cmotherofpirl Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1220774' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:35 PM']The only person that is lying is someone that believes an individual that has intercourse with someone isn't going to get AIDS if they have sex "naturally", it doesn't matter what method you chose, incourse [every method] with someone that has the HIV Virus is going to get AIDS. It's a simple fact that is irrefutable. The exchange of body fluids period, results in contamination, simple and plain. It's a scientific fact that individuals that blend their blood with someone that has aids and those that partake in intercourse or exchange of sexual fluids with someone both pose the same risk and getting the AIDS virus is inevidable. If you refute this fact [as you appear to be doing], then you're refuting nearly every single sexual education and AIDS awareness book in the world [including those taught in our own public education system here in the united states]. Obviously you don't know what you're talking about, so I'm going to let this conversation die. Reza[/quote] AIDS classses teach that anal intercourse carries a higher risk of infection because of tearing. If they don't they are are lying for the sake of political correctness. Really that is such basic information, I don't see why you have an issue with it??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prose Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I think those percentages are interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 [quote]AIDS classses teach that anal intercourse carries a higher risk of infection because of tearing.[/quote] Infection and AIDS are two different things. We're not talking about infection, as I'd even mentioned that it severely increases one's chance of getting rectal cancer, but we're talking about AIDS and with AIDS unprotected intercourse has the same risk. If the individual that you're engaging with has AIDS, you're going to get it either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1218106' date='Mar 24 2007, 03:09 AM']Are these the same people that said more that half of women where not married? Because that study was not true...[/quote] Why wasn't that study true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 29, 2007 Author Share Posted March 29, 2007 [quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1221594' date='Mar 28 2007, 09:45 PM']Why wasn't that study true?[/quote] lilttle hijack: they were including 12 year olds in that study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1221656' date='Mar 28 2007, 11:37 PM']lilttle hijack: they were including 12 year olds in that study.[/quote] I coincidentally just read about this, and the studies are based on U.S. Census Data of women over the age of 15. [url="http://www.kybiz.com/lanereport/departments/passing_lane/passinglane207.pdf"]Here's[/url] a link to a PDF file; you have to scroll down to the second page for the article. The New York Times study said 51% of American women are not living with a spouse, so it's barely over half, but the long-term trend is undeniable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 31, 2007 Author Share Posted March 31, 2007 [quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1223304' date='Mar 30 2007, 08:05 PM']I coincidentally just read about this, and the studies are based on U.S. Census Data of women over the age of 15. [url="http://www.kybiz.com/lanereport/departments/passing_lane/passinglane207.pdf"]Here's[/url] a link to a PDF file; you have to scroll down to the second page for the article. The New York Times study said 51% of American women are not living with a spouse, so it's barely over half, but the long-term trend is undeniable.[/quote] Apologizes for my wrong number, but how many fifteen year olds are married???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annehladik Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 (edited) [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1219306' date='Mar 25 2007, 03:44 PM']It's of no more risk then men and women having casual sex with each other. As a matter of fact, more people have contracted AIDS through hetrosexual intercourse then homosexual. The disease in the US was spread, not through simply homosexuals but through everybody having unprotected sex outside of wedlock, and also through the lack of knowledge about it [sharing needles, etc.]. Reza[/quote] Anal sex has a much higher possibility of transmission of HIV than vaginal sex. This is because the the difference in the cellular structure of the rectum versus the vagina. The vagina is lined by many layers of cells, in what is known as stratified squamous epithelium. Epithelium has no vasculature, it receives nutrition by diffusion from the cells in the connective tissue below it, which are themselves fed by vessels. What this means is that, in the vagina, one must break through many layers of cells before seminal fluid could come in contact with a woman's vasculature to transmit the virus. However, it is very possible to become HIV-infected by receiving vaginal intercourse. It is also possible for a man to become infected from a woman through vaginal intercourse, but the transmission rates are much lower. The rectum, as part of the gastrointestinal tract, and not being intended for the reception of a penis, is lined by a single layer of cells before you reach the connective tissue that contains blood vessels. It is thus much easier to infect a person (male or female) via anal sex than vaginal sex, simply because it is much easier to break through the protective epithelial layer of cells and reach the circulation. While you may be adamant in your assertion that the risk involved in receiving vaginal versus anal sex is the same, medicine and epidemiology state that you are correct. However this all being said, casual sex between any combination of partners is the risky behavior, not whether a penis enters a rectum or a vagina. Edited March 31, 2007 by CameBackHome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1223344' date='Mar 30 2007, 09:18 PM']Apologizes for my wrong number, but how many fifteen year olds are married????[/quote] Not many, but I'm guessing there are enough that they include that age in the study. It's not unheard of for 16-year-old girls to get married, especially in rural areas. The point isn't whether or not the 51% figure is exactly true or not, but it is in the ballpark as it falls right in line with the several-decade trend and I imagine most of us can say that about half of our friends in their 20s are still single. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now