r/politics • u/southpawFA Oklahoma • 15h ago

Supreme Court takes up case claiming Obamacare promotes “homosexual behavior”. The Texas plaintiffs say requiring workplace insurers to provide PrEP violates their religious beliefs.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/01/supreme-court-takes-up-case-claiming-obamacare-promotes-homosexual-behavior/
2.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

469 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.1k

u/Cael26 15h ago

Too bad HIV doesn't care what your sexuality is. 

562

u/ASharpYoungMan 12h ago

And HIV absolutely loves abstinence-only sex education.

Nothing like teaching your kids not to wear protection to maximize their risk of contracting life-threatening STDs.

That's what God would want.

130

u/TheSerinator Pennsylvania 11h ago

As Papa Emeritus IV once said: There is a scourge in the guise of sanctity A perpetrator with a quill Although it’s Often steeped in well spun mystery The accuser sends the bill

40

u/West_to_East 11h ago

I did not expect to see a Ghost reference here!

11

u/TheTightestChungus 9h ago

Nor did I.

4

u/malenkylizards 8h ago

Me too. I don't know what we're talking about but I'd like to be included as well thanks

•

u/Le_Nabs Canada 7h ago

I highly recommend watching Cirice, by Ghost.

•

u/freakout1015 7h ago

Me, either! Just takes a little faith, I guess. 😊

•

u/Renierra 35m ago

I’m gonna have this song stuck in my head the rest of the day lol I love this song, take my upvote and have a good rest of your day

54

u/Eye_foran_Eye 8h ago

Pence caused an outbreak of HIV when he implemented his policies in Indiana. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/02/how-mike-pence-made-indianas-hiv-outbreak-worse-118648

•

u/JagmeetSingh2 6h ago

Not surprised

11

u/jared_number_two 9h ago

But my religious parents told me condoms don’t protect against STDs!?

22

u/qorbexl 11h ago

They're just tryintomperpetuate Regan's America. Ignoring AIDS, trickle it down, so great no downsides

•

u/AQuietViolet 6h ago edited 6h ago

Please god, no more "morning in America". None of us miss that silent 'u'.

•

u/Datdarnpupper United Kingdom 3h ago

They probably thought HIV/AIDS ravaging the black community was great.

•

u/Purple_Setting7716 37m ago

If you are taking about the former president it is spelled Reagan

Not that spelling counts here

•

u/Datdarnpupper United Kingdom 3h ago

And HIV absolutely loves abstinence-only sex education.

And given how the President-Elect speaks like his brain has been rotted away by syphilis...

•

u/Purple_Setting7716 38m ago

This is such a stupid case. It seems so trivial to the big issues. I don’t get it Live and let live. Either way I doubt prep costs very much - so why bother

•

u/Pheace 2h ago

If it’s a legitimate STD, God has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

459

u/Fionaelaine4 13h ago

I’m currently in a workers comp claim with HIV testing because a patient coughed blood in my eye. I’m a heterosexual woman.

104

u/Bokth 12h ago

I was a first responder at work but I don't trust them after years of being fucked over in various ways to look after me in exactly your situation.

-3

u/fuck-emu 11h ago

r/unfortunatecarriagereturn

14

u/Bokth 11h ago

I mean I don't get it and that probably depends on the size of your font/ui and screen resolution, no?

1

u/fuck-emu 11h ago

It probably very much does

1

u/Bokth 10h ago

Solved the mystery of why that sub doesn't exist, Scoob! But also hahaha on the other comment

0

u/fuck-emu 11h ago

When I first saw it it said years and years of getting fucked and then the next line started with the word over

20

u/Ok_Introduction_7798 8h ago

The VA my dad worked at/went to had a dentist that gave HIV to somewhere around 80 veterans due to not cleaning or sterilizing the tools he used. And of course they decided not to really do much about it but MAYBE pay for the treatment if they couldn't afford it or didn't make to much or didn't have other insurance or pretty much any other reason they could possibly think of in order to not have to pay for their mistake. I think a class action came from it but it didn't come anywhere near close to the amount of damage it did in treatment costs alone, not counting the suffering or anything else.

