Comments on: genuine compassion

genuine compassion

111 — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:29:36 -0800

“Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do” (warning: extremely graphic verbal description; for a different perspective, here's a critique on the use of some references). "Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a destructive lifestyle." Discuss.

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:34:02 -0800

Wohoo! Friday Nite Fite!

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:37:32 -0800

This is going to be interesting...

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:38:46 -0800

fuck you up the ass, 111.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:42:30 -0800

This is at least 10 years old, I think; it's been floating around the internet forever. Some of the references are over 30 years old. We might as well be debating turn-of-the-last-century arguments on eugenics or racial superiority.

By: Red58

Red58 — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:44:02 -0800

No agenda from the folks at that website, eh? Problems with their statements: 1) All gay men are not promiscuous. 2) these sexual behaviors are not limited to gay men (oral sex, anal sex etc) 3) S&M is no more prevalent in the gay community than in the straight. 4) people don't choose to be gay, it's the way they are An endless round of arguing from people who just can't let others live their own lives.

By: rks404

rks404 — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:44:33 -0800

Has anyone investigated the proclivites of homosexuals to integrate pancakes into their activites? Oh yeah, *yawn*

By: agregoli

agregoli — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:45:10 -0800

Borrring.....

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:58:03 -0800

Jim David has a great routine on what homosexual men do. When his father asked him about what it is that he and his gay partner do, Jim replied "You know all those things that you wish Mom would do? That's what we do."

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:58:46 -0800

Find someone that hasn't been thoroughly discredited. Scroll to Cameron on this page for more. On Cameron's methodology and history: ...got the number from Paul Cameron, a researcher well known to followers of gay controversies. Cameron, a former assistant professor at the University of Nebraska who has consulted for such gay-rights opponents as former Rep. William Dannemeyer, R-Calif., heads a group called the Family Research Institute. Cameron resigned under fire from the American Psychological Association and was later formally terminated from membership following complaints about his research methods. He has had run-ins with other professional groups, including the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. According to Mark Pietrzyk's exposé in the Oct. 3, 1994, New Republic, the state of Colorado initially hired Cameron as an expert witness to defend its statute restricting gay-rights ordinances, then elected not to use his testimony after it got a closer look. His life-span figures have circulated for years in religious-right circles, but Bennett's comments appear to represent their first real breakout into wider public discussion. -- from Slate, during a previous Cameron/Family Research Inst. life-expectancy "study"

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:59:02 -0800

"imagine exchanging saliva, feces, semen and/or blood with dozens of different men each year. Imagine drinking urine, ingesting feces and experiencing rectal trauma on a regular basis." Best of the web indeed........... "Social Consequences of What Trolls Do" (warning: extremely obvious content; for a different perspective, here's an example of extreme trolling). "Trolls are sexually troubled people engaging in pointless activities. Because we care about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we try and find out what manner of abusive childhood or mental disfunction leads to this preditory lifestyle." Discuss.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:59:23 -0800

What quonsar said. And that goes double for James Dobson and those so called "Family Research" jerks.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:59:38 -0800

Uh, chief - would it have killed you to take ten seconds and look at the homepage of the source? This is so much thinly-veiled hate speech - and the sources of the primary document? Kinsey? "The Gay Report?" C'mon - there are some good and legitimate arguments in the conservative worldview (current firearms laws are unconstitutional, overbearing, and largely non-sensical in the more liberal states such as California - or how about the incredibly helpful reforms in the New York State bureaucracy when Dem. Gov. Cuomo was replaced with Repub. Pataki?). Please, present those. I and the rest of the leftists here generally don't post Indymedia links on the Blue because, hey it may be liberal, but it's also pure and unadulterated crap by delusional sycophants pushing an agenda. Ditto this Focus on the Family-wannabe BS. You can do better - hell, with this administration turning 'conservative' into a by-word for fascist, I order you to do better.

By: filmgoerjuan

filmgoerjuan — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:02:11 -0800

In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries, 3 gays averaged 110 sex partners... I like the sounds of this statistic...tell me more about this homosexuality. Can anyone join?

By: 2sheets

2sheets — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:06:30 -0800

Nice work 111. Now see what kind of information you can come up with on satanic messages in rock music using backwards masking. There has been some important research done is this field, and I believe you will find homosexuals are somehow involved. Of course they are just doing the bidding of their jewish masters.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:06:47 -0800

here's more on Cameron Next!

By: chuq

chuq — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:07:24 -0800

No agenda from the folks at that website, eh? And while we're on the subject ... what is your agenda in making this a FPP, 111? As if we really needed to ask. Your trollish fucknucklery is beneath contempt. (*spit*)

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:10:51 -0800

This seems as good a place as any for spreading Santorum.

By: chuq

chuq — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:11:33 -0800

...tell me more about this homosexuality. Can anyone join? Sure, Juan ... c'mon over! We've got your toaster oven all gift-wrapped and waiting for you as soon as you sign the papers.

By: anapestic

anapestic — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:13:32 -0800

111, I want you to understand that I'm saying the following with genuine compassion: it is my fervent desire that you spend eternity being sodomized by communists who do not use lubricant. Have a nice day. Ok, I didn't really mean the "have a nice day" part.

By: t r a c y

t r a c y — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:15:33 -0800

You can do better no he can't.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:16:01 -0800

I'm holding out for a convection oven.

By: Skot

Skot — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:18:40 -0800

This post is so awesomely bad that it verges on somehow perversely good. Is there a way we can invite some camgirls into the thread for discussion, or somehow reference Kottke? I mean, something this terrible really needs some wheels if it's going to thrive.

By: filmgoerjuan

filmgoerjuan — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:20:57 -0800

Sure, Juan ... c'mon over! We've got your toaster oven all gift-wrapped and waiting for you as soon as you sign the papers. A toaster, eh? Is it a 2-slice or a 4-slice toaster? Because, you know, I prefer it when all 4 slots are filled at once. I hope this doesn't hurt my chances of joining.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:22:24 -0800

GOD SHALL LAY HIS MERCY UPON THE GUILTY AND THEY SHALL NOT WALK RIGHT FOR AT LEAST A WEEK OR TWO

By: dobbs

dobbs — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:23:04 -0800

Pretty sure 111 had next to zero credibility prior to the post and am certain he went sub zero with the post. Sad what some people will believe, regardless of merit or fact, when they really want to believe it.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:23:43 -0800

you know what we haven't had had a flame war about in a long time? spanking children. are you for it, or against it? And while we're on the subject ... what is your agenda in making this a FPP, 111? maybe he's finally come around and trying to do his part to discredit the anti-gay crowd?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:24:45 -0800

111 puts himself up on his cross. Everyone else obliges him by hammering the nails in. His Christ complex deepens. It's an interesting symbiotic relationship. Or it would be if it wasn't so UTTERLY FUCKING BORING!!

By: JanetLand

JanetLand — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:25:29 -0800

Because, you know, I prefer it when all 4 slots are filled at once. I hope this doesn't hurt my chances of joining. I would think that would increase them.

By: quasistoic

quasistoic — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:26:56 -0800

At the Miami Hispanic Film Festival a few weeks ago, I saw a lovely short film called Prophylaxis. It was about anal masturbation...and inadvertent self-prostate-exams.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:29:35 -0800

Incest is wrong. Debate.

By: PinkStainlessTail

PinkStainlessTail — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:33:30 -0800

I feel like a parent. I can't wait for school to start again. Or for 111 to get a job (unless there's another reason why she started posting more right around graduation time).

By: andreaazure

andreaazure — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:36:06 -0800

May 17th, 2004 is coming. Where it all begins, again. From the 'article'... and gays average somewhere between 106 and 1105 different partners/year Really? Up to 3 times a day, every day? If that's true, it is only because they can't marry. Once people marry, sex decreases. It's True(tm). (Metafilter readers excluded, of course.)

By: archimago

archimago — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:36:28 -0800

damn, where was the rest of my body while my ass was engaging in so much promiscuity last year? And all this time I've been thinking that it's the same man I've been fucking for 14 years.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:37:31 -0800

Discuss. Debate. I wish some people around here would quit giving me fucking orders! How about this for an answer? NO!

By: tittergrrl

tittergrrl — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:39:58 -0800

Come on, guys. Don't you see. 111 posted on BOTH SIDES of the issue by doing us the great service of posting a critique of this very informative study. And the title.. "Genuine Compassion." I can think of no better title from a user who I sometimes think cares too much about the well-being of others, rather than tending to their own affairs. Someone call Heaven, because I believe there may be an angel missing! 111, this truly is the best of the web. Thank for bringing it to my attention. By the way, you're an ass.

By: trondant

trondant — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:44:23 -0800

111, I'd rather light a candle than curse the darkness, so here's a tip: when in public restrooms, always tap your foot on the floor. It comes out faster that way. Honest.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:13 -0800

Huh. 35 comments later, and 111 is apparently the only person dumb enough to take this drivel seriously. I figured there had to be at least *one* wingnut who'd back him up, but apparently not.

By: Veritron

Veritron — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:49:58 -0800

Do they give statistics for disease transfer between a man and a woman? Getting fucked up the ass isn't just for men anywore...

By: petebest

petebest — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:51:47 -0800

well that's it. I am totally not going to be gay now.

By: bshort

bshort — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:52:24 -0800

I think 111 should post MORE. After all, the more he explains his position the weaker his position becomes and the clearer it is that he's only motivated by irrational hate.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:55:24 -0800

Hey, at least give him a point for linking to one of the critics of this piece.

By: malocchio

malocchio — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:59:26 -0800

imagine exchanging saliva, feces, semen and/or blood with dozens of different men each year... Something tells me that guys like the writer of this article spend a lot of time imagining such things, and then spend the rest of the day trying to forget how it makes them feel all tingly down there.

By: milovoo

milovoo — Fri, 14 May 2004 11:59:42 -0800

I figured there had to be at least *one* wingnut who'd back him up, but apparently not. Give it some time, it's only been up for an hour or so. Hurry the wingnut-signal is lit!

By: Stoatfarm

Stoatfarm — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:04:38 -0800

y6y6y6 > 111

By: chaz

chaz — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:06:17 -0800

I hear that homosexuality is like pure heroin, only better.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:07:19 -0800

well that's it. I am totally not going to be gay now. The gays are gonna be real disappointed.

By: GeekAnimator

GeekAnimator — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:07:25 -0800

It's nice to see the whole site coming together like this.

By: loquax

loquax — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:09:02 -0800

he's only motivated by irrational hate. Well, to be fair (and I agree with much of what's been said in the thread, the post and site are garbage), I wouldn't go so far as to say that he's obviously "motivated by irrational hate". He may be, but his posts haven't indicated that to me, no even this one. Even if you don't agree with it, wanting to "prevent" (somehow) homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean you "hate" it or people who are homosexual. You may simply not understand it, or be afraid of it, or have been indoctrinated with those beliefs from a young age, for example. He may be tactless in many cases and have views that many here (myself included much of the time) don't agree with, but I wouldn't say that he's preaching "hate". It's more non politically correct, insensitive, intellectually dishonest, unpopular, inciteful and irrelevant. Not that it's an excuse for this post, but still, no need for a lynch mob just yet.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:12:27 -0800

"...and LardAss just sat back and enjoyed what he had created. A complete and total Barf-O-Rama."

By: fenriq

fenriq — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:13:46 -0800

Oh boy, another gay bashing post from someone who secretly wants to experiment. Yawn, 111, go find a chatroom and get a hook up going. You're only demonstrating that your fear and hate still outweighs your curiousity. What about the medical consequences of living a life of repression and intolerance?

By: trondant

trondant — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:13:52 -0800

loquax is right. We left our pitchforks at home.

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:15:51 -0800

Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My Cock?

By: MikeMc

MikeMc — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:17:47 -0800

I'm glad to see that Richard Gere's legendary Gerbil made the report...

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:20:43 -0800

Unfortunately, I have found so many errors in Cameron's citation form, improper statistical analysis and methodology, misquotes of original sources and misinterpretation of the data that I believe Cameron's work borders on professional negligence. Is this the first time that an AgendaFilter post has had the seeds of its own destruction contained within it? 111, you are a drain on the conservative movement, and a positive.recruiting sergeant for the left.

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:23:44 -0800

I'd like to give 111 some rectal trauma. But I'm thinking more along the lines of with my size 11 boot than my substantially less than size 11 genitalia. Also, is that toaster stainless steel?

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:30:37 -0800

Discuss motivated by irrational hate 111, the post's last word which will point out too, is its final sentence, tells your point here, flame. Do you posses this same etiquette to those like you? Because it's obvious you want a discussion on something you will or have no experience in other than a finding laugh at their expense. Your post would have been better suited allowing all sexual preference in for more laughter. Sex is not a naughty thing, and “shit happens.” My friend while having sex with his wife, sprang his penis which left it bent in the middle for sometime, which his friends were able to laugh about as he found it painfully funny too. Recall you being a big Smith's fan, funny you found these sites too.

By: archimago

archimago — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:36:20 -0800

Hey, at least give him a point for linking to one of the critics of this piece. That's what I don't get. The critic completely discredits the original piece. So is this post meant for us to laugh and point at the moron? And if so, which moron are we laughing and pointing at?

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:37:09 -0800

other than finding laughter at their expense

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:39:23 -0800

wait, gay people are having sex? and we're letting them??

By: pomegranate

pomegranate — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:42:23 -0800

filmgoerjuan wins.

By: moonbird

moonbird — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:49:15 -0800

~~genuine compassion~~

By: gwint

gwint — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:49:25 -0800

It depresses me to see so many posters wishing violence upon 111. Attack the ideas, or the way they are presented, or the agenda, or whatever, but hoping that 111 will spend "eternity being sodomized" just makes you seem as ugly and hateful as the original link.

