|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: So difficult to keep up! (Re: Memeber of the religious right running morally amuck) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: 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: That's strange. My proctologist says no such thing.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Yes, I know, molbiogirl, and the reference is wrong. "Gay bowel syndrome" doesn't mean STDs and other things related to anal sex. It means being unable to keep your asshole closed because it's been fucked too much.
The various diseases and wounds mentioned with regard to anal sex have their comparable diseases and wounds with regard to vaginal sex and yet we never hear about "straight vaginal syndrome," now do we? Nobody is saying that anal sex is as safe as breathing filtered air. However, there isn't anything in anal sex that doesn't have a similar result in vaginal sex. To somehow criminalize anal sex while keeping vaginal sex pristine is nothing but bigotry. [Note, I am not accusing you of it. I am talking about those who want to come up with something, anything that keeps their own sexual proclivities blessed by god while damning everything else.] 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Returning the quibble...molbiogirl writes:
quote: Ovarian? Yes. Breast? No. Men have mammary glands. They're just not as hypertrophied as they are in women since men don't produce nearly as much estrogen as women do. In the US, about 1500 men come down with breast cancer every year of which about a third of them die from it. Edited by Rrhain, : Corrected stats to point out that they are for the US. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote: You mean you can't figure it out? The vagina has an acidic environment which is to kill pathogens that might enter the woman's body through the vagina. Then, when they are dead, the muscular contractions of the vaginal pathway will push them out. The vaginal environment is actively hostile to sperm and does what it can to expel them, starting with killing them outright. If it were receptive to the idea of sperm coming in, if it were truly an "entrance," then it wouldn't go out of its way to try and kill the sperm, now would it? If you're going to insist upon the anus as being "exit only," then we must necessarily conclude that the vagina is also "exit only."
quote: Indeed, it is. You seem to think that this is some sort of counter to the fact that the vaginal environment is actively hostile to sperm. Why do you think that males need to produce so many hundreds of millions of sperm? Of those hundred million that are deposited into the vagina, only about 50 make it to the egg. It's actually quite difficult to become pregnant.
quote: (*chuckle*) What do I need a proctologist for? Hmmm....could it be that I'm turning 40 next year and my father and his brother both have had prostate problems? Could it be that my mother, her identical twin sister, and my father's mother all have come down with breast cancer, which has relation to prostate cancer in men? Hmmm...could it be that I am a sex educator and it is my job to talk to the medical establishment regarding such activities? Nah, that can't possibly be why I might need a proctologist or talk to one about anal sex. It has to be because I'm gay. Hint: Straight men also engage in anal sex. The prostate is sensitive and stimulation of it can be quite pleasurable.
quote: I daresay you have never had a good blowjob, then. If you're going to be working so delicately on his penis, then I have to wonder how your partner could maintain erection. The mouth is continually filled with minor cuts and such due to the sharp teeth being there. Fellatio aggravates them.
quote: Well, you told a joke. Of course I was going to laugh. That's the common response to humorous statements.
quote: And thus, the disingenuousness arises. Obviously, if you don't have sex or engage in sexual activity that does not involve bodily contact, then you don't risk sexually transmitted disease. For one who just complained about "being mature," you seemed to have reverted to a child-like response. If you're going to have sex where a penis is involved and is going to be touched by someone else, then the most effective way to prevent transmission of sexually transmitted disease is to use a condom. That's why it has been around for over 3000 years.
quote: Incorrect. If your partner is infected, then it doesn't matter how faithful the two of you are to each other.
quote: Indeed. Nobody ever said condoms were perfect. But the way people get diseases and pregnant with condoms isn't because a couple sperm leaked out through a "microscopic pore" in the condom. Instead, the condom broke or some other method of introducing sperm-bearing fluid to the vagina happened (foreplay before the condom was put on, slippage of the condom after ejaculation from poor withdrawal, etc.) When condoms are used correctly, they prevent pregnancy almost as effectively as the Pill.
