Some AIDS facts

I am so sick of this discussion I could take a hostage.

A few facts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (

So much for the “condoms break” theory - extremely low risk. Sounds like you’d be more likely to get into a car accident.

“High degree of protection” from the CDC sits quite comfortably with me.

From the National Institutes of Health (


[ul][li]As of the end of 2000, an estimated 36.1 million people worldwide – 34.7 million adults and 1.4 million children younger than 15 years – were living with HIV/AIDS. More than 70 percent of these people (25.3 million) live in Sub-Saharan Africa; another 16 percent (5.8 million) live in South and Southeast Asia.[/li]
[li]Approximately 47 percent of the 36.1 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide are women.[/li]
[li]An estimated 5.3 million new HIV infections occurred worldwide during 2000; that is, about 15,000 infections each day. More than 95 percent of these new infections occurred in developing countries.[/li]
[li]Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.[/ul][/li][/quote]

Did y’all forget that there are other countries outside the United States again? Golly! But for those so inclined:


[ul][li]The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 800,000 to 900,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-third of whom are unaware of their infection.[/li]
[li]Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the United States, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.[/li]
[li]Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.[/li]
[li]Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.[/li]
[li]From 1985 to 1999, the proportion of adult/adolescent AIDS cases in the United States reported in women increased from 7 percent to 23 percent.[/li]
[li]Of the estimated 16,273 AIDS-related deaths in the United States in 1999, 8,238 were among blacks, 4,850 among whites, 3,009 among Hispanics, 106 among Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 57 among American Indians/Alaska Natives[/ul][/li][/quote]

Let’s not forget about those minorities, either, who remain at higher risk than most. The CDC also reports that from 1985 through 1999, whites have almost halved their number of new AIDS cases, while blacks have almost doubled theirs, and Hispanics continue to increase. In 1999 the rate of new AIDS cases among blacks was 8 times higher than among whites.

Again, from the NIH:

According to UNAIDS, out of the 5.3 million people newly infected with HIV in 2000, 4.7 million were adults, and of those, 2.2 million were women. Of the 36.1 million currently living with HIV/AIDS, 34.7 million are adults, and of those, 16.4 million are women. In addition, they estimate the greatest increase among new infections in high-income countries is among injecting drug users.

So, do the largest total number of HIV/AIDS cases still comprise mostly of men who have sex with men? Yes. Do they remain the largest risk group? No - women and minorities are currently holding that title.

So I don’t care who you are or who you fuck - play it safe and play it smart.


Um, if I had an accident 2% of the times I got behind the wheel, I would be involved in an accident a couple of times a month. True, most people don’t have sex as often as I drive, but apparently SOME do…

That last paragraph should read “men in the US.”


Well, so much for dispelling ignorance… :rolleyes:


damn you esprix… I was gonna post much the same thing in my other thread… but I’m lazy, and it takes me a while to do shit like that. Fuck you.

No, no, oldscratch - save that for my “too much sex” thread, dear. :wink:


:stands and applauds:

Well said. My kids are going to have “wrap that rascal” engraved upon their subconcious by the time they’re twelve. Hey, education starts when you’re old enough to ask, right?


Nice info.
Now if only the CDC would at least mention the possiblity of woman-to-woman transmission…

Maybe being a little of the devil’s advocate here, but I have to ask if the 2% figure is also true for anal sex. From what I know, which is minimal, there is a lack of lubrication and a bit more tightness there.

I don’t quite follow you here. If homosexual men still have the highest total number of AIDS cases, why are they not a higher risk group? And according to your figures, you’ve got 70% of cases from males, of which 60% are homosexuals, which is 42% of total cases. This is of new infections.

Now, let’s assume that 10% of the population is gay, and half of these are gay men. That means that a group that comprises 5% of the total population is being hit with 42% of all new infections. Meanwhile we find that 28% of all new infections are recieved by the 45% of the population that are heterosexual males. This looks to me like homosexual sex is still far more risky. 13.5 times more likely, as a matter of fact.

Of course, my method of involuntary abstinence (AKA technical school) is still pretty damn fool-proof.

So what?!?!

While we can all applaud the fact the gay men have slowed the rate at which they are killing each other, what else are we to take from this? Are you proud that sub-saharan men are killing east asian women?

Come on. Esprix, don’t you have anything else to be proud of? Or has the gay community allowed itself to be so defined by AIDS that this is the best you have to offer?

Actually, they do - they have a whole paper on W2W sex and the risks involved.


First, remember they talk about using condoms properly, which would mean adequate lubrication. Second, there is no seperate mention of vaginal intercourse vs. anal intercourse vs. oral intercourse, so I can only assume they’re talking about condom breakage for all three.

According to the CDC, new infections among gay men are levelling off, while new infections among women and minorities are increasing. I’m not talking total numbers, I’m talking percentages. And they do make specific mention of the problems facing gay youth, that being they weren’t around during the first wave of the AIDS crisis, they haven’t had friends die, they think current drug therapies are a “cure,” etc. Barebacking (i.e., anal sex without a condom) has been a fad for quite some time, a backlash if you will to all us “old fogies” going on and on about “that AIDS thing.” :frowning: If youth were only so indestructible as they think they are…


Uh, duh. :rolleyes: Just happens to be the topic du jour.

Allow me to remind our Gentle Reader that I wasn’t the one that brought all this up - a few misinformed, prudish straight folks did. I was merely (mundanely and pointlessly) talking about one aspect of my life that I was feeling particularly giddy about; everybody else dragged it, kicking and screaming, into a debate about HIV/AIDS. So, as Kosh once said, since “The avalanche has started - it’s too late for the pebbles to vote,” and I can’t change the course of the conversation, the least I can do is respond with some facts.


Sorry if I haven’t kept up to date on the rest of your escapades, but I was refering to the OP.

This might come as a surprise but there are some out there who don’t hang on the every word of “The Gay Guy” part I, II or III

Would somebody please fucking tell me where this gay community is? Is there a mayor? A city hall/city council? Is it some neighborhood in the desert somewhere? Maybe an island? It gets mentioned like it’s some gay resort where every homosexual lives. What are the houses like? How’s the cost of living there? Is the rent low? Do they need Homoners Insurance?
Everyone mentions this community, but I have never seen it. It’s like Atlantis or Shangrela or El Dorado or something. Would someone explain this to me?

JamesCarroll:Then what on earth are you doing reading or posting in his thread?

A couple of days ago, someone made an ill-informed comment about homosexuals and AIDS. A heated debate followed. Now Esprix has posted some facts about current rates of HIV transmission in different groups. “Where there was ignorance, now let there be knowledge,” and all that?

It’s nothing to do with hanging on anyone’s every word, but if you had chosen to read Esprix’s words more carefully, you’d have seen that he never said anything that suggested he was “proud that sub-saharan men are killing east asian women.”

Shake your head, Mr Carroll. Do you hear a rattling noise?
It’s your loose screw.

There are several! If you are in Dallas, take the Oaklawn exit off of I-35 and head east to find our local ‘Gay Community’. 8^)

This actually reminds me of a question I have had - how exactly to gay neighborhoods come to exist? I think it’s different from ethnic neighborhoods in that minorities were frequently not able to earn as much as WASPs due to discrimination and tended to gather in neighborhoods with cheaper housing, and people tended to move to houses or apartments close to their family. But gays tend to make more than straights on average, and thus have more choice of where to live, and homosexuality does not seem to be hereditary, or if so not to the extent of ethnicity.

The Oaklawn area in Dallas has a number of gay bars and clubs, and many of the restaurants and other businesses are run by gays (no, you can’t tell all gays just by looking, but there is a percentage where it is pretty obvious). I have a couple of friends who live in the area (pretty low rent for Dallas) and a lot of their neighbors are gay. Is it because the gay bars and clubs are close, or were the gay people there first and the bars opened because of that? Does it have anything to do with being just across the highway from the design district?

I suspect you are more likely to get into a car accident than to contract HIV, but do you seriously think that 1/50 is an extremely low risk?

On the more substantive point: reading this in connection with the train wreck that it the Billy Joel thread, you seem to be arguing that since the majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex, vaginal sex is therefore more risky than anal sex.

There are two fatal flaws in this argument:

  1. The total number of heterosexual men and women is greater that the total number of gay men, so you need to adjust the total figures accordingly (e.g. by expressing them as a proportion of the total homosexual and heterosexual population). To be really accurate, though, you’d need to express it as a proportion of the total number of sexual contacts (e.g. 1 in X thousand homosexual contacts leads to HIV transmission, compared with 1 in Y thousand heterosexual transmissions); I doubt that you’d be able to get accurate figures for that though.

  2. It is not the case that all heterosexuals acquired HIV through vaginal sex, nor that all homosexuals acquired it through anal sex. Members of either group could have acquired it through oral sex, anal sex, intravenous drug use or infected blood transfusions.

I believe that it is still the case that HIV transimission is more likely to occur in anal than in vaginal sex, becuase tearing of the mucous membrane is more likely to occur in the former case. This applies equally to heterosexual and to homosexual anal sex, just as the risks for oral sex are the same whether you are gay or straight.

So all in all, I’d say the assertion that vaginal sex is just as likely to lead to the transmission of HIV as anal sex is just plain wrong.

Originally, Esprix said,

To which Badtz Maru replied,

And Esprix answered,

All right, I’m confused. I interpret the original statistic as, “latex condom breakage rates in this country are less than 2 percent per use.” Which implies that (according to my trusty calculator), if you have sex once a week, you’ll have a 65% chance of experiencing condom breakage in a year’s time. If you have sex once a month, the probability is only 21% per year, but if you have sex once a day, the probability is 99.9% per year. That doesn’t seem to negate the “condoms break” theory at all, as Badtz Maru pointed out.

One in fifty is extremely low risk? You ARE kidding, yes?

It’s better than fifty in fity, but I would hope one would apply other measures to protect against STDs.

You say:

And THEN you say:


AIDS is caused more by homosexual sex than by all other factors combined (in the U.S.) but they aren’t the highest risk group? Seems to me the group likeliest to contract AIDS is the highest risk group (in the U.S., anyway.) I mean, everyone’s a risk group if they’re stupid, but it seems you’ve contradicted yourself here.