Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

Um, what the hell? It's exactly the same as a suppository drug; it crosses the rectal mucosa into the blood stream.

Do you realise that if I have a cold (virus, like HIV) and sneeze, you can breath that in and be infected? Ie, blood doesn't need to be involved until it eventually carries the virus once the person is infected.

Except that HIV isn't anywhere near as contagious as any common virus. You can swap saliva with someone who is HIV positive, and you will still not contract it. Try doing that with someone with the flu or a cold.
HIV requires direct blood, semen or breast milk transmission to spread. Yes, it can be absorbed through the mucous membrane, but the chances of this occuring are minimal compared to direct seepage into an open wound, and (as has already been established) these open wounds are far more common in homosexual intercourse than in heterosexual sex, which leads to the logical conclusion that unprotected anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV than unprotected hetrosexual sex.
There's a table of infection probabilities on Wikipedia, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission

As is obvious, being on the receiving end of anal puts you at 5 times the risk of a female in heterosexual sex. Even being on the giving end of anal is slightly more risky than being the male in heterosexual sex.

 

[Iron]

that's interesting moll

 

[xeuyrawp]

Except that HIV isn't anywhere near as contagious as any common virus.

Yeah but my point was that your logic (namely that you had to have direct semen to blood contact) was flawed.

As is obvious, being on the receiving end of anal puts you at 5 times the risk of a female in heterosexual sex. Even being on the giving end of anal is slightly more risky than being the male in heterosexual sex.

Yeah for sure - noone's saying otherwise.

HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...

Wiki says:

'Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the genital, oral, or rectal mucous membranes of another.'

That seems to suggest, in contrast to what you said, that HIV does in fact pass through the rectal mucous membrane, and that nothing has to be broken.

Edit: I just found this: How is HIV transmitted It seems reliable, and it says:

There are two ways for HIV to get into the blood of an uninfected person.

1. Directly into the bloodstream through damaged skin, injecting equipment or invasive surgical procedures.
2. Absorption through mucous membranes.

Probably should stop spending hours of my life reading about random bits of science... :-|

Edit again: I wish this goddamned forum stopped editing URLs to the name of the page, and then not properly redirect you half the time.

 

[katie tully]

fuck it

ill put some effort in

ill address your points later rob my man, earspo gave me a hang over and i want to die

 

[Iron]

they both r

 

[Iron]

maybe evolution maaade u unmoral?

 

[katie tully]

stfu u fruit

 

[katie tully]

You're pulling a complete straw man; I would of course agree with what you said. However you're arguing against me saying 'There is not a greater chance of butt hole ripping during anal sex, which is why it's harder to contract HIV through anal sex than it is vaginal sex.' which, you would notice, I did not say.

What I said is that most HIV male>male anal sex transmission occurs not because anything is ripped, but because the HI virus can penetrate the mucosa of the anal wall. Yes I'm sure that a big percentage of HIV transmission occurs because something is ripped, but I'd really need to see some sort of evidence to the contrary in order to believe that it is the majority.

To say it again: AFAIK, nothing needs to rip or bleed for HIV transmission to occur. Yes I'm sure that often it does occur, but it isn't a prerequisite. But I'm not a natural scientist and really only know about this because I'm gay, so if you show me that I'm wrong, I'll apologise for being wrong and learn my one thing for today. /shrug

Nah you're right in as much as the virus can pass through the mucous membranes.

I am going to use the word designed here, but when I say designed I don't mean designed by a creator... I mean from an evolutionary point.
The purpose of the anus *biologically* is to expell waste products? Every part of the body has been designed through nature and adaptation and blah blah for a specific purpose. So my point re: the vagina is that the vagina is perfectly designed for sex and reproduction. The vagina is to sex what the mouth is to food. Biologically, the anus is not a sex organ. The anus has a sphincter, the vagina does not. The vagina produces copious amounts of lubrication in response to sexual stimulation, the anus does not.

I wasn't arguing against what you were saying I don't think, I think originally I was arguing against

Firstly, saying "made" with regards to something like humans is very precarious. That is, unless you disagree with natural selection.

