Healthy gay men urged by the WHO to take HIV drugs

[GommeInc]

The reason it's focused on gay men is that there has been a sudden increase in HIV in the gay community. The focus on the gay community instead of sexually active men in general is because if you focus on men in general the people who are most at risk, e.g. gay men, may not take the advice seriously. That said, the better advice would be "sexually active men should consider taking anti-viral drugs to combat HIV, particularly gay men who most at risk at the moment."

Also, this is the WHO. The same organisation that predicted most of the world would be killed off by swine flu, claiming hundreds died within the first few weeks when it was something like two - and one of them had it but died of something else if I recall correctly.

[sex]

Stupid decision, the entire approach to gay men via the healthcare system in a lot of countries and now WHO is ridiculous. You need only look at the fact gay men can only donate blood in a tiny proportion of countries and in the UK you have to be sex free for a year in order to be able to do it because of said HIV risk, but if you've had unprotected sex multiple times and you're heterosexual - who cares! It all gets screened so there is no reason to restrict homosexual men from doing it and the attitudes of these health organisations are still stuck in the mid 1950s it seems.

To be fair, you can be HIV+ on antivirals and give blood and NOT have it show up in tests / screening if your level is low enough, there are people have basically no trace of the virus in their blood but still HIV+. So there kinda is a reason!

----

And TBH dan's argument was stupid, gay sex shouldn't be outlawed that isn't what WHO are suggesting all they are suggesting is your take a pill a day to reduce your risk. Some Women don't seem to have a problem taking a pill to reduce the risk of pregnancy :S. they are giving you the option to take it. If you are having a lot of sex with a lot of people while using protection this is just an extra added measure lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

Thank god you are! We don't need you reproducing spreading your ignorance to your kids

And where is my ignorance other than pointing out the statistics that MSM are a major factor in HIV stats?

Throwing words around like ignorant, bigot and whatever else doesn't win the argument just because it's a taboo topic.

PS - it's impossible to reproduce via gay sex, so me abstaining has what effect than it would if I were active? Zero.

There's less gay people in the population so of course a higher percentage of them are going to have it? It's simply because there's way more heterosexual people that it weighs down the percentage rates. The actual statistic you need to look at is total amount infected, not the percentage. As you can see from the graph i've posted they are pretty close.

If the population was 50/50 gay/straight, then you'd be correct and I would be wrong - indeed, I wouldn't even be making an argument then as there would be nothing to debate. But that isn't the case: the case is that only 1.5% to 5% of the population are homosexual, yet around half of HIV cases are coming from homosexuals. This equality stuff isn't all what you're being led to believe. Reality > Equality.

But again, it's about looking at ratios.

Psssst gay sex isn't inherently dangerous, unprotected sex with anyone whose sexual medical history you don't know is. The problem isn't that there are thousands of queens running around sticking it everywhere they can, it is in fact hugely through unlicensed and forced prostitution where old "straight" men have a Dan-esque mindset about homosexuality and can only get their kicks through underground illicit activity. That's also the reason that it spreads so far through straight couples; people contract it extra-maritally and then pass it on to their unsuspecting partners. Fun fun fun.

I actually haven't mentioned anything about promiscuity, I believe the major cause is the sex act itself.

Singling out homosexual men at this point where LGBT activists are fighting for their rights was not a nice step

This could further complicate situation in India where same sex activity is about to be criminalized by the court (High HIV prevalence being the top reason why it could be banned) Similarly Singapore, Mauritius, Ghana, Kenya

Whatever WHO is trying to do is useless

Surely the WHO are merely doing their jobs and not being political (LGBTXYZ rights aren't anything to do with what is a medical organisation, that is for national government to decide) and are merely protecting a high risk group.

After all, endless 'education' with the LGBTXYZ community has utterly failed, so what else is there?

And TBH dan's argument was stupid, gay sex shouldn't be outlawed that isn't what WHO are suggesting all they are suggesting is your take a pill a day to reduce your risk. Some Women don't seem to have a problem taking a pill to reduce the risk of pregnancy :S. they are giving you the option to take it. If you are having a lot of sex with a lot of people while using protection this is just an extra added measure lol

I don't recall saying gay sex should be outlawed, I certainly used that as a hypothetical argument.. but I didn't advocate such a thing.

[GommeInc]

If the population was 50/50 gay/straight, then you'd be correct and I would be wrong - indeed, I wouldn't even be making an argument then as there would be nothing to debate. But that isn't the case: the case is that only 1.5% to 5% of the population are homosexual, yet around half of HIV cases are coming from homosexuals. This equality stuff isn't all what you're being led to believe. Reality > Equality.

But again, it's about looking at ratios.

It's more about looking at the reality than the ratios. Not all homosexuals will go to GUM or other sexual health clinics. If anything, the only ones actively going to be checked are those who are sexually active to begin with. It's like going for a pregnancy test - you only go when you know you've had sex and/or are likely to be pregnant, rather than go even though you're abstinent and think you're the next Virgin Mary.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's more about looking at the reality than the ratios. Not all homosexuals will go to GUM or other sexual health clinics. If anything, the only ones actively going to be checked are those who are sexually active to begin with. It's like going for a pregnancy test - you only go when you know you've had sex and/or are likely to be pregnant, rather than go even though you're abstinent and think you're the next Virgin Mary.

But you keep saying it's not all homosexuals which wasn't the claim to begin with. The point is, that a much larger percentage of HIV cases come from homosexual activity which shows that homosexual activity is much more dangerous from a health point of view than hetrosexual sex. That's just the way it is, and it hasn't done the LGBTXYZ community any favours by pretending that the problem of HIV is one equally shared by homosexuals and hetrosexuals because that simply isn't the case. Homosexuals are more at risk because of the nature of how they have sex.

And I take no pleasure in my moral principles, I tried very hard to change them. But I cannot ignore the facts which are so blindingly obvious.

[FlyingJesus]

I actually haven't mentioned anything about promiscuity, I believe the major cause is the sex act itself.

The unprotected act

Homosexuals are more at risk because of the nature of how they have sex.

So you think that anal sex magically produces HIV

But I cannot ignore the facts which are so blindingly obvious.

Facts such as the complete lack of danger inherent to safely performed homosexual activities

[-:Undertaker:-]

The unprotected act

Still a risk I wouldn't take, and that's not mentioning the other potential medical problems.

So you think that anal sex magically produces HIV

Anal sex puts you at a much higher risk of HIV, yep.

Facts such as the complete lack of danger inherent to safely performed homosexual activities

I never said my personal objection was all medical, there's religious/moral and other reasons. But this isn't about my circumstances anyway.

[FlyingJesus]

Did you never have a sex education class or something