Read today,
"According to the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (AFAO), nearly seven out of ten new infections of HIV occur in gay or bisexual men" and "There have been about 1000 new infections of HIV in Australia a year since 2013"

What is it that the sexual partners do not understand about the serious risks of anal sex? Or the availability of condoms?

-Although you'd really have to wonder why any woman would put her body, fertility, hoped future children and life on the line, flimsy condom notwithstanding, if she knew that the man demanding anal penetration had a history of gay anal sex.

A thousand new cases annually since 2013. So, they have been lying to us about that too: HIV has gone so quiet that we were left thinking that it was a thing of the past.

Not only do we have to suffer the whining and demands of the homosexual sector, we still have to spend pubic money to save them from their unnatural, foul practices.

The distinction between HIV and AIDS is often misunderstood.
HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is the virus that can
lead to the condition called AIDS (acquired immune deficiency
syndrome). Although these conditions are linked the terms refer
to specific and separate diagnoses and should not be used
interchangeably.

People with HIV who opt for early treatment generally have a
life expectancy similar to that of HIV-negative people, and
do not progress to AIDS.

AIDS describes the most advanced stages of HIV infection. Due
to the effectiveness of modern antiretroviral treatments.
AIDS diagnoses are now rare in Australia.

It should also be made clear that good media reporting should
reflect that people living with HIV are a diverse population and
come from all walks of life. The notion that HIV only affects
people belonging to "high-risk groups" is wrong and
potentially damaging to public health measures aiming to
educate the public about high-risk practices.

(Taken from): -

http://www.hivmediaguide.org.au/hiv-in-australia/hiv-statistics-australia/

yeah and the perverts want to encourage this behaviour among our kids via a 'bully'program. Wake up Australia.

There always were men who would mount anything with a pulse. Feminists encourage young women to do the same because it is so 'self-empowering' or something.

But in any event, when one considers the practical issues, for instance that:

- most 'conquests' of women are by relatively few men and for whom 'any hole is a goal';
and

- these 'Bad Boys' that women are attracted to and are a moral to contract STIs, would also include the even higher risk that some also indulge in bisexuality, and gay anal sex;

you really have to wonder why any woman would be so stupid and uncaring about her own body as to allow anal sex, even where he promises to use a condom.

Two of the obvious problems are:

- firstly, that many girls and young women are such easy targets through their vulnerability and personal shame; and

- secondly, that anal sex is being normalised by the chattering classes in the media, by Hollywood and even in education.

It is sad.

Gee, you blokes who dare have the temerity to criticise male homosexual behaviour should watch out, lest the 'Left come and get you in the dead of night!

http://www.fava.org.au/news/2012/how-many-homosexuals-are-there-in-australia/

"1.6% of men in Australia identify as gay, 0.9% identify as bisexual"

That's about 280,000 men in Australia.

1000 out of 280,000 ain't bad.

Considering how few this is, the expense is nothing to bitch about.

How much public funding is spent on the diseases resulting from the lifestyle choices of heavy drinkers and smokers?

They should know better!

The numbers seem to vary depending on the uses they are being put to.

For example, the overly optimistic, political activist discounters of the costs of HIV do not factor in anything for the flow-ons, the dramatically reduced choices and changed lifestyles forever of the women and children affected.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/a-young-woman-reveals-what-living-with-hiv-is-really-like/news-story/daebdfdee2f13b56997815ecdadc975f

Of course anyone at risk through accident or choice, or already affected should be encouraged to seek medical advice. The Internet is not the best place for that.

However the thread is aimed at teasing out why the message isn't getting through on the very serious risks of anal sex? Especially where girls and young women are concerned.

I believe that they are being put much more at risk by the expectations being put on students and young women, and by the normalising and the discounting of the risks and consequences of the disease. I have already said for example that most girls and young women are far more likely to have their casual sex with the 'Bad Boys' who are most likely to push for anal sex. Most should be advised that such choices ramp up their risks considerably.

Where women are concerned, any man's interest in casual sex involving anal should trigger all of the red lights and alarms, shouldn't it?

Saying an abrupt 'NO', 'NO WAY!', 'NO Argument and CU, don't bother to ring, to any proposers of anal sex is the only good advice mothers, parents and carers can give, and women can give to themselves

'Saying an abrupt 'NO', 'NO WAY!', 'NO Argument and CU, don't bother to ring, to any proposers of anal sex is the only good advice mothers, parents and carers can give, and women can give to themselves'

the safe pervesion program teaches that people have 2 types of virginty.

HIV is spread through direct contact with someone
who has HIV. Not only through rectal fluids. But
through all sorts of sexual behaviour.
It is spread through the blood, semen and preseminal fluids,
through vaginal fluids and can be spread even through breast
milk and needle or syringe uses.

http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/how-you-get-hiv-aids/

Sodom and Gomorrah repeats.

I don't for a moment suggest FOXY, that you support men engaging in sodomizing activities. You're simply trying to acquaint us all with the medical data on STD risk. However, many of those homosexual men who loiter in and around public toilets, in hours of darkness, while trawling for like minded individuals, invite, and can cause serious crime, as well as contracting a serious STD.

You see Foxy, if their homosexual behaviour were to be confined to places of privacy, perhaps then the coppers wouldn't have to go out and pick up the pieces, after some awfully savage bashing event - I honestly don't think many members of the community realise just how much serious crime is attached to male homosexual activity. For proof, spend any Friday night/Saturday morning, at St Vincent's A&E, across the road from the infamous 'the Wall' at Darlinghurst for all the proof most of us can swallow!

Dear O Sung Wu,

I have heard of "the Wall," and the type of activities
that go on there. I grew up in Sydney. Went to Uni there,
and had friends who lived in Paddington.

Today the covert sexual life of Sydney (including its many
brothels) still continues: the beat goes on ...

I think that education plays a crucial role in the fight
against HIV and AIDS. Our young people, women, and men,
need to be informed about all of the risks involved and
how HIV is spread. The following link is just a small
portion of what should be done globally:

http://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/education-plays-a-crucial-role-in-fight-against-hiv-and-aids/

Surely no-one is seriously suggesting that Australia is some Third World country that lacks education and on HIV/AIDS?

Although some might question if the education campaign has been too sensitive and indirect because some gays might take offence. For example, Foxy's excerpt seemed to imply that a whole mess of things could result in AIDS and as a causative factor, breastfeeding, mothers milk, is on a par with gay anal sex. Maybe there was better detail later to advise and make a more informed choice on the relative risks and likely consequences.

Should adolescent girls be encouraged to imagine that a sore behind from anal sex is as normal and carries the same risks as the mothers milk that sustained them as infants? If so, then the men who want to take advantage of them sexually, already have a head start in that department.

One wonders if the efforts to normalise gay sex might be reducing the very credibility and impact of the campaign to reduce and eventually wipe out AIDS?

Is it possible too that the availability of medication has encouraged more risky 'barebacking' by gays and is contributing to an ongoing pool of the disease? Has it instead become a campaign for federal funding for medication and hang the proactive stuff like condoms that limit the risk of contracting the disease in the first place?

Is it now, 'take the sex tour in Thailand and don't worry, the meds are available back in Australia for when things go wrong'?

It is hard to see how girls and young women have any alternative but to refuse point blank to have casual sex with a male who displays an interest in anal sex. As for women in long term relationships, what value do you place on his word? What other risk management might be reasonable and warranted where the risks to their own health and future childbearing are so high?

'evening to you FOXY...

One of my greatest disappointments, I've mentioned to you and others previously, was an eminent Jurist in the most powerful court in the land, often directed his driver to cruise past 'The Wall' on many occasions. Especially whenever they 'sat' in the Court complex, in Taylor Square, Sydney.

