Tennessee Senator says mind numbingly stupid things

[DSenette]

One of "our" ( i didn't vote for the asshole) senators has gone from INCREDIBLY stupid to OUTRIGHT dangerous.

First he sponsored the "Don't Say Gay Bill" which will/would prohibit schools from even mentioning homosexuality to kids earlier than 8th grade as part of their sexual education classes. cuz, yeah, that's going to help prevent bullying, by making the topic COMPLETELY taboo.

now, he's gone on a sirius radio show and said some mind numbingly stupid things. specifically, that AIDS was spread by an airline pilot that had sex with a monkey then came back to the US and screwed some dudes (which was totally a real theory, 50 years ago) and that it's virtually impossible to spread AIDS by heterosexual sex.

this guy started out as just an idiot. but now he's spouting legitimately dangerous shit.

not much that can be done except to vote the jackass out when it's time since the TN government doesn't recognize recall requests from the public apparently.


http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jan/2 ... lap-again/
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jan/3 ... ll-battle/
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jan/2 ... -radio-02/

[mike-l]

Campfield said Friday that his point on the radio show was valid in that, within the United States, heterosexual encounters almost never result in AIDS "unless you're having sex with someone from Africa or an IV drug user."

So, heterosexual encounters don't transmit the disease, unless a partner is likely to be infected??

Anyway, this may not be as damaging Cardinal Trujillo saying that condoms transmit HIV, it's no doubt incredibly dangerous and probably set back sexual health in Tennessee by quite a bit.

[Izawwlgood]

I read that a Tennessee mayor or stateswomen or something was recently kicked out of a diner for spouting racist stuff. What the shit is going on with that state?

[DSenette]

I read that a Tennessee mayor or stateswomen or something was recently kicked out of a diner for spouting racist stuff. What the shit is going on with that state?

no, it was the same guy, barred entry from a restaurant for his antigay stance and the stupidity he's spouted about AIDS

[Роберт]

I read that a Tennessee mayor or stateswomen or something was recently kicked out of a diner for spouting racist stuff. What the shit is going on with that state?

no, it was the same guy, barred entry from a restaurant for his antigay stance and the stupidity he's spouted about AIDS

While it's true that a surprisingly low percentage of AIDs transmissions are from heterosexual encounters*, and a surprisingly high percentage of AIDs transmissions are in African Americans*, his statements are irresponsible and dumb. Is AIDs the only bad thing that can happen from unprotected sex? No. Is the chance of getting AIDs negligible for heterosexuals? No.

Pepin said that, on average, heterosexual intercourse between an infected person and a noninfected person results in transmission of the disease about "one in a thousand times." But he noted that 100 instances of intercourse would raise the probability to 10 percent and that, in parts of Africa, about 30 percent of the population is infected, mostly through heterosexual intercourse.

So what is the point of these statements? Dog whistle is my guess.

*From http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveilla ... idence.htm

Gay and bisexual men remain the population most heavily affected by HIV in the United States. CDC estimates MSM represent approximately 2% of the US population, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009 –56% in 2006 (27,000), 58% in 2007 (32,300), 56% in 2008 (26,900) and 61% (29,300) in 2009.

Heterosexual accounted for only 27%.

African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are the racial/ethnic groups most affected by HIV. African Americans represent approximately 14% of the US population, but accounted for 44% (21,200) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Hispanic/Latinos represent approximately 16% of the total US population, but accounted for 20% (9,400) of all new HIV infections in 2009.

[DSenette]

I read that a Tennessee mayor or stateswomen or something was recently kicked out of a diner for spouting racist stuff. What the shit is going on with that state?

no, it was the same guy, barred entry from a restaurant for his antigay stance and the stupidity he's spouted about AIDS

While it's true that a surprisingly low percentage of AIDs transmissions are from heterosexual encounters*, and a surprisingly high percentage of AIDs transmissions are in African Americans*, his statements are irresponsible and dumb. Is AIDs the only bad thing that can happen from unprotected sex? No. Is the chance of getting AIDs negligible for heterosexuals? No.

Pepin said that, on average, heterosexual intercourse between an infected person and a noninfected person results in transmission of the disease about "one in a thousand times." But he noted that 100 instances of intercourse would raise the probability to 10 percent and that, in parts of Africa, about 30 percent of the population is infected, mostly through heterosexual intercourse.

So what is the point of these statements? Dog whistle is my guess.

*From http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveilla ... idence.htm

Gay and bisexual men remain the population most heavily affected by HIV in the United States. CDC estimates MSM represent approximately 2% of the US population, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009 –56% in 2006 (27,000), 58% in 2007 (32,300), 56% in 2008 (26,900) and 61% (29,300) in 2009.

