And vice versa. We had a very infamous case of it in my country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Mol
A few women brought HIV back home catching it from that "activist".
Incredibly disappointing (and predictable, as an "anti-racist, anti-fascist activist") that Mol played the race card when confronted about his HIV status.
He called the Polish people racist, and he called the Polish police racist.
So, risk to women would seem to be, say, about three times as much at risk. And that is not counting the additional and heavily lop-sided risk of anal intercourse for women, but I'm not sure how to quantify that.
So my gut feeling that this is something women suffer from more is potentially backed up by evidence, but not to such a disproportionate degree that my original phrasing was accurate. I'm too late to edit, but happy to consider my earlier comment rephrased with these stats.
Wrong on two counts. First because a monogamous couple has a virtually zero chance of contracting the virus and second because celibacy is evolutionarily indistinguishable from death.
Don't delude yourself, even the monogamous couple has to go to the hospital or could, via sheer bad luck, have contracted it from a former partner (I doubt you were talking only about lifelong monogamy).
And the second comment, I don't even know what to make out of it - living also leads to death, where does evolution come into play in this discussion? By your logic, someone who gets infected and later dies from AIDS, but has had a child is better off than someone who never had kids. What kind of mental gymnastics is that?
I was talking about lifelong monogamy. This should be obvious from the "virtually impossible" descriptor. This is just basic logical reasoning.
> someone who gets infected and later dies from AIDS, but has had a child is better off than someone who never had kids. What kind of mental gymnastics is that
It's the kind of "mental gymnastics" where they propagate their genes and a celibate person doesn't. This isn't hard to understand so please don't be willfully obtuse.
Problem with this sort of moral policing is if your spouse is/becomes abusive then you can't leave them and if they die young you can't ever date/marry again.
Lifelong ends with death. And it's not moral policing, I'm not advocating armed men to force people to not be promiscuous. I'm simply stating a fact based on sound scientific reasoning. Because promiscuous people are the reservoir for STDs, not having sex with promiscuous people, which is isomorphic to lifelong monogamy, is a highly effective way to avoid STDs.