Detectives had their eye on him for months 'n months, yet still the big boss hadn't got the nerve or wherewithal, to order the pinch. This is despite his driver's statement as to this blokes dubious activities. It's all too late now no doubt, still it would've been a tremendous Brief to run with?

Dear O Sung Wu,

I can fully understand the frustration of the police
officers at that time regarding the covert sexual
life of the jurist you mentioned. Those were different
times, I guess.

Our society today
is a lot more open in certain respects and accepting.
It's probably easier today to not be judged by your
sexual orientation. Yet not so long ago being anything
but straight was considered abnormal to an extent of
being treated as a disease. Prominent people could not
dare to reveal their orientation in the fear of being
ostracized. There were so many Hollywood celebrities
for example who were unable to admit to being either
homosexual or bi-sexual.

People like Rock Hudson, Joan Crawford, Raymond Burr,
George Cukor, James Dean, Gary Grant, Montgomery Cliff,
Katherine Hepburn, just to name a few. We have our
very own - Ian Thorpe. I heard on the news that
Barry Manilow has finally come out of the closet and
admitted his sexual orientation.

cont'd ...

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z8bgr82

Alan Turing was a victim of mid 20th century attitudes
to homosexuality. He was chemically castrated before
he committed suicide at the age of 41. Male homosexuality
was illegal (until 1967) in the UK.

Alan Turing cracked the enigma code and helped the allies
win World War II. The Queen granted him a pardon (after
his death). I recently saw the film "Imitation Game,"
based on his life.

Thanks for the timely reminder of Alan Turing, Foxy.

It’s touching that so many here are concerned about the sexual health of gay men, but the intolerance that it’s inspired by is a far greater danger to them. o sung wu, who has has seen what can happen when society's intolerance pushes a group of people into unhappy relationships and underground, can attest to that.

It was a stroke of bad lack that a practice that is (quite presumably) practiced by gay men more often than it is by any other group turned out to be more risky. What some here don't seem to realise, however, is that it says nothing about the virtues (or lack thereof), or rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. If there were a relationship there, then lesbian oral sex would be riskier than heterosexual oral sex.

Nevertheless, this stroke of bad luck has proved to be a convenient excuse for some to rag on a demographic that they don't like for absolutely no rational reason whatsoever. Shockadelic's statistics support my speaking from experience here.

leoj "any man's interest in casual sex involving anal should trigger all of the red lights and alarms, shouldn't it?"

Heterosexuals engage in anal sex as it is non-procreative, therefore no risk of pregnancy.

Men may want the assurance they are not going to held accountable for a baby or an abortion.

Women may also have the same concerns (not wanting a baby or an abortion).

Some heterosexual men enjoy being penetrated by dildos. It is a *pleasant* experience. This involves no risk of disease, if toys are clean.

You are only at risk of infection if you're partner is infected.
Medications reduce the virus to undetectable levels, reducing the danger to virtually nil.

You should be glad people are taking these medications, not bitching about it, as it stops further transmissions.

Eventually there will be a permanent cure. What will you bitch about then?

Ask any reputable gynaecologists about woman's health when she frequently engages in anal sex. A large proportion of vaginal infections come from faeces.

This is all starting to look like a good argument for same-sex marriage. After all, marriage should encourage monogamy and reduce the spread of HIV. Of course, those complaining about STDs don’t want gay people marrying either.

They can’t win.

When your opposition to an entire group or phenomenon is utterly irrational, eventually two or more of your values are going to end up contradicting each other at some point.

Plenty of red herrings, but no appetite for addressing the thread topic.

Women, especially mothers and carers, should take heed of what is being argued here by the bullying gay activists, who are continuing to follow the US Gay Pride, Gay Activist lead, one assumes.

- Which is that the responsibility is being placed solely and squarely on women's shoulders to take care of their own safety and for their loved ones.

Now back to the issue at foot, which is specifically what practical, reliable and robust controls/steps/decisions are available to women to shield themselves against a disease that show no signs of reducing in incidence and is being spread by arrogant risk-taking men for whom 'any hole is a goal' and are unlikely to declare facts that might deny their short term enjoyment (sand goal scoring!)?

What no one has mentioned is the fact that anal sex poses far more health risks than vaginal sex because the rectum was not designed for sex.
Unlike the vagina, which has a specifically designed, tough and self lubricating lining, the rectum has a delicate, easily torn lining, which leads to frequent tears and abrasions.
This leads to a far higher incidence of all stds, not just HIV.
There is also the risk of long term damage to the bowel.
Finally, gross as the thought is, there are mow multiple cases of faecal matter infecting throats because some men engage in both anal and oral sex and spread faecal matter into the throat.
When you consider that we now have to deal with some std's that are antibiotic resistant, I would think any sensible person would avoid high risk anal sex like the plague

That’s a bit sexist, isn’t it Big Nana?

<<Finally, gross as the thought is, there are mow multiple cases of faecal matter infecting throats because some men engage in both anal and oral sex and spread faecal matter into the throat.>>

What about the women involved? Or is it only ever the man’s fault/doing?

Big Nana,

Those facts are being countered, diminished and muddied by the publicity aimed at normalising anal sex and ensuring that gay men are not upset by information that could be construed as critical of their lifestyles.

Foxy's quote* might be an example of that. To add the obvious, few internet users are prepared to read past the immediate dot points proffered by a site. Or in this case, offered as a quote.

*my post discussing it is at page 3,
leoj, Thursday, 6 April 2017 8:41:23
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7720&page=3

Dear A.J.Philips,

As I stated earlier, education plays a crucial role
in the fight against HIV, AIDS, and sexually
transmitted diseases. Today the same sexual practices
that homosexuals engage in are often engaged in by
heterosexual couples as well - including anal sex.
Therefore the more people learn about the safe methods
of these practices the less chance there will be of
catching and spreading disease. There are many websites
that are available that cover topics like anal-sex, the
risks involved and how to deal with them.
The following site is merely one example:

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/healthy-living/sexual-health/a2266/anal-sex/

Big Nana,

You certainly tell the way it is! I like it.

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for that, but the rest of my post wasn’t aimed at you, if that’s what you thought. I probably should have put a marker in there of some sort to indicate that the rest of what I was saying was not relevant to you. Which is what I’m about to do now.

--

I’m trying to take this discussion seriously, especially after leoj managed (for a moment, at least) to pose his question in a way that did not look like the real aim was to make gay men sound filthy.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I can’t see this discussion as anything more than an attempt to invoke feelings of disgust towards gay men, in a fallacious appeal to emotions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion#Disgust). Big Nana helped out a lot there. I thought her use of the word “men” instead of “people” was rather revealing too.

Dear A.J.Philips,

I totally agree with you. I initially thought
that this was an attack on homosexuality hence
my attempts at pointing out that the same
sexual practices that homosexuals engage in are
often engaged in by heterosexual couples as well.
However, you probably have noticed - that no matter
what is raised - this person will continue with
their aim and brushing everything else aside.

I think its time to close the book on this
and any other discussion that this person brings up.

cont'd ...

I have tried to point out that the notion that
HIV only affects people belonging to "high-risk groups"
is wrong and potentially damaging to public health
measures aiming to educate the public about high
risk practices such as anal-sex, use of syringes,
and other unsafe practices.

Hi there FOXY...

A couple of things if I may. Alan TURING was one of Britains unsung hero's for his incredible ability to crack the German enigma code/machine. The fact the poor man was utterly hounded out of that rightful 'honour' because he was a Homosexual, is disgusting and is nothing more than straight out bullying! You know my attitude towards male homosexuality? That said, I revile even more these spineless bullies who betrayed that honour, of this great scientist, mathematician and humanist, that was Alan TURING before his premature suicide. He deserved every accolade his country could've bestowed on him, not to become the hapless victim of these bully boys - I loath bullies with a vengeance! Some years ago I saw a great doco. about those who toiled away at Bleachly Hall (sic) during WWII.

