Keith, the point about that 10% figure - which you accepted - was that amongst sexually active heterosexual goups (which I think you agreed was an appropriate comparison for the MSM statistics) there was a chlamydia rate of 10% and this was higher than the 4% HIV rate for MSM's. Both of those are other people's figures - the 4% was yours, was it not? They are both accepted, aren't they? I am not getting dragged back into nit-picking other people's figures. The government is bombarding us with information about STI's being more prevalent because of the failure to use condoms

Chlamydia (just one such example) is spread by unprotected penetrative sex.

So heterosexual people are not being protected from HIV by their behaviour, are they? The context being that behaviour was being used as a judgement against gay and later against black people.

That is the point, Keith. For most other people there is a point to these discussions.

Is that point wrong?

If behaviour is what defines HIV/STI infection rates between groups, then groups displaying similar and shared behaviours should have the same prevalences of the same diseases, shouldn't they? Well they do display shared, risky behaviours, yet the disease outcomes are different

The point is not that one group behaves "better" or "worse" than the other - the point is the exact opposite, it is to refute that suggestion completely. This it not about gay=bad, straight=good (which is what Ake believes and consistently and honestly argues)

That has been my utterly consistent point all along.

Now that you know I am gay, you can try all you like to spin that 180 degrees - people will draw the only logical conclusion about you for that.

You are proving everthing of which I accused you, thank you.