t look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”
The HIV/AIDS director confirmed that male homosexuals are most at risk for AIDS, and that in many places rates of infection amongst male homosexuals are increasing, not declining.
“We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased,” stated de Cock.
“In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high.
“It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously.”
The Independent described de Cock’s statements as “the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major AIDS organisations may have been misdirected.”
However, promoting the strategy of universal prevention is also recognized as having been one of the most successful ways that homosexual activists capitalised on the impending AIDS pandemic to make the general public sympathetic to their cause and to launch them from political obscurity to their current elevated status. Although the AIDS “pandemic” among heterosexuals may now have disappeared, its political usefulness has also since disappeared, with homosexual activists now aggressively changing marriage laws worldwide.
The WHO admission follows the UN’s own admission in November 2007 that its statistics for calculating the worldwide extent of the AIDS “pandemic” were also overblown. The change was motivated in large part due to the evidence made public by Dr. James Chin, former head of a WHO Global Programme on AIDS unit from 1987-1992, and others, that indicated numbers were being inflated by AIDS policymakers to perpetuate the myth of a looming pandemic in the general population.
And by the way, Truthseeker (which is such a farking misnomer if I ever heard one)- cancer does have a known cause- mutations in your DNA- specifically in the DNA that produces cell growth/division regulatory genes.
Posted by: Rae at June 28, 2008 6:29 PM
Rae, you are all about explaining what HIV and cancer are, and how they are transmitted, but NOTHING about where they come from. See the difference. We know what cancer is, mutation of cells etc, but we don’t know how people get it. And since these diseases are known to be related to DNA and cell mutations, it makes sense to me that injecting a man with another mans DNA could start an immune response which begins to attack the cells of the host.
And Rae,
truthseeker is a fitting name for one who seeks information and the opinions of others to clarify what he believes could be the truth.
Truthseeker: You get cancer FROM mutations in those genes. THAT IS WHERE CANCER COMES FROM.
” it makes sense to me that injecting a man with another mans DNA could start an immune response which begins to attack the cells of the host.”
NO. THAT IS FLAT WRONG. Learn something about immunology before you start babbling bull like this.
Immune responses are NOTHING like AIDS which is a complete ABSENCE of immune response due to severely depleted T-helper cells. No T-cells = no immunity.
And for the record, human DNA does not cause an immune response. I could shoot myself up your purified (no cell fragments or proteins) DNA every day all day and I would never develop an immune response to it.
Though I will say this: certain DNA can cause what’s called an “innate immune response” due to toll-like receptors- but that DNA is from BACTERIA or VIRUSES.
The reason bacterial and viral genomic material is detected by our immune systems is because our toll-like receptors are capable of detecting the specific methylations patterns found ONLY on bacteria and NOT on human DNA as well as the fact that many viruses use double stranded or single stranded RNA (there are very few DNA viruses- one would be the herpes virus).
Rae & truthseeker:
I can’t remember exactly where I read this but:
The male sperm is designed to penetrate a specific cell – the ovum. However, when placed into an “area” of the body that was not designed to have sperm, the sperm cells nevertheless behave as they were designed to – that is penetrate cells. Some may attempt and succeed in penetrating epithelial cells and the theory is that these cells are then altered in a way they were never meant to be. I believe this was suggested as a scenario for some of the strange illnesses and so forth that men with same-sex attraction develop.
Rae,
Do you believe that homosexual sex is more risky than heterosexual sex? For disease?
@Patricia: That sounds kinda fishy- the reason there are more “strange” illnesses among gay men is because well- this is a bit “gross” but anal sex isn’t exactly the safest form of sex…that’s obviously given. There is little protection in the rectum from tearing which allows for swimmies to get past the initial epithelial layer where there are lots of immune cells into the deeper tissues which have fewer immune cells.
The main reason men who have sex with men is because of multiple partners and not using protection (ie condoms, which contrary to most of the crap in this thread are very good at preventing most STDs from transmitting).
Monogamy (even serial monogamy) with protection is the best way to prevent disease- and it’s a shame so few people understand and practice just that.
Immune responses are NOTHING like AIDS which is a complete ABSENCE of immune response due to severely depleted T-helper cells. No T-cells = no immunity.
Rae,
Immune responses are not always deficiencies. Those same helper cells are part of an immune response and in fact are being looked at very closely to be used as targeted fighters of cancer etc. Could be they are targeting host in HIV. On the bright side, this could mean a future with NO need for chemotherapy and the immune deficiencies which comme along with it. Targeted helper cells are could be GREAT for treating disease in the near future.
And for the record, human DNA does not cause an immune response. I could shoot myself up your purified (no cell fragments or proteins) DNA every day all day and I would never develop an immune response to it.
Posted by: Rae at June 28, 2008 7:15 PM
Sorry Rae, I’d love to let you but I’m happily married and took a vow. Only my wife gets to do that now.
@Patricia: That sounds kinda fishy- the reason there are more “strange” illnesses among gay men is because well- this is a bit “gross” but anal sex isn’t exactly the safest form of sex…that’s obviously given. There is little protection in the rectum from tearing which allows for swimmies to get past the initial epithelial layer where there are lots of immune cells into the deeper tissues which have fewer immune cells.
THe idea Rae is that the sperm damage cells they were never meant to penetrate. This can happen in the rectum, and in the mouth, and indeed through the entire ailmentary tract. It does not sound unreasonable to me. Our bodies are highly sophisticated and our reproductive systems are designed to work a certain way. Male-male sex uses the body in a way it was not meant to be used. I would agree that the high frequency of this kind of sexual contact is likely what aids in damaging their immune systems.
Learn something about immunology before you start babbling bull like this.
Posted by: Rae at June 28, 2008 7:15 PM
Rae, I think I have learned something. Is it o.k. to babble now?
anyways I’m off to see a movie with my older teens.
Have an interesting discussion.
@Truthseeker: Sperm is not purified DNA. What I meant by that is I could take your blood and do an DNA extraction in it and inject said purified DNA into my blood and nothing would happen.
“Immune responses are not always deficiencies.”
First, a lack of immune response IS a deficiency.
“Those same helper cells are part of an immune response and in fact are being looked at very closely to be used as targeted fighters of cancer etc.”
Um- duh? The immune system is the first line of defense against cancer, champ. They are already treating cancer with immune cells- in particular B-cells (antibodies that are produced by B-cells) to aid in producing an immune response against cancer cells.
“Could be they are targeting host in HIV.”
No. You are describing an autoimmune response and there is no sign of autoimmunity in HIV. Autoimmunity causes ELEVATED white cell counts (either b-cell or t-cell), not markedly DECREASED white cell counts that occurs in HIV.
“On the bright side, this could mean a future with NO need for chemotherapy and the immune deficiencies which comme along with it. Targeted helper cells are could be GREAT for treating disease in the near future.”
::headdesk:: The illnesses that occur with HIV infection and the subsequent decrease in T-helper cells is BECAUSE of the lack of t-cells. T-cells are IMPERATIVE to fighting off infection, especially T-helper cells which are there to *ACTIVATE* other immune cells like the cytotoxic T-cells and the B-cells. If your B-cells or Cytotoxic T-cells are not activated, they do not fight invaders. T-helper cells also activate macrophages making them more able to kill off pathogens.
