Interesting statistics about gay relationships.

A link is not an OP.

"Topic: Gay people
Basis for discussion: I have this link here with a long text. You'll know what it is about specifically...well, after you have read it.
I won't tell you.
Now please read that.
Then debate."


He seems to be serious about it. :mischief: :D

(Lame. I know. Pointless cross post ftl.)
 
No insults in this thread, just discussion. I don't wanted this locked like the previous one.
Well, you heard him folks. No insults, just discussion. What should we discuss?
 
I don't think that the study can necessarily be generalized to the greater population. Amsterdam has a high rate of IV drug use. Even with liberalization of drug laws and needle exchanges, the rate of IV drugs is a potentially strong manner of transmission for HIV. I'm not convinced the researchers corrected for this in a manner that would make the study applicable to other populations.

Still, the findings are important. Obviously safe sex is important even for those in a committed relationship, and this is possibly more true for the young male studied in this survey than their older peers assuming that promiscuous behavior diminishes with age (not necessarily an assumption I would readily make, but it seems to have face validity).

The other important finding is very relevant for those working in public health. Increasing the availability of both HIV testing and HAART drugs has a very strong and significant negative relationship with the spread of the disease. This is a way more important finding that anything that this study says about the sexual behavior of homosexuals in committed relationships or homosexual men in general. Really, what we should take away from this study is that public officials should be strongly encouraged to subsidize and increase the availability of HIV testing and HAART drugs as a means to stem the spread of HIV. Of course, such public programs are no doubt more expensive than simply encouraging those in committed relationships to continue to practice safe sex, but it does sound like we should approach the issue form both angles.
 
I don't think that the study can necessarily be generalized to the greater population. Amsterdam has a high rate of IV drug use. Even with liberalization of drug laws and needle exchanges, the rate of IV drugs is a potentially strong manner of transmission for HIV. I'm not convinced the researchers corrected for this in a manner that would make the study applicable to other populations.

Still, the findings are important. Obviously safe sex is important even for those in a committed relationship, and this is possibly more true for the young male studied in this survey than their older peers assuming that promiscuous behavior diminishes with age (not necessarily an assumption I would readily make, but it seems to have face validity).

The other important finding is very relevant for those working in public health. Increasing the availability of both HIV testing and HAART drugs has a very strong and significant negative relationship with the spread of the disease. This is a way more important finding that anything that this study says about the sexual behavior of homosexuals in committed relationships or homosexual men in general. Really, what we should take away from this study is that public officials should be strongly encouraged to subsidize and increase the availability of HIV testing and HAART drugs as a means to stem the spread of HIV. Of course, such public programs are no doubt more expensive than simply encouraging those in committed relationships to continue to practice safe sex, but it does sound like we should approach the issue form both angles.

Thank you for clicking the link. I don't understand why people find it so difficult and throw tantrums when the information isn't immediately placed right in front of their eyes.
 
Not the issue. I'm bloody hopeless in terms of debating/constructing a good OP and the like. But I do know that the idea is to use the information in the link to frame a question up for discussion.

Add to that I like to build my self esteem by nitpicking at the expense of others.
 
When starting such a threat, you are asking people to commit time and (possibly) effort. In this context, it is basic decency to give those people a heads-up on what will await them beyond behind a link instead of simply throwing this link in front of their feet.
(I feel slightly ridiculous for even having to tell you so)
 
Ugh, I've seen the first 20 minutes of that so many times.
I'm going to go with the Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Repetition doesn't make a movie bad. Because of my little brother, I saw Shrek and The Incredibles approximately eight zillion times each over the course of maybe six years. Still think they're good movies.

Mulan is quality. So're Aladdin and Princess and the Frog. Beauty and the Beast is good, but overrated. And seriously, the crap that came out before the Eisner Golden Age, like Snow White, Dumbo, Pinocchio, and Sleeping Beauty, isn't really all that good, and too many people view them with lolstalgia-colored glasses. (101 Dalmatians was pretty decent, though. A diamond in the rough, as it were.)

Funniest Disney movie is The Emperor's New Groove, though. Sneaky-high production values, too.
 
Back
Top Bottom