What are the symptoms?

[+ sniper]

These statistics are absolutely astounding! I can't fathom that after 30 years so many just don't get it.

 

 

I think a big part of it is way more people are having multiple partners way earlier and for longer than they used to which leads to an explosion in exposure levels. Even if relatively more people are using protection, it's swamped by the higher numbers. And the younger kids tend to be less careful - in the past that was okay because two virgins fumbling around aren't going to spontaneously generate an STI. But two kids who each had ten previous partners, many unsafe, are exponentially more likely to transmit/get an STI. Because at least some of those partners were older people who were more likely to have something. I'm in my 40s and I get hit up more by the 18-21 crowd than my own age group(and believe me, I'm nothing special to look at).

 

Also, since PreP it seems like half the ads I see on dating sites are looking for "raw only" - despite that fact that there is no indication that that many people are actually using PreP. It's not just the kids who got fucking stupid.

[+ sniper]

There's also that while people with HIV who are undetectable are not transmitting, a lot of HIV+ people who are not undetectable are, because of improvement in treatment, living long enough to transmit the virus to more people. That's not an issue of people being less careful so much as the higher numbers of survivors/carriers in the population.

[LivingnLA]

These statistics are absolutely astounding! I can't fathom that after 30 years so many just don't get it.

 

Yes, there are a huge number of factors that play into it. The fact that HIV isn't usually fatal if you can afford the meds and that its onset is so longterm. The fact that we vaccinate for the known cancer-causing HPV strains. The ready availability of female contraceptives for many Americans. The increase in sexual experimentation and exploration. The ready access to drugs in high-risk groups, like many gay communities and wealthy college towns. The list goes on and on. But, many STIs are a serious issue for 20-somethings and since our societal marriage trends are continuing to skew later and lower, I expect to see rising population infection rates in 30-somethings and 40-somethings as the years go on.

 

Fortunately, the treatments for gonorrhea and chlamydia are still effective. But, that's slowly changing.

 

Do NOT read these next two articles if you scare easily: multi-drug resistant chlamydia found in UK and multi-drug resistant gonorrhea is slowly spreading in the USA.

 

Plus the OP asked about symptoms. Any comments on that?

 

Yes, symptoms are tough, because take chlamydia, somewhere in the range of 50-80% of infected adult men and women are asymptomatic. Think about that for awhile. Over HALF of adults infected with chlamydia show no outward symptoms. Some of those can be explained by the throat/rectum colonies I discussed previously, but not all.

 

Each STI has its own set of symptoms but there are some commonalities. If you experience flu-like or cold-like symptoms 72hrs after sexual activity, your body is fighting something. Go to the doctor and tell them your symptoms and what you were up to 72hrs ago so they can help you! Note, it might simply just be a cold. You can catch that from kissing and physical intimacy too! Lol.

 

If you suck unprotected cock and your throat seems sore more than 72-96hrs after you sucked that cock, be aware of it for a few days. If it persists, go get an oral swab because you may be developing a local colony of chlamydia or gonorrhea.

 

Herpes type 1 and type 2 cause breakouts roughly 4 days after infection occurs. And they're very common. Easily 1 in 6 Americans under 50 have Type 2. Type 1 is probably even more common since it spreads frequently in childhood. Also, the numbers vary hugely by population, over 40% of sexually active black Americans have Type 2 for example. The challenge is that Herpes is one of those that is communicable just by physical contact. Say for example, you jack off an unprotected cock with micro lesions that aren't visible to the naked eye and then you jack yourself. Congratulations, you've likely contracted Herpes, though the infection might not gain a foothold before your immune system can overwhelm it.

 

Hepatitis A and B are frequently asymptomatic. Symptoms may be flu-like 2-4 weeks after exposure for A and 6 weeks to 6 months after exposure for B. If you engage in male on male sex of any kind, get the vaccine. Yes, Hep-A is mostly communicated via feces (anal sex, rimming, ass-to-mouth, sucking a cock that fucked ass unprotected) but it's out there. Hep-B is mostly via blood, but cases via semen and other body fluids have been documented. Again, there's a vaccine, be smart and get it.

 

HIV onset to AIDS takes years in most healthy adults. However, modern testing can almost always detect it 30-45 days after exposure. Yes, there are tests that can detect it even earlier, but their false+/- rates and costs don't make sense for most of the population. Obviously, if you engage in unprotected sex with any male, talk to your doc about pharmaceutical prophylaxis like PrEP.

