Would that include kissing?
Yes very much so. I don’t kiss just anyone on the mouth.
Last time this topic came up, I googled “niggardly” and looked at the first 50 hits. They fell into three caegories:
- The first category comprised folks talking about the controversy around the word “niggardly.”
- The second category comprised folks on white supremacist websites crowing about the word, using it to describe black people and patting themselve on the back for what an oh-so-clever trap they’d laid for the offenderati.
- The third category consisted of a single hit: a car review that described the car’s manufacturers as niggardly when it came to extra features. The review immediately included a parenthetical comment explaining that the word had no racial connotation.
If you deliberately went to a black ghetto and started describing Obama as “niggardly” with the federal budget, I’d lay dollars to donuts you fell into the second category above.
Those white supremacists are like people in sitcoms who make fun of little people: “Sorry, don’t mean to be short with you. Oops, I guess that was a little awkward. Boy do I feel small now!” None of these expressions are normally expressions of contempt for someone’s size, and if someone said any of them innocuously, it’d be absurd to take offense at them. Nevertheless, if you mean to communicate offense with them, it can certainly be done. And if folks in the “black ghetto” (why not just go into a predominantly African American neighborhood for your experiment, why the black ghetto?) read your remarks as intended to give racist offense, they’d be wholly correct to do so, despite the word’s etymology.
As for the OP, I wondered whether the linked woman was a Rip Van Winkle from the 1980s, back when we really didn’t know how AIDS was spread. I’d be looking at her wrist for a Swatch.
Daniel
Except for one thing: There are a whole lot of women who have no idea that their men are fooling around with other women . . . or with men . . . or with male or female prostitutes. These are the women who wind up becoming HIV-positive.
In my experience, there are a tremendous number of “straight” men who regularly have anonymous sex with other men . . . and most of them are bottoms . . . and most of them do not use protection, because they’re not “gay.” They get the virus through their own stupidity, then give it to their wives.
This is especially a problem in the black community, where it’s extremely difficult to be openly gay, so men get married, then have gay sex on the “down low.” Back in the early '80s, when the epidemic was just starting, spokespeople for the black community denied that AIDS was a problem for them, because it was a gay disease, and there weren’t any black gay people. :rolleyes:
Yeah, that’s what people are missing here; male-male sex, not openly gay sexual orientation, is the high-risk factor, and male-male sex is a lot more common than openly gay sexual orientation is.
Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist
It’s about as difficult to be gay man in the black community as it is in the white community.
There’s no one person that speaks for the entire black community just like there isn’t one person that speaks for the entire white community.
AIDS was and is a problem with IV drug users and that was well known when the disease “crossed over” and I believe the majority of IV drug users where black, at least according to perception.
And even that’s inaccurate; it’s only *unprotected anal sex *that’s high-risk.
And sharing needles.
Well, yeah, but we were talking about male-male sex.
Not person-needle group sex.
Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist
Well, it’s trivially true that male-male sex is more common than openly gay orientation… but “a lot” more common?
I’m not so much disbelieving as I am looking for hard research of some kind - is there some citation to what the delta is between these two points?
Sometime last year, IIRC. But generally we prefer raclette.
But we had no problem with having the gay guy at the fondue I mentioned. I mean, it was his house, after all…
Anyway, even here in SA, where the HIV infection rate is stupid-high, I think the woman in the original thread was unreasonable. We have TV adverts on heavy rotation here about how it’s OK (for you*) to eat off the same plate as a person with HIV. So professing different is very :dubious: in my book.
*but not necessarily for the patient if they’re already sick, as they are immuno-compromised and hence more at risk from your germs.
I’ll work on it. In the meantime, here’s some original research from Craigslist:
San Diego m4m (Casual Encounters) - first page
Discretion asked for: 15
“Straight” orientation mentioned: 25
Poster/seeker self-identified as straight: 11
Poster/seeker self-identified as bisexual: 8*
Poster/seeker self-identified as closeted bisexual: 1
Poster/seeker self-identified as closeted gay: 3
Poster/seeker self-identified as being in a committed relationship with a woman: 3**
Obvious spam: 3
Military (which means closeted) specifically asked for: 3
Specifically looking for unprotected anal sex: 5**
Total: 98
- One of these men is specifically looking for “bi chill bros that are not out”, meaning calm, level-headed bisexual men who present themselves as straight to society at large.
** Two of these men are married to women. What do you want to bet that they call themselves “gay” at fondue parties?
Note: Some of these categories overlap.
I realize that this isn’t a peer-reviewed study with a representative sample of all MSM, but 11% of all men looking for sex with men on Craigslist in San Diego in the last day and a half consider themselves straight. That’s a pretty huge percentage, don’t you think? Especially considering that San Diego is probably one of the world’s easiest and safest places to be out of the closet.
I’ll get to work on finding more rigorous research when I have the time.
Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist
No expert I, but I’m not sure I comprehend some of your… er… research assumptions. For example, “military” seems to me to describe a particular look or demeanor as opposed to a self-identification… surely there are guys whose “type” is a square-jawed Marine, and if I’m a gay squared-jawed guy with a crew-cut, surely describing myself as “military” would be a good way to score some action, even if I’m out front at the Pride events every year… yes?
A: Not seeing what that has to do with straight vs gay self-identifying, and
B: WTF?!?!
What? You’re a Catholic. You should grasp that some folks don’t care for condoms. 
Heh heh heh…
The only prohibition against condoms arises from their function as a barrier to the transmission of life. So when anal is on the menu, condoms are perfectly acceptable.
Now that’s what I call natural birth control!
I have to admit that I am well and truly ignorant here, but, regarding the Catholic church’s official stance on sex and prohibitions thereof:
Is anal permitted to be on the menu?
I have to say, if it were a fondue party where saliva was one of the dips, I don’t think I’d want to join in.
Last time I went to a fondue party - chocolate fondue, God, it was delicious, and I’m not even a big chocolate fan! - there was no danger of any saliva being swapped, except perhaps among some of the couples there after the party had finished.
I think it’s safe to say that both Ensign Edison and my comments were, if you’ll pardon the pun, a bit tongue-in-cheek.
But to provide a semi-serious answer: yes, as long as it’s not the final course.