Very unlikely that Ron was infected having sex with HIV positive woman.. - Dallas Buyers Club (2013) Discussion

[–] JJandS 10 years ago

You are delusional. Does it even matter whether he did or did not? This was almost 10 years after the virus was known medically.

www.youtube.com/jrandjanet

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DrDanielChallis 10 years ago

you can point to one of those scenes with his lady friends, but overall his flashback and scenes with multiple women were to emphasize that his lifestyle, no matter who it came from, was the reason

Horror flick watch list: The Sacrament, Late Phases, The Babadook, VHS 3

reply

[–] rockethulsey 10 years ago

and drug use

reply

[–] silentmovie 10 years ago

THanks for the clarification. You know what you are talking about, obviously.

By the way, condoms are not a guarantee of not transmitting the disease. It's dangerous to tell people, particularly young people, that condoms will prevent getting AIDS. Possibly lower the chance. But not prevent.

I do remember the case of Magic Johnson. He wanted to continue to play basketball. The Politically Correct line at the time was that there is absolutely no danger to other players being in contact with him. Some players were afraid, and they were called "ignorant" and "homophobic", when in fact, how can anyone say for certain that in a game like basketball, body fluids like blood and sweat cannot be exhanged?

I remember the commercials literally encouraging young people to "hug an AIDS patient." While this is a nice sentement, again, why the push to encourage phyical contact with persons infected with HIV. The best way to prevent an outbreak of any disease -- for ALL people gay or straight -- is quarantine. Close down the gay bathhouses. Etc. But of course that's not Politically Correct.

We were told in the 1980s and 1990s that there would be an epidemic outbreak of AIDS among the general population. That widespread pandemic never happened. By in large, the disease is a disease passed by anal sex -- meaning gay men and women who engage in anal sex with AIDS infected men, such as is the case in huge portions of Africa.

I just find it interesting that they tried to change the storyline of this movie to make it seem that "formerly homophobic" Ron was straight and got his disease from a woman, and through his experience, he learns to love and respect gays as he heroically fights for their right to take the medicines of their choice -- which I support by the way. The facts seem to indicate that Ron was probably a gay man, or at least bi. Just saying.

reply

[–] prandini-alberto 10 years ago

HIV is not transmitted through sweat. This is a fact.

Your idea of quarantine rings a bell...someone tried something like that once...in Germany...I don't think it should be implemented again.

People with HIV and AIDS can be hugged. The risk of being infected by HIV as a result of hugging someone is as big as the risk of becoming ignorant after reading an ignorant post on IMBd...so no risk at all.

reply

[–] anisvil 10 years ago

Applause :)
You're so right.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 10 years ago

as the risk of becoming ignorant after reading an ignorant post on IMBd...so no risk at all.

I dont know, i read quite a few posts here on IMDB that made my brain cells die in agony.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] Frequency270 10 years ago

I'm not saying I'm agreeing with silentmovie, but I'm pretty sure you just compared "having a disease" with "being Jewish".

You might want to fine tune your analogies.

Damion Crowley
All complaints about my post go to Helen Waite.

reply

[–] kmd11 10 years ago

Right. But in basketball there is a lot of physical contact. A person could easily get a bloody nose or mouth and transfer that blood to someone else. So hysteria it is not, especially if it's possible.

reply

[–] MTulliver 9 years ago

Oy. That person would also have to have an open sore on them in order for there to be any transference.

Christ. Is it seriously 2015 and people STILL don't know how HIV is transmitted?!

reply

[–] debih200 10 years ago

I did not mean to say your post was incorrect silent movie, in fact it was informing and well-meaning, and I do agree with you its a lot harder for a woman to infect a man than a man a woman, that is true. I think the majority of women with the AIDS virus are drug users, strippers and prostitutes, escorts etc...as depicted in the movie is true in real life. All through I have head such sad stories about women being infected during blood transfusions and sex with a man whom they did not know was gay or infected. Ron seemed very homophobic, the first scene it DID look like there was a man with him and that blonde in the bull stall but other members said it was a woman, but it sure looked like a man, who knows?

Good point about the condoms, I have a friend who did become pregnant on them, I hear if you use a condom and contraceptive foam it protects 98%-99% from AIDS and pregnancy, that worked for me before I had my children, the two combined are supposed to be excellent, its good too know something is in this day and age.

Well I did like the movie and am glad the regulated AZT so people were not dying from toxic doses, I think Magic Johnson has been on it twelve years or so and is living fairly well, but I know he has a lot of money, very rich and that helps!!

You may be right perhaps Ron had a bi experience I seem to think he shared a needle with someone, who knows? Glad you liked the movie, thanks.

reply

[–] public-online 10 years ago

NO! The majority of women become HIV positive when infected by their partner or husband, who became himself HIV positive having unprotected sex "elsewhere".

Please do not label HIV positive women as "prostitutes" or "IV drug users": this is both inaccurate and highly insulting to them!

reply

[–] WatchAnythingOnce 10 years ago

Agreed. I've personally known two women who died of AIDs and neither fit into the "drug users, strippers and prostitutes, escorts etc" generalization. They were both married women whose husbands were exposed to HIV through extra-marital sex and brought it home to them.

