Technically speaking, they can. However, they would have to have an open sore or some kind of wound in their mouth and ingest enough of the woman’s fluids to get some in the sore and from thence into their bloodstream. Even at their most excited, most women don’t gush out fluid like guys do. They sort of trickle. Men just don’t get AIDS that much from women because the mechanics don’t really allow for it. I think that’s partly why the article in the OP mentions men specifically, and not women. You can’t make claims like that for women.
The relegation of heterosexual AIDS as a myth ignores all statistics outside the US, and all the biochemistry learned since 1990.
Of the fourteen identified transmissible strains of HIV, three are statistically demonstrated to be active in the overwhelming majority of diagnosed AIDS patients. In the US, the original pool of viral sources was disproportionately represented in gay men, leading to the identification as a gay plague. (Social demographics are inexorably mixed with the earliest study data, which cannot be reliably manipulated to compensate for its influence.) The single strain believed at the time to be the cause of the disease is apparently more likely to be transmitted in male to male sexual encounters, (and somewhat more likely in male to female routes) than is the case in female to male or female to female routes. The deposition of fluids onto internal mucousal tissue provides a more durable infection environment, including possible entry into the blood or lymph systems. External deposition is less felicitous for transmission, and the epidemiological consequence is that a higher percentage of homosexual males have successful (from the point of view of the virus) exposure than simple statistical analysis would indicate.
Worldwide studies are much less well funded, and have lagged far behind those in developed countries. There is fairly good evidence that two other strains are included in the pandemic of AIDS, and that at least one of them seems to be equally virulent in heterosexual transmission, although probably still more virulent in male to female transmission than female to male. Female to female transmission has not been shown to be statistically significant, although it is probably under reported. Mother to child transmission is highly virulent, and may be responsible for many cases of infection, although statistical information is difficult to ascertain. The probability that pediatric AIDS victims will survive to transmit the disease by either homosexual or heterosexual behavior is low.
Injection related transmission is, of course highly correlated with economic factors, with wealth being the primary identifiable variable with which the transmission rate correlates. Rich people use better injection methodologies than poor ones, in both medical and recreational use patterns. Drugs don’t cause AIDS; viruses cause AIDS.
Sexual activity with men correlates highly with probability of infection except among injection users. The more often you have sexual encounters with men, and the number of men with whom you have sexual encounters is the most identifiable “risk” analysis factor for HIV infection. Sexual orientation only matters in determining human behavior, not viral behavior.
Heterosexual transmission is both possible, and frequent. Protection is a relative term, and cannot be relied upon without associated behavioral patterns similar to “sterile procedures” that are highly unlikely to be adhered to in either casual, or monogamous sexual behavior. It provides some level of protection to always practice appropriate use of a condom, or other barrier technology. Change any one of those adjectives, and the result is a decrease in protection.
High school students who have signed promises to refrain from sexual activity before marriage have an infection pattern for HIV, (as well as several other STD’s) which is identical to peer groups who have not made such promises.
Tris
If we just back up on this question, I find myself asking, what is even the larger point here?
While it’s interesting to debate these types of historical issues with the benefit of hindsight, doesn’t it kind of divert resources away from more worthy pursuits, like educating sexually active men and women about the risk of contracting STD’s? The fact is that there are men out there with genital sores, increasing risk of transmission. Men who are uncircumcised, again, increasing risk of transmission. As Tris pointed out, there are viruses which are more virulent than others, something which will only get worse over time.
Here, it seems to me that one could argue that the OP is trying to sell the argument that if you are an HIV- heterosexual man and can convince a woman to have sex with you without condoms, you’ll probably remain HIV- no matter what.
That’s not a healthy agenda, all things considered; it’s kind of an irresponsible Duesberg-type message.
I’m sure that’s not at all what IzzyR intended by his OP, but nonetheless, we have to be careful, I feel, not to be seduced into complacency about AIDS and the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases when engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse.
And actually, as I go back and read the OP again, I see that indeed, IzzyR had no intention of arguing that an HIV- man can have unprotected sex with any woman he wants. Sorry.
