Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
Health & Lifestyle / January 29, 2009
By Rick Rucker

You know how even Bush haters will admit that his one undisputed good deed was getting all that AIDS prevention funding to Africa? But, boy, do they have it all wrong. More than anything, Bush’s efforts show how little anyone really cares about saving Africans. It’s the same with the Melindas, Bonos, Geldofs and all the other UN Mother Teresas out there. To them, the potential social costs of really fighting the epidemic and having all its uncomfortable details out in the open are just not worth it. Let me explain:

It all goes back to a news story I read a few years ago about a curious twist to the tale of the unstoppable HIV epidemic in Africa. It was about a study done by a team of German scientists who proposed a controversial, yet very commonsense, explanation for Africa’s grizzly AIDS transmission rates. Their data showed that anal sex — both homo and hetero — was the second largest cause of infection. First place was taken by transmission in medical settings: dirty needles, compromised IVs and tainted blood supplies. The kicker is that vaginal transmission came in a distant third.

Allow me to quote:

Anal sex could be a major cause of the HIV/Aids epidemic in Africa, according to new research.

A study published in The Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and AIDS claims awareness of the risks posed by anal sex is ignored in many of the continent’s health campaigns.

Just like the story said, the study’s findings never hit big. In fact, it felt like it was downright buried. It seemed the anal sex connection was just too taboo for America, both the left and right. At some point, everybody understood that anal sex was a big culprit in HIV transmission. But then, on behalf of the gay community, the great PC whitewashing occurred, and the knowledge fell through the cracks. And so began the HIV Dark Ages, a period which we’re not out of yet. The times have been good for some, but disastrous for others. On the one hand, it buffered the gay community from a continuous wave of anti-gay paranoia. But on the other, it distorted the facts and scared the shit out us non-anally inclined straight folks. Zeroing in on vaginal HIV transmission and pretending that anal sex did not exist ruined sex for a whole lot of people. Basically, our doctors dreamed up a problem and a solution that was about as real and effective as the War on Terror.

Fifteen years ago, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine observed 256 straight “mixed status” couples (one infected, the other not) banging regularly for some lengthy period of time. Half of them used condoms all the time and not a single partner got infected. The other half was a bit more careless and didn’t use condoms so much. Out of them, only 10% of the partners were infected with HIV. Sure it’s a bummer, but these people were banging each other day and night for months. For months! And still there was only a 1 in 10 chance of getting infected. They’d be more likely to give each other the common cold than to pass around HIV. (It’s also hilariously easy to imagine that at least some of that 10% were doing anal but were too embarrassed to put it down in their little progress reports.)

Sure, the study showed that condoms work well. But that’s not the whole story. You do not get Africa’s infection rates — something like half of the population — from just unprotected vaginal intercourse. And that’s exactly what the Krauts who published the anal-sex study six years ago were trying to say. For Africa’s runaway HIV epidemic, backdoor love was the missing link.

Now, I’m no health professional, maybe a couple of billboards in every village and town with something like “If you are stupid and careless enough not to wear a condom, please don’t have anal sex” might help a little.

But despite the butt-load of evidence, no Third World health crusader has been willing to admit that anal sex plays a big role in the continent’s AIDS woes. The do-gooders have way too much baggage. With them, you don’t talk about the statistical disparity between anal and vaginal transmission of HIV. Jesus and the hard-won acceptance of the gay community hang in the balance. The latter I can understand. The admission would probably bring back the anti-gay AIDS hysteria of the ’80s and cause a surge in homophobia all over the world.

So in the end that means a whole lot of dead Africans on our hands.

Read more: , , , , , , , , , , Rick Rucker, Health & Lifestyle

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at


Add your own

  • 1. Impressed  |  January 29th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    Impressive. Should be front page news, but…on with the PC genocide.

  • 2. Soloscarecrow  |  January 29th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    This is common sense.

  • 3. Seeker  |  January 29th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    Very interesting article. Provides a whole new view on the HIV-mess, doesn’t it?
    This kind of excellent article is what I am subscribing to this blog for.
    By the way, I am a Kraut, too, and I don’t like Sauerkraut at all 😉

  • 4. aleke  |  January 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    the most fascinating thing about any exile article is how little attention is paid to it in the mainstream (online or off)

  • 5. Nkunda  |  January 29th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Sure blame teh gays. Speaking of horrible things happening in Africa, when’s da War Nerd gonna explain the “arrest” of our Tutsi guerrilla hero Nkunda anyhow?

