From what I have read it is almost impossible for a straight man to catch HIV from having vaginal sex with a woman. Something like 1 in a million chance. Yet Africa has a very high HIV rate, which makes me think that either black people have a genetic predisposition to catching HIV or that homosexuality and anal sex are much more common there.
In some parts of Africa large percentages of the women work as prostitutes because eof extreme poverty. Anal sex is used as a form of birth control. Another thing I have heard is that it is not considered gay for men to do each other anal if they are having trouble finding a woman for some reason. I can’t verify this beyond here say from what I would consider a relatively reputable source.
hahahaha
hahaha oh Christ.
I have no hope for people.
I dread to think what rubbish you’ve been reading. The briefest of Googling throws up the below:
From here:
The CDCsays:
Yes, some research does indicate that the same genetic variation that provides protection against malaria - found more often in people of African descent - does make getting HIV more likely, although it also prolongs the expected lifespan in those who get it. Genetic Variation Increases HIV Risk In Africans -- ScienceDaily
Why do you say this? OP’s terms are not politically correct, nor figures entirely accurate in terms of degree, but he saw some data, made a hypothesis that is not unreasonable (and as WhyNot’s post shows, perhaps even partially correct). As long as he’s willing to complete the circle by discarding/modifying the hypothesis in the face of evidence, he’d be a fine example of the scientific method at work.
Not to be defending AClockworkMelon, but asking some anonymous people on an internet message board counts as following the scientific method now, does it?:rolleyes:
In sub-saharan africa, sexual transmission via heterosexual intercourse and vertical transmission to newborns still account for the commonest transmission mechanisms for HIV. Risk of transmission via hetersexual vaginal intercourse is related to frequency, multiple partners and long term relationships between discordant partners (one carries HIV; one does not).
Most of the excess prevalence of HIV among african populations is thought to relate to sexual practices themselves (unprotected sex; multiple partners; extramarital sex…), and not innate genetic predispositions.
See page 29 and following here for a discussion from the UN AIDS Global Report of 2010.
He obviously skipped “Maybe my sources are off about the infection rates, or I’m misremembering?” The scientific method should include a step where you make sure your initial observations are accurate before you form your hypothesis.
Modeling shows that sexual practices alone do not account for the high rate of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. Yes, concurrent partners does lead to higher HIV rates, but even then it can only spread so fast.
While there is some controversy, circumcision seems to be a major factor. The areas with extremely high HIV rates are areas that, for the most part, have not practiced circumcision. Areas where it has long been the norm tend to have relatively low rates.
Another factor is untreated STDs. Any STD that causes lesions can make one more susceptible to HIV infection. Many parts of Africa have high rates of these STDs, and often limited access to health care.
OP saw some data that didn’t make sense to him, he made a hypothesis about what the bit that didn’t make sense could imply, and he’s testing that hypothesis by asking a question on a forum specifically dedicated to providing factual answers. It’s not going to be published in a journal, but yeah, the OP looks a whole lot like the scientific method to me.
And there has been a theory that resistance to the bubonic plague is associated with resistance or immunity to HIV, rendering a large percentage of European people immune because they are descendants of recent (middle ages) plague survivors (who were more likely to survive if they were genetically resistant, thus increasing the transmission of the resistant DNA), but it looks like there are some controversies related to this and it is in question, but it still seems like white people are more likely to be resistant or immune.
IIRC there was an article in Scientific American about infection rates. Another factor is the African predilection for “dry sex”. Apparently some prefer the woman not be very lubricated. I don’t recall the details, but the man will use something to try and dry her out first.
HIV spreads because the virus from bodily fluids gets into the small tears in the skin. The “receptor” skins tear more easily, and removing lubrication aggravates the risk. Hence too the higher risk for anal sex, a bring-your-own-lubricant situation. Plus, the receptors have a much larger collection of the partner’s fluids in a warm moist environment for much longer (same for an uncircumcised man).
What does surprise me is how low the actual risk is by those stats. But then, I suppose most males compensate for the low risk by increasing the frequency.
The high rates in Africa are aggravated by the high odds your partner is infected. Plus, Africa has a large number of migrant workers who leave home to work, use prostitutes, then bring the disease home… Plus less of a European-Christian guilt complex about fidelity in a traditionally polygamous social setting.
MODERATOR NOTE
AClockworkMelon, this is called threadshitting. This is General Questions. Try to restrain yourself.
samclem, moderator
On top of all this, in many areas, medical supplies, including needles, are reused until they simply can’t any more. I believe this accounts for a sizable percentage of HIV infections.
Plus, the virus existed there for many years before it was recognized.
Additionally, it is likely that the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), which is common in many parts of Africa, contributes to the transmission of HIV.
The HIV specific risks include cross-infection due to non-sterile implements used, emergency treatment (requiring transfusion) when the FGM has complications or during defibulation (for intercourse or childbirth), scarring that makes sex difficult and abrasive for both male and female with bleeding, ulceration, and resorting to anal intercourse when vaginal intercourse is not possible due to FGM damage. There are also many other health issues not related to HIV as a result of FGM.
Apparently there’s a connection between being descended from someone who survived the Black Death, and having resistance to HIV infection.
However, as described in this thread there are a host of cultural, social, and religious factors that give rise the the high rates of infection in Africa. I don’t think anyone’s mentioned it but the Catholic Church condemns condom use and has spread misinformation about their effectiveness.
That’s what I was going to mention. See Wikipedia on dry sex for example, and follow the links from there.
Dry sex happens, yes. But all available evidence shows that the high rates of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa are not primarily attributable to unusual sexual practices.
There are also urban legends circulating which state that a man can cure himself of AIDS by having sex with a virgin, and small children have been raped as a result. :eek: :mad: :smack: It’s actually nothing new, nor limited to that area; I have a book about the history of medicine that was written prior to WW II, and it said that a similar rumor circulated in the Deep South regarding syphilis, although I won’t quote it exactly because it had very strong racist implications. :rolleyes: