I haven't seen the movie yet but know that it is implied that Christie has AIDS and is showing many of the symptoms. Having studied AIDS in biology, I remember learning that it takes approximately ten years from initial infection with HIV for the symptoms to start showing. So...if that were correct, then Christie would have been infected with the virus at around age 7 or 8? Am I wrong, can AIDS develop more quickly?
shareher not being medicated may have something to do with it.
shareRecall also that, during the early days of the pandemic, many were found to have been infected courtesy of blood transfusions that had occurred yrs. earlier.
shareIn the book, it was another character who wasted away on the beach, but of cancer I'm pretty sure. That last image of the movie has been stuck with me since I left the theatre. To me, it has def become (already) an iconic image.
"IMDB....Where 14 year olds can pretend to be jaded 40 year old movie critics"
[deleted]
Hah! I like your signature. :D
shareThat final image was the naturalization of the sky raining frogs in Magnolia.
Christie's boyfriend's question that The Informers arrives at is "I need something more. When there's nobody to tell us what's right and what's wrong, what'll happen then?" He'll get AIDS from kissing Christie who asks him if there is any more sun, because she has gone blind from the disease caused by her promiscuity.
[deleted]
Saliva is the bodily fluid other than semen and blood that can transmit AIDS. There always was heterosexual AIDS because most gays have been bisexual.
At present the country with the highest number of individuals dead from AIDS is South Africa: officially and unofficially the reason for it is "multiple concurrent partners."
Correction of previous post. You're right, kissing by itself does not cause AIDS. But ANY sex act that mixes with semen or blood can transmit AIDS.
sharethat's what i was going to say... we're in friggin year 2010 and people still dont know what transmits HIV and what not? saliva wont get you infected, unless both kissers have a bleeding wound in the mouth and they exchange enough blood in the act. oral sex/semen + bleeding mouth wound could do it too.
dont people have sexual education in school these days?
[deleted]
Huh? Some countries HIV is a heterosexual disease. Not sure where you got your info on gay people having straight sex, but you must not know anyone that is gay.
share"He'll get AIDS from kissing Christie" - I doubt you can get AIDS from kissing but yes they were having unprotected sex. So, he probably will.
I was actually with the person who was saying that it is very difficult to for a man or woman to get HIV through vaginal sex. That is actually the truth, especially if you don't come into contact frequently with that person. However, that does not mean that it is not a disease heterosexuals need not be worried about because plenty of heterosexuals engage in anal sex, which has a very high risk of transmission. People need to be really careful about telling half truths about the disease, and honestly studies need to start being more specific on the type of sex had so that more people are aware of what the real danger is
Boom.
She may have had Hollywood Aids which is much more serious.
Are you sure about that? Because when AIDS started in NYC people started dropping like flies. I thought you could go from first symptom to dead in under 8 months.
In any case, I thought that Billy Bob Thorton's character was the one with AIDS originally, and he gave it to his wife (who knew, because we later see her helping him with the experimental AZT treatment/injected drug therapy).
From there, He infected the News Reporter, while she infected the music video director, who infected, the naked girl, who infected the wife's son.
That's the main gag for the movie. It's a story about a father passing his disease onto the next generation...literally.
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors
I don't think so...in the book, at least, Billy Bob Thornton's character was diabetic and his wife helped give him insulin shots. I remember this because there was a passage about her contemplating filling the needle with air instead of insulin.
If that was the "main gag" for the movie it would be completely different than the book, in terms of its message and purpose, and BEE has said that although somewhat different, (no vampires, etc.) the message of the film retained most of what he was trying to convey.
The people that died in NYC had unknowingly been infected with the virus in the 70's, which does not explain why an 18 year old would be dying of AIDS unless she got the disease when she was 8, which does not make sense. I highly doubt she had a blood transfusion at this age because that would also completely negate the message of the consequences of leading such a hedonistic lifestyle.
I thought the character in the book had cancer, too, which is why they made the big deal about her smoking, but the movie switch still puzzles me.
Actually, there is such a thing as ACUTE HIV infection, which frequently comes with the symptoms that Christie has in the film (skin rashes, night sweats, swollen glands, etc.) I know this because a friend of mine had these symptoms, all of which subsided when he was put on meds, and he was diagnosed with HIV with a few months of having contracted.
shareThank you! I hope your friend is doing well...
shareIt's pretty impossible for AIDS to be spread through heterosexual sex, so if that was what they were going for, it would be ridiculous.
shareA: Not true.
B: They were clearly having anal sex in one scene.
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors
B: For that to be true, the movie would had to have shown close-ups of genitals engaging in anal penetration. There was no such scene in the movie, and if there were, it would have received an X rating. I don't care about the silly debate, but it just annoys me whenever anyone says anything that is overtly nonsense. Why would you come on to a board such as this and make such a claim?
shareThe positioning was that of anal sex. And it's a friggin Brett Easton Ellis novel.
I mean, based on your logic, anything that isn't hardcore "meat shots" could just as likely be naked dancing within the context of a film. Also, any time anyone dies in a film, they're just sleeping unless you see the autopsy.
It's called reading an image.
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors
My logic is that if there is no evidence for it, there is no evidence for it. Not very complicated. Your logic is that if what you saw could have been what you think it was, then it must have been what you think it was.
Your characterization of my logic is disingenuous, which is to say, blatantly dishonest. You have already done enough to reveal that you don't really have any sense, and now you went and revealed yourself to be dishonest as well.
But let's skip to the chase, shall we? The only question here is whether you were justified in claiming what you claimed, i.e., that "They were clearly having anal sex in one scene". If you had said, "there was a scene where they might ..." But you did not say "might" or "maybe" or "could have" or anything that allowed for any possibility other than the one offered as a definitive and certain. You said "clearly having ..." The only honest, responsive way for you to reply is to describe exactly what you saw, and to explain why you would conclude that "They were clearly having anal sex in one scene".
It was a depiction of anal sex, the same way that all the sex in Cronenberg's Crash is sodomy.
But really, this topic is unbelievably stupid. "Which hole were they faking penetration with".
I don't care. You have you opinion, I have mine, and clearly neither of us will be swayed.
Why don't we try and do something more productive.
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors
Okay, I didn't actually read your whole post the first time.
Pretentious much? I know what disingenuous means, dude. It's not like you're talking about Syuzhet and Fabula in classic Russian Formalism, you're using a common English word. And, for the record, using polysyllabic jargon doesn't make your ad homeniems any smarter.
Now maybe you're less kinky than some other members of this board. Maybe you've seen less porn, (I actually took 12 units on the subject from the Feminist Studies department during college). Maybe you're just really not familiar with the content of the author/screenwriter's work. Maybe you just don't want to believe that your first impression could be wrong. Whatever the case, I don't care. I saw one thing, you saw another. Your bizarre righteous indignation is pretty laughable given the argument.
What I can say is this, anything and everything written on a message board clearly has invisible "IMO" written around it. Most of us expect the reader to be of average intelligence and thus able to infer the obvious. Thank you for taking 300+ words to say "Well that's just your opinion!" It's actually kind of impressive that you could be that long winded.
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors
Look, Moron, you wrote, "They were CLEARLY having anal sex." But you are unwilling to describe what you actually saw that led you to conclude that. Your statement implies, in an absolute way, that whenever a man and a woman are having intercourse in the position more common among animals, that they are having anal sex. I just don't get why you think that, and you have yet to explain it. And then on top of that, you behaved dishonestly when your disparaged me for questioning what you claimed. Your claim, as you wrote it, is B.S. It was perfectly reasonable for me to point that out, and for you to have disparaged me for pointing that out, is patently dishonest.
Body cavities don't have identical curvature. Your trajectory is different. It's a matter of...no. no. no. no. nonononono. I refuse to believe you're actually getting red in the face over this. You've got to be kidding me.
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors
haha. that was awesome. he did babble to the point i couldn't even finish reading his post. while yours left me bookmarking new words. well played.
serva me, serva bote
http://www.myspace.com/naervana
straighttovideo- IMO...and I know you are familiar with the term pseudo-intellectual".....IMO
12 units, huh?
