BBBJ's are a high STD risk, even if not for HIV.

[Dave in Phoenix]

Yes your safer from HIV from a women than driving a car. The likihood of the women being HIV+ assming not doing drugs is extremely low combined with the low risk of transmission assuming you have an intact non std infected penis. With an intact penis that 3% rate would drop to an extremely low level. How is any HIV going to get to blood supply? No it doesn't just go down the tube.. it needs blood or semen as a carrier it dies fast outside its carrier.

This does NOT MEAN I am suggesting unprotected sex. There are far more real risks from other STD's just not HIV.

The religious right is still using scare tactics about HIV to preach their unnatural abstinance sillyness till married. The fact is the risk is extremely low for HIV, but other STDs (fortunately mostly curable) is far higher and therfore I have always "preached" safe sex especially for sexworkers.

 

[shak]

Yes your safer from HIV from a women than driving a car. The likihood of the women being HIV+ assming not doing drugs is extremely low combined with the low risk of transmission assuming you have an intact non std infected penis. With an intact penis that 3% rate would drop to an extremely low level. How is any HIV going to get to blood supply? No it doesn't just go down the tube.. it needs blood or semen as a carrier it dies fast outside its carrier.

You are missing the point here. Its like comparing apple to orange. If we assume the estimated risk of 0.03% is accurate. Then your risk per act is a fixed value, it will only depend on the HIV status of your partner. If she is HIV negative, then 0 chance and vise versa.

What you are saying here is if you randomly select a women out of the lower risk group and perform one act of penile-vaginal sex, your chance of getting infected is very low. Because, for argument's sake, lets say you have 0.01% chance of selecting a HIV positive woman from the sample pool. You multiply that by the estimate risk per act 0.03%, you end up with 0.0003%. HOWEVER; this value IS NOT your estimated risk of contracting HIV from one episode of penile-vaginal sex. It's two different thing.

In addition, lets suppose(again for argument's sake) 1 million episode of sex occurs daily in North America. At this rate, although 0.0003% seems like a small number. The number of people who carries HIV will still grow exponentially according to your theory.

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

In addition, lets suppose(again for argument's sake) 1 million episode of sex occurs daily in North America. At this rate, although 0.0003% seems like a small number. The number of people who carries HIV will still grow exponentially according to your theory.

Which shows these risk figures are hugely high because if your stats were true we would have zillions more cases, but we don't. The number of "claimed" heterosexual cases is extremely low showing how hard it is to transmit heterosexually.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

How do I get one of those SUV's?

 

[shak]

Which shows these risk figures are hugely high because if your stats were true we would have zillions more cases, but we don't. The number of "claimed" heterosexual cases is extremely low showing how hard it is to transmit heterosexually.

No, its because condoms are used, people are better educated about HIV. Go check out how many condoms are sold in US/Canada every year. I dont have the figure, but i guarntee you its going to be pretty stunting.....

We can better see this from the BC CDC data graph that I pointed to earlier. The infection rate in BC is on a steady decline. This is not due to low probability of HIV infection, this should be attribute to condom use and education.

All in all, this is good healthy discussion. We were basically refering to two different thing.