Individuals can further reduce the already low risk of HIV transmission from oral sex by keeping their male partners from ejaculating in their mouth.
I stand by my statement.
It is extremely unlikely for a man to get HIV from having vaginal sex with an HIV-positive woman (most likely only occurs when there are sores on the penis):
Seems like it's only half as unlikely as male to female transmission. Considering it's a death sentence, I'd still consider it plenty dangerous.
I'm not saying people should have vaginal sex with and and perform oral on HIV-positive people for fun. But saying oral sex is a mechanism for transmission is somewhat misleading: It would require one to have a wound or sore in the mouth or throat to occur. I can't find numbers on it, but as the CDC points out in regards to HIV and oral sex, "for transmission to occur, something very unusual would have to happen."
The point re: vaginal sex is that the driver of transmission of the disease is obviously anal sex, which is 35 times more likely to transmit the disease than vaginal sex. Looking at their promiscuity and focus on anal, it's quite obvious why HIV spread was driven by gay and bisexual men.
Your initial post is simply wrong. Yes, viruses do care about who you fuck. Or at least, HOW you fuck (which ends up being the same thing).
Yes, viruses do care about who you fuck. Or at least, HOW you fuck (which ends up being the same thing).
They don't because how and who are entirely different issues. Another assumption being made by yourself and others is that heterosexuals will not be engaging in anal sex. That's part of the problem here.
Looking at their promiscuity and focus on anal, it's quite obvious why HIV spread was driven by gay and bisexual men.
Frankly, I'd say the promiscuity is the single largest contributing factor more than anything else. The number of sex partners, especially in the promiscuous parts of (frankly) Queer communities is absolutely extreme by comparison.
They don't because how and who are entirely different issues. Another assumption being made by yourself and others is that heterosexuals will not be engaging in anal sex. That's part of the problem here.
The problem with this is the main way a woman gets HIV through this method would be having unprotected anal with a man, who 99% would've gotten it from having unprotected anal with another man. That's why "it ends up being the same thing".
That's just not a good enough excuse. Firstly, this entirely assumes that the primary way women get HIV isn't dirty needles, and I'd bet that's probably the dominant way all HIV infections are spread. Secondly, the methodology of transmission remains. When someone is reductive and just tosses out that it's only a disease that gay people can get, this intentionally promotes people into stupid and reductive thinking that makes them assume shit like "I'm straight, I can't get HIV."
As someone else mentioned yesterday, during the AIDS panic that Fauci helped to create, a father was arrested and interrogated when it was discovered that his daughter had HIV. She got it from a blood transfusion, but just constantly re-enforcing a thought-terminating cliche like "it's a gay disease" allows for mistakes like that to happen.
Frankly, considering Fauci's involvement, the same shit happened during Covid.
While we're all standing here saying, "The vaccines are not vaccines, they are theraputics. The CDC changed the definition of a vaccine to approve the drugs. These are not well tested. There's a large number of reported side effects. Why are we injecting children when we know they aren't a risk group? The theraputics are only going to work for about 6 months without another injection. The theraputics only reduce viral load, they don't prevent tranmission."
All the media did was retort with their own thought terminating cliches:
Wear a mask
Take the jab
Trust the science
Pandemic of the unvaccinated
And that was justification for Andrew Cuomo to kill 50,000 people, and have governors across the country rescind the 4th and 5th amendment, and have the media call for violence, and the closure of our bank accounts because "the unvaccinated were spreading the disease".
I stand by my statement.
Seems like it's only half as unlikely as male to female transmission. Considering it's a death sentence, I'd still consider it plenty dangerous.
I'm not saying people should have vaginal sex with and and perform oral on HIV-positive people for fun. But saying oral sex is a mechanism for transmission is somewhat misleading: It would require one to have a wound or sore in the mouth or throat to occur. I can't find numbers on it, but as the CDC points out in regards to HIV and oral sex, "for transmission to occur, something very unusual would have to happen."
The point re: vaginal sex is that the driver of transmission of the disease is obviously anal sex, which is 35 times more likely to transmit the disease than vaginal sex. Looking at their promiscuity and focus on anal, it's quite obvious why HIV spread was driven by gay and bisexual men.
Your initial post is simply wrong. Yes, viruses do care about who you fuck. Or at least, HOW you fuck (which ends up being the same thing).
They don't because how and who are entirely different issues. Another assumption being made by yourself and others is that heterosexuals will not be engaging in anal sex. That's part of the problem here.
Frankly, I'd say the promiscuity is the single largest contributing factor more than anything else. The number of sex partners, especially in the promiscuous parts of (frankly) Queer communities is absolutely extreme by comparison.
The problem with this is the main way a woman gets HIV through this method would be having unprotected anal with a man, who 99% would've gotten it from having unprotected anal with another man. That's why "it ends up being the same thing".
That's just not a good enough excuse. Firstly, this entirely assumes that the primary way women get HIV isn't dirty needles, and I'd bet that's probably the dominant way all HIV infections are spread. Secondly, the methodology of transmission remains. When someone is reductive and just tosses out that it's only a disease that gay people can get, this intentionally promotes people into stupid and reductive thinking that makes them assume shit like "I'm straight, I can't get HIV."
As someone else mentioned yesterday, during the AIDS panic that Fauci helped to create, a father was arrested and interrogated when it was discovered that his daughter had HIV. She got it from a blood transfusion, but just constantly re-enforcing a thought-terminating cliche like "it's a gay disease" allows for mistakes like that to happen.
Frankly, considering Fauci's involvement, the same shit happened during Covid.
While we're all standing here saying, "The vaccines are not vaccines, they are theraputics. The CDC changed the definition of a vaccine to approve the drugs. These are not well tested. There's a large number of reported side effects. Why are we injecting children when we know they aren't a risk group? The theraputics are only going to work for about 6 months without another injection. The theraputics only reduce viral load, they don't prevent tranmission."
All the media did was retort with their own thought terminating cliches:
And that was justification for Andrew Cuomo to kill 50,000 people, and have governors across the country rescind the 4th and 5th amendment, and have the media call for violence, and the closure of our bank accounts because "the unvaccinated were spreading the disease".