quote: No, not if used correctly. One of the common errors, and this is true for vaginal intercourse as well, is not using enough lubrication.
quote: Indeed...and we found that HIV-transmission is primarily carried out through heterosexual intercourse. Three-quarters of all cases worldwide were the result of penis-vagina sex. About another 20% are through drug use. In fact, male-male sexual intercourse is a tiny fraction of all cases of HIV transmission. Currently, it's pretty much only in the US that HIV transmission is primarily between men. The UK flipped to primarily heterosexual sex about 8 years ago.
quote: Indeed, because they were looking at gay men who don't have vaginas with which to have sex. Oral sex has a much lower risk than anal sex, yes, but there are plenty of other things to worry about with oral sex than HIV. Gonorrhea, syphillis, herpes, chlamydia, all can be transmitted orally.
quote: Indeed, and the reason it isn't called that anymore is because it has nothing to do with being gay. In fact, the overwhelming majority of cases of HIV transmission are through heterosexual sex. Should we start calling it, "Immune Deficiency in Straights," or "IDS"?
quote: One that's out of date? Yes. You are quite correct that there are diseases that can be contracted via anal sex, but the idea that only gay men contract them is simply not true. For the same reason that "AIDS" isn't called "GRID" anymore (it isn't "gay-related"), sexually transmitted diseases in the anus are not unique to gay people. And since anal sex is much more likely to be carried out by heterosexual participants, the idea that it is "gay-related" simply isn't true. That's why nobody talks about it as "gay bowel syndrome" anymore. Your definition is over 20 years old and is connected to the same ignorance regarding HIV. When the idea that the immune deficiency was connected to gays was discarded, so was "gay bowel syndrome." That's why the common meaning of the term isn't infection but rather uncontrolled prolapse...which has also been shown to be nonexistent.
quote: Huh? There's a "straight UI syndrome"? Where?
quote: Huh? You mean sex isn't one of those causes? Do you seriously not realize that the urethra is right next to the genitalia in humans? In males, the urethra is part and parcel of the penis. In women, the urethra is right next to the vagina.
quote: Irrelevant. The penis rubs against the urethra during vaginal sex.
quote: Incorrect. Just as two people who don't have HIV can have as much sex as they want and not risk passing HIV between them, twopeople who don't have any diseases can have as much anal sex as they wish. You're fixated on the act and are ignoring the actual cause of disease: Infectious agents. If the infectious agent is not present, then no act can make it appear.
quote:quote: I didn't say you were screaming. I said you were spouting hysteria. One can calmly say, "A gigantic meteor is coming. You should consider evacutating the area," and yet that's still spouting hysteria when there isn't any threat. Your claim that condoms are ineffective (and yet hypocritically admitting that they are over 90% effective in preventing pregnancy...you can't have it both ways, NJ) is naught but hysteria. Your claim that anal sex is physically traumatic and leads to no end of disease is hysteria.
quote: Indeed. That must be why I keep having to clean myself off whenever one of your posts appears on the screen. The amount of bile and invective spewed forth is amazing. That you attempt to deliver it as if you were Mary Poppins with what you think is a spoonful of sugar doesn't change the fact that you're spouting shit.
quote: Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, you haven't seen me upset. Believe me, when I get angry at you, you'll know. You're assuming that I'm emotionally invested in you and to put it as nicely as I can, you just aren't that important. Now, I can't stop you from taking every little thing that anybody says personally, but please try to understand that I really don't care about you. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to brennakimi:
quote: And what makes you think he wasn't right? There are all sorts of reasons why somebody might need a proctologist, NJ. That you can't think of any beyond being a gay male doesn't mean nobody else has a reason.
quote: Incorrect. Reread my post and try again. Hint: I was responding to your complaint that the anus is filled with bacteria. I pointed out that the mouth has even more bacteria. This doesn't mean that bacteria aren't a problem. It means that simply whining about bacteria is not sufficient. There are lots of sexually transmitted diseases that are passed orally. Gonorrhea of the throat is not pleasant.
