Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[SnowFox]

And that buts aren't made for penetration, so tearing, bleeding and hence blood transfusion are more likely.

Heterosexuals still partake in Anal sex mate.

 

[SylviaB]

Heterosexuals still partake in Anal sex mate.

yeah to an extremely lesser extent tho

 

[moll.]

Heterosexuals still partake in Anal sex mate.

But they have other options. lol

 

[Tangent]

But they have other options. lol

which makes some people question as to why heterosexuals partake in anal sex at all.

And that buts aren't made for penetration, so tearing, bleeding and hence blood transfusion are more likely.

someone obviously isnt using enough lube

but seriously, if condoms and lube are applied correctly, the is almost no chance of contracting STIs

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

And that buts aren't made for penetration, so tearing, bleeding and hence blood transfusion are more likely.

Not all homosexuals participate in anal sex.

 

[Tangent]

Not all homosexuals participate in anal sex.

That too

 

[ekoolish]

Umm, sorry to interrupt but what other way could two gays do it. Sorry we didn't have sex-ed at my western sydney public school. Is there a hole i don't know about?

 

[SnowFox]

Umm, sorry to interrupt but what other way could two gays do it. Sorry we didn't have sex-ed at my western sydney public school. Is there a hole i don't know about?

Blow job you wank lol.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Umm, sorry to interrupt but what other way could two gays do it. Sorry we didn't have sex-ed at my western sydney public school. Is there a hole i don't know about?

Lol! Use your imagination

 

[ekoolish]

Isn't cum toxic?

EDIT: I mean unedible

 

[SnowFox]

How many pornstars have you heard dying from Cum indigestion?


/not counting chocking/drowing.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Isn't cum toxic?

EDIT: I mean unedible

Inedible. And no. There's spose to be protein and stuff in it. And don't people eat in in porn?

 

[ekoolish]

Hmm true i guess.

Omg, seriously this is like the perfect vid for this thread, and it just came (lol came) up on failblog

YouTube - Tarzan Fail

 

[xeuyrawp]

And that buts aren't made for penetration, so tearing, bleeding and hence blood transfusion are more likely.

Um what?

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

Secondly, I would assume that most male>male anal sex HIV transmissions occur due to the semen, not really anything to do with blood.

 

[sparkle83]

Support, and I think it's better in some states than others. Which is sad.

 

[moll.]

Um what?

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

Quit being pedantic, wanker.

Secondly, I would assume that most male>male anal sex HIV transmissions occur due to the semen, not really anything to do with blood.

And pray tell, how does this semen get into the blood stream from the anus? Because that's where the HIV needs to be to start breeding, and I can tell you now, your intestines don't lead straight to your heart.

 

[katie tully]

Unfortunately Pwar you are a little bit wrong.

There is a greater chance of butt hole ripping during anal, which is why it's easier to contract HIV through anal sex than it is vaginal sex. The mucous membranes in the anus are also quite thin and tear more easily, and the anus doesn't produce its own natural lubricant.

So "made" for sex in regards to humans is quite correct.
When you think of vaginal sex, which we have been biologically programmed into doing for the purposes of reproduction, the penis and the vagina are like key and lock. The vagina produces a natural lubricant to assist with sperm transport. THe mucous in the vagina is involved with sperm capacitation, blah blah blah a whole heap of shit. So basically the vagina was designed for sex.

The anus was not.

 

[meeatu]

So basically the vagina was designed for sex.
The anus was not.

Meh... It works
And it's less of a sloppy mess!
Hurrah for asses! *does a little dance*

Basically this whole thread, even this silly bit down here about ass vs vagina is simply a question of whether or not there is a universal set of morals/ethics/design/etc. Eg: is it inherently 'wrong' to be gay, is it inherently 'wrong' for the anus to be used as a sexual orifice - the same set of questions lie with the questions is it 'wrong' to drink alcohol, to kill, to work on the sabbath (not to equate homosexuality to any of these) - overall, it's a question of whether or not there is a right and wrong way to be.

I don't claim to know the secrets of the universe, and I cannot provide a definitive answer, or one without any fear of doubt, as those who think they've "found god" will tell you they somehow have the power to do. All I can do is say that what few experiences life has given me lead me towards the thought that there are no moral absolutes, and that (in the words of one far more pixelated than myself) "nothing is true, everything is permitted" .

 

[Iron]

At last I agree with one of you fumbling dumb-ass homos! Homosexuality is nothing short of a denial of God. This is all I insist on too.
Now furrow ur brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation

 

[xeuyrawp]

And pray tell, how does this semen get into the blood stream from the anus? Because that's where the HIV needs to be to start breeding, and I can tell you now, your intestines don't lead straight to your heart.

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.

Unfortunately Pwar you are a little bit wrong.

There is a greater chance of butt hole ripping during anal, which is why it's easier to contract HIV through anal sex than it is vaginal sex. The mucous membranes in the anus are also quite thin and tear more easily, and the anus doesn't produce its own natural lubricant.

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

So "made" for sex in regards to humans is quite correct.

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.

I hope that makes sense. What you said really leads me to ask myself 'Why was I made this way?' when really I could equally have something else variant.

Sorry for the complete tangent, but I think it's relevant given the topic. See here, anyway: Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist for something related.