According to Catholic church doctrine, any sexual activity that “does not have the potential to create life” is a mortal sin. That would include anal sex, as well as oral sex, sex with condoms, sex after menopause, gay/lesbian sex, etc.
Of course, official Catholic doctrine and what is “popular in Catholic countries” are often quite far apart. 
Hmmm. If anal sex among heteros is widespread in Africa, it would understand why heteros there are being so much more devastated by the AIDs virus than heteros in the U.S.
erm, in my previous post, please substitute “might explain” for “would understand”. Then recite with me Psalm 449 of the SDMB Bible, “Preview is my friend.”
And if wishes were horses, even beggers would ride.
There have been several threads on SD recently about this, all going on about this at length, but without any kind of cite or any other proof of the original contention that “Africans have anal sex more often than Europeans or Americans”. Now here’s another one! And still no cite!
Seems to me we’re skirting the edge of racism here, in just accepting this unproven assertion about how blacks have sex, and then going on to speculate extensively about what this means.
From everything I’ve seen, anal sex “is widespread” on every continent*, among humans of all races & sexual orientations.
Well, two things: 1. sex surveys are notoriously difficult to confirm, since people lie about their sex lives; and 2. someone who worked in Sub-Shaharan Africa medically did respond on another thread that the incidence and frequency of anal STD’s is not especially high in Africa, so it would be reasonable to conclude just from that that anal sex is no more popular in Africa than elsewhere, but it would make for an interesting study, huh?
Answer to the OP:
Well, I HOPE not, because it doesn’t work!
madline, it’s only illegal, as far as I know, if one of the participants is over the age of consent.
I could be wrong, though.
But yeah, it’s disturbing when kids as young as thirteen are out there getting it on. 
Gee, I was only just putting away my Barbies.
I don’t have any wishes here, so BFD.
There have been several threads on SD recently about this, all going on about this at length, but without any kind of cite or any other proof of the original contention that “Africans have anal sex more often than Europeans or Americans”. Now here’s another one! And still no cite!
I don’t have any info on the prevalence of anal sex among Africans. As I understand it, the devesation caused by AIDs among heteros in Africa is generally ascribed to widespread sexual promiscuity in some African cultures. I was thinking there was some hidden bisexuality implied there, but you know, I have never encountered any stats about that either.
Seems to me we’re skirting the edge of racism here, in just accepting this unproven assertion about how blacks have sex, and then going on to speculate extensively about what this means.
Seems to me you’re trying to raise a boogey-man to frighten folks out of honest discussion of this topic. What explanation do YOU have for the much more rapid and extensive spread of the AIDS virus among heterosexual Africans than among heteros in other parts of the world? Or is stating that the AIDS virus has devastated African heteros to a much greater extent than among heteros in the U.S.-- including black heteros in the U.S., if you exclude IV drug users and gays and their lovers – also verging on racism?
Is thinking about this topic racist? You remind me of those gay AIDS activists who lied about the dangers of AIDS among heteros in the U.S. for so many years, covering up their lies with accusations of homophobia.
What are YOU hiding?
From everything I’ve seen, anal sex “is widespread” on every continent*, among humans of all races & sexual orientations.
Sure it does. Reminds me of an offensive joke about Greeks. The punchline is: “But Sweetheat you have to turn around. Don’t you want to have kids?”
Well, I guess you’re right, Biggirl. I’m just saying that there’s always the possibility of dripping and the like.
In other words-still use a condom.
Can “chance” ever explain anything? Viruses don’t add , they multiply (i.e., they doesn’t spread one at a time from one person to another). All it takes is a minority of highly infected promiscuos people to make an epidemic. And if by chance those promiscuos people never catch it, it doesn’t spread well.
The point was, I think, not to flame you, but to ask for factual/statistical backing of the assertions being made here. You responded to this request by restating the assertions and pointing to them as evidence of themselves (the way I see it, anyway). I don’t think he was saying it’s wrong to think or say that heterosexual Africans are a high-risk population–I think he was saying it’s wrong to believe and assert this without backing it up with facts.
Regarding the OP, seems like a faulty birth control method. Surgery works, pills work, condoms work–and condoms supposedly (I don’t have any info to support this, so I’m not stating it as fact) can help you (or your partner, whichever) last longer because the condom-wearer doesn’t “feel” as much. Seems to be a nice side effect–I’d rather feel a little less and know not only that my partner will not be pregnant but also that she will probably enjoy the act more.
Seems I didn’t quite go into the OP much at all. Sorry.
Anyway, I just realized how great this is:
“Is Anal Intercourse a Popular Means of Birth Control Anywhere? Last post by fetus.”
Hyuk hyuk hyuk!
i can’t believe that I am the 32nd person in this thread and the first to mention the technical virgin website.
Make sure you watch the TV ads. 
If I still had to worry about birth control (I’m spayed, thank goodness) and anal sex was the only reliable alternative, short of abstinence, to prevent unwanted pregnancy, I’d become a Born Again Virgin. My “exit ramp” is just that. Exit only!
That’s not the way I see it. His post implied that I was buying into the notion that there was a lot of anal intercourse going on in Africa out of some kind of racist imperative. Sorry, won’t wash. My response was to admit there was no evidence that I knew of to support that point. I did point out that there has to be SOME kind of explanation for the disparity with which AIDS has affected hetero Americans vs. hetero Africans. But that’s not really what you are claiming I said, is it?b I mean, are you disputing the notion that AIDs has affected African heteros to a much greater extent than American heteros? If you realy think you need evidence on a point that I thought everyone is in agreement with, I can dish up a couple of cites for ya.
I don’t think he was saying it’s wrong to think or say that heterosexual Africans are a high-risk population–I think he was saying it’s wrong to believe and assert this without backing it up with facts.
You want a cite, try this one about the prevalence of AIDs in Africa:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/aids/stories/overview/
Here’s a few choice numbers from the story
[list=1]
[li]5.4 million new AIDS infections in 1999, 4 million of them in Africa. [/li][li]2.8 million dead of AIDS in 1999, 85 percent of them in Africa. [/li][li]13.2 million children orphaned by AIDS, 12.1 million of them in sub-Saharan Africa. [/li][li]Reduced life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa from 59 years to 45 between 2005 and 2010, and in Zimbabwe from 61 to 33. [/li][/list=1]
Here’s data about AIDS in the U.S. among heteros:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm
Do yerself a thought experiment. Check out the chart for causes of AIDs among cases in the U.S. Note that 135,000 cases total are given for heterosexual contact. But you don’t see a listing for how many of those heterosexual cases are from heterosexuals sleeping with intravenous drug users and bisexuals. Bet that would be a CONSIDERABLE portion of those 135,000 cases, if they bothered to report it, eh?
Here’s an editorial from Duke University that makes a couple of good points about the lies that have accompanied AIDS debates:
What have AIDS activists been so wrong about? Well, let’s put it this way: If you had told me 10 years ago, when practically all AIDS victims were men who had sex with other men or were intravenous drug users who shared needles, that as a sophomore in college I would have never known an AIDS victim, I would have been quite confused. Secretary of Health and Human Services Otis Bowen had said in 1985 that AIDS could make the Black Death “seem pale by comparison.” U.S. News & World Report declared that “the disease of them is suddenly the disease of us.” And Oprah Winfrey made the ridiculous statement in 1987 that 1 out of 5 heterosexuals would likely be dead from AIDS by 1990.
It is now 2003, however, and AIDS has still failed to become a major health problem in America. Now, by making this statement, I in no way mean to undermine the severity of AIDS, which is a terrible disease that absolutely no one should have to suffer through. If the government had an unlimited amount of money, I would support much more than $16 billion in funding to combat it. But unfortunately, the government must prioritize. And it is prioritizing incorrectly.
In the last 20 years, about 30 times more Americans have died from heart disease than AIDS. About 20 times more have died from cancer. Yet when it comes time to write the budget, the government treats AIDS as a catastrophic problem and spends about $18,000 per victim fighting it.
What makes this even less appropriate is the fact that AIDS is much easier to prevent than more deadly diseases like cancer. Statistics show that a vast majority of those infected with AIDS are men who have sex with other men, individuals who use intravenous drugs and people who have sex with bisexuals or intravenous drug users. Such statistics are admittedly misleading since AIDS takes years to develop, meaning that those most recently affected have only HIV, which does not have to be reported in most states. But even to this day, it can be said that individuals who do not have homosexual sex and do not inject drugs or have sex with individuals who do have a far greater chance of dying from prescription drugs that are properly prescribed and correctly taken than AIDS.
As to the disparity in funding between AIDS, on the one hand, and cancer and heart disease, OTOH, is the fact that AIDS strikes down the most productive members of society at a time of their lives when they would be most productive to society, thus there is a greater return on investment (if health care can ever be likened to a financial investment, and I hate doing it, but for the sake of argument) in financing AIDS research than cancer/heart disease, both of which, in comparison with AIDS, strike members of society more often when they are more elderly and less productive to society, after accumulated abuses like smoking, drinking and other carcinogenic behaviors.
… have taken their toll and created health problems in not only those who have engaged in those behaviors, but frequently in members of their immediate family, especially through second-hand smoke.
Well, if we are going to get down to behaviors and worth to society and so forth as points in deciding who gets health care, I believe you will find a large contingent of people arguing against treatment for AIDS sufferers on those grounds as well.
But their arguments, whatever they may be, will simply have to be of less merit than mine outlined above. However, if you’d like to play devil’s advocate, please flesh out the arguments of that “large contingent.”
Are you suggesting that health care policy, financing and research should be driven by some kind of measure of the popularity of a given disease’s/illness’s victims?
Good enough for me.