You cannot use T-cells to treat HIV- as the HIV just infects and kills off those cells. Targeted T-cells will not work in this case- especially targeted T-helper cells because HIV infects those.
“THe idea Rae is that the sperm damage cells they were never meant to penetrate. This can happen in the rectum, and in the mouth, and indeed through the entire ailmentary tract. It does not sound unreasonable to me. Our bodies are highly sophisticated and our reproductive systems are designed to work a certain way. Male-male sex uses the body in a way it was not meant to be used. I would agree that the high frequency of this kind of sexual contact is likely what aids in damaging their immune systems.”
Do you have a study on this? I’ve never heard of this theory that sperm can damage cells that are not ova to penetrate them. I thought the only time the sperm secretes the enzymes necessary to penetrate the cell was in response to chemicals given off by the ova which act as a chemoattractant.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Two males, neither of which has AIDs, can give each other AIDs through anal sex. One mans body see’s another mans DNA as an invasion and attacks it. ”
There is only one appropriate response to this:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ROTFL
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Are there any homosexual males out there who have had a lifetime of unprotected sex in a monogomous relationship and never got AIDS? ”
Yes. First of all if neither one of them had HIV, the cannot get it by having sex with each other.
Secondly, not everyone with HIV gets AIDS. Also, not all monkeys with Simian Immunodeficiancy Virus get is. Some people are working very hard to figure out why. Google “Michael Murphy-Corb”.
“Do you have a study on this? I’ve never heard of this theory that sperm can damage cells that are not ova to penetrate them.”
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#02
ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24
The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:
Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25
Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27
@SoMG: I heard it was because they lack the CD4 receptor or the co-receptor HIV also needs in order to infect cells? Perhaps that was just one of the theories.
“Truthseeker” I’m sorry if my above post to you was rude. But you should know that the immune system does not respond to DNA. If you put DNA in someone’s blood, it gets degraded and removed very quickly, before the immune system can respond to it.
I used to work as an immunochemist–a specialist in the biology and chemistry of antibodies–and I know of no case where anyone has successfully caused the immune system to respond to DNA. The immune system responds mostly to proteins but can be made to respond to small organic molecules if they are first attached to a protein.
Rae, I don’t think anyone lacks CD4. If anyone did, he’d be immunocompromised. Also CD4 is expressed on neurons although I don’t know what it does there.
People, PLEASE stop writing “HIV virus”. The “V” in “HIV” stands for “virus”. If you write “HIV virus” you are writing the redundant phrase “Human immunodeficiency virus virus”.
Jasper, all the diseases you listed are infectious diseases. No one has denied that anal sex is a better transmission mode for infectious diseases.
I’m glad you’re here though because it gives me an opportunity to repeat my earlier question which you never answered:
Were you aware that Governor Jindal (R-La) is about to sign legislation that will authorize teaching a theory of the supernatural in science class in state schools?
“Were you aware that Governor Jindal (R-La) is about to sign legislation that will authorize teaching a theory of the supernatural in science class in state schools?”
No, I wasn’t SoMG. I’d have to disagree with Gov. Jindal here…
@SoMG: Ah, thanks. I heard that waaaaaay back when I was in junior high in a documentary we watched on HIV/AIDS. Sorry about that.
“Rae,
Do you believe that homosexual sex is more risky than heterosexual sex? For disease?”
@Jasper: Sorry, I’m not ignoring you, I didn’t see this post.
No- I don’t. Certain forms of sex (in particular- anal sex) are more risky than others but nearly every form of sex is practiced in both heterosexual and homosexual couples (except vaginal in the case of two men, obviously).
Also- not all homosexuals participate in anal sex, and likewise, there are many heterosexual couples that *do* participate in anal sex. So by equivocating anal sex with gay sex isn’t entirely accurate, because it’s not a purely “gay” thing.
Truthseeker,
Give it up. A theory has to have some evidence supporting it. Otherwise it is rated as a “story”. If there’s a little bit of evidence, then it might rate as a hypothesis. But you don’t wanna be hanging yourself with the anal injection theory. The viral link is just too strong. Note that we make HIV patients last longer by giving them anti-retroviral drugs.
Carder, if I knew who owned it, I’d have mentioned by name who needs to purchase treble carbon credits from AlGore.
Sperm attraction to the ovum is a complex, chemically mediated phenomenon. They don’t just get into any cell, or else they’d be totally wasted before they got to the target.
The gay men have extra trouble because the rectal epithelium is quite thin compared to vaginal epithelium. Also it is relatively inelastic, (exit only, please). Anal intercourse breaches the rectal epithelium, making any blood borne infections much easier to transmit. Hence the politically incorrect medical term : “gay bowel syndrome”.
Not gonna go into the related fecal incontinence phenomena, but if you’re really curious, you can Google.
It’s really easy to know why DNA, if perfectly purified, would not elicit an immune reaction.
All the same bases and sugars, dooooooooood!!! Just the order varies for carrying the code.
Oh com’on Rae. Please don’t put political correctness in front of the truth. Anal sex is the type of sex that homosexuals do.
“there are many heterosexual couples that *do* participate in anal sex”
really? how do know this?
Jasper,
LOL. Some of us know people (or are people) who do enjoy and quite willingly have anal sex.
Hell, in my high school, a bunch of girls had anal sex to save their virginity.
Anal sex is not just a gay thing. It’s a sex thing.
Edyt,
It’s unhealthy, and you need to stop doing that, for the sake of your physical well being.
In addition, we do not like to be expected to pay for the untoward effects of your recreational practices.
Anon, 6:08 p.m.
That was me, NOT Amanda who wrote that. And how they got it is no mystery really. Their husbands gave it to them. My point was that a wedding band doesn’t guarantee you no STD’s. I was merely pointing out there are no certainties in this life.
KB, I didn’t say I did.
I posted this in the other thread, but I feel it needs to be here too:
Monkeys don’t have HIV. They have SIV. For Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. Cats can get the virus too. In cats it’s called FIV. (Feline… if you’re a bit slow.) FIV is actually easier to get (for cats) because it can be transmitted through saliva. There are about 11% of domestic cats that have FIV, not because of sex, but because of fights with cats who had the disease.
The reason chimps and cats don’t have AIDS, so to say, is that we developed the term AIDS before we knew what the problem was. When we learned that the disease was caused from a virus, the name was changed to HIV. AIDS today refers to a point in which the T-cell count has dropped dangerously low.
HIV attacks T-cells and kills them off. It can take a number of years before the virus has killed off enough cells to have symptoms show. Usually, detectable signs of the HIV virus will not show up for at least 3 months, which is why people are advised to be tested 4 times a year if they are sexually active with multiple partners.
HIV is not actually deadly, but once enough T-cells have been killed off (thus reaching the point we consider AIDS), that person is unable to regain enough cells to fight off the virus and is essentially at the end of the line. Some people have rebounded and went from AIDS status to HIV status, but it is rare.
HIV is vicious. It can mutate and combine with other strains of HIV, making it very deadly and hard to fight. That’s why we have drug “cocktails” which are different combinations of drugs meant to fight off different strains of HIV. New strains appear all the time. Perhaps that is why the strain seen in cats and chimps is different from humans… but that does not mean we did not acquire it from chimps or cats.