 

HPV is very common and many Americans under 26 should be vaccinated for it. That's been the recommendation for awhile. Over 26, it's so common, that a significant majority likely have HPV. It's generally asymptomatic in men though genital warts were and still are a common symptom. Several strains cause cervical cancer in women.

 

BV and PID are exclusively vaginal infections, but we don't understand them well at all beyond a limited understanding linking them to unprotected sexual activity and variety of partners.

 

Syphilis can be spread via unprotected anal, oral, and vaginal sex. It's a contact based transmission, so learn what the sores look like and know what to look for because this develops into a very bad STD if it's undetected and untreated.

 

Trichomoniasis is a very common parasite communicated via unprotected sex. It's very treatable. It's usually asymptomatic, though for those men who experience symptoms, it would be like a mild irritation or itching inside the tip of their penis as the parasite establish a colony, typically anywhere from 5 to 28 days following exposure.

 

LOL! I need to run to a meeting. Sorry for this long post. I imagine it'll be TL;DR for most of you.

 

There are other STIs, for example Zika, but these are the most common for now. Be safe!

[+ sniper]

I know this isn't really the site to suggest it, but I kind of wonder if we gays shouldn't consider adopting the 3-dates-before-sex rule as a means of improving safety overall. Statistically speaking it would probably do a lot to curb STI rates.

[LADoug1]

Yes, there are a huge number of factors that play into it. The fact that HIV isn't usually fatal if you can afford the meds and that its onset is so longterm. The fact that we vaccinate for the known cancer-causing HPV strains. The ready availability of female contraceptives for many Americans. The increase in sexual experimentation and exploration. The ready access to drugs in high-risk groups, like many gay communities and wealthy college towns. The list goes on and on. But, many STIs are a serious issue for 20-somethings and since our societal marriage trends are continuing to skew later and lower, I expect to see rising population infection rates in 30-somethings and 40-somethings as the years go on.

 

Fortunately, the treatments for gonorrhea and chlamydia are still effective. But, that's slowly changing.

 

Do NOT read these next two articles if you scare easily: multi-drug resistant chlamydia found in UK and multi-drug resistant gonorrhea is slowly spreading in the USA.

 

 

 

Yes, symptoms are tough, because take chlamydia, somewhere in the range of 50-80% of infected adult men and women are asymptomatic. Think about that for awhile. Over HALF of adults infected with chlamydia show no outward symptoms. Some of those can be explained by the throat/rectum colonies I discussed previously, but not all.

 

Each STI has its own set of symptoms but there are some commonalities. If you experience flu-like or cold-like symptoms 72hrs after sexual activity, your body is fighting something. Go to the doctor and tell them your symptoms and what you were up to 72hrs ago so they can help you! Note, it might simply just be a cold. You can catch that from kissing and physical intimacy too! Lol.

 

If you suck unprotected cock and your throat seems sore more than 72-96hrs after you sucked that cock, be aware of it for a few days. If it persists, go get an oral swab because you may be developing a local colony of chlamydia or gonorrhea.

 

Herpes type 1 and type 2 cause breakouts roughly 4 days after infection occurs. And they're very common. Easily 1 in 6 Americans under 50 have Type 2. Type 1 is probably even more common since it spreads frequently in childhood. Also, the numbers vary hugely by population, over 40% of sexually active black Americans have Type 2 for example. The challenge is that Herpes is one of those that is communicable just by physical contact. Say for example, you jack off an unprotected cock with micro lesions that aren't visible to the naked eye and then you jack yourself. Congratulations, you've likely contracted Herpes, though the infection might not gain a foothold before your immune system can overwhelm it.

 

Hepatitis A and B are frequently asymptomatic. Symptoms may be flu-like 2-4 weeks after exposure for A and 6 weeks to 6 months after exposure for B. If you engage in male on male sex of any kind, get the vaccine. Yes, Hep-A is mostly communicated via feces (anal sex, rimming, ass-to-mouth, sucking a cock that fucked ass unprotected) but it's out there. Hep-B is mostly via blood, but cases via semen and other body fluids have been documented. Again, there's a vaccine, be smart and get it.

 

HIV onset to AIDS takes years in most healthy adults. However, modern testing can almost always detect it 30-45 days after exposure. Yes, there are tests that can detect it even earlier, but their false+/- rates and costs don't make sense for most of the population. Obviously, if you engage in unprotected sex with any male, talk to your doc about pharmaceutical prophylaxis like PrEP.

 

HPV is very common and many Americans under 26 should be vaccinated for it. That's been the recommendation for awhile. Over 26, it's so common, that a significant majority likely have HPV. It's generally asymptomatic in men though genital warts were and still are a common symptom. Several strains cause cervical cancer in women.

 

BV and PID are exclusively vaginal infections, but we don't understand them well at all beyond a limited understanding linking them to unprotected sexual activity and variety of partners.

 

Syphilis can be spread via unprotected anal, oral, and vaginal sex. It's a contact based transmission, so learn what the sores look like and know what to look for because this develops into a very bad STD if it's undetected and untreated.

 

Trichomoniasis is a very common parasite communicated via unprotected sex. It's very treatable. It's usually asymptomatic, though for those men who experience symptoms, it would be like a mild irritation or itching inside the tip of their penis as the parasite establish a colony, typically anywhere from 5 to 28 days following exposure.

 

LOL! I need to run to a meeting. Sorry for this long post. I imagine it'll be TL;DR for most of you.

 

There are other STIs, for example Zika, but these are the most common for now. Be safe!

GREAT post. A must read for any man who is sexually active. Thank you!

[Juan Vancouver]

I know this isn't really the site to suggest it, but I kind of wonder if we gays shouldn't consider adopting the 3-dates-before-sex rule as a means of improving safety overall. Statistically speaking it would probably do a lot to curb STI rates.

 

Queen Victoria would be really proud of you.

[LivingnLA]

Queen Victoria would be really proud of you.

 

LOL! Juan, I understand where you're coming from, but I also understand where @sniper is coming from because many gay men are promiscuous. That's a big part of why so many STIs are very real and present issues in the community. There's a reason that young gay men are a high risk category and it's largely tied to hookup culture and less safe practices.

 

I'm not a sexual prude and I certainly don't judge people, but the wanton disregard for regular testing and safer sex that I see from so many, remind me of the anti-vaxxer parents who completely ignore science too. It drives me crazy.

 

If every gay person was tested regularly, had the relevant vaccines, and knew the symptoms, we would all be safer. This also applies to straight and bisexual men and women too if they're sexually active and not in a monogamous relationship.

[Juan Vancouver]

If every gay person was tested regularly, had the relevant vaccines, and knew the symptoms, we would all be safer. This also applies to straight and bisexual men and women too if they're sexually active and not in a monogamous relationship.

 

I completely agree with your above statement. And in that statement, where education, testing and being responsible are th mean tenets, there is absolutely no room for: "everyone, keep it in your pants".

 

Ignorant promiscuity, disregard for safety, testing and disregard for the amazing wealth of knowledge we now collectively have is every bit as damaging as expecting people to not have sex as a prophylactic measure. No need to rehash the direct correlation of "Abstinence as sex ed" and high teen pregnancies.

 

If someone wants to only put out after the third date, power to him. If anyone suggests "all the gays" should, then I am ready to rain brimstone and fire on them.

 

 

No, sexual repression of any kind has never worked as a health tool.

 

Education, awareness, dealing with stigmas, emotional health, communication, action. These are things that have proven efficacious when it comes to promoting sexual health.

[LivingnLA]

I completely agree with your above statement. And in that statement, where education, testing and being responsible are th mean tenets, there is absolutely no room for: "everyone, keep it in your pants".

 

Ignorant promiscuity, disregard for safety, testing and disregard for the amazing wealth of knowledge we now collectively have is every bit as damaging as expecting people to not have sex as a prophylactic measure. No need to rehash the direct correlation of "Abstinence as sex ed" and high teen pregnancies.

 

If someone wants to only put out after the third date, power to him. If anyone suggests "all the gays" should, then I am ready to rain brimstone and fire on them.

 

 

No, sexual repression of any kind has never worked as a health tool.

 

Education, awareness, dealing with stigmas, emotional health, communication, action. These are things that have proven efficacious when it comes to promoting sexual health.

 

Abstinence is counter to basic human nature as we currently understand it. We're social primates and physical intimacy is a critical form of socialization for forming relationships, mental health, and more. Something that runs counter to basic biology will fail as it's just another form of science denial.

 

I may have misread @sniper, but my take on his post was that 3 dates would give someone enough time to assess the other person and determine if they're lying, responsible, etc. etc. I didn't read it as a Victorian or puritanical abstinence position at all.

