Filthy feckin Hetro's!!

NoLesNoMore · 27-02-2008 03:17PM

Apology accepted.

Interesting to read this thread and realise the people who have obviously had unprotected sex and are now trying to work out the odds of catching something.

azezil · 27-02-2008 03:27PM

I'd imagine there are far more suffering from it than realise, if you ever stick your meaty saber inside another person's hairy gash without a raincoat you may very well have it yourself. FEEL THE FEAR O_O

It's funny, I read somewhere that continental Europeans assume everyone has it thus wear condoms, Irish wear condoms 'ah sure just in case'.

mikedragon32 · 27-02-2008 03:38PM

Nolesnomore is a returning troll.

Ignore him. Admins will deal with him shortly.

Dave! · 27-02-2008 03:39PM

This report says that in 2006 the cumulative total of HIV infected patients in Ireland was:

hetero 37.7%
injecting drug users 30%
men who had sex with men 21.9%
etc

What % of men are gay and sexually active? Can't find that online.

azezil · 27-02-2008 03:41PM

And the article refers to the increase in 2007

Dave! · 27-02-2008 03:47PM

I know that but I'm trying to find out the CUMULATIVE total rather than the total increase, because that's surely more relevent when you're talking about blood donations, etc

The original article doesn't mention the total HIV sufferers and their breakdown -- just the breakdown of the increase.

azezil · 27-02-2008 03:56PM

Well I don't really care *that* much about it, that was just an off the collar sarcastic remark

MikeHoncho · 27-02-2008 04:01PM

azezil wrote: »

Well I don't really care *that* much about it, that was just an off the collar sarcastic remark

Go stick your sarcasm up your arse;)

azezil · 27-02-2008 04:06PM

I'll stick you up the arse! *shakes fist*

Dave! · 27-02-2008 04:07PM

azezil wrote: »

Well I don't really care *that* much about it, that was just an off the collar sarcastic remark

I know that but I want to know now!

togster · 27-02-2008 04:09PM

Oooooh

jtsuited · 27-02-2008 04:42PM

My god I've never seen such lack of understanding of basic maths.

1 in 5 is transmitted through homosexual activity. that makes homosexual sex far more dangerous than hetero due to the fact that the gay proportion of the population is nothing near 1 in 5.

FFS!

dsmythy · 28-02-2008 09:47PM

azezil wrote: »

Well the Metro and Herald am read somewhat differently, but I wanted to link to a more reputable paper.
The Metro reads "...Unprotected sex between men and women accounted for the highest number of cases.." Similar in the Herald.

Pretty much what they're saying is the sub Sahara folks are bringing their AIDS and HIV over with them and having unprotected sex with the naive Irish folks, a majority of Irish males interestingly enough.

Hetro's are simply far to caviler when it comes to sex, the level of STD awareness in this country is shockingly low, you people* always just blame it on the queers, but we've learned our lesson, looks like its your turn... I wonder if they'll ban the use of Hetro blood now :rolleyes:

*filthy hetro's :P

The Sub-Saharan cases could just as easily be cases undiagnosed in their home countries or two Sub-Saharans getting their groove on in an unsafe manner. It doesn't necessarily have to involve Irish people at all.

DublinWriter · 28-02-2008 09:49PM

azezil wrote: »

Gays are now the lowest transmitters, you sick depraved unclean hetros, don't touch me!! :eek:

Hmmmm....get madam.

randylonghorn · 28-02-2008 11:11PM

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Eh.....right.

You should really get that cip in your shoulder looked at.?

Jeez, Az is one of the least chippy people on here!

Turn your radar to "satire", please. And if there's a wee touch of payback there ... can't say I blame him, tbh.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Lets just assume gay men account for 2% of the male population (I have seen a figure of 10% before but well, its clearly bull really).

I would doubt 10% myself, though maybe if it includes gay and bi-sexual ... but 2%? Yeah, right!

Tha Gopher wrote: »

In theory they should only account for 2% of cases. They dont.

What theory?

Thirdfox · 29-02-2008 12:01AM

NoLesNoMore wrote: »

yep all admitted. they don't give a toss about your past.

the monkey caught it from a gay fella

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Right.

I declare schenanigans.

I come from England and on the form for the Irish Blood Transfusion service I remember it clearly stating that I was not allowed to give blood as I resided in the UK during the BSE health scare.

Would love to give blood otherwise (I believe I am one of those rare O groups too).

AARRRGH · 29-02-2008 12:14AM

A couple of things:

1. As pointed out, 1 in 5 cases of HIV being in the gay community is a very large figure considering what small a percentage of the population is gay.
2. It's difficult to contract HIV through vaginal sex, particularly in comparison to anal sex. Therefore it is unfair to compare the risks associated with heterosexual and gay sex as being equal.
3. The two categories "heterosexual" and "gay" are misleading. There is a third category called "MSM" or "Men who have sex with men". These are "straight" men who have sex with other men. This greatly messes up the statistics.
4. A very large percentage of the statistics are Africans or Irish people who have sex with Africans. If this means anything to any of you, a rather loose friend of mine from Kenya, she slept with about 100 Irish men. None of them wanted to use condoms.

randylonghorn · 29-02-2008 12:47AM

dublindude wrote: »

2. It's difficult to contract HIV through vaginal sex, particularly in comparison to anal sex. Therefore it is unfair to compare the risks associated with heterosexual and gay sex as being equal.

