I don’t know, I’m pretty sure my pet rock is disease free.
Then again he could be fucking boulders and paving stones the minute my back is turned. He could bring home moss.
A more important question, though, is how do you get a condom over a computer keyboard?
Actually bete, they do make a cover that goes over your keyboard to keep dust out. It seals over the keyboard in a similar fashion to a condom.
Condoms are unnatural, but some natural things are very overrated.
Cyn without lipstick is not a good experience, even though cosmetics are unnatural. So even if the men who wrote the Bible had trouble with some “unnatural” stuff, I am going to wait and see if God judges me harshly for wearing lipstick, using condoms, and enjoying anal sex. Compared to God’s opinion, ** Der K**'s opinion, such as it is, is just not important.
But his rambling has raised a question: What sexual positions did the men who wrote the Bible recommend? What variations are allowed, Biblically speaking?
JuanDeCuba wrote:
Well, I’ll be darned! I thought I was the only one around these days who still preferred the TEV translation. Everybody else seems to have gone NIV- or NKJV-happy. (Except for the KJV die-hards, of course, and as far as I’m concerned, they can have their 4-century-old mouldy translation. Bleah.)
Tracer, sorry to disappoint you but I usually prefer the Reina-Valera, I just use TEV when I’m too lazy to translate from spanish to english 
Why, JuanDeCuba, don’t you know that Jesus spoke Elizabethan English? 
But do they come in mint flavor?
But do they come in mint flavor? **
[/QUOTE]
Just chocolate.
Just to interrupt the inexorable progress of this thread towards the BBQ Pit -
AIDS is far more likely to be transmitted thru anal intercourse than thru vaginal intercourse because anal intercourse generally causes microtrauma to the lining of the colon. That is to say, the catcher bleeds. Generally speaking, the chance of catching AIDS from a single act of intercourse with an infected partner is about 1 in 2000 in vaginal sex, about 1 in 500 in anal. Using a condom greatly decreases your chances (in both cases), but condoms are more likely to tear in anal intercourse due to the lack of lubrication.
Dr. C. Everett Koop, former surgeon general of the US.
Feel free to quibble over who designed the human body (God vs. evolution, if you think there is a conflict - can’t see one myself), but the human vagina is designed to take penises in fairly often and let babies out somewhat more rarely. The human anus is not.
Add to that things like shigellosis, hepatitis, and so forth, all of which are transmitted far more often thru anal intercourse than thru vaginal.
Include things like fisting in your definition of anal sex, and the OP starts to sound even a little more defensible.
My take is that anal intercourse is like S&M. It may not be practical to make it illegal, but that does not make it a good idea.
As to the lively discussion about it being unnatural in the Biblical sense, I think the distinction to be made is between ceremonial prohibitions in the Old Testament (keeping kosher, etc.) and moral prohibitions. Wearing cloth from two different fibers and rape are both forbidden in the Bible, but I wouldn’t say that rape was OK because we are not Jews, and therefore not bound by ceremonial law.
Reasonable minds certainly disagree about which are the moral and which the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, but wouldn’t you agree that something which is personally harmful is something to be avoided?
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, I agree completely. And the one in 2000 chance of getting AIDS through a single heterosexual encounter is way too risky when the risk can be eliminated entirely by avoiding sex.
Clearly, we should all be celibate and procreate through test tubes. That would eliminate the risks entirely.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
manhattan -
You’re kidding, right? You do really know the distinction between avoiding dangerous sexual practices and not having sex at all.
Don’t you?
Just because I advise against sticking your private parts into a light socket does not mean that you should join a nunnery. Some sexual practices are more dangerous than others. Anal sex is more dangerous, and therefore more ‘unnatural’ than other forms of sexual activity.
Think of it in terms of ‘safer sex’. Using a condom is less risky than not, so do. Anal intercourse is more risky than whatever, so don’t.
You can come up with a better counter argument than that. Let’s hear it.
Regards,
Shodan
One inch! That’s the distance (more or less, probably less) between the the anus and the vagina. Can’t you go that extra inch to get to what you really came for?(Hehe, hey Butthead, he just said ‘came’ hehe.) God hates laziness.
BTW, the technical term for this one inch span of neutral zone is “taint”, cause it taint pu$$y and it taint a$$!
I personally find it refreshing that someone actually automatically assumed straight anal sex. Makes a change…
jayjay
manhattan was making the point that all actions come with a certain amount of risk and the only way to reduce it completly is to not have sex at all. You seemed to be implying that 1 in 2000 was acceptable while 1 in 500 is not. The point is that it is all dangerous, to some degree. There are ways to reduce risk (most notably, don’t have sex with people who are high risk) to nearly undetectable levels. So, your argument that it is too risky (whereas vaginal sex is not) is entirely subjective in nature.
And as for no natural lubrication I have just one word for you. And that word is ‘lube.’
sshodan wrote:
Um, the danger level of an activity is completely unrelated to its “naturalness,” whatever that means anyway. Eating raw animal flesh is more natural than eating it cooked, but that does not make it less dangerous.
Huh? This argument makes no sense. I can’t even figure out what you’re trying to say. Let’s try this again: No sex is safest. Vaginal intercourse with a condemn is slightly less safe. Anal intercourse is even less safe. Now, please explain why we should choose the “middle ground” on this. You seem to be saying that there is a certain level of acceptable risk, which includes “regular” sex, but not anal sex. On what grounds do you draw the line of acceptable risk?
If I might make a deduction:
Opus said “condemn” when he apparently meant “condom.” This transposition involves too many letters to be a simple typo, and yet Opus is literate enough that I know he knows the difference. I infer, therefore, that Opus uses a spellchecker which automatically corrects his mistakes.
Am I correct, Opus?
-Ben
Damn, ** Shodan**, you must’ve had some pretty rough rides!
Actually, the weird thing about Shodan’s fisting argument is that there’s vaginal fisting, too, but somehow that doesn’t count. It’s reminiscent the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, in a way. “Vaginal sex” is safer than “anal sex” because vaginal sex means orthogenital heterosexual intercourse, while “anal sex” includes fisting.
Plus, many of his arguments make mention of the fact that diseases are more easily transmitted through anal than through vaginal sex. The dangers are easily reversed for people who are in a monogamous and disease-free relationship: vaginal sex carries more risk of pregnancy, the dangers of which far outweigh the supposed risks from anal sex.
-Ben
Ben,
Nope. No spellchecker but my own noggin. Must’ve been one of those Freudian slip type things.
Cite, please? Or should I just remind everyone that we covered ever so much of this in my [url=“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56265"]"Some AIDS Facts” threads. As I said there, I’m so sick of this discussion I could take a hostage.
Esprix