Heterosexual men spread HIV/AIDS to women.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


I don't need to google anything, i know how the virus works, and it needs to be in the blood stream for it to attack the white blood cells, but just to show youthat I can google:

Transmission of HIV The most common ways that people become infected with HIV are: * by having sexual intercourse with an infected partner * by injecting drugs using a needle or syringe which has already been used by someone who is infected. * by blood transfusions (it is a lower risk than in the past, but still a risk) HIV can be passed on in these ways because the virus is present in the sexual fluids and blood of infected people. If infected blood or sexual fluid gets into your body, then you can become infected.But it depends on the type of body fluid. Saliva and sweat contain the HIV virus, but not in quantities sufficient for transmission.

Vaginal sex: HIV is found in the sexual fluids of an infected person. For a man, this means in the fluids which come out of the penis before and during sex. For a woman, it means HIV is in the fluids produced by the vagina before and during sex to help make intercourse easier. If a man with HIV has vaginal intercourse without a condom, infected fluid can pass into the woman's blood stream through a tiny cut or sore inside her body. Such a cut or sore wouldn't always be visible, and could be so small that the woman wouldn't know about it. If a woman with HIV has sexual intercourse without a condom, HIV could get into the man's blood through a sore patch on his penis or by getting into the tube that runs down the penis. If there is any contact with blood during sex, this increases the risk of infection. For example, there may be blood in the vagina if intercourse occurs during a woman's period.

Oral sex: Oral sex with an infected partner does carry some risk of infection. If a person sucks on the penis of an infected man, for example, infected fluid could get into the mouth. The virus could then get into the blood if you have bleeding gums or tiny sores or ulcers somewhere in the mouth. The same is true if infected sexual fluids from a woman get into the mouth of her partner. But infection from oral sex alone seems to be very rare, and there are things you can do to protect yourself.

Anal sex: If a couple has anal intercourse, the risk of infection is greater than with vaginal intercourse. The lining of the anus is more delicate than the lining of the vagina, so it's more likely to be damaged during intercourse, and any contact with blood during sex increases the risk of infection. Read more: wiki.answers.com...

YES bodily fluids are a transmission mechanism, BUT the virus still needs to find its way into the blood stream to do its nasty little job

reply to post by woogleuk

All true.
But the fact is women do infect men too.
Now, how does this happen?
Circumcised men have a much lower risk.
It has to do with cells at the base of the male genitalia.
Nevertheless, purely biologically speaking, men are more likely to transmit the virus, rather than becoming infected.

reply to post by woogleuk


Ummm, your source actually say the virus is present in fluids, which proves that it doesnt need to be a blood to blood transmission. Yes, a cut will increase the likelihood of infection, as your source says, but again, no cut or sore has to present for transmission to occur. Viruses do not work like that. They find their way through fluid to any contact they have with another persons tissue. They attach themselves to cells, and find their way into the blood stream that way

If what you were saying was true, then transmission through breast milk would not be on your source

reply to post by OzWeatherman


I know the virus is in the fluids, its even in saliva, just not in great enough amounts, that is what I said, but to infect the other person, it has to go from the fluids into their bloodstream.

@ halfoldman: Circumcised men are at less risk because the foreskin it awash with blood vessels and also easily tore / cut.

Fascinating clip.
SA youth who has recently been in US says they are in dangerous denial:

reply to post by halfoldman

Also interesting the way the one young lady elucidated it above:
"In the old days getting married was the fear that your husband might cheat on you ... today it is that he might give you AIDS".

reply to post by woogleuk

As a fan of Freddie Mercury, and having an older half brother who is gay (and worrying about him getting it if he isn't careful), I am not in any corner as to who may get it and why....it's out there, ANYONE can fall victim to it, and I just hope it isn't too long before it is eradicated.

I agree, and thank you for that.
I was also a great fan of Freddie Mercury.
I guess some of the stigma is gone now (I hope).

lol

funny the GLOBALLY

like 90 % of aids cases are in africa and in these strange cultures where men gang rape children and women and themselves

reply to post by halfoldman


My son studied in Cape S.A for a few months and noted to me how astute and curious the student population was. I know he had a great time there. The remarks that struck me was at the end when the young man spoke of how this is a human disease.

In the U.S the stigma of HIV was used to discredit the need for funding and research but the fight went on until it was recognized. Now that the stigma has gone so too has the attention. HIV AIDS is simply a manageable plague that the pharmaceutical industry profits from.

reply to post by Faiol

The problem in Africa seems to be chain of infection along concurrent relationships.

But screw the statistics, the world has AIDS, and HIV is everywhere.

But the world can still not acknowledge that their heterosexual patriarchy spreads it too.

post by Witness2008

n the U.S the stigma of HIV was used to discredit the need for funding and research but the fight went on until it was recognized. Now that the stigma has gone so too has the attention. HIV AIDS is simply a manageable plague that the pharmaceutical industry profits from.

I agree, HIV/AIDS profits many. In SA they say the "alternative medicine" market makes three times more than the pharmaceutical industry.
Almost every self-styled herbalist, vitamin-salesman and faith healer is making a profit.
The only difference is, the pharmaceuticals actually work.

its a "stupid" disease; why would a person want their mitochondria controlled by white bloodcells? if an alien is present in an organ it needs to be expelled; re. SA. aids as well as all other states of one person passed on to another are present because of a disregard for customs and cultural hygiene.

reply to post by Ausar

The white blood cells, particularly the CD4 and CD8 cells are our immunity.
HIV enters these cells and turns them in virus factories, where they replicate the virus and eventually die without replicating themselves.
At least that's what I've been told.
The really stupid diseases are things like TB (in SA) and many others that can suddenly kill you because your immunity is low.

In SA we have MDR and XDR TB.
Now TB has been with us a long time.
But because stupid people (probably in Russia) couldn't stick to their meds, we now have resistant forms of TB.

reply to post by halfoldman

Go on then all you men.
Besides, wearing a condom is like showering with a raincoat!
(sarcasm)

Some studies suggest the penetrators can't get HIV, only the receivers. So if a man got it, he would have had to be the receiver...

The following is from an acticle by Joseph Sonnabend, MD Physician and AIDS Researcher (long but very interesting)

"A Canadian court has ruled that a gay man who was the insertive partner in anal sex was not at significant risk for AIDS."

" A detailed account of the trial includes the evidence presented that insertive anal sex carries a very low risk of transmission, which one expert said was comparable to that of protected anal sex between an HIV negative receptive partner and an HIV positive insertive partner"

"For perhaps different reasons gay men leading the community AIDS response and researchers and funders who could not all necessarily be counted on to protect their interests came together in creating a view that AIDS was an "equal opportunity" infection in the US and Europe. "

"Increasingly, in recent years, there have been periodic reports in the media claiming that it is impossible for AIDS to be transmitted heterosexually. This is untrue and is a dangerous contention. This misunderstanding may stem, in part, from the frequent failure of public health reports to distinguish male-to--female from female-to-male transmission and to lump all heterosexually acquired cases together. While heterosexually acquired AIDS is a serious and growing threat to women, it is far from clear that the same is true for heterosexual men."

""In men, cases reported as heterosexually infected have been highly likely to turn out to have another risk if investigated by the Health Department. As a result, men were not categorized as "infected through heterosexual exposure" until completely investigated. In 1993, our policy changed. Men claiming (or reported with) heterosexual transmission are placed in that category before an investigation. As a result, numbers in that category (males infected heterosexually) greatly increased--although they remain a very small portion of all AIDS cases in men in New York City." - Dr. Polly Thomas, of the Office of AIDS Surveillance, NYCDH

"If we simply look at the first ten years when interviewing standards were more stringent, the percentage of heterosexually transmitted cases among men was at most 0.04 per cent (using the figures published in 1991.) This means that 4 out of every ten thousand cases of AIDS in men were acquired from sex with women."

"What kind of pressures could have led disparate groups to present AIDS as posing an equal risk to everyone? Organizations were fond of phrases such as "Viruses don't discriminate" or "AIDS is an equal opportunity disease." Maybe fundraisers believed that the only way to obtain sufficient funds for AIDS research was to frighten heterosexual men because society at large was not responding to a disease that was predominantly affecting gay men and IV drug users. Maybe groups representing gay men felt that they could exact some compassion if the risk was perceived to be shared with heterosexual men. Maybe groups representing family values liked the idea that sex outside marriage could be lethal. Maybe some well-meaning liberals thought that the only way that heterosexual men would use condoms was if men believed that women posed a risk to them. But even if scaring heterosexual men was successful in making research funds available, it is likely that money raised on a false premise will not always be put to the best use. "

Another great article : Vagina Monologues

"The fact that girl-to-guy transmission is nearly nonexistent has turned five women who thought they had killer vaginas into AIDS Inc.'s worst nightmare."

"At the center of this maze is a pile of 15-year-old statistics carefully compiled by the DoH and conclusively showing that women almost never spread "heterosexual AIDS" to men. Men who report "hetero AIDS" get it from gay sex or dirty needles."

"If we are talking about a heterosexual epidemic, transmission efficiency would have to go both ways. It doesn't. It stops with a woman and her children, and while that will be a personal tragedy for the infected, it will not cause an epidemic.""

"These facts are not new. Two pieces of evidence -- a 1990 CDC study that found "very little" transmission from women to men during vaginal intercourse, and the nation's largest study, a 1997 University of California at San Francisco report that found the risk of transmission from women to men "too small...to calculate accurately" -- were widely reported. The facts do, however, run counter to received wisdom."

""Plenty of people have known and denied this from the beginning," Sonnabend says impatiently. "It all started as a way for AIDS advocates to raise funds because little public or private money was coming in. I know this because the American Medical Foundation [later the American Foundation for AIDS Research, or amfAR], an organization I incorporated in 1983, a year later started putting out the word that 'no one is safe from AIDS.' Very good publicity it was, too," he adds with a harrumph. "They had no evidence to justify the huge public-relations campaign. All they had were predictions by some AIDS researchers. This led to my resignation from amfAR. But, of course, the terrifying messages worked.""

"According to one former "No Identified Risk" investigator, Anastasia Lekatas, the interviews rarely confirmed the man's initial report. "Among the first 15,000 city AIDS cases, there were only eight female-to-male transmissions," she told The New York Times at the time. "And I have doubts about seven."

reply to post by Esger


Thank you for all of that information. I had always known that the rate of female to male infection was low but had never thought that the truth was hidden in order to gain funding.

ok ill be honest; im a single 30 year old and i run across many gay men trannys and bi sexual men. i can see how a woman who accepts a man for his faults(being gay bi or tranny) can easily contract the disease. it makes me think it is uncustomary for me to accept a woman BECAUSE MOST WOMEN I KNOW ACCEPT THEIR HUSBAND BEING BI, ACCEPT MEN AS FRIENDS WHO HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH TRANNYS, AND KNOW THEIR LOVER IS GAY BUT OVERLOOK FOR THE SAKE OF ACCEPTANCE. i guess its good that aids exists then, because if it kills the aspect of humanity that blindly accepts selfishly what is degenerative of humanity wholly then good riddance to all involved.

i think it is a right duty for any upstanding man to deny a woman and man even in the face of conscious extinction on the principle of a moral standard; but this is a two edged sword, as my prior example of women accepting gay/bi/tran men for their own moral ethics.

and i dont want to go off topic and i disagree with the idea that my post is off topic. i am saying a heterosexual man is not a gay man a bi sexual man or a transexual, a heterosexual man is not a man who has sex anally with transexuals, a heterosexual man is not a man who has bi sexual orgies with other men and women. a heterosexual man is a man who has sex with women, or multiple women at the same time.

but the prior post about aids rate of expression makes me feel it is different than a veneral disease; because women can transmit veneral diseases and not be the penetrator and the man can be heterosexual and recieve a disease while not being homosexual.

In my opinion that you cannot disprove,i believe men that sleep with men spread aids,women that sleep with bisexual men spread aids and men that sleep with others wives spread aids. In my opinion i believe the 100 percent straight male cannot get aids unless he sleeps with a woman that cheats on him with gay men.

reply to post by Esger

In Germany female to male transmission recently again came into the spotlight when the singer Nadja Benaissa was convicted for causing bodily harm by not disclosing her status and infecting one of her male partners
en.wikipedia.org...
It is certainly possible, and small odds mean very little to the person who hits them.
It also varies from country to country and may depend on a number of factors, including the strain of the virus and even genetics, and supposedly male circumcision lowers the risk for men.
The viral load of the infected person is significant, and the initial conversion sickness causes people to be hyper-infectious until they develop anti-bodies. In Western models of long-term serial monogamy the virus is trapped in a relationship for several years, while the African model of concurrent relationships easily spreads the virus, since people are likely to have sexual contact with more than one partner during the most infectious stage.
Of course none of the statistics gives a complete picture, and they can certainly be twisted for all kinds of vested interests.
What is quite astounding is how quick and successful public health interventions were in Western countries, and more empowered women are less likely to become infected or to spread the infection.