12 units? Care to rephrase?
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors
tom-456 please stop using big words to sound clever. Just say your point and stop going around it with crap.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but anal sex wouldn't be that much of a shock from bret easton ellis...
Actually in the movie Martin says he was *beep* Graham. Watch the scene where they are sitting in Hollywood Hills in the Porsche 911 again.
"IMDB... where 14 year old's can pretend to be jaded 40 year old movie critics"
You are truly stupid, "the positioning was that of anal sex" are you a retard? So if a girl is getting penetrated from the back I'm sure that always ends up as anal sex too right?
"I see you as a dunce but I haven't said it once"
"It's pretty impossible for AIDS to be spread through heterosexual sex, so if that was what they were going for, it would be ridiculous. "
Wow, there is some real misinformation being spread here.
First of all, HIV can be spread between any living human being through any kind of blood or body fluids such as semen, vaginal fluid, preseminal fluid, and breast milk. While the primary person at risk is the female, a male can be exposed to it if they have a cut in their mouth or contact areas. If they are exposed to secretion like that of the vagina, you are at risk of infection.
Secondly, if you are infected with HIV, if you have a weak immune system and you don't take medication regularly, you can develop AIDS sooner than the average of 9-11 years. This girl was not going to the doctor, and she was doing drugs and drinking a lot.
wow. you all realise this is a movie right?
that being said i am apprehensive about the movie because I love the book so much and don't want it to be ruined forever.
by firstwinsgop
"It's pretty impossible for AIDS to be spread through heterosexual sex, so if that was what they were going for, it would be ridiculous"
Are you being serious ?
If you are, and your hetrosexual, id get yourself check out.
Thank you, for everyone correcting the, I'm sure, uber-Christian Republican from the early 1990s, who thinks only gay people can contract AIDS.
I think more ppl need to tear them a new one.
[deleted]
it's not really just heterosexual sex going on in the film. it's like a massive free for all.
It's very strange to see people arguing about whether the film was implying anal sex or not, when the real issue here is the ridiculous notion that the virus might not have been spread through 'normal' heterosexual sex.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
To think there are people with your level of ignorance walking this Earth scare me. Get informed before you spread such embarrassingly naive misinformation around!
HIV is just as easily spread through vaginal, heterosexual sex as it is anal sex.
If one of the people in hetero sex is infected, then HIV can be spread..."hetero sex" has nothing to do with it. If there is penetrative sex and no protections, and one of them is infected, there is a great chance that the other will get infected too (no matter if it's hetero or not)
And taking into mind the post regarding getting AIDS from a kiss on the lips...
How are people this *beep* stupid? It's 2010 not 1980. You'd think people would be more well-informed.
that is NOT true.
what do you think is going on in other parts of the world (i.e. africa - heterosexual sex is the primary cause). women are super vulnerable to infection. plus in the movie they were all having sex.
Yeah, you can definitely spread AIDS through heterosexual sex. That was such a negative stereotype; that it was only gay men that contracted the disease. Actually, though, I was wondering if maybe Christie's character contracted AIDS through her heavy drug use. I guess it could have been either, really...again, a difference from the book, where it's implied that her character has cancer. I like this change, though, because it reinforces the negative side of the hedonistic lifestyle of the main characters.
shareYeah, you can definitely spread AIDS through heterosexual sex. That was such a negative stereotype; that it was only gay men that contracted the disease.
Yea, I agree whoever said you can't get AIDS from heterosexual sex is a moron. But what I really want to know Is how many of them are infected?
I believe Christie is the one that brought it to them all because she was the first to develop symptoms. From there it only seems logical that it spread to everyone through all the sex that they were having.
From my count, that would be Christie, Graham, his mother, father, Billy Idol, News Lady...
any1 else like to add?
First, there is no evidence to suggest Christie has AIDS. Medically, it does not fit with the progression of her symptoms. Second, if she did have AIDS, it would be extremely unlikely that she spread it to anybody else. It is exceedingly difficult to transmit AIDS male to female through heterosexual sex. Female to male transmission, on the other hand, is virtually impossible. The heterosexuals would have little to fear. The bisexual drug abusers (Martin, Graham, Metro) are prime candidates for AIDS, but it's unlikely they would have gotten it from Christie.
