Can I preserve your opinion of me after a rape accusation?

[Drachefly]

The transmission rate is higher for anal sex. It's as simple as that. Women who do it regularly get the same higher transmission rate as homosexual men do with each other.

[sparr]

Can somebody please explain to me why it is that men who have sex with men are more likely to have STDs than hetrosexual people who have an equal amount of sex (in a time later than the 1970s)?

Short answer: Because men who have sex with men engage in anal sex more often than heterosexual people do, and anal sex is much more likely to transmit HIV.

There are a bunch of other factors, but that's the big one. Technically women who bottom for anal are also at significantly increased risk, but that's a less socially acceptable demographic to single out.

[Nepene]

The average person isn't reasonably expected to know the statistics for at risk demographics, beyond drug users and men who have sex with men and maybe people who have sex in some african regions. They should know to bag it up.

Can somebody please explain to me why it is that men who have sex with men are more likely to have STDs than hetrosexual people who have an equal amount of sex (in a time later than the 1970s)? I've heard this in enough otherwise-reasonable contexts that I believe, or at least suspect, that it isn't just bigoted nonsense, but the reason why continues to baffle the everloving hell out of me.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/

As to why.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 113749.htm

They have condomless anal sex with other men. The anus lining is thin and tears easily and as such provides easy blood to blood transmission of stds.

http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/ ... posure-hiv

1/78 anal 'bottoms' will catch HIV from a partner with HIV, 1/1250 vaginal 'bottom's will catch HIV from a partner with HIV. Effectively zero will catch it from oral with an infected partner.

I don't know current stats, but historically, homosexual men have had more anal sex than heterosexual couples.

[Chimerasame]

...
For me to preserve my opinion of you, you treated them in a respectful manner before and after and didn't violate any agreements or covenants during the act, and were generally honest about things that would have swayed them into sex, like your wealth and religion.

Wealth? So, if I say I'm rich, and you happily have sex with me, but I was lying, it becomes rape?

Nepene already responded, but, it is worth noting that there is an area of "some action which is a shitty thing to do yet does not cross the line into something that'd be called 'rape'." Nepene's original answer seemed pretty clear to me that anything in the 2nd paragraph would be regarded as shitty enough to decrease opinion, but, if it wasn't in the first paragraph, it wouldn't be 'rape'.

Lying about wealth to secure sex is indeed a shitty thing to do. Whether it is 'rape' is more nebulous. A couple folks have suggested that it may be rape if you lie about something wherein your lie suggests a lower STD risk than the actual risk involved in the true situation. This makes me curious -- for those saying this sort of lie is indeed rape, if the wealth-lie were the *other way around*, i.e. you lie that you are very poor, when in fact you're rich and in perfect health, would that still qualify?