As for it being unlikely that Ron was infected via sex with a woman, I agree. It's possible, but not the most likely scenario.

reply

[–] Krustallos 9 years ago

Furthermore, prostitutes are much more likely to take sensible precautions against contracting HIV than 'ordinary' women who pull on a night out, say. So the poster above managed to slur both HIV+ women and prostitutes. Nice one.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] mauibeachgirl 9 years ago

Don't lump strippers and prostitutes together. I was a stripper for nearly 10 years and never had sexual contact with a customer. High class clubs such as the one I worked at do not allow any form of touching. If men want to pay me to look, I will laugh all the way to the bank, but there is no way, shape or form that I could be considered a prostitute. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's another subject.

reply

[–] Krustallos 10 years ago

silentmovie your arguments are quite strange and to be frank hint at a rather unpleasant agenda. First you say that AIDS is primarily transmitted by anal sex and heterosexual men are considerably less at risk. (OK, superfically correct if you ignore Africa). But then you start panicking about Magic Johnson and how other basketball players were at risk from his sweat, and people being at risk from hugging. You can't have it both ways.

By in large, the disease is a disease passed by anal sex -- meaning gay men and women who engage in anal sex with AIDS infected men, such as is the case in huge portions of Africa.

Where on earth is your evidence that Africans are indulging en masse in anal sex? This is an entirely new one on me, and it seems extremely unlikely. My guess is that heterosexual anal intercourse is far more prevalent in the USA, although there may well be other differences in sexual behaviour in Africa that account for the different pattern of infection. (FGM probabaly doesn't help, for example).

I just find it interesting that they tried to change the storyline of this movie to make it seem that "formerly homophobic" Ron was straight and got his disease from a woman,

In fact I think it was very subtly hinted that his homophobia was a bit of a front and he was infected by a man. I'd have to watch the library scene again to be sure, but I think there was a definite suggestion that the movie Ron was a Man who has Sex with Men. Plenty of heterosexual and indeed homophobic men do.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] truetexian 10 years ago

What you've stated in your post peaks my curiosity. Can you please tell me what about the movie (where, when, how) "subtly hinted that his homophobia was a bit of a front and he was infected by a man".
I missed that altogether and genuinely want to know how you gleaned that from what you saw or heard. Thanks in advance for your reply.

reply

[–] Krustallos 10 years ago

When he was in the library, reading up on the virus and wondering about how he caught it, there was a very brief and unclear flashback to him having sex with someone in a car outside a rodeo. When he realised what had happened, he swore really loudly (fairly noticeable in your average library).

It wasn't entirely clear to me who he was screwing or what gender the person was, but from what I could see it looked as though it could have been a man. Others have suggested it was a woman with track marks on her arms. I'd have to watch the scene again but unless my eyesight is worse that I thought, I think it was deliberately kept unclear by the director.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] truetexian 10 years ago

I'm certainly not suggesting that majority rules, but although many agree with you about that particular scene's ambiguity, most people concur that it was a female and not another male. If what you believe is true, that it was "deliberately kept unclear by the director", it just further highlights what an irresponsible bit of film-making this endeavor was.

reply

[–] Krustallos 10 years ago

Irresponsible? Huh?

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] truetexian 10 years ago

Yes, irresponsible...that is if you believe a filmmaker has an obligation to stay as true to his source subject and material as possible whenever he's making a film "based on a true story".

reply

[–] Krustallos 10 years ago

That pretty much rules out every Hollywood 'adaptation of a true story' ever made.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] truetexian 10 years ago

Well then there you go.
What value is in a story "based on a true story" when you have to rewrite your main character into someone and something he was not in order to tell it? The real life Ron Woodroof was not a heterosexual (at least not in any traditional sense of the word), he was not a bull-rider, he was not a homophobe, nor was the real DBC ever at war with the FDA.

Neither history, the gay community, nor (perhaps most importantly) the man himself--the real Ron Woodroof are treated with any respect in this irresponsible movie...so don't buy into all the hype they've created in order to market it.

The arc in both story and character of the real-life, colorful Ron Woodroof, in the hands of more thoughtful filmmakers, would be far more compelling and provocative.
This movie, the DBC, I suspect finally made it to the screen largely due to one actor's vanity and quest to salvage his career. Given that this project was mostly ego-driven, there was little concern and space left in the room for truth.

reply

[–] elduderino09 10 years ago

Brief and unclear is an understatement. I saw that flashback as a threesome, another man and woman present. But I wouldn't wager on it, as it was anything but definitive.

reply

[–] AnonymousBoy 10 years ago

That flashback is definitely showing him having sex with a woman.

He drags his pen across the screen of the computer. It reads of the major ways in which people get HIV. His pen stops as he reads "unprotected sex" on the screen. He stops, looks like he's thinking. Then we get the flashback. It shows him having sex in a dark room with a person with long blonde hair, tattoos, track marks, and wears makeup (you see their face briefly). Then we go back to him in the library. He looks down, wipes his forehead, then slams his hands down on the table and shouts the F word.

