"The fact of the matter is, assuming equal promiscuity, it is far easier to spread HIV through Anal sex."
That is correct. The seroconversion rates are approximately:
Receptive anal intercourse: 50/10,000 (fifty per tenthousand contacts with an infected source, assuming no protection)
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse: 10/10,000
Insertive anal intercourse: 6.5/10,000
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse: 5/10,000
"Your chances of getting HIV through heterosexual sex are rather low, even if you aren't using protection."
Well, they are rather low compared to the risks involved with childbirth or needle sharing, they are pretty damn high compared to a monogamous relationship between two seronegative partners. Your risk as a man having unprotected insertive sex just ONCE is about the same as having MS (multiple sclerosis). But you wouldn't tell the MS patient among your relatives that statistically speaking he should be healthy.
"Males having unprotected heterosexual sex have an even lower risk than their female partners."
Which again can be halved by circumcision. However the main reason why unprotected heterosexual sex has a lower risk for the male compared to homosexuals who do not have receptive anal intercourse is the lower HIV prevalence amongst heterosexuals in western nations. However, if you are as promiscuous as Tommy Morrison of Rocky V fame or live in a state like South Africa that pretty much evens the odds.
Hi all. Went back after reading some of the comments and read it again. As I read it, the article was about male HS, so lesbianism is irrelevant, but I didn’t get that it was about HIV per se - just high risk behavior in general. Unlike an inclination to take part in dangerous sports, drive fast cars or climb mount Everest the activity is an addiction because it involves less choice and is usually done far more often. Thus I would agree with “disorder”.
Back when AIDS first started and news reporters interviewed gay’s at bath houses asking them how many “partners” they had under the theory that public health officials could track those exposed to the new threat. The numbers were astronomical - hundreds of partners per week or sometimes per day. Just those numbers alone, even without AIDS are a public health nightmare for other STD or other infectious diseases. The article barely mentions the ancillary risks such as drug use that comes with the acceptance of a set of values this lifestyle demands or increased exposure to violent crime, so IMO the article greatly understates its case.
With all the high risk activity this addiction exposes its practitioners too, it is reasonable to ask why lifestyle fascists in cities like San Francisco or NY who try to outlaw smoking, transfats or foisgrat (high risk to ducks) don’t want to outlaw this one too. Are gays more deserving of freedom than the rest of us or less deserving of protection? Courts struck down sodomy laws based on privacy, but privacy doesn’t protect one who uses illegal drugs in their home. Both are matters of individual choice and both are equally legitimate targets for government public health regulation. Most left wing positions are fundamentally dependent on a lack of consistency when considering issues. That’s why they must endorse situational ethics.