Heterosexual accounted for only 27%.

African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are the racial/ethnic groups most affected by HIV. African Americans represent approximately 14% of the US population, but accounted for 44% (21,200) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Hispanic/Latinos represent approximately 16% of the total US population, but accounted for 20% (9,400) of all new HIV infections in 2009.

i think the points of those statements were to negate the claims of senator campfield that it was nigh impossible to contract AIDS via heterosexual sex. in that 10% is far from impossible, and the fact that 30 percent of the population of africa are infected and also heterosexual.

the reasons that heterosexual infection rates are so much lower isn't because heterosexual sex doesn't result in transmission of the disease, it's that AIDS is a disease where at least one person has to have it before it can be transmitted, and less heterosexuals already have AIDS. which happens to be a horribly unfortunate statistic for the gay community because it just fuels this same bullshit rhetoric over and over and over again

[Роберт]

So what is the point of these statements? Dog whistle is my guess.

i think the points of those statements were to negate the claims of senator campfield that it was nigh impossible to contract AIDS via heterosexual sex. in that 10% is far from impossible, and the fact that 30 percent of the population of africa are infected and also heterosexual.

the reasons that heterosexual infection rates are so much lower isn't because heterosexual sex doesn't result in transmission of the disease, it's that AIDS is a disease where at least one person has to have it before it can be transmitted, and less heterosexuals already have AIDS. which happens to be a horribly unfortunate statistic for the gay community because it just fuels this same bullshit rhetoric over and over and over again

It IS true that heterosexual sex with non-African Americans is dramatically lower risk for AIDs. But I meant what's the point of the state senator's statements. Why say that? People engaging in non-monogamous sex should still use protection and get tested, regardless of sexuality/race. I think it's just a dog whistle way of rallying support from homophobes and racists.

[jakovasaur]

the reasons that heterosexual infection rates are so much lower isn't because heterosexual sex doesn't result in transmission of the disease, it's that AIDS is a disease where at least one person has to have it before it can be transmitted, and less heterosexuals already have AIDS. which happens to be a horribly unfortunate statistic for the gay community because it just fuels this same bullshit rhetoric over and over and over again

Isn't it also true, though, that anal sex has a higher rate of transmission than vaginal sex?

[philsov]

the reasons that heterosexual infection rates are so much lower isn't because heterosexual sex doesn't result in transmission of the disease, it's that AIDS is a disease where at least one person has to have it before it can be transmitted, and less heterosexuals already have AIDS.

No, the disparity is more the risk of infection via different methods of sex. The odds of HIV transmission for anal sex are twenty times greater than vaginal intercourse, due to tissue tearing and other factors. I think the receiver has a 90% chance (can't find source atm) of contracting the disease if the giver is positive during anal sex, and in the opposite (where the receiver is positive) the odds are like 30%. Not to say heterosexual couples also don't have anal intercourse.

The hyperbolic and cynical response would be to legalize gay marriage and promote fidelity thereby reducing the rate of infection!

[DSenette]

So what is the point of these statements? Dog whistle is my guess.

i think the points of those statements were to negate the claims of senator campfield that it was nigh impossible to contract AIDS via heterosexual sex. in that 10% is far from impossible, and the fact that 30 percent of the population of africa are infected and also heterosexual.

the reasons that heterosexual infection rates are so much lower isn't because heterosexual sex doesn't result in transmission of the disease, it's that AIDS is a disease where at least one person has to have it before it can be transmitted, and less heterosexuals already have AIDS. which happens to be a horribly unfortunate statistic for the gay community because it just fuels this same bullshit rhetoric over and over and over again

It IS true that heterosexual sex with non-African Americans is dramatically lower risk for AIDs. But I meant what's the point of the state senator's statements. Why say that? People engaging in non-monogamous sex should still use protection and get tested, regardless of sexuality/race. I think it's just a dog whistle way of rallying support from homophobes and racists.

?

the thing you quoted was from the interviewer....mesa confused

[mike-l]

No, the disparity is more the risk of infection via different methods of sex. The odds of HIV transmission for anal sex are twenty times greater than vaginal intercourse, due to tissue tearing and other factors. I think the receiver has a 90% chance (can't find source atm) of contracting the disease if the giver is positive during anal sex, and in the opposite (where the receiver is positive) the odds are like 30%. Not to say heterosexual couples also don't have anal intercourse.