My impressions as a (slightly tipsy) gay male is heterosexual HIV transmission is entirely feasible male-to-female (HIV+ man transmitting to HIV- woman) in the same way that you’re at higher risk as the receptive partner in male-to-male anal sex. It’s a matter of more sensitive tissue being exposed to the virus. Anal sex is riskier because chafing and microscopic cuts are more likely to occur, but that even happens in vaginal sex at times. So, on a strictly case-by-case basis, straight sex is still a very viable mode of transmission.
On the other hand, as a matter of statistics and wider demographics, straight sex is (in theory) safer than gay male sex with lesbian sex being the safest. I’m not gonna pull any punches against my community here, and I think I’ve got solid ground to stand on.
-
The percentage of cases is lower. Whatever percentage of the overall population you decide to place gay men at, we’re way over-represented in number of AIDS cases. Lots of cases, smaller pool = more risk of getting it.
-
Sex practices. Say what you like, gay men tend to have on average more sexual partners in a lifetime than straight men. What does that say? Not much except that boys will really be boys when the other partner is a guy too. A lot of straight men would rack up those numbers if they could get enough women to go along with it (and some do. Look at a lot of superstars, after all.) Further, anal sex is, as mentioned above, riskier than vaginal. Beyond that, being the receptive partner is way riskier than active.
So more partners, riskier behaviors, more cases to start with these days.
Add all this together and the records of cases in the USA are not at all inexplicable. I’m not going to argue about whether HIV = AIDS or other such things because I just ain’t qualified to do so. My personal stance, just on first impressions, would be that something has to cause this and I really can’t think of one thing a gay man does that a straight person hasn’t given a whirl. Sex with a guy? Umm… we all came about somehow. Anal sex with a guy? Please. Drugs? Hah! So really, if it’s a gay sexually transmitted disease than it’s also 99.999999% likely to be a straight sexually transmitted disease of varying likelihood.
Even allowing the CDC to be fully accurate, reporting the statistics exactly as received, there still exists the problem of liars.
Men are going to lie about either being bisexual, or using IV drugs. There’s no way around that, so the stats are always going to run higher for hetero men than they probably should. The question is how many liars are there?
Regards.
But HIV or AIDS positive people make up such a negligible portion of the heterosexual population–less than o.1%–that it’s really not that much of a risk at all. If you’re a man having unprotected sex with a stranger, you’ve got less than a one in two million chance–using those odds (1/1000 * 1/2000) of contracting HIV. You’ll forgive me if I don’t worry myself to sleep at night about whether or not I used a condom.
If you’re a heterosexual who does not use IV drugs, you’re risk of contracting HIV is infinitesimal. It was always infinitesimal.
As an aside: It’s amusing in the citation in the OP that they blame conservatives for wanting to “turn back the sexual revolution.” Bernard Goldberg, in “Bias,” blames the liberal media for the same events. So much finger pointing.
I’d venture that neither side’s to blame, as such. People just love to have a crisis–look at the coverage of SARS “The New Plague!” the headlines screamed. It’s not a plague. It wasn’t even a blip on the radar. Same idea.
Regards.
ok so let’s cut to the chase of what this thread has taught us.
Where the chances of contracting AIDS/HIV is concerned:
It is better to give than to recieve, if one wishes to avoid infection
Hey, put it in plain language. However good their motives
THEY SPREAD IGNORANCE.
Not a good thing to folks on this board.
From the Washington Blade article linked to early on in the thread:
“Justice Department’s Office of Faith-Based Iniatives.”
Okay, so I knew there were faith-based welfare initiative… but WHAT THE HELL is a faith-based justice initiative?
If heterosexual transmission of AIDS is a myth, how did all those heterosexuals in Africa get it? Are all but .01% of the hetero males in Africa actually bisexual or IV drug users?
As someone who worked in AIDS in Canada in the early 90’s, I gotta tell ya that whenever we would go to the Government for help setting up campaigns to fight the spread of AIDS in Gay men, we ran up against the “You need to aim your campaigns at everyone or we won’t fund them” all the time…
Unfortunately, the ONLY way we could get the information out to Gay men was to show that AIDS affected “all of us”… And considering how desperate we were to get the Safe Sex message out there to Gay men, we went along with it…
Of course, this was at the time when the CBC refused to even run Public Service Announcements that mentioned condoms…
I’m just happy that there are so many of us Gay men still around from back then to be discussing topics like this one today… and I’m glad that AIDS didn’t take off in the Straight community… I think that’s a good thing, not something to be complaining about…
My mother also worked in AIDS in Canada in the late 80s/early 90s, and tells exactly the same story. And thus the “Disease that doesn’t discriminate” was born.
