Will Gay Sex Be Outlawed Now That It Causes Cancer?

Ha! I grabbed the first salatious ones I came across.

Nice how they tweaked the LA Times article to suit their own agenda in the OP. I'm completely shocked the that folks at PJ Media have no concern for woman's health issues. :rolleyes:

Scroll to the bottom of the LA Times article and you will find a "paid placement" disclaimer. In other words, a group with an agenda to push paid to have their article placed under the Times' banner. Voila! Instant respectability!!

The group with the agenda is called Big Pharma.

They just want to sell the HPV vaccine to men. When it was first introduced, it was strictly for women.

Pharma companies have been promoting drugs to overcome the risks of unsafe sex among gay men to a such a degree they have influenced minds for the worse. Notice, the LA Times article does not mention educating young men about condoms. In the 80s and 90s that was a hardcore message to everyone.

Here is an example, the drug Truvada which allows you to have unsafe anal sex. (Never mind that it ravishes your kidneys and turn your bones into paper. These greedy fucks are ghouls.)

http://nymag.com/news/features/truvada-hiv-2014-7/

Now I wonder if the HPV vaccine is manufactured by the same company as Truvada.

Those two drugs make a lot more money than condoms.
 
Last edited:
...or will it be politically incorrect to talk about it and address it in public? Will it be allowed therefore to spread?:


Anal Cancer: The New Gay Epidemic the Media Won't Talk About
BY MEGAN FOX SEPTEMBER 28, 2017

The Los Angeles Times calls anal cancer "the next big crisis" for the gay community. According to the American Cancer Society, the future looks grim.

The American Cancer Society estimates there will be 8,200 new anal cancer cases in 2017. In the absence of national screening recommendations, more than 50 percent of these individuals will be diagnosed at stage III or IV, when five-year survival is less than 40 percent. This creates a major public health concern.
The study shows that anal cancer comes from the sexually transmitted virus HPV. What it doesn't mention is why the gay community is so susceptible to contracting HPV. Perhaps the answer is too politically incorrect for the L.A. Times. NBC reported on a similar study that was done in Hawaii involving women who contracted anal HPV. They danced around the cause in an almost laughable way.

It’s not clear exactly how the women contracted anal HPV. Those who developed infections were more likely to be young and white, with lower levels of education and income and a history of multiple sexual partners, the study showed. Women who engaged in anal sex were also at higher risk, though transmission could have occurred in other, non-sexual, ways...The findings are important because anal HPV infection is strongly linked with anal cancer...
Really? Non-sexual ways? What ways are those? The article does not elaborate but goes out of its way to deny the very findings discovered!

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/09/28/anal-cancer-new-gay-epidemic-media-wont-talk/

original LA Times article:

http://www.latimes.com/sns-how-the-...en-can-be-prevented-80358-20170926-story.html

You mean: male gay sex.

I hope.


EDIT: how the fuck can women contract gay anal sex cancer???
 
Thanks for that.

So why is it called "gay epidemic"?

Because, the transmission of HPV through anal sex is happening at a higher percentage rate than with other population groups, and some population groups really like to vilify gay people, particularly gay men.
 
...or will it be politically incorrect to talk about it and address it in public? Will it be allowed therefore to spread?:


Anal Cancer: The New Gay Epidemic the Media Won't Talk About
BY MEGAN FOX SEPTEMBER 28, 2017

The Los Angeles Times calls anal cancer "the next big crisis" for the gay community. According to the American Cancer Society, the future looks grim.

The American Cancer Society estimates there will be 8,200 new anal cancer cases in 2017. In the absence of national screening recommendations, more than 50 percent of these individuals will be diagnosed at stage III or IV, when five-year survival is less than 40 percent. This creates a major public health concern.
The study shows that anal cancer comes from the sexually transmitted virus HPV. What it doesn't mention is why the gay community is so susceptible to contracting HPV. Perhaps the answer is too politically incorrect for the L.A. Times. NBC reported on a similar study that was done in Hawaii involving women who contracted anal HPV. They danced around the cause in an almost laughable way.

It’s not clear exactly how the women contracted anal HPV. Those who developed infections were more likely to be young and white, with lower levels of education and income and a history of multiple sexual partners, the study showed. Women who engaged in anal sex were also at higher risk, though transmission could have occurred in other, non-sexual, ways...The findings are important because anal HPV infection is strongly linked with anal cancer...
Really? Non-sexual ways? What ways are those? The article does not elaborate but goes out of its way to deny the very findings discovered!

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/09/28/anal-cancer-new-gay-epidemic-media-wont-talk/

original LA Times article:

http://www.latimes.com/sns-how-the-...en-can-be-prevented-80358-20170926-story.html
Cause AIDS wasn't enough already??
 
that wasn't my contention you dumb sonofabitch. read with comprehension for once. it's fun!

Your implication defines you as a dumb son of a bitch. Who cares what site it's on? It's still true and it's still the American Cancer Society, dippy.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
"Gay Sex", the movie E.T., the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, all soccer, the statist US federal government, buttwipes, little pete and their live-in lovetoy ellewhateverherusernameisow, etc, etc, etc...

They all could totally disappear from the face of the globe right now and it would affect my being not one iota.
 
reichguide has difficulty reading passed cherry-picked headlines from click-bait sites like pjmedia and americanthinker. most likely because he suffers from anal cancer (it's true, i read it on the internet) ;)
 
Scroll to the bottom of the LA Times article and you will find a "paid placement" disclaimer. In other words, a group with an agenda to push paid to have their article placed under the Times' banner. Voila! Instant respectability!!

I did not see that their mobile site.
 
OK ... it just sounded pretty moralistic to me. In fact, it sort of still does - "if the "arse-"hole were meant to be violated sexually, we would all have a g-spot there' - I guess you've never had anal sex (which, btw, if you enjoy it is enjoyable - no g-spot =/= no sensation), but you've never had a blow job? Because by your logic we shouldn't do that either, because no g spot?

I think you'll find that once a sub-group of the population - e.g. gay men, sex workers, etc - work out that a particular practice is detrimental to the health of that population, they pretty speedily work to resolve the situation. The problems are not so much the specific actions, but rather the easy access to the medical means to address the spread of disease. That's sort of why we have contraception - because straight people worked out that engaged in 'straight sex' resulted in often unintended consequences.

I'll refer to my first post.

The majority of the gay lifestyle as I have been exposed to it is a community of "swingers," hookups, multiple partners, etc. It's not a moral or value judgement just one that demands that people pay attention to the fact that this is a lifestyle that has consequences and that gets to the heart of the moral relativism which demands that all lifestyle choice must be considered equally valid.

Well, okay, their lifestyle is just as valid as mine. However the demand that we ignore reality is where I draw the line and actuarial evidence tells us the truth of the lifetime consequences of this equally valid lifestyle.
 
There's a reason anal cancer is more prevalent in women.



Screaming about it at size seven just screams to us that you are doubling down on stupid.
 
I'll refer to my first post.

The majority of the gay lifestyle as I have been exposed to it is a community of "swingers," hookups, multiple partners, etc. It's not a moral or value judgement just one that demands that people pay attention to the fact that this is a lifestyle that has consequences and that gets to the heart of the moral relativism which demands that all lifestyle choice must be considered equally valid.

Well, okay, their lifestyle is just as valid as mine. However the demand that we ignore reality is where I draw the line and actuarial evidence tells us the truth of the lifetime consequences of this equally valid lifestyle.

So your point is 'people who have lots of sex are more likely to get STIs'? How insightful.

As a side note, your experience of 'the gay lifestyle' is fairly narrow. I'd also observe those behaviors are far from limited to some gay men.
 
I never said they weren't.

I'm talking the actuarial tables that insurance companies use to set rates.

This is a community in which the rate of promiscuity is higher (not universal) than in other communities.

And yes, there is a lot of promiscuity going on in other communities however that is against the backdrop of a culture more focused on marriage, family and stability. (This, of course, does not mean that no gays are focused on marriage, family and stability just that it is not part of the larger group, but part of a smaller group which is why, as per population, they have more health issues.)
 
I never said they weren't.

I'm talking the actuarial tables that insurance companies use to set rates.

This is a community in which the rate of promiscuity is higher (not universal) than in other communities.

And yes, there is a lot of promiscuity going on in other communities however that is against the backdrop of a culture more focused on marriage, family and stability. (This, of course, does not mean that no gays are focused on marriage, family and stability just that it is not part of the larger group, but part of a smaller group which is why, as per population, they have more health issues.)

Again ...
So your point is 'people who have lots of sex are more likely to get STIs'? How insightful.
 
From your link



Gender and race/ethnicity

Anal cancer is more common in women than men overall and in most racial/ethnic groups. However, in African Americans it is more common in men than in women.



So, where is your thread about women's health issues and the danger of HPV?

From the same link:

HPV in women

"In women, HPV infections occur mainly when they are younger and are less common in women over 30. The reason for this is not clear. Certain types of sexual behavior increase a woman’s risk of getting a genital HPV infection, such as having sex at an early age and having many sexual partners.

Although women who have had many sexual partners are more likely to get infected with HPV, a woman can still get infected even if she has had only one sexual partner. This is more likely if she has a partner who has had many sex partners or if her partner is an uncircumcised male."


So where's your thread on uncircumcised men?
 
Back
Top