Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:HIV‎ | AIDS
Jump to: navigation, search

Merging all discussion on heterosexual transmission in one place.

First discussion from Does this article help AIDS patient?

The following links discuss the high probabilty that HIV transmission to heterosexual women is the result of anal intercourse with an infected bisexual male. It is also believed that heterosexuals have more anal sex than homosexuals. The risk factors are always higher for receptive sex and receptive anal is the highest. The information comes from both NIH and the International Center for HIV/ AIDs research, University of California, San Fransisco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Under the Sexual Contact heading it is stated that "Heterosexual sex is the primary cause of transmission worldwide". This is misleading. It may be true that heterosexuals make up the greatest number of new cases, but this leaves the reader with the imppression that we are discussing vaginal sex- a common mistake. It should read "Unprotected Anal sex is the primary cause of transmission worldwide regardless of sexual orientation". Heterosexuals are contracting HIV the most because (A) Studies indicate heterosexuals engage in more anal sex than previously thought,(as indicated by treatment for other STDs in the anal region at 29%) and (B) there are many times more heterosexuals in the world than homosexuals. Please refer to links previously posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

First, please do not delete posts that are not yours. Secondly, the two articles above are from 1991 and 1999, very aged in this field. Your facts seem specious because of this, do you have current studies that show what you propose? JoeSmack Talk 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Your point is well taken, although I don't believe we should dismiss these statistics out of hand entirely based on the fact that they were collected in 1999. A more valid question would be "Has NIH changed its opinion since then?" Some of this information is actully present in the article, just not in a way that is readily apparent. Terms like "receptive contact" when applied to heterosexual partners can only apply to women. And careful examination of the box of transmission risks show vaginal transmission of HIV as 10 per 10,000 acts while anal is 50 per 10,000. My point is that the stigma associated with the subject prevents frank discussion- and can leave those considering anal sex as a form of birth control, a method of retaining "virginity" or for increased pleasure uniformed and at risk- especially in poor or undeveloped regions. From an educational standpoint, the subject is certainly worthy of determining its merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Really I think that studies that have such broad implications such as this would be replicated and cited more than these. Can you find any kind of follow up or more detailed research? The term 'receptive contact' is accurate in that it is the phrasing used in the source, not an interpretation. The issue of stigma shouldn't be a big one here, Wikipedia is not censored. Also, stay a while, make an account! It really helps in following discussion (you can sign your post btw by ending it with ~~~~. JoeSmack Talk 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The article states that anal intercourse is 5 times as risky as vaginal. Can you show us a link from a research institution specifically supporting the view that heterosexuals are not contracting the disease this way and how that conclusion was reached? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It does state that 'receptive anal intercourse' is five times more risky that 'receptive vaginal intercourse'. It purposely uses these terms because they are orientation neutral. As for the extra research requested, I think you're trying to state that if a study doesn't exist to disprove your suggestion than your suggestion must be true. I understand what you are trying to say, but you need to come up with current and reliable research that supports it. And please, sign your posts with ~~~~. JoeSmack Talk 17:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Second discussion from Problems with Compilation

There is a problem with the way HIV transmssion statistics are compiled which, I believe, keeps people at risk. Here's an example:

Lets suppose that a health practitioner is categorizing transmission risks by surveying HIV positive patients. Out of this group, 50 women state that they engaged in receptive anal intercourse. 10 women state that she only had vaginal intercourse. But, all 60 women are listed as "hetrosexuals that contracted HIV". The makes the term "heterosexual sex" meaningless.

When surveyed as to why they engaged in anal intercourse, the largest number of women (especially in poor areas and among ethnic groups) respond that a condom was not available and they were avoiding pregnancy.In other words, anal sex was chosen BECAUSE there was no condom- the highest risk situation of all. So the question becomes, which of the following statements will save the most lives:

" Never engage in unprotected anal sex " or " Heterosexuals are contracting HIV "?

If NIH, for instance, had determined in 1999 that HIV was transmitted by drinking green tea, every city bus and billboard in America would have a sign saying "Don't drink green tea" for the last 8 years. But billboards saying "Don't have anal sex" would not be very attractive, so we avoid or deny this issue.

If we took this approach, would HIV tranmission be reduced by 4/5 amoung women? No- it would be many, many times better because vaginal sex with a condom is hundreds of times safer that anal sex without one. Understanding the true, greatest risk was would cause more women around the would to avoid anal sex as a form of birth control.

According to the article, only shared needle drug use, childbirth, or unscreened blood transfusion pose a greater risk than anal sex.

I welcome any other logic based opinion on this subject. Just-unsigned (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia functions via verifiability of information rather than speculation, perhaps you could provide some reliable sources making this point? After all, this talk page is for discussion of concrete improvements to the article; it's not a forum for general discussion about HIV/AIDS statistics and transmission. MastCell Talk 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Here are 2 recent articles (2004-2005) from AmFar Aids Research and the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. One of those sources indicates that anal sex does, indeed, transmit HIV, which is reflected in the article. The AmFAR article goes a bit further. What, specifically, would you like to see added to the current article? MastCell Talk 18:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please also look at this article from 1999- source NIH

I would like to see the statement " heterosexual contact is the primary cause of transmission worldwide" changed and/ or clarified because the term "heterosexual contact" does not describe a single act. The term is both meaningless and misleading. (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Heterosexual contact" covers a wide range of acts, including anal sex. The statement is accurate as written, but could be amplified using references like the PubMed listing you give above to specify that among heterosexuals, anal sex is a significant means of HIV transmission. MastCell Talk 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy with that suggestion- many people associate heterosexual contact with penile/ vaginal sex only. The distinction is important because the risks are different.

Actually, the most accurate statement would be "Statistics show that the primary cause of transmission worldwide is the practice of anal sex, with greatest impact on the heterosexual population" Just-unsigned (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The majority of those transmission statistics are lifted directly from a CDC report in 2005. Unless you have a reference that refutes this compilation and these statistics, I say there is no problem with them in their current form. Also, your phrase: "Statistics show that the primary cause of transmission worldwide is the practice of anal sex, with greatest impact on the heterosexual population" is quite possibly a false assumption. Please show a reference that describes this phenomena. Heterosexual acts cover a wide range of sexual acts between a male and a female, this is what the AIDS article in its current form correctly states. --Bob (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already posted links that support that conclusion from Johns Hopkins, NIH, CDC, AIDs Journel, etc etc. Please take a look at some of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Third discussion from New (2007) Link On Risks per act

Anal sex- 1 in 1300. Vaginal sex- 1 in 100,000 (women).1 in 200,000 (men). This information needs to be in the article.

Please dig up their source, is not an AIDS researcher. JoeSmack Talk 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Current discussion from Anal Sex Overlooked in Heterosexual HIV studies

This topic needs to be addressed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC);jsessionid=H1JcbpVLkw81vrxGGZtyT05R0LpGTwZtHGWtTByF6W5YZcnf6BZX!1390229169!181195629!8091!-1

I like that you are uncovering more of a body of research around this area, and more recent stuff too. How would you propose to incorporate this into the current article? JoeSmack Talk 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that the article needs to address each type of transmission aside from its relation to a sexual persuasion. We all agree that needle use, for instance, is not specific to any group of sexual persuasion. Anal intercourse is also NOT specific to sexual persuasion- it is performed by homosexuals, bi-sexuals and heterosexuals and it's contribution to the spread should be addressed seperately. Interestingly there is much research indicating that heterosexuals actually perform this act much more than homosexuals- most people are unaware of this. If I want to educate myself on how to stay healthy and read "heterosexual intercourse is the primary method of transmission", which specific act am I supposed to be avoiding? Vaginal or anal? In short, to lump any behavior under the heading of another broader behavior is not accurate. The jury will always be out on absolutes in the case of HIV- but if there is any good evidence supporting the idea that a specific act outside of sexual persuasion is most risky then we should be specific. Thanks.Just-unsigned (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds like a good idea. However I want to probe a bit further in what you are saying: heterosexuals have more anal sex than homosexuals. For homosexuals do you men MSM or men and women together? For heterosexuals, do you mean that even though heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals vastly, the proportion who do engage in anal sex outnumber the smaller population of homosexuals? JoeSmack Talk 16:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll find some sources and post them.Just-unsigned (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok- take a look at this paper from the CDC. September , 2005. Look at page 2. The percentage of men that had anal sex with a woman- 40% while the number of men that had anal sex with another man- 3.7%.

This link qoutes a study by the National Survey For Family Growth from 2002. Men having anal sex 34%. Women 30%

Here's another from CDC. Anal sex with women 40% Anal sex with other men 3%. Lifetime sexual contact with men in any fashion 6%. (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This one from the CDC puts anal sex among homosexuals as being between 50 and 74% depending on age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But, many homosexuals claim that they tried it but prefer oral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This means that anal sex is being practiced by half of one very small group (homosexuals) and as much as 40% of an enormous group (heterosexuals). According to the CDC, the number of men performing this act in a homosexual context is less than 10%. 90% of the time is with women. And that's in the United States. The probability that anal intercourse is being practiced even more by heterosexuals in third world countries (where AIDS continues to spread fastest) as a form of birth control is hard to estimate but likely even higher.Just-unsigned (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify that "less than 10%" statement? Less than 10% of gay men receive anal sex in a year? Or less than 10% of all men receive anal sex over a lifetime? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure- the numbers I'm quoting come from the first CDC link above, page 2 (the PDF file). In the survey, 40% of men reported having anal intercourse with women and 3.7% of men reported having anal intercourse with men. That's a ratio of 10.811 to 1. Expressed as a percentage it is 9.25% gay and 90.75% straight. These numbers are going up for heterosexuals with each new survey. One theory is that the prevailance of anal sex in pornography in recent years could be (A) causing more heterosexuals to try it or (B) more heterosexuals comfortable with reporting that they do it.Just-unsigned (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Your interpretation assumes that there are the same number of gay and straight men in this survey. The reason that somewhat more than ten times as many men report having anal sex with women than with men is because somewhat more than ten times as many men have any kind of sex with women than have any kind of sex with men. The reported numbers say that 3.7% of all men in the U.S. have had anal sex with a man, not that 3.7% of just gay men in the U.S. have had anal sex with a man. Your analysis assumes that 96.3% of U.S. gay men have never had anal sex, which is false. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No- I don't believe that and did not say that. This is a very simple concept- 43.7% of men (in a survey of over 12,000 people)responded yes to the question "have you had anal sex". 40% of them then said their partner was a woman and 3.7 said their partner was a man. Please read the link I posted from CDC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone in here understand what I just said?Just-unsigned (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins calculates the risk of a woman contracting HIV from unprotected vaginal sex to be 1/10 of 1 percent.Just-unsigned (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Before this goes any further, does Just-unsigned have any recent references that qualifies and quantifies HIV transmission risk by anal sex between heterosexual couples that goes against these two references: PMID 1392708 and PMID 11773877, which already covers this point in heterosexual couples. --Bob (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't dissagree with those two articles at all. What I dissagree with is the way the information is presented in the article. Just-unsigned (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem that I can see. Anal sex is covered adequately:
The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations between partners, one of whom has HIV. Heterosexual intercourse is the primary mode of HIV infection worldwide. Sexual transmission occurs with the contact between sexual secretions of one partner with the rectal, genital or oral mucous membranes of another. Unprotected receptive sexual acts are riskier than unprotected insertive sexual acts, with the risk for transmitting HIV from an infected partner to an uninfected partner through unprotected anal intercourse greater than the risk for transmission through vaginal intercourse or oral sex.
What don't you agree on, specifically in the wording? --Bob (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at my most recent post in the HIV article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You have still failed to address any valid points on this issue raised by myself and others. Address these points in one area, this area, with valid references to back up your arguments. --Bob (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Which valid points did you raise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) I give up. Good luck with the article.Just-unsigned (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it ambiguous where it says "Heterosexual intercourse is the primary mode of HIV infection worldwide. " "Heterosexual intercourse" could be understood to mean "heterosexual vaginal intercourse" or to mean "heterosexual (vaginal, anal or oral) intercourse". I suggest that it be clarified by inserting the appropriate words for whichever it's supposed to mean. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with the change if every one else is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Find a reference that describes the precise mechanism beyond heterosexual transmission (which is not ambiguous) before you change anything. Why is it not ambiguous? Becuase the transmission is occurring most during male-female sexual relations, which is heterosexual intercourse. Please find and show a reference that states that this is not the case. The table itself provides the risk factors involved for each specific act. --Bob (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition of "ambiguous" is not "factually incorrect". It means "unclear". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob is right- the table lists the info in the most accurate manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute- if the table lists the information the most accurate way then maybe we should just write the article in similar fashion? What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because risk factors and actual transmission statistics are two different things. --Bob (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct- with specifics of transmission being the most important. But if there is a benifit to using a term that leaves the reader wondering what it means then please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity important?

