AIDS DISCRIMINATES

It discriminates based on the abrasive nature of the sexual mechanics, not the orientation of the individual.

So it is absolutely true to say that AIDS does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Why not stick to one thread, if you go on a spamming rampage the mods might ban you and derive us of our fun.

Or could it be that some people (like the poster above) are ignorant of the epidemiology of HIV in the developing world, where it is primarily a heterosexual disease, or in the developed world, where is is equally prevalent among males and females, homs and hets, and especially prominent among IV drug abusers?

No, he's aware of it but seizes on the smaller datasets for obvious reasons.

Ahhh.. Oh well, 'night Kraven.

I like this guy.

Although it would be more amusing if he actually attempted to explain how AID's *does* discriminate, as this is impossible, and watching people run around in logical circles is funny. Wheeeee.....

So do I.

Hobitbob used the "But What About Africa" tactic. At some point in a separate post I will annihilate that deflecting battle cry, but wish to keep on topic here.

Craven, you take a simplistic propaganda slogan created by homosexual AIDS extremists and you add qualifiers. I have news for you, that changes their slogan.

However while you admit AIDS does discriminate, you make an incredulous claim; "It discriminates based on the abrasive nature of the sexual mechanics, not the orientation of the individual. "

Craven, please tell us all how two heterosexual partners who are not both functioning hermaphrodites can both practice insertive and receptive rectal receptivity.

The issue is homosexual AIDS extremists wish to make heterosexuals think we're at significant HIV risk, which is laughable, so they create these misleading slogans. You're partially correct in that AIDS does discriminate based upon sexual behaviors, but this contradicts the slogna, now doesn't it? That is a major reason why HIV will never be a disease that vectors itself easily via heterosexual sex.

The ultimate study on serodiscordant couples and HIV risks via heterosexual sex was performed by radical AIDS leftist Nancy Padian, Chief epidemiologist at UCSF and her couterie. Her landmark study did not produce the results she was exactly looking for although her groups methodology was sound and withstood peer review.

What the Padian study showed was it took an average number of 1000 acts of intercourse between a seropositive male and his seronegative female partner for her to statistically seroconvert. Not exactly likely!

AIDS does in fact discriminate based upon sexual behaviors. The vaginal mucosas cellular geometry is platelike in structure. It is designed to stretch remarklably for penetration and childbirth, and comes with it's own built in lubrication system when used correctly. The rectal mucosas cellular geometry is columnar and is extremely fragile, and thus tears easily from vigorous penetration from both genitalia and the other behaviors homosexuals statistically engage in more such as insertion of huge foreign objects inclusive of fisting, double fisting, footing and arming.

By tearing, the rectal mucosa allows direct acess to the bloodstream for the most efficeient means of vectoring a huge viral load, whereas the penile urethral mucosa is not penetrated (except for the more common male homosexual practice of penile urethral "sounding") and the vaginal mucosa does not tear so easily.

By vectoring a larger viral load, this gives the virus a great chance of overwhelming the bodies natural immune response.....unless of course the host is immunocompromised, as male homosexuals statistically are via a remarklable level of sexually trasmitted diseases, rampant drug abuse unclusive of use of amyl nitrates used as muscle relaxants to facilitate loosening of the rectal sphincters to assist in fisting, and stimulant drugs such as cocaine and others to allegedly enhance the sexual experience.

More male homosexual immunocompromization next comes with the notable levels of gastrointestintal diseases statistically much higher among male homosexuals associated with ingestion of feces and other tropical gastrointenstinal diseases associated with travel to third world countries for pedophile sex tours. These common diseases and other colo-rectal dieases common among male homosexuals are GRBS, or gay related bowel syndrome, diarrhea, cytomegalovirus gastrus, infectious proctatitus, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticular disease, colonic polyps, ischemia, infarction, mesenteric ischemia, Candida albicans, Cryptosporidios, amebiasis, giardiasis, etc.