My complaint isn’t that AIDS never took off in the straight community–that’s most definitely a good thing. Rather it distresses me that so many people were lied to, for so long. It’s so much the case that, in the other thread, posters genuinely believed that heterosexual women were the number one transmitters of HIV. Such misconceptions are not uncommon.
Regards.
The disease that dosen’t discriminate was one of the stupidest public health policies ever. Young gay men should have had it pounded into their heads that they were at much higher risk of acquiring HIV(at least here in the states) by being the receptive partner in anal sex. This issue is very personal for me, my friend who recently came home over Christmas break revealed to me he has tested positive, he never took precautions.Even now he was flip about he whole thing, ended his revelation with, “at least its not the 80’s.” From what I understand he is not the only example of young gays returning to unsafe sex practices. 
First and foremost, minorities–particularly those of African descent–are more susceptible to AIDS. It’s one of those statistics that’s something of a faux pas to mention in polite company, lest we seem racist. Bad form or not, it’s still true. AIDS discriminates.
A key issue in determining causes of AIDS in third world nations is the rate of prostitution, and the number of men who use such services. Interestingly, women who have contracted other STDs seem to be more resillient against HIV. Men don’t share that trend, and thus a man with another STD, particularly one which results in open sores–genital herpes springs immediately to mind–increases his risk of contracting HIV dramatically. Genital herpes is quite prevalent in the third world. This–the sex trade–has generally been considered to be the biggest source of AIDS in the third world. This view is changing however, and the reason why will be discussed below.
Another important consideration is the high rate of IV drug use–not only by addicts, but by people self-medicating due to an absence of health care facilities. Dirty needles spread HIV, there’s really no way around that. Education on using clean needles seems to result in a dramatic drop. There also seems to be a high incidence of dirty needles used in hospitals and clinics; a disconcerting finding.
Still another consideration is the number of people unable to access health care facilities. Particularly in rural areas, as economic conditions increasingly force Africans to move to urban areas. Someone in a rural area may not be aware that they’ve been infected. Many of them have never seen a doctor in their lives, much less had a diagnosis. Dramatic increases in HIV incidence are seen when large portions of the rural population migrate to urban communities. This connects again–predictably enough–with the sex trade.
Still another consideration is dirty water supplies. The drinking water isn’t such an issue, as it’s unlikely to be contracted in that manner–even oral sex shows a decidedly lower incidence of transmission than intercourse–but what about washing your clothes in unclean water? Bathing in it? Again, there’s no getting around the fact that this is risky activity.
It’s difficult to gain any kind of assessment of homosexuality in most African nations, as it is often against the law, so one has no way of knowing how many of those “heterosexual transmissions” are really heterosexual transmissions.
There is also mounting evidence that the heterosexual incidence of HIV in Africa has been greatly exaggerated, to detract from another culprit–the health care system. Transfusions and injections given in medical facilities are increasingly coming under fire, as evidence mounts that it is the health industry in third world countries, and not the sex practices of the same, that results in mass transmission of AIDS.
Some estimates place child incidence (children age 2-14) of HIV as high as 6% in several African nations–a staggering number. Perhaps even more staggering is the low incidence of HIV in parents among children who test positive for HIV. Children are getting HIV, and they aren’t getting it vertically. Rape incidence in South Africa (the only nation I could find the stats for, I’ll see what I can do about finding some more) is not unusually high, or at least not reported as such. It would be staggering if molestation of children were high enough to account for the high HIV rate. This points, again, to other factors–inadequate health care, dirty water supplies, dirty needles, and so on. Children born in hospitals or clinics have a substantially higher incidence. If there is another common factor, it’s not being reported. This points ineluctably to health care facilities as the culprits.
