I think it has something to do with the fact that the possibility of contracting AIDS is higher through anal rather than vaginal intercourse.

I'm no scientist but a mixture of semen, blood and feces can't be good.

I remember some doctor in a ron jeremy biogrophy vid back in the day that she's " never seen a female to male case" or something like that. And I know STDs are much easier for women to get. That's why I asked.

It was also known as a *** man's disease when it first came around.

Well a reason for it being a *** man's disease is probably because, it seems, the *** community is far more promiscuous than the straight community. When it got started in the *** community, it would have spread quickly. And another big reason is probably as mentioned, as I can't see a way vaginal sex could be as AIDS-friendly as anal. All the blood and because there's no risk of pregnancy(I actually originally wrote lesser, lol) I would imagine there would be less of an incentive to wear a condom.

And of course there are male to female transmissions of AIDS. Look at Africa. I don't believe for a second that the millions and millions of people in Africa with AIDS caught it by porking people with their own parts.

EDIT: I see now that you meant strictly female to male, not necessarily vice versa. I still would think that at least some of the cases involved unclean women with clean men.

Yes Female to Male can happen. It is at much lower rate is because of protected sex. *** men are less likely to use condoms because, you know, they cannot get pregnant. Why an asshole could give you aids and a vagina couldn't doesn't make sense. I mean all that separates it is a stench, ya know what I mean?

In regards to the transmission of HIV and AIDS the reason you see more male to male and male to female than female to male is for two main reasons.
Reason 1: It has been determined that anal intercourse is far more abrasive to the ***** than vaginal intercourse, thus there is a higher partner to partner transmission ratio when male to male cases are concerned.

Reason 2: In male to male and male to female cases, the seminal fluid is being deposited into and left (for the most part) with the partner. Males do not end up with as much fluid transmission from the female (in 99% of the cases)

It doesn't say that directly, but the implication is there and (imo) intended. I actually clipped a logo that I assume is from a propaganda machine of some sort against homosexuality.

Yes, HIV can be transmitted to and from any one, regardless of gender. Freddie Mercury was part of a generation where promiscuity (ie the sexual revolution of the counterculture) was prominent. "Free Love" as it were. For the reasons mentioned by others, it was a time when the ***, male population had a high transmission & risk rate.

Education makes all the difference, and the risk has been greatly reduced across the board - ****/hetero.



But enough of this serious ********. Have another look at this:
is nice!

BTW - am I the only one who found the face-palm image priceless, both in content and timing??? Well played, StripedWalrus, well played. rofl



A few old favorites:

Not pictures, but I can't find the video's one so here you are.

Cleveland Tourism
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysmLA5TqbIY
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM

No fail. We need more Milfs.

I couldn't agree more.

The odds are lower for a man to get it from a women by vaginal sex because women of the mucus in the vagina. it acts as a protective wall
so yeah.
no mucus in the booty hole

AIDS first occurred in the US via the *** population. Only happened in *** people at first until it spread to heteros. But thankfully we all know the cure for AIDS is money as seen in South Park.

No, it was first reported with infections in homosexual men, bust most scientists who track the disease believe that it came to the US from Haiti via Africa and not necessarily through homosexuality.

Sadly, and this is my own personal opinion, diseases such as AIDS and Cancer will never by fully, cured, as now, the money generated from research and pharmaceutical development has become "political".

This is one of the opinions that I hope I am wrong about.

Wait, that was actually made in in Paint? If so that is pretty ******* awesome.

(Not the thread for this but I'm going to voice my opinion just this once.....)

I've argued many times before that I don't think we'll see the cure to things like AIDS and Cancer. Because honestly, theres no money in a true cure. The real dough comes from temporary fixes that people (or their filthy and grossly rich insurance companies) have to keep paying for over and over again.

Here's a good example I like to whip out whenever someone questions as to whether we as a society could do something major in a short amount of time.

In the 1940's, well before significant computer technology or anything of that sort, the US brought together some of the world's greatest minds, locked them in the dessert and in an incredibly short amount of time, they invented a weapon capable of wiping out entire cities.

Now imagine if we did something like that with cancer research. We pool together the greatest cancer specialists and researches, give them a nearly limitless supply of resources and let them do whatever it takes to cure cancer.

I think it would be done in under a year. But like I said earlier, the people with the means to make that happen (lots and lots and lots of money) aren't interested in finding a mostly profitless cure.....

Yep. As Chris Rock used to say, "The money isn't in the cure, the money is in the medicine."

well I remember the first aids cases in the US were reported in *** people and in the *** population...in fact there was even a time back then when they wondered if straight people would get it.

Think Oil.I remember reading that cars were develped in the 70s that got crazy MPG ( nearly the same hybrids get today) but the oil companies paid off people to never develope them. There's no money in it.

This is where Gordon Gecko is wrong, Greed, for lack of a better word, can be bad.

How can you remember you weren't even born then? The time when the wondered if "straights" could get it was very short lived when they found that intravenous drug users and hemophiliacs began reporting as well. Yes, the first reports were from *** men, but that was like in 1981. I remember pretty clearly as they were first reported in LA and people in California went nuts over how quickly they thought this would spread prior to sufficient knowledge being put forth.