quote: Then you truly don't understand how the mouth works. The mere presence of the teeth in mouth means that you ALWAYS have cuts and tears in your mouth. Every dentist knows this. That's why sex educators say that you shouldn't brush your teeth before oral sex as the brush causes cuts and tears in your mouth.
quote: Except that isn't quite true. Hemophiliacs were getting it, too. While gay men certainly made the bulk of the cases seen early on, it became clear that what was happening was not some sort of environmental toxin or physical trauma but rather a pathogen.
quote: So why do you keep bringing up this "gay bowel syndrome" which has nothing to do with being gay?
quote: Incorrect. You were the one who brought up "gay bowel syndrome" (Message 81). I simply laughed at you for it (Message 89).
quote: And you wonder why people consider you a homophobic bigot? At any rate, that isn't true. The first cases were discovered in New York. The misidentified "Patient Zero" was a flight attendant from the East Coast.
quote: No, you're not. You're being very careful about how you're phrasing things, but you slip up. After all, YOU were the one who introduced "gay bowel syndrome."
quote: Indeed, and the medical evidence is clear: Anal sex is just as natural as any other kind of sex and just as healthy/risky.
quote: As are the vagina and mouth and the vagina and hand. But nobody seems to think oral or manual sex is "unnatural."
quote: And why is that insufficient? Be specific. It poses no more risk than any other form of sex. So if the people involved in participating in it are happy with it, why is there some reason to stop them?
quote: Huh? Didn't you just say, "if it fits, it's fine"? It quite clearly fits or people wouldn't engage in it. And it's clearly pleasurable or people wouldn't engage in it so often. You seem to think that having anal sex is akin to rape.
quote: Nice try, but you're shifting the burden of proof. You're the one who is claiming there is something wrong with it. Since it is obvious that people successfully engage in it and do so willingly, even eagerly, then it is your burden to come up with a reason why what they're doing is something other than what it is: Pleasurable sexual contact. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: Um, hitting on you is not "seducing you to their 'lifestyle.'" When you hit on a woman, are you "seducing" them into your "lifestyle"? And speaking of "lifestyle," what is it you mean by that? Track lighting? Going to amusement parks? Your "lifestyle" is a conscious choice that you can change. Are you saying your heterosexual "lifestyle" is capable of being changed? That seems to contradict your claims that you didn't decide to be straight and that you couldn't change it.
quote: But you seem to be incapable of just keeping quiet about it. You felt compelled to tell us of your sexual exploits just recently. You are clearly obsessed with your penis and cannot keep quiet about it. Why can't you just keep it to yourself and let the rest of us moral people live ourlives without having you shove your sexuality down our throats? I mean, you actively sought out sex in a public place!
quote: No.
quote: What does this have to do with gay people? The question put to you was that since the disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual men. Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual male teachers, pediatricians, priests, or scoutmasters? Gay males are exceedingly rare among child molesters, even rarer than female molesters. If you're truly concerned about the welfare of your child, wouldn't the logical thing be to search for gay people?
quote: That ignores the question. Given all the societal support for marriage, why is the divorce rate spiraling? You seem to be saying that the societal support for marriage is what is causing divorce. Are you saying that trying to help people stay together is what drives them apart?
quote: You're avoiding the question. Take a look around you and see all the sexual imagery that exists, all of it heterosexual. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
quote: Actually, there is some evidence suggesting that.
quote: But you seem to have confused normal behaviour as "seducing" you. Are you sure you understand what normal behaviour is?
quote: So why do same-sex couples stay together longer than mixed-sex couples? And where is your evidence that "god/nature" was involved or "intended" anything?
quote: And yet, you seem to think that gay people need to do something about their outliers. Notice, in the very next question, you started ranting about promiscuous gay people. The question isn't about gay people, NJ. It's about straights. With the horrendous promiscuity rates of straight people, shouldn't you, as a straight person, do something about it?
quote: No. It is quite clear and straightforward. There are many famous people out there who are/were gay. And yet, heterosexuals seem to insist that they couldn't have been and declare them to be straight. Why is this? Is it an attempt to justify your own heterosexuality?
quote: But you just said in question one that your sexuality was god-given. Now you're saying it isn't. So which is it? Is your sexuality from god or is it a choice? And if you choose it, what would it take for you to change?
quote: This isn't about gay people, NJ. Try to stick to the question. 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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
brennakimi writes:
quote: Having been groped and raped, I see a clear distinction between the two. So whose personal anecdote are we gonna believe? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mr Jack responds to me:
quote: This study has been refuted (Chun, Rose, Mitrani, Silvestre, & Wald, 1997). There is no relation to anal sex and incontinence. Too, the study you cite has an extremely unusual definition of "incontinence" as release "of either solid stool, liquid stool, or flatus." In other words, according to their study, if you fart, your incontinent. I think we can safely say that such is a ludicrous claim. And I should point out, the study did not break down the incidences of the various types. It simply asked if the subject had ever experienced any of the symptoms. And don't try to bring up Engel et al. (1995), either. The seven people they described had all been raped. As Morin (1998) points out, anal sex when carried out by willing participants does not lead to incontinence or prolapse.
quote: You need to change your understanding. Anal sex is no more risky than vaginal sex. The risks are different, yes, but it is impossible to classify one as "riskier" than the other. Edited by Rrhain, : Fixed a sentence fragment. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
brennakimi writes:
quote: Yep. And neither of them rises to the level of rape. I should point out that it seems that one of the issues regarding sexual abuse, particularly among children, is that the reaction by people the victim is supposed to trust has a profound effect upon how the victim recovers. If everybody treats the victim as a fragile piece of glass, forever shattered, and can only hope at best to regain a tiny inkling of the trust once had, then that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obviously, this doesn't mean that sexual abuse is innocuous. It means that if you treat someone as if they were destroyed, they will often start to think that they were. Being groped by a stranger is one thing. Being groped by a trusted authority figure is another. And both of them do not compare to rape. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote: What does this have to do with anything? There are many, very obvious signs that the vagina is exit-only. You're focusing on one and then trying to say that because one doesn't handle the other, that means there's no evidence of anything. The sign that the vagina is designed to keep the penis out is that the muscular contractions push it out and that the woman has to actively work to accept the penis. Trying to penetrate a vagina when the woman doesn't want you to is not easy (and I don't mean from her fighting you off.)
quote: You seriously don't know? OK...here's how babies are made, NJ: When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much.... Surely you aren't saying that the reproductive part of sexual activity has no bearing on sex, are you? You were the one saying that disease is horrendous in anal sex because the lining of the rectum has the consistency of a Happy Tree Friend and thus pathogens just flow right in and make the person sick. So if you're going to talk about about the effect of biologicals that remain in the anus after sex, then it is only fair that we discuss the effect of biologicals that remain in the vagina after sex.
quote: As is the rectum. In fact, you can take much more rectally than you can vaginally. Eventually, you hit the cervix. Those who claim that the rectum isn't "designed" to take a penis will have to explain all the people who manage to have anal sex successfully, enjoy it, and are eager to do it again. Hint: Most of them are straight. Hint: Many women find vaginal sex quite painful, so we can't use the concept of "painful" or "difficult" as a strike against anal sex.
quote: No, by design. Everything about the functioning of the female genital tract, from ovary to vagina, pushes out. If that is the hallmark of "exit-only" that you insist upon for the anus, then that necessarily holds true for the vagina, too.
quote: Logical error: Excluded middle. Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't it be both? Since it is quite possible to successfully engage in both, where does this idea that it can't be for both come from?