Now if you want to believe that person with the long blonde hair and makeup was a man, that's up to you to interpret. I think the more logical conclusion though is that he was having unprotected sex with strange druggie women.

reply

[–] aussiemiguel 10 years ago

>>He drags his pen across the screen of the computer.
It wasn't a computer. It was a microfilm machine.

reply

[–] AnonymousBoy 10 years ago

That's way before my time dude. Looked like a computer screen to me lol.

reply

[–] MTulliver 9 years ago

It was a female. Why in the world would it have a sudden flash of "inspiration" as to the genesis of his disease if it was a man? Remember, people back then thought you could ONLY get HIV from another man or through dirty needles. Ron himself "knew" that it was a "gay disease". It never occurred to him that you could get it through straight, unprotected sex. Thus the screen shot of the words "unprotected sex" and his swearing.

reply

[–] Krustallos 9 years ago

Why in the world would it have a sudden flash of "inspiration" as to the genesis of his disease if it was a man?

Repressed memory syndrome. Or, he was very very drunk. But you're probably right - I only saw the film once, in a cinema & don't have the benefit of a DVD to freeze-frame.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] vivace01 10 years ago

I do not wish to get into an argument with you. I just had to comment on your complete surprise about the HIV strain coming from Africa. That person is 100% correct. First cases were reported in Nigeria. The strain came from non human primates which spread to men. You can research how if you like. There seems to be "disagreement" on how the fluids were passed. But from then on it was almost completely men engaging in homosexual sex that suffered from it. Without knowing much about how to identify it, it was then found in donated blood, etc.. Because of the nature of its origin it was looked upon with disgust by many. Religious groups even believing it was a punishment from God from lewd or unnatural acts. But, be sure it did come from Africa and the dominant group were homosexual
"En masse"

Thanks

reply

[–] Krustallos 10 years ago

I'm not sure if you're replying to me, but I'm well aware that HIV originated in Africa. What I'm less clear about is that anal sex is routine in Africa and this is how the virus was primarily transmitted. There's no question that most HIV+ people in Africa are heterosexual, and I've not seen any evidence that most heterosexual Africans practice anal sex. I know several people who work in HIV/AIDS education in the third world, and I think they are probably up to speed on the research. In my experience and understanding Africans tend to be rather more sexually conservative than Americans.

So the most logical assumption is that in Africa, HIV has primarily been spread by heterosexual vaginal intercourse. The reason there hasn't been a heterosexual epidemic in the USA remains open to question, although since 'scene' gay men typically have way more promiscuous sex and anal intercourse is a high risk activity, it's pretty obvious why they were the main victims there.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] DaliParton 9 years ago

> I've not seen any evidence that most heterosexual Africans practice anal sex

Correct, much of the spread among heterosexuals in Africa can be attributed to the fetish for dry sex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_sex

reply

[–] Krustallos 9 years ago

True, that probably does account to a significant extent for the disparity in heterosexual transmission between Africa and much of the rest of the world. I'd still think twice about having even well-lubricated unprotected sex with an HIV+ woman though, as I'm sure silentmovie would also, whatever he says here.

Great username by the way.

xx

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] xreesex 10 years ago

During the flashback they made a very deliberate attempt to show the various injection sites Ron had, pointing to his drug use and NOT sex with a woman as his means of contraction.

**
And "futile", Marshal Cogburn, "pursuit would be futile"? It's not spelled "f-u-d-e-l."

reply

[–] MTulliver 9 years ago

Nope. Remember when he was in the library and was reading up on the causes? The camera stops at "unprotected sex" and Ron yells "*beep*!" and slams his hand down on the table.

reply

[–] LorcaGonzalez 9 years ago

Sorry to say so but you are wrong.
Not all bodily fluids are contagious. Saliva, urin or sweat are no problem.
You also forget about vaginal fluid, which is contagious. Also a man can get HIV from a woman by giving her oral sex.
You should do a proper research before posting such assumptions, because it were badly researched statements like this that caused the hysteria.
And I'd say 39 million that died of AIDS is pretty much a pandemic.

===========
http://Lorcagonzalez.blogspot.com
http://lorca-movies-reviews.blogspot.com

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] duongdogg 7 years ago

Wow so delusional.

reply

[–] northernlad 10 years ago

Just a correction...you don't catch AIDS, you catch HIV. And I'm confused as to why one of the young men you mentioned died. When was this? What year? Most people these days are diagnosed with HIV and they take medications to become "undetectable". They very rarely end up with AIDS these days as it is a condition that is brought on by lack of treatment. HIV is now a chronic disease.

Oh and HIV is NOT in vaginal secretions. It's found in semen, blood and breast milk. I am a registered nurse. I've studied this disease in depth.