To that end, syphilis is endemic amongst male homosexuals as are a host of other sexual diseases like HSV 1 nd 2. These diseases cause lesions which create defects and portals through the normally efficient dermal barrier and allows larger HIV viral loads to penetrate the tissue. Other common male homosexual behavior related skin defects are perirectal abscesses, anal fistulae, rectal fissure, rectal lymphoma, ulcerations due to tuberculosis, histoplasmosis, hepatic parenchymal lesions, nongonococcal urethritis, nongonococcal proctitis, shigellosis, and scabies.

It is for these reasons that retroviruses like HIV will never efficiently vector themsleves exponetially as virsues require to become a statistical risk amongs heterosexuals via sex in spite of untruthful ACT UP! slogans to the contrary.

Owen, " Clinical Approach to the Male Homosexual, " pp. 505-17; Ostrow, " Homosexuality and Sexuality Transmitted Diseases," pp. 104-5; Quinn, " Clinical Approach to intestinal Infections," p. 628; Rowan and Gillette, Gay Health Guide

Miles, A.J., et al. " Effect of Anal-receptive Intercourse on Anorectal Function. " Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 86 ( March 1993 ): p.146.

H.H. Hansfield, " Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men," American Journal of Public Health ( 1981 ): pp. 989-90.

Ostrow, DG, & Altman, NL., " Sexually transmitted diseases and homosexuality," Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 10 (4), 1983, p. 208.

chechter, M. T. el al " Changes in sexual behavior and fear of AIDS, " Lancet, 1984:1:p.1293.

Ouinn, T. C. " Clinical Approach to Intestinal Infections in Homosexual Men."  The Medical Clinics of North America 70, no. 3 ( 1986 ): p. 615.

American Adolescents: How Healthy Are They ?, p.31, The American Medical Association, 1990.

And I in turn have news for you. The point of teh slogan is that it's not some Biblical strike against gays as it had initially been heralded by ideologues.



This is damn funny. Both partners need not practice "receptive rectal receptivity" to make the point true.

In fact, it's entirely possble for homosexual partners to have defined roles with one not practicing "receptive rectal receptivity".

Once again, you belabour a pointless point.



This is a laughable straw man.

Firstly there is no significant entity to call "homosexual AIDS extremists". Many ideologues of your ilk make up nonsensical terms like that.

Secondly, few homosexuals are out to convince heterosexuals of AIDs risks.

Thirdly you have a circular argument because you point to low rates of transmission among hererosexuals in developed nations and one of the main reasons for this is increased awareness of the risks.

Lastly, for now, "significant risk" is subjective and you have no basis on which to declare its non-existence as an absolute.



It depends on your mindset. The slogan was forwarded to counter the ignorance claiming that it's a punishment by some god.

Many used it as validation for their prejudices and the slogan, while simplistic as all slogans tend to be, was accurate in that this perception is baseless.



So? You talk a lot without getting to a point. I will ask nicely.

What is your point?

You just blathered on about something I had already said in one sentence:

"It discriminates based on the abrasive nature of the sexual mechanics."

There was no need for the regurgitation of all that. I'd already made that argument for you.

So once again, what's your point? Will you start ranting about heterosexual anal sex?

I get a kick out of craven....he infers there are no significant entities who can be identified as AIDS extremists.

Craven, try ACT UP! OutProud!, NGLTF, GLTSN, Queer Nation....Craven, you must not read much, or you certainly do not study homosexual organizations.

I won't even respond to your disingenuos claim that few homosexuals wish to make heteros think were at risk. Even I don't think you are that ignorant.

Lastly, your claim that "AIDS Doesn't Discriminate" ....was does mean AIDS Doesn't Discriminate but was meant to counter religious conservatives is just intellectually dishonest, for crying out loud, read the slogan words and see if you can figure out what they mean in that combination.

Oh, you're wasting your time asking me what my point is, it is just a deflecting tactic considering I posted my point as a one liner from the start.

IronLionZion, I just made an argument with citations that AIDS does discriminate, something you claimed was impossible.....now that you see I did make an argument with citation in spite of your claims, care to offer an argument about how AIDS does not discriminate and care to offer some scholarly citations showing that the seroprevalence rates are identical amongst all groups? I would like to see you attempt to argue with citations that negroes seroconvert in equal numbers to caucasians, or male homosexuals to heterosexuals.

This is the fallacy of equivocation RealityChecker. Nowhere did I say there were no "homosexual organizations". I said that "there is no significant entity to call "homosexual AIDS extremists". "

There certainly are organizations to forward homosexual recognition, but you would be hard pressed to document the significant existence of "AIDS extremists".



I understand why you'd wish to skip over my arguments. I really do.

And because "few" is once again a subjective descriptor I think it'd be futile semantics anyway.



Intellectual honesty would be to recognize the context from which the slogan sprung.

Look, RealityChecker, your arguments are laden with fallacy and you have shown an inability to comprehend a common three letter word I used earlier. I would suggest avoidance of appeals to intellectual honesty if I were you.



I do agree that it can be called a waste of time to expect you to have a point. But indulge me.

What is your point?

Forgive me if the incoherence makes it hard to identify, I suspect that it's an underwhelming one and hence the direct challenge to you to identify it.

What is your point?

It is a simple question that I do not think is beyond your capability to answer.

Yes, I will just point out the fact that homosexuality doesn't discrimiate based on sexual orientation. Nowhere in the pedantic diatribe you just posted do you refute this.

All you have done is demonstrate that some methods of sexual intercourse are more effective transmitters than others. Anal, for example.

The fact that homosexuals tend to engage in this specific method of sexual intercourse more often than heterosexuals does not mean that AIDs discriminates based on sexual orientation.

It discriminates, to be sure, based on the method of intercourse being used. All you have proven is that people who engage in anal sex are better transmitters of AIds than people who don't.

....but thats a far cry from your contention that AIDs discriminates based on sexual preference alone.

BTW, RealityChecker, the reason so many ask what your point is is because we'd hate to think the shrill "exposé" is pointless.

Because if your sole point was that anal sex transmits AIDS more readily than vaginal or oral sex it is a very pedestrian point for such hyperbole.

IronLioZion, do you admit that AIDS discriminates based upon sexual behaviors?

And if HIV is primarily confined to males who engage in homosexuality, are heterosexuals at equal risk if they do not engage in male homosexuality?

Men poking other men in the turd clipper will be the downfall of Western civilization.

IronLionZion said it - March 26, 2004.

Mark my words.

I'll say that anal sex transmits AIDs more readily than vaginal, and that homosexual males are more likely to engage in anal sex than heterosexual males. Period.

You're simply arranging words carefully and degenerating into semantic bullshit.

IronLionZions disintegration
IronLionZion, so it would seem then that you admit AIDS does in fact discriminate, in direct conflict to your previous claims....

Check this out his positional deconstruction readers, it's hilarious!:

"Although it would be more amusing if he actually attempted to explain how AID's *does* discriminate, as this is impossible, and watching people run around in logical circles is funny. Wheeeee....."

"I'll say that anal sex transmits AIDs more readily than vaginal, and that homosexual males are more likely to engage in anal sex than heterosexual males. Period."

No, it is not.

Do you seriously think that simply stating this makes it true?



The Phrygian sage Epicetus said that everything has two handles: one by which it can be carried, and one by which it cannot. There is, however, a third handle, but it can only be reached by those who know they have a third hand to reach with. And no, Reality Checker, that's not a third hand you have there; It's desperation, and resignation at the fact that you will live with your bathrobed mother for the rest of her (short) life, and thereafter forevermore.

Toodles.

Re: IronLionZions disintegration


......so AIDs discriminates based on the method of sexual intercourse - most notably, anal - not on sexual orientation, moron.