[neuro_image2]

If the prevalence of HIV in bisexual men is significantly higher than it is in heterosexual men (it is) then clearly they represent a higher risk.

Sorry if numbers offend you.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10461-018-2083-8

[pdenton]

Numbers don't prove anything. Can you be 100% sure you're heterosexual? There's no scientific test for sexual orientation.

In reality, there are 2 kinds of orientations: bisexual, and closet bisexual.

[hatefulmoron]

> Numbers don't prove anything. Can you be 100% sure you're heterosexual?

Why is this relevant? Surely I can be 100% sure that I'm not having sex with men, regardless of how bisexual you think I am.

[neuro_image2]

Is this seriously your argument?

The point is that men who have sex with men (commonly abbreviated to MSM in sexual health literature) have higher incidence of HIV and STDs.

I think your point is ridiculous (from both personal experience and published surveys), homosexual and bisexual men make up a small minority. Regardless though, it's easy enough to say whether or not you've had sex with a man.

And in answer to your question, seeing as I've never had sex with a man (nor intend to), I'm 100% sure that for all intents and purposes, I'm heterosexual.

Just to be clear, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexual/bisexual activity, but there are provable additional risks for MSM.

[GameOfFrowns]

>In reality, there are 2 kinds of orientations: bisexual, and closet bisexual.

Woke reality-bending. The "everyone is a little bit gay" is perhaps hip and PC but it's mainly wishful thinking by gays who want to coerce straight guys into sexual intercourse.

[neuro_image2]

'numbers don't prove anything'...

Sir, this isn't 'The Huffington Post' discussion forum.