quote: (*chuckle*) I have been very careful not to make any mention one way or the other regarding my sexual or religious orientation. I do not wish to have my arguments dismissed with, "Of course you would say that: You're an X." I realize this is maddening to some people. I have had people accuse me (and I use that term deliberately) of being straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, and even Satan himself. As Westley said to Inigo when he demanded, "I must know": Get used to disappointment. I notice you skipped over the possibility that I'm getting old. Here's another possibility that I didn't mention previously: I have gay friends and/or family and I care about them. But no, you assumed that it had to be because I was gay...and to quote you, "wink." And you wonder why people think you're a homophobic bigot.
quote: (*chuckle*) Tell that to Dr. Ruth, Dr. Johanssen, Dr. Drew, etc. and those are the just the ones everybody knows about. When someone has a talk and invites a representative from Planned Parenthood to speak, who do you think they send? When the various groups do outreach to sex workers to teach them how to keep themselves safe, who do you think they send?
quote: Get used to disappointment.
quote: Nobody is telling you to do anything you don't want to do. However, don't confuse your personal squick factor with a universal. The fact that people all over the world engage in anal sex successfully and eagerly is indicative that this "exit-only" thing is nothing more than a hangup.
quote: And you really think your wife's mouth is as pristine and unblemished when she was through as it was when she started?
quote: Again, you have never had a good blowjob then. Oh, there are ways to use teeth correctly and ways to use them incorrectly, but to rule them out completely just means the person doesn't know how to use them. That said, when I was referring to teeth, I wasn't referring to the giver's teeth on the recipient's penis. I was referring to the giver's teeth on the giver's mouth. The mouth is filled with tears, abrasions, and cuts specifically because the mouth is filled with teeth.
quote: Better yet, think about the ratio of infection between anal and vaginal sex. And then consider between oral and vaginal sex. If you're truly going to complain that anal sex is bad because of infection, then you're going to have to discard vaginal and oral sex, too, and restrict yourself to well-lubricated hand jobs delivered by yourself upon yourself.
quote: And yet, women commonly get urinary tract infections from sex, even though they are in a faithful relationship with a clean partner. You're seemingly confusing sexual activity with promiscuity.
quote: And yet, it is a problem in vaginal sex, too. The solution is simple: Use lubricant.
quote: When used correctly? It's hard to say. The effectiveness rate of preventing HIV-infection between sero-discordant partners who use condoms every single time is pretty much at the same rate of prevention of pregnancy.
quote: As does the rectum, or you wouldn't be able to pass stool. And just like the vagina, natural lubrication increases during sex. But, just like the vagina, the amount of natural lubrication is rarely enough. With sufficient foreplay on the part of both partners, one can successfully engage in both vaginal and anal sex without the need for external lubrication, but if you're going to use a condom, you always need more.
quote: Incorrect, as previously established.
quote: Don't take my word for it. Go look up the WHO statistics. According to AVERT, two-thirds of new HIV infections are from heterosexual sex. Drug use is another 10%. And we haven't even touched mother-child transmission (11%) or blood products (about 5-10%). Male-male sexual transmission is only about 5-10%. I realize that living in the United States makes you think that it's a gay disease, but the US is not the world. The US is one of the last places on earth where the primary transmission vector is male-male and even then, it's only a slim majority. In the UK, heterosexual sex became the primary vector back in 1999 and it was one of the last European countries to flip. In 2006, 4.3 million people became infected with HIV. In North America, there are only about 1.4 million people total that are. Only about 5% of all cases of HIV infection are in the West.
quote: It's called a "search engine." You do know how to use one, yes?
quote: But you're missing the point. Those same diseases are transmitted via vaginal sex. And yet, the only reason you're bringing them up is because someone decided to lump them all into "gay bowel syndrome." Because we don't have a comparable "straight vaginal syndrome," you are making anal sex out as something different. If you're going to rule out anal sex because of those diseases, then you must necessarily rule out vaginal sex because it happens there, too.
quote: I dare say your women probably didn't tell you about their UTIs or yeast infections in any graphic detail if at all.
quote: Only in the sense that two paper towels are thicker than one...and it also depends upon the specific infectious agent. You're stuck on HIV, aren't you? There are other diseases besides HIV, you know.
