(March 2, 2013 at 10:22 pm)Aractus Wrote:(March 2, 2013 at 9:47 am)Question Mark Wrote: I'm afraid that is not actually true, it's a commonly held myth based on earlier studies. Whilst it is riskier for penile-anal sex to contract the disease, penile-vaginal sex can range from 1 per 1000 sexual acts to 1 in 3 sexual acts based on factors such as the stage oft he disease, circumcision, other present STI's, roughness of the acts, and a number of other things.That's why I said average. The number is actually based on a more recent study, earlier studies believed 700 times to be the lower limit and the upper limit more around 3,000 times or more! HIV is transmitted through blood (as opposed to skin contact or other fluids). The easiest way for a man to get infected during sex with a female partner is through his foreskin. Similarly, it logically follows that the easiest way for a man to infect a woman with penetrative vaginal sex is also through the foreskin. So circumcision or the use of a condom (which will cover the foreskin), or both, are effective ways of reducing the risks of HIV transmission.
Although I did make an error with the number, the 2012 study to which I referred put the number at 1 in 900 times not 1 in 700 times, my apologies.
Fair enough on the facts. It'll probably alter slightly again over the years, it always does when there's a concerted effort to slow the spread of a disease.
Still, however, I'm not sure how the spread of a disease is an argument against homosexuality. On the same level, we could argue that it's best for only lesbians to have sex, given that they have the lowest infection rate.
Were you the one arguing this point? I admit I forget who it was making that argument.
If you believe it, question it. If you question it, get an answer. If you have an answer, does that answer satisfy reality? Does it satisfy you? Probably not. For no one else will agree with you, not really.
