Post: #26

It's a global pandemic but I don't care what happens in Africa.

It's a pandemic in the gay community, but I am not gay.

HIV is a pandemic in the black community. I am not black.

I care about my risk as a white heterosexual male.

Control that CDC data by race.

If I am a white male who has sex with a white woman, what are my odds of infection?

How many cases of white straight men who get infected with HIV are there? Many attempts have been made, as finding all of these straight, white HIV+ cases would do great for the propaganda campaign.

After decades of the HIV pandemic, where are all all of these straight white people with HIV?

Show me the bodies.

Post: #27

So what if your white woman was fucking a black man the week before?

Basically your attitude is why HIV+ keeps going up and down in waves. People think, nah, I won't get these. I don't mix with gays and users, screw this.

Like I said, I've seen regular, conservative married 55 year old women be diagnosed with HIV.

As for bodies:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html as you can see, whites get HIV too. Yes, there's like 5 to 1 more whites in US than african americans but you wanted bodies, they're in there somewhere, down the line people die.

"New HIV infections among women are primarily attributed to heterosexual contact (84% in 2010) or injection drug use (16% in 2010). Women accounted for 20% of estimated new HIV infections in 2010 and 24% of those living with HIV infection in 2009 [1,2]. The 9,500 new infections among women in 2010 reflect a significant 21% decrease from the 12,000 new infections that occurred among this group in 2008."

Post: #28

(06-08-2013 04:02 PM)Travelsick Wrote:  So what if your white woman was fucking a black man the week before?

Basically your attitude is why HIV+ keeps going up and down in waves. People think, nah, I won't get these. I don't mix with gays and users, screw this.

Like I said, I've seen regular, conservative married 55 year old women be diagnosed with HIV.

Your female patients are a red herring.

Women get HIV easier than men do. That sucks for them. I have nothing by sympathy for a woman who gets HIV because her husband is using drugs or is on the down low.

While it's sad that women get HIV, what are a man's risks of getting HIV?

Your stats keep proving the same thing, over and over again.

The risk is marginal to a white straight man.

It's so marginal that it's not worth worrying about.

What are the odds that I will become infected with HIV if I have sex with a random sample of white women?

Are the odds even 1 in 10,000?

And to get really rational, let's look at other deadly/debilitating events.

How dangerous is having heterosexual intercourse compared to say, driving, or turning on the stove at home?

What is going on is that the government has men terrified of HIV when the truth is that we shouldn't care.

Don't have sex with gays. Don't use IV drugs. Don't have sex with blacks.

All of the above is politically incorrect advice to give but it's what the stats actually support.

Post: #29

MikeCF, although you may be limited your scope to the USA, keep in mind that HIV is exploding in Ukraine and Russia, one of the most coveted spots in the this forum for flagging. And these are whites and heteros. Some black African nations in the NW have a fairly low HIV rate. The problem is concentrated in the southern tip of Africa. A black female crackhead in DC and black female lawyer in suburban Sacramento might as well be in two different universes. Just like real estate, it's all about location, location, location.

Post: #30

(06-08-2013 04:10 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  A black female crackhead in DC and black female lawyer in suburban Sacramento might as well be in two different universes. Just like real estate, it's all about location, location, location.

Exactly.

Race is an imprecise proxy.

Most of us aren't banging ghetto rats of any race.

On the other hand, the black community does not deal with homosexuality well. This deals to a lot of blacks being on the down low.

So the classy black lawyer who dates black men puts herself at risk.

I am simply looking at risk assessment from my perspective.

My odds are frighteningly low. Yet all of my life the government has tried making me terrified of a boogey man.

Now while I'm being logical, of course it sucks that the infection rate is so high in the black community. HIV is a monster and it sucks that gays get it, too.

But, again, a lot of that is based on problems within the black community that I cannot solve. Blacks are homophobic and this keeps black men on the down low. These down low men go and infect straight women.

(I'm sure someone will cry racism but I am probably the least racist guy in the manosphere, and the down low issue has been addressed in politically correct sources.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low_(sexual_slang)

Quote:The first mainstream media account of the down-low as closeted homosexuality was reported in the Los Angeles Times on February 7, 2001. By the end of the year, numerous major media outlets had reported on the down-low. They included The New York Times (11 February), USA Today (March 15), Columbus Dispatch (March 19), St. Louis Post-Dispatch (April 1), New York Times (April 3), Chicago Sun-Times (April 22), Atlanta Journal-Constitution (June 3), San Francisco Chronicle (June 4), Village Voice (June 6), VIBE magazine (July), Jet magazine (September 8), Essence magazine (October), San Diego Union-Tribune (December 2), and Los Angeles Times (December 7). Nearly all these stories connected the down-low to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the African-American community.[15][16]

I can't control what other subgroups do.