Life ain't easy when you're a Froot Loop in a world full of Cheerios.

reply

[–] debih200 10 years ago

The young man who died, died in the early 1990" I believe 1993, he was an employee of my husbands not a patient of mine I wanted to clarify. He was a "wild-child" my husband said he did lots of drugs and drinking and slept with many females, and did not take good care of himself, I remember the day he died my husband and several of his co-workers wept, men I have never seen show that emotion, I think it was because of his very young age and some men had kids that age, and I was pregnant with my first child. I know he died from massive infection, he waited awhile before seeking treatment, sometimes the young think they are immune.

I did research also and the virus is in blood, semen and breast milk, but also it IS concentrated in vaginal secretions, for example many women spot while ovulating or implantation bleeding, I do not have to explain you are an RN you know much about this I am sure and bleeding during menses, also women bleed after sex, when i said secretions that is generally what I meant, but if its it the breast milk, which is secreted highly likely in vaginal too would you know think?

Just protect yourself people! I put in another post I read if you use a good strong condom and contraceptive foam, which you insert in the vagina with applicator, not dangerous or painful, its almost 99% effective against the virus and HIV, and I guess men should probably stay away from hookers strippers and drug users, these women are generally very very dirty and most likely to be infected with HIV along with many other of the STD's, those kind of women do not take care of their health at all, even oral sex with those kind would be a big big risk.

Any how just be safe!!

reply

[–] FecalPeanut 10 years ago

I thought it is a virus, not a disease?

No signature

reply

[–] Death163 10 years ago

If you were an actually adult nurse than your realize it's not unlikely for a women's vagina to have small tares during sex those tares produce small amounts of blood that would be all it takes.
"The People Of America Have Spoken THE REAL TITLE TOWN U.S.A IS VALDOSTA GEORGIA"

reply

[–] vivace01 10 years ago

I would normally leave out commenting if people are wrong about something small. But I feel I have to respond. If you really are an RN then you need to continue your studies.
You are being extremely irresponsible to tell people (and perhaps listen to you and have them do something foolish and become seriously ill)

You absolutely CAN get HIV through vaginal secretions. Yes, a man can become infected by an HIV positive women from her vaginal fluid.

Please remove your post, claiming to be a very researched medical specialist. Look on the aids.gov website. It lists the various ways the disease is transmitted. And right on that list is "vaginal fluid". It can be passed through breast milk as well. Please do not be irresponsible. Take your post down now.

Thank you

reply

[–] cthulhulurks 10 years ago

Not unlikely if the woman was menstruating.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

[–] Doc80 10 years ago

That or Ron could have had a small cut or something and it could have transferred that way. Point is that he got HIV through sex because he didn't use intravenous drugs apparently.

reply

[–] AnonymousBoy 10 years ago

Actually, when he's in the library he reads a computer screen that has a listing of people most at risk of HIV. He skips past the part about homosexual and bisexual men. His pen drags across the screen as he reads it. His pen stops when he reaches "intravenous drug users (17%)". He stops, and we see his face as his eyes wonder. We don't get a flashback until it comes to the part about unprotected sex, but he certainly did think about the intravenous drug part. So that's a maybe.

reply

[–] JoshTheJackal 10 years ago

First of all, it's HIV, not AIDS, that gets transmitted. AIDS is just the symptoms caused by the HIV virus. AIDS can't be transmitted, HIV can.
People that are HIV positive don't necessarily have AIDS.

Second, it can be transmitted from an infected woman to a man. I wouldn't go into the medical explanations of it, but it can be done.
True story.

"I still can't think of anything" - Tyler Durden

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mrsgrimes 10 years ago

Did any of you watch the movie? There is a flashback of Ron healthy and having sex where they clearly show his arm with track marks. It's when he's at the library. Rewatch if you can...but that scene clearly shows how hie became infected.

reply

[–] zilenzer 10 years ago

Did you watch the movie?
That scene clearly showed him having sex with a woman that had "track marks" on HER arm.
A bit unrelated but... he was doing her from behind, and it was no way of telling if it was anal or not....anal would increase the chance of getting infected.

reply

[–] silentmovie 10 years ago

Correct, SHE had the needle tracks.

And "doing her from behind" would increase HER chances of getting HIV if HE were infected.

However, it would seem to be a very unlikely way for HIM to get infected from HER, assuming SHE was HIV positive and HE was not at the time.

So, that scene didn't really add up.

reply

[–] druhanp 10 years ago

I just saw the movie and I'm pretty sure there was a scene where he did have sex with a man, but with his lifestyle he could have gotten it from may sources.

reply

[–] klorentz 10 years ago

I just saw this last night, and both my husband and I could swear that the third person in the very first scene at the rodeo was a MAN behind Ron...not a woman.

reply

[–] MCStradale 10 years ago

Nope both women. Its just hard to see the brunettes long hair in the one shot where she is behind him because of the lighting. But in the next shot you can see he is now having sex with the brunette that was behind him.

reply

[–] FecalPeanut 10 years ago

Could have been a tranny.

No signature

reply

[–] MCStradale 10 years ago

It most certainly could have been. But taken into account he was have sex with her from the front I doubt it. The directer probably would have made it a bit more deliberate if he wanted to signify it was a male, most likely with rear facing sex.

reply

[–] Krustallos 10 years ago

both my husband and I could swear that the third person in the very first scene at the rodeo was a MAN

It did look a bit like that, but I think it was because the editing was (deliberately?) confusing. You see the three from a variety of angles and I think the man you see is Ron in all cases.

However, in the library scene where Ron was remembering how he contracted HIV, I thought the person he was recalling having sex with was a man. It seemed like a very masculine encounter. The film is very much told from Ron's point of view, and what I took away from it was that he occasionally had sex with men, but was in deep denial about it, hence the very fleeting nature of the recollection.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] StarryEyes1 10 years ago

Maybe she bled when they had anal, from a hemorrhoid or something.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] public-online 10 years ago

Your comments ignore the concepts of viral load, of viral strains, of intercourse with mentruating women, and many other well known facts!

If you look at basic epidemiology data from Africa, you'll realize that many men catch HIV with female prostitutes, then infect their wives, which in turn infect their babies etc.

It's been known for years that HIV positive individuals must protect themselves from getting "further" infected by other strains of the retrovirus, that straight men CAN get HIV from intercourse with a women (vaginally or anally) and many other obvious things you seem to ignore!

reply

[–] workbumpf 10 years ago

"We were warned in the 1990s of an impeding AIDS epidemic among the general population via straight, unprotected male+female vaginal sex. That was a lie in order to create panic and increase funding for AIDS research. The epidemic never happened, because that is not how AIDS is passed."

Well, for the past 25 years there has been a terrifying and ongoing epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa which affects heterosexuals. Check with WHO, UN AIDS, The Global Fund Against AIDS, PETFAR, the Clinton Global Initiative, etc., etc., etc.

reply

[–] julien5 10 years ago

Exactly!
It seems that there still exists a tendency to explain HIV transmission by pointing to homosexual intercourse. However, the prevalence of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, which in some countries is over 25%, cleary shows that heterosexuals are equally at risk.

reply

[–] cynthiam27 10 years ago

in the US, HIV is spread predominantly via homosexual intercourse. I am sorry if that fact disturbs you, but it is, unfortunately, a fact. that's not homophobic. it is a fact.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 10 years ago

Well, for the past 25 years there has been a terrifying and ongoing epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa which affects heterosexuals. Check with WHO, UN AIDS, The Global Fund Against AIDS, PETFAR, the Clinton Global Initiative, etc., etc., etc.

This fact interests me. It is true that HIV is passed through heterosexual sex in Africa. ...But it has remained a very very rare thing in N. America. It's almost as if there are two different strains of the disease.

The 80s was rife with rock stars and athletes who took zero precautions while having sex....yet none of the rock stars ever had a problem. That would be the one group of people who should have a huge outbreak if heterosexual intercourse were a hazard. The two straight athletes who contracted HIV have suspicious stories as well. Magic somehow is "cured" and Morrison later passed HIV blood tests and often disputed his positive test. At any rate, Morrison was reported to be a drug user so that would be a more likely reason for his condition if he did have HIV.

It never hurts to be safe of course, but the numbers don't lie. The danger from straight sex appears to have been grossly exaggerated and that's not a cool thing to do.

~Sig~
Proud member of the Facebook Let Me In group, DoYouLikeMe.proboards, abbyandowen.webs.com

reply

[–] Krustallos 9 years ago

The danger from straight sex appears to have been grossly exaggerated and that's not a cool thing to do.

What you appear to have forgotten is that back then, we simply did not know what the pattern of transmission might be or become. Telling heterosexuals they didn't have anything to worry about when even scientists didn't have the necessary knowledge to make that assertion would have been grossly, criminally irresponsible. Particularly when most transmission in Africa was heterosexual.

"Better safe than sorry" is the key phrase here I think.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] jerryrip54 10 years ago

Yes that's true, but from what I heard and read, it's because Africans were having sex with animals, and that's how the whole HIV epidemic got started. EVERYTHING starts in Africa because it's a ****hole for disease, hunger, and every other pandemic known to man.

reply

[–] cynthiam27 10 years ago

that's not actually based on evidence, but prejudice. Real scientists believe the disease came from monkeys, yes, but crossed over to humans when they ate "bushmeat".

reply

[–] RhEa2005 10 years ago

Things learned in this thread,

Silentmovie is an idiot. Also, silentmovie is an idiot.

Exactly.

Right off the bat, 2 straight men with HIV/AIDS immediately came to my mind. Do the names Magic Johnson and Eazy-E ring a bell, silentmovie?

Here's a quote from Eazy's last statement to his fans:

Before Tomika [his wife] I had other women. I have seven children by six different mothers.

A week later, he was dead.

So saying that it is unlikely that Ron caught AIDS from a woman because it's less likely to be transmitted from vaginal secretions is not only ignorant, it's also dangerous. It's that same misinformation that could very likely have made (I won't say it did for sure,because I don't personally know them) Magic, Eazy-E, and any other heterosexual male at-risk for HIV/AIDS think, "It won't happen to me." Well, it did. Unfortunately, they found out too late.

reply

[–] cynthiam27 10 years ago

Take a basic, college level microbiology class and you will learn that Silentmovie is NOT an idiot. Also you will learn that Silentmovie is NOT an idiot.

