WatchHi guys,
As the old adage states, "Can't live with them, can't live without them."
For the guys that are married now or have been married, I'm wondering what your experience has been and if you could give a newly engaged man (hypothetical to me since I am not engaged) any piece of advise or wisdom, what would it be?
I love my GF, but for a few minutes I'm going to zoom out and look at things from a more technical, statistical, and less emotional point of view.
To be honest, I am a bit discouraged at just how many people I know who don't seem to be too happy in their marriages. It always seems to be the same story. Things started off great. There was excitement, adventure, strong physical and emotional chemistry. Then 2-3yrs into it, those feels started to fade. Some couples moved on to the next phase of their lives and had some glue, er I mean kids which kept things fresh and exciting.
I saw a plot in the newspaper several years back that showed divorce statistics as a function of time. There is a spike early on in the marriage (first couple of years), then one at 7 years (7-year itch), and one at about year 18-20 (when the glue is all grown up). If you make it past that, you are fairly safe (not necessarily happy, but likelihood of divorce is low). Some of that is influenced by the fact that you don't have the same options at 45 or 50 as you do at 25 or 30. Sucks, but that's the truth.
I recall reading a book by psycologist Scott Peck that studied the term "Love." He argues that 100% of relationships fall out of love, usually pretty early on in the first few years. The feeling of love is not true love then. The conscious decision to love someone once you lose the "in love" feeling is what real love is all about.
Regarding statistics, 50% of couples who get married in this country wind up in divorce (To be fair, some of those aren't 1st marriages so that 50% number isn't quite as bad as it seems - The reason is that 2nd marriages have a higher divorce rate than 1st marriages and 3rd marriages have a higher divorce rate than 2nd marriages). Moving on, if 50% of couples get divorced, then 50% of couples don't get divorced. Surely those 50% that remain together aren't all happy marriages? So then let's say that half of the marriages that stay together are happy. That means that 25% of couples getting married in the first place remain happy, lol. I really don't like the odds here!
But anytime you get into this debate, you have to get into the alternative, being alone into older age. As much as I see my folks fight and bicker, I tend to think it's better than the alternative (at least for the level they fight and bicker).
A while back Patrick argued that the average person remains in their purchased home for no more than 6-7 years. He said, you might think you are different, but statistically you are not. Same thing goes for divorce. Nobody goes into marriage thinking they will get a divorce. But statistically, 1 in 2 people do in the USA.
What do you guys think?
As a side note, I am really curious about the following. What is the divorce rate assuming the following:
Both Members are devout Catholic ?
Both Members are devout Christian ?
Both Members are devout Muslim ?
Both Members are Atheist ?
Members don't share religious beliefs ?
Follow
Befriend (5)
55 threads
1,309 comments
Premium
marcus says
I agree with this, it helped women figure out what they personally like and being able to talk about it and live it out with their partner. Nothing bad about it. I don't think it was a man hating movement to begin with, but sometimes it is hard to stop something positive that has a lot of momentum to spill over the balance line and turn into something negative. Anyhow, I like women's movements as long as they are rhythmic.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,073 comments
mell says
Yes. I agree. Sometimes, even without going beyond balance, there can be a negative side.
For example, women joining the work force and having more fullfilling lives is great. But having our level of (real) income adapt to 2 income households being the norm,...not so much.
I'm not advocating women not working (NOT AT ALL), but if they didn't, then incomes would have to be higher, for us to afford raising families.
If you think about it, that crazy, liberal, women's lib movement was actually one more way in which incomes and wealth has been redistributed upward. You don't have to pay someone as much if his wife works too.
(not that it's that simple - part of it was distributed outward, as the third world countries that live on a fraction of what we do have increased their standard of living)
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
iwog says
Or wifey has to scramble between a demanding job, demanding kids, demanding in-laws and trying to please her husband outside the bedroom (keep the place clean, dinners, etc). Not a lot of energy left for hanky panky after all that.
Well that's ONE way to keep your renters happy!