Sorry FOXY, perhaps I didn't make myself clear - My reference to the 'jurist' loitering around 'The Wall' - he was NOT seeking to establish another homosexual tryst. Oh no, this slug was trawling for young boys (paedophilia), the younger the better - is it any wonder the jacks were so incensed in not being able to 'take-down' this maggot?

AJ, the reason I used the word " men" is that I honestly don't hear anything about two women engaging in anal sex, then oral sex, using an implement.
If it does happen then my feelings would be the same as when men engage in this highly unhealthy habit.
Regardless of how you personally feel about the topic, the fact remains that the gay community in the US are on the verge of an epidemic involving STD's.
multiple sources, including the CDC have been warning of this for the past few years, and no amount of denial can change the basic fact that anal sex is dangerous because it's not a biologically supported act.
The human body was never designed for this, regardless of the sex of the recipient, and the result is damage and disease

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thanks for that and for explaining about that vile
jurist.

Alan Turing's life was an extreme injustice.
Sadly he only got recognition after his death.

I was referring to heterosexual women, Big Nana.

<<… the reason I used the word " men" is that I honestly don't hear anything about two women engaging in anal sex, then oral sex, using an implement.>>

Do you think unhygienic sexual activity is an exclusively homosexual thing? You’re not making this any better for yourself.

In fact, I have only heard of heterosexual couples engaging in the act which you are referring to (although I don’t deny that there are obviously going to be some gay male couples who have done it). It’s usually young boys (late teens-early twenties) who have been watching a bit too much porn, and their girlfriends.

The act you are referring to (which I can't even bring myself to say the name of here) is a very notorious act predominantly found in heterosexual pornography.

<<… the fact remains that the gay community in the US are on the verge of an epidemic involving STD's.>>

I’ll take your word for that.

However, there is no need to go into such graphic detail about the mechanics of why that is, and that is where your comment, in my opinion, crossed the line from informative to an apparent attempt to make gay people sound disgusting. The fact that it didn’t even occur to you that I could have been referring to heterosexual women just goes to show how apparently stuck you are in this mindset that gay people are filthy.

<<… no amount of denial can change the basic fact that anal sex is dangerous because it's not a biologically supported act.>>

Oral sex isn’t “biologically supported” either, but it’s not dangerous. Whether or not an act is dangerous has nothing to do with whether or not it’s natural. That’s the Naturalistic fallacy. I don’t mean to nit-pick or anything, I just know from experience that such a comment would often be made to fallaciously imply that homosexuality isn’t natural - which is also the Naturalistic fallacy.

My apologies if that’s not what you were doing.

It certainly seems as though boys and young men are being influenced by the normalisation of anal sex by the chatterati in the liberal media, by Hollywood and via pornography, into believing that they should be experimenting with anal sex. That anal sex is 'OK' and something that girls and women should endure and deliver on, a 'reward for the male'(!).

For women there is other side of the coin,

"Anal Sex Study Reveals Climate of Coercion"
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-being-coerced-into-having-sex-researchers-say-with-persuasion-normalised-9671395.html

and, the practical reality for young women who give in against their better judgement and preference,
http://www.vice.com/en_au/article/why-does-anyone-like-anal-sex

- A constant trickle from the rear end for days on end does not sound enticing and nor does the common bleeding internal tear.

Nobody should do anything against their will
as far as sexual behaviour is concerned. However I'm beginning
to sound like a broken records here. I'll say it again -
education is crucial as to the risks involved in all
sexual behaviours:

http://www.medinstitute.org/2016/08/the-consequences-of-heterosexual-anal-sex-for-women/

Which education might that be?

There is the muted, some might add neutered, government funded sort that appears to be lacking success if the numbers quoted in the OP are any indication.

But honestly now, how likely are the young to multiple click through the diplomatic verbiage of government sites and brochures to discriminate what is useful and relevant to them?

Then on the other hand there is the powerful images and slick one-liners that appeal to the young impressionable and vulnerable, that is the normalising of anal sex being spruiked by the chatterati in the liberal media, by Hollywood movies and via porn.

Earlier a poster recommended a site with beautiful models in a sumptuous white sheeted bed, smiling with love and joy and about to enjoy anal sex (coyly referred to as 'bottom sex'. How cute. Not!) Here,
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/healthy-living/sexual-health/a2266/anal-sex/

That the same site also carried the story, 'I got Botox in my scrotum and my sex life has never been better' might indicate some hesitance before swallowing all it says.

But in any event the image of a beautiful, young, fit, nubile couple who obviously prefer anal sex to vaginal is a powerful one for boys and young men in particular. Such messages drown out the, 'But is it safe' and 'Why would a caring male lover want to inflict pain, discomfort and higher risk of harm and disease on a woman?'.

It's now crystal clear -

" ... why isn't the message getting through on anal
sex?"

We've just been given a perfect example of "Why?"
The link given earlier by the "netdoctor" site
pointed out all the major health risk factors associated
with anal sex. The site was based on a text by Dr John
Dean, specialist in sexual medicine and later revised
by Dr David Delvin, GP Sexologist and Family Planning
Specialist. One would have thought that the information
being provided would be quite valuable, instead apparently
(and I quote) the

"image of a beautiful, young, fit, nubile couple who
obviously prefer anal sex..." (his words) Really?
Totally distracted this one particular poster to the
extent that no much else registered.

God knows what he will see in the other link given on the
consequences of heterosexual anal sex for women, by the
medinstitute. One shudders to think.

AJ, this is not about sexual orientation, it's a health issue and when I spoke about men performing anal sex, that included heterosexual couples. The only reason I don't talk about women doing it is because quite frankly, women can't do it, they can only accept it.
Only males can perform this act, which is why I referenced men.
My concern in all this stems from frank discussions with adult granddaughters and their friends regarding the pressure put on them to engage in theses acts, yet no one has ever told them how much more dangerous it is compared to vaginal sex.
They have been told it is now socially acceptable but not taught the risks involved, nor told that they shouldn't feel guilty or abnormal for wanting to refuse.
And if I was a bit graphic in my discussion, well, I won't apologise, I'm on old nurse and find people understand issues better when in receipt of accurate biological information.

@Foxy, Friday, 7 April 2017 7:05:18 PM

Your chosen links and the one under discussion are taken from overseas. You must have spent some time Googling to find it. So you must also have had some reason for your choice.

However it is an excellent example of what I was talking about: on the computer screen the photo presents as a poster, a billboard with the young and beautiful poster couple, appreciators of anal sex about to indulge (again?).

Above the billboard is the heading 'Anal Sex' with the bald statement to be taken as fact that, "Many couples derive pleasure from some form of 'bottom stimulation'..". There is the tailing admission that it does involve health risks. But the scene has already been set and the impression has been created. Further information if read is likely to be seen through that lens.

-BUT HELL, everybody is doing it right? That is the impression it is conveying.

Would many read on? Probably not. And that is the finding of many communication studies, especially where the younger impressionable generations are concerned.

Having looked at the article again, the poster couple and the environment, the comfy inviting bed, would be representative of advertising that is targeted at girls and young women and would easily catch their eyes. However I would like to think that the writers of the article muffed their message by giving a conflicting impression through the photo and lead.

Well this is turning out to be an interesting discussion after all.

A discussion that initially appeared to want to attack homosexual and bisexual men as the main focus of blame for the spread of HIV (at least, that’s how many of the more conservative posters seemed to interpret it, judging by their responses) is slowly revealing perhaps a far bigger culprit: pornography (more specifically, what is depicted in it nowadays and the ease with which it may be accessed).