By: JollyWanker

JollyWanker — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:55:07 -0800

MetaFilter: spranged penises left bent in the middle for sometime Thomcatspike - and thomcatspike alone - can save MetaFilter for me... (111: Seriously. Dude. Just get over it and do it already. All the energy you dump into being "the anti-gay" - did you go to college? Did you take Psych.101? Nobody's going to think less of you if and when you do finally come out, trust me...)

By: SteveInMaine

SteveInMaine — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:59:50 -0800

“Medical Consequences of What Heterosexuals Do”. Damn, if I googled a little harder, I'd imagine I could find "medical consequences of what jaywalkers do."

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:02:27 -0800

I think 111 should post MORE. I agree. This is better than a Friday Flash link. So entertaining.

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:02:57 -0800

Why do the gays want to make baby Jesus cry?

By: fedextruck

fedextruck — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:05:21 -0800

I've always found that lifespan bit a bit hard to believe. Gay men with AIDS die at median age of 39, and non-AIDS gay men die at median age of 42? That's pretty freaking young! Can anyone point to a real medical journal that actually does a real study, or is there no such research done like this (and/or, how could real research on this kind of question *not* be politically motivated/interpreted)? If the original data has any validity, it would seem that marriage is the real life-span-enhancer, which implies that whatever else, gay marriage will at least boost the life-span of those homosexuals who tie the knot.

By: 111

111 — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:14:29 -0800

35 comments later, and 111 is apparently the only person dumb enough to take this drivel seriously. Even though I'm not the one who should be concerned about it. Say, is it just my impression or there's an awful lot of cursing and seething hatred in this thread? Why on earth is the post even remotely "gay-bashing"? Considering some of the statements above, who sounds motivated by "hate"? Anyway, if the article is not to be taken seriously at all, why bother? Is anyone out there who'll affirm that 1)sodomy, a highly dangerous act, is common practice among ordinary heterosexual people? (real life is not the internet, you know) and 2) heterosexual and male homosexual mortality rates are currently the same? Brothers (and "sisters"), these are the real issues, not 111's trolling or some such nonsense. The FPP and the entire thread are not about me. De te fabula narratur. Instead of throwing fits, some of you should be promoting awareness and saying: hey, at any rate it's wise to be open to other points of view and above all maximize the safety levels of everything you do, including sex. archimago, the critic does not "completely discredit" the original article. He says "I trust the reader of this rebuttal will note how I have stayed away from any discussion or rebuttal of Dr. Cameron's substantive thesis. I have tried to simply point out that he has improperly used references(...)"

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:14:47 -0800

here's more on that lifespan bs I don't think there have been real studies on it, due to the historical (and current) closet, and that being gay is not a cause of death, and that many gay men married in the past, so were never listed as gay in any medical records. Until recently, there was no way to know which deceased people were gay (there's often still no way to know). I'll look around tho.

By: signal

signal — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:18:34 -0800

111 is so ego-dystonic it's scary.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:20:11 -0800

there's a growing body of work on elderly gay men and lesbians, and SAGE has lots of info on aging.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:21:35 -0800

wait, gay people are having sex? and we're letting them?? We're UNSTOPPABLE! How else do you think we can manage a rate of three new partners a day all year, every year?

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:35:39 -0800

Say, is it just my impression or there's an awful lot of cursing and seething hatred in this thread? Never ascribe to seething hatred that which can be adequately explained by simple contempt.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:36:36 -0800

Is anyone out there who'll affirm that 1)sodomy, a highly dangerous act, is common practice among ordinary heterosexual people? I'll affirm that. If I learned nothing else from being in the Army for three years, I learned that young guys will stick their penis in almost anything. It's worth noting that the word "sodomy" is generally used to describe all sorts of sexual acts, not just anal sex. Say, is it just my impression or there's an awful lot of cursing and seething hatred in this thread? Why on earth is the post even remotely "gay-bashing"? Considering some of the statements above, who sounds motivated by "hate"? Anyway, if the article is not to be taken seriously at all, why bother? Although I try to be polite in public, people like you generally fill me with cursing and seething hatred. Here's a quote from the bottom of your link:

"Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a destructive lifestyle."

I resent being told by the likes of you and Mr. Cameron that I'm sexually troubled, because I'm not. I've been in a monogamous relationship for fifteen years; we bought a house together, and are married in all but name. I resent being told that, for the good of "society," we can't be married in name, while Britney Spears can get married and divorced over a booze-filled weekend. Instead of throwing fits, some of you should be promoting awareness and saying: hey, at any rate it's wise to be open to other points of view and above all maximize the safety levels of everything you do, including sex. What awareness are you promoting, exactly? Your FPP link was all about the "dangers of homosexual sex." I submit to you that, all other things being equal, homosexual sex is no more dangerous than heterosexual sex. Promiscuity, on the other hand, may be more dangerous than monogamy. Does this mean that you now support gay marriage?

By: rks404

rks404 — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:39:03 -0800

111, there have been a variety of responses to your post. You pick and choose a few of the more extreme ones and then mischaracterize the entire thread. For the most part, people are making fun of you and this post. You're the joke and you don't even realize it. Keep posting and you'll be providing more punchlines.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:41:27 -0800

fedextruck: I've always found that lifespan bit a bit hard to believe. Gay men with AIDS die at median age of 39, and non-AIDS gay men die at median age of 42? I think we sholud be looking at both the time period and the sources for this figure. There are a number of reasons why gay urban periodicals at the height of the plague should not be considered to be a representative source. The sudden and rapid spread of HIV during this time period without a treatment plan, the rather notorious ageism of some aspects of the gay community, and changing social norms that meant more younger gay men were likely to be out during this period. 111: Say, is it just my impression or there's an awful lot of cursing and seething hatred in this thread? Well yes, and I've started a MetaTalk on this issue. On the other hand, I think it's pretty hard to deny an anti-gay agenda here. Is anyone out there who'll affirm that 1)sodomy, a highly dangerous act, is common practice among ordinary heterosexual people? (real life is not the internet, you know) and Actually, yes. Recently there was a major discussion locally (unfortuantely no link because the local paper requires a subscription to get copies of obituaries) about "rainblows" (group oral sex) in middle school. 2) heterosexual and male homosexual mortality rates are currently the same? Impossible to determine with any accuracy. Instead of throwing fits, some of you should be promoting awareness and saying: hey, at any rate it's wise to be open to other points of view and above all maximize the safety levels of everything you do, including sex. Well, heck yeah. I think that everyone should be practicing safer sex including abstaining from vaginal and anal intercourse, using barrier methods of protection, and incorporating less risky behaviors such as mutual masterbation. Funny how conservatives crow so much about HIV without acknowledging a pandemic of life-threatening HPV among heterosexuals. If your point was that we should be maximizing safety, then you could have made it better by pointing to some of the many articles (including this one and this one) about how to manage risk within relationships. There is quite a bit of good work out there on the impact of HIV on gay communities and how gay communities responded without using a bad hack as a source.