  • 6. I'm a scientist  |  January 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    There are actually two major versions of HIV, HIV-I and HIV-II. HIV-I is the dominant version just about everyone on the planet–except for West Africa, where HIV-II is dominant.

    HIV-I, as you noted correctly, is much more transmissible via unprotected anal intercourse than vaginal. HIV-II is more adapted to transmission by vaginal intercourse. HIV-II is less transmissible overall, and therefore its predominance in West Africa is actually a sign that more HIV transmission is occurring by vaginal intercourse than anal in that region.

    So, if you’re going to blame anyone, blame Pope John Paul II, and his refusal to allow the distribution of condoms into Africa.

  • 7. Peter  |  January 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    Um, since when are the gays unaware or not open about the dangers of unprotected anal sex? Take a look at Dan Savage’s last column. Nobody likes the Bonos of the world but at least take them for something they’ve actually done.

  • 8. ananda  |  January 29th, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    not saying that the dangers of unprotected anal sex should not be advertised, but there’s nothing controversial that i can imagine about promoting and providing materials for improved medical hygiene, which is listed as being an even more prevalent form of transmission. it would probably help beat a lot of other issues both with health and the infrastructure of the entire medical system … which is probably why that avenue isn’t being explored. god forbid anybody establishes lasting change for the better in developing nations.

  • 9. mechagodzilla  |  January 29th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    By the way, after your first quote, do you mean “buffered the gays”? “Buffeted” sounds like, you know, being continually shoved by something.

  • 10. James Foye  |  January 29th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    There are some way better explanations of why Africa is supposedly experiencing an HIV epidemic.

  • 11. hmm  |  January 29th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    So, if they start having sex vaginally only, the African population is going to explode even more. How do you get around -this- problem?

  • 12. grin  |  January 29th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    This isn’t about protecting gays.

    I’ve always known that unprotected vaginal sex was not the major factor in AIDS. Nor is oral sex, which can be gay or straight.

    No, the reason for this is that the American Left and Right, and religious types who are involved in this on the Left and Right consider sexual promiscuity to be evil. Therefore, they don’t want to say anything positive about promiscuous heterosexual sex.

    These are the same people who passed IMBRA (Google it, especially right after the next time a hot Ukranian women pictorial runs on the Exiled) in the name of protecting women.

  • 13. Narcoleptic  |  January 29th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    Rick, I’m not sure who you’re blaming for the AIDS epidemic in Africa (gays? Bono? The media?) but I think your aim is off. I read that study too and as you said, the FIRST THING ON THE LIST WAS DIRTY NEEDLES. Of course, your story doesn’t discuss that in any detail, because eXiled readers would rather read about anal sex than shitty medical care (I know I would). I’m not even sure how accurate that study is, since other studies indicate that butt sex isn’t all that popular in Africa (yeah, I’m not sure I believe that either). One type of heterosexual sex that IS popular, however, is “dry and tight” sex (sex with a woman who’s vagina is totally dry and not moist at all), a type of sex that probably leads to some bleeding and thus increases HIV rates (anal sex is dangerous because it exposes you to BLOOD, the best way to get HIV). There’s probably some other factors, too, including lack of circumcision. I’ve also read some epidemiological studies that suggest that Subsarahan Africans have more partners, switch partners more and have multiple partners at once (sounds great except for the AIDS).

    Anyway, I do agree that there are probably some highly repressed do-gooders who don’t want to talk about such tawdry things, but I think your headline’s just a cheap way to get attention. There’s more to HIV in Africa than butt sex. And while aid organizations probably are fucking up Africa in all sorts of ways, blaming them for the epidemic on the grounds that they somehow don’t want to offend the powerful American gays sounds to me like Gabonese chicken-fried bullshit.

  • 14. Homer Erotic  |  January 29th, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Thank you very much for posting this. I am a homosexual man who finds anal sex both dangerous and distasteful. I don’t even embrace the label “gay” because I reject not only the fudgepacking but also the comic-opera effeminacy and the very bad behavior that are part and parcel of the gay male singles scene. And if you knew how bad this bad behavior could get, you would understand why I am not at all concerned whom I might be offending by speaking my mind in this blunt manner. I also tend to think the highly detrimental psychological effects of anal sex have a lot to do with this very bad behavior.