[+ sniper]

Yeah it had nothing to do with moral disapproval, just risk mitigation. That was why I said statistically speaking. The fact is gay men have higher STI rates and it's driven by much higher numbers of partners being the norm. No matter how careful you are, once you get past a certain number odds are very strong that you will have contracted something - while there will still be a number who don't despite having just as many partners and not being as careful, that's why they're called probabilities and not certainties. In a world of billions there will be a wide range of outcomes. Some people will flip a coin 100 times and get 100 heads, others will get 100 tails, most will get something in between. Getting every HIV- person on PreP, getting every HIV+ person to undetectable viral load, and getting everybody to get tested every month or two is just as unrealistic as abstinence. That's why multiple strategies have the largest compound effect.

[+ sniper]

And by "rule" I just meant guideline, not some hard and fast standard for everyone. If a chunk of the population adopts that, the probability of widespread transmission through the population drops and then increases the odds that those who do have more partners are less likely to contract something.

[+ saminseattle]

If a chunk of the population adopts that, the probability of widespread transmission through the population drops and then increases the odds that those who do have more partners are less likely to contract something.

 

I see your strategy now…get the rest of us to zip it up in order to improve the odds for your own escapades!

 

Seriously though, while I am usually a voice for caution to the point of paranoia, I think it can also be damaging to become paralyzed by fear and miss out on many great opportunities in life. The only truly safe sex is no sex at all, but I think I’m not alone here in saying that I’m not cut out for celibacy. At the same time, I tend to be more risk averse than most to the point that I usually insist on condoms for oral sex. There was a whole thread of disbelief about it a few months ago: http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/when-you-hire-or-hook-up-do-you-give-or-get-head-with-a-condom.112340/

 

Ultimately, I think it’s up to each of us to decide how much risk we’re willing to accept when it comes to our own body and health, hopefully based on the best available information.

 

One more point about oral sex: remember that there is now a vaccine for 9 strains of HPV, including several that are known to oropharyngeal cancer. It’s not officially approved for those over 26, so insurance won't cover it, but there are many reasons to think it’s still a good idea, if you can afford the ~$700 price tag. I mentioned it in post 2 in this thread: http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/world-vaccine-week-is-coming-up.113536/

[LivingnLA]

Well said @saminseattle. That's why I typically say "safer sex." Safe implies 100% and the only thing that's 100% in this context is total celibacy which isn't physically or psychologically healthy. It's all about educating yourself, taking responsibility for yourself and your actions, and how it all impacts on you and those around you.

 

I agree about the HPV vaccine, absolutely. However, the reason for the "over 26" limit when it was established years ago was the prevalence of HPV. If you've been sexually active for years and you're over 26, you've almost certainly already been exposed to HPV. It's that common. But, if you wish to get the vaccine, I fully support that decision because there are many different HPV strains, only some cause cancer and some protection is better than none.

[+ sniper]

Wasn't it also found, at least for certain HPV strains, that getting the vaccine if you already carried the virus INCREASED cancer risk? I thought they had halted a study on its use as a therapeutic vaccine for that reason.

[+ saminseattle]

Wasn't it also found, at least for certain HPV strains, that getting the vaccine if you already carried the virus INCREASED cancer risk? I thought they had halted a study on its use as a therapeutic vaccine for that reason.

 

While I am not a doctor, I REALLY do not think that is accurate. I did quite a lot of research on this before I began the vaccination process myself (I’m 2 shots in now with 1 to go). Here are some of the sources I looked at:

 

*http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/01/who_should_get_the_hpv_vaccine_more_men_and_women_could_be_protected_from.html.

*https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/hpv-vaccine-over-age-26-is-it-worth-it/

*http://www.webmd.com/vaccines/hpv-vaccine?page=2,

*http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/left-out-why-is-it-so-hard-for-older-women-to-get-the-hpv-vaccine/258611/

*http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-vaccine-fact-sheet

 

There are many strains of HPV. A few of the strains are associated with cancer in a small percentage of the people they infect. If you are infected with one strain, the vaccine may protect against other strains. And from the National Cancer Institute: “HPV vaccines have been found to be safe when given to people who are already infected with HPV" and further, "It is likely that someone exposed to HPV will still get some residual benefit from vaccination, even if he or she has already been infected with one or more of the HPV types included in the vaccines.”

 

I did see a number of websites involving an osteopath named Joseph Mercola who has made various anti-vaccine claims, including not just against the HPV vaccines but also those against polio, MMR, etc. He is apparently part of a group that claims, “Vaccination is an unacceptable risk to every member of society, regardless of age.”

 

In the politics subforum, I have frequently been skeptical of government regulations and critical of the Department of Homeland Security’s recent overreaching behavior as well as what I view as dangerous erosions of civil liberties associated with a surveillance state. But I will be putting my trust in the government and the National Cancer Institute over people I think are anti-vaccine nuts.