By: konolia

konolia — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:43:51 -0800

Well, do they do those things or not? Better yet, never mind. I just remembered Mapplethorpe took pictures. Yuck.

By: bshort

bshort — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:45:49 -0800

Loquax - you should read through some of his previous comments.

By: loquax

loquax — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:47:36 -0800

I can't believe no one's made the joke about the back of a volkswagon yet. Also, many rappers seems to enjoy and expound the virtues of heterosexual anal penetration for the purposes of enjoyment. And if heterosexuals aren't having or desiring anal sex, there are a lot of pornography industry marketing types that should lose their jobs. There, that's three citations!

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:51:28 -0800

I heart this thread. It's fucking fantastic! 111 is no troll -- well, no successful troll, at any rate -- because he utterly failed to stir up controversy. Heaping shiploads of abuse, sure, but not any controversy at all. In other words, it completely backfired on the poor git. I find that very amusing.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:57:09 -0800

Is anyone out there who'll affirm that 1)sodomy, a highly dangerous act, is common practice among ordinary heterosexual people? I'll affirm that every time I get a blowjob--not often enough, frankly!--I'm committing "sodomy" under state law. It never feels particularly "dangerous", though, which is a little disappointing.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:01:23 -0800

Konalia: Better yet, never mind. I just remembered Mapplethorpe took pictures. Yuck. Mapplethorpe made his bread, butter and fame making fetish photos about a rather extreme part of the gay community. I suspect that one of the reasons he is so popular is because he focuses on the those things that some straight people have the most purient interest in.

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:05:45 -0800

Sex is not a naughty thing, and “shit happens.” My friend while having sex with his wife, sprang his penis which left it bent in the middle for sometime, which his friends were able to laugh about as he found it painfully funny too. I love thomcatspike.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:16:20 -0800

It never feels particularly "dangerous", though, which is a little disappointing. What you need is a woman with braces. That's danger.

By: 111

111 — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:19:05 -0800

It's worth noting that the word "sodomy" is generally used to describe all sorts of sexual acts, not just anal sex. Main Entry: sod·omy Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11 1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex - sod·om·it·ic /"sä-d&-'mi-tik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective homosexual sex is no more dangerous than heterosexual sex. ... Promiscuity, on the other hand, may be more dangerous than monogamy. True. Does this mean that you now support gay marriage? Nope. On the other hand, I think it's pretty hard to deny an anti-gay agenda here. Kirkjobsluder, I'm really sorry to say that, but this is dumb. I am the one telling people to be cautious regarding their habits. The ones who evade the issue or who try to pretend it doesn't exist could be doing great harm to less-informed homosexuals by implying that "hey, don't worry, anything goes. Go nuts!" Sorry, but this kind of dangerous delusion is what I'd define as "anti-gay". Recently there was a major discussion locally about "rainblows" (group oral sex) in middle school. Fringe behavior, I insist. Anyway, we're talking about something usually worse than oral sex (see dictionary entry above). loquaz, rappers are perhaps not the best evidence to quote when it comes to average sexual habits (eazy-e to thread)

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:20:04 -0800

"Although I try to be polite in public, people like you generally fill me with cursing and seething hatred." me & my monkey - That was the point of the post. The only reason that it exists is to fill people who typically try to be polite in public with cursing and seething hatred. If you go back through 111's posting history I think you'll find a certain pattern - Stupid, ludicrous, and inflammatory things presented politely as conversation starters. It's the classic troll - Gays endanger us all. Intellectuals are communists. Arabs are filthy and disgusting. Christians are persecuted. GWB is a brilliant man. Blacks are whiny hypocrites. Lets talk about the swastika. Darwinism is logically flawed. Joe McCarthy was a great American. Etc. Etc. Which is more likely - That 111 wants a real discussion of this crap? Or he's getting his jollies by fueling some cursing and seething hatred?

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:20:37 -0800

*points, laughs*

By: mikeh

mikeh — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:23:53 -0800

111: Why on earth is the post even remotely "gay-bashing"? What else is the purpose here? Dissemination of facts to an ignorant audience? You posted two links: one lays out what it claims is factual data, and the other pretty much negates it by showing that the author has used a variety of unreputable sources, quoted out of context, and has shown malicious intent. I propose this post was MeFi-bashing, in that it is a solid troll with no basis for intellectual conversation. What are we supposed to do, debate about the validity of the critique?

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:25:05 -0800

Your trollish fucknucklery... chuq I love that word. I'm so stealing that word. Or for 111 to get a job (unless there's another reason why she started posting more right around graduation time). - PinkStainlessTail You know, you're the 3rd person I've heard say that 111 is a girl. Perhaps he/she is a he-she...thus explaining the dichotomy between the really fabu art posts and the really off the wall hate posts. S/he is just terribly, terribly conflicted...and the posts all depend on which hormones are in control that day? Just a guess. Ok, not a good one mind you...but a guess none the less. Is anyone out there who'll affirm that 1)sodomy, a highly dangerous act, is common practice among ordinary heterosexual people? - 111 Why yes, yes I can. So there. Especially when the definition includes oral sex...because, as most experienced women know, if you want a happy, happy man, nothing works better than a good blow job. ;)

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:25:32 -0800

noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex Anyway, we're talking about something usually worse than oral sex So which is worse? Oral sex or oral sex?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:26:22 -0800

Fersure. How many photos could he possibly have sold if he documented the mundane: filling out income tax forms, making supper, sitting on the couch watching the boob tube... Hell, it'd look pretty much exactly the same as konolia and her husband doing the mundane.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:27:39 -0800

I agree with Jonmc. Boooor-ing!

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:32:02 -0800

Throughout history, the major civilizations major religions condemned homosexuality.
One grammatical error and one historical error in the very first sentence - do I really need to say more?

By: vignettist

vignettist — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:35:52 -0800

Um, am I the only one who, on first glance read the FPP as "Because we care about them and are tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a destructive lifestyle"...

By: John Kenneth Fisher

John Kenneth Fisher — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:45:13 -0800

Hate speech disguised as a FPP. Isn't there a rule against that somewhere? SHouldn't there be? Or can we now just cut and paste from Jew Watch or random white supremicist sites for our FPPs?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:58:09 -0800

fuck you up the ass, 111.

By: tittergrrl

tittergrrl — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:59:38 -0800

111: I am the one telling people to be cautious regarding their habits. Ohhhh. It's a PSA! None of us saw Michael J Fox hanging around, so really... can you blame people for not "getting it?" Unless, 111 is Alex P Keating himself! This truly is one to grow on!

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:00:19 -0800

Well, do they do those things or not? What a pointless question. Are priests pedophiles or not?

