So difficult to keep up! (Re: Memeber of the religious right running morally amuck)

From Message 40: It seems you are suggesting that trust (and broken trust due to sexual abuse of some sort) is related to sexual orientation (not-strictly-heterosexual).

The link to the paper on "gay bowel syndrome" doesn't mention prolapse.Just ...

ACTIVITY. get it through your head.A-C-T-I-V-I-T-Y also, it's "might be," not "is". you don't read so well, do you? i've repeated this several times. and not just trust issues, but self-worth issues, complex purity issues... lots of things. i'm not a psychologist, an anthropologist, or a sociologist. i'm a political scientist. i can't study this stuff. but i know people and i have a basic idea of how they work, and i know the things we already know about how they work. i want to know why i'm not allowed to ask questions and suggest research just because you're touchy about this bullshit "choice" issue.

Yes, I know, molbiogirl, and the reference is wrong. "Gay bowel syndrome" doesn't mean STDs and other things related to anal sex. It means being unable to keep your asshole closed because it's been fucked too much.The various diseases and wounds mentioned with regard to anal sex have their comparable diseases and wounds with regard to vaginal sex and yet we never hear about "straight vaginal syndrome," now do we?Nobody is saying that anal sex is as safe as breathing filtered air. However, there isn't anything in anal sex that doesn't have a similar result in vaginal sex. To somehow criminalize anal sex while keeping vaginal sex pristine is nothing but bigotry.[Note, I am not accusing you of it. I am talking about those who want to come up with something, anything that keeps their own sexual proclivities blessed by god while damning everything else.]

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Brenna, I heard you the first time.I was just highlighting the point in the conversation where I got the idea. I never suggested you don't have the right to ask question, Brenna. I haven't any idea where you got that notion. If I gave you that impression, I'm sorry.We're just having a conversation. A psychological proclivity.I'm not sure how this fits with the findings that homosexuality is (to a large degree) genetic.To me, a psychological proclivity means something along the lines of "a person's general tendency".I googled it to see how other folks use the term.I grabbed this at random."a manifestation of our psychological proclivity for grasping abstract concepts in terms of concrete, physical experience""Psychological proclivity" sounds so trivial, tho, when one is talking about sexuality.Sexuality is so deeply ingrained.I just don't see how one can separate the deeply ingrained desire from the behavior.Maybe an analogy will help.I am biologically driven to eat.I eat food.How do I separate the biological drive from the behavior?I know that's an imperfect analogy, but it's the best I can do at the moment.

clearly, you did not, because you keep suggesting that i said anything about absolute cause (and implying sole cause) and continuing to talk about orientation. is it? i'm really not sure. i certainly don't think it's more off-limits than the need for food (see below). i'm so sorry that i used an inappropriate term. i think that might be a very good analogy, actually. not as good as the cancer one i tried to use earlier. but let's run with it.eating disorders? these people don't have any less biological need or drive to eat, and yet, some of them fail to do just that. something in them changed gears. in this case, it changed into something harmful. these people do actively choose to participate in the behavior, but they don't choose the compulsion. but would you say they were born with that part of their psychological make-up?lets go back to my cancer analogy. breast and ovarian cancer are hereditary. we don't quite know how, i don't think, but we know they are. but. there are, no doubt, other ways to acquire these illnesses through purely somatic mutation. aside from a dna test, i doubt there's any way to know whether a person has inherited or acquired the given illness, and it doesn't change the effect it has on his life, but that doesn't change the fact that both possibilities exist. but, just because he might not have been born with that disease, doesn't mean he "chose" it.now. i've discussed two "diseases." i'm sure someone is going to yell at me about comparing homosexuality with life threatening diseases. this is not my intent. if you haven't talked to me long enough to figure that out, take a walk.*EDIT*look moosey, i changed the subtitle, and i thought of you.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

The cancer analogy is interesting, but the sad thing is, while we can test for the environmental influences that trigger the breast cancer gene, we can't test for any environmental influences in homosexuality.We are forced to rely on the scientific navel gazing that is anthropology/psychology/sociology.Toward that end, I offer this:Animals exhibit homosexual behavior.I doubt animal sexual abuse played into their behavior.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Returning the quibble...molbiogirl writes:

quote:

---

Did you mean to say she? (Breast and ovarian cancer = she)

---

Ovarian? Yes. Breast? No. Men have mammary glands. They're just not as hypertrophied as they are in women since men don't produce nearly as much estrogen as women do. In the US, about 1500 men come down with breast cancer every year of which about a third of them die from it.Edited by Rrhain, : Corrected stats to point out that they are for the US.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rrhain, I just pulled that whole quote (before I saw your post).I thought Brenna was referring to women, but I think she meant to refer to homosexuality as a disease (not in a negative way, tho).(PS I knew the male breast cancer thing. I was just trying to ask Brenna what she meant in her post. Not breast cancer = women only.)Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Thank you chaos for getting it right so often!I guess I should ask what a ph balance has to do with either entrancing or exiting. And to think we're all here against such staggering odds. Miraculous! What do you need a proctologist for then? Is it that you're gay, and you're offended by scientific fact? Yes, but with fellatio no one is vigorously moving so that cuts would occur. I'm glad you're being mature about the whole thing. Well, that's not true. The most effective way is abstinence. The second most effective way is being faithful to one partner and to have your partner reciprocate that faithfulness. The third most effective way is the use of condoms. And yet people still get diseases and pregnant even with condoms. I'm aware that condoms are somewhere in the order of 90-97% effective, which is all fine and good. But we aren't talking about the effectiveness of condoms in conjunction with anal sex. This act significantly lowers how effective the condom will be.Or should we rely on your personal experience here? Well, you know Rrhain, when people started dying from some unknown disease, they started figuring out which demographic was dying. From these similarities, they deduced that homosexual anal sex was present in 100% of the early cases. It was so prevalant that before AIDS was called, "AIDS," it was first called "GRID" (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). I guess a medical dictionary is a bad place to corroborate this fictitious syndrome? Yes, in fact they do. Unfortunately, it mostly has nothing to do with sex. Vaginitis or urinary infections can be caused by multiple things. (Especially since a penis doesn't go inside the urethra. If ever one does, I think there are other issues to deal with). Unfortunately for those who avidly partake of anal sex, there is only one way to get gay bowel syndrome, and that's lots of anal sex. I'm completely calm, trying to have a nice conversation, while you're the one guffawing over nothing. Its one thing to challenge the claim, but its another to be so incensed that frothy spittle accumulates on the screen. Settle down big guy.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

i specifically put a disclaimer in that said that i DIDN'T mean to refer to it as a disease.jesus. you really don't read, do you?

i disagree. sure, they're not "hard" sciences, but they have offered important insights and i think they can tell us more than you realize. yes, i am aware. and, i can't be sure. we know that animals exhibit classic signs of victimization from physical abuse (especially from humans), so i can't see why they wouldn't demonstrate similar responses to sexual abuse. it may be difficult to study because they can't tell us how they're feeling...but the big thing here is are we reducible to our dna? i think it's very obvious that we aren't. a great deal of our behavior is determined by our psychological "mindset" (for want of a better word). i noticed you didn't comment on the eating disorder comments. what's more base, more ingrained than the need to eat? self-preservation? clearly there are people in the world who lack that, as they seek harm or inflict it on themselves or seek to end their lives. don't you think that psychological experience might affect that? clearly, our most ingrained needs aren't so impervious to our realities.but, you're brushing all this aside to get back to your genetic cause which i haven't disputed.i'm glad you're at least pretending to move past the "orientation" thing, at least in your conversations with me, but i think you're getting hung up on this abuse thing. abuse, or negative experiences, would clearly not be the only thing able to shape our "psyche" and potentially affect our sexual activities.further, you're getting unnecessarily attached to the "homosexual" part, so you're not understanding my intent. let's try it this way. we're most closely related to bonobo chimpanzees. their behavior may suggest, along with what we know of pre-monotheistic cultures, that we should naturally exhibit open sexual behavior with potentially few or many partners of both sexes. this might suggest, as i said previously, that "orientation" is a construct that is defined by the post-greek piety adopted through the mosaic religions which demands specifically aimed sexual behavior. in other words, naturally, humans have no "orientation," no "gay", no "straight", no us and them, no establishment and other. as such, "straight" may be a result of a kind of sexual abuse in the form of traditional repression. just the same, "gay" may be a behavior exhibited as subconsciously "running away" from that abuse and others. but this isn't just about what partners are chosen, but how many, and what kinds of sex acts are participated in. what makes a "straight" with one partner different from a "straight" with fifty partners? sometimes it's lack of opportunity, sometimes it isn't. sometimes it's shame. i think that's clearly a sign of abuse. choosing one or two partners is different from being shamed into as few partners as possible. the same with a "gay". the number of partners might show a different reaction or a different experience. would you agree that a "gay" man who only receives is different from a "gay" man who does both or only gives? or a "lesbian" who shuns penetrative acts is different from one who doesn't? or a "straight" person who only participates in "missionary" is different from one open to oral or anal sex?