I can only look at risks from my perspective. HIV is simply not an issue for me.

Post: #31

Tangential but...anybody ever hear the Mitch hedberg joke about aids?
second half of clip
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hTVNXz4PKQU

Post: #32

It's 1 in 1000 for unprotected sex with a girl that definitely has it. Obviously condom use and the uncertainty over whether she has it factor in to the overall risk.

Post: #33

(06-08-2013 04:43 PM)RichieP Wrote:  So yes, combined with condoms and the chance that the girl actually has HIV - which is less than 1% in developed countries - the risks are low.

Yeah, but we're talking about raw dogging here. Nobody denies that with condom use the odds are essentially zero.

The bottom line with HIV is that if you're pulling same night lays you never know where the girl came from. Don't think the girl you picked up at the club bangs black dudes, bisexual men, or heroin addicts? Or that her sometime boyfriend sleeps around with ghetto trash? Maybe, maybe not.

The odds are extremely low as reviewed here, but to pretend they're zero is infantile. So are the odds of getting murdered but nobody denies that people can get shot. Speaking of which, about as many white folks were diagnosed with HIV last year as people of all races were murdered. Were most of these people gays? Of course, but again, when you're messing around with trashy chicks, or bisexuals, or girls who dabble with drugs, you never know.

Post: #34

What percentage of straight males that aren't shooting up actually have HIV or AIDS in America?

Post: #35

(06-08-2013 04:50 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 04:43 PM)RichieP Wrote:  So yes, combined with condoms and the chance that the girl actually has HIV - which is less than 1% in developed countries - the risks are low.

Yeah, but we're talking about raw dogging here. Nobody denies that with condom use the odds are essentially zero.

The bottom line with HIV is that if you're pulling same night lays you never know where the girl came from. Don't think the girl you picked up at the club bangs black dudes, bisexual men, or heroin addicts? Or that her sometime boyfriend sleeps around with ghetto trash? Maybe, maybe not.

The odds are extremely low as reviewed here, but to pretend they're zero is infantile. So are the odds of getting murdered but nobody denies that people can get shot. Speaking of which, about as many white folks were diagnosed with HIV last year as people of all races were murdered. Were most of these people gays? Of course, but again, when you're messing around with trashy chicks, or bisexuals, or girls who dabble with drugs, you never know.

Yes fair enough. Didnt think of that.

Post: #36

(06-08-2013 04:59 PM)houston Wrote:  What percentage of straight males that aren't shooting up actually have HIV or AIDS in America?

Right.

That's the question liberals don't want to answer.

I am not trying to turn this into a political thread, but we can't get around the politics.

The truth is that there are almost zero cases.

Look at HIV funding relative to other diseases.

HIV research gets far more dollars than many other diseases. No one blinks an eye because people are blind to the truth.

HIV is a disease of gay men. Sorry, that sucks for them. But why should my tax dollars fund research into a disease that doesn't harm me and that is totally avoidable?

People keep touting HIV as if it's something that is affecting everyone, when in fact it's a lifestyle disease that impacts a small segment of society.

Post: #37

(06-08-2013 04:50 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  The odds are extremely low as reviewed here, but to pretend they're zero is infantile. So are the odds of getting murdered but nobody denies that people can get shot. Speaking of which, about as many white folks were diagnosed with HIV last year as people of all races were murdered. Were most of these people gays? Of course, but again, when you're messing around with trashy chicks, or bisexuals, or girls who dabble with drugs, you never know.

See, you keep dancing around the issue and not answering direct questions.

We get it. Gay men get HIV. That has never been disputed.

Women get HIV, as HIV is more easily transmitted from men to woman than from women to men.

We are men. There are some gays here who are great guys, but this is a board for straight men to discuss having sex with women.

What are the odds that a straight male (white or black) will contract HIV if he engages in sexual intercourse with a random sampling of women? I.e., you can't say, "There's a 1 in 1,000 chance a man who has sex with an infected woman will contract HIV."

Are we talking closer to 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 10,000?

What are the odds that a straight male (white or black) will contract HIV if he engages in sexual intercourse with a random sampling of white women?

Are we talking closer to 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000?

What are the actual risks we as heterosexual men face?

