Sexually transmitted infections, as a whole, become more easily spread in confined and intermingling communities. This, coupled with the fact that HIV has higher % of transmissions rates via anal sex v. things like vaginal sex, results in men who have sex with men (MSM) particularly more likely to contract HIV in their lifetime.

I just hope they were all using protection.



If that's the case then I think it's just a lack of education on what treatment actually looks like. Treatment is obviously better than it was decades ago but it's still a very serious illness even with current treatment.



It varies by area. In the US they are at a higher rate however world-wide heterosexual sex is at a higher rate.

This post was edited by dark-soul on Apr 19 2018 06:49pm

>2024
>pard all married whores
>aids infect everyone
>tuna was right all along

Talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You tell me my views are skewed by my personal experience and then confirm what I said in your last sentence.

Yes privileged people do better with every disease. But it is still a disease and still terminal for many people.

There is a huge push in the swj community to quit viewing hiv-positive as a disease and label it as a status instead like woman man hetrosexual minority or another label. But it is not any of these things. It is not a social construct. It is a dangerous infectious disease.

both

Not talking out of both sides of my mouth at all.

You made a comment about an entire community's views on HIV. What about the post you just quoted confirms your assumption?

The reality is that HIV does disproportionately affect MSM folks, and there's a plethora of reasons for why that is, but there's no evidence to suggest that it's a result of the gay community not taking HIV seriously. And I'm sorry, but what experience do you have on this, as either a member of the community or from the perspective of HIV in the gay community? Because you have friends who use Grindr?

I'll need sources on the SJW community trying to reframe HIV as a social construct, because you're pulling that out of thin air.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Apr 19 2018 07:09pm

Did you miss the part where California passed laws that HIV positive folks no longer have to declare their condition to their partners?


/e

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=tzzZWpW9M6XW5gKmz4r4AQ&q=California%20passes%20laws%20so%20HIV%20positive%20folk%20don%27t%20have%20to%20tell%20their%20partners&oq=California%20passes%20laws%20so%20HIV%20positive%20folk%20don%27t%20have%20to%20tell%20their%20partners&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1604.28850.0.30018.79.79.0.0.0.0.128.4988.78j1.79.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.52.3330...0j0i131k1j0i22i30k1j33i22i29i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.0.hlBUcKTAeu8



Sure sounds to me like California is trying to make AIDs a social construct.

This post was edited by Ghot on Apr 19 2018 07:08pm

No, I didn't miss it. In fact, I did legislative visits on behalf of it.

And that's not an example of people trying to reframe HIV as a social construct.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Apr 19 2018 07:09pm

Well, maybe if someone infects you with HIV, you might change your viewpoint?