Follow
Befriend (3)
49 threads
368 comments
Oakland, CA
curious2 says
That's a contradiction and inconsistent with what I recently read.
First, if women are typically getting HIV from their adulterous husbands, then wouldn't their source be more likely to make up the majority of the 30mil adults with HIV, lol.
Contrary to what you are saying, I've read that 75% of the population in the USA with HIV are men, with the majority being gay/bi men.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
BayArea says
The issue is statistics within statistics. A majority of the 30 million adults with HIV are women, and within that group a typical example is a woman getting it from her adulterous husband; there are of course other examples, e.g. an adulterous wife. Likewise the USA has less than 3% of the total HIV population, so statistics within that group do not represent the whole. I've read the same numbers you and Iwog have read, but also more numbers than that. Nobody is trying to distract anyone, and your numbers don't contradict mine at all; you're simply looking at a small subset rather than the whole.
What really surprised me was Iwog's (admittedly counter-factual) prediction that the disease could be eradicated without a vaccine. I can't think of any example of a communicable disease being eradicated without a vaccine. The rapid spread of HIV results partly from the rise of travel: the virus probably existed for millenia in remote parts of Africa, but didn't become a pandemic until many people started traveling there and around the world. The first American known to have died of AIDS related causes was a woman in Chicago in the 1950's; she had become ill in Africa, and was flown home for treatment at an American hospital. They couldn't save her, and they didn't invest the resources to figure out what had killed her, but they did at least preserve a sample for later testing. It's amazing how people can fool themselves into thinking that a communicable disease can somehow be kept out or ignored, and it's sad how we spend so much $ killing people in the name of "Defense" compared to how little we spend figuring out how to defend ourselves from diseases that are actually killing people. The amount we spent getting rid of Iraqi WMDs, that our dear leaders "knew" were there, is hundreds of times more than we invest in figuring out how to cure diseases that are actually here.
And, the relevance to the thread (which some seem to forget) is Iwog's earlier comment about biology and others' comments about fears of prostitution. Women have an evolved objection to adultery, based on legitimate concerns including disease. It is usually wives who oppose prostitution, and it isn't difficult to guess why.
Follow
Befriend (3)
49 threads
368 comments
Oakland, CA
Curious, thanks for sharing your views on this topic.
Although I tend to agree with Iwog (based on what I myself have read and researched) that the disease is primarily sustained through drug use and homsexual sex, I have also read many articles that argue that anal sex among heterosexuals is more common than it's ever been. That would certainly sway things in the favor of women's rate of contracting the disease rising, if that were true.
Plane and simple, sex these days can be pretty scary stuff...
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,095 comments
anyone willing to put a peepee in their pooper is insane.
besides
that's so gay
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
New Renter says
That is never a valid excuse.
Sex isn't behind food, a clean house, and well behaved children in most relationships. It's item #1 on the agenda. If she isn't willing to adhere to her primary obligation, the husband has every right to outsource that position to someone who is more than willing.
Of course this is a disingenuous point in most instances. Women who are invested in a relationship are very willing and even anxious to get between the sheets with their husbands and engineer time to do so. Women who have a headache for months at a time are at high risk to have an affair. It's not a matter of "I don't want sex", it's a matter of "I don't want sex with you!"
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
BayArea says
These aren't "views" or opinions, they are observable facts. There is no evidence to suggest that IV drug use or homosexual sex is more common in countries that have higher prevalence of HIV than the USA. The biology is quite clear. The virus isn't created by any particular activity; it spreads from one person to another. Sharing dirty needles is a very risky activity; proper sterilization of needles can reduce or eliminate that risk. Unprotected anal sex is probably more risky than any other kind, regardless of whether the recipient is male (Bop69) or female. BTW 10% of the 35 million total are children. To say that a disease is primarily sustained by two behaviors, when the numbers say most people who have it aren't even engaged in those behaviors, is contrary to reality. I do respect the distinction that within subsets, e.g. California, the risk factors vary depending on who is involved, but that's only because you can't catch a disease from someone who doesn't have it. It doesn't tell you anything about who primarily does have it, or how they got it.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
HIV is EXTREMELY difficult to catch. The odds of a circumcised white heterosexual male catching HIV from a random unprotected sexual encounter may well be millions to one against. There are documented cases of a husband unknowingly having intercourse with his HIV positive wife for YEARS and still remaining free of the disease.
