Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    But you just admitted that your stats were completely groundless. At least I cite a reference to mine. That's the difference.
    Here you go http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/analsex.htm some nice bedtime reading!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pkonline)
    Here you go http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/analsex.htm some nice bedtime reading!
    That say's 1 in 10 PK. That's 10%, not 33.33333333% as you stated. I will also take the trouble of emailing Dr.Dean to find out where he gets his figures from and will inform you of my findings in due course.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    That say's 1 in 10 PK. That's 10%, not 33.33333333% as you stated. I will also take the trouble of emailing Dr.Dean to find out where he gets his figures from and will inform you of my findings in due course.
    Er if you read the whole paragraph:

    An estimated one third of gay couples do not include anal intercourse in their lovemaking with about one third of heterosexual couples doing so from time to time. About 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pkonline)
    Er if you read the whole paragraph:

    An estimated one third of gay couples do not include anal intercourse in their lovemaking with about one third of heterosexual couples doing so from time to time. About 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples.
    Then we just go around in a big looping circle PK.

    If these figures are right why in the UK are there proportionately so many more HIV+ cases amongst gays as compared to heteros.

    Either the figures are absolute *******s.
    Or there is absolutely no link between sodomy and HIV transmission. (Now that is *******s!)
    Or heteros actually bother to use a condom.
    Or anal such with multiple partners is more dangerous than with one partner.

    You tell me. Because from what you seem to be saying I'd expect the wards of every hospital in the land to be full of Mr&,Mrs Jones from number 30 with bits dropping off them all over the place.

    I would suggest that homosexuals have more partners and don't wear protection. That would explain the disproportionate numbers. What would you suggest might be the cause of this obvious imbalance?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Then we just go around in a big looping circle PK.

    If these figures are right why in the UK are there proportionately so many more HIV+ cases amongst gays as compared to heteros.

    Either the figures are absolute *******s.
    Or there is absolutely no link between sodomy and HIV transmission. (Now that is *******s!)
    Or heteros actually bother to use a condom.
    Or anal such with multiple partners is more dangerous than with one partner.

    You tell me. Because from what you seem to be saying I'd expect the wards of every hospital in the land to be full of Mr&,Mrs Jones from number 30 with bits dropping off them all over the place.

    I would suggest that homosexuals have more partners and don't wear protection. That would explain the disproportionate numbers. What would you suggest might be the cause of this obvious imbalance?
    I agree with you that homosexuals tend to be more sexually active and many do not wear protection. The points which I disagree with you is that:

    - HIV/AIDS and anal sex are not just a gay thing
    - The gay community is doing loads to reduce incidence
    - What the hell does HIV/AIDS have to do with whether it is right or not to be gay?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I would suggest that homosexuals have more partners and don't wear protection. That would explain the disproportionate numbers. What would you suggest might be the cause of this obvious imbalance?
    I am not sure about the Homosexuals haveing more partners than heterosexuals. There are quite a few guys in my year who are gay and they don't sleep around but then there are some heterosexuals who have has like 20 partners already at the age of 18! Do you have any statistics to proove that gay people have moer partners. I am not trying to be agressive I would just be interested to know if the people I know are unusual.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I am not sure about the Homosexuals haveing more partners than heterosexuals. There are quite a few guys in my year who are gay and they don't sleep around but then there are some heterosexuals who have has like 20 partners already at the age of 18! Do you have any statistics to proove that gay people have moer partners. I am not trying to be agressive I would just be interested to know if the people I know are unusual.
    I'm not exactly sure what the exact stats are but I think homosexuals do tend to have more partners than heterosexual until certain age.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pkonline)
    I'm not exactly sure what the exact stats are but I think homosexuals do tend to have more partners than heterosexual until certain age.
    Well my stats show that Hetero. and Homo. people have similar amounts of parteners. (over age 20)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Well my stats show that Hetero. and Homo. people have similar amounts of parteners. (over age 20)
    Yeh and I think I'd be inclined to believe u rather than what I know from prior experience.

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    But then again stats are stats. You have to give them a leeway of at least 10% each way. And take it with a pinch of salt.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I can't stand people who are predudice against others, if you want to be in a gay/lesbian relationship then why not? Love is love and you cant change who you fall in love with.

    On the Bible etc. The bible teaches many things that have now been accepted as the context in which they are written....eg about disabled people not being allowed to go before God but people today dont say those who are disabled are wrong (im not saying they are btw).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    That doesn't make any sense.
    Yes it does.

    PQ Said: "I would have thought you would be all in favour of the right for an individual to take hir own risks."

    I said, "Not if the disease/virus can be transmitted through anal intercourse though. That's affecting others."

    For the individual to be taking "risks" (we were referring to the homosexual individual), he would be having intercourse with another male. Hence, there is some risk involved when having intercourse in terms of the rate of HIV/Aids transmisson rate (it depends if he was wearing a codnom I know, but even still...). As he is sexually active, he would be having anal intercourse with others.

    My comment was saying that this would be unfair in that he could potentially be passing a disease/virus such as HIV onto the recieving person. My judgement was that this was unfair, even if the reciever was "willing to take the risk" (he must have been, clearly). The idea of one effectively being given a death sentence (albeit a gradual one), irregardless of what the reciever said, seems cruel.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    Yes it does.

    PQ Said: "I would have thought you would be all in favour of the right for an individual to take hir own risks."

    I said, "Not if the disease/virus can be transmitted through anal intercourse though. That's affecting others."

    For the individual to be taking "risks" (we were referring to the homosexual individual), he would be having intercourse with another male. Hence, there is some risk involved when having intercourse in terms of the rate of HIV/Aids transmisson rate (it depends if he was wearing a codnom I know, but even still...). As he is sexually active, he would be having anal intercourse with others.

    My comment was saying that this would be unfair in that he could potentially be passing a disease/virus such as HIV onto the recieving person. My judgement was that this was unfair, even if the reciever was "willing to take the risk" (he must have been, clearly). The idea of one effectively being given a death sentence (albeit a gradual one), irregardless of what the reciever said, seems cruel.
    Well I'm glad you've clarified because none of that came across (to me at least) in your original two sentences. You needed to explain it like you have now done.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    Well I'm glad you've clarified because none of that came across (to me at least) in your original two sentences. You needed to explain it like you have now done.
    Wasn't it obvious? :confused:

    As in someone takes the risk, then has anal sex with another person as he's sexually active and this has implications which I deem cruel and unfair, irregardless of the reciever agreeing to take this risk?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    Wasn't it obvious? :confused:

    As in someone takes the risk, then has anal sex with another person as he's sexually active and this has implications which I deem cruel and unfair, irregardless of the reciever agreeing to take this risk?
    How is that cruel?

    I take the risk of crossing the road. The driver takes the risk of killing me. Is that cruel?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    Wasn't it obvious? :confused:

    As in someone takes the risk, then has anal sex with another person as he's sexually active and this has implications which I deem cruel and unfair, irregardless of the reciever agreeing to take this risk?
    It wasn't obvious, no.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    How is that cruel?

    I take the risk of crossing the road. The driver takes the risk of killing me. Is that cruel?
    Good example.

    I suppose it depends what the risk is that one is willing to take.

    If the risk was substantial as in the giver had unprotected sex with several partners recently, then IMO even if the reciever is willing to take the risk, I still think it is unfair for the giver to continue and have the sex; as he knows that the risk is of a considerable amount.

    BTW: You need to cross the road, you have no choice. Or at least, the need to cross the road is far greater than that of having anal sex with that given person who is at a considerable risk. (As in higher than average risk due to recent sexual activity).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    It wasn't obvious, no.
    Fair enough.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    BTW: You need to cross the road, you have no choice. Or at least, the need to cross the road is far greater than that of having anal sex with that given person who is at a considerable risk. (As in higher than average risk due to recent sexual activity).
    I *could* take the car and drive a circular route to the other side of the road, I *could* cross the road at a pedestrian crossing, I *could* cross the road at a motorway junction.

    There's choice.

    We cannot impose our morals and opinions to other people.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    I *could* cross the road at a pedestrian crossing, I *could* cross the road at a motorway junction.
    You are still crossing the road, hence there is a far greater need to cross it than to have sex with someone who is at a higher risk.

    If the giver knows he is at a higher than average risk for an STD, although the reciever is willing to take that risk, IMO the giver should not partake in anal intercourse.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.