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:05:33 -0800

Hey, Hey, you people just back off my muse, my love, my one one one and only. He's tried to help you here. He's tried to convince you of the inherent dangers of being what you are, homolefties. Can't you see that he only wants to salvage your health, respect your disgusting form of dignity, and save you from the hell that is sexual pleasure? You people make me sick with your ingratitude. You Homos! You lefties! Homolefties! Does anyone here read the tag "genuine compassion" and not envision a smirk? He's despises gays, he despises sexuality in what is an inherently sexual mammal, and he despises Metafilter as being a sexual/gay playground. In other words, he despises us. By all means, let him post more. Where else can such fun be had for free? And for the record, I'm almost certain that this is a double post. Does anyone with better google-fu care to take a shot at this?

By: Cyrano

Cyrano — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:07:58 -0800

Why yes, yes I can. So there. Especially when the definition includes oral sex...because, as most experienced women know, if you want a happy, happy man, nothing works better than a good blow job. Odd how the second part of the definition wasn't worthy of bold, eh? 111, care to weigh in on the dangers of a good knob shine? For your sake, we'll assume a hetero-blow.

By: meehawl

meehawl — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:08:56 -0800

My friend while having sex with his wife, sprang his penis which left it bent in the middle for sometime I can top that. My straight college roomie found a woman at a rave who enjoyed dry, raucous sex. Lots of screaming. Quite annoying. One day the pitch of the screaming changes. It's him. He comes running downstairs, clutching his groin, blood is pooling in his hands, dripping everywhere. He's swaying from the shock, rubbing against the wall and leaving odd, red Rorschach patterns on the off-white walls. He's ripped his foreskin, basically giving himself an involuntary circumscision, around 25 years after he could have got a pro to do it for him. Would he go to the ER? No. Did they use condoms? No. Was her vagina now liberally doused in penile blood? Yes. Could he have sex again without excrutiating pain and causing renewed bleeding for a long time? No. Did that stop him and her from trying? No. Did they return to unsafe sex? Yes. Did they end up producing an unwanted conception? Yes. Did they allow that conception to proceed until a child was born? Yes. Did they later break up acrimoniously? Yes. Is straight sex sometimes dangerous and messy and annoyingly fertile? Oh yes.

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:12:47 -0800

Meehawl, I think you invented a new Godwin.

By: tittergrrl

tittergrrl — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:16:45 -0800

meehawl: You know... I read that, and through all the pain and stupidity and problems I just can't help but wonder... What happened to the foreskin? I mean, it had to go somewhere, right? (obFARKization) (On preview: I second PV.)

By: meehawl

meehawl — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:21:21 -0800

What happened to the foreskin? I mean, it had to go somewhere, right? It went to pieces. Well, shreds actually. The frenulum was ripped and some of the tears continued slightly along the prepuce. I wanted to take photos for posterity but I was overruled.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:23:16 -0800

111: Kirkjobsluder, I'm really sorry to say that, but this is dumb. I am the one telling people to be cautious regarding their habits. The ones who evade the issue or who try to pretend it doesn't exist could be doing great harm to less-informed homosexuals by implying that "hey, don't worry, anything goes. Go nuts!" Sorry, but this kind of dangerous delusion is what I'd define as "anti-gay". Um, I hate to tell you this, but the gay community was talking about these issues even when we had a president that would not. The gay community was talking about these concerns while two different Surgeon Generals were sacked for talking about these issues. The gay community will continue to talk about these issue even with abstinance-only education (abstinance is taught BTW as part of the discussion of safer sex.) If you are working from such a gay-positive position, why post a link to an article with an explicit anti-gay bias, a review that has been most throughly discredited, with claims that are physically impossible when there are literally thousands of articles about the public health concerns of gay and lesbian people? There are lots of ways to approach this issue without engaging in fraud. Eyeballkid: So which is worse? Oral sex or oral sex? Swish and score! five fresh fish: Hell, it'd look pretty much exactly the same as konolia and her husband doing the mundane. Bingo. But even more than that, fetish photography is supposed to make sex "subversive" and, well, sexy. What is shocking and subversive about Mapplethorpe are his male nudes but even those are really glossy and slick, reducing the participant to just an art object arranged like a still life. His self portrait with bullwhip was not intended to document, but to shock. I actually saw an exhibition of a photographer who did something radically different in sexual photography. She became a fly on the wall in the life of a couple for an weekend. Her documentary photos reveal that fetish and pornography do a piss-poor job of showing how heterosexual people have sex.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:27:06 -0800

I'm having trouble understanding your replies, 111. I stated that sodomy covered more than anal intercourse, and in response, you provided a dictionary definition of sodomy that covered more than anal intercourse. I stated that homosexual sex is no more dangerous than heterosexual sex, all other things being equal. You replied with an ellipsis. I stated that promiscuity may be more dangerous than monogamy, and you agreed. Finally, I asked whether you're in favor of gay marriage, and you said no. You said you posted this to help us gay people. If you want to reduce promiscuity, why not support gay marriage? That would be a great help in reducing the cause of your concern, wouldn't it? Or do you just want those nasty homosexuals to stop doing their nasty homosexual things? Because I've got news for you - it ain't gonna happen. I am the one telling people to be cautious regarding their habits. Why gays? Why not smokers? Or overweight people? Why do you care so much for us, that you focus all your energies on our betterment? Why not ask us what would make our lives better, if you care so much? Why not work for our equality before the law?

By: stonerose

stonerose — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:30:42 -0800

Everyone should practice safe sex.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:44:42 -0800

my muse, my love, my one one one and only *cleans Snapple off monitor*

By: rks404

rks404 — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:47:34 -0800

Meehawl - you have permanently altered my cognitive landscape. I wouldn't be surprised to see this story spread far and wide ... I think we have a prime candidate for watching the transformation of a story into an urban legend.

By: 111

111 — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:57:29 -0800

dejah420, Cyrano, me&mymonkey, even though this is so very obvious in this context, please assume, for the sake of the argument, that sodomy= anal sex. About 90% of all comments above evade the issue. This is about medical data. Some of it was incorrectly attributed (or so says the rebuttal), some of it is too specific and timebound to give a clear picture of the current situation, and some of it is relevant. Ask a doctor: doc, are there specific risks in the practice of anal sex? Is male homosexual behavior as safe as heterosexual behavior? Should male homosexuals take specific precautions? Still not convinced? Ask another doctor for a second opinion. It's as simple as that. If you are working from such a gay-positive position, why post a link to an article with an explicit anti-gay bias, KJSluder, it's not anti-gay. Do you know what "anti" means? Whatever shakes people out from a dangerous or destructive pattern is valid. Do I think gays will turn hetero overnight? Perhaps not. But I do think it's important to face difficult issues and do the best you can within your circumstances. Now to do that, people cannot live in denial and resort to non-argumentative, defensive reactions such as shouting "trolling! Gay bashing!Closet case!" etc etc etc. mmmonkey, re gay marriage, it's a different issue (also controversial in itself, BTW). I support life, not homosexual behavior per se. I also believe that telling statistics, even when they're uncomfortable, shouldn't be hidden or dismissed. quonsar, no thanks. BTW, I didn't know you were gay. Who'd have thought???