You are such a moron. I really hope you're a troll.
AIDS never has been and never will be exclusively a gay disease. And despite the ridiculous and uninformed comments you're throwing around, AIDS/HIV can be transmitted through heterosexual sex. In fact, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide, so no, it's not still exclusively a gay disease in other parts of the world (nor has it ever been)
The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations between partners, one of whom has HIV. The primary mode of HIV infection worldwide is through sexual contact between members of the opposite sex.
HIV can infect anybody, regardless of any age, sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. It is true that anal sex (regardless of the gender of the receptive partner) carries a higher risk of infection than most sex acts, but most penetrative sex acts between any individuals carry some risk. Properly used condoms can reduce this risk.
You might wanna research next time. Not sure if you're a troll, uneducated, a homophobe, or grew up in the 80s during the AIDS scare, but regardless, everything you're saying is wrong. All the information I provided you with is available on the internet, so there's no excuse. Here's also some useful links for you to help you get informed. (By the way, its ironic that you're so wrongfully uninformed and making these comments on the board of a film titled 'The Informers')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_AIDS_misconceptions
http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/myths
http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/misuse/padian
I need you to really research those lil tidbits of knowledge you keep throwing out there about AIDS/HIV. Reason being is, hetro African American females are the fastest growing canidates in the US to test positive for AIDS/HIV TODAY, that being said, if they're hetro where are they getting the disease from Sherlock? Unprotected sex with any gender is just unsafe period.
shareOh, my God, I never read so much ignorance in one single post!
shareI would qualify your description that "It is exceedingly difficult to transmit AIDS (you mean HIV here I assume) male to female through heterosexual sex" that it becomes far less so if the male and female are engaging in unprotected anal sex. This is how I inferred Christie likely got infected.
Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid.
- Kin Hubbard
not necessarily. women typically deteriorate or get infected easier than men. i think the martin guy was a carrier, spread it to her, possibly the mom & son as well.
serva me, serva bote
http://www.myspace.com/naervana
[deleted]
Heterosexual Transmission of HIV --- 29 States, 1999--2002
Worldwide, the majority of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections result from heterosexual transmission (1). To characterize heterosexual transmission of HIV infections in the United States, CDC analyzed data for 1999--2002 from the 29 states* that have met CDC standards (2) for name-based HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) reporting for >4 years†. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that heterosexually acquired HIV infections represented 35% of all new HIV cases; 64% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections occurred in females, and 74% occurred in non-Hispanic blacks. To decrease the number of new heterosexually acquired HIV infections, especially among certain minority populations, culturally targeted education and prevention programs should be provided, and barriers to HIV care and prevention services should be removed.
During 1999--2002, a total of 101,877 HIV infections were diagnosed in the 29 states and reported to CDC, including 36,084 (35%) acquired through heterosexual contact
I don't know where firstwinsgop is getting his propaganda but 35% of HIV infections through heterosexual contact does not mean it's just a Gay/IV disease.
[deleted]
Just to let you know firstwinsgop I have reported you to IMDB, reading your posts absolutely sickens me, the lies you are spreading are disgusting and I hope that anyone else reading this thread will report them too.
share[deleted]
firstwinsgop, you are very good at making a point. But, on the otherhand everything you are saying disputes what is learned in every high school health class or college STD workshop. I've sat through both and never heard that there is almost no chance of contracting HIV through heterosexual sex.
The only time I've heard this is from religious nuts on TV saying that gay people are the cause for AIDS. So, can you provide any proof, documentation of scientific studies that can back this?
O yea, my question about how many characters caught HIV in the film wasn't answered because of your "knowledge" of HIV/AIDS. Also, it is very obvious that Christie has AIDS in this film.