When I was in high school, the only access to pornography that us teenage boys had was passed-around magazines and video cassettes with copies of copies of poor-quality movies filled with bad 70s and 80s hairdos and close-ups that were obscured by copious amounts of pubic hair. Nowadays, any kid can stream graphic, high definition pornography at any time straight to their phone.

In my opinion, that’s a far bigger sexual health concern than gay or bisexual men.

--

Big Nana,

Unless they’re being raped, women are still engaging in the act, even if they were pressured into it.

<<The only reason I don't talk about women doing it is because quite frankly, women can't do it, they can only accept it.>>

By that token, women can never have sex, they can only ever “accept it”. Yet that’s not the way any of us phrases it.

Anyway, if your granddaughters weren’t taught about the increased risk of anal sex or that it is wrong for anyone to pressure anyone else into ANY form of sexual activity, then perhaps that should have been your first comment on this thread? It does appear to be more relevant to what leoj is wanting to discuss, after all (at least now, anyway).

Feminists and not the practical health professional Big Nana, have reinforced gender roles by framing men as risks to women. Probably as the Australia's most significant and dangerous threats to women, beyond the unmentioned coronary heart disease, dementia and Alzheimer disease, and cerebrovascular disease.

On the other hand it is women who are eternally caring, responsible and so on. They possess all of the virtues, bar none.

Strangely, feminists can easily rationalise why they hold slut marches, encourage sexual promiscuity in girls and young women, insist that women do not and should not consult with men on terminations and so on. -I am NOT saying that men should have the final say, just challenging the feminist double standards.

The world has changed too, feminism has been effective in encouraging women to be as some men might have been. Well, if all men were to claim the success of the few lotharios that is. But then women always liked 'bad boys'. It took feminism to encourage impressionable girls and young women to imagine that forming a queue to be mounted (now in the behind) and thinking they were the (unlikely) 'One' at the same time was actually 'empowerment'. Then came the surprises at fertility running out with time (who would have thought?) and the unexpected STIs, especially the serious blood carried viruses, but contracted early regrettably.

While pornography contributes, it is largely the media and the various socialist, claimed 'Progressive', academics and other talking heads (that are so influential with the ABC apparently)that are behind such social experiments as promoting anal sex to youth and more recently concentrating on young women and schoolchildren. And yes, indisputably, there is a loose alliance through common interest where feminists and gay activists (dominated by the US Gay Pride) are concerned.

While all of that grinds away in the background and creates a certain political environment, it nonetheless has to be recognised as not being conducive to maintaining any common, collective, cooperative agreement on health policy.

contd..

Obviously to the political soldiers of the socialist 'whatever' factions and career feminists who are out for themselves, playing politics must come before any concern about the continuing additions to the number of blood borne virus, including HIV/AIDS, cases.

The ends justify the means or so it seems and girls and young women are necessary collateral damage. Easily deniable - hey, there is eduction, OK? Yes, but what education might that be? Secondly, what might be inhibiting, or even counteracting, the effectiveness of those guvvy brochures and other bumpf?

But above all, since government obviously does not have the answer to preventing the spread of serious blood borne STIs, specifically what practical, reliable and robust controls/steps/decisions are available to women to protect themselves and their children? -Obviously, the answer must come from the home.

//The human body was never designed.//

Fixed.

AJ, regardless of your reluctance to face well documented facts, multiple studies and figures from all over the world unequivocally prove that rates of all std's, including HIV and AIDS, are far higher amongst the gay and bisexual community than the heterosexual.
As initially quoted, something like 74% of all new cases of HIV occur in gay and bi men whilst the incidence of syphyllis, gonorrhea and chlamydia have reached such high levels in that demographic some experts are calling it an epidemic.
The proportion would be even higher except for the fact that more women are now engaging in anal sex which puts them at the same risk as gay men.
As I so explicitly explained earlier, there is a biological reason for this, one that in my opinion is not advertised nearly strongly enough, and certainly, according to my grandchildren, something that was never discussed during health education at school.
Unfortunately I can't see that omission being addressed properly in the near future due to the angry dismissal of any discussion that even remotely seems to be anti gay

From the very beginning of this discussion my emphasis
has been on the importance of education and the role
it plays, the crucial role, in the fight against HIV and
AIDS. The links were chosen for that specific purpose to
have an open and mature discussion that dealt with
HIV in Australia,
the statistics involved, the often misunderstood
differences between HIV and
AIDS, how the diseases are spread, and most
importantly, the consequences of heterosexual
anal sex for women, and so on. I felt it important to have
these things open to discussion - because these topics
have often been regarded as being taboo.
It now appears that we are
finally beginning to get somewhere. Hopefully this trend will
continue.
Here is another link on the subject:

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/citykat/getting-to-the-bottom-of-the-last-great-taboo-20121011-27ff7.html

Big Nana,

At what point have I expressed a desire to avoid facing that?

<<… regardless of your reluctance to face well documented facts, multiple studies and figures from all over the world unequivocally prove that rates of all std's, including HIV and AIDS, are far higher amongst the gay and bisexual community than the heterosexual.>>

That’s common knowledge. At least, it was when I was in school, and we didn’t have internet access then, nor was anal sex mentioned in the sex education syllabus.

Come to think of it, I don't know how I found out that anal sex posed a greater risk of transmitting STDs than vaginal or oral sex. What I do know is that I knew about that long before I was old enough to be doing any of it. That being said, I find it awfully strange that none of your granddaughters or their friends knew about the increased risk that anal sex poses.

Kids can learn a lot in the school yard, outside the official syllabus.

<<Unfortunately I can't see that omission being addressed properly in the near future due to the angry dismissal of any discussion that even remotely seems to be anti gay.>>

If it’s not being discussed nowadays (for whatever reason), then that’s a problem that needs to be addressed. However, I will still speak out against those who use the unfortunately stroke of bad luck - that is the connection between anal sex, HIV, and gay men - to make gay people sound like unnatural, filthy, disease-carrying vermin. After all, if we weren’t all such a vicious pack of bigots when it came to sexuality, then perhaps we wouldn’t have some insisting that certain topics not be discussed out of fear of inciting bigotry.

If that’s what’s actually happening, that is. After all, it was never discussed when I was in school either.

//something that was never discussed during health education at school.//

It was covered in my health syllabus (NSW state school). Maybe your grandkids just went to school in the wrong state? Or the wrong school system? I shudder to think what might pass for sex education in some private religious institutions: 'Sex is bad, kids. Don't do it at all unless you're married, and even then only do it missionary with the lights off and definitely don't enjoy it, that's sinful. And if you masturbate you'll go blind. Right, that's got heterosexual sex covered - now we can devote the rest of the period to explaining why god hates fags.'

Big Nana "Only males can perform this act, which is why I referenced men."

Which may explain why 700 out of 280,000 Australian gay men get infected each year.
There are two men involved, which doubles the probability.
It's maths, not morality.

Hi,

To everyone using these admittedly alarming statistics as a way to decry gay men, you may want to keep in mind that sexual acts all fall on a scale in regards to HIV infection risk.

Anal sex obviously rates quite high.

Do you know what rates quite low? Lesbian intercourse. Now yes I am generalizing and horribly so, but significantly less than some of you bigots have on this thread so it is in keeping with the spirit of the conversation. But generally HIV transmission risk falls along these lines.

Anal
Vaginal
Oral

So if those filthy fags are truly disgraceful in their lifestyle and that's why they contract aids then on the scale my Lesbian partner and I are morally superior to all you filthy heterosexuals.

Seriously though HIV transmission across all demographics tends to have more to do with lack of education, improper access to contraceptives and societal backlash regarding certain types of sexual contact anal... casual... etc...