By: tittergrrl

tittergrrl — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:58:14 -0800

I think we have a prime candidate for watching the transformation of a story into an urban legend Not only an unintended babe conceived that day, friends. But a story as true as a georgia sunrise. Gather round, children. Hear the tale. The tale of the foreskin of fate, and what its truths mean in YOUR life as well.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:11:01 -0800

dejah420, Cyrano, me&mymonkey, even though this is so very obvious in this context, please assume, for the sake of the argument, that sodomy= anal sex. About 90% of all comments above evade the issue. This is about medical data. Some of it was incorrectly attributed (or so says the rebuttal), some of it is too specific and timebound to give a clear picture of the current situation, and some of it is relevant. There are plenty of gay men who don't have anal sex. So why should I assume that sodomy is anal sex? Ask a doctor: doc, are there specific risks in the practice of anal sex? Is male homosexual behavior as safe as heterosexual behavior? Should male homosexuals take specific precautions? Still not convinced? Ask another doctor for a second opinion. It's as simple as that. By lumping "homosexual behavior" into anal sex, you're making a big mistake. There are plenty of gay guys who don't do anything more than mutual masterbation. Doesn't that strike you as pretty safe? If you're worried about anal sex, why not limit your focus to that? In any case, beyond observing safe sex practices, what precautions would you recommend? If nothing more than safe sex practices, why limit your focus to gay men having anal sex? I'm sure there's plenty of unsafe sex happening all over the place. it's not anti-gay. Do you know what "anti" means? Whatever shakes people out from a dangerous or destructive pattern is valid. Do I think gays will turn hetero overnight? Perhaps not. But I do think it's important to face difficult issues and do the best you can within your circumstances. If you're telling me that a particular part of what makes me who I am - a part which doesn't affect you one bit - is bad, then you're "anti-" whatever it is you're criticizing. re gay marriage, it's a different issue (also controversial in itself, BTW). I support life, not homosexual behavior per se That's not an answer, it's an evasion. If you're so concerned with gays' promiscuity, why not take the obvious step that would reduce it?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:11:24 -0800

metafilter: the frenulum was ripped and some of the tears continued slightly along the prepuce.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:12:49 -0800

Whatever shakes people out from a dangerous or destructive pattern is valid. Including printing the lies which are in this publication? Way to destroy your own rep. Where are your supporters in this crusade - why is it that your lies find no support, even amongst the tories on this site?

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:19:25 -0800

Seems to me, the lies which are published here make no case against those goddam lebanese women. They seem to be gettin' stronger ev'ry day, Jeb, what'm we gon' do bout them? Cain't we make 'em more promisculous, or invent 'em a new virus?

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:21:45 -0800

It seems everyone in this thread is using the noun "homosexual" to mean "homosexual man". It's perhaps worth pointing out that lesbians tend to not engage in these so-called "unhealthy" behaviors. In fact, as a group, they're at much lower risk for sexually transmitted diseases than any other preference-defined group. This is something that occurred to me during the AIDS crisis in the 80s, when you had various bigots declaring that AIDS was "God's punishment" on homosexuals. The implication, of course, is that lesbians, as the lowest risk group for AIDS transmission, are God's chosen people.

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:23:47 -0800

Way to destroy your own rep. Destroy? Enhance, I'd say.

By: 111

111 — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:41:53 -0800

dash_slot, you're dismissing the entire text. Wrong move. Anyway, consider the following A study from 1997 published on the International Journal of Epidemiology: CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. More data (not from the source, unfortunately): "The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention reported that men who engage in homosexual behavior are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs," the CDC warns. "Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STD threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts." "Gay Health reports that men who have sex with men are 320% more likely than heterosexuals to have unprotected sex without telling their partners they're HIV-positive." "The California Office of AIDS reported that male on male sodomy accounts for 79% of AIDS cases. An American Medical Association report; American Adolescents: How Healthy Are They?, that "homosexual youth are 23 times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals." Where's the gay bashing? Those are not indictments or death sentences, they're information that must be taken into account in order to save lives. For some specific data, check out the CDC site and search for "homosexual". Now those patterns are dynamic, life expectancy is improving, but it's still an issue that doesn't demand whining, but lots of realism, caution and effective prevention measures.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:43:55 -0800

"'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals." Dr. Paul Cameron, a "scientist" often quoted by religious right groups (see below), speaking at the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference Link from amberglow This is the same guy who wrote the discredited paper 111 cites above, so his agenda is not only deceitful, it's truly hateful. As in genocidal. You're up for that are you, 111?

By: 111

111 — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:49:49 -0800

You're up for that are you, 111? Nope. The data he presented was not homemade though. He cited other sources, and so did I two posts above. Singling out Cameron will not make the data go away.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:50:55 -0800

...make no case against those goddam lebanese women.... Hey now...I'm just sitting over here making kibbeh and baklava and planning to give my husband a surprise later...don't bring the Lebanese into this. ;)

By: o2b

o2b — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:52:09 -0800

Someone asked it above, so I will do it: I will stipulate that anal sex, while not as common among gay men, is not terribly uncommon amongst the straight population either. It's also worth bearing in mind that anal sex is not necessarily the end-all of gay sex, and is not praticed by the entire gay male population.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:54:27 -0800

Meehawl, my question is how in the hell did he maintain a boner after ripping his foreskin off? This post should probably be deleted but the comment thread has been most amusing to read and it would be a shame. On Preview, I'll second o2b's comment that a decent proportion of the hetero population regularly engages in 5th base sex.

By: meehawl

meehawl — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:54:29 -0800

It seems everyone in this thread is using the noun "homosexual" to mean "homosexual man". There is of course also the interesting fact that at several times in certain Western cultures throughout history, women have engaged in receptive anal sex as a contraceptive strategy. Foe example, following the progressive abolishment of easy access to abortion and infanticide procedures by the Roman Church sucsequent to its takeover of the Roman Empire, Western European women during the Medieval Period seem to have engaged in increasingly common anal sex and other non-procreative procedures. Given the high risk from childbirth of the time, this is understandable. What's especially illuminating is reading the daybooks of Italian highborn women from the late Medieval phase is how amazingly common and integrated the practice of anal sex was within the culture. A major cultural, em, thrust against anal sex within heterosexual marriage seems to have begun with the Italian Johannes Gratian in the 12th century, author of the Decretum Gratiani, the foundation of Canon Law. It was he that really began a concerted, rigorous approach within the Roman Church towards codifying its attitude regarding permissible and impermissible sexual practices. The advent of the "Renaissance" really marks the simultaneous culmination and collapse of the Roman Church's social engineering project. This social engineering really took off, of course, with the great success of the Consanguinity Decrees that framed the modern Western notion of incest (the 1st Latern Council defined seven degrees of consanguinity in 1123, and this was strictly enforced until the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 relaxed it to 3 or 4 degrees). This increasingly strictly enforced ideology of control over sexual and marital relations expanded in scope and reach until it met an inflexion point where its power to influence peoples and cultures was viciously was undercut by improving non-Church communications networks within Europe that promulgated obvious lapses in the public image and behaviour of Church officials. This enabled local power groups and schismatics to seize the moral high ground, gain control of the direction of local mores, and to begin the great decentralization and evolution of public sexual mores that was to unfold. For more details, see Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe or A History of Private Life: Revelations of the Medieval World. It always gives me a kick to think about so much of what we take for granted about the past and what is "customary" and "normal" is so completely ahistorical and evoid of situated context. There were gay people in Medieval Europe, and there were straight people, and even bisexual people. And many of the the straight couples were happily sodomizing or being sodomized without even the slightest notion that in years to come religious organizations would manage to criminalize their contraceptive practices or even frame them within some sort of doomsday public health scenario.

By: o2b

o2b — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:54:30 -0800

(by "end-all" I meant "the thing everyone enjoys the most")

By: riviera

riviera — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:56:44 -0800

Hey, 111, you steaming pile of shit, the people who wrote that Int. J. Epidemiol paper also wrote a follow-up explicitly condemning the conclusions and citations of bigots like yourself: In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group. Please kill yourself, now.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 16:57:27 -0800

quonsar, no thanks. BTW, I didn't know you were gay. Who'd have thought??? i knew my ultra-macho posturing fools some of the people some of the time, but i didn't know you bought into it, thilly.

By: o2b

o2b — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:00:40 -0800

Ok quonsar, I've had it with your hateful stereotyping. I know many many gay men, and I've *never* met one who says "thilly." It's always "sssilly."

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:02:48 -0800

guilty ath charged.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:03:18 -0800

111: dejah420, Cyrano, me&mymonkey, even though this is so very obvious in this context, please assume, for the sake of the argument, that sodomy= anal sex. Actually, it's not obvious in this context, because not all gay men, and perhaps even a majority have anal sex. This is a misconception that the article you posted is a bit fraudlent about. Ask a doctor: doc, are there specific risks in the practice of anal sex? Is male homosexual behavior as safe as heterosexual behavior? Should male homosexuals take specific precautions? Actually, I have worked with doctors and nurse practicioners on this issue. The answers are yes, (anal sex does have a higher risk of transmission in regards to some diseases.) The second question is meaningless because there is no such thing as "male homosexual behavior" or "male heterosexual behavior." What is male homosexual behavior. Does cuddling on the couch count? The third question is no. Most doctors I know are just as concerned about the growing pandemic of HSV, HPV and Chlamydia among heterosexual populations as HIV and Hep among homosexual male populations. The advice is exactly the same for both groups, practice safer sex, limit you number of sexual contacts, talk about safer sex with your partner, and be aware of your own health. It is interesting that everything you say about public health has been known for years, and widely discussed, talked about and disseminated among the gay community since HIV first broke. The denial you refer to, does not exist. KJSluder, it's not anti-gay. Do you know what "anti" means? Well yes. Both the author and the website you linked to seek deny lesbigays the right to evaluate the risks for ourselves. When gay men were trying to educate each other about how to minimize the risks of sexual activity, Cameron and his ilk tried their darndest to stand in their way. Much of Cameron's claims are outright fabrications, lies, and distortions intended to slander lesbigays. The screed you linked to is to anti-gay activism, what The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are to anti-semitism. Whatever shakes people out from a dangerous or destructive pattern is valid. Do I think gays will turn hetero overnight? Perhaps not. But I do think it's important to face difficult issues and do the best you can within your circumstances. Now to do that, people cannot live in denial and resort to non-argumentative, defensive reactions such as shouting "trolling! Gay bashing!Closet case!" etc etc etc. If the shoe fits, eat it. Have you ever stopped to consider that the gay male communities are quite aware of these issues, have discussed them, examined objective studies about the risk, and come to their own conclusions about what is needed? In my mind, the answer to the problem is what worked in the 1990s to slow the spread of HIV: 1: Sexuality education focusing on risk assessment, communication and reduction. 2: Support for long-term monogamous relationships. 3: Greater overall acceptance of gay men in society. These are the realizations that helped to spark the second wave of gay rights activism in the 1990s. That the closet was not just a mental health concen but a public health concern as well. mmmonkey, re gay marriage, it's a different issue (also controversial in itself, BTW). I support life, not homosexual behavior per se. I also believe that telling statistics, even when they're uncomfortable, shouldn't be hidden or dismissed. The problem is not that the statistics are uncomfortable, but that they are fraudulent. Seriously, if you are seriously interested in this issue, there has been quite a bit published by the CDC and reputable medical journals.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:04:09 -0800

That quote refers to a study in a small population, in an editorial note. It is deceptive to extrapolate that meaning to all gay men, but then, you are not interested in accuracy, but in promoting the agenda of a proven liar who advocates extermination of a whole class of people. That 860% quote? Provide a disinterested source please - preferably from the CDC. I'd find it hard to locate, for some reason. Why don't you provide sources, 111?

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:05:14 -0800

quonthar you thilly athth

By: camper

camper — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:05:17 -0800

I love the term "rectal encounter." It makes me want to start a band just for the name.

By: 111

111 — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:07:41 -0800

riviera, I'm done with presenting evidence, but use of research has nothing to do with the cold, scientific results thereof. That was an editorial reply to a letter and that's that. It was not scientific, nor did it attempt to alter the conclusion of the original paper.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:13:17 -0800

MJJJ! Why, if I'd known you were coming....well, there's just no telling what I'd do...you sexy kitten, you. (Now, see what this thread has done? I hope you're happy 111, now I have to stop being Lebanese, become a Lesbian instead and pine wistfully for Madame for the rest of my years. ) How ever will I explain it to my husband? Oh...right, he's a guy...lesbians are good, I forgot. ;)

By: 111

111 — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:14:13 -0800

The denial you refer to, does not exist. Consider this very thread, for instance. dashslot, from now on do your homework. CDC.gov or something.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:18:06 -0800

Well, 111, you're the one making the claims. You're the one that needs to provide evidence. Evidently people in the thread don't feel your "evidence" was sufficient. Now back up what you have to say, or we'll go back to ignoring you.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:19:18 -0800

Evidence? Cameron is to gays as Chalabi is to WMD. A discredited liar. But thanks fo giving me the opportunity to make my points. IHaveNotBT.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:19:24 -0800

fuck you up the ass, 111.

By: chuq

chuq — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:20:18 -0800

"Your trollish fucknucklery..." chuq I love that word. I'm so stealing that word. I must confess, I can't take credit for its root (although adding the noun suffix was my idea). The word "fucknuckle" was allegedly coined by famed South African playwright Deon Opperman, who was the former roommate (or classmate, I forget) of a former roommate of mine. As soon as I heard my old roommate refer to someone as a "fucknuckle" I said something along the lines of, "I love that word. I'm so stealing that word." If I can help spread the use of "fucknuckle" by having today asserted that 111 is, in fact, a fucknuckle, then I have done my good deed for the day.