While you can't think of any examples of a communicable disease being eradicated without a vaccine, you also cannot think of another communicable disease that is so difficult to catch.
HIV is an epidemic in the United States due to dangerous homosexual practices and IV drug use. PERIOD! Absent those vectors, it would still exist however it would be so rare that the average American would have more to fear from slipping in the bathtub than screwing random strangers without a condom. In fact several orders of magnitude more.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
iwog says
Please, save your shouting for Magic Johnson. The risk of a man contracting HIV from unprotected vaginal sex with an infected woman is around 1/1000, maybe 1/2000. Of course, individual mileage may vary: some "get lucky" for years, while others' luck runs out sooner. The odds don't mean everybody infected took a thousand tries.
I haven't seen comparative studies, but I don't see why HIV would be much more difficult to catch than all other STDs [updated - see below - others do reportedly spread more easily]. Syphilis can be cured by antibiotics, but it spreads anyway, because there is no vaccine.
Of course, if you are with someone who isn't infected, your chance of catching the disease from that person is zero. Wives' objections to adultery evolved long before the germ theory of disease. Long before people learned exactly how disease spread, they knew that it did spread somehow, from one person to another.
As for comparative risks, there are many examples. Hospital acquired infections kill 100,000 Americans annually. The fact that hospitals in other countries aren't nearly so risky tells you something about the business model of American hospital corporations, but not so much about biology.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,095 comments
curious, you are blind. In each area, in each country, the HIV is spread in the way it is spread. In SanFranSicko it is spread by activity "X" the most, but in Tiajuana it is spread more by activity "Y", but in Hastings Neb the most common HIV spreading is by activity "Z". BUT -- in ALL areas of AMERICA, where the HIV is spread in the HIGHEST NUMBERS between ADULTS, it is a 100% undeniable fact that the single largest activity known to spread the infection is by male/male coupling. Stop pretending the truth is not known. You are endangering any young male who may be pondering his first male/male incounter with your misinformation.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,095 comments
iwog says
dude!!! print up some T-shirts with that!! They may not sell on the coast or on the delta, but valley sales are certian!
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
Bap33 says
Bop69, you've been pondering so long, you've lost your youth. I keep telling you, instead of obsessing, just make sure he wears a condom.
To the extent your comment mentions statistics and vectors at all, it is consistent with what I've already said. If you look at an unrepresentative sample, you get an unrepresentative picture. Obviously the numbers in San Francisco differ from those in Nebraska. Likewise the numbers in America differ from other countries. That's why it matters to look at the whole picture, to see what's really going on.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,095 comments
ahhh yes ... personal attacks beat idea exchange yet again ... color me surprised
well ,since you added, so shall I.
The numbers where you live, and have unprotected anal sex, are all that matters. Like housing markets, HIV spreading is local.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
Bap33 says
If you reject evolution entirely, and imagine that people were created as described in Genesis (and why didn't Genesis mention your giant ice dome in the sky?), then I can see how you might overlook the connection between (a) how disease is actually spread and (b) wives' attitudes regarding adultery and prostitution. If you recognize that humans evolved in Africa, and endured a long history of disease (in fact 10% of our genome is leftover from retroviruses caught by our ancestors), the relevance of biology becomes easier to understand. Women whose mates engaged in promiscuity probably had a higher risk of syphilis and whatever else, which caused those women to have fewer children that could survive into adulthood compared to women who did what they could to reduce that risk, resulting in a human population where a higher % of women object to adultery and prostitution.
I respect Iwog including especially his use of data and comparative risk, and I'm not blind. I do recognize for example that American hospitals kill vastly more Americans than HIV does. Hospitals are relatively new though, so there isn't the same evolved fear of them as there is of the world's oldest profession.
Follow
Befriend (5)
55 threads
1,309 comments
Premium
curious2 says
But if you decriminalize and allow regular proper testing then the risk is close to zero (which has been demonstrated by the US porn industry where transmission is less than in the general population). Similar case can be made for drugs - it is much cheaper and healthier to provide clean needles and a sheltered environment than continuing the failed war on drugs.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
mell says
Or just let people buy their own needles (illegal in some states), or provide chlorine bleach. The "exchange" programs are a lesser evil compared to the drug war, but as with much public policy it pits one lobby against another. The cheapest and simplest solution doesn't produce enough revenue to hire lobbyists, so we get a choice between more expensive solutions that can share out more revenue to political patronage networks. The epidemic among IV drug users results significantly from the prohibition against buying their own needles, which is why they shared.
In the case of needles, the prohibition was probably well intentioned, but it illustrates the law of unintended consequences. Older syringes were made of glass and had to be disposed of very carefully. Now they're plastic and retractable. They still should be handled with care, but they're not nearly as dangerous as they were.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
I'm sorry but this is total unmitigated bullshit.
If you think HIV is as easy to catch as syphilis, you have no business having this conversation. None. There are extensive and well studied reasons why HIV is damn near impossible to pass on, and claiming that a simple bacterial infection is on par with HIV is crazy ignorant.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
iwog says
Well, I learned something, which is why I thought people engaged in debate. Your original comment (before you added your customary hyperbole about "crazy ignorant") caused me to read further. Other STDs like syphilis do spread more easily than the 1/500 - 1/2000 numbers associated with HIV. (Risk varies based on circumcision and other factors.) That doesn't change the point about adultery and prostitution though; to the contrary, since syphilis used to cause death or sterility in women, it underscores the fact that people evolved in a time when women had even more to fear from STDs than they do now.
It also isn't to disagree with mell's point either. We can observe from other countries and industries that criminalization of prostitution increases the associated risks, and the converse is that legalization reduces those risks. It doesn't eliminate them though, and long evolved fears take time to catch up to reality.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
I think we need a rational debate about HIV with real numbers.
A rational debate about HIV MUST include a frank conversation about why there is an epidemic. There is an epidemic because of unsafe homosexual sex practices (not just anal but dozens of random partners over short periods of time) and IV drug abuse.
Yet there seems to be an effort in the United States and elsewhere to cause irrational fear. It doesn't matter if we're talking about drugs or guns or sex, exaggerating the risks will ALWAYS result in bad consequences. Don't cry wolf.
Picking up a girl in a bar tonight and having sex with her will not give you HIV. You will die a hundred times over being hit by a drunk driver before you even run a remote risk of catching AIDS.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
BTW regarding Magic Johnson. If I was an extremely promiscuous basketball star who experimented a few times with men and perhaps heroin, I would absolutely say I contracted HIV through heterosexual contact.
Not saying any of that is true about Magic, but the truth wouldn't really matter would it. He was going to claim he caught it from a woman regardless.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
iwog says
I agree. 35 million is a real number. Nearly 20 million women is a real number. Nearly 5 million children is a real number. Those are all real numbers. Any understanding of how a disease spreads requires understanding how so many people got it.
iwog says
Definitely a risk factor, for example among basketball stars etc. Didn't Wilt Chamberlain claim 2,000 in his aubiography?
iwog says
in Nebraska confers a very low risk of HIV, and even in California you are probably more likely to get killed in a car wreck. In countries where more than 10% of women have HIV though, the risk would be correspongly higher. The behavior doesn't create the disease all by itself, the question is with whom. A woman who would have sex with you on a first date, for example a prostitute, is a woman whom wives are evolved and conditioned to worry about you spending time with.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Heterosexual intercourse is a low risk activity for acquiring HIV. A VERY low risk activity.
