HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
Biologically speaking it's more easily transmitted through anal sex and since gay men can penetrate and be penetrated during a sex session there's even more of a risk.
Dumb Questions Thread
- Thread starter Liquid
- 822 comments
- 57,727 views
- 29,867
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Is that actually true? I have heard conflicting opinions on it without any verified fact.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,313
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Isn't it just a numbers game? If you're part of a smaller pool of people (than sexually active heterosexuals) and that pool already has a higher than average prevalence of HIV doesn't that mean you're at greater risk of contracting it through no fault of your own?
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
I was taught it a few years ago but seems to be correct (definitely for receptive)
Risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS
Read more about risks of HIV/AIDS exposure, including the challenges in calculating, types of sex with varying percentages, and interpreting the numbers.
stanfordhealthcare.org
- 9,262
- Corsham
- lipming
To be honest I think it basically is primarily because of promiscuity. The pandemic started in the aftermath of the sexual revolution and the decriminalisation of homosexuality, and an era before civil partnerships and same-sex marriage, so there were very fewer incentives for gay men to be either monogamous or celibate.
- 17,223
- United Kingdom
In practice I'd suggest penetrative sex involving at least one penis is the culprit (rather than where it goes). Men having sex with men seems to account for as many cases as men having sex with women. Cases arising through sex between women appear to be very rare.
From the national AIDS trust...
This may be offset simply through condom use being more prevalent in heterosexual encounters, owing to the risk of pregnancy.
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
I think where it goes is a factor since it's 17.5 times more transmissible for receptive anal than vaginal which, along with the other reasons likely causes this result:
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
One of those "other" reasons potentially being that "heterosexual contact" likely includes anal as well.
- 4,027
- Derbyshire, UK
- DG Silva
Sometimes it can be blood transfusion in the case of haemophiliacs in the case of Factor VIII.
- 29,933
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Is it still a cover version if the songwriter is involved in both performances? Example: Mick Ronson Ralphs wrote "Ready For Love," recorded it first with Mott the Hoople, then left the group to found Bad Company with Free's Paul Rodgers and Simon Kirke and recorded it again. Is it instead a re-recording (which I think of as being by the same artist, even if it may not involve all the same musicians) or is there a special term for this specific circumstance?
Last edited:
- 9,262
- Corsham
- lipming
I'd have to say no. For me for it to be a "cover" it needs to be done by people entirely separate to the original artist who have put their own spin on it. It's common for artists to re-release their own songs as acoustic versions or remixes, but they're not covering it because it's all their own work.
You maybe could make an exception if it's the same drummer or whatever but not if it's the same singer.
- 29,933
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 29,933
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
What's the rationale here? I'm not saying it's wrong; I asked the question hoping for an answer.
My primary hangup is that they're different artists. Mick Ralphs just happened to be in both groups (and the only one who was).
To complicate matters (for fun), take "I'm A Believer." Neil Diamond wrote it and the Monkees originally recorded it. Neil ended up recording it more than a decade later than the original recording in which he had no involvement.
Last edited:
- 9,262
- Corsham
- lipming
From my perspective, a cover is someone taking someone else's work and putting their own spin on it, not putting a new spin on their own work. The Neil Diamond example is a little more complex because I wouldn't consider either or those examples to be covers; the former because there was no previous performance/recording to cover, and the latter because Diamond was simply recording his own work.
- 4,995
- Connecticut
- Ridley-X4
I kinda wish I knew why I'm so naive and easy to manipulate sometimes. I've bought into incel talking points too many times at this point, before coming to my senses a couple days later. I wonder if it's because of my condition? Could also be how insidious these people are in getting their ideas into people's heads.
I honestly need to remember that people talking about love likely will either be wrong, have an agenda, or both. It's just like talking about money, where anyone who claims what'll happen next on Wall St. is trying to sell you something.
I honestly need to remember that people talking about love likely will either be wrong, have an agenda, or both. It's just like talking about money, where anyone who claims what'll happen next on Wall St. is trying to sell you something.
Last edited:
- 3,694
- South Australia
If you’re prone to incel media, and you know it’s causing you harm, stop consuming it. Don’t buy into it. Find media with a different perspective, and try to view it through an open minded lens.
I’m not selling anything. My agenda is to help someone who is quite obviously struggling to view their situation from outside the box. We’ve been talking for a few days now and everything I have suggested has been in the interests of your mental health.
The same can not be said for incel pages who are determined to play the victim, regardless of the isolation, indoctrination and mental anguish that it creates.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
There are plenty of possible answers to this. The most obvious one being that you're human, and human beings are easy to manipulate in general. If I'm taking a stab at a deeper answer though, it's that you're dissatisfied with some aspect of your life, and dissatisfaction, especially deep dissatisfaction, make you an easier target for manipulation. I think this is part what motivated @MatskiMonk in the prejudice thread.
Recognizing manipulation and your personal vulnerabilities to it (we all have them) is invaluable for the future.
Personally, I don't necessarily ascribe nefarious intent with incel culture. I think it's a self-replicating thought pattern which is easy for certain people to fall into and then propagate to others. Toxic "memes" do well at spreading. "Incel" is something like a mental pandemic.
- 29,867
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
The Fermi Paradox
"If there is extraterrestrial life out there, why haven't we heard from any of them yet?"
Not the paradox itself but the supposition it is based on; that there must be extraterrestrial life out there, even if we don't know about it or aren't in contact with it.
I accept that out of the thousands of galaxies, the billions of stars and trillions of planets in the universe, it is statistically very probable that at least one of them is in a circumstellar habitable zone with conditions similar to earth which could produce life as we know it. I also accept that interstellar travel could, even for beings far superior to us, still take millions of years and they are on their way, searching for us, unaware of our own existence or simply out of range. Life on other planets could be so unlike our own that we might never know about it. All of that is certainly possible.
But none of that means it must be true. Am I missing something here? I just don't get the insistence that extraterrestrial life definitely is out there, absolutely must be out there and we just don't know about them yet. Faced with a lack of evidence, I would conjecture that it is at least plausible, however unlikely, to suggest that there isn't any extraterrestrial life out there. Probability suggests that it's not true but that doesn't mean that it isn't true.
To answer the simplified question above, I can only pose a question of my own:
Why isn't it possible that we are alone? Not probable that we are alone, it's unlikely, but why isn't it at least possible?
The rare earth hypothesis is its own retort that the conditions which created life on earth are themselves so improbable and unique, that it is unlikely to ever be replicated elsewhere. An overestimation of the likely frequency of other Earth-like planets. We as physical entities and our planet were just... that damn lucky.
"If there is extraterrestrial life out there, why haven't we heard from any of them yet?"
Not the paradox itself but the supposition it is based on; that there must be extraterrestrial life out there, even if we don't know about it or aren't in contact with it.
I accept that out of the thousands of galaxies, the billions of stars and trillions of planets in the universe, it is statistically very probable that at least one of them is in a circumstellar habitable zone with conditions similar to earth which could produce life as we know it. I also accept that interstellar travel could, even for beings far superior to us, still take millions of years and they are on their way, searching for us, unaware of our own existence or simply out of range. Life on other planets could be so unlike our own that we might never know about it. All of that is certainly possible.
But none of that means it must be true. Am I missing something here? I just don't get the insistence that extraterrestrial life definitely is out there, absolutely must be out there and we just don't know about them yet. Faced with a lack of evidence, I would conjecture that it is at least plausible, however unlikely, to suggest that there isn't any extraterrestrial life out there. Probability suggests that it's not true but that doesn't mean that it isn't true.
To answer the simplified question above, I can only pose a question of my own:
Why isn't it possible that we are alone? Not probable that we are alone, it's unlikely, but why isn't it at least possible?
The rare earth hypothesis is its own retort that the conditions which created life on earth are themselves so improbable and unique, that it is unlikely to ever be replicated elsewhere. An overestimation of the likely frequency of other Earth-like planets. We as physical entities and our planet were just... that damn lucky.
Last edited:
- 29,933
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Sometimes you just want to celebrate and no explanation is necessary.
I don't imagine causation was implied, but presumably it's not actually possible here? It's just the characteristic of a low vocal range is more typical among those who possess testicles...right?
And my dumb question which is tangential to this topic...just where did the [vocal change as a result of testicular trauma] trope come from?
Last edited:
- 87,281
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No, it's a direct causative effect of testosterone during puberty - it increases the size of the larynx and thickness of its walls, and thickens the vocal cords. Hence why having not having them during puberty makes for a high vocal range, either naturally or... ecclesiastically.
A basic misunderstanding (perhaps comedic) of the above principle run backwards from effect to cause, without realising that the changes to the larynx are developmental and not reversible.
Last edited:
- 29,867
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
In a case of correlation but not causation, Aristotle noticed that young boys have high voices and less developed testicles but men have deep voices and lower, more developed testicles. He thought that the testicles acted as weights within the body, "pulling" the vocal cords down as they develop and making the voice deeper.
What @Famine posted is the actual fact, the development of testosterone being the actual contributing factor. Aristotle was right (testicles affect the voice) but for the wrong reasons. Working his mistaken hypothesis in reverse, kick the balls back up into the body and the voice will go up again.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I don't think that the Fermi Paradox says that it's impossible for us to be alone. It suggests that we shouldn't be, and yet the paradox is that we haven't heard from anyone else yet. You might want to visit the Drake equation, which at least attempts to bring some level of concrete thinking to this very abstract argument.
It is possible that we are alone, but very unlikely. Imagine that we're talking about any process that may occur in the universe. For example, a black hole can form, or a neutron star, or a planet may have an atmosphere. How likely is it to occur exactly one time in our universe? There is a famous quote which I'm having trouble tracking down. It was stated on a recent PBS Spacetime episode which will take me some time to dig up. It states something like "anything that is possible is required". In otherwords, if it can occur within physics, it must occur within physics. This is somewhat simplistic thinking, but it holds for a lot of physical phenomena. If a certain kind of star can exist within physics, it does, somewhere in the universe, because there are just that many stars.
As far as I know, when it comes to generalized phenomena within the universe, the only thing we see exactly once is life. And given our ability to observe life, that seems like it's our fault rather than the universe coming up with a physical phenomena that was so precisely unlikely that it happened one time and exactly one time within the countless possible permutations of reality.
Last edited:
- 29,867
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Is it only in films and television that people have stag or hen parties the day before their wedding? I don't know anyone who's ever been that stupid to do so. I mean, it being the last literal day of "freedom" is so cliche but any stag party I've ever known or been on took place weeks or even months before the wedding.