Facts and figures? You're just pulling things out of your ass, you have yet to provide any legitimate proof other than your opinion and word of mouth. Where are these statistics and credible information backing up your theories? Nowhere, because they don't exist. Whats sickening is people like you who become so wrapped up in your misinformation that you take it as facts and basically delude yourself into thinking its reality. No one is too proud to admit they're wrong in this post, maybe other than you. If you could actually back up your comments (which would be impossible as you're basically making things up at this point), then I'd be happy to fuel this debate. Otherwise, you're just trolling.
Plus you have a history of doing so, so why should anyone take you seriously? You're racist (complaining about movies involving crack not featuring all "all-black cast"), quite possibly either a homophobe or uneducated (based on your AIDS comments) and a Paris Hilton fanatic. What about you doesn't fit the criteria of what a troll falls under?
EDIT: I just stumbled upon your comments on the District 9 film. I hope to God you're a troll, because otherwise you're insane. Time to put another troll on ignore ... What a shame that imdb seems to be a haven for the crazies hungry for attention.
firstwinsgop, you are very good at making a point. But, on the otherhand everything you are saying disputes what is learned in every high school health class or college STD workshop. I've sat through both and never heard that there is almost no chance of contracting HIV through heterosexual sex.
The only time I've heard this is from religious nuts on TV saying that gay people are the cause for AIDS. So, can you provide any proof, documentation of scientific studies that can back this?
"the evidence for the sexual transmission of HIV is well documented, conclusive, and based on the standard, uncontroversial methods and practices of medical science. Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best. Their misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public." - Dr. Nancy Padian commentary on what her seminal 1997 paper does actually say
shareYeah, heterosexual transmission of AIDS is possible. Nobody disputes that. What the Padian study demonstrated was not that it was impossible, but rather that it was incredibly rare. So rare, in fact, that any concerns of AIDS ever becoming a problem in the heterosexual community were completely unfounded. AIDS is NOT an equal opportunity killer as the liars and propagandists in the AIDS myth industry wanted you to believe. It's something that homosexuals and IV Drug users need to be extremely careful about, and something white heterosexuals basically need not worry about at all.
sharesomebody seriously needs to take the pinks glasses off.
i get goosebumps when i'm reading your posts.
there are countless (go into a gay sauna ANYWHERE in the world - most of the men there are married. to women.) married men out there who like to have gay sex and who got it during the early days and in turn they infected their wifes, too. many many of them died. but as delicate as this disease is, it was not made public like "yeah, i got the gay cancer thing from my husband". no one said so because they were afraid of the social abandonment. so they got "some" desease and died a few years later. without the public knowing.
now tell me, how these figures would show up in some statistics and studies when it always was kept a secret.
no wonder aids is still as huge as it is with people like you turning their heads into some direction that is a little less scary so you may sleep a little bit better at night.
[deleted]
[quote]no wonder aids is still as huge as it is with people like you turning their heads into some direction that is a little less scary so you may sleep a little bit better at night.[/qutoe]
AIDS is huge? What decade are you living in, dude? People like you theorized that AIDS would be huge in the 1980's. Those people were wrong. AIDS didn't and won't make the jump over to the heterosexual community because as you yourself acknowledge in your post, the only way a heterosexual will typically get it (other than dirty needles) is through having sex (many, many, many, many times) with a gay person. And such scenarios are quite rare.
I get that some people need to invent boogie men to help them sleep at night, but you have to consider the consequences of your lies. The amount of spending on AIDS is grossly disproportionate to the level of damage it inflicts, and people with common, easily treatable diseases are dying in droves because of twisted priorities your false propaganda creates.
Firstwinsgop,,,you might want to look over the numbers on this link
http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm
An estimated 22 million adults and children were living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa at the end of 2007. Of those 22 million, 12 million were adult females. The study classifies an adult as being over the age of 15.
Seldom have I read such ignorant rambling as the stuff that you're spouting on this message board. The thought that some youngsters (especially young men) might believe you literally makes my hair stand on end. You are aware that your misinformation in this thread could result in dozens of new HIV infections, do you? Those are actual people, who will from that moment on have to rely on medication to prevent the HIV from progressing to full-blown AIDS, and who will have to be very careful for the rest of their lives not to accidentally spread it to anyone else (never have unprotected sex anymore, make sure they don't have bleeding gums before they kiss someone on the mouth, always be very careful when they have cuts, let people know immediately of their infection if they get into an accident, etc., etc.).
Yes, the chances of infection are greater when people are having anal sex, since bleeding is a lot more common when engaging in that form of sex. But are you seriously saying that you've never chafed your member during a hot and heavy "roll in the hay"? Or that women never have sex when they're having their period? Or that women never bleed during sex even when they are not having their period? Or that a guy who happens to have bleeding gums never goes down on a woman?
And those are only some examples I came up with from the top of my head involving the exchange of blood. But, as science has proven LONG ago, HIV can be transmitted through almost any type of bodily fluid. Which, ofcourse, you should know, seeing as you claim to be so interested in the science behind this matter (which I can only deduce to be a lie, seeing as the only science you seem to be aware of, is the "science" you googled when you were searching for stuff to back up your homophobic claims, and seeing as there are still "scientists" who continue to dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect, I'm sure there are also "scientists" who conduct studies aiming to confirm your views on this subject).
Also, in regard to your claim that the chances of infection during heterosexual sex are practically non-existent (0.1% for males engaging in vaginal sex I recall you wrote in one of your posts), have you taken into account that most people have sex more than once in their lifetime? Take an average of 3 times a week (which seems low to me, but apparently that's normal for a lot of folks), 52 weeks a year and multiply that with that 0.1% chance. Is the number you come up with still so insignificant?
Further more, I guess all those women in Africa who have died/are dying from the disease must have all been drug users according to your theories? How else could they have contracted the disease, seeing as they are not gay men? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that rape is a very common occurance in those regions, because heterosexual contraction of the disease is practically non-existent. It also could not have anything to do with the fact that still a lot of misinformed/superstitious men believe that having sex with a virgin can cure you from the disease, because, once again, the chances of contracting it through heterosexual sex are soooooo slim. (/sarcastic mode off)
Mister firstwinsgop, your ignorance on this subject is truly sickening.
I emplore you, and anyone else who is reading this and is not sure whether they know all there is to know where it pertains to the spreading of this disease, to simply read the Wikipedia page about it. It's not hard to find, just google "AIDS Wiki" and it should be somewhere among the first search results.
Coming back to the movie, it's pretty clear that Christie was in the final stages of AIDS at the end of the movie. Though it typically takes 9-11 years for HIV to develop into AIDS, it can progress a lot faster depending on the strain contracted and the state of the immune system of the person who contracted it. It is not unheard of for people to start showing symptoms within a year after contraction. Seeing as Christie was a frequent drug user, it is not a stretch to assume that her immune system might have been impaired, explaining the rapid onset of symptoms.
I personally think it is great that this movie tried to bring AIDS to the attention of a whole new generation (though I think the message would have reached a lot more viewers if the movie had been better, but that's a whole other discussion). Recent studies have shown that a lot of adolescents/young adults hardly ever engage in safe sex anymore, even when it's just a one night stand, and even those who do, stop using a condom within 1-3 months into a relationship without getting themselves and their partner tested for STD's. If this trend continues, new HIV infections will most definitely become more frequent again in the years to come, especially if these adolescents/young adults have people like firstwinsgop in their vicinity who tell them they can't contract it from heterosexual sex...
I think it depends on a lot of factors, could it be that it takes up to 10 years to start showing symptoms rather then 9-11 years to be symptomatic? I know HIV can lay dormant for a long time even well over the 10 year mark.
She may have had Hollywood Aids which is much more serious.
sharefirstwinsgop i agree that aids is more easily transmitted via anal sex.
Nobody has argued that.
However, to suggest that straight sex isnt that effected by the issue is dangerous, there are youngsters on IMDB and your comments and mis-infomation could lead some of them to believe your statements.
Now, you said that a female transmitting HIV to a male is more or less impossible, which isnt true.
Many women are sexually active during thier periods, so are you saying that isnt an issue ?
Also, oral sex can often transmit HIV if any of the partners have even slight genital or oral abrasions.
If your simply baiting people, the subject matter you've chosen is ill advised, or believe much of the extreme religious rubbish spouted by far right groups.
Either way your wrong.