A puzzling trend is the steady decrease of other STDS and lower incidence of pregnancy in Africa. All signs seem to indicate that people are practicing safer sex. Why, in the light of these other trends, is HIV the lonely exception? Why does it continue to rise? Once again, this points toward the spread of HIV coming from a source other than heterosexual transmission.
So, I suppose the real question isn’t “What about the heterosexual spread of HIV in Africa?” Rather it’s “Are these heterosexuals in AFrica contracting it through sex?”
Regards.
You’re lagging, I already did that. You might want to check the rest of the National Center for Health Statistics’ data as well, the results are overwhelming across the board that the HIV epidemic has been dramatically overstated.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=244253&page=2
Regards.
“Heterosexual AIDS is a myth.” == “There is no such thing as heterosexual AIDS.”
It is not a myth, and only the truly uneducated would claim that it is. Risks were grossly and dishonestly overstated for propagandistic purposes (as one would expect from liberals, of course), but heterosexual AIDS does exist. It is not a myth.
This one did. Of course I got it pounded into my head by my mother and my own desire not to, y’know, die or at least suffer serious serious painful, life-threatening diseases and complications throughout whatever remained of my life.
This is my greatest fear at times. I know some guys who lived through the 80s and even the ones who are HIV-… you can tell in their eyes that they saw many friends die around them. It’s similar, although not exactly the same, as war veterans who actually saw combat. You can tell they’ve seen a hell and that no one in their right mind should want to experience that again, yet that seems to be exactly where my generation is headed because of sheer stupidity and a belief in their own immortality. I sit and wonder sometimes whether, in twenty years, I’ll have the same look in my eye thinking of this decade. And this time we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.
Fascinating. Where are you seeing these statistics? Are you saying there is something biological causing this susceptablility or is it some aspect of minority culture and behavior? Because if it is behavior then I would say that the US supposed paranoia about heterosexual AIDs is what is keeping the heterosexual, non-IV users relatively AIDS free.
Is the number of minorities, especially those of African descent, who use these services in the Third World such an order of magnitude higher than in the New World that it accounts for the spread of AIDS there and not here? Why isn’t the rate of heterosexual AIDS not exploding at Hunt’s Point in The Bronx? There are plenty of prostitutes and minorities there, but it is still mostly an IV drug user disease there.
Herpes is down in the US, but syphilis is going gangbusters-- especially among males. Yet here in the US we have managed to keep infection rates low for non-needle using heterosexuals.
Their own health care system is giving it to them. More than a little disconcerting, if you ask me. Isn’t this something that can be fixed? It’s my own personal belief that it is education and awareness that’s keeping AIDS down in the hetro community in the US. Surely this is one area where education can work in Africa. One can only hope.
While lack of health care would certainly make having AIDS more difficult, I don’t see how it effects the infection rate. In fact, I would think it could help reduce it. Africans with AIDS die much more quickly than those in the US.
Not sure what this has to do with the transmission of AIDS and why it’s spreading among heteros in Africa and not the US. Just for the record UNICEF is worried about AIDS in Eastern and Central Europe where the water is generally clean. I think the problem in Africa is that many believed you couldn’t get AIDS if you were straight/had sex with a virgin/boiled your water when this is emphatically untrue.
Of course they are. They are getting it through unclean needles and through sex. TThose are the two major transmission routes.
From the UNICEF article above:
The question really is “Why is AIDS pandemic having so little effect on the heterosexuals in the US?”
Part of the problem with claimed high rate of AIDS in Africa is that the figures of persons claimed to be suffering from this ailment are not actually tested but their condition is inferred if their symptoms fall under the so called Bangui Definition. A commentator quoting from a WHO report has the following:
So, in the absence of laboratory tests, there is no justification for believing the figures tossed about by the WHO and research institutes concerning the level of AIDS in Africa, as the Bangui Definition could be used to prove the existence of this mysterious HIV “pandemic” in any region on the planet where malnutrition, starvation, and unsanitary conditions and disease prevail.
There also seems to be a misplaced faith in the ability of medical scientists to conduct good science. If the unscientific Bangui Definition is anything to go by, there is no reason to believe that those who control the funding for modern medical scientific research are really much too clever to go down the wrong scientific path over a prolonged and costly period.