“HIV infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent, implying that sexual activity does not place them at high risk, while prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be infected with HIV...The prevalence of HIV antibodies among prostitutes ranges between zero and 65 per cent, with the single most important risk factor in the US being intravenous drug use. For example, a large multicenter collaborative study found that of 62 women who were HIV-seropositive, 76 per cent had injected drugs. The highest rate of seropositivity for all centers occurred in New Jersey, which is an area of high drug use; here the rate of seropositivity among 56 women prostitutes was 57 per cent. Another cross-sectional study found that among 535 practicing prostitutes in Nevada, 7 per cent of whom admitted to intravenous drug use, none were positive. In contrast, 370 incarcerated prostitutes, all of whom had used drugs intravenously, had a seropositive rate of 6.2 per cent. Other prostitute studies tend to be small but similarly emphasize the central role of drug use as a major risk factor: in New York City, 50 per cent of 12 drug users were positive, compared with 7 per cent of 65 nonusers; in Italy, 59 per cent of 22 drug users were positive, whereas non of the nonusers were. None of the 50 prostitutes tested in London, 56 in Paris, or 399 in Nuremberg were seropositive.”
Rosenberg MJ, Weiner JM. Prostitutes and AIDS: a health department priority?. Am J Public Health. 1988 Apr;78(4):418-23.
“In order to determine whether prostitutes operating outside of areas of high drug abuse have equally elevated rates of infection, 354 prostitutes were surveyed in Tijuana, Mexico…None of the 354 [blood] samples…was positive for HIV-1 or HIV-2…Condoms were used…for less than half of their sexual contacts. Only 4 female prostitutes (1%) admitted to ever having abused intravenous drugs. Infection with HIV was not found in this prostitute population despite the close proximity to neighboring San Diego, CA, which has a high incidence of diagnosed cases of AIDS, and to Los Angeles, which has a reported 4% prevalence of HIV infection in prostitutes.”
Hyams KC et al. HIV infection in a non-drug abusing prostitute population. Scand J Infect Dis. 1989;21(3):353-4.
“Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was studied in an unselected group of 216 female and transsexual prostitutes…All 128 females who did not admit to drug abuse were seronegative; 2 of the 52 females (3.8%) who admitted to intravenous drug abuse were seropositive.”
Modan B et al. Prevalence of HIV antibodies in transsexual and female prostitutes. Am J Public Health. 1992 Apr;82(4):590-2.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
Those statistics explain perhaps your perception, but you need to adjust for two things. You are using prevalance statistics based on how many women had HIV in the 1980s. The number of HIV+ women in North America has increased 10x since then. Guess how they got it? Outdated prevalence statistics don't tell you the risk per occurrence of specific behavior. Even current prevalence statistics result from a combination of behavior and population variables, which is why they vary between California and Nebraska and the rest of the world.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
1. You missed the fact that there were plenty of HIV positive results in every study. They came from IV drug use or homosexual activity.
2. Yeah except total bullshit. HIV infection rates have dropped since 1988 and were MUCH higher previous to 1988. The rates of HIV transmission per capita are FALLING, not going higher. They are almost entirely due to IV drug use and homosexual sex.
3. The same drugs that allow people to live with HIV also keep the virus levels too low for transmission. Although there are more people living with HIV than ever before, they are generally NOT CONTAGIOUS except through sharing blood. This explains why infection rates continue to drop while the number of people with HIV continues to climb. It doesn't support your point, it contradicts it.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
Note that heterosexual contact overtook IV drug use around 1992, i.e. a few years after the above-cited studies published in the 1980s.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
chanakya4773 says
Because this isn't Africa. White populations have more individuals with natural immunity. People in the Western world are generally circumcised. Anal sex is considered a contraceptive in Africa but not normally here. Co-factors that make transmission more likely such as other STDs are quickly cured/remedied here while ignored in Africa. There are probably other factors I haven't even thought of.
Heterosexual transmission of HIV is EXTREMELY rare in the Western world, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that any one man who:
1. has unprotected sex with women.
