From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Heterosexual AIDS
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:28:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.174616.28242@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>>>Sorry, but your argument fails with the second question. By far, the
>>>heterosexual community are now more at risk than gays are. AIDs is
>>>spreading in the heterosexual community now much faster than it is
>>>through the gay community. 
>
>>This is false.  Gay men are still the largest group of HIV+ and AIDS victims.
>
>You mave misread my point. Yes, CURRENT numbers are more gay men with
>AIDS than any other "group". But none of these would be allowed in the
>military since all recruits are tested. The original comment inthis
>thread was that since gays are higher at risk from contracting aids
>then the military is saving potential health care costs. 

And if you read my post, you'd see that I said that this was no reason to keep
gays out of the military.

>But the numbers
>are that most NEW cases of aids are in the heterosexual community.

And this is categorically, completely, utterly, false.  

>>That's in raw numbers, not just rate.  Once you count in rate, gay men are
>>dozens of times at more risk.  That's just in rate, not in sexual practices.
>
>That doesn't agree with numbers I've seen in the media.

Well, either (1) the media got it wrong, or (2) you got it wrong.  Keep in
mind that gay men are, at most, 5% of the population.

>>Once you count in that anal sex is much more likely to cause HIV infection
>>than vaginal sex, gay men are hundreds of times at more risk.  That doesn't
>>include the fact that women are at least seventeen times less likely to
>>transmit HIV during sex than men.  Once you count that in, gay men are at
>>thousands of times more risk.
>
>You are skewing the circumstances. Gay men are not the only people who
>engage in anal sex. 

No, they're not.  But they're more likely to.  And because gay men are more
likely to be infected to begin with, as well as more likely to engage in 
receptive unsafe anal sex than heterosexual men (by definition), they're at
greater risk.

>Women are less likely to transmit aids to a man since
>there is less likelyhood of getting the fluids absorbed though the urethrea.

Precisely.  Which is why it's silly to claim that a heterosexual one-night
stand is as risky as a homosexual one-night stand.

>>Check the CDC numbers, or the studies in JAMA.
>
>How 'bout quoting some of them. 

They're posted to sci.med.aids periodically.  

>>>It is just as likely that a heterosexual
>>>sailor gets AIDS from a one night stand as it is for a homosexual
>>>sailor to get it.
>
>>Your source for this astonishing assertion?  Or do you assume that the
>>heterosexual is sharing needles with an IV-drug user during his one night
>>stand?  99% of monogamous men don't contract AIDS from their HIV+
>>heterosexual lovers, despite hundreds of repeated contacts, and you're 
>>expecting us to believe that a one-night stand in a population with a far 
>>lower infection rate is likely to result in AIDS?
>
>I said nothing of UV drug users. And I said nothing of monogomay either.
>I don't know if you are a vetern or not, but monogamy is the furtherest
>thing from a sailor's mind when he goes on liberty. 

Are you saying that HIV can tell the difference between a monogamous infected
lover and a one-night stand?  And that a one-night stand with an infected
lover has a greater chance of communicating HIV than hundreds of contacts with
a monogamous HIV+ lover?

>Couple that to the fact
>that gay men are much more conscious of the AIDS situation and are more
>likely to use "safe sex" practices.

If gays are thousands times more at risk, it's rather irrelevant that they're
twice as likely to use "safe sex" practices.  They're still at greater risk.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc