Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
We were talking about phallic objects, are we not?
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:
Where does sperm and the pH balance of the vagina factor in to the equation?
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:
Vagina's are designed, whether by God or through natural selection, to conform perfectly the penis.
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:
By what-- default?
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:
Could we say that nostrils are for ingestion, not expulsion, simply because objects, powders, and liquids can physically make its way up them?
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:
You said something that in an earlier post that seemed to imply that you were both gay and fond of anal sex, which would account for my asking.
(*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:
I'm sure you have amazing credentials, but a sex educator doesn't sound like a real job to me.
(*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:
Where do you practice, doctor? UCSD?
Get used to disappointment.
quote:
As erotic as that sounds and all, my backdoor is an exit only.
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:
I had a great one last night as a matter of fact, thank you very much. I'll give my wife your regards though.
And you really think your wife's mouth is as pristine and unblemished when she was through as it was when she started?
quote:
If teeth factor in to fellatio, then the giver is doing something wrong.
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:
I would be very curious to the ratio of infection between anal and oral sex.
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:
Obviously both parties would be tested prior too.
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:
I listed condom breakage as a factor of considerable consequence in anal sex.
And yet, it is a problem in vaginal sex, too. The solution is simple: Use lubricant.
quote:
Which happens more often, in your professional opinion: Condoms tend to break more in the vagina or the rectum?
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:
The vagina produces its own lubrication
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:
whereas the anus does not
Incorrect, as previously established.
quote:
Being that there are far less gay men than there are heterosexuals, I wouldn't doubt that it occurs less. However, the tiny fraction is simply not plausible.
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:
I'd be curious to see any documentation to the contrary, however.
It's called a "search engine." You do know how to use one, yes?
quote:
I was not bringing that up to undermine homosexual males, but rather as an evidentiary claim that anal is not advised from a medical perspective.
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:
Back when I was a philandering man-whore, this never appeared to be a problem for me and my partners.
I dare say your women probably didn't tell you about their UTIs or yeast infections in any graphic detail if at all.
quote:
After sharing hypodermic needles, via intravenous routes, is not anal sex the number one way to procure such diseases?
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:
What is hysterical about it?
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:
I never said they were ineffective. I said that during anal sex, because of the anatomy of the rectum, makes them inadequate protection.
(*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:
Surely you must know this is a fact since condom companies have introduced a series specifically designed to hold up to the rigors of anal sex.
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:
Well, you must be invested at least in part, being that you've taken the time to respond to each and every one of my posts, whether directed to you or someone else.
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.
™ Version 4.2