The first strain, called HIV-1, actually was traced to a species of chimps in Africa, leading evidence to the belief it came from chimps. In the scientific community, there are two recognized strains of HIV, HIV-1 and HIV-2, though it manifests itself differently in various people. Two people with HIV who sleep with each other sans condoms, for example, could give each other a worse version of HIV because of the combined viral infections. Those people are harder to treat because the drug cocktails are less effective. Like people, viruses can develop immunity to certain treatments.
Okay… now then.
HIV can be spread through semen, vaginal fluids, breast milk, and blood. Blood and semen have the highest percentage of viral load in them, which is why women and the gay men who typically act as bottoms, are more susceptible to the virus. The anus and the vagina are both spongy areas which tend to soak in or excrete other fluids, thus making the virus easier to penetrate those areas.
However, when the penis is erect, tiny tears are made that are not visible to the human eye, and the virus is often transmitted FtM through those tears.
Babies who are born to HIV-positive mothers usually turn up as HIV-positive for the first six months of their lives. That is because they still are using their mother’s antibodies, which show the presence of the HIV virus.
The only way we know that the virus is present is because of the antibodies that are fighting it. There isn’t a test that seeks out the virus on its own.
If the mother does not breast feed her child, the signs of the HIV virus will go away because the child never did have HIV.
Okay, let’s get into a little bit of history. The reason the HIV virus spread so quickly and so far in such a short amount of time was because gays were still closeted (often married men) who were going to brothels to sleep with men. Your pal Larry Craig did the same thing in an airport.
Because there was no pregnancy risk, and most other STDs were treatable or at least very visible, many failed to use protection. The virus came to America on the back of a promiscuous airline pilot who made several stops across the country and visited several brothels at the time. Those men got the virus, spread it to other men and their wives, and the epidemic was largely kept secret until there were too many dead people to ignore it anymore.
This is also, for many places in the country, the beginning of the gay rights movement.
So there you go, a brief lesson on the HIV virus.
AGAIN: You can not get HIV from hugging, kissing, holding hands, breathing the same air, or even showering with someone with HIV. You can only get it from blood, semen, breast milk, and vaginal fluids, so unless you come in contact with those fluids and they are able to get into your skin, you will not get HIV.
Jasper, I can’t believe it but you wrote: “Anal sex is the type of sex that homosexuals do. ”
An interesting counterexample is Dr. David Hager, one of Bush’s abstinance czars, who anally raped his wife for many years.
For more counterexamples go here:
http://www.analsexyes.com/statistics.shtml
Rae,
:bows down: You rock.
Jasper,
I know quite a few guys who are into anal and they’re not gay. They’re into anal sex with women. Just as an FYI.
Ok, anal sex is praticed by some heterosexuals too…it’s still seems like risky behavoir (for hetero or homosexual people)
“An interesting counterexample is Dr. David Hager, one of Bush’s abstinance czars, who anally raped his wife for many years.”
what! are you kidding me SomG?
Jasper:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/mcgarvey/2
Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent. Several sources on and off the record confirmed that she had told them it was the sexual and emotional abuse within their marriage that eventually forced her out. “I probably wouldn’t have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time,” she explained to me. “But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible.”
wow, thats awful.
Jasper, wake up. It’s Republican family values.
How military spending works under GWBush.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/opinion/29sun2.html?ref=opinion
How did you get from immunochemist to your current occupation?
@Jasper: I’m not being politically correct. And how do I know about people’s sex practices? Let’s just say there are many advantages to being the “fly on the wall” so to speak.
Jasper, wake up. It’s Republican family values.
Posted by: SoMG at June 28, 2008 10:42 PM
SoMG: you are a total pig you know that. I’m sorry moderator,But I have to say it.
Please stop painting all people with the same brush.
There are tons of liberals who do even worse things to their own – it’s not a Republican or Democrat or Muslim or Marxist problem. It’s a human problem. People do these things to other people because of our brokenness. Since you have no answers and offer no hope to anybody other than death – the death of unborn children you especially are in NO position to mock, ridicule or criticize others.
“you are a total pig”
No, that would be Bush’s “abstinence czar.”
What a joke.
When one of PG Wodehouse’s characters was called a pig he replied “A pig, yes, but a shrewd, level-headed pig.”
I may be a pig but I have great taste in movies. And I just saw an utterly fantastic one about religion, THE WICKER MAN (1973). Be sure to get the 1973 version with Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee (also Aubrey Morris in a terrific small role) not the recent remake.
I’m a Christopher Lee fan (did you know he’s a trained opera singer?) and this is definitely the best movie with him I’ve ever seen, by a wide margin.
Hope I’m not to late to this debate. Scientific American wrote of recent research studies that show a man’s prostrate gland can increase infection rates of HIV up to 100,000 fold increase.
That alone should be a warning. Since anal sex stresses the prostrate obviously which as intended was never designed to be at the receiving end of another man’s sperm and quite frankly, rough penetration.
Male Semen makes HIV more potent
This explains much about the introduction of foreign DNA by another male, containing xy chromosomes, and the fluid released by the prostate gland.
Now, if I were looking at this from an ID perspective instead of some random chance monkey perspective. I’d invest in research to determine if the natural fluids secreted from the male is designed to work hand in hand with the female reproductive organs!
Also, there is another study out recently that shows the heterosexual community is no longer in danger from HIV as it was from the past.
Hmmmmm, here are my thoughts. It never was! The only heterosexual way to catch aids is from Bisexuals! Or from those that received it thru bad blood. Now, I wonder how many heroin addicts give into homosexual acts to make money?
Michael, you wrote: “…prostrate gland …” which is a whole new concept.
You also wrote: “Now, if I were looking at this from an ID perspective instead of some random chance monkey perspective. I’d invest in research to determine if the natural fluids secreted from the male is designed to work hand in hand with the female reproductive organs!”
Genetic variations affecting this would be subject to strong natural selection. It’s just the sort of thing most likely to evolve without design.
“LOL. Some of us know people (or are people) who do enjoy and quite willingly have anal sex. Hell, in my high school, a bunch of girls had anal sex to save their virginity.”
“Anal sex is not just a gay thing. It’s a sex thing. ” – Edyt
When I admonished Edyt to avoid this unhealthy practice which it advocated:
“KB, I didn’t say I did.” – Edyt
“”I probably wouldn’t have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time,” she explained to me. “But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible.” ” – Quoted by Edyt.
You will see a liberal advocating an unhealthy practice, and then when the situation warrants, turn around and deny it, or describe as abusive.
Liberals are plastic, elastic situational ethicists. Best to avoid any close relationships or committments with such people.
KB, you wrote: “You will see a liberal advocating an unhealthy practice, and then when the situation warrants, turn around and deny it, or describe as abusive. ”
Do you think maybe the fact that in one case we’re talking about CONSENTUAL anal sex, and in the other case, anal rape initiated while the victim is asleep, might have something to do with it?
As a community we seem to know very little about wether a host body’s reaction to another man’s sperm could create a virus in the host. Somg, roll on the floor laughing just be careful not to have anal sex while doing it and you should be fine.
Science needs to look more closely at the reaction of a woman’s body and the chromosomal differences between men and women for a possible answer as to why a man’s sperm can cause viral effects in another man. See my previous post @443pm for why there are likely diseases even worse then HIV in our future if we aren’t more careful.