While you have a point, you're assuming though that heterosexual penetrative sex is exclusively vaginal.

dublindude wrote: »

3. The two categories "heterosexual" and "gay" are misleading. There is a third category called "MSM" or "Men who have sex with men". These are "straight" men who have sex with other men. This greatly messes up the statistics.

I would agree that whatever categories you use are fairly artificial, and there will be lots of overlap / people who don't "fit".

dublindude wrote: »

If this means anything to any of you, a rather loose friend of mine from Kenya, she slept with about 100 Irish men. None of them wanted to use condoms.

Wow ... if accurate, doesn't say much for her or for their basic common sense.

AARRRGH · 29-02-2008 12:51AM

randylonghorn wrote: »

While you have a point, you're assuming though that heterosexual penetrative sex is exclusively vaginal.

I knew someone would pick me up on that one...

My point is still valid though.

randylonghorn wrote: »

Wow ... if accurate, doesn't say much for her or for their basic common sense.

She always insisted on it ("no condom, no sex".) My point was basically lots of people are having lots of unprotected sex, even with "high risk" partners.

I've mentioned in the past I know a few prostitutes (long story.) They've told me it's common for punters to want bareback sex...

randylonghorn · 29-02-2008 01:02AM

dublindude wrote: »

My point was basically lots of people are having lots of unprotected sex, even with "high risk" partners.

I've mentioned in the past I know a few prostitutes (long story.) They've told me it's common for punters to want bareback sex...

Oh, I believe you, unfortunately.

And while in an ideal world we would all prefer bareback (who actually likes wearing the fecking things?!) the real world is a very different place, and anyone who doesn't take basic steps to protect both himself and his partner from risk is an irresponsible eejit.

Tha Gopher · 29-02-2008 01:12AM

dublindude wrote: »

a rather loose friend of mine from Kenya, she slept with about 100 Irish men.

Whats her number?

dublindude wrote: »

She always insisted on it ("no condom, no sex".)

Oh wait....never mind so.:(

randylonghorn wrote: »

anyone who doesn't take basic steps to protect both himself and his partner from risk is an irresponsible eejit.

I wish I was one of these sanctimonious people who has never once done anything stupid (sexually, criminally, socially or otherwise) while under the influence of alcohol.

Actually wait. I dont. Some of the best times of my life have been during alcohol fuelled irresponsibility.

AARRRGH · 29-02-2008 01:26AM

Tha Gopher wrote: »

I wish I was one of these sanctimonious people who has never once done anything stupid (sexually, criminally, socially or otherwise) while under the influence of alcohol.

Actually wait. I dont. Some of the best times of my life have been during alcohol fuelled irresponsibility.

You gotta remember the people who use boards are *generally* not your typical 18 - 30 year old, so the opinions on sex, etc. that you see here are going to reflect that.

Rowley Birkin QC · 29-02-2008 01:28AM

MikeHoncho wrote: »

Yeah they wreck my balls. Especially the Traveler element from the country.

Feckin gay chinese black knackers.

randylonghorn · 29-02-2008 01:48AM

Tha Gopher wrote: »

I wish I was one of these sanctimonious people who has never once done anything stupid (sexually, criminally, socially or otherwise) while under the influence of alcohol.

Actually wait. I dont. Some of the best times of my life have been during alcohol fuelled irresponsibility.

LOL! Sanctimonious, eh?! yeah, right!

Gopher, I've done many stupid and irresponsible things, while under the affluence of incohol and also when stone-cold sober, just for the hell of it! I'm eventually learning to resist the lure of "Dare you to ...", but it took quite a while.

But whether it was doing a streak down the middle of a seaside resort at 3 in the morning, or a hell of a lot of other stuff which I'm not owning up to on a public forum, I have always managed to stay sober enough to put a raincoat on Junior, or at least to point 'her visiting' towards the correct drawer, and lie back and let her do the dressing up.

Why? Because I like being healthy, I like Junior to be healthy, we make a damn good partnership and hopefully we will have many other enjoyable adventures together for many years to come.

And while I would love not to have to wear the bloody things, I reckon that's the price I have to pay.

AARRRGH · 29-02-2008 01:52AM

Not trying to be annoying here randylonghorn, but out of all the risky things people can do, unsafe sex is probably one of the safer options. Hardly any heterosexual, non-drug using, non-African shagging males get HIV.

randylonghorn · 29-02-2008 02:30AM

dublindude wrote: »

Not trying to be annoying here randylonghorn, but out of all the risky things people can do, unsafe sex is probably one of the safer options. Hardly any heterosexual, non-drug using, non-African shagging males get HIV.

