So difficult to keep up! (Re: Memeber of the religious right running morally amuck)

Brenna, I think Mr. Jack raises an important concern.Sex abuse can mean anything from inappropriate touching to rape.

I suspect that rates of tendency or inclination towards homosexuality won't vary cross culturally, but rates of expression will. Surveys would require equal honesty in all cultures, and I don't see how that could be guaranteed.Anonymity doesn't guarantee truth. Would the dead man who is the subject of this thread have been honest to himself if asked to fill in a questionnaire on his sexuality, I wonder?

The work I would look into would be anthropological, not sociological.In other words, participant observer studies, not surveys.

I'm happy to take your word for it. If I were faced with the problem of determining what percentage of the population of Egypt is homosexual, I wouldn't know how to go about finding out. But then, I'm not an anthropologist.

and how would you know a closeted gay man who is married and has 10 kids is gay? does he walk differently?

I don't think it is either, but in order to be persuasive to an irreligious group you can't give moral reasons because their version of morality is so flexible that it can justify what ever it desires.You then must show physical evidence, juxtaposing biological functions with fetishes.The rectum is lined with a thin layers which is in stark contrast of the stratified, squamous lining of the vagina. The vagina is far more resilient and allows objects to either be expelled or inserted, whereas the rectum is designed with an "exit only" function for the expelling of feces.When an object enters the rectum, it is going against the grain which poses a much greater danger to blood vessels than the vagina. This is precisely why proctologists do not recommend anal sex-- among other reasons, as we will see.The chances of transmitting an STD increases exponentially through anal sex because that thin lining of the rectal walls are so delicate in comparison to the vagina.Aside from that, the rectum is rife with bacteria, more so than the vagina. Causing small fissures, either in the rectum or the penis, likens either the recipient or the giver's chances of infection.And whether someone uses protective measures or not will not ameliorate the damage to the rectum, plus it increases the likelihood of the condom tearing. Aside from which, latex condoms do not provide adequate protection as is. The microscopic pores in a latex condom is approximately 50 times larger than the average spermatozoa. And the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than the average sperm, thus only providing nominal protection.Aside from diseases and infections, anal sex poses a risk of gay bowel syndrome, which is largely denied by the homosexual population, but nevertheless exists.Therefore, anal sex is just not a good idea, either for a man or a woman. These facts need to be considered before haphazardly jumping in to a sexual practice such as this. Not necessarily, but it is certainly something to consider. There are many people that engage in anal sex that were not molested in any way. However, I wouldn't hesitate to presume that pornography has exacerbated the issue.What once naturally repulsed people has now become more acceptable through desensitization and over-exposure to such practices. Yes, that likely factored in to how this reverend fell from grace. The problem for many Christians is not knowing where the line of demarcation is for sex. Their often extreme puritanical ways become burdensome so that they no longer know how to express themselves sexually in a healthy way. Thus, they end up turning to extreme end of the spectrum.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

it may not be "intercourse" but sexual violation is sexual violation. i promise you.

THIS IS A LIE.National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) | CDC THIS IS A LIE PROPAGATED BY THE "PRO-LIFE" PEOPLE WHICH MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OR POTENTIALLY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.the truth about condoms and the lies of the right oh and nem, as far as i'm concerned, you, for perpetuating these lies, are an accomplice to murder.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

i mean, maybe if condoms didn't have such a long history of preventing pregnancy and disease...

It's common sense that different degrees of sex abuse mean different things.Your contention was that child-rape had an effect on a man's sexual orientation.Is it the same for a lesser form of abuse, say, fondling?

As Brenna pointed out, this isn't supported by the CDC evidence.Perhaps you'd care to show us evidence to the contrary?http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940506.html All of which is preventable thru condom use.Edited by molbiogirl, : glove v. condom

no. you are still misreading what i'm saying. i'm saying that we need to study what kinds of effects abuse can have on sexual ACTIVITY. fuck orientation. i don't BELIEVE in orientation, or any kind. i'm saying that we know that abuse can increase the likelihood of promiscuity. i want people to study what other effects it might have. but see, your biggest problem is that
1. you aren't smart enough to figure out that a psychological proclivity is not a choice.
2. you aren't smart enough to figure out that just because someone suggests that there's something other that could contribute to various sexual activities doesn't mean they think there's something wrong with those sexual activities. well let me tell you something. being forced to sit on a strange man's lap and feel his hard penis under my 9 year old bottom did not feel any different than being cajoled into anal sex with a family member and neither of those felt any different from being coerced into having sex with a fellow student last year. your common sense is very different from my reality.

Can you shorten the link in your message please?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

The vagina is far more resilient and allows objects to either be expelled or inserted, whereas the rectum is designed with an "exit only" function for the expelling of feces.