Mike,
You are not too late to the debate
Thanks for pointing to a scientific study to back up my hypothesis. I hope it is enough to wake up some of those who were unwilling to be receptive when it was just my theory. The first paragraph did a good job explaining what I have been trying to say:
‘More than 80 percent of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections are transmitted via sexual intercourse. And researchers may have discovered at least one reason why. According to a new study published in Cell, a component of human semen may facilitate the spread of the virus by targeting immune system cells, in some cases making the pathogen up to 100,000 times more virulent.”
pip, if you are reading this somewhere. NO more anal sex if you care about your health. It is unnatural and it is bad for your physical and spiritual health.
“Truthseeker”, a component of semen being used by HIV to invade cells is very different from what you were proposing–de novo creation of HIV by semen or any reaction to it. The reason your hypothesis has never been investigated is that it’s extremely implausible.
And anal sex is not dangerous if you use a condom.
And anal sex is not dangerous if you use a condom.
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 6:27 AM
Not true. That would be like saying you can’t get pregnant from vaginal sex if you use a condom. Not to mention the negative effects on spititual health.
that should have read SPIRITUAL health
“Truthseeker”, a component of semen being used by HIV to invade cells is very different from what you were proposing–de novo creation of HIV by semen or any reaction to it. The reason your hypothesis has never been investigated is that it’s extremely implausible.
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 6:27 AM
Somg, I think the relationship if being an 100.000 times accelerant to the spread of the virus might be a clue that it could likely be an agent in its origins. Again, I think the genesis of AIDS may occur on the chromosomal level.
well said kb at June 29, 2008 4:35 AM
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “I think the relationship if being an 100.000 times accelerant to the spread of the virus might be a clue that it could likely be an agent in its origins. ”
What a strange idea. Why do you think this?
You wrote: “Again, I think the genesis of AIDS may occur on the chromosomal level.”
What do you mean by this, if anything?
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “I think the relationship if being an 100.000 times accelerant to the spread of the virus might be a clue that it could likely be an agent in its origins. ”
What a strange idea. Why do you think this?
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 7:26 AM
Somg, since when is logic strange. If you found out that things got hot when they burned, then wouldn’t you deduce that something hot could be used to start a fire?
It’s really easy to know why DNA, if perfectly purified, would not elicit an immune reaction.
All the same bases and sugars, dooooooooood!!! Just the order varies for carrying the code.
Posted by: kb at June 28, 2008 9:29 PM
Why did you and Rae both use the term “perfectly purified” DNA. Is the normal sperm present in every male ejaculation considered perfectly purified. If not, then what are you trying to prove?
Truthseeker,
Give it up. A theory has to have some evidence supporting it. Otherwise it is rated as a “story”. If there’s a little bit of evidence, then it might rate as a hypothesis. But you don’t wanna be hanging yourself with the anal injection theory. The viral link is just too strong. Note that we make HIV patients last longer by giving them anti-retroviral drugs.
Posted by: kb at June 28, 2008 9:29 PM
KB, I do not profess anything close to omniscience and anyway I figure it would better to be a fool today in search of the truth about concepts I do not completely understand then to go through life ignorant. That being said; You are saying that HIV couldn’t be caused by any sort of anal injection of sperm simply because it has viral characteristics. Please elaborate and tell me what it is about a virus that makes you say that.
Truthseeker: the DNA in sperm is not perfectly purified. It is associated with proteins which are highly antigenic and immunogenic in addition to already being inside a highly immunogenic cell.
DNA will not give you an immune response, the cell it’s in and the associated proteins will.
Now, before you say anything else incredibly bizarre to justify your immense dislike for homosexual individuals- go read a farking book on immunology and HIV.
Truthseeker,
The hypothesis you provided that *I* disagreed with was about HIV spontaneously appearing in homosexual men who DON’T have HIV. I believe what Michael is talking about is people who already HAVE HIV passing the virus on.
Nowhere in that article did I read ANYTHING about non-HIV infected men being able to create the virus just because they engage in anal sex.
“Now, before you say anything else incredibly bizarre to justify your immense dislike for homosexual individuals- go read a farking book on immunology and HIV.”
Rae,
where did TS say he disliked homosexuals?
Well, Jasper, he did write that one comment very early on in the thread that had to be deleted. I bet that had a lot of interesting words in reference to homosexuals. Or else it wouldn’t have been deleted.
Truthseeker: the DNA in sperm is not perfectly purified. It is associated with proteins which are highly antigenic and immunogenic in addition to already being inside a highly immunogenic cell.
DNA will not give you an immune response, the cell it’s in and the associated proteins will.
Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2008 9:13 AM
Rae,
Couldn’t it be that the male Y chromosome is the agent that triggers the onset of AIDS. The Y chromosome is made of some 60 million complimentary DNA/RNA strands held together by hydrogen bonds. Though you may not get an immune response from the DNA itself, that does not mean that the Y chromosome couldn’t be responsible for programming your body to begin abnormal processes that snowball into an immunodeficiency.
Well, Jasper, he did write that one comment very early on in the thread that had to be deleted. I bet that had a lot of interesting words in reference to homosexuals. Or else it wouldn’t have been deleted.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at June 29, 2008 11:07 AM
thx Jasper…
G’s Mom, It wasn’t a lot of interesting words, just four, and they were not as interesting as thought provoking as the conversation that followed them.
Could HIV be caused by GENE CONVERSION gone bad?
Is it coincidence that monkeys have a similar strain of HIV and a similar gene conversion process in the Y chromosome? See article below from Wikipedia doc on Y chromosome.
In 2003, researchers from MIT discovered a process which may slow down the process of degradation. They found that human Y chromosome is able to “recombine” with itself, using palindrome base pair sequences.[7] Such a “recombination” is called gene conversion or recombinational loss of heterozygosity (RecLOH).
In the case of the Y chromosomes, the palindromes are not junk DNA; these strings of bases contain functioning genes important for male fertility. Most of the sequence pairs are greater than 99.97% identical. The extensive use of gene conversion may play a role in the ability of the Y chromosome to edit out genetic mistakes and maintain the integrity of the relatively few genes it carries. In other words, since the Y chromosome is single, it has duplicates of its genes on itself instead of having a second, homologous, chromosome. When errors occur, it can use other parts of itself as a template to correct them.
Findings were confirmed by comparing similar regions of the Y chromosome in humans to the Y chromosomes of chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. The comparison demonstrated that the same phenomenon of gene conversion appeared to be at work more than 5 million years ago, when humans and the non-human primates diverged from each other.
Rae said,
Now, before you say anything else incredibly bizarre to justify your immense dislike for homosexual individuals- go read a farking book on immunology and HIV.
Rae, Don’t shoot the messenger
Defective Y chromosome = less masculinity
“I probably wouldn’t have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time,” she explained to me. “But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible.” quoted by Edyt.
Repeating for SoMG as it is ignoring facts (again). The presentation provided by the other liberal differentiated the receptivity to the different kinds of sex.
The collected information is that the anal sex is presented as acceptable, and then, with this differentiation clearly quoted, presented as repugnant, within a short time, by the same liberal. This occurrence is so common as to be recognized as standard operating procedure.
With this exchange the inherent duplicity of two different liberal entities has been highlighted.
