Will Gay Sex Be Outlawed Now That It Causes Cancer?

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?

Did you mean to quote something about uncircumcised men?

This is your outrageous thread based on utter BS. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy. Thanks for helping me in that endeavor. :rose::kiss:
 
Did you mean to quote something about uncircumcised men?

This is your outrageous thread based on utter BS. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy. Thanks for helping me in that endeavor. :rose::kiss:

I'm just pointing out your irrelevancy to the subject of this subject.:rolleyes:
 
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.)

Yep, you bellowed for years against gay marriage, and now you turn on the proverbial dime now that gay marriage is the law of the land and denigrate "promiscuous" homos.
Gays are the gift that keep on giving to subhumans such as yourself.
 
Vetteman should be posting these threads of unrequited love in the Personals. Or we could do a gofundme for him to buy a night of the cancerous buttsecks he keeps dropping hints for in every fucking thread.
 
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.)

OK, here's the problem with talking about 'gay sex' and 'the gay lifestyle' in relation to transmission of STIs. Yes, at a statistical level, men who identify as gay (which is far from all men who have sex with men) do have more sexual partners then fundamentally heterosexual men. However, STIs don't give a fuck how you identify.
From a public health perspective, linking a particular outcome (e.g. anal cancer) with an identity is extremely risky. That's basically why the term 'men who have sex with men' exists - because at the beginning of the HIV epidemic in the west, public health initiatives were targeting 'gay men', but a whole group of guys who engage in anal sex with each other weren't being reached because they don't identify as 'gay'. There are numerous other examples of this sort of thing - for example, even the MSM terminology is problematic when you're working with trans health, because although a lot of trans people who have penises are engaging in anal sex, they don't identify as 'men'. So, to a large extent public health endeavours tend to be more effective if they target the behaviour, rather than specific identities/communities/'lifestyles' (whatever the fuck that actually means).

I can't respond to your comment regarding actuarial tables because the screwed up health/insurance system in the US makes my head hurt.
Here, if someone gets sick, we don't say 'well, you've been a naughty boy haven't you - you're going to have to pay more to get access to the relevant treatment'. We just fix them.
 
quit dissing reichguide's personal cautionary tale. he's only trying to help you should learn from his misfortune! ;):devil:
 
OK, here's the problem with talking about 'gay sex' and 'the gay lifestyle' in relation to transmission of STIs. Yes, at a statistical level, men who identify as gay (which is far from all men who have sex with men) do have more sexual partners then fundamentally heterosexual men. However, STIs don't give a fuck how you identify.
From a public health perspective, linking a particular outcome (e.g. anal cancer) with an identity is extremely risky. That's basically why the term 'men who have sex with men' exists - because at the beginning of the HIV epidemic in the west, public health initiatives were targeting 'gay men', but a whole group of guys who engage in anal sex with each other weren't being reached because they don't identify as 'gay'. There are numerous other examples of this sort of thing - for example, even the MSM terminology is problematic when you're working with trans health, because although a lot of trans people who have penises are engaging in anal sex, they don't identify as 'men'. So, to a large extent public health endeavours tend to be more effective if they target the behaviour, rather than specific identities/communities/'lifestyles' (whatever the fuck that actually means).

I can't respond to your comment regarding actuarial tables because the screwed up health/insurance system in the US makes my head hurt.
Here, if someone gets sick, we don't say 'well, you've been a naughty boy haven't you - you're going to have to pay more to get access to the relevant treatment'. We just fix them.

It's not the "gay lifestyle" because it's not a choice.
 
It's not the "gay lifestyle" because it's not a choice.

Well, technically, being promiscuous, which I think is what he means by 'the gay lifestyle' is a choice. I think he's arguing that promiscuous people should just know better and stop sleeping with lots of people, because STIs. So he may say that he doesn't have a moral objection to homosexuality (which I'm dubious about), but he seem to have a moral objection to promiscuity ... although I'm not entirely sure how we define that? Although I'm not 100% sure on that, because he keeps refusing to explain what his argument actually is, other than repeating the somewhat unsurprising fact that the more sexual partners someone has, the greater their risk of an STI.
 
Well, technically, being promiscuous, which I think is what he means by 'the gay lifestyle' is a choice. I think he's arguing that promiscuous people should just know better and stop sleeping with lots of people, because STIs. So he may say that he doesn't have a moral objection to homosexuality (which I'm dubious about), but he seem to have a moral objection to promiscuity ... although I'm not entirely sure how we define that? Although I'm not 100% sure on that, because he keeps refusing to explain what his argument actually is, other than repeating the somewhat unsurprising fact that the more sexual partners someone has, the greater their risk of an STI.

I would not put those two things together. As you said, no one is running around denouncing the "straight lifestyle".
 
I would not put those two things together. As you said, no one is running around denouncing the "straight lifestyle".

I still don't know what the 'straight lifestyle' is ... I don't understand why I missed the invitation. I have sex with LOTS of men - surely that's ample evidence of my heterosexuality? I feel like I might be missing out on something. :(
 
Delusions of grandeur are a symptom of mental illness, oh wait...you're a liberal so you're already certifiable.

And you are the self-proclaimed "Lib Salad Tosser".

Draw your own conclusions, folks.
(or "conclussions" if you're Ishmael)
 
It's whatever consenting "straight" adults say it is between themselves. Kind of like the "gay lifestyle" but with "straights".

I dunno ... AJ and RG seem pretty sure there's an objective definition for both of them.
 
I dunno ... AJ and RG seem pretty sure there's an objective definition for both of them.

AJ is a "recovering homosexual". Many of the whackadoodle right are.
Vetty is simply trying to reconcile his pathological fear of being anally violated with his intense desire to try it.
 
All the more reason...

That I never allow unprotected anal. That, and I may want to suck on that again, and 'ass-to-mouth' is disgusting (unless somebody else does it... but I still won't kiss them afterwards).
 
Remember when Vettebigot thought AIDS could be passed on by gay chefs cooking your food? Good times.
 
Remember when Vettebigot thought AIDS could be passed on by gay chefs cooking your food? Good times.

To be fair, I'm not sure Vette doesn't mean "cooking your food" to be a euphemism.
 
Back
Top