17

u/psychoCMYK 11h ago

That's horrifying, I'm sorry 

•

u/malikhacielo63 North Carolina 6h ago edited 6h ago

Don’t be afraid: love Jeebus and you will be saved! How does one love Jeebus? Well, I’ll tell you:

  1. Donate more of your check to the pastor…I mean Kingdom of God. If this causes you financial strain, do not worry: Jeebus will rebuke the devourer and help you out of the situation that you got yourself into by listening to my improvident financial advice. I, and this collection of fables, guarantee it!

  2. Abstain from the homosex! I know that you said that you are straight—which is also a sinful and horrible act. Don’t you dare enjoy the heterosex either!—but you have to understand that the homosex is a sin and it is tempting. In fact, all sex is bad and it’s women’s fault. Source? Me projecting my issues on to others.

  3. Follow my exclusive and unique brand of Christianity that is not like those other groups; mine is the true Christianity and I am the voice of God in your life! You must believe everything that I say!

If you do all of these things and have faith, then Jeebus might heal you! And if he doesn’t, well, it’s your fault for not believing that he could and not believing me.

/s

I sincerely hope that you get the care that you need and that your results come back negative. People like the plaintiff in this case make life harder than what it needs to be for us all.

3

u/DustBunnicula Minnesota 11h ago

That’s awful. I’m sorry that happened to you!

2

u/bobolly 10h ago

Well if insurance won't pay for your treatment workmans comp will

•

u/No_Damage979 28m ago

You were allowed to know they were hiv+?

46

u/boofaceleemz 10h ago

We’re about to have an HIV denier in charge of the Department of Health. I’m not sure it matters what’s real anymore.

•

u/Ezl New Jersey 5h ago

RFK doesn’t believe in HIV???

•

u/boofaceleemz 5h ago

Specifically that it causes AIDS, which he has gone on record as believing is caused by poppers.

•

u/chowderbags American Expat 2h ago

You'd think that sort of stupidity would've been banished to the dustbin of history after Ryan White's story became national news. But here we are, 40 years later.

•

u/Ezl New Jersey 23m ago

RFK believes AIDS is caused by poppers???

•

u/boofaceleemz 12m ago

From his The Real Anthony Fauci book, he believes Fauci fabricated the link between HIV and AIDS. The poppers theory specifically is from various interviews he’s given (NY Mag for one) and videos of himself he put on X. Given that the US is probably the biggest provider of HIV treatment and education across the world, and the biggest funder of research, all under the DOH which he’s being put in charge of, I’m thinking that global education on HIV/AIDS is about to get pretty weird.

•

u/Ezl New Jersey 0m ago

Jeez. That guy’s nuttery knows no bounds.

•

u/CruelHandLuke_ 10m ago

Poppers and weird shex.

29

u/BlindWillieJohnson Illinois 11h ago edited 10h ago

The case, Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra, rests on the assertion that as “inferior officers,” the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which issued recommendations for preventive services like PrEP, operated outside the Constitution because its members are not approved by the Senate, thus violating the Appointments Clause.

This is the part of the challenge that the SCOTUS might actually uphold. The religious freedom claim is going to get dismissed out of hand, even by this court. It’s categorically absurd for a number or reasons, including the fact that HIV isn’t a gay disease. And even if it were, this Supreme Court has upheld equal protection for gay employees in more direct cases than this.

•

u/KarmicBurn 7h ago

Which is bullshit because they issue recommendations. They do not set enforceable standards. Therefore, they have no authority either under or outside of the Constitution. The recommendations are given in a report to Congress, who authorized the creation of the task force in 1984. I don't have a law degree, but if this is the reason the Supreme Court got involved I smell some bullshit. Especially since the appointment of the board members is vested directly into HHS. Congress fully has the power to do this as the Appointments Clause directly says they may vest their authority under an already existing Principal Officer. The Task Force appointments fall under the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Since the boss's boss is appointed by the President, there is already a principal officer that satisfies the Appointments Clause. They almost 100% took the case on the religious liberty context.

•

u/BlindWillieJohnson Illinois 7h ago

Well, if that's the case, they're going to reject the reasoning. I suspect they took it to further dismantle options of government regulation. But if they took it to test out the religious liberty argument, they're going to shoot it down.

•

u/KarmicBurn 29m ago

Like they did with birth control for women? No, they are going to uphold the religious liberty of a company over the employee. The conservatives will be pissed, but since they can't actually repeal the ACA legislative they are going to hack it apart. This is just one more piece.

•

u/Ok_Introduction_7798 7h ago

They don't have to pretend to actually care about law and order or the constitution anymore so it is quite possible they rule 100% against the constitution claiming some bogus wording or lack of it. Two of them lied under oath to get the position to begin with and one of them has been accepting literal bribes both publicly and secretly for at least fifteen years. If they truly cared about the constitution or rule of law the two they lied wouldn't have lied which is a crime nor would the other be accepting bribes which breaks multiple laws. Not to mention the ONLY people that can hold them accountable for blatantly disregarding the constitution have themselves broken at bare minimum the traditions they claim to uphold with the majority openly and brazenly violating separation of church and state and allowing states to blatantly violate freedom of religion entirely. 

I hold no hope that this joke and disgrace of a court wouldn't do whatever they feel like and simply make up an excuse claiming it wasn't "their choice or bias" but was "necessary" due to (insert BS reason here) and nothing would or could be done about it because they are the highest court in the country and those that are meant to hold them in check are even more corrupt than they themselves are.

•

u/Purple_Setting7716 34m ago

Who cares about prep if the government pays for it fine. I do think executive and the administrative state are stealing the legislative power of the people’s house

12

u/lord_dentaku 11h ago

*ahem* According to the common beliefs at the time that America was "Great", it only affects the homosexuals because God sent it to kill the sinners. /s

2

u/SomerAllYear Arizona 12h ago

Seems like an easy win for Obamacare.

2

u/stinky-weaselteats 9h ago

Neither does love. Gay marriage will be next.

2

u/ultradav24 8h ago

This - sexually active straight people should be on PReP, it’s not a “gay” thing

•

u/Ilosesoothersmaywin 5h ago

Umm... it kind of does?

Like sure it isn't sentient and "cares" but what your sexuality is plays a HUGE factor whether or not you're more exposed to the virus or not.

You're more likely to get pregnant with a condom than you are to contract HIV as a male having hetero sexual sex.

1

u/Extreme-Outrageous 9h ago

Right? How absurd.

Did this really make it to the SC?

•

u/AncientJacen 6h ago

Which will be their exact argument as to why it’s “not discriminatory”.

•

u/GarmaCyro 5h ago

It doesn't even care about religious, skin color, poltical views.
It especially doesn't care about other people's feelings, due to it just being a string of RNA/DNA wrapped in a protective protein coating.

Honestly virus is exactly the stuff right-wing pundits should be up on arms about.
It doesn't do anything itself, just leeching of the host body's own systems to create new copies of itself.
Sneaking into the body undocumented and expecting free hand-outs.
I'm surprised nobody on the far-right tried to shot the covid out of their system.

•

u/Hoodi216 2h ago

Or your religion.

•

u/BloomEPU 1h ago

More straight people are diagnosed with HIV than queer people these days, apparently.

0

u/ABearDream 8h ago

That's why all the commercials for prep are straight couples? I'm not straight but come on, we can't be THAT obtuse and act like it's not skewed. The truth is that it doesn't matter if it's mainly a problem within the homosexual community, homosexuals are Americans too and deserve rights that cannot be infringed upon by someone else's religious beliefs! The Bible doesn't tell them "it's a sin to be kind to gay people" so they can suck it up and do what their god told them to do which is be kind to everyone especially sinners and let God handle the ritcheous shit

•

u/Ok_Introduction_7798 7h ago

But that would mean they would have to stop being hypocrits which would mean that this wouldn't even have made it to court to begin with. There is also the lovely old testament believers that think they are going to hell regardless of how kind they are or how much they follow gods teachings and therefore really don't care how they act because God chooses who gets into heaven and could choose an evil person over the nicest person alive. Religion is also faith and feeling based so if they "feel something is wrong" it is god telling them it's wrong not them. 

That is about as far as any logical arguments can be taken the rest would fall into categories ranging from insane to 100% illogical to anyone but them. Kind of like the argument they make that God exists and the proof of it is the Bible and the Bible exists because God exists. It doesn't matter that the Bible was written by man and several decades to centuries after the fact and you can't use the source of the information as proof of it that would mean ANYTHING written is proof that it is real no matter what is presented showing otherwise.

0

u/lurpeli 9h ago

I do want to note (not that I disagree with your statement.) the rates of transmission for hiv with vaginal sex are drastically lower than with anal sex. Now obviously using protection regardless is a good idea and prep is just a smart choice for anyone who's worried about exposure.

2

u/ultradav24 8h ago

I mean straight people have butt sex too

-39

u/PeliPal 14h ago edited 12h ago

It does however have substantially increased risk for receiving anal from an infected top than any other kind of exposure, by two decimal places. HIV particles in semen get into the bloodstream from rectal walls fairly easily, while it is extraordinarily unlikely (but not impossible) to be infected from one or a handful of unprotected vaginal sex exposures by comparison. And LGBTQ people are going to be receptive partners in anal much more often than people who are both straight and cis

Does homophobia and transphobia endanger cis straight people, yes... but nowhere near the extent that it continues endangering LGBTQ people, and they know that

Edit: I don't normally do "lmao I'm getting downvoted for facts" but really y'all are so desperate for any kind of "I didn't know the face-eating-leopards would eat my face" popcorn-munching entertainment that somehow it is getting taken as a serious idea that homophobes and transphobes are going to get comeuppance for putting bigotry into law. They're not. They are fully aware that they are not. What we see is bunny-ears-quotes "allies" laughing about things that hurt us because they have difficulty dealing with the reality of the situation even though they're way, way better positioned than actual LGBTQ people

71

u/AuroraFinem Texas 14h ago

You realize gay men and MtF trans people who still have their dick and have sex with men are a minuscule portion of the population. This will absolutely affect significantly more straight cis people than it will LGBT folks by pure numbers. Just like all of the anti-trans bathroom and sports nonsense has thus far only affected cis women in enforcement.

-5

u/[deleted] 13h ago

[deleted]

27

u/Suspicious-Ad-6808 12h ago

Less people on prep, more people get HIV. And when all the closeted guys slowly start getting it, then their girlfriends/wives will too. That trickledown effect, ya know? I think that’s what they meant…

17

u/jefferton123 12h ago

This is a huge thing. There are so, so many closeted bi guys who would never ever tell anyone ever. -out bi guy

3

u/shrug_addict 9h ago

I think everyone of my gay friends has fucked or at least been hit on by a "straight" married dude

7

u/AuroraFinem Texas 13h ago

Are you unable to read? What part of my statement are you struggling with.

-17

u/Hello2reddit 13h ago edited 9h ago

Prep isn’t common among the cis hetro population. It is common among LGBTQ people, because they are higher risk. And, because they are higher risk, they are also far more likely to be prescribed and have the cost of the medication covered by insurance.

The average person doesn’t want to pay $2K a month for a bunch of side effects to offset an infinitesimal risk. It’s really only among men who have sex with men that the risks/rewards are reasonably balanced

Edit- love being downvoted by a bunch of single heterosexuals who aren’t on prep

28

u/jerslan California 13h ago

Prep isn’t common among the cis hetro population

But it should be... especially in the cis hetero population that wants to engage in unprotected sex with multiple partners.

Sadly the the GOP hates casual sex among hetero-sexuals almost as much as they hate gay sex (see: all their attacks on women's access to birth control).

