The "Good Ol' Days" weren't so good.

[IzzyR]

See the following quote here (emphasis added)

Heterosexual Transmission
Among HIV-discordant couples (those with only a single HIV-positive partner), heterosexual transmission is approximately eight times more efficient from male to female. Most infections have occurred by the vaginal route, although participation in rectal sex enhances the risk. The cumulative incidence of transmission between discordant couples suggests an approximate 20% risk of transmission from male to female after unprotected sex over a sustained period in a fixed partnership. Female-to-male transmission is less efficient, at least in prospectively followed research subjects. A study from Northern California, which began prospectively following patients in 1985, found that only 2 (2.4%) of the 82 male partners of HIV-infected females became infected, but 68 or (19%) of the 360 female partners became infected. Male-to-female transmission per sexual contact infectivity in this study was estimated to be 0.0009.

Thanks to JillGat for providing the link, in this thread which discussed these issues at greater length

[system]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**See the following quote here

(snip)

.**

Thanks to JillGat for providing the link, in this thread which discussed these issues at greater length **
[/QUOTE]

Thank you very much. I can see from reading the quoted thread that this has been covered before – I also see Daniel has made the same assertions before. In any event, he did mention one item, reuse of needles by medical practitioners that definately is a significant risk factor (as opposed to drug abuse, which just is not widely characterized by IV use). I can only add that the California study probably would underestimate to some degree infection rates in Africa due to poorer nutrition and higher incidence of disease.

Given this has been covered before, and it appears fairly well esp. by JillGat and Yeah, let’s close it out.

[Philster]

*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
**Philster, I agree mostly with you. I have been thinking about this issue ever since I bought my current house which was built in 1917. They family had 5 children. There are two bedrooms, one tiny bathroom and two miniscule closets. Total square footage is 1300. No TV, no Cell phone. In fact, no car, just a horse.

But in addition to a different persception of what is “enough” to live comfortably, I think that there was something else going on. It is my suspicion that up till about 30 years ago, most people tended to stay in their home town or to at least move with an extended family. It is a lot easier to survive with a support system. My mom is planning to move near us as soon as we have kids. This will make our life infinitely easier and allow us to raise our kid without any daycare.

Of course I could also get rid of the second car, budget food better and not eat out or take vacations as my Grandparents did. Btu then that would be uncomfortable and comfort is more important than a well adjusted kid, is it not? **

Re: Support system. Absolutely - I agree. People move around a great deal more.

Comfort more important than a well adjusted kid? Again, we are going to get into the economics of it all, and that can be tricky.

Let me say this: I feel that even were it economically feasible to have a single income household, while maintaining a decent and modest life style, most people would opt for comfort over well adjusted kids.

Somewhere in time, “housewife” became a dirty word. Again, I’m stumped. I just cannot fathom how a career is better than raising a family. That’s the gist of the problem. Sure thing, women have always worked…out of necessity, and with a support system. Now, it’s full blown careers, not out of necessity, and without family support systems.

Unfortunatley, the economy is so dependent on two income households, the trend may never reverse. When most households had one income, it took 35-40% of the household income to run the house. Today, it still takes 35-40% of the household income to run the house, but the household income is provided by two income earners now. If there were three income earners on average in every house, then somehow, it would still take 35-40% of the houshold income to run the house.

You can’t beat the economy.

[Guinastasia]

So? If more companies would offer PATERNITY leave, I’d be for it.

When I was a kid, my mom stayed home, but we lived above the funeral home my dad was working at. I had BOTH parents there during the day. It was great visiting my dad at work.
And like I said-women working is NOTHING NEW. Many middle and lower class women had to work in factories all day…as did their children. Please tell me how that is more “beneficial.”
As for the upper class-many children were raised by their governesses.

[Crazy_Boob]

Maybe this has been said, but people today are working harder and longer than they were in the good 'ol days.

According to one college professor I recently heard who cited a gob of anthropologists…they estimate that people 3000+ years ago spent only half of the time as people do today to feed themselves.

[lee]

One of the practices that leads to HIV transmission in some parts of Afica is dry sex. Apparently many men like women to feel dry. Sometimes they pause to dry off during sex or the women use absorbant fluff of some sort to keep dry during sex. This causes small tears that ease transmission and of course causes tears in condoms if they are used.