quote: Have you not read your own posts? "...is not anal sex the number one way to procure such diseases? ""...which is another sure way of knowing that one is for sexual intercourse and the other is not." "I certainly wouldn't be surprised that 95% comes from the anal side of the house. " "I listed condom breakage as a factor of considerable consequence in anal sex." "However, the tiny fraction is simply not plausible." And that's just in this one post. You're making anal sex out to be the worst possible sexual activity one can engage in...without having bothered to look up a single reference ("I'd be curious to see any documentation to the contrary, however.") Your sole justification is an emotional squick factor: "my backdoor is an exit only." That's the definition of hysteria. The fact that you're not using exclamation points doesn't mean you're not spewing emotional vomit.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? The method provides "inadequate protection" and you claim that you're not saying they are "ineffective"? Surely you're not about to be disingenuous and claim that by "inadequate protection," you were really claiming that since there is a non-zero effectiveness rate, that makes them "not ineffective," are you? The effectiveness rate of preventing HIV transmission among sero-discordant individuals is about the same as for preventing pregnancy.
quote: It's called "marketing." It's there for the same reason that there are no "small" condoms. There's no indication that current condoms are deficient. They prevent HIV-transmission with the same effectiveness as pregnancy and for that, condoms are only beaten by the Pill and sterilization.
quote: Incorrect. You are confusing interest in the topic and the art of debate with interest in you. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: Yes. Besides, what more is required beyond "if it fits"? By your description, oral sex isn't sex because the mouth is not genitalia. Masturbation isn't sex because the hand is not genitalia. One would be curious how you would describe frottage that involved sliding the shaft of the penis up and down against the labia without penetration. "It fits." The very fact that millions upon millions of people engage in anal sex is pretty indicative that yes, the rectum is designed for sex. You wouldn't be able to do it if it weren't.
quote: No. It's supposed to point out your logical error of special pleading. The vagina is in the same boat as the rectum but you somehow make exception for one based not upon any difference between the two but rather because you're grossed out. If you're going to insist that the vagina can be used for sex despite the fact that it quite often doesn't produce enough lubricant for the act, why are you insisting that the rectum isn't?
quote: That's our question to you. You're the one engaging in special pleading. We have shown that the characteristics of the vagina and rectum are parallel. So if you're going to claim that the vagina is capable of sex, then what possible justification can you put forward to exclude the rectum? Especially since huge numbers of people engage in it? If you weren't functional for sex, then you wouldn't be able to do it. Why is "It fits" insufficient? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
quote: True, but misleading. Rayon is made from cellulose. It isn't actual cellulose fiber (and thus is "synthetic"), but you get rayon by starting with plant fibers. We now return to the previous topic. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: No...it's too easy...something about Blanche, Bette Davis, and Joan Crawford...must...maintain...control....
quote: Right...because gay people SO like being raped. And you wonder why people think you're a homophobic bigot. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mr Jack responds to me:
quote: Nobody is denying that. But who said sex was only for reproduction? Need you be reminded that humans, unlike the vast majority of mammals, don't go into estrus? They are receptive to sex throughout the year. Where did this idea come from that sex was only for reproduction? And if it's for more than reproduction, why are certain types of non-procreative sex "natural" while the others are "unnatural"? No, you're not going to get pregnant from oral sex. You're going to have fun, though (or, at least, you're gonna try.)
quote: Thus showing you completely missed the point. NJ's argument is that the vagina can hold the penis. Therefore, by his logic, that means that vaginal sex is "natural." But the rectum not only holds the penis, it is much more accommodating: If the penis is larger than the vaginal canal, you're going to run into the cervix. The rectum doesn't have that cap (though the lower flexion can be problematic). Thus, if NJ is going to insist upon saying that vaginal sex is good because of the way the penis fits into the vagina, then anal sex must be even better because it fits into the rectum better. It's good that you find the argument ridiculous: That was the point. I'm trying to show that NJ's argument actually works against his conclusion. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024