Of course it is. And that's why Republicans are desperate to stop people from getting it.
Are they actually??? Jesus Christ, is there no end to their fuckery?
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-- C.S. Lewis
lol do you actually believe they're doing this for the good of their victims? 🙄
Do you think fully half of the general population of the United States are downright evil? A bunch of Snidely Whiplashes laughing maniacally as they do things purely to cause suffering?
Of course they think they're doing this for the good of their victims. That's why this is all so pernicious.
Do you think fully half of the general population of the United States are downright evil?
Only half? 🤔
Of course they think they’re doing this for the good of their victims. That’s why this is all so pernicious.
Do you think they kill minorities because they want to help them? Do you think they're bigots because they want to help?
Please reconsider. You have fooled yourself into thinking you aren't surrounded by people with monstrous ideology. The truth is, these people want to kill their enemies. That's it. They want people to die from STDs because they believe they deserve it for sinning. That's it.
It's one of those "greater good", "breaking eggs to make an omelette" things.
I think it's you who's fooling yourself. You're dehumanizing your opponents and therefore losing the ability to understand them. Saying "oh, they're just evil" is giving up. And if you believe in democracy it means that you end up in a situation where you end up letting that "evil" win.
You completely misunderstand, I don't think of them as inhuman monsters. History shows us that this is very human! What I want is for them to be rehabilitated and reeducated; deprogram them from their monstrous ideas and beliefs. They're backwards and need help.
I guess my glib comment about Americans being "evil" was in poor taste. I'm certainly not a moralist!
That doesn't change the fact that these people really do want everyone with STDs to become an untouchable caste, and believe that this is basically God's way of punishing sinners and saving the righteous, and also believe that anyone who cavorts with sinners should be damned. If they had their way, people with STDs would have it tattooed on their forheads and genitals. PrEP would be banned because touching the untouchables is banned, getting an STD would be what you deserve for violating God's divine mandate and sinning.
And that definitely doesn't mean you should bend over backwards to accommodate them.
Regressives believe that their preferences are divine law. Therefore, anything that allows you to do something they don't like without shitty, unnecessary consequences is "encouraging immorality."
One step further, and they enjoy coming up with more shitty, unnecessary consequences to aid the "divine plan" of making people miserable if they don't conform.
You can see this across the board - they're make shit illegal, then conflate the natural problems of the behavior with the added problems of the legal system, and pretend they're all unavoidable.
They hate that gay and trans people have any acceptance, because it makes those same people less likely to be depressed and suicidal, which makes it harder for them to lie and say those people are depressed/suicidal because they aren't cis/straight, rather than because they're treated like crap.
I have only heard of PrEP being taking by males. I didn't know it was approved for use by females in the USA. Or as I have heard in their ad those assigned female at birth.
It's pretty uncommon, but there are some use cases, namely women in relationships with HIV+ men.
Women of color actually have really high rates of HIV compared to the rest of the population. Working to de-stigmatize both the infection and prevention treatments is a really important part of reducing overall numbers of HIV.
Yeah there’s actually a real problem with hiv running rampant in some communities of straight people because of the assumption of it as a gay virus
Any woman having unprotected sex with men should be on prep.
That's not entirely true. Receptive vaginal sex is much less likely to transmit the virus than anal sex (about 17x less). Insertive anal sex is more likely to transmit than vaginal sex, too, so the type of sex you have matters too.
Number of partners, and their sexual habits really matter, too. It's important to help people really understand their STI risk if we want people to make healthier decisions regarding sex.
because you’re anti-gay, or you’re under the impression that HIV is a gay thing.
By the numbers, more heterosexual people have HIV than homosexual people. Not by the percentage of the community, which is a right-wing nonsensical way to blame gay people.
It has nothing to do with the “STI risk,” as if it’s some kind of range. If a PERSON of ANY GENDER is having unprotected sex with people who have even a 1% chance of having sex with other people, then PREP is probably a good idea.
Let me count the number of married people who got HIV from their spouses! 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I'm not anti gay, I was an STI nurse for a few years. Anal sex for ANYONE carries a higher risk per interaction, regardless of whether you are the receptive or insetive partner.
My point was not to label all people having unprotected sex as needing PrEP, or only gay people as needing PrEP. My point was to look at the types of sex you have, with the number and types of partners you have, and take a realistic look at what kinds of risks for STI transmission any of those have.
For instance, if you have lots of unprotected oral sex with strangers, you aren't going to get HIV. You might get another STI, but HIV is virtually un-transmissable via oral sex. But someone reading the comment might get scared and think they need to take PrEP.
Being a “nurse” doesn’t meant you know anything. I’m married to a nurse and I’m shocked how dumb some of their friends are. You’re giving misleading medical advise, which is a violation. Stop.
I literally posted a link to an article from Stanford that shows what I'm talking about.
Risks for anal vs vaginal isn’t how a person decides on PREP. shame.
No, like my initial comment said, number and types of partners are important, as are your partners' partners.
If you actually read my comment, you can see I'm trying to get people to look past the stigma and actually determine what kinds of risks they have and make safer sex decisions accordingly.
PrEP can have some uncomfortable side effects, and not everyone is able to tolerate it. There are very, very few things in healthcare that we can say "everyone" in a certain cohort should do, and PrEP is no exception.
Your response, which characterizes my post as misinformation, is inaccurate, as I have shown, but I do appreciate the chance to talk about sex and try to normalize it as part of the healthcare discussion 😊
What I hope people get out of our conversation is to talk to a Doctor 😘
As long as they aren't getting medical advice from you, I'm good with it.
The feeling is more than mutual. Goodnight
It is estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08%.
Stop rage baiting over basic science. It’s actually harmful to lgbt people to cry anti gay when someone is just stating what doctors are saying about different risks for different types sex.
What is the point i’m trying to make? I want to know if I need to clarify because of poor comprehension.
And, if anyone is rage baiting it’s you—this thread was yesterday and I think it’s pretty played out by now.
There’s nothing “any gay” about pointing out the realities of vastly different risks of different types of sex.
You said, “even if only 1%,”
.08% is less than 1/0th of 1% so you just proved the point.
Let’s go with the doctors in this. They don’t recommend prep for women having receptive vaginal sex.
No one is being anti gay here. You saying they, when they are not, are is rage baiting and dilutes the sentiments of calling out anti gay statements elsewhere.
Thread is less than 24 hours old. On lemmy that is not old. And your idiotic comments are still being read unfortunately.
Based on current efficacy data, 2-1-1 is only recommended for anal sex.
Get your awkward agenda out of basic medical advice. You should delete you original comment. Disinformation, and embarrassment.
Let’s all go on the internet and find links that back our data.
18% of new HIV infections are women
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics/
PrEP Can Prevent HIV Infections, But Most Women Don't Know They Can Take It
“PrEP Is for Women” pamphlet from the CDC 
Let’s just stop here. I’m not changing my mind on prep for women, and anyone else reading this now has a lot of data to use to make up their own mind.
Success!!!
Goodbye.
Descovy, a newer form of PrEP, only had male assigned at birth participants in the study (and the number of non-cis males was very, very low if I'm remembering correctly).
The original formulation has been approved for everyone for a while, but since the new formulation was only tested with a certain population, that's all it's approved for.
That must be what I have seen before. It was before RuPaul so I think there was a specific audience
So can we stop mutilating babies now?
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