    What both heterosexual and homosexual men need to understand is that men who love and desire other men don’t have to have anal sex in order to be sexual. And let’s face, anal sex is just plain gross. A better name for it might be “shitsex” because we know what the purpose of the rectum is, and it’s not tupperware that you can ever really get it squeaky-clean. Anyone who would like to learn more can click the link in my screenname (which contains some blunt if clinical discussion of sex, just so you know).

  • 15. Fissile  |  January 29th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Some years ago, Bono was drinking in a restaurant in NYC when he decided to remove all his clothing. I assume it was his way of proving that he’s not really an attention whore. Anyway, some local news reporter ask a female restaurant patron if she had witnessed Bono’s nude dining display. “Yes”, she said, “I looked just like a penis, only much smaller.”

  • 16. Homer Erotic  |  January 29th, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    I’m a scientist:

    What you say about the different types of HIV certainly deserves consideration, but another consideration is spelled out by the map accompanying this essay. It’s not just West Africa but pretty much all of subsuharan Africa that is shaded in deep red.


    You might be onto something WRT to the “dry-and-tight” vaginal intercourse. However, whether or not it leads to bleeding is an unknown. The vaginal canal is pretty resilient compared to the rectum, after all.

  • 17. Jason Wolfe  |  January 30th, 2009 at 1:09 am

    Why are we presuming that all the anal sex is Man-Man in Africa? Could be a lot of anal going on Man-Woman. Another factor is the prevalence of rape in the conflict zones. Rape gets more bleeding / injuries than consensual sex. The exposed wounds and blood transfer would increase transmission rates.

  • 18. it's true  |  January 30th, 2009 at 2:28 am

    One point I’d like to make is that although I don’t claim to be an expert on Africa, I’m pretty sure that the terms “gay” and “straight” don’t really play out there the way they do in America or Western Europe. Men have sex with men then go home to have sex with their wives. This is one of the biggest problem, that women do not have any knowledge let alone control of who their partners are sleeping with. Talking about this issue openly could actually further the cause of the LGBT movement because it encourages acceptance and openness of non-traditional sexuality. The problem here is not the activity itself but that it’s being kept secret and/or handled irresponsibly. Basically the message needs to be, “wear a condom every time” not “stop having anal sex”.

    Perhaps more importantly though, in places where 50% or more of adults are infected, I imagine these people accept eventually becoming HIV+ as a fact of life. Having AIDS is “normal” there. I think the psychological issue needs to be given more priority. People have to want to protect themselves, in fact, in that environment, people have to be committed to vigorously defending themselves against infection from any source.

    Allow me to get really un-PC for a moment. What about starting “clean communities”? taking HIV- children and adults to new areas and helping them to establish new villages, protecting them from infection. New arrivals would have to be tested before they could settle there. Of course moving there would be completely voluntary. I’m sure I’m not the first to think of this. Has anyone suggested this publicly?

  • 19. Rob  |  January 30th, 2009 at 3:37 am

    Hey! Lay off gays you fags! Homosexuality ought to be encouraged at every opportunity because it shortens life span by 20-30 years:

    But it’s not enough. To really control population effectively I suggest we bring back smoking by propagandizing it in schools and colleges as yet another cool and chic lifestyle. But not regular smoking, that only takes 5-7 years out of a kid’s average lifespan. What we need is 4-pack a day heavy smoking. That would take out 20-30 years and be on par with homosexuality.

    Ideally we should promote heavy smoking and homosexuality together thereby yielding a combined 40-60 year life span reduction. Now that’s real population control efficiency.

  • 20. Niko  |  January 30th, 2009 at 5:15 am

    Is this why Russia has an AIDS epidemic too?

  • 21. choodak  |  January 30th, 2009 at 6:27 am

    Who gives a fuck about Africans??? You are only valuable as a consumer. If they don’t consume no one cares about them. Don’t believe me? Ask the Tibetans?

    BTW. The War Nerd has been completely dispassionate about all players in the war game until Nkunda. Why do you think that is?……He is Nkunda. That’s why he was so sympathetic to him and that’s why we haven’t heard from him. I don’t doubt that there will be an article coming out shortly either written by him and smuggled out or written by someone else in his style to keep up the charade. I would suggest checking the morgues for a non-descript chubby white guy roughly fitting his profile picture; who was “suicided”, if we don’t hear from him soon.

  • 22. Sriram  |  January 30th, 2009 at 8:00 am

    Infected needles are the number one cause of it. And who’s responsible for it? The very people who are supposed to be saving lives there.
    It’s genocide, you’re right about that.

  • 23. CB  |  January 30th, 2009 at 9:17 am

    PC genocide? That’s an odd take. Even the article you quote makes it sound much more like it’s taboo to talk about *in Africa* and that they had thought people had far less anal *in Africa* than the rest of the world. The latter could be an honest mistake, and the former is something they have to deal with all the time in Africa.

    I would think that if any westerner trying to give aid to Africa isn’t mentioning anal because of their own sensibilities, it would be the religious types who don’t even want to talk about using condoms or sex at all, not liberals trying to prevent an anti-gay backlash back home.

  • 24. Gooftroop  |  January 30th, 2009 at 10:27 am

    Eh, I like how you attack foreign do-gooders, but you’ve kind of messed up a bit with this. First off, the infection rate is nowhere near half the population of Africa. You can’t write a serious article and just throw in that nonsense. Second off, there’s a growing number of people who have claimed that the AID’s rate in Africa is exaggerated, and have pointed out that malaria kills far more people and receives far less funding because it’s not as sexy a disease. You should have touched on that. I think Easterly touches on this.

  • 25. Brokenrecord  |  January 30th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    I’m going off a fairly spotty memory here, but didn’t Frank Zappa’s autobiography contain a line about how he thought dirty medical needles were severely underrated as an HIV vector (along with the then de-rigeur insinuation that it was all a CIA plot)? If so, then he fucking called it about two decades ago.

  • 26. Eddie  |  January 30th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    Quick questions: How much of Jeffrey Sachs’ bullshit do you think Bono really believes? How aware do you think he is that according to Pilger and Napoleoni et al they are hurting more Africans than they are helping?

  • 27. urmom  |  January 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    What we have here is government subsidized buttfucking, with massive resulting indirect human and monetary costs. Yay gay pride!

  • 28. FOARP  |  January 31st, 2009 at 6:22 am

    This has been known for years. The main vector for HIV transmission is blood-to-blood transmission, hence the virtual certainty of transmission via blood transfusion. Vaginal sex can transmit the disease, but the chance of doing so each time is something like 1,600 to 1, whereas anal sex is more like 400 to 1. None of this is a reason not to wear a condom when having sex, but it does explain the differing infection rates between different communities and cultures. Anti-AIDs campaigners don’t talk about it because they’re worried about 1) Making people think they stand no chance of becoming infected if they only have vaginal sex, 2) victimising communities in which anal sex is common, and 3) offending groups amongst which discussion of these topics is taboo.

  • 29. Homer Erotic  |  January 31st, 2009 at 7:54 am


    I seriously hope you’re trying to be humorously ironic by linking to a “study” done by individuals representing a group which is well-known for its shrill far-right religious fanaticism. 🙂

  • 30. Rob  |  January 31st, 2009 at 11:30 am

    FYI this is the SECOND political correctness genocide.

    The first was way back when Bob Geldof did that “we are the children” thing and got massive food aid into Ethiopia during their famine.

    Well guess what? Their agricultural production has been declining ever since. Now how could that be? How could dumping massive amounts of free food wreck a 99% agricultural economy? Being a Marxist, I have absolutely no idea but apparently that’s what happened.

    In addition, the flood of free food caused a massive migraton out of rural and into urban. It appears, for some incomprehensible reason, that this massive increase in the urban destitute population led straight to political instability. Well fancy that.

    And guess what happened then? Civil war.

    Go figure.

  • 31. Eddie  |  January 31st, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    Rob, apparently it still pays for Geldof and Bono to still do things the same way, like Live8, even though Geldof admits LiveAid was a failure. All the “debt forgiveness” was offset by decreased aid and forcing neoliberal shit like privatizing water etc.

    The question is whether they are in on the scam, or dumb enough to think they are helping.

  • 32. pakk  |  February 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm


    According to my (not really scientific, but still statistically meaningful) field ‘surveys’, most ‘4money’ gals in East and Central Africa are 100% convinced that it is the bazungu (whites) who come to Africa to spread AIDS – and the problem starts with THEM.

    This conviction has been an enigma for me until I made 2 and 2 together a few months ago. Heterosexual anal sex in those places is almost exclusively a bazungu practice, while Africans themselves find little exciting or pleasant about it.

    The figures I have from Russian medical sources are a bit different than those presented by FOARP. Infection rates vary (approximately, of course) between 1:10 and 1:500 for anal sex, and between 1:1,000 and 1:10,000 for vaginal sex. And remember, the recepient is much more exposed for BOTH transmission types.