Meanwhile anyone suffering from HIV or any serious medical condition deserves empathy and compassion, not judgement on the hows and whys and why people are still engaging in unprotected sex deserves serious discussion not diatribes regarding personal views about certain types of people.

Hello Zeil,

Never thought that we would have a lesbian admitting to be a lesbian on OLO, but here you are, calling us bigots. How about I return the compliment by calling you a disgusting pervert? That's fair, isn't, or does the abuse just go one way with you?

“Meanwhile anyone suffering from HIV or any serious medical condition deserves empathy and compassion”.

Don't think so dearie. You have every right to do whatever you want, according to the law, but don't expect all of us to kowtow and pretend that we think that you are anything but abnormal.

Welcome to the forum Zeil.

Ignore the Neanderthals.

Hello Foxy,

Thankyou for the welcome and I do, but I also like them. I like exposure to all viewpoints it keeps us from becoming entrenched in any sort of echo chamber.

Hello TTBN,

I am a Lesbian and you are a bigot, textbook definition wise, I'm sorry, I didn't create the word. If you don't like being called so then don't be so, I believe is the common view. On a similar note, feel free to call me a Lesbian, as often as you would wish.
Furthermore you can think whatever you wish and I would never try to force you to think otherwise.
I don't agree with Capitalism and nothing anyone could say would change my mind. I'm fairly sure.
However I don't go around heckling and demeaning Capitalists at every opportunity. You can view homosexuality as unnatural without having to state such as often as possible as loudly as possible in the most offensive way possible even when the situation does not warrant it.
But again that is just my opinion your own likely differs.

On a side note though. You don't think cancer patients and leukemia sufferers and the like deserve even a drop of compassion? Seriously?

//here you are, calling us bigots. How about I return the compliment by calling you a disgusting pervert?//

Jeez, it's getting to the stage where a fella can't even make a bigoted comment without being called a bigot. Political correctness gone mad...

//but don't expect all of us to kowtow and pretend that we think that you are anything but abnormal.//

I'd wager money on ttbn being the sort of bloke that publicly expresses his disgust at lesbianism, but privately still jerks off to lesbian porn.

If he can still get it up, that is.

//You don't think cancer patients and leukemia sufferers and the like deserve even a drop of compassion?//

I'd also wager money on him being the sort of bloke that views compassion as weakness, cruelty as character building, and ignorance as strength.

Presumably he was absent the day that his sunday school covered the parable of the good Samaritan. And his parents never let him watch Star Trek because it had a black woman and a gay asian in it.

Zeil,

Well, at least you have no need of comfort from Aunty Foxy. She's a nice enough woman, but a bit naïve, continually confusing blindness with kindness. She's never called me a Neanderthal before, but I hope it made her feel better.

Just a bit of sorting out: you are a lesbian because you announced the fact. I am not necessarily a bigot just because you think I am. And, as far as I'm aware, 'lesbian' is not a form of abuse; 'bigot' is. However, you have indicated that you intend to continue thinking of me (and others you disagree with I presume) as a bigot. So bet it.

You might like to explain why you think that just because I have no sympathy for aids sufferers that I would not have any sympathy with cancer patients.

Toni Lavis,

You are merely disgusting and immature. Something to do with having a girls name?

TTBN,

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
As per webster, me pointing out the obvious does not make a figment of my imagination. One does not have to label themselves as things in order for them to obviously be those things. Me calling myself a Lesbian doesn't make me one, I am attracted to other woman exclusively. That makes me a Lesbian. If I were attracted to men or both sexes that would make me straight or bisexual.
I announced it because it was relevant to my post regarding sexual morality.
I called you a bigot not because you called me a Lesbian but because of how you obviously look down upon the homosexual community in general:

"Not only do we have to suffer the whining and demands of the homosexual sector, we still have to spend pubic money to save them from their unnatural, foul practices."

That belief makes you a bigot. I'm sorry as I suggested if you don't wish to be labeled as one maybe stop pushing those ideologies.

As to sick people...

“Meanwhile anyone suffering from HIV or any serious medical condition deserves empathy and compassion”.

Don't think so dearie. You have every right to do whatever you want, according to the law, but don't expect all of us to kowtow and pretend that we think that you are anything but abnormal.

Firstly I was speaking of all people suffering illness, but I'll assume here that you thought I only meant HIV suffers or homosexual patients specifically and to that I challenge:
People (nurse and doctors) whom contracted HIV through an accidental needle-stick don't deserve compassion and empathy. Straight women whom were cheated on and accidentally infected by their partners and husbands don't deserve compassion and empathy? Patients whom were given tainted blood transfusions? People whom were tattooed with improperly cleaned equipment?

Indeed, you’re not, ttbn. Indeed, you’re not.

<<I am not necessarily a bigot just because you think I am.>>

You’re a bigot because you dislike gay people for absolutely no rational reason whatsoever, and demonstrate your intolerance through your unsupported assumption that they're "unnatural".

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution+of+homosexuality

Sorry, that was another link. Perhaps you have some contradicting evidence in all the alleged reading that you do of this mysterious hard copy literature that you tell us about sometimes, yet never cite?

Feel free to print some of those articles out, if that’s what it takes to make them more credible in your eyes.

<<And, as far as I'm aware, 'lesbian' is not a form of abuse; 'bigot' is.>>

Bigot isn’t a form of abuse if one can support the accusation, and you helped Zeil out by removing any doubt there. Heck, even you seemed to agree with her. I mean, she didn’t mention any names in her first post, yet there you were, straight on the defensive.

Guilty conscience?

Hi there ZEIL...

I too would like to extend to you a warm welcome to 'The Forum'. And I suppose you'd classify me as a bigoted individual as well. Many years ago I was press-ganged into doing a specialised course, titled; 'Protective Measures for Women'. Actually it was specially designed to meet the unique needs of Gay Women in our community. Back then, it wasn't quite so proper to advertises this type of training, as it would be today. In our enlightened society that adopts this far more aggressive stance on Political Corrective.

After the preparatory course concluded (10 Weeks, @ 2 sessions per week of 2 hours per session). Being the introductory Course, each participant was encouraged to complete a comprehensive written critique on all facets of the course. Personally I thought the first course went reasonably OK.

However after the organisers had received, read and disseminated them all, many of the students claimed the most detractive moments during the course were mainly of me ? Claiming my bigoted attitude towards homosexuality, lesbian women in particular, was both embarrassing and uncalled for, given the specific nature of the course, otherwise they found the course most worthwhile!

Well, I'm buggered if I know. I always thought myself as being sufficiently professional, to never allow my personal prejudices to ever enter, my instructional style?

ttbn "but don't expect all of us to kowtow and pretend that we think that you are anything but abnormal."

*All* disease is the result of abnormalities, either intrinsically (genetic inheritance) or due to inefficient defense by the immune system.
So you should show no sympathy for anyone suffering any illness, and demand that all public funding of all medicine cease immediately!

ttbn objected to the use of 'deserves', “Meanwhile anyone suffering from HIV or any serious medical condition deserves empathy and compassion”.

'Deserves' could be taken as implying compulsion and it infers the judgemental 'ought'. There could also be the inference, in the subject case one desired by gay activists, that compassion also means agreement with and acceptance of the behaviour, poor choices or whatever, including criminality that led to the suffering.

It is the suffering ALONE that is the focus of compassion.

A humanist may show compassion for Bashar al-Assad, observing that Bashar al-Assad's beliefs, cultural origins and so on have made him the monster. The humanist would add that s/he is NOT excusing Assad in any way.

Bashir al-Assad
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/4/15177166/bashar-al-assad-syria-poison-gas-attack-idlib-chemical-weapons-khan-sheikhoun

It would be wrong to say that gay activists and the feminists who also ride the gay activism bandwagon are humanists. Their statements and mantras belie any sympathy for humanism.

