posted
As my good friend Kris told me my first year in college, "Man, a hole is a hole."
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
The anus is where stuff comes OUT, not where it goes IN. that's just sick.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Both pee and seed come out of the penis. The anus isn't exactly alone in the "stuff comes out" part. In fact, pee (and babies!) comes out of the vagina, so I guess -- by your logic -- even penis in vagina sex is gross and evil and sick.
In fact, I'm going to guess our homophobe friend here thinks that only oral sex is okay.
Grow up, kid.
[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
posted
Well, Jeff, to be totally correct, babies come out through the vagina but urine passes through the urethra. There's two different tubes down there for two different purposes. However, both the urine and babies have to pass through the vulva.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
i'm not talking about babies or eurethra's here. i'm talking about shit. it stinks, and it sick. the vagina is meant to have some guys pecker in there. but not the asshole. and sorry about the capitals, i didn't notice i had them on.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Vogon: for the record, no. The idea grosses me out.
The fact that it grosses me out, however, has no real bearing on whether other people who don't find it gross and consent to engage in it should be permitted to do so or disliked because they do so in the privacy of their own bedrooms, no matter their gender.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
I'd be careful about using the "unnatural" argument to argue against homosexually and anal sex. That argument can quickly descend into a support against fornication, oral sex, masturbation, fisting, other sexual play techniques, and female orgasm.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
True, though not totally so. Not even as foolproof as the pill, IIRC.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Er, what? You're saying that while anal sex is less likely to prevent pregnencies than regular sex, it's still not as good as being on the pill?
I'd love to see how you think women's bottoms are wired up, Omega.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
Well, while one can rest assured that anal sex will not result in a pregnancy unless there is some sort of spermhole linking the rectum with the vagina, anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex when it somes to sexually-transmitted diseases. The inner membrane of the anal cavity is thinner and more prone to tearing than the inner vaginal membrane. So while anal sex is possible and pleasurable, the extent of roughness that can be accommodated is much less. In the end (no pun intended, I assure you all), the message is clear: always use sexual protection.
posted
True, but the risk for infectious disease is not limited simply to STD's. Many contagious diseases can be spread by blood-to-blood contact, so there is still some risk in unprotected anal sex even if you and your partner have tested negative for STD's.
Testing for STD's, on the other hand, is still a somewhat tricky business. For example, AIDS cannot really be detected within the first (I believe) three to six weeks of infection. And even then, those tests can still deliver false positives and negatives. It depends on the integrity of the test and the expertise of the test-taker and analyst. Also, some STD's can exist outside the human body for extended periods of time. AIDS cannot, but I believe herpes can. If a specific set of circumstances all has to occur in order for this to happen. It's not common, but it is possible.
In short, one can never be too careful. Nothing is 100% certain when it comes to disease and sexual activity. Condoms used in conjunction with birth control pills are still only 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy. And I just watched on the news today that condoms on their own may not truly be as effective blocking STD infections as previously believed (except for AIDS and gonnorhea).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