    I also remember how amused I was when in 2006 I saw a Ugandan newspaper article saying that AIDS activists are “very alarmed” that Ugandans are becoming less concerned with AIDS. Why? Because recent statistics from Mbale (a town in Eastern Uganda, mentioned in ‘Casino Royale’, btw) show that 70% of HIV+ married couples are ‘discordant’, i.e. one partner is HIV-. Remember these people shaft for YEARS, do it DAILY, cheat REGULARLY, bother little about CONDOMS, and are LEAST concerned with hygiene.

    So instead of asking themselves whether they’ve got anything wrong, the guys simply get “very alarmed”..

  • 33. pakk  |  February 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    2 Narcoleptic:

    C’mon, “dry and tight” is not a common thing in the whole of Africa. It’s mostly a Zambian deep-village thing, as far as I know.

    There’s no ‘African’ way of having sex, each country and each tribe is different. For Rwandans for example, they like it very wet. I mean VERY wet. For that purpose, they have leather beadsheets in local hotels.

    That’s about “dry”. And as for “tight” – I haven’t met many people ANYWHERE in the world who like loose pussies.. )))

  • 34. pakk  |  February 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    2 FOARP:

    I am not sure it is a good thing to hide the truth from the people for fear of decreasing their alertness. Treating Africans like small children is the surest way of preventing them from ever growing up.

    I am also not sure that it’s good to avoid “victmising” and “offending” some people through killing others in process. I believe MANY African sex workers would still be alive had they known what they risk when they are being offered ENORMOUS pay for unprotected anal sex.

    I’ve seen the ‘shock and awe’ which these girls experience when they learn this information which as you say “has been known for years”. Probably this is why the “anti-AIDs campaigners” (it’s AIDS, not AIDs btw) have to remain quiet – because the moment they are exposed, they will likely be beaten up and chased away by their audiences.

    Or maybe they fear disappointing the white tourists who won’t be able to find anyone willing to take it up the ass – and thus undermining Africa’s fledgling tourism sector.

  • 35. DocAmazing  |  February 1st, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    I hope we can put all of these cracks about anal sex behind us (they reveal a deep-seated hostility) and encourage more penetrating study of the fundamental causes of AIDS in Africa. We must get to the bottom of this!

  • 36. The Amazing Crustacean  |  February 2nd, 2009 at 11:27 pm

    I kind of question how enacting a conservative policy of not mentioning anal sex is PC. I mean, it’s not like AIDS campaigns in the U.S. don’t mention up front that unprotected anal sex is the biggest risk. Somehow the gay community in the U.S. isn’t up in arms about that. The notion, though, that gay sex is responsible for the transmission of AIDS in Africa doesn’t seem likely for the reason that homosexuality is really not accepted at all in African society after African society.

    Instead, HIV in Africa has been linked to industrialization and migrant labor coming out from the country side to the cities, where the men sleep with prostitutes. They get AIDS and bring it back to their village where they pass it onto their wives, concubines, etc… It seems likely to me that people working in the cities are using anal sex as default contraception, sleeping with prostitutes.

    So I don’t think there’s a PC issue here at all, because there likely isn’t a rash of gayness in Africa. Instead, it’s a case of conservative and puritan values leading to a non-mention of a source of AIDS transmission because it’s too graphic a picture.

  • 37. CB  |  February 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Amazing Crustacean:

    On Africans having anal sex: 1) There were plenty of gay Americans having anal sex in private when it was completely unacceptable to be openly gay so it’s reasonable to assume similar for Africa and 2) straight couples have anal sex. It’s a much more likely transmission vector on a case-by-case basis, so even if it’s not the most common act it can still cause more cases than other forms of sex.

    That said, I agree it’s silly to call this an issue of being PC. As you say, they talk about anal sex here in America, so this whole “avoiding anti-gay backlash” theory doesn’t wash.

  • 38. ethiopian dude  |  February 5th, 2009 at 4:12 am

    Aids is biological warfare, unleashed by the American elite to depopulate much of resource rich Africa. It was introduced to the african population via a smallpox vaccination scheme in the Congo during the early 1970s.


    United States Senate Library



    Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations


    WASHINGTON : 1969



    TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969


    There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.

    MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?

    DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.

    MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?

    DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.

    MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be. The time and the cost involved?

    DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. The information follows:

    The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:

    1. All biological agents up the the present time are representitives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.

    2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.

    3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.

    4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientisis in the field., almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of sciences – National Research Council (NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program., and our reluctance to involve the NAS NRC in such a controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.

