Aw, MAN! I thought I had it figured out for sure.
-Ben
Try Condom Express. You don’t even have to log off, and overnight delivery is available.
Oh, you meant FOR a keyboard, not VIA a keyboard, sorry.
Now, can someone PLEASE provide a good working definition of “unnatural”?
Sorry, Shodan, I have only so much energy for countering arguments as manifestly ignorant as yours. There are some things just too ignorant to bother with.
Your own stats (which are probably wrong, BTW), assign risk both to anal and vaginal intercourse, and somehow make the leap that because anal intercourse has a 4X risk factor it should be avoided. How can anyone not read that and fail to conclude that the right course of action is to eschew vaginal sex, too, since that reduces the risk by an infinite amount? After all, isn’t “infinite” better than “four?”
Additionally, you ignore the fact that the risk of AIDS transmission (for example) is exactly zero if neither party is infected.
You quote Koop on the alleged potential physical damage from anal sex, but the simple fact is that millions of people routinely engage in anal sex, both straight and gay, with no damage at all.
Koop is an hysteric, pure and simple. Whether on cigarettes, AIDS or anything else, he selects the most extreme data he can get his hands on, ignores all other data, and whoops it up for public consumption. He deserves every dollar he’s made on KOOP.com (heh).
Esprix -
The figures are from The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS by Michael Fumento. I don’t have a copy near me, but I believe he got his figures from the CDC.
For the rest -
FWIW - Vaginal fisting is also a bad idea, for most of the same reasons as anal fisting, although the design of the vagina makes it somewhat less dangerous than anal, as the vagina can allow the passage of larger objects thru it (like babies). Anal intercourse, however, usually involves microtrauma to the lining of the sigmoid colon, and thus is inherently less safe than vaginal intercourse.
manhattan’s attempts to dismiss Dr. Koop’s arguments are simple ad hominem attacks. I agree with manhattan that some things are, indeed, not worth bothering with.
I thought I had already posted this, but I guess I should emphasize that there can (and IMO should) be a distinction drawn between more dangerous and less dangerous sexual practices, without inferring that sex should be foregone altogether. Different people will draw their boundaries in different places, depending on a number of factors.
Surely we can agree that people should choose their sexual behaviors so as to avoid those that are dangerous. That has, after all, been the message of most AIDS education for the last twenty years or so. Or does the principle become invalid the instant it implies that there might be some activity popular amongst gay men that is not to be celebrated? I mentioned S&M earlier, and I think the principle is the same. Perhaps someone might want to do this. That does not imply, however, that it must automatically be good clean fun.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan wrote:
Ah, well, a book with a title like The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS sounds like a peachy source for unbiased statistical data, since we all know that no heterosexuals have ever gotten AIDS. :rolleyes:
I don’t think manhattan’s comments about Koop were ad hominum. He was saying that he didn’t accept Koop as a particualrly valid source, and gave some quick reasons why. I’m sure he could have backed them up further, but the discussion is about the relative naturalness of sticking things up your butt, not the merits of an ex-Surgeon General.
Personaly, I discount everything Koop says because of his goofy beard. See, that’s a personal attack. Manhattan just thinks his conclusions are faulty.
Anyway, Shodan, you’re point is mostly meaningless because your argument for the “unnaturalness” of anal sex relies on a third party: the AIDS virus. This would be analogous to saying “People shouldn’t be gay, because they might get beaten up by a vicious homophobe.” Saying anal sex should be avoided because of AIDS in disingenuous. As has been pointed out, anal sex has zero chance of transmitting AIDS if neither partner is infected. It is a good idea to avoid unprotected sex with multiple partners, no matter what hole you’re sticking your willy into. However, in a monogamous relation where both partners have tested negative for STDs (almost typed SUVs there!), then there is no reason not to enjoy a little butt sex from time to time.
Shodan, how big are your dumps? If any of them are significantly bigger than a man’s penis, you’re either getting fucked by some very lesser-endowed men, or you need to see a doctor about your bowel movements.
Seriously, dude - I’m worried about you.
Esprix
Babies don’t come thru the chute on a daily basis, bud. There’s lots of chemical support when that little guy squeezes through! If you think there’s no trauma involved, remember that The Stork doesn’t REALLY bring these cherubs! The cervix doesn’t usually dilate all that quickly; it takes time, and meanwhile, the vagina is preparing for that great big kid, too.
I can’t help but think you’ve had some rough handling. Making love, having sex doesn’t have to be brutal.
Don’t forget that gentlemen may also be rectified by women with strap-on…
Never mind.
Is it still unnatural if my partner just happens to be in the right position and I use a natural lubricant?
No, no. I think the beard is goofy, too. 
What, you mean like “My partner and I were just putting a bucket full of Mazola on a high shelf when it accidentally spilled all over us, and then just when we’d gotten out of our oily clothes he slipped on the slick floor, and, well…” 
[hijack] Actually, that reminds me of an Ozzy Osbourne story. Apparently (during one of his sober periods), he was sleeping at a friend’s house. It was a hot, sticky night, so (being a rock star and all), he was sleeping in the buff on the living room couch. He wakes up to hear a strange noise from the kitchen and goes in to find his friend, also naked (for the same reason), choking on a piece of pizza. Our Man Ozzy, thinking quickly, rushes over and begins to do the Heimlich Maneuver. At which point the friend’s wife walks into the kitchen to find two naked men in a rather compromising position and making the sort of motions and noises one might associate with the Heimlich Maneuver. The rest is left to the imagination. :)[/hijack]
jr8 wrote:
Supposedly, there’s some controversial story out there with a similar theme that was used as an example of the “gray areas” in the Torah.
As you know, in the Torah, there are severe penalties imposed for having sex outside of wedlock, up to and including being stoned to death. So, the story goes that one day, a man was fixing his roof naked while a woman was walking by below him, and he slipped and fell off the roof and landed on the woman in just such a way that he had to have sex with her.
At this point in the story, I always tune out and start giggling. What was he doing fixing his roof in the buff? Wouldn’t she have had to have been naked too if he landed on her in a way that “made” him have sex with her? And come to think of it (so to speak), he would have had to have had an erection when he fell off the roof. And even if the woman were, say, spread-eagled to the sky and the man fell weiner-first – which is the only way I could see this issue even coming [sic] up – what kept him from, ahem, withdrawing once he realized his hoohoo-dilly was stuck in her cha-cha? (I’m guessing that if this story really did happen, what really went on is that the neighbors caught the two of them doing the horizontal lambada in the back yard, and he made this story up as an excuse.)
Sorry, **tracer]/b], but you’re wrong on this one.
The case you quoted is from the Talmud and is a hypothetical.
Very often, in an attempt to derive a halachic prinicple, the Rabbis arguing the case will devise a case which, on the surface, is quite unlikely to happen, just to prove a point. The case at hand in the Talmud is a case of mistaken co-habitation with no intent and the possible consequences of said cohabitation. It is not recorded as an actual incident and is highly unlikely to happen.
Zev Steinhardt
You’d think that after 1344 posts I’d learn to PREVIEW!!!
Zev Steinhardt
sings…
It’s raining men! Hallelujah! It’s raining men. Amen.
…stops singing and goes away.
zev_steinhardt wrote:
I still reserve the right to giggle if they’re gonna use an example like that one. snicker Raining men, indeed!
Wow – Mazola is in the Torah? Who knew?
Not really, if we’re talking about people who wore robes (or similar) with no undergarments. Easily knocked askew.
Better TV reception, I guess.
Thank you, Mrs. Cartman.
Since we’re speaking in hypotheticals here, I wonder what the rabbinical view would have been if she had also been, ahem, “falling off the roof”…
What, you’ve never heard of Mazola-Tov? (Now you know what they were wishing you.)
The wrong size and the wrong angle? This was obviously said by someone who’s never tried The rear end is much better suited to receiving and stimulationg a penis than, say, the mouth or hand is. And it just so happens that a penis does an excellent job of stimulating the rump in return…particularly to other males. The placement of the prostate just couldn’t be any more perfect If the human body was, in fact, designed to order by an all-knowing deity, these details are far too related to be coincidental. God wants fags! (I wonder how the esteemed Mr. Phelps would respond to this line of reasoning)