[LivingnLA]

Wasn't it also found, at least for certain HPV strains, that getting the vaccine if you already carried the virus INCREASED cancer risk? I thought they had halted a study on its use as a therapeutic vaccine for that reason.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine-hcp.htm

 

There have been limited studies of the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines used for patients who were already HPV+ for at least one type. Unsurprisingly, if the person already has one of the cancer causing strains, the vaccine will not prevent disease development of that strain but does appear to protect against the other strains. Scroll down in the above CDC link to the "HPV Vaccine Efficacy" section.

 

But, that doesn't increase your cancer risk. All it means, is that the vaccine is not able to protect you from disease development if you're already infected with one of the types it targets.

 

Further, for all of us cocksuckers out there, America is seeing a huge uptick (4 to 5-fold increase over the last decade) in throat/oral cancer and it appears all of it can be tied to HPV transmission via unprotected oral sex. So, if you love to suck cock, get the HPV vaccine too, but keep in mind that it cannot protect you if you've already been infected by one of the cancer-causing strains.

 

http://www.mountsinai.org/patient-care/service-areas/ent/areas-of-care/head-and-neck-cancer/oral-cancer/hpv/hpv-faq

[Juan Vancouver]

Yeah it had nothing to do with moral disapproval, just risk mitigation. That was why I said statistically speaking. The fact is gay men have higher STI rates and it's driven by much higher numbers of partners being the norm. No matter how careful you are, once you get past a certain number odds are very strong that you will have contracted something - while there will still be a number who don't despite having just as many partners and not being as careful, that's why they're called probabilities and not certainties. In a world of billions there will be a wide range of outcomes. Some people will flip a coin 100 times and get 100 heads, others will get 100 tails, most will get something in between. Getting every HIV- person on PreP, getting every HIV+ person to undetectable viral load, and getting everybody to get tested every month or two is just as unrealistic as abstinence. That's why multiple strategies have the largest compound effect.

 

Okay, then I am still not understanding how is it that you think that asking all gay men to put out only on the third date will make their sex less risky. The only way in which it is slightly safer is that they would be fucking a lot less, which in truth makes this a "keep it in your pants" kind of "suggestion".

 

I am wondering whether I am missing some other amazing ways in which this would make us all safer. Care to elucidate?

[AndreFuture]

I'd like to add that while (un)risky behavior certainly impacts one chances for contracting an STI, access to affordable, respectful, and culturally competent health care is critical—and sadly one of the primary causes of high HIV rates among Black MSM in particular. Another factor to consider is the pool of available sex partners. The fewer potential partners you have to choose from combined with already elevated STI rates, the greater the odds of contracting and/or spreading an STI.

[LivingnLA]

I'd like to add that while (un)risky behavior certainly impacts one chances for contracting an STI, access to affordable, respectful, and culturally competent health care is critical—and sadly one of the primary causes of high HIV rates among Black MSM in particular. Another factor to consider is the pool of available sex partners. The fewer potential partners you have to choose from combined with already elevated STI rates, the greater the odds of contracting and/or spreading an STI.

 

Well said. That one long sentence perfectly captures a large driver behind why so many STIs have much higher infection rates among black Americans. Just as American medical care has grossly mis-served women, it has also poorly served black Americans and especially those who engage in bi and gay sexual activity. Though, black America has some responsibility for many of those "cultural issues" that contribute to the speed bumps, roadblocks, and stop signs that contribute to making the delivery of high-quality STD/STI testing, treatment, and care so challenging.

 

This is why I mentioned to @Sebastien Sterling about the importance of good STI prevention practices because Atlanta has much higher than average rates of nearly every STI, largely because of the issue identified by [uSER=12528]@FTM_Twink[/uSER] in the above post.

[AndreFuture]

Though, black America has some responsibility for many of those "cultural issues" that contribute to the speed bumps, roadblocks, and stop signs that contribute to making the delivery of high-quality STD/STI testing, treatment, and care so challenging.

 

Funny enough, (or rather not funny), that's really just a myth, one of the many "poor behaviors" assumed of Black people that we've had to live with for the last few centuries. I was fortunate enough to attend an event on HIV and AIDS last month and got to hear some "fresh off the press" news about HIV research of Black MSM. The biggest takeaway was that despite the stereotype of Black people being promiscuous (and gay Black men even more so), Black MSM were actually less likely to engage in risky behavior compared to white MSM and other racial and ethnic groups. The main drivers of HIV disparity were access to healthcare, ability to stay within treatment program, small pool of potential partners, and other social stressors (i.e., systemic racism, religious intolerance, poverty, under-/unemployment) that compromise the immune system.