Yes, it is POSSIBLE for a straight man to contract HIV from sex with a woman. But it's not likely. And yes, the names Magic Johnson and Eazy-E ring a bell. They both claim to have contracted HIV from women. Key word, claim.

People should educate themselves on the virus before they start claiming people are idiots. Education is not dangerous.

With that said, always use condoms and don't use needles, clean or dirty.

reply

[–] julien5 10 years ago

Yes, it is POSSIBLE for a straight man to contract HIV from sex with a woman. But it's not likely.

Again, as workbumpf has said in an earlier post, there is a large HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. That kind of prevalence (up to a quarter of the population or more) makes "unlikely" a very relative term.

reply

[–] silentmovie 10 years ago

As for the sub-Saharan Africa AIDS epidemic, what percentage of the disease is passed by anal sex (man-man, man-woman)?

What percentage is passed with straight vaginal sex (by definition man-woman)?

Also, what percentage is passed by contaminated needles? Pregnant mother to unborn baby? Other means?

reply

[–] cynthiam27 10 years ago

do your research. The most common way HIV is spread in Africa is man to woman and mother to child.
Also, the real Ron Woodruff was a bisexual. interesting.

reply

[–] julien5 10 years ago

Admittedly, epidemiology is not my strong suit, but I think I am not the only one here who should do some research.
If what you are saying were true, in the aforementioned African population a significant number of men would need to be homosexual (actually bisexual), in order to get HIV and then transmit it to women. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

According to the CDC, the transmission rate of HIV is 10/10000 for receptive penile-vaginal intercourse and 5/10000 for insertive penile-vaginal intercourse.
It doesn't seem so "unlikely" for a man to get HIV from a woman, does it? The other way around is more likely, but the difference is definitely not so large as to eliminate the possibility of a man getting HIV from a vaginal intercourse with an infected woman. Far from it.

Also, other sexually transmitted diseases can significantly increase the rate of transmission in all cases, including heterosexual intercourse. And it's not unlikely that it was one of the factors in Woodruff's case. Homosexual intercourse is of course another possible, although not necessary, factor.

reply

[–] cynthiam27 10 years ago

I have studied HIV and it's transmission extensively. So, matter of fact, I have done my research. The truth just isn't acceptable for you. In the US, HIV is most frequently spread via male-male anal intercourse. Worldwide, it's spread via heterosexual sex and from mother-child during pregnancy/childbirth/nursing.

And yes, it is UNLIKELY that one time with an infected woman would infect a man. Take a college class and you get back to me with your findings.

reply

[–] julien5 10 years ago

Well, there are all kinds of people out there defending all kinds of "truths", so I don't care about that a lot. What I do care about are well-founded arguments. Which should eventually lead to the real truth, hopefully. If you have published some paper on this topic I'd love to read it and learn something new. Until then, all I have is CDC and WHO and similar organizations and their data, based on which I'm trying to make sense of the whole thing. If you have some better references, please share.

Yes, I understand that transmission rates for HIV are low - that's what the CDC data shows. In this respect, you are right: it is unlikely that that one time with an infected woman would infect a man. However, it is also unlikely that one time with an infected man would infect a woman or, for that matter, that one time with an infected man would infect a man.
My one and only point here was: Woodruff could have gotten it from a woman or a man - insisting on the necessity of homosexual transmission is scientifically unfounded and prejudicial.
Is there something wrong with my statement? And, more importantly, can you provide any valid argument to make me think otherwise? (The spiel "I've done research so I know everything about it and you don’t know anything" is hardly worthy of a conversation between two intelligent human beings.)

reply

[–] cynthiam27 10 years ago

I never insisted on "the necessity of homosexual transmission". I said it was much more likely. That is not prejudicial. I could provide you with the name of the institutions where I have studied, and a list of class materials, references and Professors information if you would like? I much prefer that info over internet "data".

The only reason I even jumped on this post was because the OP was being destroyed for speaking the inconvenient truth. Again, nobody said it was impossible, just unlikely. That's all. I'm out.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] public-online 10 years ago

Moreover, when you talk about homosexual transmission, you omit half of the homosexual population: Gay women!

Wouldn't you agree that gay women would be one of the least at risk groups for HIV infection?

reply

[–] public-online 10 years ago

And yes, it is UNLIKELY that one time with an infected woman would infect a man

True when you put it like that, but now compute the odds of a male who visits prostitutes once a week, when North of 80% of those prostitutes are HIV positive, with a high viral load, and no condoms.

Would you like being that man's unsuspecting wife?

reply

[–] secure-h 10 years ago

I have studied HIV and it's transmission extensively. So, matter of fact, I have done my research. The truth just isn't acceptable for you. In the US, HIV is most frequently spread via male-male anal intercourse. Worldwide, it's spread via heterosexual sex and from mother-child during pregnancy/childbirth/nursing.

Pure BS and I too have studied the topic and attended college classes on such.

This politically correct fantasy that somehow HIV is transmitted differently in Africa (and the rest of the world) than it is in the USA is nonsense. It is the same disease with different viral strains yes but it is spread the same the world over. Primarily through anal sex. (IV drug use >10% in the US and much less worldwide)

Africans and many others don't have the luxury of admitting homosexual sex. So the men are BI or "homosexual" end up transmitting it to females and then yes mother to babies. So the vast majority of Africans and others claim to be hetero when it is absolute balderdash.

We go so out of our way to be PC these days by claiming the same virus/disease is spread differently just so we don't hurt Africans feelings by telling them the truth! The truth is: No dudes you are engaging in too much ass sex and you are doing it with men on top of that on the down low!

But over here we will all pretend you are telling the truth about your BS story that you only do it with women vaginally (and you actually use a condom on occasion) so we don't offend you. (insert eye rolling here)

reply

[–] Krustallos 9 years ago

Africans and many others don't have the luxury of admitting homosexual sex. So the men are BI or "homosexual" end up transmitting it to females and then yes mother to babies. So the vast majority of Africans and others claim to be hetero when it is absolute balderdash.

You seem to be claiming that homosexuality is massively more prevalent in Africa than anywhere else in the world. That seems entirely implausible, particularly when it's so frowned upon there. Do you have any actual evidence for your assertion?

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] Krustallos 9 years ago

it is UNLIKELY that one time with an infected woman would infect a man

It's unlikely that you'll get hit by a car crossing the road but it still pays to look both ways. I'm not sure this is a particularly fruitful argument. You're still playing Russian Roulette if you have unprotected sex, just with fewer bullets.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] MTulliver 9 years ago

By all means, let's all take medical advice from some random person on the internet who claims to have studied something "extensively" rather than use medical advice from an actual reliable source.

reply

[–] fixations_of_a_fallen_po 10 years ago

I am a biology major and have taken microbiology. I have also read numerous studies over HIV infection. There ARE high concentrations of HIV in vaginal fluid, and there have been high concentrations discovered in fluid secreted from the Cowper's Gland in men as well.

One reason women are less likely to infect men with HIV is because most of those infected with HIV are men, not women. Therefore, it is more likely for a man to infect a woman. The second reason a man is more likely to infect a woman is because the vaginal walls offer a vast surface area for HIV contraction.

In the movie, the camera made it blatantly obvious Ron was having sex with a drug user. That is likely how she contracted HIV and him having unprotected sex with her resulted in his becoming infected.

It's really not inconceivable and not at all difficult to grasp.

reply

[–] dblock523 10 years ago

How about Magic Johnson????

reply

[–] cynthiam27 10 years ago

how about him?

reply

[–] dblock523 10 years ago

Unless he was bi-sexual, he contracted HIV from a woman.

reply

[–] RhEa2005 10 years ago

Unless he was bi-sexual, he contracted HIV from a woman.

Thank you, dblock523!!! That's exactly it!

Yes, it is POSSIBLE for a straight man to contract HIV from sex with a woman. But it's not likely. And yes, the names Magic Johnson and Eazy-E ring a bell. They both claim to have contracted HIV from women. Key word, claim.

Yes, that is true. But unless you asked either man (of whom one of the two is dead now), you don't know that they didn't, either. Also, while both Magic and Eazy-E claimed they were infected by heterosexual sex, I don't remembering hearing about anyone disputing either man's story. Now as I stated, I wasn't there, so I don't know anything other than what they claimed, but my point is, unless you gave either man HIV/AIDS, you can't be sure, either.

The most common way HIV is spread in Africa is man to woman and mother to child.

That is true, but I never said that heterosexual sex is the only way HIV/AIDS is spread. Last time I checked, African women get pregnant by men, so if the mom gave it to the baby, who do you think she likely got infected from?

Also, the real Ron Woodruff was a bisexual. interesting.

Again you are correct, but the term BIsexual means an attraction to men and women. He was also an IV drug user, which is another transmission route. That's three different risk factors. So any of the three situations could've given Ron HIV/AIDS. Ron himself did not know exactly how he got it. So therefore, it is just as likely to have been transmitted by a woman, a man, or a dirty needle.

I'm not saying (nor did I previously) that it is MORE likely for woman-to-man transmission (at least not in Ron's case), but if you have unprotected sex with anyone of either gender who is infected, you put yourself at just as much risk, whether you are straight or gay.

reply

[–] cynthiam27 10 years ago

I agree with you, with one exception! the point that I (and I believe the OP) was making is that the movie left us with the impression that ONE time with an infected female caused him to transmit HIV. The reality of it is, that is not likely. Not impossible, but not likely. He was NOT just as likely to have transmitted HIV from a woman. It is much more likely that he transmitted thru a dirty needle or from homosexual sex.

for what it's worth, I was very moved by this film. I hope that my comments don't take away from that.

reply

[–] Doc80 10 years ago

Holy crap. No one is saying that a man is just as likely to get HIV from a female than a male, just that it is possible. Who cares if the chances are slim. If it's possible, then it is possible. Think of it as playing the lottery. Sure, you probably aren't going to win but you could.

reply

[–] veniceren 10 years ago

Don't know where you get your information, but you're obviously not a medical genius. If its only passed by semen anally, how are babies infected through an infected mother, or addicts who share needles? Your comments aren't politically incorrect, they're just incorrect!

"Son, you got a panty on your head"

reply

[–] cynthiam27 10 years ago

who are you talking to? how about reading the whole thread before throwing your half cents in?

reply

[–] silentmovie 10 years ago

I didn't say HIV is ONLY passed anally. I am saying that -- from what I know -- sexual transmission of AIDS from man + woman vaginal sex is not all that common, and I was questioning this aspect of the film, which suggested Ron was infected by having sex with a prostitue that had AIDS, which is somewhat unlikely. The more likely explanation is that Ron engaged (was on the receiving end) of anal sex with another man, or used dirty needles, which is not difficult to believe considering how his lifestyle was portrayed.

I never denied that pregnant mothers passing it on to their babies or infected needes, or ANY other way that humans can exchange bodily fluids -- most typically blood.

Just saying, let's tell people the REAL reason that most HIV is transmitted sexually -- not politically correct fairy tales. That's all.

reply

[–] pasinglet 10 years ago

Actually getting HIV from anything other than a blood transfusion or childbirth is highly unlikely. Even needle sharing is only a 0.67% chance.

But yes... "In the United States, as of 2009, most sexual transmission occurred in men who had sex with men,[2] with this population accounting for 64% of all new cases".

The chance of infection via receiving anal sex is about 1.5 in 100. Via giving anal sex is 1 in 3,333.

The chance of infection via intercourse with a woman is about 1 in 2500.

And all this is through unprotected sex with a HIV+ individual.

So if Ron got it from the girl and the girl got it from a gay guy or needles then that would make it doubly unlikely as all of those scenarios are highly unlikely.

Therefore my conclusion is that Ron most likely got F'ed in the A.

Chance of infection:

Blood transfusion
90%

Childbirth (to child)
25%

Needle-sharing injection drug use
0.67%

Percutaneous needle stick
0.30%

Receptive anal intercourse*
1.5%

Insertive anal intercourse*
0.03%

Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse*
0.08%

Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse*
0.04%

reply

[–] silentmovie 10 years ago

Wow. Very interesting statistics. Where did these come from?

Getting back to Magic Johnson and the NBA -- when the players expressed fears about playing ball with him after he announced he was HIV positive --- I remember very clearly that these players were roundly criticized and called "ignorant."

While the chance of transmitting HIV by playing a rough, contact sport like basketball may not be high -- with sweat and spit and cuts and blood -- I'll bet there is a chance, even if it's a small one.

These players were not ignorant. They were wise and prudent. But the politically correct crowd wanted to change reality to suit their agenda.

Fortunaately, Mr. Johnson chose to end his basketball playing career and not subject his fellow players to the risk.

reply

[–] david-ibanez 10 years ago

I'm truly amazed how stupid some people can be (silentmovie).
Some person here are trying to lecture everyone by stating the "facts" and don't even realise how dangerous that way of thinking is.

Yes getting HIV from a women is less likely than getting it from a men but still it's possible and it only take one unprotected sex.

Just imagine, one night you'r drunk and have unprotected sex with a girl that turn out to be a prostitute.
How you gonna feel the next day? Do you think that your "fact" and your "possibilities" are gonna make you feel better ?

No the fact is you will freak out because even if the chance of you getting HIV from that one encounter is low it isn't nil.
If you do no freak out and think "it ok it's a gay disease" them it's even worst because the risk is you will spread that disease.

Treating that disease as a gay disease is stupid and highly irresponsible, and by the way thats one part of what the film is about.

reply

[–] truetexian 10 years ago

I see where you're coming from. As these boards often do though, with such controversial topics, posters get pushed to keep responding in defense of their stance to the point of extreme. Although I can't speak to what (silentmovie's) motives, or possibly more sinister agenda has been, I believe their original post was probably meant only to speak of the statistical probabilities and that alone. It's my point of view, knowing more about the actual story and man than the average viewer of DBC does, that (aside from all the ignorance that still exists) a lot of this controversy stems from how outraged some of us are that the filmmakers presented such an altered characterization of the real man, Ron himself. Yes, McConaughey pulled off the look quite convincingly, but there's more to a movie than just imagery.

In your last sentence you state: "Treating that disease as a gay disease is stupid and highly irresponsible, and by the way that one part of what the film is about".

I agree, it is stupid and perhaps that was part of the intended message (if there was one). Closer inspection of what was presented by DBC, altering Ron's very nature and presenting him as a homophobic "straight" man, negates that intended message though (again, if it was ever there to begin with).
In years to come, after all the awards have been given out and careers have regained their previous momentum, I believe the efforts of DBC will be seen more as a missed opportunity than anything else.

reply