Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <MPG.2174188f7c3aa9e898a1f5@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >> In article <Jason-0510071339580001@66-53-217-152.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >> Jason@nospam.com says... >>> In article <MPG.21706829e4099ec998a1f0@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <Jason-0510071205080001@67-150-123-226.lsan.mdsg- >>>> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>> In article <MPG.217029d8d4f5347198a1ed@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>>>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article > <Jason-0410071803390001@67-150-125-64.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>>>> In article >>>>>>> <DipthotDipthot-178E68.16282104102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>>>> 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>> <Jason-0410071451140001@67-150-122-66.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If a man had HIV and had anal sex with a man or a woman, > that man >>>>> or woman >>>>>>>>> could could end up with HIV. On the other hand, if a man > that had >>>>> HIV had >>>>>>>>> normal sex with a woman, it's not likely that the woman > would end >>>>> up with >>>>>>>>> HIV. Yes, I know that it could happen. >>>>>>>> Jason, please stop trying to educate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just stop. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're just embarrassing yourself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Really. Go back to preaching the lies spread by the ICR. At >>> least you >>>>>>>> are in familiar territory while doing that. >>>>>>> Since you know so much about HIV and AIDS--answer this simple > question: >>>>>>> If a man that had HIV had sex with a woman--would the woman > more likely >>>>>>> develop HIV as a result of anal sex or regular sex? >>>>>>> >>>>>> That all depends, did the condom fall off? >>>>>> Where does the blood come in? >>>>>> If it takes blood, some one would have to be bleeding. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim >>>>> No condom was used and none of the people were bleeding. >>>>> >>>> Well, then according to you, there should be no HIV transmission at all. >>>> >>>> Remember this? >>>> You said : >>>>> HIV is caused when blood is spread from one person to another person. I >>>>> heard about a nurse that developed HIV as a result of sticking herself >>>>> with a needle that she had used on a patient that had HIV. >>>> So, by the rules of Jason, no blood transfer, no HIV transfer. >>>> >>>> Jim >>> The blood was transferred from the HIV patient to the nurse via the blood >>> on the needle. That is the means by which many heroin addicts develop HIV. >>> They use dirty needles that have blood on them. In some cities, they give >>> new needles to heroin addicts to prevent them from developing HIV. >>> jason >>> >> OK???? >> Now you have talked yourself full circle. >> Just scroll up and refresh your memory on the thread. >> When you get your head on straight, get back to me. >> >> >> Jim > > I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the > reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they came into > contact with blood. Wrong. Read some more about HIV. Not wrong per se, but wrong as an absolute. Blood is not the only known transmitting possibility. The reason the nurse developed HIV is because she came > into contact with blood. Most all dentists, doctors and nurses now wear > rubber gloves to keep from coming into contact with blood. I always make > sure I see the doctor, nurse or dentist put on new rubber gloves before I > let them touch me. My dentist not only wears gloves but also wears a mask > to cover his mouth and nose while working on patients. The reason that is > much safer to have normal sex with a woman instead of anal sex--is because > during normal sex--blood usually does not transfer from one person to the > other person. Ehm. Not exactly true. "Not as often as" is closer to the target. Granted, the lining of the instestines is a different kind of skin than within the vagina. More susceptible to injury. Notice, that HIV is within body fluids. Actually, there is one case reported where HIV was transmitted via kissing (Was a pretty special case). So, while it might be most prevalent in blood, it is also in every body fluid. I posted a report indicating that one of the main reasons > that so many woman in Africa have developed AIDS is because lots of people > in Africa have anal sex. You posted the report, it was shredded to pieces because it did not even say what you claimed it said. So? Tokay -- The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves. Victor Hugo Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 In article <feh7nm$fo6$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <MPG.2174188f7c3aa9e898a1f5@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <Jason-0510071339580001@66-53-217-152.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > >> Jason@nospam.com says... > >>> In article <MPG.21706829e4099ec998a1f0@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > >>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In article <Jason-0510071205080001@67-150-123-226.lsan.mdsg- > >>>> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > >>>>> In article <MPG.217029d8d4f5347198a1ed@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > >>>>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> In article > > <Jason-0410071803390001@67-150-125-64.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com says... > >>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>> <DipthotDipthot-178E68.16282104102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > >>>>>>> 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>> <Jason-0410071451140001@67-150-122-66.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If a man had HIV and had anal sex with a man or a woman, > > that man > >>>>> or woman > >>>>>>>>> could could end up with HIV. On the other hand, if a man > > that had > >>>>> HIV had > >>>>>>>>> normal sex with a woman, it's not likely that the woman > > would end > >>>>> up with > >>>>>>>>> HIV. Yes, I know that it could happen. > >>>>>>>> Jason, please stop trying to educate. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Just stop. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You're just embarrassing yourself. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Really. Go back to preaching the lies spread by the ICR. At > >>> least you > >>>>>>>> are in familiar territory while doing that. > >>>>>>> Since you know so much about HIV and AIDS--answer this simple > > question: > >>>>>>> If a man that had HIV had sex with a woman--would the woman > > more likely > >>>>>>> develop HIV as a result of anal sex or regular sex? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> That all depends, did the condom fall off? > >>>>>> Where does the blood come in? > >>>>>> If it takes blood, some one would have to be bleeding. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jim > >>>>> No condom was used and none of the people were bleeding. > >>>>> > >>>> Well, then according to you, there should be no HIV transmission at all. > >>>> > >>>> Remember this? > >>>> You said : > >>>>> HIV is caused when blood is spread from one person to another person. I > >>>>> heard about a nurse that developed HIV as a result of sticking herself > >>>>> with a needle that she had used on a patient that had HIV. > >>>> So, by the rules of Jason, no blood transfer, no HIV transfer. > >>>> > >>>> Jim > >>> The blood was transferred from the HIV patient to the nurse via the blood > >>> on the needle. That is the means by which many heroin addicts develop HIV. > >>> They use dirty needles that have blood on them. In some cities, they give > >>> new needles to heroin addicts to prevent them from developing HIV. > >>> jason > >>> > >> OK???? > >> Now you have talked yourself full circle. > >> Just scroll up and refresh your memory on the thread. > >> When you get your head on straight, get back to me. > >> > >> > >> Jim > > > > I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the > > reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they came into > > contact with blood. > > Wrong. Read some more about HIV. Not wrong per se, but wrong as an > absolute. Blood is not the only known transmitting possibility. > > The reason the nurse developed HIV is because she came > > into contact with blood. Most all dentists, doctors and nurses now wear > > rubber gloves to keep from coming into contact with blood. I always make > > sure I see the doctor, nurse or dentist put on new rubber gloves before I > > let them touch me. My dentist not only wears gloves but also wears a mask > > to cover his mouth and nose while working on patients. The reason that is > > much safer to have normal sex with a woman instead of anal sex--is because > > during normal sex--blood usually does not transfer from one person to the > > other person. > > Ehm. Not exactly true. "Not as often as" is closer to the target. > Granted, the lining of the instestines is a different kind of skin than > within the vagina. More susceptible to injury. > Notice, that HIV is within body fluids. Actually, there is one case > reported where HIV was transmitted via kissing (Was a pretty special case). > So, while it might be most prevalent in blood, it is also in every body > fluid. > > > I posted a report indicating that one of the main reasons > > that so many woman in Africa have developed AIDS is because lots of people > > in Africa have anal sex. > > You posted the report, it was shredded to pieces because it did not even > say what you claimed it said. So? > > > Tokay I done a google search for "Africa AIDS anal sex" and got thousands of hits. I only posted one of the many hits. I learned that anal sex is one of the main reasons that so many women in Africa have HIV and AIDS. If you do not believe me, conduct your own google search. Also, why do you believe that just as many woman as men have AIDS in Africa? Quote