 

I wish they'd hurry up and publish the study so I can share it with others. Of course, now I can't even remember the name of the researcher or the study, and I left my notes at work

 

Edit: I think I misunderstood what you meant by "cultural issues" with regards to receiving adequate health care. I'm not sure how responsible Black people can really be for providing culturally competent service in a field where we are substantially underrepresented—we make up 3.3% of physicians (as of 2004) despite being 12–13% of the population. Perhaps if we had more of a say in who gets hired, where clinics get built, how patients are viewed and treated when they come to a doctor for help, we could start to see better service and an overall decline in HIV rates.

 

Edit 2: Oh, the other big factor: not knowing one's status, duh. I clearly need to go to bed, my brain already is asleep.

[LivingnLA]

Funny enough, (or rather not funny), that's really just a myth, one of the many "poor behaviors" assumed of Black people that we've had to live with for the last few centuries. I was fortunate enough to attend an event on HIV and AIDS last month and got to hear some "fresh off the press" news about HIV research of Black MSM. The biggest takeaway was that despite the stereotype of Black people being promiscuous (and gay Black men even more so), Black MSM were actually less likely to engage in risky behavior compared to white MSM and other racial and ethnic groups. The main drivers of HIV disparity were access to healthcare, ability to stay within treatment program, small pool of potential partners, and other social stressors (i.e., systemic racism, religious intolerance, poverty) that compromise the immune system.

I wish they'd hurry up and publish the study so I can share it with others. Of course, now I can't even remember the name of the researcher or the study, and I left my notes at work

 

I'd love to read that study, but nothing I said suggested black Americans are more promiscuous. Sorry for being unclear. I was specifically talking about the cultural issues--such as religious intolerance--that create mindsets where black Americans don't talk about their sexual activity with their doctors, if they're lucky enough to have them, nor receive the sexual education in school or at home that enables them to practice safer sex. The infection rates for black Americans are much higher because of these and other issues, such as what you discuss above.

 

Share that study!

[LivingnLA]

Here's a great fact sheet from CA's Dept. of Public Health about this topic [PDF].

 

Here's a link to the archive for the 2000 CDC conference that exposed this huge racial disparity with such shocking stats as gonorrhea rates being 30x higher among African Americans compared to whites.

 

And lastly, the latest racial disparity stats for major STDs from the CDC.

[AndreFuture]

Ah, gotcha. Like I said in my edit, I realized I misunderstood.

[AndreFuture]

I'd love to read that study, but nothing I said suggested black Americans are more promiscuous. Sorry for being unclear. I was specifically talking about the cultural issues--such as religious intolerance--that create mindsets where black Americans don't talk about their sexual activity with their doctors, if they're lucky enough to have them, nor receive the sexual education in school or at home that enables them to practice safer sex. The infection rates for black Americans are much higher because of these and other issues, such as what you discuss above.

 

Share that study!

 

Religious intolerance isn't particular to Black people (as we've seen from Kim Davis types spreading "religious exemption" laws all over the country in recent years). But yes, religious folks, many of whom are Black, need to account for the detrimental impact their beliefs have on already marginalized people.

 

I will definitely share the study once I can get my hands on it In the meantime, I found that the CDC has a page on HIV among Black MSM, and the Prevention Challenges section (further down on the page below the bar chart) basically confirmed what my sleep-deprived memory could recall. Phew! I'm not so brainless after all!

[LivingnLA]

Religious intolerance isn't particular to Black people (as we've seen from Kim Davis types spreading "religious exemption" laws all over the country in recent years). But yes, religious folks, many of whom are Black, need to account for the detrimental impact their beliefs have on already marginalized people.

 

I will definitely share the study once I can get my hands on it In the meantime, I found that the CDC has a page on HIV among Black MSM, and the Prevention Challenges section (further down on the page below the bar chart) basically confirmed what my sleep-deprived memory could recall. Phew! I'm not so brainless after all!

 

Yes, absolutely, as does the research being done here in California. You're not brainless at all. My point is it's all the community. After all, "DL / down-low" came from there too. It's that denial and repression that's also contributing to this complex issue. I agree, we as a country have truly been horrible to poorer Americans, especially racial minorities. We need to fix that ASAP.