To conclude, while the public would feel compassion for all who suffer and suffering is part of the human condition so all are inevitably affected and some would extend their compassion to all creatures, most people draw a line in the sand somewhere. There are limits where their compassion is concerned.

Importantly, no-one is likely to swallow any activist definition of compassion that implies anything outside of suffering being its object. It is reserved exclusively for suffering.

In NO way should feeling compassion be taken to imply any agreement, sympathy or acceptance of poor choices, lifestyles, or criminality that contributed to or caused the suffering.

So the public are NOT be approving or sympathetic to the 'bare-backing' and other risk-taking and not properly informing recipients, that lead to the spread of HIV/AIDS. Nor can compassion for the suffering of the stupid risk-takers and for the unfortunates they in turn carelessly infected or otherwise hurt (examples being their families), be construed as the public's unconditional support or 'love' (another misused term) for their (Gays') lifestyles. Tolerance carries obligations as well.

Missed a word or two, should be,

"So the public are NOT likely to be approving or sympathetic to the 'bare-backing' and other risk-taking and not properly informing recipients, that lead to the spread of HIV/AIDS"

Leoj,

Do you really believe that?

Okay lets dig into this HIV claim. Now according to the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations & The Kirby Institute(anyone who does not view them as a credible sources step up step up) Australia has over 25,313 people living with aids. In 2014 1,081 new people were diagnosed with the disease with 70% of that 1,081 being gay or bisexual men. As of 2014 new cases of aids have rose pretty uniformly at around 1,000 new cases per year.

So now lets dig a little further on those 2014 statistics. Of 1,081 cases 89% were men of all sexual orientations which means with some simple math 19% of aids suffers identify as straight men and just 11% of HVI suffers are women. No statistics here on lesbian woman but I'm gonna gamble and say that's probably because the numbers negligible.

So this tells us that whilst gay or bisexual men make up the lion share of HIV sufferers, straight men and women don't make up negligible portions of this group themselves. Roughly 110 woman and 190 straight men contracted HIV in 2014. Now what could we infer by these two numbers? In vaginal (or anal) sex woman have a far greater chance of contracting HIV than men do, it pretty much has to do with what fluids are gong where, obviously. So if there are significantly more straight men contracting HIV than straight women one could infer that men... straight and gay engage in risky sex on a much larger scale more than woman do in general regardless of sex. Therefore its not that gay men are significantly more risky in how they chose to go about sex, it's just that there preferred type of sex is inherently more risky.

Moving on though cos I know what responses I'll get...

Those men just claim to be straight...

Right, every HIV positive male is gay or secretly gay and every positive woman had sex with a bisexual or in the closet guy.

Moving on.

So Kirby also did some research regarding HIV and people of diverse backgrounds. (Not just HIV suffers) They looked at everything from the risky behaviors these people regularly engaged in to what they new about HIV and HIV testing.
https://kirby.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/hiv/attachment/SERP_CALD-survey-report.pdf
It's a great study.
One of the interesting things they found was that on average woman scored higher than men regarding their knowledge about HIV, despite that in that same study men (88% straight) reported having multiple partners over the course of 12 months.
Some unfortunate things were universal though, whilst woman scored higher than men, there were still a lot of misconceptions regarding HIV and a lot of really harsh opinions on HIV suffers across the board. 19% of of those surveyed said all HIV suffers deserved to be infected. They said this despite that then only 31% of men claimed to always use condoms with casual sexual partners and only 23% of women.

So, if people would like to seriously debate this issue...

I can go on...

In fact we can actually dig into why I think is that 'Yes' gay and bisexual men do suffer a much high rate of HIV infection and I think it is a massively fascinating topic. However I don't think it's anything to do with them being more promiscuous then straight men, or filthy and I certainly don't think god... (I doubt there is one) but if there is one... I seriously think he has better ways of wiping out a population than some disease which has significant collateral and these days is no longer much of a death sentence.

Maybe remove some mud from the waters:

MSM - men who have had sex with men;

WSW - women who have had sex with women; and,

Heterosexuals.

Now, just where does one find the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS? Answer, MSM.
You can go to the sub-group if you like, Gays.

Regrettably for women, some MSM also have sex with women.
- It has been shown in the US for example, that black MSM have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS and expectably, there is a corresponding high (but lower than the men of course) incidence affecting black women.

- Hispanic MSM have the second highest but there is a fair gap from black, and as for Hispanic women, a corresponding incidence that is behind their men

- White MSM have an incidence of HIV/AIDS that lags behind Hispanic men and white women, a corresponding incidence behind their men.

But what about white heterosexual men? Their incidence of HIV/AIDS comes from women they trust, women who have in turn trusted men some of whom at least have not declared previous or active sex with men, ie they are undeclared MSM.

Researchers point out that heterosexual men, who by definition are not MSM, get little advice and counselling and don't get much attention where government grants and researchers are concerned.

Regarding anal sex, it is the recipient who is most at risk.

Heterosexual women are being encouraged, duped and coerced into anal sex that is NOT invited and welcomed by women anyhow and goes against their bodily instincts. As the recipient of anal sex they stand the most likely to become infected.

The question again is what practical, robust actions can they take and advise their girls to take to avoid the calamity? Should there be a requirement for men to declare any MSM sex to prospective women partners? If not, why not?

'expectedly'

What researchers?
Where?
When?
What HIV demographics are they looking at?

Leoj... 99% of unsubstantiated statistics are made up. 98% of people know that.

As to why certain gay men of ethnicity infected at a greater rate than those of certain Caucasian demographics? A lot of sexual health researchers argue that its because of how homosexuality is looked upon in those communities. In fact a lot of sexual health researchers believe that just that accounts for a large portion of why gay and bisexual men suffer sexually transmitted diseases at a higher rate.

Meaning you're one of the answers to your own question. You and people like you look down on gay men for being gay, meaning they are more conflicted about being so and engaging in sex which means they are less likely to be open about it and more likely in engage in risky sexual acts.

Also I notice you no way address how that risk of infection regarding certain sexual acts plays any role in infection. As in the Kirby study only 31% of men in that study stated that they always used a condom with casual sexual partners. 88% of those men were straight and reported never having engaged in a sexual act with another man. Just 23% of woman stated that they always used condoms with casual partners.

31% and 23% of straight men and women.

Zeil, "What researchers?"

You are kidding, it is one of the most researched subjects. But you plead ignorance. Start here,

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/racialethnic/africanamericans/index.html

Yes what researchers?

But what about white heterosexual men? Their incidence of HIV/AIDS comes from women they trust, women who have in turn trusted men some of whom at least have not declared previous or active sex with men, ie they are undeclared MSM.
Heterosexual women are being encouraged, duped and coerced into anal sex that is NOT invited and welcomed by women anyhow and goes against their bodily instincts. As the recipient of anal sex they stand the most likely to become infected.

What creditable researchers and research has ever concluded conclusively that all straight men and woman were directly or indirectly infected by the risky or duplicitous actions of a gay or bisexual man?
I want to see it. But you can’t because it doesn’t exist and here’s why. It’s not true. Like I said 99%.
Heterosexual women are being encouraged, duped and coerced into anal sex that is NOT invited and welcomed by women anyhow and goes against their bodily instincts.
And I love that. Rob women of their given rights to freedom, agency, responsibility and identity while you do gay men. It’s nice and even handed I suppose. Reduce the female population down to vessels for male desire whilst you’re reducing Gay and Bisexual men down to unnatural lower forms of life. Also congrats on robbing straight men of their right to sexual responsibility there as well.
If a straight woman is HIV positive she was tricked into anal sex by a bisexual man and if a straight man is HIV positive he trusted the wrong duped woman. But gay men are always responsible for how they conduct themselves sexually? Always?
Also I got something shocking to tell you buddy. I know plenty of gay women whom enjoy anal sex and they aren’t coerced into it by anyone, man, woman or otherwise. They enjoy it and if you don’t then you can not do it, that’s your choice but again if we’re going to use sexuality and risk of sexually transmitted diseases as a compass for moral superiority Lesbians still win.