Guest Masked Avenger Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <feh7nm$fo6$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <MPG.2174188f7c3aa9e898a1f5@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <Jason-0510071339580001@66-53-217-152.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >>>> Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>> In article <MPG.21706829e4099ec998a1f0@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>>>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <Jason-0510071205080001@67-150-123-226.lsan.mdsg- >>>>>> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>>>> In article <MPG.217029d8d4f5347198a1ed@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>>>>>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In article >>> <Jason-0410071803390001@67-150-125-64.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>> <DipthotDipthot-178E68.16282104102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>>>>>> 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0410071451140001@67-150-122-66.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If a man had HIV and had anal sex with a man or a woman, >>> that man >>>>>>> or woman >>>>>>>>>>> could could end up with HIV. On the other hand, if a man >>> that had >>>>>>> HIV had >>>>>>>>>>> normal sex with a woman, it's not likely that the woman >>> would end >>>>>>> up with >>>>>>>>>>> HIV. Yes, I know that it could happen. >>>>>>>>>> Jason, please stop trying to educate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just stop. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You're just embarrassing yourself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Really. Go back to preaching the lies spread by the ICR. At >>>>> least you >>>>>>>>>> are in familiar territory while doing that. >>>>>>>>> Since you know so much about HIV and AIDS--answer this simple >>> question: >>>>>>>>> If a man that had HIV had sex with a woman--would the woman >>> more likely >>>>>>>>> develop HIV as a result of anal sex or regular sex? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That all depends, did the condom fall off? >>>>>>>> Where does the blood come in? >>>>>>>> If it takes blood, some one would have to be bleeding. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>> No condom was used and none of the people were bleeding. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Well, then according to you, there should be no HIV transmission at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Remember this? >>>>>> You said : >>>>>>> HIV is caused when blood is spread from one person to another person. I >>>>>>> heard about a nurse that developed HIV as a result of sticking herself >>>>>>> with a needle that she had used on a patient that had HIV. >>>>>> So, by the rules of Jason, no blood transfer, no HIV transfer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim >>>>> The blood was transferred from the HIV patient to the nurse via the blood >>>>> on the needle. That is the means by which many heroin addicts develop HIV. >>>>> They use dirty needles that have blood on them. In some cities, they give >>>>> new needles to heroin addicts to prevent them from developing HIV. >>>>> jason >>>>> >>>> OK???? >>>> Now you have talked yourself full circle. >>>> Just scroll up and refresh your memory on the thread. >>>> When you get your head on straight, get back to me. >>>> >>>> >>>> Jim >>> I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the >>> reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they came into >>> contact with blood. >> Wrong. Read some more about HIV. Not wrong per se, but wrong as an >> absolute. Blood is not the only known transmitting possibility. >> >> The reason the nurse developed HIV is because she came >>> into contact with blood. Most all dentists, doctors and nurses now wear >>> rubber gloves to keep from coming into contact with blood. I always make >>> sure I see the doctor, nurse or dentist put on new rubber gloves before I >>> let them touch me. My dentist not only wears gloves but also wears a mask >>> to cover his mouth and nose while working on patients. The reason that is >>> much safer to have normal sex with a woman instead of anal sex--is because >>> during normal sex--blood usually does not transfer from one person to the >>> other person. >> Ehm. Not exactly true. "Not as often as" is closer to the target. >> Granted, the lining of the instestines is a different kind of skin than >> within the vagina. More susceptible to injury. >> Notice, that HIV is within body fluids. Actually, there is one case >> reported where HIV was transmitted via kissing (Was a pretty special case). >> So, while it might be most prevalent in blood, it is also in every body >> fluid. >> >> >> I posted a report indicating that one of the main reasons >>> that so many woman in Africa have developed AIDS is because lots of people >>> in Africa have anal sex. >> You posted the report, it was shredded to pieces because it did not even >> say what you claimed it said. So? >> >> >> Tokay > > I done a google search for "Africa AIDS anal sex" and got thousands of > hits. I only posted one of the many hits. I learned that anal sex is one > of the main reasons that so many women in Africa have HIV and AIDS. If you > do not believe me, conduct your own google search. Also, why do you > believe that just as many woman as men have AIDS in Africa? > Because it's a FACT ...... something that is apparently foreign to you ........ Oh and BTW ..... I know you have been pinged on this before ( but it annoys the crap out of me ) .... but if you are going to try and look intelligent ........ at least use proper grammar ......... "I done a google search" is appallingly bad grammar, it is " I have done a google search" or "I did a google search" ....your use of 'hick speak' makes you look like a country yokel who was Home Schooled and you come across as an uneducated GIT ! .....Which you may be ..... but it doesn't help your case any ......... we all know intelligent people are more inclined to be atheists ....... -- MA ....Yoiks .... and away ..... Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity ............. and I'm not sure about the Universe .......... - A. Einstein Does Schr Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <feh7nm$fo6$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <MPG.2174188f7c3aa9e898a1f5@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <Jason-0510071339580001@66-53-217-152.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >>>> Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>> In article <MPG.21706829e4099ec998a1f0@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>>>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <Jason-0510071205080001@67-150-123-226.lsan.mdsg- >>>>>> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>>>> In article <MPG.217029d8d4f5347198a1ed@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>>>>>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In article >>> <Jason-0410071803390001@67-150-125-64.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>> <DipthotDipthot-178E68.16282104102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>>>>>> 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0410071451140001@67-150-122-66.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If a man had HIV and had anal sex with a man or a woman, >>> that man >>>>>>> or woman >>>>>>>>>>> could could end up with HIV. On the other hand, if a man >>> that had >>>>>>> HIV had >>>>>>>>>>> normal sex with a woman, it's not likely that the woman >>> would end >>>>>>> up with >>>>>>>>>>> HIV. Yes, I know that it could happen. >>>>>>>>>> Jason, please stop trying to educate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just stop. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You're just embarrassing yourself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Really. Go back to preaching the lies spread by the ICR. At >>>>> least you >>>>>>>>>> are in familiar territory while doing that. >>>>>>>>> Since you know so much about HIV and AIDS--answer this simple >>> question: >>>>>>>>> If a man that had HIV had sex with a woman--would the woman >>> more likely >>>>>>>>> develop HIV as a result of anal sex or regular sex? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That all depends, did the condom fall off? >>>>>>>> Where does the blood come in? >>>>>>>> If it takes blood, some one would have to be bleeding. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>> No condom was used and none of the people were bleeding. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Well, then according to you, there should be no HIV transmission at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Remember this? >>>>>> You said : >>>>>>> HIV is caused when blood is spread from one person to another person. I >>>>>>> heard about a nurse that developed HIV as a result of sticking herself >>>>>>> with a needle that she had used on a patient that had HIV. >>>>>> So, by the rules of Jason, no blood transfer, no HIV transfer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim >>>>> The blood was transferred from the HIV patient to the nurse via the blood >>>>> on the needle. That is the means by which many heroin addicts develop HIV. >>>>> They use dirty needles that have blood on them. In some cities, they give >>>>> new needles to heroin addicts to prevent them from developing HIV. >>>>> jason >>>>> >>>> OK???? >>>> Now you have talked yourself full circle. >>>> Just scroll up and refresh your memory on the thread. >>>> When you get your head on straight, get back to me. >>>> >>>> >>>> Jim >>> I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the >>> reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they came into >>> contact with blood. >> Wrong. Read some more about HIV. Not wrong per se, but wrong as an >> absolute. Blood is not the only known transmitting possibility. >> >> The reason the nurse developed HIV is because she came >>> into contact with blood. Most all dentists, doctors and nurses now wear >>> rubber gloves to keep from coming into contact with blood. I always make >>> sure I see the doctor, nurse or dentist put on new rubber gloves before I >>> let them touch me. My dentist not only wears gloves but also wears a mask >>> to cover his mouth and nose while working on patients. The reason that is >>> much safer to have normal sex with a woman instead of anal sex--is because >>> during normal sex--blood usually does not transfer from one person to the >>> other person. >> Ehm. Not exactly true. "Not as often as" is closer to the target. >> Granted, the lining of the instestines is a different kind of skin than >> within the vagina. More susceptible to injury. >> Notice, that HIV is within body fluids. Actually, there is one case >> reported where HIV was transmitted via kissing (Was a pretty special case). >> So, while it might be most prevalent in blood, it is also in every body >> fluid. >> >> >> I posted a report indicating that one of the main reasons >>> that so many woman in Africa have developed AIDS is because lots of people >>> in Africa have anal sex. >> You posted the report, it was shredded to pieces because it did not even >> say what you claimed it said. So? >> >> >> Tokay > > I done a google search for "Africa AIDS anal sex" and got thousands of > hits. Of course. But you do know that "google" can only be the start of the research? > I only posted one of the many hits. I learned that anal sex is one > of the main reasons that so many women in Africa have HIV and AIDS. No, you did NOT "learn" that. You read it in an article that was full of "might be" "possible" and more of such. So, EVEN the article itself doesn't claim it as fact. If you > do not believe me, conduct your own google search. Also, why do you > believe that just as many woman as men have AIDS in Africa? So, the problem here is this: Transmission from male to female must be round about equal. otherwise you would not get the ratio of 1:1.1 male:female (Data from 1984 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epafrica.htm ). So, just tossing the ideas around: Given the fact that the HI-Virus is pretty unstable and requires very good conditions (PH, osmolarity and such) to survive in the first place, the lower intestines is far from optimum. So, transmission through body fluids within the intestines to the male seems at first glance rather unlikely (have to check up on this). The virus is not in the intestine in the first place because it cannot survive there. At least not long. So, anal intercourse could account for male to female (or homosexual) transmission but not for female to male. (HIV is in the semen, mucosa of the lower intestine is rather thin, can get damaged rather fast). Conclusion: If this actually was the reason for the spread of HIV throughout the african continent we would see quite a different ratio. So, given that the number of homosexual intercourse is compared to heterosexual intercourse quite small, we should see a lot more infected women than men. We do see (as of 1984) a slight but not significant plus on the female side. So, what you "learned" is guesswork. Nothing more. If the transmission works both ways, as is the theory today and by heterosexual intercourse predominantly, we would expect a ratio of 1:1 And that is what we actually see in Africa. (Or saw 1984. I lack up to date data) What we see in the western world is a different story. HIV-positive patients are predominantly male, have a high percentage of homosexuals (male homosexuals. female homosexuality is about the safest sex there is) and i.v.-drug addicts. I don't have the acurate data, at least not in numbers. Most articles I scanned state that in the "western" world, homosexual and bisexual men and i.v.-drugaddicts are the main infected. It appears, though, that in recent years the western world has seen an increase in female HIV-infections and (to speculate) might reach the same ratio as in Africa. (Note that "ratio" is not the same as "percentage") Tokay P.S.: My reasoning actually has a few flaws. See if you can spot them.... -- The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves. Victor Hugo Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 Jason wrote: > You need to take a AIDS couse. No, Jason, you need to quit talking like an idiot. You said: >>> I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the >>> reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they came into >>> contact with blood. The reason the nurse developed HIV is because she came Then you said: When I took the course, the question was in > regard to why such a large number of male homosexuals developed AIDS. The > answer was because they engaged in anal sex. So which is it? Is AIDS transmitted via blood transfer or is it transferred by anal sex? (Clue: it's transmitted by ANY transfer of bodily fluids and not just blood.) > > The question was in regard to why such a large number of women in America > did not have AIDS. The answer was that a large number of American women > had not ever engaged in anal sex. Yes, this is true. But anal sex is NOT the only way of transmitting AIDS. > The question was in regard to why so many African women have developed > AIDS. That question was not asked in the AIDS class that I attended. > > I googled "Anal Sex Africa AIDS". I got lots of hits. In almost every site > that I visited, it mentioned that lots of women in Africa had engaged in > anal sex. No, you quoted ONE site that said it was POSSIBLE that's what caused the difference. > If you are married, you should know that in most cases--there is no blood > to blood transfer during regular sex. Nor is there during anal sex. > > Ask any homosexual if there is blood to blood transfer during anal sex--if > they are honest--they will tell you that bleeding does happen on a regular > basis during anal sex. So when does the "giver" in anal sex bleed for this "blood to blood transfer?" I learned that information from the nurse that > taught the AIDS class. She stated that huge numbers of people have > hemorrhoids and that they can easily start bleeding during anal sex. Then she needs to get more training. > If your google "anal sex bleeding" you will probably find information that > confirms that the nurse that taught the AIDS class was telling the truth. And if I google "jason is an idiot" I'll find lots of information that confirms that you're an idiot. Quote
Guest James Beck Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 In article <fej084$nrp$1@news04.infoave.net>, prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com says... > Jason wrote: > > You need to take a AIDS couse. > > No, Jason, you need to quit talking like an idiot. > > You said: > > >>> I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the > >>> reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they > came into > >>> contact with blood. The reason the nurse developed HIV is because > she came > > Then you said: > > When I took the course, the question was in > > regard to why such a large number of male homosexuals developed AIDS. The > > answer was because they engaged in anal sex. > > So which is it? Is AIDS transmitted via blood transfer or is it > transferred by anal sex? (Clue: it's transmitted by ANY transfer of > bodily fluids and not just blood.) > > > > > The question was in regard to why such a large number of women in America > > did not have AIDS. The answer was that a large number of American women > > had not ever engaged in anal sex. > > Yes, this is true. But anal sex is NOT the only way of transmitting AIDS. > > > The question was in regard to why so many African women have developed > > AIDS. That question was not asked in the AIDS class that I attended. > > > > I googled "Anal Sex Africa AIDS". I got lots of hits. In almost every site > > that I visited, it mentioned that lots of women in Africa had engaged in > > anal sex. > > No, you quoted ONE site that said it was POSSIBLE that's what caused the > difference. > > > If you are married, you should know that in most cases--there is no blood > > to blood transfer during regular sex. > > Nor is there during anal sex. > > > > > Ask any homosexual if there is blood to blood transfer during anal sex--if > > they are honest--they will tell you that bleeding does happen on a regular > > basis during anal sex. > > So when does the "giver" in anal sex bleed for this "blood to blood > transfer?" > > I learned that information from the nurse that > > taught the AIDS class. She stated that huge numbers of people have > > hemorrhoids and that they can easily start bleeding during anal sex. > > Then she needs to get more training. > > > If your google "anal sex bleeding" you will probably find information that > > confirms that the nurse that taught the AIDS class was telling the truth. > > And if I google "jason is an