Well, walking out in front of a car / truck / train is certainly riskier; there's probably a bigger risk of you breaking your leg skiiing; lot's of things are risky, but is that actually the point?

I won't even get into this statement "Hardly any heterosexual, non-drug using, non-African shagging males get HIV" with you, I'll leave it to Tallaght01or one of the other medics, or someone with a better grasp of the technical stats than I have. Sounds like a dodgy generalisation to me, but I don't claim any especial expertise on the subject.

I would however point out that there are a whole host of STIs out there apart from HIV / AIDS. Personally, none of them are on my "wish list".

There's also the risk of a little thing called pregnancy. While I wouldn't like to appear to be comparing pregnancy with an STI, being a father isn't on my "wish list" either just yet.

And apart from the physical factor, each of these things carries emotional baggage as well. Honestly, if you came home from a skiing holiday, which news would you prefer to have to break to your family / friends (assuming silence was not an option) ?

1. "Hi, I broke my leg."
2. "Hi, I've got the clap"
3. "Hi, I'm going to be a Daddy."

Btw, please note, Gopher, that I'm not being "sanctimonious" and preaching abstinence here, or any kind of religious / celibacy agenda or anything like that. I'd be a complete hypocrite if I did ... given any kind of semi-decent option, I have never chosen to keep it in my pants in my life!

There is such a thing as paranoia, and getting paranoid about these kinds of things will lead to you living a fairly boring life. There is also such a thing as "balancing the risk", which in this case I would suggest means going out there and having as much fun as you can find, but practising safe sex.

AARRRGH · 29-02-2008 02:35AM

I'm with you on the pregancy thing, and I'm with you on the "balancing the risk", but I think people grossly overestimate the risks associated with unprotected sex.

I'm not at all trying to say there aren't STI's out there (chlamydia is everywhere) but I find it wrong that people think it's OK to do lots of genuinely dangerous things (like driving fast the odd time) but terrible to have unprotected sex.

So I'm not saying there aren't risks, I'm just saying the risks aren't being measured properly.

randylonghorn · 29-02-2008 03:00AM

I don't agree completely with you, as you might have expected, but I do very much agree with this point:

dublindude wrote: »

So I'm not saying there aren't risks, I'm just saying the risks aren't being measured properly.

I think it applies to sexual safety, certainly, in the sense that yes, some people would be very consious of this, yet speed or even drink-drive and think nothing of it. I think it also applies though in that even in this day and age, some (teenagers especially) can be absolutely ignorant of and uncaring about any kind of sexual safety. It's almost as if this is the new kind of rebellion, or extreme sport perhaps ... those older than them say it's not a good idea, so they are going to do it to spite them. I can remember being a teenager (without too much strain!), so I understand the attitude perfectly ... I just wish they would find a better way to rebel than serial barebacking in this day and age.

On the broader argument, though, I'm with you ... people do a lot of stupid / risky things, especially on the roads, and think nothing of the danger they are putting themselves and others in. Even people who would be more sensible about the above issue ... perhaps because of the emotional baggage / stigma I mentioned earlier.

aidan_dunne · 29-02-2008 05:26AM

dublindude wrote: »

3. The two categories "heterosexual" and "gay" are misleading. There is a third category called "MSM" or "Men who have sex with men". These are "straight" men who have sex with other men.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down there! There's what now? :eek:

Surely if you have sex with another man, that means you're gay or, at the very least, bi-sexual, right? How the hell can you go around claiming to be "straight" if you're getting it on with other fellas then?

Surely these so-called "MSMs" you talk about are gay or bi-sexual fellas who are just, well, in denial, aren't they?

God, I really can't keep up with all these new fangled terms, you know? At least in the good old days people were either straight or gay. I mean, there you knew where you stood with someone right from the get-go! Then came along the term "bi-sexual" which started to confuse things. "You're bi-sexual, you say? Well, surely that just means you're greedy, right? That you want to have your cake and eat it? Or you can't make your mind up or don't know what it is you want at all. Christ, just make up your mind already, will you?"

Then came the term "bi-curious". "So, you'd like to have sex with a member of your own sex...... or at least you think you'd like to? Or that you think about it night and day but you're too chicken to actually go ahead and try it for real, is that it?"

And what the f**k is a bloody "metro-sexual" then, exactly, when it's at home? A straight guy who likes going around pretending to be a gay guy, going shopping and getting facials and actually cleaning himself and sh!t! You're kidding nobody, buddy!

And now there's these "MSMs" we have to throw into the mix on top of all that as well? Christ, where will it all end, I ask ye?*

I'm just so damn confused!** I just can't keep up with it all!

*Just in case anyone doesn't realise, the above was all meant purely tongue-in-cheek and no offence or anything was intended.

**And, before anyone says it, no, I'm not confused in "that" way, either! I'm strictly a butter-side up man, meself!

Xavi6 · 29-02-2008 05:29AM

You left out a '/' in both your 'size 1' quotes at the bottom. It should be [/size]. Just so you know!

Filthy feckin Hetro's!!

Comments