Comments Thread For: Sources: Poonsawat Reportedly Tests Positive For HIV

[Cardinal Buck]

If someone is infected, as long as bodily fluids which contain the virus mingle, they'll get the disease - gay, straight whatever.

It just happens that gay couples are less likely to use contraception, and **** sex is where a lot of bodily fluids can mingle. Do the same thing with an infected female, you'll get the same thing.

I thought the world was much more enlightened about this nowadays? I guess people like to hide in their shells about this stuff.

You're horribly off. If you're circumsized and have completely intact skin on your ****, the chance of getting it from an infected woman is extremely low...it would take endless ****ing of that woman to really be at risk.

[techliam]

You're horribly off. If you're circumsized and have completely intact skin on your ****, the chance of getting it from an infected woman is extremely low...it would take endless ****ing of that woman to really be at risk.

You clearly haven't read what I posted

[Cardinal Buck]

About 1/3rd of HIV transmissions in the USA come from male-female sexual encounters. Im not sure worldwide but its probably somethin' similar.

It's the women getting it from the men, not the other way around. Does that make sense?

[Cardinal Buck]

You clearly haven't read what I posted

I clearly have. Others in the thread have been breaking it down correctly already.

[Cubanborn87]

yeah , if you had the money like magic johnson maybe..

hope poon beats it tho...

nah if you take your antiviral meds you can make it undetectable, actually 80% of the people in cuba that got the disease from 1986 are still alive today.

[Cubanborn87]

It's not 3%. It's like 50x less than that. 3% is actually pretty large.

yea i saw a doctor on univision the other day sayign that for **** sex the chances are 1 in 200 for ******* is 1 in 2k or something like that. Of course if you do it everyday the chances go up

[samouraļ]

It's not 3%. It's like 50x less than that. 3% is actually pretty large.

Well, a lot of these guys had absurd numbers of partners to have unprotected sex with and that didn't help.

Well, he's still probably a cheater...just a different kind.

What is the point you're trying to make? Unless you're going to tell me that being gay causes HIV, you don't have a point.

What if a white, straight devout Evangelical Christian contracted a brand new disease completely by accident (think of the Bushmeat theory of the origin of HIV). He starts ****ing his perfect blonde Evangelical wife, and now she has it. Maybe it passes to her kids, who they raise as perfect Evangelicals, and they pass it to their partners and so on and so forth before it's finally discovered later in their lives. We have an Evangelical disease?

The point is this: it's not recommended to have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV, period. If any of you people honestly meet a girl who is HIV+ and say, "hey baby we don't need to use protection, it's highly unlikely since we're doing it God's way anyway" then maybe you'd have a point. Problem is, you don't, and so it's basically irrelevant.

[Cardinal Buck]

^ thanks, dad.

[samouraļ]

^ thanks, dad.

Next time, think before you speak, son. And Red K is for dumb little b1tches.

[devildg]

Damn.......