TS, 12:55 p.m.
LOL!
Why did you and Rae both use the term “perfectly purified” DNA. Is the normal sperm present in every male ejaculation considered perfectly purified. If not, then what are you trying to prove? – Truth seeker.
It’s more probable for whole cells or unpurified DNA with many associated proteins to elicit an immune response. My info was a more general presentation of the chemical composition of DNA, and its commonality among organisms. RNA also shares this structural commonality among the organisms. These things allow transfection and the spread of viral disease.
But the methods of sucessfully treating HIV and AIDs really is a large clue about its mechanisms of entry into the cell and means of causing disease. Studying a successful empirical treatment of disease has very often been the key to elucidating the mechanisms. In many cases, the first empirical success is studied, receptors are elucidated, and many other more easily transported drug analogs are designed on that basis. Really pay attention to how the HIV disease is successfully treated. The HIV virus has long been known to rapidly change by mutation, and has confounded the attempts to make vaccines.
Many other trouble of “Gay Bowel Syndrome” are physically caused and exacerbated by the entry of body fluids and contents into the bloodstream. Some of these could be more directly an inflammatory immune response to foreign substances. But the bacterial, viral, and mechanical /physical damage seem to be predominant.
Truthseeker, you are about a half a step above believing that rain is caused by God crying, and thunder happens when giants are playing ninepins.
KB – you are equally as moronic. You said this:
Repeating for SoMG as it is ignoring facts (again). The presentation provided by the other liberal differentiated the receptivity to the different kinds of sex.
The collected information is that the anal sex is presented as acceptable, and then, with this differentiation clearly quoted, presented as repugnant, within a short time, by the same liberal. This occurrence is so common as to be recognized as standard operating procedure.
With this exchange the inherent duplicity of two different liberal entities has been highlighted.
Yeah right brainiac. Because it’s “duplicitous” to believe that rape is unacceptable, while consensual sex is ok.
Some of you people give me the screaming heebie jeebies.
I don’t wanna bash anybody sexual relations between males is a really bad health risk. And today is gay pride day. If you want to support them then get them to stop having sex with each other. Homo nos eros
@Truthseeker: No- it has nothing to do with the Y chromosome. If it did- women would not be getting AIDS as they do not have a Y chromosome.
And also, take a look at Africa and India as well as even China- where HIV/AIDS is very common amongst heterosexual couples. There is very little “man on man” action there as homosexuality is veeeeery taboo in those regions (as is sex in general- especially in Africa).
Wow, seriously?,
I just wrote a refrain for a song in your honor. I’m calling it
The Tears of God
It’s gonna be a hard rain fallin’
When you lead the people you love to destruction
It’ll be a hard rain fallin’
And also, take a look at Africa and India as well as even China- where HIV/AIDS is very common amongst heterosexual couples. There is very little “man on man” action there as homosexuality is veeeeery taboo in those regions (as is sex in general- especially in Africa).
Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2008 5:47 PM
Rae, Probably cause Africa is a country with one of the highest instances of rape on women and children. It’s no small number, like in the millions. What good is it that homosexuality is taboo when evil men raid villages and infect thousands upon thousands of African women and children with HIV.
@Truthseeker: No- it has nothing to do with the Y chromosome. If it did- women would not be getting AIDS as they do not have a Y chromosome.
Posted by: Rae at June 29, 2008 5:47 PM
Rae, Stephanie had asked that same thing on a different thread; here was my response
No Stephanie, my understanding of the concept here is that it is not necessarily important wether the gametes are those of men or women, although that could play a role. Women do have different mechanisms to deal with the gene mutation process then men. And men are not designed to play the role of host to the developement processes that are triggered by sperm so they cause abnormal responses if they are introduced.
Rae,
I’m guessing women have like zero rights in
China since their whole government policy is something like one child only unless it’s a girl or something. What kind of rights do women have in India?
I can’t wait for this thread to go into the archives.
carder, why is that?
“Truthseeker” this is my last and final post- I’m calling a quits here permanently because you are seriously rising my blood pressure and I’m ready to seriously hurt something or someone.
“Rae, Probably cause Africa is a country with one of the highest instances of rape on women and children. It’s no small number, like in the millions. What good is it that homosexuality is taboo when evil men raid villages and infect thousands upon thousands of African women and children with HIV.”
But gee willakers “Truthseeker”, that’s heterosexual “sex” goin’ on with rape- so how the hell are they getting HIV when it’s SPERM being INJECTED into a FEMALE. Aren’t women “biologically” able to “deal” with foreign DNA better than other men?
“Women do have different mechanisms to deal with the gene mutation process then men. And men are not designed to play the role of host to the developement processes that are triggered by sperm so they cause abnormal responses if they are introduced.”
Bull. Men and women aren’t as different as you think they are. Our genes code for the same crap- the ONLY difference is the ONE gene on the Y chromosome that codes for male characteristics to develop. That ONE gene is the difference between females and males.
“I’m guessing women have like zero rights in
China since their whole government policy is something like one child only unless it’s a girl or something. What kind of rights do women have in India?”
No, women do have rights in China- technically. However, socially they are not valued like men are because of the dowry systems and the fact that only men can carry on a family’s last name (which is important to them for some inane reason). Same as in India…legally they’re equal to men, but socially obviously not.
Now with this, I take my leave. “Truthseeker”, I highly suggest you stop posting crap about HIV/AIDS- because it is painfully obvious that you know nothing about the topic, especially because you keep repeating that BS lie over and over about how “0nly gayz m3n git teh AIDZ becuz th3y inj3ctz teh spermz in2 eachuther!” even though you have absolutely NO proof of this (and by proof I mean valid studies).
Piss off.
Me either, Carder.
What’s really hilarious..is this thread isn’t even originally about homosexuality.
May I just say though, that you are an excellent moderator.
:)
carder, is that why you wanted to see this thread close? Did you see that comin? Seems a lot of people are uncomfortable talking about HIV. Rae, You know that I know that HIV can be SPREAD through heterosexual sex.
I would be interested in the answer to this question though. Does HIV infected sperm accelerate the spread of HIV faster in men then it does in women?
G’sMom, The award the kid won was a celebration of National HIV testing day, so the thread is related HIV.
Yeah, HIV, NOT homosexuality. The kid they’re talking about was straight, not gay.
“Truthseeker”: In a word- no. There is no difference in “acceleration of infection”. That was a stupid question.
And I’m not uncomfortable talking about HIV at all. I talk about it all the time in REAL LIFE with homosexual individuals and I expound the wonders of monogamy and using protection to prevent getting infected with it.
The people turning this into a “homosexual” thread are the ones that say discussing AIDS transmission is gay bashing and then rant and leave. What I have posted is a discussion about the genesis and transmission of AIDS. Which should be a noble discussion to anybody who cares about stopping the spread of the disease.
“Truthseeker”: In a word- no. There is no difference in “acceleration of infection”. That was a stupid question.
Rae at June 29, 2008 7:31 PM
Rae, did you find that in a Scientific Journal?
Actually, TS, the reason I think it is gay bashing is because you’re spreading misconceptions which you have NO PROOF of. Carder even told you to show some proof for those ridiculous accusations. Unless you have proof this is true, it’s just an attempt by you to demonize homosexuals and spread lies about them.
Rae, the only scientific study I have seen is
Michael at June 29, 2008 12:48 AM
In that study the acceleration was caused by a protein that is secreted by the prostate gland, so I would assume that HIV spreads faster in men.
Why was that a stupid question?
Ditto at you G’sMom. Why was that a stupid lie or spreading misconception when I was just asking a question and it turns out the answer is supported in a scientific study?
You didn’t seem to think that male sperm accelerates the spread of AIDS much faster in men then it does in women. Did you maybe actually learn something you didn’t know about AIDS tranmission by my asking that stupid question?
The answer WASN’T supported at all. Your assertion is that people who aren’t infected with HIV can get it spontaneously. As in it just appears because they’re having homosexual sex even if both partners don’t have the virus.
That IS a misconception and NOT supported ANYWHERE.
Actually, TS, the reason I think it is gay bashing is because you’re spreading misconceptions which you have NO PROOF of. Carder even told you to show some proof for those ridiculous accusations. Unless you have proof this is true, it’s just an attempt by you to demonize homosexuals and spread lies about them.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at June 29, 2008 7:43 PM
If I didn’t care about them it would be much easier just to let it go on. Demonize my ass.
But no anal sex for me thank you.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Does HIV infected sperm accelerate the spread of HIV faster in men then it does in women? ”
HIV does not infect sperm.
Truthseeker,
Let’s work on your reading comprehension. I’ll say this again realllll slow for you.
The misconception I believe you are spreading is that HIV can just appear in homosexual men in a monogamous relationship who do NOT have the virus already. THAT. IS. IT.
And not just homosexual either. I wouldn’t sodomize my wife either.
@Truthseeker: Goshdammit it’s not that difficult! I swear to Satan if you ask me one more mind numbing question I’m going to seriously do something I will regret.
“You didn’t seem to think that male sperm accelerates the spread of AIDS much faster in men then it does in women. Did you maybe actually learn something you didn’t know about AIDS tranmission by my asking that stupid question?”
That makes no sense. At all. It doesn’t spread “faster” in men than women because of that protein secreted by the prostate. If a woman has sex with a man, she too is exposed to that protein and has the same chance at getting HIV as a man in that regard.
What determines the higher likelihood of getting HIV is anal sex- because the rectum has a thinner epithelial layer which can be easily torn causing exposure. It is also “deeper” body tissue- which tends to be less protected by immune cells than the vagina is.
And no, I didn’t find it in a “scientific journal” I used common sense from my immunology courses and the classes I’ve taken on HIV/AIDS in public health.
I’m not continuing this discussion here, as I’m already making a hypocrite of myself by continuing to respond to you- if you wish to continue this discussion, you can email me at kendranoelle@hotmail.com.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Does HIV infected sperm accelerate the spread of HIV faster in men then it does in women? ”
HIV does not infect sperm.
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 7:57 PM
Good catch Somg. Should have read
“Does sperm accelerate the spread of HIV faster in HIV positive men then it does in HIV positive women?
Rae said,
If a woman has sex with a man, she too is exposed to that protein and has the same chance at getting HIV as a man in that regard.
Rae, not to blow your mind but….The study wasn’t about “getting” HIV, it was about accelerating the spread of HIV in an HIV positive host. Now you could in turn hypothesise that beacuase it acts as an accelerant, the same protein could likely increase the chance of giving HIV to a non-HIV host too. If that is so, that the chances of getting HIV from sex with an HIV positive man would be much grater then the chances of getting HIV from sex with an HIV positive woman.
*take a deep breathe Rae*
Elizabeth, post in question has been deleted, as well as posts which replied to the post.
Rae,
no need to respond. Wait till somebody who knows what they are talking about explains it to me in a way even a “farking” idiot could understand.
truthseeker 7:55 PM
Demonize my ass.
But no anal sex for me thank you.
*~*
Why you want to do this?
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Does sperm accelerate the spread of HIV faster in HIV positive men then it does in HIV positive women?”
Sperm do not accelerate the spread of HIV. A non-sperm protein in the jizz does that.
Truthseeker,
Let’s work on your reading comprehension. I’ll say this again realllll slow for you.
The misconception I believe you are spreading is that HIV can just appear in homosexual men in a monogamous relationship who do NOT have the virus already. THAT. IS. IT.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at June 29, 2008 7:57 PM
I think my previous posts used logical conclusions, some of which were drawn from scientific studies. They make a lot more sense to me then a monkey disease spreading through human sexual intercourse. You are free to disagree with the conclusion,
see posted by truthseeker June 29, 2008 6:18 PM
You are free to disagree but I wouldn’t call it misinformation until somebody provides any logical objection to the conclusion or pokes holes in the posts about chromosonal genetics that I have used to support my position?
Also, “Truthseeker”, I wouldn’t advise you to put much stock in that “100,000-fold increase”. They said “in some circumstances” which probably means much higher concentrations of the protein than are found in jizz.
Here’s an idea: try reading the original Cell paper.
And what did you post about “chromosomal genetics”? Please summarize.
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “…the chances of getting HIV from sex with an HIV positive man would be much grater [sic] then the chances of getting HIV from sex with an HIV positive woman.”
This is supposed to be news? OF COURSE you’re more likele to get HIV from an HIV+ man than from an HIV+ woman–because the man secretes jizz into you but the woman doesn’t.
You oscillate between posting the obviously false, and posting the obvious.
Rae, please don’t go. You are one of the only people here who understands biology.
The blog needs you.
“I probably wouldn’t have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time,” she explained to me. “But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible.” ” – Quoted by Edyt.
You will see a liberal advocating an unhealthy practice, and then when the situation warrants, turn around and deny it, or describe as abusive.
Liberals are plastic, elastic situational ethicists. Best to avoid any close relationships or committments with such people.
KB, are you insane? Do you not see any difference between sex and rape? Because I think sex is acceptable but I think rape is repugnant. Same goes for anal sex/anal rape. I think it’s best to avoid relationships or commitments with people who cannot differentiate between consensual sex and rape, personally.
And what did you post about “chromosomal genetics”? Please summarize.
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 9:11 PM
Somg, please take the time to read the individual posts and reply.
Also, “Truthseeker”, I wouldn’t advise you to put much stock in that “100,000-fold increase”. They said “in some circumstances” which probably means much higher concentrations of the protein than are found in jizz.
Here’s an idea: try reading the original Cell paper.
Posted by: SoMG at June 29, 2008 9:00 PM
Somg, you don’t have to put stock in it, just use the knowledge to spend your time creating a cure for AIDS instead of a death serum for babies.
truthseeker, I know why you think two men having sex is unhealthy, why is two women having sex unhealthy? Wouldn’t it be healthier then male/female sex? No sperm anywhere.
KB, are you insane? Do you not see any difference between sex and rape? Because I think sex is acceptable but I think rape is repugnant. Same goes for anal sex/anal rape. I think it’s best to avoid relationships or commitments with people who cannot differentiate between consensual sex and rape, personally.
Posted by: Alexandra at June 29, 2008 9:51
Alexandra, kb pointed out that Edyt said she didn’t engage in anal sex and then she said she did engage in anal sex. And I don’t know the relationships she has with men and you would have to ask Edyt why she didn’t say no or get up out of bed. But she didn’t say she was raped, she said anal sex felt like rape to her.
TS, 10:06 p.m.
Edyt was referring to that wife of the politician who was anally raped by her husband. Edyt wasn’t talking about being raped herself.
truthseeker, have you ever heard the expression, “try everything three times”? It goes, you try it the first time and it’s new to you; you try it the second time you are getting used to it; you try it the third time by then you know if you like it or not.
She might have just been trying it to see if she would eventually get used to it. The first time I kissed a boy I was utterly repulsed, I honestly though I would never do it again, I couldn’t brush my teeth enough. But eventually, another boy came around and kissed me and I liked it. Anal sex on the other hand… I’d rather have my tongue ripped out of my mouth with a fork.
The moral is, sometimes you might not think you like it, and you really might not.
thx for the clarifications. I am turning in for the night so I won’t be around to make sure nobody causes trouble. Be on your best and
Live long and prosper \\//.
“Live long and prosper \\//.”
Don’t tell me what to do.
Just kidding!
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “just use the knowledge to spend your time creating a cure for AIDS …. ”
This problem is being worked on by many people who are much smarter, more energetic, and well-informed than I am. The cure-for-AIDS industry most definitely does not need me. There are more HIV experts than there is money for them.
Unfortunately, it will require a lot of basic science before they can even get within shooting distance of a true cure for HIV. I say this because HIV integrates its genome into the host’s chromosomes and the technology for removing selected genetic material from a live animal’s chromosome is a very very long way away and may be impossible. If I were a betting man I’d bet it is impossible.
If I am to understand you correctly, Rae, you’re not leaving the blog; you’re just not going to continue this HIV/Aids conversation.
Which I so understand and agree with.
Let me know if I’m wrong.
“If I were a betting man I’d bet it is impossible.”
If they can put a man on the moon!
Yllas,
With Jill’s authorization, you are asked to discontinue posting for the next two weeks.
Take a break. Go to the beach. Do some gardening.
When you’re ready to compose coherent posts minus the insults, we’ll be glad to have you back.
Yours Truly.
Besides the general problem of excising selected genetic material from the genome of a living animal, the fact that HIV gets into the Central Nervous System which means two additional formidable obstacles: your technology has to work on neurons (very difficult) and you need to get past the blood-brain barrier.
Jess, this is many times more difficult than getting to the moon, now or then.
It’s really four problems, isn’t it: the problem of excising user-selected DNA from a living mammalian cell, the problem of making sure it gets all infected cells of any given type (99.9 percent is not good enough), the problem that one of the given types is neurons (which makes any problem several orders of magnitude harder) and the problem of getting past the blood-brain barrier.
Of these four the easiest is the last one. You can base an academic career on getting something past the blood-brain barrier. I met someone who did it by riding on the transferrin receptor. Of course, how difficult it is depends on how big the thing is, and it’s very difficult to imagine how an agent that enabled you to excise user-selected DNA from a mammalian chromosome could be anything other than a complex assembly of macromolecules (like say a ribosome). How would you tell it which sequence to remove, if not by including nucleic acids as part of it? Anyway, I’m pretty sure that getting something that big past the blood-brain barrier is harder, probably a lot harder the bigger the thing is, although it’s been a few years since I looked into the question.
I guess you could specify by including small primers–small pieces of nucleic acid which would specify the beginning and ending sequences of the part you wanted to excise.
Alexandra, kb pointed out that Edyt said she didn’t engage in anal sex and then she said she did engage in anal sex. And I don’t know the relationships she has with men and you would have to ask Edyt why she didn’t say no or get up out of bed. But she didn’t say she was raped, she said anal sex felt like rape to her.
As Elizabeth noted, the quote about abusive anal rape was from someone else, not Edyt. That’s why it was italicized, under the link it came from, and in the full context of the paragraph:
Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent. Several sources on and off the record confirmed that she had told them it was the sexual and emotional abuse within their marriage that eventually forced her out. “I probably wouldn’t have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time,” she explained to me. “But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible.”
I think that even taken out of context, the “she explained to me” makes it pretty clear that this was not Edyt talking about herself.
The problem with being able to follow the vacillations of the liberals, is often being alone in the ability to do this. Most frequently, the liberals cannot follow their own tracks, but I am not easily distracted.
A review:
One liberal touted anal sex as a desirable sex option. When I admonished that one not to engage in that practice, because it is unhealthy and damaging, the liberal denied taking part in the practice.
Shortly after, two liberals countered other objections to anal sex practice by mentioning that a person with conservative affiliation was said to have imposed this on his wife. THE WIFE stated that she would not have minded if he wanted vaginal sex all the time, but she did not want the anal sex.
The person who had touted anal sex as a desirable option, then denied doing this practice, very shortly after, supplied a QUOTE from the aforementioned WIFE, that she had found the anal sex to be invasive, and did not want it, but would not have minded vaginal sex, thus differentiating the desirability of the two practices in her own case.
This has been given as an example of the usual vacillations of liberals and their plastic – elastic form of situational ethics.
I find that the liberals are now giving the anal sex as the example of rape (though the aforementioned WIFE stated that she would not have minded the vaginal sex,) in order to distract from earlier touting the practice as good.
One wonders why the liberals have been touting this physically damaging behavior to this audience as an acceptable option in the first place.
It appears that most of the liberals chiming in on this issue find anal sex to be repugnant (just for the present, with this audience).
Wait a few minutes, the ‘weather’ will change again.
————-
As an aside, I find liberals to oppose the possibility of death penalty for repeated rape of children, because they do not find the crime to be sufficiently heinous.
I find the liberals to defend institutions such as planned parenthood, which often operate to conceal the fact of rape and abuse of women and girls.
I have found the liberal policies, since my first awareness of them, to have brought women and girls increased abuse and rape. It is now EXPECTED for a woman to kill the baby resulting from rape, though this killing is associated with greatly increased rate of suicide.
As Ann Coulter pointed out in an article Jill presented, there is a continuing liberal habit of instituting policies which cause human suffering, then blaming conservatives for it.
Let them scream some more..
“It appears that most of the liberals chiming in on this issue find anal sex to be repugnant (just for the present, with this audience).
Wait a few minutes, the ‘weather’ will change again.”
I don’t think anal sex is repugnant.
Hal 4:25: That’s too much information.
One liberal touted anal sex as a desirable sex option. When I admonished that one not to engage in that practice, because it is unhealthy and damaging, the liberal denied taking part in the practice.
Edyt did not tout is as desirable; merely noted that it’s not just homosexual men who find it desirable. You assumed that she was talking about herself, and she corrected your assumption.
Shortly after, two liberals countered other objections to anal sex practice by mentioning that a person with conservative affiliation was said to have imposed this on his wife. THE WIFE stated that she would not have minded if he wanted vaginal sex all the time, but she did not want the anal sex.
There are things that I’m not morally opposed to despite my lack of personal desire to try them, and I’d be pretty freaking angry if someone I loved and trusted forced me to do them anyway. Acknowledging the violation of one woman’s trust and desires and comfort does not mean that one is labeling the act itself as evil or abusive. It is the betrayal of trust that is abusive, not the anal sex.
I find that the liberals are now giving the anal sex as the example of rape (though the aforementioned WIFE stated that she would not have minded the vaginal sex,) in order to distract from earlier touting the practice as good.
