Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by badclient | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

badclient

Pardon? For what? Thanks but no thanks.

View on HN

I wondered. The only way I read this "pardon" is:

"We pardon you of having forced us to persecute you."

they should give an apology

The previous UK government under Gordon Brown already apologised for Alan Turing's treatment.

Buggery. It's been illegal many places for a very long time because it spreads disease. The sodomy laws were effectively repealed and we got AIDS. It was not a coincidence.

Do you really think the law made that much difference? Why not just pass a law requiring condom use. Would that make you happy?

Sexual intercourse of any kind spreads disease. AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse. It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spread just as well from almost any kind sexual activity, and many of them -- including AIDS -- spread from any transfer of bodily fluids at all.

Going further, I'd wager that any form of interpersonal contact, even non-sexual, is as likely to spread some form of disease. Why not enact a law which requires any person to don a hazmat suit before venturing into public space? Or better yet, a law which forbids any person from entering public space?

They used to lock you up for adultery, too, right up to the 60s. Disease was a consideration. So it's not just a matter of targeting gays.

> AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse

Yes it did. This is not remotely controversial. Aids and many other STDs are spread chiefly by buggery. This is why the red cross does not want blood donations from homosexuals.

Red cross (in the US) doesn't want blood donations from people who lived in Europe for long enough. Because they have HIV? No.

You got something wrong with correlation and causation there in several ways.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts...

FDA is pretty clear on why they don't want blood donations from men who had sex with other men.

What they say may seem clear, and yet not reflect what they really believe.

I give blood every two months. As I recall the questionnaire, you can do almost anything imaginable (sex with prostitutes, accidental needle stick, receiving blood transfusion, etc.) and get a one year deferral. But if you are a man who had oral sex with a man one time twenty years ago, that's a permanent "deferral." No science behind this.

Did you read their explanation at all?

  A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an
  increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain 
  infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes 
  AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent 
  approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the   
  population 
  most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at
  least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an 
  estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were 
  attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.

Looks like science, namely statistics and medicine. If 61% of new HIV infections are coming from MSM then it's higher chances than then other criteria you've listed combined (i.e. non-MSM new HIV infections are only 39%, which is much less than 61%).

Exactly what conclusions do you draw from those stats? Yes, I remember from my mathematics degree that 39<61, but what does that have to do with anything? What groups do you think you are comparing?

(Especially) If a man has not had sex with another man for a year, and has tested clean during that time, the stats you cite do not support excluding him from donation. Again, this is considering that blood transfusions, sex with prostitutes (!!), and accidental needle sticks only earn a twelve-month deferral.

Do you see a stat that says a gay man is more likely to be HIV+ than an active prostitute? Because that seems to be a relevant comparison.

I donate blood to save lives. No blood transfusion is risk-free, but there is also a risk/cost to excluding healthy willing donors of clean blood.

Ireland doesn't allow people who lived in the UK for a while from donating blood.

It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spread just as well from almost any kind sexual activity, and many of them -- including AIDS -- spread from any transfer of bodily fluids at all.

It's clear that HIV can spread via a wide range of sexual activities, but some are much higher risk than others. At the extremes, receptive anal intercourse has a transmission risk roughly 50 times higher than insertive vaginal intercourse, while the risk of oral sex is believed to be non-zero but too low to be accurately measurable.

Wikipedia gives estimates on differences between anal and vaginal transmission are about 8-1 but also admits the numbers could be off by a factor of 10.

What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.

I was going by Health Canada numbers -- either way, there's a difference.

What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.

Agreed.

It is spread by widespread heterosexual sodomy in Africa in addition to homosexual sodomy.

I grew up around the time teens were force-fed sex education regarding AIDS, and the message was loud and clear and consistent: Ordinary sex is a great way to contract HIV. This, in fact, was always a lie--and a coordinated lie--and the scientists knew about it.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-od...

the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million.

(Sorry for the crummy source, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this BS.) The original infections seen by doctors weren't just homosexuals, but those who had sometimes dozens of sexual encounters per week. It was clear from the beginning how this disease was spread--reciprocal anal sex.

So why the contrary propaganda? Well, if a disease primarily effects a small, ultra-promiscuous portion of two percent of the general population, research funding tends to lose popular support.

The risk of being infected with hiv by someone who doesn't carry the virus is obviously very small. Very few people have hiv, so you probably won't be infected if you have sex. That's how I read that quote, anyway. Are you saying that advocating never having sex with the same partner more than once would have been better advice for reducing the spread of STDs?

The unique thing about hiv is the high moortality rate (and cost of treatment). It makes perfect sense to reduce transmission before it becomes a true global epidemic.

Obviously. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the scientists wanting to make sure that widespread HIV infection didn't break out within heterosexual communities - which it could easily have done as we've seen in Africa. If heterosexual people had been taught they didn't need to worry about HIV, we could easily have had similar outbreaks here which would rapidly have made the odds a lot worse. (Also, it's impossible to reliably tell if the person you're having sex with is a member of a high-risk group anyway.)

I believe that the above comment is misguided on a number of levels, especially the (assumed) bigoted nature of the writer, but first, note that in New York, one of the major American centers of the HIV/AIDS crisis (with the other being San Francisco), sodomy laws were only repealed by court order in 1980 [1], while AIDS was first clinically observed in America in 1981 [2].

Second, it is widely considered that the spread of HIV (which causes AIDS) was a result of (heterosexual) prostitution. If you look at [2], we see that it was spread extensively by African prostitutes from rural Congo, an almost uniquely heterosexual phenomenon.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Onofre [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#History

LOL, 1980 repeal. The Stonewall riots were in NYC in 1969 and after that the cops stopped busting up gay hookup spots. That's why NYC was a center for AIDS. I'm not saying gay bars should be illegal, but denying the causality is wishful thinking.

Watch "Midnight Cowboy" (1969) and "Cruising" (1980) to get a glimpse into how AIDS came to be.

Hate for the sake of hate? You've clearly got issues.

One would hope in a place like HN one would not find people as bigoted as you are. You must be a very sad person. Lack of sexed allows spreading of HIV, not homosexuality.

Unprotected heterosexual sex is considerably more dangerous than male-male sex. It kills considerable more people. Pregnancy has historically been very dangerous, and even now is not without serious health risks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com