For reasons that remain unclear many persons editing this article want both vaginal and anal sex to be be called heterosexual intercourse. It has been pointed out that one of these acts are performed by homosexuals as well.(Even though there is no term "homosexual intercourse") So far, no justification or advantage to this reasoning has been offered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting multiple points all over the talk pages of various artiles which pertain to a single point that you want to make. Please post here all of your worries about anal sex not being represented.
Please find for me statistics that state that heterosexual intercourse is confined to vaginal intercourse. There is no ambiguity in the wording as is, contrary to your point of view. the article correctly states that HIV is transmitted mostly by sexual relations between a man and a woman :Heterosexual intercourse. --Bob (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought this page was for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just-unsigned (talkcontribs) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It is, but creating numerous headings for the same argument over and over again and making users chase down every argument over multiple talk pages is disruptive and not conducive to productivity. Also, sign your posts. --Bob (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I will follow all applicable wikipedia rules in an on going discussion. I have not recieved any logical arguments from you or any one else on this subject so far.Just-unsigned (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please find for me statistics that indicate that anal intercourse is not performed by other groups.Just-unsigned (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the current discussion. You are wanting the phrase Heterosexual intercourse changed to something regarding anal sex amongst heterosexuals being the number one cause of transmission. References please. Your references to this point have stated Studies of heterosexual HIV transmission have consistently found anal intercourse to be a highly predictive risk factor for seroconversion. This is not the same as saying that anal sex amongst heterosexuals being the number one cause of transmission. --Bob (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I suggested at all. Please re-read my suggestion. I suggested that each cause of transmission be discussed as its own topic and outside of sexual persuasion.Just-unsigned (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is the problem with heterosexual intercourse?? It is fine as is then. Also, the table discusses risk factors associated with each act. Is the discussion closed as there is nothing to change. You want a distinction to be made regarding vaginal and anal sex amongst heterosexuals with regard to transmission statistics, as that is where the phrase heterosexual transmission occurs. Again. Provide references. --Bob (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we take a short break to make sure I understand this issue correctly? It seems to me that HIV prevention experts (including most editors on this page) interpret the phrase "heterosexual intercourse" very broadly, possibly as broadly as "any and all forms of sexual activity between a man and a woman," and possibly something just short of that. As a term of the art, their understanding of this phrase definitely includes anal, oral, and vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman.

However, Just-unsigned interprets this phrase as meaning something much closer to "the specific kind of intercourse which is anatomically possible only between a man and a woman." That is, Just-unsigned believes that heterosexual intercourse is (or will be interpreted by the non-expert reader as) an exact synonym for vaginal intercourse.

Am I correct so far? (Please restrict your reply to your "side," and not for the other side of the debate.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition 1. --Bob (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say, yes, you have stated that well. It is a fact that most people don't consider the term to be that broad and probably assume that vaginal sex is implied. Clarification would be a simple matter.Just-unsigned (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This statement needs a tag: It is a fact that most people don't consider the term to be that broad and probably assume that vaginal sex is implied.[citation needed] --Bob (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think the sky is blue- although I couldn't find any recent research on the subject. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be written so the average person understands it?Just-unsigned (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Just-unsigned (or anyone else for that side of the issue), do you agree that the current change to "sexual contact between members of the opposite sex," especially in light of the sentence that follows it, is sufficiently different from "vaginal intercourse" that people will not assume that heterosexual couples only engage in vaginal intercourse? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making that change, Grcampbell. I don't speak for anyone else, but the edit addresses the concern about ambiguity I raised above, in my opinion. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am satisfied with the change. Thank you for offering a solutuion. On another topic,I would also like to say that I am offended by this person, "Bob" saying that someone is my "sock puppet" because they offered a similiar opinion. And please do not delete my posts again. I do not delete yours and just because we dissagree does not mean you have a right to censor others.Just-unsigned (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted none of your posts, and using sockpuppets like you have done yesterday to win arguments goes against wiki policy. --Bob (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You deleted my post yesterday concerning ambiguity and sent me a message about it. Furthermore, I am making a suggestion - not argueing with anyone. Lastly, the "sockpuppet" issue is only your opinion and, once again, incorrect.Just-unsigned (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to be civil to you, it is getting quite hard. No posts were deleted. Posts were moved into one single section as your obsession with anal sex and multiple postings about it was getting hard to read. I simply moved all threads into one coherent section so that it might be easier to understand your POV. As it was the posts were rambled and incoherent. Also, Too.Cat IS your sockpuppet. I am quite willing to open a procedure to lay out all in the open, including your IP address and provider and have the admins look at your contribution history and that of Too.Cat so that action may be taken. --Bob (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please open the procedure. I will accept your apology later. As for the suggestion that I made, I am satisfied with the change and will not be discussing this with you any further. No hard feelings.Just-unsigned (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob, I appreciate your highlighting my comment, but do not appreciate your accusation that my comments are a result of being a "sock puppet" of another user. (I just experienced an edit conflict and see that both of the other participants in this discussion have added comments. Since another one of these pertains to me I will add that you are welcome to open an administrative investigation regarding my IP address.) This type of accusation may be against the Wikipedia rules, but civility should be the norm regardless of the rules. I request that you delete your message, as it is both untrue and may dissuade other users both from considering the information offered and from joining discussions that will ultimately lead to more accurate presentation of information, on this or any other subject. I would be happy to have this paragraph deleted, as well, at that time, as it detracts from important discussion of this article.