Post: #38

Mike: It's definitely skewed to certain demographics. It's not like it's a big conspiracy though, the data is readily accessible. Here's some in fact:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/

Try diagnosis by race, and by transmission category.

From that you can deduce there were 6 times as many new male infections from homo sex as from hetero sex. Of course that doesnt tell the whole story. Weight that with the volumes of actual sex occurring - hetero and homo - and yes, it seems far more prevalent among the gay community.

So to sort of answer your qu houston: it's about 5000 new cases per year for straight males not shooting up.

Post: #39

(06-08-2013 06:04 PM)RichieP Wrote:  So to sort of answer your qu houston: it's about 5000 new cases per year for straight males not shooting up.

That is survey data, bro.

That means 5,000 cases from straight men who did not admit to using IV drugs or having homosexual sex.

Read that details expose I linked to.

Follow-up surveys showed that the vast majority of "straight" men were lying about their drug use and homosexuality.

Hell, look at all of those high level Republicans and preachers who got busted having sex with gay men.

Those men would report themselves as "straight" on any survey data.

Yet there they are, having sex in bathroom stalls and hiring gay masseuses.

Post: #40

Mike: as for chance of guy getting it from going raw with random girl - you can easily calculate it.

Multiply 'Prevalence rate' by 'Chance of getting it from an infected girl'( 1 in 1000).

You can find prevalence rates by country here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...lence_rate

edit: just saw your survey comment. Yeah, a fair point. Although you'd hope the epidimiologists would have accounted for that and got around it somehow in their studies. If they don't they aren't doing their job properly.

Post: #41

(06-08-2013 06:04 PM)RichieP Wrote:  Mike: It's definitely skewed to certain demographics. It's not like it's a big conspiracy though, the data is readily accessible. Here's some in fact:

The data is there for researchers but how many men know what we've been discussing?

I used to live in fear of HIV. Then I researched the issue and realized that there was a cover-up in the media.

It's politically incorrect to say, "Sorry, you were lied to in health class as a kid. HIV is a disease of gay men. If you're straight and don't use IV needles, relax."

That's part of a broader "blue pill" trend. The media only tells the truth when the truth involves white people behaving badly. When women, gays, or blacks engage in conduct that is reckless or reprehensible, there's a general cover-up.

So while the data is there, most people are ignorant of the actual risks (which are basically nill).

Post: #42

(06-08-2013 06:10 PM)RichieP Wrote:  edit: just saw your survey comment. Yeah, a fair point. Although you'd hope the epidimiologists would have accounted for that and got around it somehow in their studies. If they don't they aren't doing their job properly.

Look all around you.

Where are the incentives?

If you were an epidemiologist, would you be incentivized to over-report the prevalence of HIV in the heterosexual community or to under-report it?

Would a scientist be more or less likely to ruin his career if he said:

Quote:After an objective analysis of the data, I've concluded that the risk of contracting HIV for a straight men are so low as to be a non-issue.

What's your view?

This board exists because we have been lied to for decades about women.

How many other places can you openly discuss obvious truths about women without risking your career and relationships with your parents and co-workers?

Why should we believe that the people who lied to us about women are telling us the truth about anything else?

The Red Pill goes way beyond game and women and encompasses all of society.

We as men must critically examine everything we are told and place the burden of proof on the "scientists" and other "experts." It's up to them to prove their case to us, and it's up to us to remain skeptical doubters until overwhelming evidence is provided for every assertion they make.

Post: #43

It is super hard to get people to admit to things they may be ashamed of in surveys.

There is an ingnious solution. But it is so clever that most people would probably misunderstand it. So - it may never take off. But I admire the ingenuity of it.

Imagine you wanted to know how many men have had gay sex at least once in their lives. now - a lot of men might be afraid to admit this. For whatever reason.

So - the idea is this.

You approach a thousand guys and ask them to toss a coin.

You tell them to remember which side the coin came up. And to keep it a secret.

If the coin comes out 'heads side up' - they are to answer 'YES' to the following question. Irregardless of whether or not that is the correct answer.

If the coin comes out 'tail side up' - they should answer the question honestly. Giving a 'YES' or a 'NO' - whichever is correct.

You then ask all 1000 guys if they have ever had sex.

Let's imagine that 664 guys said 'YES'.

Well - statistically - we would expect 500 of those 'YES' responses due to the fact that the coin landed 'heads side up'.

So - we can toss them aside.

So - we are left with 164 guys saying 'YES' out of the (new) sample of 500 men.

Which would give a percentage of 32.8% - just to use these made up figures.

So - the idea is that the tossing of the coin provides a way for the person responding to answer the question honestly - whilst also being able to be anonymous - since he may only be saying 'YES' since his coin landed heads side up.

Like I say it is a brilliant idea that I read somewhere once. But it is probably too clever to be used widely since I think alot of people would still lie since they are so paranoid about not giving any hint of their secrets.

Post: #44

(06-08-2013 06:01 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  [...]
What are the odds that a straight male (white or black) will contract HIV if he engages in sexual intercourse with a random sampling of white women?

Are we talking closer to 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000?

What are the actual risks we as heterosexual men face?

the answers to those last 2 questions will depend heavily on how honestly these women will admit to being junkies/banging junkies. it's enough for me to slip on a "body bag" when banging a from a "random sampling of white women"

Post: #45

I agree with MikeCF on this one, it sounds like all bullshit.

I'm 33 and I have never met a straight person with AIDS or HIV in my life (that I know of)

Name a famous straight person who died of AIDS??

Magic Johnson's wife isn't even infected, nor was Liberace's BF....

I'm assuming the prostitutes in Ukraine are offering anal sex.....

Post: #46

Even women who have banged bi-sexuals, aka "magic/liberace/freddie mercury/rock hudson", etc etc etc.....

Where there was no anal contact, there appears to be no infection...

Post: #47

So this is what Naughty Nomad was referring to when he said HIV transmission rates were grossly exaggerated.
http://naughtynomad.com/2010/05/09/by-the-way-ive-hiv/

Post: #48

Lets say 50,000 tricks are performed in Ukraine every weekend, and 15% of them are anal. Would that explain the high HIV rate compared to NYC where it is 8,000 tricks and 8% anal?

I don't buy the "drug use" arguement either, who the fuck still uses needles? (especially dirty needles) They give u free needles all over NYC....

Post: #49

(06-08-2013 12:56 PM)Emmanuel Goldstein Wrote:  I researched it and wrote an article on it: http://www.returnofkings.com/3882/the-truth-about-aids

Basically, if you don't fuck men or do needle drugs, AIDS effectively doesn't exist. Professional whores don't even get it, provided they stay off needle drugs. Also, straight whites are less suceptible than blacks, and Hispanics to a lesser extent. Whether that's due to differences in promiscuity, safe sex practices, healthcare usage, anal sex, genetic susceptibility, I don't know.

Something like a quarter of all gay men in the US have AIDS/HIV. The media never breaks out the statistics so that it becomes apparent how overwhelmingly this disease is confined to sodomites, druggies and fag hags.

^^^^^^^^^^
This. I used to date a pre-med student (now a doctor) and she and her biology crowd essentially told me the same thing. If the media told the truth bluntly and directly they'd have the gay lobby running through their lobbies with pitchforks and torches.

That said, it's pretty damned easy to get other things from women, like genital warts and herpes.

Post: #50

Let's just take a step back here.

The prevalence of HIV in USA according to the CDC is rouhgly 1.4 mio ( http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ ), including suspected non-diagnosed infections. The US has roughly what, 314 mio inhabitants? So that's 1/225 people approximately.

Now the incidence (meaning how many new cases per year are recorded) lies at around 50k a year. 50'000 new HIV cases a year in US. From those 30k are from gay sex, 3600 from IV drug use, 1400 the two mixed above/unsure which it was, 13'400 from heterosexual contact (4'600 men and 8'800 women), "other" - such as accidents, bloodproducts etc amounts for 50 cases a year.

Anyway.. all the "official" data is there, believe what you may. Yes, from the data you can roughly guess your odds for contracting HIV when factoring in your lifestyle. Some might come to the conclusion that the risk is negligible, others not.

If you look at lung cancer, the diagnoses rates are similar. About 200k a year in US (only difference is those 3/4 will die much quicker). Do you know anyone who has lung cancer or died of it? Chances are then you know someone who has HIV. The dying part is a different matter. Maybe they'll live a long live. But it will cost everyone a whole lot of money.

So to put that in relation: everyone probably agrees that lung cancer is a problem. Ban smoking blablabla. HIV is a disease on a very similar epidemiological scale, only that it's easier to prevent and more expensive to treat.

Some other incidence rates of mortal diseases:

ALS 2/100'000 5k a year
glioblastoma multiforme 2-3/100'000
many of these have a similar incidence range, they add up though. HIV is 40-50x more common.