---

BWAHAHAHAHA! You really believe that, don't you?I hate to burst your bubble, but the vagina is an "exit only" function, too. The vaginal pH is hostile to sperm, being slightly acidic. That is why the ejaculate contains neutralizers because otherwise, the sperm would die. That's also why ejaculate commonly thickens after orgasm and then becomes more fluid: It allows the chemical reaction to take place so that the sperm can safely leave.The cervix contains a mucosal plug that the sperm must fight against in order to get through. The vaginal and uterine and Fallopian tube contractions all push out.And if you think the rectum is "exit only," then you had better tell your doctor before he gives you a suppository.

quote:

---

This is precisely why proctologists do not recommend anal sex

---

That's strange. My proctologist says no such thing.

quote:

---

among other reasons, as we will see.

---

Oh, dear lord...you're not about to bring up "gay bowel syndrome," are you? The strange idea that if you have a lot of anal sex, you're prone to prolapse and will spend your elderly years wearing diapers, are you?

quote:

---

Aside from that, the rectum is rife with bacteria, more so than the vagina.

---

But less so than the mouth. And yet, nobody really seems to think that oral sex is unnatural.And your mouth is even more likely to have "small fissures" than your rectum. And yet, we don't think that oral sex is a huge danger.

quote:

---

Aside from which, latex condoms do not provide adequate protection as is.

---

BWAHAHAHAHA! You really believe that, don't you? How precious! Bless your heart.Nemesis Juggernaut, as the Surgeon General of the United States, the most effective way of stopping sexually transmitted diseases is the condom.

quote:

---

The microscopic pores in a latex condom is approximately 50 times larger than the average spermatozoa. And the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than the average sperm, thus only providing nominal protection.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! No, I don't dispute that. I dispute that you think that has any bearing on the case. Those "microscopic pores" you are talking about are enormous compared to water molecules......and yet water can't get past a condom.Do you know how they test latex condoms, NJ? Take one out and look at it. It's on all of them. There it is: "Electronically tested." Do you know what that means? Condoms aren't tested by taking a sample. Instead, every single condom is checked for leaks. Every single one. They put the condom on an electrode and dip the condom-covered electrode in an electrolytic solution. They then run a current through the system and check to see if a current can be detected across the condom. No current, no leaks, condom good, and it gets packaged and sold.Do you know how much smaller an electron is compared to a molecule of water, a viral particle, or a spermatozoa?And yet, condoms don't let any of those things pass. This "microscopic pores" thing you're blathering on about is nothing more than a cut-and-paste from a Christian web site trying to claim that any sex outside of heterosexual marriage is going to cause the end of the world. There is no scientific evidence behind it.

quote:

---

anal sex poses a risk of gay bowel syndrome

---

Oh, dear lord, you did.NJ: There is no such thing as "gay bowel syndrome." The anus is a muscle, just like any other. If you exercise it, it becomes stronger, not weaker. Your reference gets the definition wrong. "Gay bowel syndrome" is not a collection of infectious diseases. It is the idea that somehow the muscles of the anus will be destroyed from anal sex. Given that people regularly pass fecal material much larger than any penis, this is clearly a farce.The list of infections mentioned are just as common in vaginal intercourse as anal and yet nobody seems to talk about "straight vaginal syndrome," now do they? Women commonly get urinary tract infections and quite often it comes from sexual activity, but we don't seem to call it "straight UI syndrome," now do we?

quote:

---

These facts need to be considered

---

And as soon as you come up with one, it'll be considered. So far, all you've done is spout hysteria and falsehoods.

quote:

---

What once naturally repulsed people has now become more acceptable through desensitization and over-exposure to such practices.

---

No...I won't say it. It's just too easy.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?3. Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?4. Could it be that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?5. If you’ve never slept with a person of the same sex, how can you be sure you wouldn’t prefer that?6. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?7. Why do heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into their lifestyle?8. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can’t you just be what you are and keep it quiet?9. Would you want your children to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they’d face?10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual men. Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual male teachers, pediatricians, priests, or scoutmasters?11. With all the societal support for marriage, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?12. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?13. Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?14. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don’t you fear s/he might be inclined to influence you in the direction of her/his own leanings?15. Heterosexuals are notorious for assigning themselves and one another rigid, stereotyped sex roles. Why must you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?16. With the sexually segregated living conditions of military life, isn’t heterosexuality incompatible with military service?17. How can you enjoy an emotionally fulfilling experience with a person of the other sex when there are such vast differences between you? How can a man know what pleases a woman sexually or vice-versa?18. Shouldn’t you ask your far-out straight cohorts, like skinheads and born-agains, to keep quiet? Wouldn’t that improve your image?19. Why are heterosexuals so promiscuous?20. Why do you attribute heterosexuality to so many famous lesbian and gay people? Is it to justify your own heterosexuality?21. How can you hope to actualize your God-given homosexual potential if you limit yourself to exclusive, compulsive heterosexuality?22. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to. After all, you never deliberately chose to be a heterosexual, did you? Have you considered aversion therapy or Heterosexuals Anonymous?