    It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaked lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done. there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.

  • 39. rick  |  February 5th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    Face it, Ethiopian Dude, you have a huge cock. Africans have huge cocks. When Africans penetrate vaginally or anally, you’re far more likely to spread HIV, due to the possibility of tissue tearing. Your people have gigantic cocks, what kind of man invents a conspiracy to cover this up?

    Natural selection is occurring upon the African people to deprive them of the one advantage that men worldwide long for: gigantic dongs. Fuck vaginally and use condoms, and retain the huge cocks of your people, I beg you, because every once in a while, I want to watch black men fucking Asian girls with their tiny vaginas, where you can really tell she’s being fucked hard by the look on her face and the sounds she makes. AIDS not only kills Africans, it’d diminishing the cock size of your population. That I will not allow.

  • 40. Oelsen  |  February 7th, 2009 at 9:30 am

    Boah, so much comments.

    Thank you, Exiled, for posting this subject. I didn’t even think of it. And the notion someone wrote about in the comments: Rape in conflict zones. We had this problem here in Switzerland during an ad campaign going “No blood or anal fluids in mouth or vagina” or something like that (displaying fruits and vegetables). The Federal Agency for Health had to justify its campaign because everyone “forgot what the condom is for”, they said. Imagine a campaign like that in america or *grasp* africa.

    Why does Russia have a high rate? Prostitution and nothing to do. Sex is like tv sometimes.

    I know lots of ppl who wouldn’t read your blog but i appreciate your views.

  • 41. Carpenter  |  February 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    Yes, “hysteria” and “homophobia.” Because homosexuals are just like everyone else, except they happen to have different sex habits, right Rick?

  • 42. Skeptic  |  February 8th, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    I’ve read some great pieces on this webzine, and empiricism led me to believe that this was the case for all articles here. However, this piece has totally undone my hypothesis. It’s lazy, unconvincing, and revolting.

    If you’re going to argue that the out-of-control AIDS infection rate in Africa is due to an anal sex taboo, you’re going to have to supply more evidence than two single studies and smug asides about the unknown wonders of anal sex. In the very BBC article that you cite, there is controversy regarding the conclusions of the German study. You’d have to furnish some sociological evidence about the widespread practice of anal sex in Africa, but that’s not necessary in the iconoclastic-for-the-hell-of-it tone you’re assuming. As it stands, your thesis is about as well-supported as the broad generalities utilized by great US minds such as every college freshman and conservative icon William F. Buckley.

    But don’t get me wrong; several powerful institutions in the Global North, particularly the US and the Catholic Church, have colossally failed to control this humanitarian tragedy due to antiquated moralities. However, you seek to tar the entire AIDS-activism community, including the legions of health care officials, researchers, doctors, activists, and philanthropists who have fully recognized that abstinence-only education is tantamount to genocide.

  • 43. ethiopian dude  |  February 10th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    face it people aids is not a natural disease…so stop it with the anal, gay, big cock…stuff…… stupidity is lethal.

  • 44. rick  |  February 27th, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    Oh, it’s “revolting!” You don’t like to think about Africans anally fucking. Well, some of us do: we watch pornos and the very size of said Africans’ cocks helps us ejaculate, because we’re perverts. And we’re the vanguard of human enlightenment, as it happens.

    Maybe anal in Africa could be as popular as blowjobs in America? Why is this “revolting”? I mean you’re insane, you’re a Christian, that’s all, it’s the same brainparts misfiring stupidly.

    I’ve transitioned into alternating anal and vaginal sex with chicks, it’s nothin’, and by nothing, I mean you can’t tell the difference. Stick to vaginas, it’s all the same. If you’re gay, cool, but be careful. Still, if you didn’t have a TV, and wanted something to keep you awake, you’d try anal.

    The single best use of money in saving African lives is to go all-out anti-anal. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

  • 45. Christopher Carr  |  February 16th, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Thailand proves that widespread condom use is sufficient to establish herd immunity. In sub-Saharan Africa, one of the things preventing widespread condom use is the Catholic Church’s stance on the issue. That stance is frankly inexcusable in the face of reality. The spread of AIDS in Africa is a tragic problem with a clear moral imperative and a clear scientific solution. The Catholic Church, with its vast infrastructure and ability to bypass political entanglements, should be spearheading the effort to distribute condoms to sub-Saharan Africa, not standing in its way:

  • 46. TONY  |  December 10th, 2010 at 7:43 pm


Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)


Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed