patrick.net

  new post
register or log in

patrick.net's 40 proposals »

10,739 registered users, 1 online now: APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE

For the Married Guys (And the Guys Who Have Been Married)

By BayArea (33/33 = 100% civil)   2012 Dec 28, 2:55am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   2 links   98,744 views   668 comments   watch (4)   share   quote  

Hi 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 ?

« First     « Previous     Comments 429-468 of 668     Next »     Last »

429   BayArea (33/33 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 7:27am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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...

430   Bap33   2013 Jan 27, 7:28am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

anyone willing to put a peepee in their pooper is insane.
besides
that's so gay

431   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 7:32am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

New Renter 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.

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!"

432   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 7:36am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

BayArea says

the disease is primarily sustained through

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.

433   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 7:39am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

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.

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.

434   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 7:43am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

PERIOD!

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.

435   Bap33   2013 Jan 27, 7:48am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

436   Bap33   2013 Jan 27, 7:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

Sex isn't behind food, a clean house, and well behaved children in most
relationships. It's item #1 on the agenda.

dude!!! print up some T-shirts with that!! They may not sell on the coast or on the delta, but valley sales are certian!

437   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 7:50am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Bap33 says

any young male who may be pondering his first male/male incounter

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.

438   Bap33   2013 Jan 27, 7:51am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

439   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 8:22am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Bap33 says

The numbers where you live...are all that matters.

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.

440   mell (19/19 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 8:46am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

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.

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.

441   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 8:55am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

mell says

it is much cheaper and healthier to provide clean needles

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.

442   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 8:57am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

I haven't seen comparative studies, but I don't see why HIV would be much more difficult to catch than all other STDs, for example syphilis. Syphilis can be cured by antibiotics, but it spreads anyway, because there is no vaccine.

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.

443   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 9:08am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

you have no business having this conversation.

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.

444   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 9:25am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

445   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 9:28am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

446   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 9:39am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

I think we need a rational debate about HIV with real numbers.

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

dozens of random partners

Definitely a risk factor, for example among basketball stars etc. Didn't Wilt Chamberlain claim 2,000 in his aubiography?

iwog says

Picking up a girl in a bar tonight...

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.

447   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 10:17am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

448   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 10:26am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

449   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 10:36am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

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.

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.

450   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 10:41am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Note that heterosexual contact overtook IV drug use around 1992, i.e. a few years after the above-cited studies published in the 1980s.

451   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 10:51am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

chanakya4773 says

if thats the case , why is hiv such a big issue in africa

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.

452   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 10:55am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

Note that heterosexual contact overtook IV drug use around 1992, i.e. a few years after the above-cited studies published in the 1980s.

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?

453   New Renter   2013 Jan 27, 11:02am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

New Renter 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.

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.

That's just your opinion, not fact.

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!"

Again this is your opinion, no doubt heavily influenced by your day job.

454   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 11:03am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

455   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 11:07am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

New Renter says

That's just your opinion, not fact.

New Renter says

Again this is your opinion, no doubt heavily influenced by your day job

Obviously.

456   mell (19/19 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 11:09am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

New Renter says

Again this is your opinion, no doubt heavily influenced by your day job.

Being a landlord?

457   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 11:15am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

Among females in the United States diagnosed 2007-2010, CDC reports 5 cases of heterosexual transmission for every one case of IV drug use.

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?

458   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 11:21am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

Women generally ignore breast cancer and are TERRIFIED of catching HIV. Why do you think that is?

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.

459   Buster   2013 Jan 27, 11:32am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

IV is an epidemic in the United States due to dangerous homosexual practices and IV drug use. PERIOD!

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

460   iwog (192/192 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 11:36am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Buster says

In 2010, 46 states in the US reported 12,875 new heterosexual cases of HIV.

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.

461   New Renter   2013 Jan 27, 12:09pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

New Renter says

That's just your opinion, not fact.

New Renter says

Again this is your opinion, no doubt heavily influenced by your day job

Obviously.

Glad you admit it.

462   Bap33   2013 Jan 27, 1:09pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

463   New Renter   2013 Jan 27, 3:09pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Bap33 says

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.

Yep, its just you...

464   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 3:13pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Bap33 says

Maybe it's just me that wonders ?

Bop69, I have literally never met anyone who spent as much time "wondering" about "male/male coupling" as you do. You can't stop "wondering," but your early religious programming inhibits you from going ahead and doing, so you become obsessed. It's sad to watch. Of all the users on PatNet, I've only ever seen one other who had your problem, and alas I worry about him because of his references to slitting his own throat.

In other countries, you guys could be married already. Alas in this one you remain trapped by your early indoctrination.

465   marcus (62/62 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 3:24pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

iwog says

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.

I don't understand why this argument is happening here. Aids has been around since the early 80s. How can any halfway intelligent adult, not have been curious enough to already be fully informed on this. Especially if they were sexually active at all during the decades since then.

I mean wtf ?

I'm trying to think of any subject that a person would naturally want to be more informed about.

Time magazine has had 7 cover stories on the subject in the past 30 years.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/02/aids-from-the-archives-for-30-years-time-covers-the-epidemic/

(Pick any major periodical)

Nothing Iwog is saying is new. It's pretty consistent with what everyone has known for 15 or 20 years.

466   curious2 (53/53 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 27, 3:28pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

marcus says

Nothing Iwog is saying is new.

The suggestion that any pandemic could be eradicated anywhere without a vaccine is, to say the least, "new". As your link shows, more than 30 million people have died, and the other links above show more than 30 million remain infected. To put that in perspective, 30 million is more than the entire population of Canada. Possibly the only disease ever successfully eradicated is smallpox, and the task was accomplished by developing and distributing a vaccine that worked even in people who were already infected.

Also, to Iwog's credit, he is right about the fact that drugs can reduce the risk of transmission. That is a quite recent finding, really only in the last few years.

I like and respect Iwog, but I've noticed that he tends to have more confidence than most people. That has probably contributed to his success, but in his work he's probably seen plenty of people whose misplaced confidence resulted in their bankruptcy. Different people can look at the same set of facts, and some will feel cautious while others feel sanguine. Market bulls tend to have more confidence than bears, but that doesn't tell you which is more likely to be right.

Returning to the original topic, I wonder if there may be a correlation between confidence and staying married. One commenter talked about his divorce and said "never trust," but he had already arranged his finances so as to shield them from possible creditors. I suspect that more confident people are more likely to get married, and may also be more likely to stay married.

467   KILLERJANE   2013 Jan 27, 3:37pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I am not a guy but, marriage is a lot of putting up with each other and having fun with that. Joke laugh fight cry. The 5 things that spur a fight for us are stress, hunger, tired, confused, jealousy. Recognize those and get over it. Been married close to 18 years, known each other 22 years. The itches happen just like you said in your writing. Had kids after 8 years, that can be trying too. Until they go to school and get out of the house and give you a break. Having kids can be overwhelming, especially if they are very active ones. The kids get better with age, IMO. Once they speak your language it starts to get easier. 0-5 rough, 5-8 great! I don't know the rest yet.

468   Bap33   2013 Jan 28, 12:59am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

New Renter says

Bap33 says



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.


Yep, its just you...

lol .. atta boy

« First     « Previous     Comments 429-468 of 668     Next »     Last »

Watch comments by email

home   top   users   about   contact  
#investing   #housing   #politics   #humor  
housing crash   thunderdome   sexy pix   site suggestions  
best comments   ad hominem comment jail   patrick.net on twitter   random post  
please recommend patrick.net to your in-laws