That seems ridiculously high. From http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epi ... 13-eng.php

Estimates of the probability of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal intercourse with ejaculation) HIV transmission among homosexual men in the USA range from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic phase of infection1 to as high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV infection.2 Analyses of data from North American and European studies of long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal intercourse to be approximately 0.001

So the receiver peaks at 30%.

So yes, it does look like anal sex carries a much higher risk of transmission, but heterosexuals still account for 1 in 5 new cases of HIV pretty much across North America (whether through anal or vaginal sex), so it's hardly a negligible risk. And then there's all the other STIs. Also I'd hazard the guess that the risk of pregnancy is significantly higher in heterosexual encounters.

[Роберт]

the thing you quoted was from the interviewer....mesa confused

The thing I quoted was to back up my assertion.

Is the chance of getting AIDs negligible for heterosexuals? No.

[DSenette]

the thing you quoted was from the interviewer....mesa confused

The thing I quoted was to back up my assertion.

Is the chance of getting AIDs negligible for heterosexuals? No.

{the thing you quoted}

{bit of a space}

"So what is the point of these statements? Dog whistle is my guess."

the proximity of the "what is the point of these statement?" bit to the quoted text is what threw me off

[Роберт]

the thing you quoted was from the interviewer....mesa confused

The thing I quoted was to back up my assertion.

Is the chance of getting AIDs negligible for heterosexuals? No.

{the thing you quoted}

{bit of a space}

"So what is the point of these statements? Dog whistle is my guess."

the proximity of the "what is the point of these statement?" bit to the quoted text is what threw me off

Sorry. That's why I clarified.

[Arancaytar]

Campfield said Friday that his point on the radio show was valid in that, within the United States, heterosexual encounters almost never result in AIDS "unless you're having sex with someone from Africa or an IV drug user."

So, heterosexual encounters don't transmit the disease, unless a partner is likely to be infected??

Too much credit given. What he said was closer to "...unless the partner uses drugs or is black."

[Aikanaro]

Also infuriating, I haven't heard mention of this in much mainstream media yet (feel free to correct me and restore a little faith in humanity a bit).

[Choboman]

'Negligible' risk isn't easy to quantify. For a single heterosexual encounter with a partner who is infected, PIV sex supposedly has a 1-in-1,000 chance of HIV transmission (odds can vary from this based on additional conditions - advanced stage of the disease, presence of open cuts/sores in/on the genitals, etc.)

Assuming that you're talking about a random encounter with a partner of unknown status, you'd have to also factor in the probability that the partner was infected in the first place. I had a hard time finding statistics on what the chances of a random adult in the US having HIV. I did find something on the CDC links indicating that there are around 700K documented cases, and possibly 1M total cases of HIV, out of the total US adult population of over 300M, so we could round the odds to roughly 1-in-300.

So if you hook up with a random hetero partner for a one-night stand with only vanilla PIV sex, absent any other info, you've got a 1-in-300,000 chance of hitting the HIV lottery. (Actual odds probably somewhat higher if you're with someone willing to have unprotected sex with unknown stranger.) Given the very serious consequences, there's little reason to take even that miniscule chance on your life, and it completely ignores the much greater threat of other, more easily transmitted STDs, etc. But it's easy to see how someone could look at those numbers and think that (for that limited criteria) the odds against PIV transmission seem remote.

[Vaniver]

now, he's gone on a sirius radio show and said some mind numbingly stupid things. specifically, that AIDS was spread by an airline pilot that had sex with a monkey then came back to the US and screwed some dudes (which was totally a real theory, 50 years ago) and that it's virtually impossible to spread AIDS by heterosexual sex.

Um... both of those are wrong on details, but correct in general.

The most plausible theory is that a hunter was bitten by a simian with the simian version, but the interspecies intercourse theory is also possible. (AIDS also was only identified 30 years ago, so...) AIDS spread from Africa to Haiti somehow, and then it definitely spread to the US primarily by gay sex tourism in Haiti.

The transmission rates for HIV through anal sex are about 18 times higher than the rates through vaginal sex. (Per-act transmission rates for vaginal sex are about .08%; that is, 8 times out of ten thousand.) [ninjad by philsov]

[Jave D]

I feel I must point out that "homosexual sex" doesn't translate to "anal sex," nor heterosexual sex to "vaginal sex." I tend to assume that people who tend to assume they do are simply very uncreative or inexperienced when it comes to sex in the first place.

[lucrezaborgia]

The most plausible theory is that a hunter was bitten by a simian with the simian version, but the interspecies intercourse theory is also possible. [ninjad by philsov]

I thought the most recent theory was centered around bushmeat?

http://chge.med.harvard.edu/programs/po ... brief.html

It is believed that a sub-species of chimpanzee in west-central Africa may be the original source of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and that transmission of the virus, a simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), to humans was the result of blood exposures from the handling of chimpanzees killed by hunters. New research has identified other SIVs in other African primate species, raising the possibility of additional exposures. The extensive killing of primate species, therefore, not only threatens many of them with extinction, but may also result in new human HIV-like infections in the future that may originate in wild primate populations.

edited to add: I kind of doubt the veracity of zoophilia being a culprit. Primates are ferocious things that wouldn't be very conductive to rogering unless they were completely knocked out.

[DSenette]

now, he's gone on a sirius radio show and said some mind numbingly stupid things. specifically, that AIDS was spread by an airline pilot that had sex with a monkey then came back to the US and screwed some dudes (which was totally a real theory, 50 years ago) and that it's virtually impossible to spread AIDS by heterosexual sex.

Um... both of those are wrong on details, but correct in general.

The most plausible theory is that a hunter was bitten by a simian with the simian version, but the interspecies intercourse theory is also possible. (AIDS also was only identified 30 years ago, so...) AIDS spread from Africa to Haiti somehow, and then it definitely spread to the US primarily by gay sex tourism in Haiti.

The transmission rates for HIV through anal sex are about 18 times higher than the rates through vaginal sex. (Per-act transmission rates for vaginal sex are about .08%; that is, 8 times out of ten thousand.) [ninjad by philsov]

every account that i've ever read strongly discredits the "guy had sex with a monkey" theory. i've not read too many actual credible accounts that support it.

also, less likely, and virtually impossible are completely different animals.

[Vaniver]

I feel I must point out that "homosexual sex" doesn't translate to "anal sex," nor heterosexual sex to "vaginal sex." I tend to assume that people who tend to assume they do are simply very uncreative or inexperienced when it comes to sex in the first place.

Of course they don't translate exactly, but it seems like it should be uncontroversial that homosexuals engage in anal sex more times per year per capita than heterosexuals do, and engage in vaginal sex less times per year per capita than heterosexuals do. (Oral sex is less risky than vaginal sex, and so by ignoring it we don't alter the numbers much.)

I thought the most recent theory was centered around bushmeat?

Right, but just handling infected bloody meat won't be a serious transmission risk unless you've been scratched / bitten / have some sort of open wound. The description I read involved biting, but we're talking about the same theory.

edited to add: I kind of doubt the veracity of zoophilia being a culprit. Primates are ferocious things that wouldn't be very conductive to rogering unless they were completely knocked out.

I'm under the impression that it's not uncommon for primate researchers to be propositioned by the primates they're studying, but haven't researched this issue.

[eran_rathan]

edited to add: I kind of doubt the veracity of zoophilia being a culprit. Primates are ferocious things that wouldn't be very conductive to rogering unless they were completely knocked out.

I'm under the impression that it's not uncommon for primate researchers to be propositioned by the primates they're studying, but haven't researched this issue.

[Jave D]

I feel I must point out that "homosexual sex" doesn't translate to "anal sex," nor heterosexual sex to "vaginal sex." I tend to assume that people who tend to assume they do are simply very uncreative or inexperienced when it comes to sex in the first place.

Of course they don't translate exactly, but it seems like it should be uncontroversial that homosexuals engage in anal sex more times per year per capita than heterosexuals do, and engage in vaginal sex less times per year per capita than heterosexuals do. (Oral sex is less risky than vaginal sex, and so by ignoring it we don't alter the numbers much.)

What are the numbers on that, though, or are we just guessing?

[Webzter]

What are the numbers on that, though, or are we just guessing?

Second Google link: http://nymag.com/nightlife/mating/25988/

but according to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Survey of Family Growth, it’s rapidly becoming a regular feature of hetero couples’ horizontal activities.

The survey, released last year, showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex. Compare that with the CDC’s 1992 National Health and Social Life survey, which found that only 25.6 percent of men 18 to 59 and 20.4 percent of women 18 to 59 indulged in it.

Does not say how much of that is male on female versus female on male (which, presumably, would carry no risk)

I haven't looked to see if the CDC has a study for homosexual couples.

[Vaniver]

What are the numbers on that, though, or are we just guessing?

If you're talking about the oral sex part, it's hard to distinguish from 0.

I have not seen solid numbers on number of annual sex acts per capita, and so am guessing there.

[Angua]

Bushmeat is the most common theory these days - it's not that hard to catch stuff from cutting up animals (which is where bird flu is coming from).

Also, HIV entered the human population almost 100 years ago now. It just spent most of its time in Africa before coming to the West.