i dunno, colorectal cancer? i guess you've never received this or watched any porn. or maybe you're not paying attention. or she's bad at it.vigorously is a subjective term that you have no right to use having never had anal sex. this is not an effective method. you cannot trust a partner to be faithful, especially an unmarried one. we often choose to, often to our great misfortune. i had a friend who got hpv just this way. when she was out of town, her boyfriend cheated on her. i'm sure you'll emphasize the "one," but i don't have time for that. when used incorrectly, condoms are less effective. since men are both cheap and assholes, they tend to try to reuse condoms and sneak out of using them, like putting it on just before they ejaculate. this will not protect you. also, some diseases don't require fluid transfer, like hpv. so you're using the previous ignorant, intolerant social definitions defense? yes. especially since one would assume that straight people who participate in this sex act should also get it. or are women's assholes made for being fucked, like the rest of them? you know. i call bullshit on your numbers. show me proof. in the mean time, you know what i bet was even more common? multiple unprotected partners.i knew a straight man who had aids in no later than 1987. he gave it to his wife. he caught it overseas. his daughters got lucky.this goes back to the condom thing. it's stupid people and their unlucky (or potentially stupid) partners who get sick. if you fail to use proper lubrication and you get hurt, it's because you're stupid. btw, post-menopausal women have the same problem. they need extra lubrication. some women need extra lubrication all the time. (since you shared your nasty story, i get to share mine.) more often than not, i get abrasions on my perineum because of the friction from testicles. i have to use a lubricant to prevent this, and sometimes it's not enough. but i'm smart and i take precautions, because broken skin means more risk of transmission. i don't have to worry about that, now, i hope, but i'm still prepared for it.

That's quite possibly the dumbest statement I've ever seen at EvC.One word: teeth.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

What do you need a proctologist for then?

---

I was asking Rrhain.

quote:

---

Yes, but with fellatio no one is vigorously moving so that cuts would occur.

---

Rrhain said that mouths are filthier than the rectum and used oral sex as anecdotal evidence that bacteria doesn't really present a problem. I then countered by saying that shouldn't be getting tears, either in the mouth or on the genitalia. We all know that if any cuts are being produced, somebody is doing something wrong, as a whole lot of "teeth" are being involved. If you couldn't trust your partner, then you would need to ask yourself why you are in that relationship at all. HSV and HPV can be transmitted with or without a condom, especially if an infection site cannot be covered by that condom. See, this is what I'm talking about. It was neither ignorant or intolerant. That's the community first identified with the disease, that's where it first spread, that's who was getting the disease. It has nothing to do with ignorance or intolerance. It was a perfectly legitimate medical observation. They only had to change it, not out of ignorance, but because heterosexual women were becoming infected too.Medicine has no concern with political correctness... or at least it shouldn't. It was Rrhain that started bringing up all the gay questions. I merely stated the problems with anal sex-- male or female. I'm just following his lead. Timeline of early HIV/AIDS cases - Wikipedia What does that have to do with the fact that G.R.I.D., first identified in San Fransisco (wink-wink), had to do with the epidemic of gay men in the early years? We all know that it can affect any human being. I'm just telling you that in the early years, it was first identified in homosexuals.But now we're getting off track. The question really is whether anal sex is natural/healthy or not. The biological functions between the vagina and anus are clearly different. But people's defense of anal sex seems to be little more than, if it fits, then its fine. Well, if I try hard enough, I could eventually fit a round piece in a square mold, but clearly one is not supposed to be in the other.I think this is an opportune time for fans of anal sex to explain why its perfectly natural.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias