Hacker News Reader

Comment by fzfaa | Hacker News Reader

And yet if you look at the number of cases separated by sexes, it paints a whole different picture.

That might be skewed due to testing practices, lots of places will only test you if you're a homosexual or bisexual male.

African monkeypox cases, for example, are not concentrated among gay men. 60% of the affected are men and 40% are women:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

I doubt that it's a testing thing. Very few cases are asymptomatic and the disease gives a really painful rash. It is very unlikely to pass unnoticed.

I do agree that it's not just gay men. I'm sure it will/has already spread to swinger clubs etc. But I do think it is related to promiscuity in general, meaning most of the population will not be affected. The cases originating from non-sexual interaction are a really small minority.

I think the men/women disparity is not really due to homosexuality but because due to societal views. A man who is promiscuous is viewed a as a 'cool go-getter'. A promiscuous woman is viewed as a 'slut' (Note: I don't agree with that!!). So it's just more common in men at first.

>I think the men/women disparity is not really due to homosexuality but because due to societal views. A man who is promiscuous is viewed a as a 'cool go-getter'. A promiscuous woman is viewed as a 'slut' (Note: I don't agree with that!!). So it's just more common in men at first.

So women are immune? This theory makes no sense.

Absolutely not.

I'm just saying they are less likely to engage in this kind of activity due to societal stigma, so it will appear in lower numbers and later for them.

But the men if they are not homosexual must be having sex with women, right? Have you seen the proportions? Because this is not a 2:1 kind of thing.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Your theory is that a few select women are massive whores?

> Your theory is that a few select women are massive whores?

You keep putting words in my mouth. And furthering the stigma I'm arguing against.

I will not continue discussing in this thread.

> I doubt that it's a testing thing. Very few cases are asymptomatic and the disease gives a really painful rash. It is very unlikely to pass unnoticed.

It does not matter, testing capability was – still is? – quite limited and if you didn't belong to an at-risk group, test sites would just send you home.

>I think the men/women disparity is not really due to homosexuality but because due to societal views.

Those same societal views make it so women are more likely to underreport their number of sex partners, whereas men are more likely to overreport. Even without taking that into account, the numbers are not that different, with men having more extremely outliers (more zeroes, more super high counts).

The social stigma hasn't been relevant for decades beyond muddying self-reports.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com