Regarding this article, the edit to the area I discussed early remains incorrect. Section: Sexual contact - Specific: "The primary mode of HIV infection worldwide is through sexual contact between members of the opposite sex.[60]" The 'MODE' is the specific act. I am not offering an opinion. The terminology is incorrect the way it is presented. The table beside this section of the article does present the information correctly, but the written part of the article does not. While it is a subtle difference, it changes the meaning significantly. It is my understanding that the purpose of Wikipedia is to accurately present information in a context that any reader who visits the site can understand even if they do not have the background or education to understand the technical articles which the Wikipedia articles are based upon. It should not be up to the novice researcher to interpret the charts accurately. It should be presented accurately in written format, so that they can then understand the charts. An accurate statement would be that heterosexuals are the demographic population experiencing the fastest increasing rate of infection....or something to that effect, but that is also secondary in importance to MODE of transmission and the RATES of transmission for each. Heterosexuals are not the 'MODE' of transmission, nor are homosexuals. Even though the words 'heterosexual intercourse' have been eliminated, they have been replaced by a definition of the same. I do appreciate the consideration that has gone into the current edit, as it indicates a willingness to work towards greater accuracy68.48.94.27 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PEOPLE get AIDS- whether they are homo, heteral or opposite isnt important. Bigots see groups instead of individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent comment! By reporting modes and rates, which don't change based on demographic group, PEOPLE can best educate themselves on how to protect themselves. It removes all of the emotion and finger pointing that arises when people feel the need to judge each other's lifestyles and allows just the science behind transmission. AIDS does not discern between demographic population. This is exactly what I've been trying to say all along. Thank you for stating it so clearly. (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Saying that people of the opposite sex transmit it the most now is like saying that people of the same sex got it first. Sounds like finger pointing.Just-unsigned (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Man, I know it's been said before, but you really, really sound like you've been taking liberties with sockpuppetting (or logging off or switching computers) and writing supporting/lauding/agreeing comments. I've been editing quite a while, and talk pages on controversial subjects just tend to not follow a pattern of back patting like this. JoeSmack Talk 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Joe, for the first several weeks that we had this discussion everyone in here gave me nothing but flak. You, nuhuhh, whatamidoing,and Bob. It went on for a while. First you asked for a reference. Then more references, more recent references, better references. I started searching for them and posting them. Then I got critized for posts "all over the page". Quite frankly, none have you have been very fair. If I was going to pull tricks I would have done it back then. The truth is, one of the other people that have commented is someone that I know in real life and happens to feel the same way about demographics that I do. They joined in the discussion of their own accord after I told them about it. That doesn't mean that their opinion is not real or that they shouldn't be allowed to comment. The other two I have no idea who they are. And, if you look back, you'll see that those comments came AFTER you started to cut me a little slack and said that you liked some of my newer sources. My original complaint was missapplication of the term "intercourse" to cover a variety of acts. The others are more focused on labels and demographics. Lots of people don't like labels. Any back patting from my end is because I'm glad to get some supportJust-unsigned (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise...a calling out of sorts. This bothers me because I am not discussing 'opinions' and I don't want anyone to confuse 'opinion' with 'fact', nor do I appreciate the risk that what I've said might be disregarded as being opinion based or part of a tag team. I have indeed independently reviewed the research. I have a medical/science based background and experience with research documentation. The scientific evidence is factual. The way it is presented needs to be accurately based on the measurable evidence. I didn't enter this discussion to restate what someone else said. I don't mince words, and I have not used the words 'my opinion' because I wouldn't be discussing this if it was a matter of opinion. That's what chat rooms are for. I entered it because the presentation of information is inaccurate based on the scientific evidence and because of the gravity of the subject matter. Statistical information based on demographic populations can be manipulated, highlighted, or presented in such a way that it confuses the interpretation of the actual scientific evidence being presented, especially to the novice researcher. It is one of the first things you learn to be wary of when reporting data and reviewing scientific articles. The statement regarding demographic population should not begin the section of the article. It sets up a frame of reference for the rest of the article, which detracts from the actual scientific evidence. If it is included, it should appear appropriately. My own statement of 'this is an excellent comment' was not back patting to anyone. It was in response to the previous comment. I was concerned that the person who mentioned bigotry may have misinterpreted what I wrote. I've said as clearly as I can what is inaccurate and how it would best be remedied. I had and have no intention of reentering this conversation, but feel it is important to protect the integrity of what I've written previously. (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)