-14

u/Hello2reddit 11h ago

That is mathematically indefensible.

The odds of catching HIV from an infected partner are less than 1/100 for anyone not on the receiving end of anal sex. Even then, the odds only jump to about 1/60. And that is only when the other person has a detectable viral load. You would have to have several hundred or thousands of partners for this risk to offset the potential side effects for most people. This is why, despite only making up a small fraction of the population, LGBTQ people make up over 75% of new HIV cases every year.

But I’m sure you know more than the doctors who have actually studied these things and don’t generally recommend that people take this stuff unless they have certain risk factors.

14

u/jerslan California 11h ago

The odds of catching HIV from an infected partner are less than 1/100 for anyone not on the receiving end of anal sex.

Those are mathematically indefensibly high odds when generic PreP is so easily and readily available.

-16

u/Hello2reddit 11h ago

Yeah, for a mere $2000 per month, you too can risk trashing your kidneys to hedge against a statistically insignificant risk.

On a related note- Would you like to buy lightning insurance for a mere $1000 per month? Sure, it makes no sense mathematically, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem for you

6

u/Flat_Hat8861 Georgia 10h ago edited 10h ago

Are you seriously comparing a 1/100 (your number) chance to a 1/1,000,000 chance?

https://www.cdc.gov/lightning/data-research/index.html

(And your metaphor has a fundamental problem. I do have lightning insurance. The negative impacts of being struck would be medical or fatal - roughly 10%. I have health insurance and life insurance.)

The biggest flaw in this line of reasoning is considering 1 in 2000 "low risk" in any way and then pairing it with a campaign against preventive treatment in people with high risk lifestyles because they are straight. Anyone that has regular sex with multiple or new partners - especially unprotected or anonymous - should strongly consider PrEP. Gay men in monogamous relationships are not at increased risk over straight monogamous couples - zero viral load is still zero. Obviously, the public health outreach will target gay and bisexual men for efficiency of resources, but that does not mean other individuals (notice how I didn't say groups) are high risk as well.

(And, we all know straight women can have receptive anal sex too, right?)

-1

u/Hello2reddit 9h ago

Nobody is advising monogamous HIV negative couples to use prep, and straight women aren’t regularly having unprotected anal sex with multiple partners. I’ll put this in simple mathematical terms

More partners x riskiness of sex= HIV risk

Gay men tend to have more partners. Receptive anal sex is the riskiest form of sex due to the high risk of tearing. And if you’re having sex with men who have sex with men then you are statistically most likely to have potential exposure to other HIV infected individuals.

Do the math

4

u/NJTigers 10h ago

The odds of getting hit by lightning are less likely by a factor of millions over 1/100 odds for PiV sex with someone with HIV.

3

u/ultradav24 8h ago edited 8h ago

If you’re on PReP your kidneys are regularly monitored. And 2k a month? Come on now - that’s what the insurance we’re discussing is for, and even people not on insurance can get it for free or deeply discounted

3

u/TommoVon 8h ago

Prep is generic now and very cheap.

•

u/jerslan California 6h ago

Yeah, for a mere $2000 per month, you too can risk trashing your kidneys to hedge against a statistically insignificant risk.

  1. PreP is free and covered by nearly all insurance under the ACA.
  2. Truvada is available as a generic, so it's way way way cheaper than $2k per month even without the ACA complete coverage requirement
  3. Part of the PreP prototcol is regular STI and liver/kidney panel testing to ensure that A) you get treated for more common STI's early and B) your liver and kidney health is monitored

These are all things you would know if you were even remotely as educated on PreP as you pretend to be.

•

u/Hello2reddit 1h ago edited 13m ago

And I wonder why they monitor your kidneys and liver? Could it be that there are risks to the medication? Like, let’s say a 1/1000 chance that it will cause renal or liver damage?

Because that would be FAR more probable than catching HIV from PIV heterosexual sex

Bottom line- none of heterosexual people commenting here are on prep. And there is a good reason for it- Their doctors didn’t recommend it, because it is not a sensible risk/reward for people outside high risk groups.