You really cannot differentiate between consensual vaginal sex and non-consensual anal sex? The anal sex was intrusive because the wife did not want it. She is perfectly within her rights not to want anal sex. Her wanting or not wanting anal sex has no bearing on anal sex outside of her own situation.
I don’t find anal sex repugnant. However, I personally do not like it, nor do I ever really want to try it. I don’t find ketchup repugnant either but I sure as heck don’t want it anywhere near my food — it’s not my thing. There are sexual positions that I dislike and I would find it a violation if my partner tried to force me into them or something, but that does not make those positions violating or abusive in and of themselves.
Me — or Edyt — stating that we personally don’t have anal sex has no bearing on anal sex outside of our own individual relationships. There is no hypocrisy or “elasticity” in acknowledging that many straight people like anal sex but that some do not.
Thank you Alexandra and Elizabeth for explaining the two posts I wrote to the idiots with reading comprehension problems.
KB, I can follow my own tracks just fine. And here’s what I said:
Some people like anal.
Then you said: You shouldn’t do it.
Then I said: I never said I did.
What followed was a discussion about Dr. David Hagar’s ex-wife, Linda (now with the last name Davis) who was anally raped by her husband for seven years, leading to the divorce. David Hagar, if you aren’t aware, is one of those “family values” types. SoMG brought it up, Jasper was incredulous, and I posted the link to the article in which Davis described being anally raped by Hagar.
No where did I say whether I do or do not engage in anal sex. So let me clarify — while personally, anal sex is not for me, I am not opposed to other consenting couples engaging in it.
Linda Davis suffered from narcolepsy, and was put on medication so that she wouldn’t fall asleep during inconvenient times (driving, etc). That medication made it impossible for her to resist her ex-husband’s rapes, and he would often deny doing it the next day.
Again, if Linda Davis had been perfectly okay with anal sex, then great! No big deal. But Hagar KNEW she did not want it and would force himself upon her at a time when she was unable to fight back.
I see nothing “situational” about being okay with rape in the case of consenting adults and being utterly opposed to the rape of someone on medication that rendered her unable to consent to even vaginal sex.
I find nothing repugnant about persons who wish to engage in anal sex. Personally, I cannot do it, mainly for physical reasons I won’t go into. For others, there are healthy ways of going about having anal sex (using condoms and lube, for example. And you know what? If people want to do it, great!
Weather changing? Not really. You just have trouble reading, and seem to enjoy reading things that aren’t there.
As an aside, I find liberals to oppose the possibility of death penalty for repeated rape of children, because they do not find the crime to be sufficiently heinous.
Really? Where? If it were up to me, any person who even enjoyed the thought of raping a child would be swiftly put to death.
I find the liberals to defend institutions such as planned parenthood, which often operate to conceal the fact of rape and abuse of women and girls.
Your evidence?
I have found the liberal policies, since my first awareness of them, to have brought women and girls increased abuse and rape. It is now EXPECTED for a woman to kill the baby resulting from rape, though this killing is associated with greatly increased rate of suicide.
No, it’s not, though many women who become impregnated after a rape do wish to abort their child. Usually if a woman is raped and reports it, she has the option of taking the morning after pill rather than wait and find out whether or not she’s pregnant.
Increased rate of suicide? For who? People who have abortions or people who are raped?
The current liberal weather is “tolerant” (of anal sex), with one regular liberal calling to mind a Bob Rivers parody song.
There was the attempt to segue into a rape discussion to repair damages from the previous liberal weather phenomenon of endorsement.
The above effluent isn’t worth too much time.
There is a subterfuge that the liberals living and posting at jillstanek.com didn’t see the news of the lawsuits by women who were raped then aborted at planned parenthood. One is in front of the Ohio supreme court now. More in Kansas, Indiana, Connecticut, and elsewhere.
As an example, imagine yourself as an 18 year old woman, raped from age 13, forcibly having abortion more than once, and having to drag a lawsuit through the appeals process. It’s a lot of work to get planned parenthood to comply with the laws to which real health care practitioners have to adhere — namely, reporting suspected abuse of minors.
There’s the pretended ignorance of the record linkage studies showing strong association of abortion and increased suicide incidence. Gissler- Finland, and Reardon-California study using the medicaid records. Google em.
I don’t see the point in repeating for the people who 1) pretend not to have seen this stuff repeatedly, 2) revere only the “research” funded by surg-abort and pharm-abort, 3) profit from creating misery for women to such extent that the suicides would not matter.
I don’t think anal sex is repugnant.
Posted by: Hal at June 30, 2008 4:25 PM
Somehow Hal, I already figured you would be “open” to anal sex cause your attitude about sick things like abortion is, don’t worry, it’ll be all right, nobody really cares anyway…..
I’ll assume you can take what put out too lol
“Can you squeal like a pig?”
Above refernce to squeal like a pig is from the movie “Deliverance”, in case you missed it
And in all seriousness Hal, sodomoy is a sin of the worst kind and could leave a person blinded to the grace of God forever. It will almost surely destroy your soul of those who do not find it repugnant and repent.
correction:
And in all seriousness Hal, sodomoy is a sin of the worst kind and could leave a person blinded to the grace of God forever. It will almost surely destroy the soul of those who do not find it repugnant and repent.
And of course the physical health risks of anal sex are numerous as pointed out by kb and could lead even to death not only of the participants but also of those they come into “contact” with later. Edyt and Alexandra, God gave you the innate sense to know anal sex is “wrong” for you. Do others a favor and let them know too. Friends don’t let friends engage in destructive behaviour just cause “they have a right to.” Is the real reason you don’t care just because you don’t care about other people hurting themselves?
The moral is, sometimes you might not think you like it, and you really might not.
Posted by: Jess at June 29, 2008 10:11 PM
Better to learn the hard way then never learn at all Jess. :
truthseeker, I know why you think two men having sex is unhealthy, why is two women having sex unhealthy? Wouldn’t it be healthier then male/female sex? No sperm anywhere.
Posted by: Jess at June 29, 2008 9:58 PM
Jess, The physical health risks are not nearly as great but being a big believer in following the will of God I would have to say it has unhealthy consequences to the person as a whole and say nay to the practice cause I do not believe it is what God intended.
TS,
…..I do not have anal sex.
Thanks,
PIP
“And in all seriousness Hal, sodomoy is a sin of the worst kind and could leave a person blinded to the grace of God forever. It will almost surely destroy the soul of those who do not find it repugnant and repent.”
…Really? Thought that would be murder.
About time, PIP. : )
I don’t think anal sex is repugnant.
Posted by: Hal at June 30, 2008 4:25 PM
Comments on this topic should be banned, IMO. It is disgusting and it has nothing to do with abortion.
Janet,
Truthseek brought it up first when he brought up his “theory” (if you can even call it that) that anal sex causes AIDS to appear when two clean, monogamous men have sex.
It all spiraled downward from there.
Oskar: Right.
Oskar,
I deleted your comment. Anything else about AS and it will be deleted as well.
ENOUGH!!! ENOUGH!!! ENOUGH!!!
Let’s get back on track shall we??
I am sorry, I have been trying to find more of the comments to delete and have been unsuccessful.
FYI – Comments are now closed on this thread.