2. injects illegal narcotics
3. and meets men for anal sex in public restrooms
.....is almost guaranteed to report that he acquired HIV from a woman regardless of the other risk factors. ALL studies are almost guaranteed to have positive bias towards heterosexual infection because of unsavory hidden risk factors not disclosed to the researchers.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
No, you're using horrible data for your conclusion. "Mother's exposure category" is almost certainly a study from pregnant moms being tested prior to delivery. This is a common source of HIV data. Therefore the ONLY information the researcher had to work with was:
1. A blood test indicating HIV
2. A verbal interview with the pregnant mom regarding risk factors
How many pregnant women are going to claim they abuse drugs? How many pregnant women are going to know if their husband/boyfriend is bisexual?
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
iwog says
That's just your opinion, not fact.
Again this is your opinion, no doubt heavily influenced by your day job.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
Among females in the United States diagnosed 2007-2010, CDC reports several times more heterosexual transmissions than IV drug transmissions.
Diagnoses of HIV infection, by year of diagnosis and selected characteristics, 2007–2010
Persons living with a diagnosis of HIV infection
BTW, IV drug users tend to have needle marks, so it isn't so easy to lie. What surprises me though is you seem to ratchet up your insistence on a particular detail that is a mostly off topic distraction from the thread. Even your own descriptions regarding new cases seem to have shifted. You started out being right about the majority of new transmissions among the 3% subset in the USA (ignoring the 97% everywhere else in the world), but now you've exaggerated to "almost entirely," which isn't accurate. Anyway I reiterate that wives worry about adultery and prostitution, and you answer with - what exactly? - that they should have no fear because they're more likely to be killed in a car wreck? It doesn't change their concern, or the basis for it.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
New Renter says
New Renter says
Obviously.
Follow
Befriend (5)
55 threads
1,309 comments
Premium
New Renter says
Being a landlord?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
curious2 says
You forgot the footnote:
c Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
This is going to be women who were infected from bisexual partners or IV drug users or they are lying about the source of transmission. Also you linked the page with men and not women.
You also missed the fact that heterosexual transmission, even among this high risk group, is declining AND is a mere 10,000 individuals in a female population of approximately 150 million.
232,340 women are going to get breast cancer in 2013. Less than 10,000 women having very dangerous sex with known HIV carriers are going to seroconvert positive. Women generally ignore breast cancer and are TERRIFIED of catching HIV. Why do you think that is?
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
iwog says
Women don't generally ignore breast cancer, they go in for routine radiation (increasing their risk of getting it) to reassure themselves they don't already have it. It is quite likely that they may worry even more about STDs, including HIV, for the reasons I already explained: human evolution is conditioned by communicable disease. Breast cancer is a very rare cause of death among young women; the risk increases with smoking and obesity. Fear of breast cancer did not confer advantage in human evolution; fear of STDs did. We can both read the same numbers of women who actually got HIV; where we seem to differ is, I think if women didn't worry about it then those numbers would probably be a lot higher. That isn't an argument for exaggerating the numbers, but it is a pandemic and ignoring it would not result in eradicating it even if you could somehow magically remove the two vectors that account for a small fraction of cases globally but a majority locally.
Follow
Befriend (7)
22 threads
325 comments
iwog says
Statistics tell quite a different story;
In 2010, 46 states in the US reported 12,875 new heterosexual cases of HIV. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,532 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Buster says
Almost every last one of those 12,875 cases were secondary to IV drug use and homosexual behavior. 4 out of 5 were women.
What I said is absolutely true but believe what you want. I've already cited some extremely powerful studies that prove heterosexual transmission of HIV is simply not a big problem without the other two causes.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
iwog says
Glad you admit it.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,095 comments
why does nobody ask the obvious question? ... "why is there anyone trying to remove the black mark of HIV transmission from deviant sex?" Maybe it's just me that wonders ??? I guess I just find it curious.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
Bap33 says
Yep, its just you...