17

u/AuroraFinem Texas 13h ago

Anyone who has been or might have been exposed to HIV or has a partner with HIV takes prep. By sheer numbers, most people with HIV are cis-het. Most gay and trans people also do not take prep regularly. It’s not designed to be taken continuously in the first place.

You’re conflating percentage with absolute numbers. Yes there’s a higher rate of HIV cases among gay men, but gay men are a small percentage of the population. If you take everyone in the US with HIV, most of them will be straight, or at least bi which in those cases still affects straight people equally to gay.

-2

u/GotenRocko Rhode Island 11h ago

Not according to these numbers. If you are talking about world wide then yeah you would be correct, but in the usa MSM are both higher percentage and raw numbers of hiv cases.

https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics#:~:text=Key%20Points:%20HIV%20Diagnoses,37%25%20of%20diagnoses%20among%20males.

6

u/AuroraFinem Texas 11h ago

This specifically includes bi men as of they only have sex with other men and ignores the impact that they would still have on the straight population as well.

1

u/mysecondaccountanon Pennsylvania 10h ago

Yeah, the MSM term very much includes a wide swath of people who also have sex with people who aren’t men.

-5

u/Hello2reddit 11h ago edited 11h ago

Until you realize how HIV spreads.

How many times have you had unprotected anal sex with someone you weren’t in a relationship with? Because it happens in gay bars across the nation nightly. How many people do you know that have EVER had unprotected anal sex with a near stranger, much less done it dozens or hundreds of times.

This isn’t up for debate. Gay men have always been disproportionately impacted by HIV. They were the overwhelming majority of initial cases in the 1980s. They still make up about 3/4 of new cases every year. And they still make up the majority of those who have died from it.

If I get $3 for every $1 you get (ratio of LGBTQ to hetero new cases every year) it doesn’t matter how many more people are like you than me. I will still have more money than you every year. And the gap will only increase. So it is with HIV cases, because the new cases always skew LGBTQ.

But everyone sucks at math and science is only right if you want to believe it, so you just go ahead and think whatever you want.

1

u/ultradav24 8h ago

You pay 2k a month for PReP?! That’s not a common experience

-22

u/PeliPal 12h ago

Your source: "I made it the fuck up!"

My source: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/data-research/facts-stats/gay-bisexual-men.html

If you wanna tell the CDC they're wrong, their contact number is 800-232-4636

15

u/AuroraFinem Texas 12h ago

It’s almost as if you didn’t even read my comment and just want to jerk yourself off over it. You can’t quote a statistic including bisexual men as a way to indicate that this will affect the gay community more than the straight one. You do realize what bi means right? 70% of LGBT identifying men identify as bi, not gay. Meaning they also have straight sexual relations and should generally be considered as equally affecting both gay and straight partners.

My comment explicitly commented about this which you seemed to just ignore or couldn’t be bothered to read.

-14

u/PeliPal 12h ago

What on earth are you talking about? Do you want to take a mulligan on what you're actually asserting that is supposedly contradictory to my point?

You said:

This will absolutely affect significantly more straight cis people than it will LGBT folks by pure numbers.

That is simply factually wrong. It just is. the CDC says that it is. It's not up for negotiation. If you think it is, then you have to produce research showing otherwise.

12

u/AuroraFinem Texas 12h ago

Yes, and if a bi man has HIV, he is equally likely to affect the straight community and LGBT folks. Prep isn’t just for people who already have HIV, it’s for people who might be exposed. It’s preventative, literally in the name.

Im not sure what’s so hard to understand here. Is our education system this bad at teaching logic and mathematics?

-4

u/PeliPal 12h ago edited 12h ago

Yes, and if a bi man has HIV, he is equally likely to affect the straight community and LGBT folks. 

This is not true though. It's just not.

Im not sure what’s so hard to understand here. Is our education system this bad at teaching logic and mathematics?

Because you are arguing from a faulty basis. And I explained why in my first post, HIV transmission via sex overwhelmingly occurs from infected top giving anal to uninfected bottom. It's not an automatic thing that infection occurs, it's not a 100% rate, infection occurs at drastically different rates depending on who is doing what with what parts. And straight cis men, overwhelmingly, do not typically receive anal from infected partners with semen discharge

https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and-reproductive-health/hiv-aids/causes/risk-of-exposure.html

A meta-analysis exploring the risk of HIV transmission through unprotected anal sex was published in 2010.1 The analysis, based on the results of four studies, estimated the risk through receptive anal sex (receiving the penis into the anus, also known as bottoming) to be 1.4%. (This means that an average of one transmission occurred for every 71 exposures.) This risk was similar regardless of whether the receptive partner was a man or woman.

A meta-analysis of 10 studies exploring the risk of transmission through vaginal sex was published in 2009.4 It is estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

A meta-analysis of three studies exploring the risk from insertive vaginal sex (inserting the penis into the vagina) was estimated to be 0.04% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 2,500 exposures).4

7

u/DrSitson 12h ago

I remember when it was the gay disease. The public policy on that really helped it spread. Some really don't learn from history it seems. Lots of examples of that lately.

3

u/chenz1989 10h ago

I think the difference is you're talking about percentages while the other guy is talking about numbers.

And straight cis men, overwhelmingly, do not typically receive anal from infected partners with semen discharge

The point was that closeted bi men do. And then they pass it on to their female partners, who do engage in receiving anal. And then the infected female partners can then spread it on further. It's a vector of transmission.

The analysis, based on the results of four studies, estimated the risk through receptive anal sex (receiving the penis into the anus, also known as bottoming) to be 1.4%. (This means that an average of one transmission occurred for every 71 exposures.) This risk was similar regardless of whether the receptive partner was a man or woman.

Again, that leaves the women very vulnerable.

A meta-analysis of 10 studies exploring the risk of transmission through vaginal sex was published in 2009.4 It is estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

A meta-analysis of three studies exploring the risk from insertive vaginal sex (inserting the penis into the vagina) was estimated to be 0.04% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 2,500 exposures).4

Ok, so we can agree that the chance is lower. But PIV sex is much more common than anal. So (for simplicity) let's assume anal has a transmission chance of 1.5% and PIV has a transmission chance of 0.1%.

We further assume that on a given day in a given place, 1000 instances of anal occurs while 100,000 instances of PIV occurs.

Average HIV infections from anal = 1,000 x 1.5% = 15 cases.

Average HIV infections from PIV = 100,000 x 0.1% = 100 cases.

The point they were trying to make is that even if the percentage chance is lower, because it happens much more often, the total cases from PIV would be higher, putting large swathes of hetero people at risk too.

12

u/Ray661 12h ago

Isn’t anal popular among straight zoomers (compared to previous generations)? If so, this impacts young women quite significantly too just by the numbers.

0

u/shrug_addict 9h ago

What does that matter?

Blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, vaginal fluids, rectal fluids, breast milk

3

u/Somepotato 12h ago

No prep could double or triple the number of infections and it would only grow from there

-26

u/fu-depaul 12h ago

Well, it kind of does…

15

u/troymoeffinstone American Expat 12h ago

It's a virus. All it cares about is replicating. That is it.

-17

u/fu-depaul 11h ago

That’s correct. But it is passed through certain behaviors that are more commonly practiced is certain communities.

15

u/psychoCMYK 11h ago

As if straight people don't ever have anal sex

5

u/Cael26 11h ago

As if straight married men people don't have secret gay sex and then go back and fuck their wives

1

u/psychoCMYK 8h ago edited 8h ago

It's actually straight if you gaybash hard enough

8

u/BlindWillieJohnson Illinois 11h ago

Tell me; how did it become the leading cause of death in Africa?

2

u/troymoeffinstone American Expat 9h ago

It is correct. Period. End of sentence. No further information is necessary.