I came across the following article that may be of
interest:

http://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-hiv-infections-in-australia-arent-falling-47416

zeil, "I know plenty of gay women whom enjoy anal sex ..but again if we’re going to use sexuality and risk of sexually transmitted diseases as a compass for moral superiority Lesbians still win"

WSW who display their rear and anus to be mounted mare fashion by another sporting an over-large fake penis? Hard to imagine as likely, but maybe that is the gay activist circle you move in.

The rest of your post was incoherent and muddying the waters.

From Foxy's link,

"According to the latest annual surveillance report, HIV, hepatitis and sexually transmitted infections in Australia, 1,081 new cases of HIV infection were recorded in 2014, compared to 1,028 in 2013 and 1,064 in 2012.

Sexual contact between men remains the main route of HIV transmission, accounting for 70% of cases in 2014. Heterosexual sex was responsible for 19% of cases, while around 8% of cases were attributed to injecting drug use.

Although Australia has made some gains – more HIV-positive gay men are receiving treatment than ten years ago and the number disclosing their infectious status to partners has risen – for a number of reasons we’re not seeing a major decline in infections."

It is disappointing though that the simplicity of three categories: MSM, WSW, and heterosexual aren't used to simplify the collation and examination of data. It is as though some might prefer to add needless complexity. Political correctness interfering in research?

Apparently, callous selfishness and stupidity of MSM is often why the message wasn't getting through on HIV and anal sex.

How then might heterosexual women protect themselves and limit the bridging of HIV/AIDS to heterosexual couples and families?

A formal requirement for the man to declare any MSM history to the woman prior to sex would be of huge assistance in that regard. She would at last have some chance of informed consent and the threat of a legal remedy for deceit.

How anyone can put a MSM's 'sensitivity' before a woman's need to know for her informed consent to protect her body and possible children, is beyond reasonable imagining.

Thanks for the link Foxy,

I hadn't looked into the preventive medications in a while. In fact last time I read up they were a hope and a prayer in US or Swedish drug trials. I honestly forget which.

The 'only' remaining problem is to divert more tax dollars, or higher taxes then? (sic)

But wait a minute, are there any other wrinkles where the 'magic bullet' of drugs is concerned? Maybe, just maybe, a medical worker did comment earlier on that.

Leoj,

I don't know what to say, except that if you can't keep up with the conversation best not try to join in at all.

More over straight woman can keep their risk of HIV infection low the same as every other consenting adult on the planet. Trust me, woman are very capable. I know you'll have trouble believing it what with that lack of respect you have for anyone who isn't white, straight, male and privileged, but try real hard for the sake or your own personal growth.

Also stop using fake concern for woman as a smokescreen. Deal with your own bigotry rather than screaming a still more tedious version of 'dear god won't someone please think of the children'. It's tired and boring.

In fact I think I could forgive your deplorable bigotry if you weren't so boring.

Your latent homosexuality driven homophobia and misogynism is so textbook and painful.

Dear Zeil,

I found the link useful and the final paragraphs summed
things up rather well, I thought:

"At the beginning of the HIV epidemic gay men invented
safer sex to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Today we need to listen to them to understand what
makes risk reduction difficult, and which technologies
are critical to the future of HIV prevention in this country."

What is there to learn and from whom?

The US experience is the bellwether for Australia. This report from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention is sobering,

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

"If current diagnosis rates continue, 1 in 6 gay and bisexual men [ie MSM, men who have sex with men] will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, including 1 in 2 black/African American gay and bisexual men, 1 in 4 Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men, and 1 in 11 white gay and bisexual men.
...

The Numbers
HIV and AIDS Diagnosed

In 2014:

Gay and bisexual men [Men who have Sex with Men, MSM] accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States.

Gay and bisexual men [MSM] aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27% of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual [MSM] men.

Gay and bisexual men [MSM] accounted for an estimated 54% (11,277) of people diagnosed with AIDS. Of those men, 39% were African American, 32% were white, and 24% were Hispanic/Latino."

Remembering that for every MSM there will be sexual partner/s. There is a lag time from infection to diagnosis, if and when sought.

The flow-on effects of higher illicit drug use, including alcohol, may not be factored in.

leoj,

You ask what advice and from whom?

Did you not read the link given earlier - including
the summary I cited in my previous post. I found
the link useful especially the advice given regarding
access to testing (early testing is crucial) and
wider access to the necessary medications. As
stated in the link -

"At the beginning of the HIV epidemic gay men invented
safer sex to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Today we need to listen to them to understand what
makes risk reduction difficult and which technologies
are critical to the future of HIV prevention in this
country."

Today in Australia cases of AIDS are so low that they are
no longer recorded. And HIV is no longer a death sentence
thanks to education of the risk factors involved,
new medications, and early testing.

cont'd ...

leoj,

The following link explains further:

http://theconversation.com.australian-law-needs-a-refresher-on-the-science-of-hiv-transmission-68225

The chapters on the fact that "HIV is no longer a death sentence,"
and "New approaches to limit HIV transmission" are especially
relevant.

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo.

The link should be:

http://theconversation.com/australian-law-needs-a-refresher-on-the-science-of-hiv-transmission-68225

"1,081 new cases of HIV infection were recorded in 2014, compared to 1,028 in 2013 and 1,064 in 2012."

So it's stable.
Therefore no need for alarmist hysterics.

All viruses spread quickly at first, then stabilise over time.
This is exactly what we see here.

The only reason for the hysterics is the underlying conditioned "disgust" at male homosexuality, which is impossible to "debate" with.

Dear Shocker,

But it is a debate that needs to be brought out
into the open so that so many myths and
misconceptions can be corrected.

So true Foxy,

People of a certain ilk are cowards though. They don't want to face what's ugly in themselves.

Arguably a bigger transmitter of STDs nowadays is the unprotected sex and anal sex that is practiced by heterosexual young people who were taught an abstinence-only approach by conservative Christian parents and schools.

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2008/12/29/abstinence-pledges-still-dont

But that’s no fun to talk about, is it? After all, conservative Christians are, well, conservative. And they’re definitely not Muslim. So let’s just brush that aside and keep our focus on those filthy poofters…

Dear AJ,

This may not be appropriate but your previous post
about what Christians were taught about sex reminds
me of the following story:

Sister Mary Virgilius was giving her usual Wednesday
morning 'fire and brimstone' lecture on sex - at her Catholic
Girls' High School. She was telling the girls how one hours
of pleasure would damn them to hell for all eternity and so
on. As she was ranting on in full flight on the subject
a young voice came from the back of the assembly hall:

"Sister, how do you make it last an hour?"

It should be possible to have a sexual health discussion without the tedious intrusion of politics. Cartoonist (late) Bill Leak is being proved right in this thread.

I find gay politics utterly boring and predictable with seemingly no prospect of avoiding the activists from either side, a complete turn-off. -Including the slippery activists who claim they are 'only' about 'balance' and 'information'. Yeah, right! Pull the other one.

However a few comments are necessary and (hopefully accepted as dispassionate as intended), before leaving yet another thread to the political partisans to revel in their prejudice:

- ultimately, numbers and facts will always prevail. That is even where (and often because) the politically motivated and lobbyists try to fudge them to suit their own agenda;

- it is only to be expected that authorities and the researchers would be most conciliatory to MSM whose cooperation is absolutely crucial to any containment of HIV/AIDS;

- there is apparent blame-shifting by one section of MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) to the other. For instance from self-identified, so-called 'Gays' (some admit sex/boast sex with women), to 'Bisexuals' or claimed 'Straights' (who have sex with men!);

- reliance on antiviral drugs to contain a disease is fraught with dangers. Not the least being any impression created that highly successful and robust proactive controls, such as women refusing the anal sex they don't want anyhow, are now unnecessary,

- if safer (but not 100% safe) sex practices like wearing a condom are now being cited as an invention by 'Gays', they are misleading themselves but no-one else.

Noticed too was the post from someone who does not understand that having a pool of disease (and source of transmission), even if it is for now being 'contained' to recent historical numbers, is a compromise, but NOT a good result for humanity.

contd..

Astounded, then maybe not given the politics and incidence of selfishness, that some are so frivolous where the health of women is concerned. -Particularly girls and young women who might wish to start a family one day.

It does seem a 'no brainer' that it is up to women, parents and carers alone and as the last line of defence, to counter the spruikers whose aim it is to normalise anal sex with youth and young adults.

The unethical, self-centered, media-manipulating spruikers are winning the battle for minds of girls and young women, having already convinced boys and young men (apparently). The risk messages of the regrettably boring, overly diplomatic health education brochures are being overwhelmed (incl., by political correct censorship) and lost, especially in the feckless media where sensationalism rules.

To conclude, of course there should be a formal requirement for any intending male sex partner to declare any MSM history to a woman. How else can she exercise due regard for her health and body and make an informed decision? Why do some here want to deny women that right?

@AJ Philips, Wednesday, 12 April 2017 9:31:38 AM

You linked to some personal blog leading in turn to the personal blog of one Dan Savage. It is a wonder how you might come across stuff like that.

You do add a heck of a lot of your own creative interpretation to Gay activist Dan Savage's already rather 'free' (to be very diplomatic) interpretation.

Below is the same study as reported at length in a newspaper. Where even a staff journalist and editor failed miserably to make it as exciting and arrive at the same conclusions as you and Dan did (although you did stretch the envelope even further, which was quite an accomplishment considering Dan's record),

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/28/AR2008122801588.html

An excerpt,
"By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a pledge had retracted their promises, and there was no significant difference in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in any type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex, vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were unmarried.

"It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge," Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a program."

While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who reported condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the pledge, and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use any form of contraception."

Thanks for the funny, Foxy. I need that today!

--

leoj,

The connection between abstinence-only sex education, anal sex, and STDs is well known. I didn’t even feel compelled to provide a link, but decided to at the last minute so I Googled the above and grabbed the first link that looked relevant after scanning it.

I don’t know who this Dan Savage is, but apparently you have a problem with him and the fact that the page I linked to was only a blog, so here’s some peer-reviewed articles on the topic:

Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs: http://www.moappp.org/Documents/articles/2006/SantelliAbstinenceonlyEducationReviewPaper.pdf

After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges:
http://goo.gl/3rKgJO

Understanding ‘Abstinence’: Implications for Individuals, Programs and Policies:
http://www.pauldavidtuff.com/PDF%20Files/Guttmacher%20Abstinence%20Only.pdf

Oral Sex Among Adolescents: Is It Sex or Is It Abstinence?:
http://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/3229800.pdf

Anal Intercourse among Young Heterosexuals in Three US STD Clinics:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5019823

Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy:
http://goo.gl/I9Vwxv

Rest assured, despite their titles, they all discuss anal sex to one extent or another.

So your conservative Christian brethren are not off the hook just yet, I'm afraid.

Even if you can get them off the hook, the fact remains that your focus on gay and bisexual men is disproportionate (as some of Foxy's links also suggest), which suggests that the spread of STDs isn't your main concern. Which was the main point of my last post, and your subsequent attempts to downplay or discredit any role that your fellow conservatives may play in the spread of STDs helps confirm that.

AJ Philips,

It is necessary for you to poison the well against any critic. That is the way of the activist.

You did get caught out inventing findings and stretching the envelope way past Dan Savage's wild lead, which was already extreme and way out there past that seventh planet from the Sun.

Is there anything you would like to disclose? You can trust all here. After all, it IS the internet. LOL

Not to imply I agree about AJ's post, but what Leoj is distorting and inventing facts only something you are allowed to do in this conversation?

Dear AJ,

I admire your patience.

Dear Zeil,

Not everybody on this forum sticks to the facts, avoids
insults, and inflammatory language. It would be great
if they would bring to the table those facts which
have been thoroughly vetted as true because they would
at least then be debating accurate information as
opposed to rumours, slander, and nasty discourse (labelling
of people).

A.J. Philips has always presented rational
arguments. Unfortunately leoj? - the less said, the better.
You summed him up perfectly in one of your posts. Nothing
more needs to be said. I try to avoid any contact with him
as much as possible for obvious reasons. The day that
he does present a rational argument without labelling people
is the day that perhaps I shall be tempted to take him
seriously. In the meantime, talking to him is as effective
as a fart in a blizzard.

How do you mean “poisoning the well”, leoj?

Are you referring to my suggestions that this discussion is not really about the spread of STDs? If so, then I think myself and others have well and truly demonstrated that by now.

Heck, just look at the comments from your fellow conservatives that followed your OP. It appears they had the same impression I did, and dived in head first to tell us all about just how disgusting those fags are.

<<You did get caught out inventing findings and stretching the envelope way past Dan Savage's wild lead …>>

No, I didn’t get “caught out” doing anything. I explained to you the events surrounding my posting of that link, and the speed with which I was able to access more reliable sources and respond to you with them suggests that my explanation was indeed truthful.

There was no attempt to invent any findings or push any envelopes, and my follow up links demonstrate that. Not every link that everyone posts is their first and only source of information for the claim they're making at the time.

Even if I were lying, and had indeed been inventing findings, only to 'get lucky' and find reliable research supporting my "invented" claim, the fact that I had found reliable research in support of my "invented" claim would still mean that I was right in the end, which in turn suggests that this is nothing more than a dihonest attempt at character assassination to distract from the fact.

But given where my qualifications lay, I'm more offended by the fact that you would suggest that I would get my sociological information from some blogger than I am by your suggestion that I'm being dishonest.

<<Is there anything you would like to disclose? You can trust all here. After all, it IS the internet.>>

Like what? I don’t understand.

But I do agree with much of what AJ Philips says about the religious education he went through. Many of my friends and especially the women have had to go through years of counselling because of it.

I reckon AJ was unfair and casual in his reading of my posts though. As if I could ever be regarded as any sort of fundy or member of a political party.

My very honest, well-meant and straightforward concerns in this thread have been stated. I have no interest whatsoever in gay politics. I see no practical worth in research and discussion that doesn't grasp the nettle and address MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) as a category in itself and the main one of relevance to HIV/AIDS.

Women are being poorly served by a political correctness that puts the hurt feelings and expectations of MSM ahead of women's health and wellbeing.

I will leave it at that.

Won't someone please think of the children!

Leoj if a woman contracts HIV through unsafe sex then that is ultimately on her. Social context and such cab paint a broader picture of actions but they don't control them.

I control my actions especially in regards to sex. To sugest otherwise is really to suggest some sort of coercive rape.

So confusing it all is...gender identities as below.

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/07/explained-the-33-gender-identities-recognised-by-the-2016-australian-sex-survey/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/15/the-complete-glossary-of-facebook-s-51-gender-options.html

https://apath.org/63-genders/

2, 33, 51 or 63 - take your pick, but please I'm not here to explain to you why I don't subscribe to your Land Rights for Left Handed Harp Seals agenda. Thanks for allowing me to post my 'opinion'.