Posted on 06/17/2004 2:32:10 PM PDT by haole
Unfortunantly, no one else will notice, check, or care.
The major reason IS due to the immune suppressive properties in sperm.
1) That percentage is ridiculously too high.
2) The monogamous couples, the husband is not being faithful. The virus does magically "float in" their bedroom window and jump on them.
3) You make a big deal about the impermeability issue (which I admit I'm skeptical about) but IGNORE the MAJOR truth that sperm does carry immune-supressive factors that are very damaging when deposited in the "wrong" place.
It was straining the envelope of credibility until the author said that the vagina is impermiable to viruses. That's when the walls of credibility completely collapsed.
I hate to sound ignorant about my own body, but I see the cervix and the vagina as two separate body parts. I would think that their cellular make-up is somewhat different as when getting a pap smear, I think only the cells of the cervix are taken. If the vagina and cervix were "the same", then shouldn't we be getting vaginal cells smeared too? It seems apparent that the cervix, for some reason, is much more likely to generate cancerous cells than the vaginal wall.
Other than HPV and HIV, I cannot think of another viral infection which affects that area. In both cases, the point of weakness could be the cervix rather than the vaginal wall.
There is no such thing as a "two-in-one-flesh" chemical. The immunosuppressant does just that: it suppresses the immune system. This protects the sperm, but it does nothing to prevent other intruders from attacking. It in no way allows the woman's body to "recognize the sperm," it just knocks out the woman's defensive mechanisms, allowing the sperm, and anything else in the vicinity to have an easier time getting in.
If God really designed us, we should have some sort of "two-in-one-flesh" mechanism. We don't. We have an ad hoc solution, the kind of thing you would expect if sex organs developed in an evolutionary manner, rather than by top-down design.
This article is an attempt to put false motives on a simple biological phenomenon, so that it better "fits" with the fairy tale this professor is trying to sell people.
If we really were designed by a God, why did he put a big-ass bundle of nerves right around our assholes? If he doesn't want people to sodomize each other, why make it so enjoyable? (So I've been told, at least--I've never done it, but I'm sure some other FReepers can vouch for it.) Or does God want some people to sodomize each other, just so He has an excuse to smite them with horrible diseases? Is God a horrible twisted, serial killer who preys on the mentally weak? I don't know, and I don't care. There is no loving God who designed humans straight-out and interferes in our daily affairs, that much is obvious (there might be some other kind of God, but I doubt that as well...)
2) The monogamous couples, the husband is not being faithful. The virus does magically "float in" their bedroom window and jump on them.
For some of them, I suppose the virus could have been there before they got married... not all women are virgins on their wedding night...
That may be technically true, but in the context of this article it makes no difference -- it's pretty tough to get semen in contact with the vagina without getting it in contact with the cervix as well, especially without using unnatural methods such as diaphragms.
I didn't mean to imply that 60% of married "faithful" women have that infection rate, just that they are included in the population whose rate of current or past infection (detectable antibodies remain even after an infection is no longer active) is 60% -- therefore the rate in higher risk portions of the population is even higher. This is an incredibly easy-to-transmit infection, and is usually asymptomatic so infected persons are almost never treated for it before moving on to a new partner, or even new spouse.
Even in a fully monogamous couple, a divorced, widowed, or otherwise previously sexually active man might have arrived in the marriage with the infection. And uncircumcised men are much more likely to maintain and transmit the infection.
Sperm does indeed have some interesting immune properties. Read up on the immunological effects of the disorder called retrograde ejaculation, if you're interested.
In the case of HIV either the cervical or the vaginal mucosa can be the site of infection.
The major reason IS due to the immune suppressive properties in sperm.
~
Really, and what's your source for that? How do you explain the fact that anal sex is more likely to result in transmission than vaginal sex, since the immunosuppressant properties of sperm are identical in both cases?
"Unbalanced by women, these tendencies lead to the anonymous, no-brakes promiscuity of men who have sex with hundreds, even thousands, of other men."
Hmmmmmm, really?
Good post.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - This one escaped my notice. Looks like some good scientific/medical evidence why **** ******* is not a good idea for anyone.
I'll read it more closely and get back to the thread if need be... People should read this and digest the info (no pun intended - ;-))to better argue with those who haven't seen the light on this issue.
There is a difference between "Entrance" and "Exit".
Let me and scripter know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.