Because I think you can still say made and designed without implying there is some great creator. Also I was very hung over so in my head it probably made sense.

I guess we'll agree to disagree then. As someone who doesn't believe in a maker (which is required if you want to turn a passive (lol) sentence into an active one), that verb is entirely inappropriate to me.

Nature doesn't make these things to do something. The whole significance of natural selection is that it explains why things appear (to us) to have purpose, when really some trait has allowed an organism to have survived and reproduced. Nothing has really made current traits in humans any more than something has unmade the other possible traits. The reason I said it is because 'made for sex' doesn't compute well with homosexuality. Coming at it from the perspective of natural selection, whereby things just change and are eventually tested (I guess is the right word?), is much more scientific, at least in my mind.

Well made for sex doesn't compute well with homosexuality, because homosexuality doesn't compute well with reproductive biology. If we didn't have assistive reproductive techniques, those who were born homosexual who were not willing to engage in heterosexual sex to pass on their genes would die out (their genes, if u know wot i mean. just like priests and nuns and anybody else who cant or chosesnot to reproduce. Homosexuality would not die out, but if you forget our higher thinking for just a second, our biological purposes and a lot of our primitive urges are not that much different from animals. Not that passing on genes is at all important for humans anymore, we're not like lions or whatever in that we absolutely have to ensure the survival of our seed. idk, but you get my point yeah?

So I still maintain that biologically, the vagina is a sex organ with specific adaptations and responses that make it *perfect* for sex. The anus is not, but with all things that doesn't mean we can't use it for that purpose.

So just to clarify;
- I don't believe in a designer
- But I believe that biologically, the anus has a specific design for a specific purpose and butt sex is not one of those things
- However, I do not see anything immoral or wrong about butt sex or homosexuality, so point 2 is somewhat void.
- You were right about HIV transmission, I shall not argue
- If it's not on, it's not on ok?


p.s. that article was very interesting. So even though *naturally* you guys can't have bebbies and whatever, you still play an important role in humanity, yay!

like ive just read everything i've said and it appears as though i am calling homosexuality unnatural. i'm not, i think that homosexuality is as natural as the hair on my head. it's anal sex across the board i am discussing, not just homosexual anal sex.

 

[Iron]

lol pomos trippin over themselves is lol

 

[katie tully]

lol pomos trippin over themselves is lol

It's 5pm on a Sunday, isn't it time for your daily flagellation?

 

[Iron]

no silly i have 25mins lol srs

 

[Iron]

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

 

[Iron]

k, now going
will pray for the homos and their confusing allies

 

[katie tully]

okay think of the human condition and sex
we no longer think of sex as just something we do to procreate. we need sex to form bonds with partners, we do it because it feels good. the rest of our body has not caught up to this, so to our penis and vagina, their roles are still the same. we can't think 'ovaries, turn off' when we have sex, we need contraception to ensure we can have sex and not have 33353 babies

so when two heterosexuals have sex, the mind is thinking one thing but the body is preparing for another thing. sperm is functionally useless until it is *switched on* by glycoproteins in the ovary. during sex, the vagina undergoes a series of changes in response to sexual stimulation, but none of these are in response to the minds need or want to have sex for reasons other than procreation.

homosexuals still desire the same sexual bonds as heterosexuals, which is why butt sex has proved to be an effective alternative (for pleasure, etc). but to me, that doesn't mean that the specific purpose of the anus is for penetration and sex - which is what i meant with the original post. but i dont think there is anything unnatural or immoral about it, like with all things we do to our body parts that are not in accordance with that parts function.

yay

 

[Iron]

we need sex to form bonds with partners, [we do it because it feels good].

the foolish man builds his house upon the sand

 

[moll.]

Hey Iron, wanna have wild butt-sex?

 

[Iron]

only if we have to in order to form bonds of partnership m8

 

[moll.]

I'll even let you scream out "Jesus" a lot.

 

[Iron]

too far u little gremlin

 

[katie tully]

i would let you recite bible verses to me iron

if that's what turns you on