idiot" I'll find lots of information that > confirms that you're an idiot. > Was there a point to this thread? I think I missed something. Jim Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 In article <fej084$nrp$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > You need to take a AIDS couse. > > No, Jason, you need to quit talking like an idiot. > > You said: > > >>> I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the > >>> reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they > came into > >>> contact with blood. The reason the nurse developed HIV is because > she came > > Then you said: > > When I took the course, the question was in > > regard to why such a large number of male homosexuals developed AIDS. The > > answer was because they engaged in anal sex. > > So which is it? Is AIDS transmitted via blood transfer or is it > transferred by anal sex? (Clue: it's transmitted by ANY transfer of > bodily fluids and not just blood.) > > > > > The question was in regard to why such a large number of women in America > > did not have AIDS. The answer was that a large number of American women > > had not ever engaged in anal sex. > > Yes, this is true. But anal sex is NOT the only way of transmitting AIDS. > > > The question was in regard to why so many African women have developed > > AIDS. That question was not asked in the AIDS class that I attended. > > > > I googled "Anal Sex Africa AIDS". I got lots of hits. In almost every site > > that I visited, it mentioned that lots of women in Africa had engaged in > > anal sex. > > No, you quoted ONE site that said it was POSSIBLE that's what caused the > difference. > > > If you are married, you should know that in most cases--there is no blood > > to blood transfer during regular sex. > > Nor is there during anal sex. > > > > > Ask any homosexual if there is blood to blood transfer during anal sex--if > > they are honest--they will tell you that bleeding does happen on a regular > > basis during anal sex. > > So when does the "giver" in anal sex bleed for this "blood to blood > transfer?" > > I learned that information from the nurse that > > taught the AIDS class. She stated that huge numbers of people have > > hemorrhoids and that they can easily start bleeding during anal sex. > > Then she needs to get more training. > > > If your google "anal sex bleeding" you will probably find information that > > confirms that the nurse that taught the AIDS class was telling the truth. > > And if I google "jason is an idiot" I'll find lots of information that > confirms that you're an idiot. Perhaps the nurse that taught the AIDS class knows much less than you know about anal sex. She told the class that lots of people have hemorrhoids. When a man that has AIDS or HIV has anal sex with a man or woman that has hemorrhoids--a hemorrhoid could start bleeding. The sperm and other body fluids comes in contact with the bleeding hemorrhoid. That man or woman that had the bleeding hemorrhoid could develop HIV. I did not mean to mislead you--if no bleeding takes place during anal sex--it's doubtful that the person would develop HIV even if their sexual partner had HIV. Most women do NOT bleed during sexual intercourse. Evidently, lots of men in Africa must enjoy anal sex more than regular sex. When I was a very young man, I don't recall any men bragging about having anal sex with women. The ANUS was NOT designed for sexual intercourse. As you know or at least should know--HIV is spread when blood or body fluids from an HIV or AIDs patient comes into direct contact with blood or body fluids of another person. That is the reasn medical professionals wear rubber gloves and in some cases wear masks that cover their nose and face. They may also wear special glasses to protect their eyes. I would prefer to google "Jason is smart"--those websites are about me. The websites about Jason the idiot is about some other person named Jason ) Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 Mike wrote: > Jason wrote: >> You need to take a AIDS couse. > > No, Jason, you need to quit talking like an idiot. > > You said: > > >>> I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the > >>> reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they > came into > >>> contact with blood. The reason the nurse developed HIV is because > she came > > Then you said: > > When I took the course, the question was in >> regard to why such a large number of male homosexuals developed AIDS. The >> answer was because they engaged in anal sex. > > So which is it? Is AIDS transmitted via blood transfer or is it > transferred by anal sex? (Clue: it's transmitted by ANY transfer of > bodily fluids and not just blood.) That much is true. HIV (not AIDS, by the way, but this is nitpicking) is transmitted via bodily fluids. Blood is one such fluid. As I have explained in another thread, the reason that anal intercourse (as in male homosexual sex) has a higher susceptibility for transmitting the virus towards the "receiving" part is because the mucosa of the lower intestine, in fact the whole wall of the lower intestine is thin. Very thin. You wouldn't believe HOW thin. The wall doesn't get ripped but basically the mucosa in the intestines is a single cell layer membrane whereas the vagina has a multicellular "skin". So, yes. HIV gets transmitted via bodily fluids. But the fluids actually have to get IN the body. There are studies that suggest the mucosa of the cervix is a similar (in part) single cell layer membrane (that much is fact) and that could account for the transmisability from male to female (that is the hypothesis). The question is, is it more dangerous to have anal intercourse or vaginal intercourse? I haven't found studies that dealt with that. Fact remains, in the "western" world, HIV-positives are predominantly male, predominantly homo- or bisexual or iv-drug users. Note, that women are gaining in recent years. Why this is the case is open for descussion and further research. > >> >> The question was in regard to why such a large number of women in America >> did not have AIDS. The answer was that a large number of American women >> had not ever engaged in anal sex. > > Yes, this is true. But anal sex is NOT the only way of transmitting AIDS. IS this true? Compared to Africa? Any data? (I mean of course the first sentence. The second one of course is fact) > >> The question was in regard to why so many African women have developed >> AIDS. That question was not asked in the AIDS class that I attended. >> >> I googled "Anal Sex Africa AIDS". I got lots of hits. In almost every >> site >> that I visited, it mentioned that lots of women in Africa had engaged in >> anal sex. > > No, you quoted ONE site that said it was POSSIBLE that's what caused the > difference. Exactly. > >> If you are married, you should know that in most cases--there is no blood >> to blood transfer during regular sex. > > Nor is there during anal sex. > Both wrong. No visible blood. But still minimal injuries do occur on a regular basis. Hetero and homosexual intercourse. >> >> Ask any homosexual if there is blood to blood transfer during anal >> sex--if >> they are honest--they will tell you that bleeding does happen on a >> regular >> basis during anal sex. > > So when does the "giver" in anal sex bleed for this "blood to blood > transfer?" Not necessary. Bodily fluids can easily cross the damaged (and as I said earlier THIN) mucosa. > > I learned that information from the nurse that >> taught the AIDS class. She stated that huge numbers of people have >> hemorrhoids and that they can easily start bleeding during anal sex. > > Then she needs to get more training. > >> If your google "anal sex bleeding" you will probably find information >> that >> confirms that the nurse that taught the AIDS class was telling the truth. > > And if I google "jason is an idiot" I'll find lots of information that > confirms that you're an idiot. -- "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it." Chinese Proverb Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 In article <fejlgi$hem$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Mike wrote: > > Jason wrote: > >> You need to take a AIDS couse. > > > > No, Jason, you need to quit talking like an idiot. > > > > You said: > > > > >>> I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the > > >>> reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they > > came into > > >>> contact with blood. The reason the nurse developed HIV is because > > she came > > > > Then you said: > > > > When I took the course, the question was in > >> regard to why such a large number of male homosexuals developed AIDS. The > >> answer was because they engaged in anal sex. > > > > So which is it? Is AIDS transmitted via blood transfer or is it > > transferred by anal sex? (Clue: it's transmitted by ANY transfer of > > bodily fluids and not just blood.) > > That much is true. HIV (not AIDS, by the way, but this is nitpicking) is > transmitted via bodily fluids. Blood is one such fluid. > > As I have explained in another thread, the reason that anal intercourse > (as in male homosexual sex) has a higher susceptibility for transmitting > the virus towards the "receiving" part is because the mucosa of the > lower intestine, in fact the whole wall of the lower intestine is thin. > Very thin. You wouldn't believe HOW thin. The wall doesn't get ripped > but basically the mucosa in the intestines is a single cell layer > membrane whereas the vagina has a multicellular "skin". > > So, yes. HIV gets transmitted via bodily fluids. But the fluids actually > have to get IN the body. > > There are studies that suggest the mucosa of the cervix is a similar (in > part) single cell layer membrane (that much is fact) and that could > account for the transmisability from male to female (that is the > hypothesis). > > The question is, is it more dangerous to have anal intercourse or > vaginal intercourse? I haven't found studies that dealt with that. > > Fact remains, in the "western" world, HIV-positives are predominantly > male, predominantly homo- or bisexual or iv-drug users. > Note, that women are gaining in recent years. > > Why this is the case is open for descussion and further research. > > > > >> > >> The question was in regard to why such a large number of women in America > >> did not have AIDS. The answer was that a large number of American women > >> had not ever engaged in anal sex. > > > > Yes, this is true. But anal sex is NOT the only way of transmitting AIDS. > > IS this true? Compared to Africa? Any data? > > (I mean of course the first sentence. The second one of course is fact) > > > > >> The question was in regard to why so many African women have developed > >> AIDS. That question was not asked in the AIDS class that I attended. > >> > >> I googled "Anal Sex Africa AIDS". I got lots of hits. In almost every > >> site > >> that I visited, it mentioned that lots of women in Africa had engaged in > >> anal sex. > > > > No, you quoted ONE site that said it was POSSIBLE that's what caused the > > difference. > > Exactly. > > > > >> If you are married, you should know that in most cases--there is no blood > >> to blood transfer during regular sex. > > > > Nor is there during anal sex. > > > > Both wrong. No visible blood. But still minimal injuries do occur on a > regular basis. Hetero and homosexual intercourse. > > > >> > >> Ask any homosexual if there is blood to blood transfer during anal > >> sex--if > >> they are honest--they will tell you that bleeding does happen on a > >> regular > >> basis during anal sex. > > > > So when does the "giver" in anal sex bleed for this "blood to blood > > transfer?" > > Not necessary. Bodily fluids can easily cross the damaged (and as I said > earlier THIN) mucosa. > > > > > I learned that information from the nurse that > >> taught the AIDS class. She stated that huge numbers of people have > >> hemorrhoids and that they can easily start bleeding during anal sex. > > > > Then she needs to get more training. > > > >> If your google "anal sex bleeding" you will probably find information > >> that > >> confirms that the nurse that taught the AIDS class was telling the truth. > > > > And if I google "jason is an idiot" I'll find lots of information that > > confirms that you're an idiot. You know much more about anal sex than I know. Do you agree or disagree that men that have normal sex with women are less likely to develop HIV than men that have anal sex with men or with women? My answer is that men that have normal sex with women are less likley to develop HIV than men that have anal sex with men or with women. What is your answer? Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > Perhaps the nurse that taught the AIDS class knows much less than you know > about anal sex. She told the class that lots of people have hemorrhoids. > When a man that has AIDS or HIV has anal sex with a man or woman that has > hemorrhoids--a hemorrhoid could start bleeding. The sperm and other body > fluids comes in contact with the bleeding hemorrhoid. That man or woman > that had the bleeding hemorrhoid could develop HIV. Then explain why so many MEN in Africa have AIDS? Is it because they tend to engage in anal sex with each other? Of course not. Is it due to rough vaginal sex that causes irritations and abrasions on BOTH partners? Very possibly so. I did not mean to > mislead you-- Trust me, you could never mislead anyone (since no-one would ever list to anything you say.) if no bleeding takes place during anal sex--it's doubtful > that the person would develop HIV even if their sexual partner had HIV. > Most women do NOT bleed during sexual intercourse. Evidently, lots of men > in Africa must enjoy anal sex more than regular sex. When I was a very > young man, I don't recall any men bragging about having anal sex with > women. The ANUS was NOT designed for sexual intercourse. Nothing was designed, period. > As you know or at least should know And as you apparently don't know, since YOU made the claim that "the reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they came into contact with blood." Wrong, wrong, wrong. The reason people develop HIV is that they came into contact with SOME bodily fluid from an infected person. That fluid does NOT have to be blood. --HIV is spread when blood or body > fluids from an HIV or AIDs patient comes into direct contact with blood or > body fluids of another person. Which is NOT what you said before. That is the reasn medical professionals > wear rubber gloves and in some cases wear masks that cover their nose and > face. They may also wear special glasses to protect their eyes. Duh. Like we don't already know that. Now explain what that has to do with two men who have NEVER had sex with anyone else other than each other. > I would prefer to google "Jason is smart"--those websites are about me. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > The websites about Jason the idiot is about some other person named Jason Oh, trust me, they have the right Jason. BTW, google has more saying that you're an idiot than it does saying you're smart. So I guess google really IS accurate for that. Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Tokay Pino Gris wrote: > Mike wrote: >> Jason wrote: >>> You need to take a AIDS couse. >> >> No, Jason, you need to quit talking like an idiot. >> >> You said: >> >> >>> I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that the >> >>> reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they >> came into >> >>> contact with blood. The reason the nurse developed HIV is because >> she came >> >> Then you said: >> >> When I took the course, the question was in >>> regard to why such a large number of male homosexuals developed AIDS. >>> The >>> answer was because they engaged in anal sex. >> >> So which is it? Is AIDS transmitted via blood transfer or is it >> transferred by anal sex? (Clue: it's transmitted by ANY transfer of >> bodily fluids and not just blood.) > > That much is true. HIV (not AIDS, by the way, but this is nitpicking) is > transmitted via bodily fluids. Blood is one such fluid. But Jason had said that "the reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they came into contact with blood." That's what I was arguing against. It's NOT just by blood contact (as Jason stated.) Now if he had said "one of the reasons..." I wouldn't have taken issue. <snip> >> >>> >>> The question was in regard to why such a large number of women in >>> America >>> did not have AIDS. The answer was that a large number of American women >>> had not ever engaged in anal sex. >> >> Yes, this is true. But anal sex is NOT the only way of transmitting AIDS. > > IS this true? Compared to Africa? Any data? > (I mean of course the first sentence. The second one of course is fact) I wasn't comparing it to Africa when I said "this is true." I was comparing the number of women in America who have had anal sex vs the number of women in America who have not. > >> >>> The question was in regard to why so many African women have developed >>> AIDS. That question was not asked in the AIDS class that I attended. >>> >>> I googled "Anal Sex Africa AIDS". I got lots of hits. In almost every >>> site >>> that I visited, it mentioned that lots of women in Africa had engaged in >>> anal sex. >> >> No, you quoted ONE site that said it was POSSIBLE that's what caused >> the difference. > > Exactly. > >> >>> If you are married, you should know that in most cases--there is no >>> blood >>> to blood transfer during regular sex. >> >> Nor is there during anal sex. >> > > Both wrong. No visible blood. But still minimal injuries do occur on a > regular basis. Hetero and homosexual intercourse. I meant to say "nor is there during anal sex in most cases." Yeah, rough vaginal sex can cause tiny tears/abrasions for BOTH partners (thus probably explaining the higher rate of AIDS in Africa.) > > >>> >>> Ask any homosexual if there is blood to blood transfer during anal >>> sex--if >>> they are honest--they will tell you that bleeding does happen on a >>> regular >>> basis during anal sex. >> >> So when does the "giver" in anal sex bleed for this "blood to blood >> transfer?" > > Not necessary. Bodily fluids can easily cross the damaged (and as I said > earlier THIN) mucosa. You and I both know this. Jason, how-ever, does not. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:01:23 -0400, in alt.atheism , James Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> in <MPG.217472ba5105506798a1fa@newsgroups.bellsouth.net> wrote: [snip] >The article you posted was refuted and just how does anal sex cause >blood to be transferred between partners? >AND, just what is your point with this whole thing? >Having sex with a person infected with HIV can transfer HIV. >Yep, big scientific breakthrough there. >What is the difference if it is oral, vaginal, anal, or whatever. Do you really not know or are you playing? With anal sex there is a significantly greater change of tears in the walls and so a transmission of the virus. With oral sex it seems that stomach fluids do a good job in destroying the virus. There are either no, or significantly few, cases of HIV transmission via oral sex. Vaginal sex is in the middle, it is possible but it happens at a significantly lower rate than with anal sex. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest James Beck Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 In article <Jason-1010072159490001@67-150-123-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > > > > > I learned that information from the nurse that > > >> taught the AIDS class. She stated that huge numbers of people have > > >> hemorrhoids and that they can easily start bleeding during anal sex. > > > > > > Then she needs to get more training. > > > > > >> If your google "anal sex bleeding" you will probably find information > > >> that > > >> confirms that the nurse that taught the AIDS class was telling the truth. > > > > > > And if I google "jason is an idiot" I'll find lots of information that > > > confirms that you're an idiot. > > You know much more about anal sex than I know. Do you agree or disagree > that men that have normal sex with women are less likely to develop HIV > than men that have anal sex with men or with women? > > My answer is that men that have normal sex with women are less likley to > develop HIV than men that have anal sex with men or with women. > > What is your answer? > > > Your right Jason, that butt play will kill ya'. > OCTOBER 8--An Alabama minister who died in June of "accidental mechanical > asphyxia" was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a > face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head > mask, according to an autopsy report. > > Investigators determined that Rev. Gary Aldridge's death was not caused by > foul play and that the 51-year-old pastor of Montgomery's Thorington Road > Baptist Church was alone in his home at the time he died (while apparently > in the midst of some autoerotic undertaking). While the Montgomery > Advertiser, which first obtained the autopsy records, reported on Aldridge's > two wet suits, the family newspaper chose not to mention what police > discovered inside the minister's rubber briefs. > From the autopsy report, "there is a dildo in the anus" > > http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba2.html > http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html You still haven't explained why you are so fixated on anal sex. Jim Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > You know much more about anal sex than I know. Not really. I do now anatomy, though. And physiology. Do you agree or disagree > that men that have normal sex with women are less likely to develop HIV > than men that have anal sex with men or with women? I do not agree. Because what you left out (and what I described at length in my post) is that it matters whether you are the "giving" part or the "receiving" part in anal intercourse. For the "giving" part, the risk might be about the same. For the receiving part (based on what I speculated before) the risk is higher in both cases (lower intestine mucosa or cervix mucosa). Which one is the highest, I do not know. > > My answer is that men that have normal sex with women are less likley to > develop HIV than men that have anal sex with men or with women. > > What is your answer? So, if this was actually true you would see a lot more women than man with HIV. As I have already explained, anal sex is rather less dangereous on the "giving" (or "penetrating") part than on the "receiving" (the buttfucked one) part. In Africa, this is true... by a factor of 1:1.1. Not really significant in scientific terms. "Develop" is actually bullshit. You can develop AIDS but HIV is a virus. Tokay -- Your brain is like a vacume cleaner. It sucks when you have to use it. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 Mike wrote: > Tokay Pino Gris wrote: >> Mike wrote: >>> Jason wrote: >>>> You need to take a AIDS couse. >>> >>> No, Jason, you need to quit talking like an idiot. >>> >>> You said: >>> >>> >>> I am not talking in circles. I have stated in various posts that >>> the >>> >>> reason people (or even children) develop HIV--it's because they >>> came into >>> >>> contact with blood. The reason the nurse developed HIV is >>> because she came >>> >>> Then you said: >>> >>> When I took the course, the question was in >>>> regard to why such a large number of male homosexuals developed >>>> AIDS. The >>>> answer was because they engaged in anal sex. >>> >>> So which is it? Is AIDS transmitted via blood transfer or is it >>> transferred by anal sex? (Clue: it's transmitted by ANY transfer of >>> bodily fluids and not just blood.) >> >> That much is true. HIV (not AIDS, by the way, but this is nitpicking) >> is transmitted via bodily fluids. Blood is one such fluid. > > But Jason had said that "the reason people (or even children) develop > HIV--it's because they came into contact with blood." That's what I was > arguing against. It's NOT just by blood contact (as Jason stated.) Now > if he had said "one of the reasons..." I wouldn't have taken issue. Yes. Of course. It IS a sexually transmitted disease. But so's the flue. > > <snip> > >>> >>>> >>>> The question was in regard to why such a large number of women in >>>> America >>>> did not have AIDS. The answer was that a large number of American women >>>> had not ever engaged in anal sex. >>> >>> Yes, this is true. But anal sex is NOT the only way of transmitting >>> AIDS. >> >> IS this true? Compared to Africa? Any data? >> (I mean of course the first sentence. The second one of course is fact) > > I wasn't comparing it to Africa when I said "this is true." I was > comparing the number of women in America who have had anal sex vs the > number of women in America who have not. Oh, ok, sorry. I guess I agree to that. True for any country, I believe. Except maybe those places where virginity is an issue at marriage (snicker). >>>> The question was in regard to why so many African women have developed >>>> AIDS. That question was not asked in the AIDS class that I attended. >>>> >>>> I googled "Anal Sex Africa AIDS". I got lots of hits. In almost >>>> every site >>>> that I visited, it mentioned that lots of women in Africa had >>>> engaged in >>>> anal sex. >>> >>> No, you quoted ONE site that said it was POSSIBLE that's what caused >>> the difference. >> >> Exactly. >> >>> >>>> If you are married, you should know that in most cases--there is no >>>> blood >>>> to blood transfer during regular sex. >>> >>> Nor is there during anal sex. >>> >> >> Both wrong. No visible blood. But still minimal injuries do occur on a >> regular basis. Hetero and homosexual intercourse. > > I meant to say "nor is there during anal sex in most cases." Sorry. Really no idea. To tell the truth, if my girl wants to do this I would actually give it a try (to be blunt, her "other" hole I quite like... very much in fact. More than... ow, forget it). But so far... No idea. Yeah, rough > vaginal sex can cause tiny tears/abrasions for BOTH partners (thus > probably explaining the higher rate of AIDS in Africa.) Uhaa... shaky ground. IS the sex in africa rougher? >>>> Ask any homosexual if there is blood to blood transfer during anal >>>> sex--if >>>> they are honest--they will tell you that bleeding does happen on a >>>> regular >>>> basis during anal sex. >>> >>> So when does the "giver" in anal sex bleed for this "blood to blood >>> transfer?" >> >> Not necessary. Bodily fluids can easily cross the damaged (and as I >> said earlier THIN) mucosa. > > You and I both know this. Jason, how-ever, does not. It appears that Jason doesn't "know" much at all, now, does it? Tokay -- Your brain is like a vacume cleaner. It sucks when you have to use it. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 Matt Silberstein wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:01:23 -0400, in alt.atheism , James Beck > <jim@reallykillersystems.com> in > <MPG.217472ba5105506798a1fa@newsgroups.bellsouth.net> wrote: > > [snip] > >> The article you posted was refuted and just how does anal sex cause >> blood to be transferred between partners? >> AND, just what is your point with this whole thing? >> Having sex with a person infected with HIV can transfer HIV. >> Yep, big scientific breakthrough there. >> What is the difference if it is oral, vaginal, anal, or whatever. > > Do you really not know or are you playing? With anal sex there is a > significantly greater change of tears in the walls and so a > transmission of the virus. With oral sex it seems that stomach fluids > do a good job in destroying the virus. There are either no, or > significantly few, cases of HIV transmission via oral sex. Vaginal sex > is in the middle, it is possible but it happens at a significantly > lower rate than with anal sex. > > I do not want to doubt you, but do you have any data on this? links, reports, articles? Not that I doubt it... but I want to read up on it. Tokay -- Your brain is like a vacume cleaner. It sucks when you have to use it. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0210072119340001@67-150-124-80.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <fdutq5$erl$1@austar-news.austar.net.au>, Masked Avenger ><cootey59_@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <5mfahlFd8dqaU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >=20 >> >> "Mike" <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message=20 >> >> news:fdtrbd$gjt$3@news04.infoave.net... >> >>> Jason wrote: >> >>>> In article <j1e0g3hfpa5co2fjc8hk8aflq9g8unkujs@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>>>> Is divorce immoral? Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, b= >> ut He >> >>>>> had quite a bit to say about divorce. >> >>>> I once believed that divorce was immoral but no longer believe it du= >> e to >> >>>> some of my friends and family members that have had divorces. >> >>> Translation: My family members did X so I don't think X to be immoral= >> or=20 >> >>> else I'd have to admit my family members are immoral. >> >>> >> >>> Talk about relativism/relative morals (pun intended.) >> >>> >> >>>> There are verses in the Bible related to homosexuality. The conclusi= >> on is >> >>>> that homosexual acts are a sin. God destroyed two cities because the= >> >> >>>> majority of the people that lived in those cities were sinners and o= >> ne of >> >>>> the sins was homosexuality. Sodom was the name of one of those citie= >> s. >> >>>>> Is greed immoral? Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, but= >> He >> >>>>> condemned those who gathered up riches for themselves. >> >>>> I consider greed to be immoral. >> >>>>> Is self-righteousness immoral? Is public display of religiosity? >> >>>> Yes--but just because someone calls someone "self-righteous" it does= >> not >> >>>> mean that person is self-righteous. >> >>>>> One more question, was Jesus immoral for making very good wine? >> >>>> No. Back in those days--much of the water was polluted since people >> >>>> obtained water from creeks and rivers. People took baths in those ri= >> vers >> >>>> and creeks and various animals deposited fecal material in those riv= >> ers >> >>>> and creeks. The end result was that wine was safer to drink than wat= >> er. >> >>>> Water from wells was safe. >> >>>> >> >>>> Wine is mentioned many times in the Bible. The conclusion (based on = >> many >> >>>> different scriptures) was that it was NOT a sin to drink wine. Howev= >> er,=20 >> >>>> it >> >>>> was a sin to get drunk from wine. The word "winebibber" was used to >> >>>> describe those people that sinned by getting drunk from wine. See=20 >> >>>> Proverbs >> >>>> 23:20 "Do not drink with the winebibbers--for the winebibbers will c= >> ome=20 >> >>>> to >> >>>> poverty." >> >>> I.e. the bible basically talks about doing things to EXCESS. Heroin=20 >> >>> addiction is such an excess. But a single use of heroin is not. So wh= >> y is=20 >> >>> it immoral? >> >> Eating deep-fried food is bad for you - But does that make it immoral?= >> >> >=20 >> > No--eating food is not immoral. >> >=20 >> >> the Bible forbids the eating of certain foods .... Pig, Shellfish etc=20 >> =2E..... is eating pork or oysters immoral ? >> >> how do you explain this : >> >> Only certain kinds of animals may be eaten. >> Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud or=20 >> of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel and the hare, and the=20 >> coney; for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore, they=20 >> are unclean unto you. And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet=20 >> cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their=20 >> flesh, nor touch their dead carcass. -- Deuteronomy 14:7-8 >> >> These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that=20 >> are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and=20 >> cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. Nevertheless these = >> >> shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the=20 >> hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the=20 >> hoof; he is unclean unto you. -- Leviticus 11:2-4 >> >> Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an=20 >> abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:12 >> >> BUT ! >> >> You may eat any kind of animal. >> >> Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you. -- Genesis 9:3= >> >> >> isn't there a contradiction in these passages ? Please explain Jason=20 > > >Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter >was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter >that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. > What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do with any gods? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:04:15 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0210071104150001@66-53-210-54.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <fdtrbd$gjt$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <j1e0g3hfpa5co2fjc8hk8aflq9g8unkujs@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> Is divorce immoral? Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, but He >> >> had quite a bit to say about divorce. >> > >> > I once believed that divorce was immoral but no longer believe it due to >> > some of my friends and family members that have had divorces. >> >> Translation: My family members did X so I don't think X to be immoral or >> else I'd have to admit my family members are immoral. >> >> Talk about relativism/relative morals (pun intended.) >> >> > There are verses in the Bible related to homosexuality. The conclusion is >> > that homosexual acts are a sin. God destroyed two cities because the >> > majority of the people that lived in those cities were sinners and one of >> > the sins was homosexuality. Sodom was the name of one of those cities. >> > >> > >> >> Is greed immoral? Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, but He >> >> condemned those who gathered up riches for themselves. >> > >> > I consider greed to be immoral. >> >> Is self-righteousness immoral? Is public display of religiosity? >> > >> > Yes--but just because someone calls someone "self-righteous" it does not >> > mean that person is self-righteous. >> > >> > >> >> One more question, was Jesus immoral for making very good wine? >> > >> > No. Back in those days--much of the water was polluted since people >> > obtained water from creeks and rivers. People took baths in those rivers >> > and creeks and various animals deposited fecal material in those rivers >> > and creeks. The end result was that wine was safer to drink than water. >> > Water from wells was safe. >> > >> > Wine is mentioned many times in the Bible. The conclusion (based on many >> > different scriptures) was that it was NOT a sin to drink wine. However, it >> > was a sin to get drunk from wine. The word "winebibber" was used to >> > describe those people that sinned by getting drunk from wine. See Proverbs >> > 23:20 "Do not drink with the winebibbers--for the winebibbers will come to >> > poverty." >> >> I.e. the bible basically talks about doing things to EXCESS. Heroin >> addiction is such an excess. But a single use of heroin is not. So why >> is it immoral? > >Good point--I was referring to an addiction to heroin. I seem to recall >that I indicated in one post that people should not conduct a single use >of heroin or cocaine since the casual use of heroin or cocaine could lead >to an addiction. > So addiction, a natural, but undesirable physical process is immoral? What a self-righteous, unforgiving prig you are Jason. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 In article <femfsi$g0c$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > You know much more about anal sex than I know. > > Not really. I do now anatomy, though. And physiology. > > Do you agree or disagree > > that men that have normal sex with women are less likely to develop HIV > > than men that have anal sex with men or with women? > > I do not agree. Because what you left out (and what I described at > length in my post) is that it matters whether you are the "giving" part > or the "receiving" part in anal intercourse. > > For the "giving" part, the risk might be about the same. For the > receiving part (based on what I speculated before) the risk is higher in > both cases (lower intestine mucosa or cervix mucosa). > Which one is the highest, I do not know. > > > > > My answer is that men that have normal sex with women are less likley to > > develop HIV than men that have anal sex with men or with women. > > > > What is your answer? > > So, if this was actually true you would see a lot more women than man > with HIV. As I have already explained, anal sex is rather less > dangereous on the "giving" (or "penetrating") part than on the > "receiving" (the buttfucked one) part. > > In Africa, this is true... by a factor of 1:1.1. Not really significant > in scientific terms. > > "Develop" is actually bullshit. You can develop AIDS but HIV is a virus. > > > Tokay Let me ask the question a different way: A man that has AIDS has normal sex with a woman. The next night, that same man has anal sex with a man. Is the man or the woman more likely to eventually develop AIDS? My answer is that the man is more likely to eventually develop AIDs. What is your answer? I have already explained my reasons. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0210072119340001@67-150-124-80.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <fdutq5$erl$1@austar-news.austar.net.au>, Masked Avenger > ><cootey59_@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <5mfahlFd8dqaU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >=20 > >> >> "Mike" <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message=20 > >> >> news:fdtrbd$gjt$3@news04.infoave.net... > >> >>> Jason wrote: > >> >>>> In article <j1e0g3hfpa5co2fjc8hk8aflq9g8unkujs@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >>>>> Is divorce immoral? Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, b= > >> ut He > >> >>>>> had quite a bit to say about divorce. > >> >>>> I once believed that divorce was immoral but no longer believe it du= > >> e to > >> >>>> some of my friends and family members that have had divorces. > >> >>> Translation: My family members did X so I don't think X to be immoral= > >> or=20 > >> >>> else I'd have to admit my family members are immoral. > >> >>> > >> >>> Talk about relativism/relative morals (pun intended.) > >> >>> > >> >>>> There are verses in the Bible related to homosexuality. The conclusi= > >> on is > >> >>>> that homosexual acts are a sin. God destroyed two cities because the= > >> > >> >>>> majority of the people that lived in those cities were sinners and o= > >> ne of > >> >>>> the sins was homosexuality. Sodom was the name of one of those citie= > >> s. > >> >>>>> Is greed immoral? Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, but= > >> He > >> >>>>> condemned those who gathered up riches for themselves. > >> >>>> I consider greed to be immoral. > >> >>>>> Is self-righteousness immoral? Is public display of religiosity? > >> >>>> Yes--but just because someone calls someone "self-righteous" it does= > >> not > >> >>>> mean that person is self-righteous. > >> >>>>> One more question, was Jesus immoral for making very good wine? > >> >>>> No. Back in those days--much of the water was polluted since people > >> >>>> obtained water from creeks and rivers. People took baths in those ri= > >> vers > >> >>>> and creeks and various animals deposited fecal material in those riv= > >> ers > >> >>>> and creeks. The end result was that wine was safer to drink than wat= > >> er. > >> >>>> Water from wells was safe. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Wine is mentioned many times in the Bible. The conclusion (based on = > >> many > >> >>>> different scriptures) was that it was NOT a sin to drink wine. Howev= > >> er,=20 > >> >>>> it > >> >>>> was a sin to get drunk from wine. The word "winebibber" was used to > >> >>>> describe those people that sinned by getting drunk from wine. See=20 > >> >>>> Proverbs > >> >>>> 23:20 "Do not drink with the winebibbers--for the winebibbers will c= > >> ome=20 > >> >>>> to > >> >>>> poverty." > >> >>> I.e. the bible basically talks about doing things to EXCESS. Heroin=20 > >> >>> addiction is such an excess. But a single use of heroin is not. So wh= > >> y is=20 > >> >>> it immoral? > >> >> Eating deep-fried food is bad for you - But does that make it immoral?= > >> > >> >=20 > >> > No--eating food is not immoral. > >> >=20 > >> > >> the Bible forbids the eating of certain foods .... Pig, Shellfish etc=20 > >> =2E..... is eating pork or oysters immoral ? > >> > >> how do you explain this : > >> > >> Only certain kinds of animals may be eaten. > >> Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud or=20 > >> of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel and the hare, and the=20 > >> coney; for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore, they=20 > >> are unclean unto you. And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet=20 > >> cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their=20 > >> flesh, nor touch their dead carcass. -- Deuteronomy 14:7-8 > >> > >> These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that=20 > >> are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and=20 > >> cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. Nevertheless these = > >> > >> shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the=20 > >> hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the=20 > >> hoof; he is unclean unto you. -- Leviticus 11:2-4 > >> > >> Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an=20 > >> abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:12 > >> > >> BUT ! > >> > >> You may eat any kind of animal. > >> > >> Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you. -- Genesis 9:3= > >> > >> > >> isn't there a contradiction in these passages ? Please explain Jason=20 > > > > > >Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter > >was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter > >that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. > > > What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do > with any gods? I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe that Peter was having hallucinations--so be it. Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 Tokay Pino Gris wrote: > Mike wrote: > Yeah, rough >> vaginal sex can cause tiny tears/abrasions for BOTH partners (thus >> probably explaining the higher rate of AIDS in Africa.) > > Uhaa... shaky ground. IS the sex in africa rougher? From what I've read, due to various cultural differences, etc. the typical African male doesn't take time for foreplay (trying not to get too blunt here) and thus the women aren't as "lubricated." So the sex tends to be rougher. If true, that could explain the higher rate of AIDS in the general population. Now of course that could be completely bogus as well (and thus I probably should have said "possibly explaining" above instead of "probably explaining.") Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>> Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter >>> was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter >>> that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. >>> >> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do >> with any gods? > > I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe that Peter > was having hallucinations--so be it. No, you have faith that your fallacious reading of the bible is true. Peter's vision had NOTHING to do with repealing of the dietary laws. The bible clearly stated that Peter did not want to preach to the gentiles (i.e. the unclean) and God used this vision to say that nothing was unclean IF god said it wasn't and if god had cleansed it. The food in the vision was only an allegory for the people that god wanted Peter to preach to. Of course, it's ALL bogus but your reading of it is even more so. Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 Free Lunch wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:04:15 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0210071104150001@66-53-210-54.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> In article <fdtrbd$gjt$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> I.e. the bible basically talks about doing things to EXCESS. Heroin >>> addiction is such an excess. But a single use of heroin is not. So why >>> is it immoral? >> Good point--I was referring to an addiction to heroin. I seem to recall >> that I indicated in one post that people should not conduct a single use >> of heroin or cocaine since the casual use of heroin or cocaine could lead >> to an addiction. >> > So addiction, a natural, but undesirable physical process is immoral? > What a self-righteous, unforgiving prig you are Jason. He also can't explain why eating is NOT immoral when it "could lead to an addiction [to food and its excessive consumption.]" There are MANY things that you can do to excess and that can lead to an addiction and overuse in some people. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:23:47 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1110072123470001@67-150-127-225.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <6bktg3thdaceg79fb6fjvj4h8q5s79jrad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:19:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0210072119340001@67-150-124-80.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: .... >> >Those are Jewish laws. Read the 10th chapter of the book of Acts. Peter >> >was given a vision from God and the end result was that God told Peter >> >that Christians could eat any types of meat they wanted to eat. >> > >> What evidence do you have that Paul's hallucinations have anything to do >> with any gods? > >I have faith that the Bible is true. If you choose to believe that Peter >was having hallucinations--so be it. > There is no evidence that the Bible is true and plenty of evidence that certain stories in the Bible are false. The change in rules was designed to invent a universalist religion as a substitute for the tribal one that it developed from. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <femfsi$g0c$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> You know much more about anal sex than I know. >> Not really. I do now anatomy, though. And physiology. >> >> Do you agree or disagree >>> that men that have normal sex with women are less likely to develop HIV >>> than men that have anal sex with men or with women? >> I do not agree. Because what you left out (and what I described at >> length in my post) is that it matters whether you are the "giving" part >> or the "receiving" part in anal intercourse. >> >> For the "giving" part, the risk might be about the same. For the >> receiving part (based on what I speculated before) the risk is higher in >> both cases (lower intestine mucosa or cervix mucosa). >> Which one is the highest, I do not know. >> >>> My answer is that men that have normal sex with women are less likley to >>> develop HIV than men that have anal sex with men or with women. >>> >>> What is your answer? >> So, if this was actually true you would see a lot more women than man >> with HIV. As I have already explained, anal sex is rather less >> dangereous on the "giving" (or "penetrating") part than on the >> "receiving" (the buttfucked one) part. >> >> In Africa, this is true... by a factor of 1:1.1. Not really significant >> in scientific terms. >> >> "Develop" is actually bullshit. You can develop AIDS but HIV is a virus. >> >> >> Tokay > > Let me ask the question a different way: > > A man that has AIDS has normal sex with a woman. The next night, that same > man has anal sex with a man. Is the man or the woman more likely to > eventually develop AIDS? > > My answer is that the man is more likely to eventually develop AIDs. > > What is your answer? I have already explained my reasons. > > Didn't you read what I wrote? > Which one is the highest, I do not know. Haven't found research about that. Tokay -- A great many people now reading and writing would be better employed keeping rabbits. Edith Sitwell Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.