By: meehawl

meehawl — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:21:42 -0800

And oh yeah, I forgot the classic of Renaissance ass fucking manuals: La Cazzaria - The Book of the Prick. Perhaps slightly more homoerotic than heteroerotic, although I see that as an artifact of its intended male audience more than anything else - Italian men of that day were very... tight with each other. The author does complain a lot about the "loosness" and "unfillable" capacity of the vagina (leading to inevitable disatisfaction for both parties involved), versus the cosy tightness of the rectum. Certainly, it's a buggery classic, with one of the raconteurs, Arsiccio, insisting that women like anal sex as much if not more than men. And yet, despite all this ass fucking, our ancestors seem to have survived quite well enough to have procreated unto the nth degree. Maybe someone should tell the good Dr Cameron?

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:23:44 -0800

dejah - heheh. You lebanese women are so HOT!! 111- hehehe. That's all - just hehehe.

By: 111

111 — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:25:32 -0800

quonsar, no way, back off lady. Ironically, this thread ended up giving you the opportunity to "come out of the closet", as you folks say. Again: who'd have thought...

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:28:44 -0800

The denial you refer to, does not exist. Consider this very thread, for instance. 111, they're disagreeing with the conclusion that your original source draws, not with the fact that there are health considerations that homosexual men must deal with. Every major American city has organizations--often partially government-funded--that support the local gay community with health-based educational outreach. Discussions of sexual health have been prominent in gay communities since the 80s. Your source (again, the original one) doesn't acknowledge this fact, preferring to suggest that the way to address these health considerations is to (magically? via mass murder?) do away with homosexuality. This is deeply insulting, whether or not you recognize it. Hence, people responded as if insulted. Any surprise you express toward this response is surely feigned.

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:39:28 -0800

why dejah *bats lashes* ... all this and a toaster too? could life get better? (1 down, 1104 to go.)

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:40:43 -0800

That said, if you want to have a discussion about educational outreach and other approaches to combating the spread of STDs in the gay community, well, that could be an interesting discussion. I don't know much about it myself, but it seems like KirkJobSluder might be a bit of an expert. Maybe he could provide us with some interesting links.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:41:20 -0800

this thread ended up giving you the opportunity to "come out of the closet" the floor was getting awful sticky in there, sweetie.

By: Voivod

Voivod — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:42:13 -0800

Jesus Christ people, have you never seen a troll before? There is only one rule: DON'T FEED THE TROLL. The troll has only one purpose: to generate emotional responses. All you're doing is rewarding the troll and encouraging the troll to post again.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:44:19 -0800

voivid, what emotion? mostly i see pointing and giggling.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:44:48 -0800

dashslot, from now on do your homework. CDC.gov or something. Me find links for your assertions? This is an even graver breach of Mefi ettiquette than posting a duff link from a lying pseudo scientist kicked out of his professional association!

By: 111

111 — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:49:55 -0800

the floor was getting awful sticky in there, sweetie. posted by quonsar at 5:41 PM PST on May 14 But at least you had some dusty coathangers to play with.

By: SpaceCadet

SpaceCadet — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:53:41 -0800

fuck you up the ass, 111. Go on, quonsar, say it a 4th time: prove just how predictable Metafilter can be.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:53:55 -0800

at least you had some dusty coathangers to play with. i donated those to the abortion clinic, hon.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:54:40 -0800

prove just how predictable Metafilter can be. you obviously have me confused with metafilter.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:57:17 -0800

But at least you had some dusty coathangers to play with. - 111 No, no, no...save that for the abortion thread. You don't want to use up all your good material. See, the correct answer was: "But Quonsar, it's only sticky because you keep playing with the pole."

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:59:22 -0800

R O F L ! ! !

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:59:25 -0800

Y'know you people could be doing something worthwhile with your time instead of getting suckered into a froth-fest like this.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:03:27 -0800

Y'know you people could be doing something worthwhile with your time instead of getting suckered into a froth-fest like this. Na, at this point, it's just dissolved into sheer silliness...and after a day of toddler temper tantrums...silly works for me. (Ok, I admit...all of my responses have been silly.)

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:05:24 -0800

Y'know you people could be doing something worthwhile with your time instead of getting suckered into a froth-fest heh. like there's a better froth-fest than this going somewhere.

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:15:26 -0800

So we've proved that LESBIANS ARE GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE, because whatever Scary Dangerous Things that gay men do, heterosexuals still do more of that than lesbians. Who knew that 111 was such a dyke-doggie?

By: SpaceCadet

SpaceCadet — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:28:16 -0800

You're all stupid.

By: Cyrano

Cyrano — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:30:40 -0800

So we've proved that LESBIANS ARE GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE. That would explain the religious experience I had while watching "Where The Boys Aren't #16."

By: fresh-n-minty

fresh-n-minty — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:31:20 -0800

I must say there's something very sexually suggestive about their logo:

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:46:38 -0800

You're all stupid. - SpaceCadet Nu-uh! You are! I am rubber, you are glue...etc. (See, I told you I was in a silly mood. heh.) And fresh-n-minty, not only are you refreshing upon the palate, you are also correct. I hadn't noticed it, but now that you mention it...it is pretty suggestive.

By: SpaceCadet

SpaceCadet — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:52:51 -0800

Nu-uh! You are! I am rubber, you are glue...etc. and I'm from the UK, not Stupidville like you-hoo (See, I'm in a silly mood too)

By: orange swan

orange swan — Fri, 14 May 2004 19:21:28 -0800

Y'know you people could be doing something worthwhile with your time instead of getting suckered into a froth-fest Speak for yourself. I filed my nails while reading this thread. It's a task I usually don't do well because it's so tedious, but this time I was so beautifully entertained that I did a terrific job of it.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Fri, 14 May 2004 19:25:01 -0800

Can't we just put this all behind us, now? Uh, wait ...

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Fri, 14 May 2004 21:55:36 -0800

guys, there's no need to get so vile with 111 because his kind can't be helped. we just have to wait until his generation dies off or gets feeble like the segregationists did. in the meantime, it's our job to do whatever we can to lead by example and show the error of intolerance. if it helps, try to imagine the history channel specials that will be made about his kind 15-20 years down the line.

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Fri, 14 May 2004 22:39:58 -0800

Remember people, I post this only because I'm filled with love and compassion: The Homosexual Roots of the Nazi Party

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Fri, 14 May 2004 22:52:15 -0800

Discuss.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 14 May 2004 23:25:33 -0800

ok. dgaicun wins!

By: Tryptophan-5ht

Tryptophan-5ht — Fri, 14 May 2004 23:44:25 -0800

I vote 111 this generation's Strom Thurman! Do these people honestly believe that homos are the only one's pimpin rim jobs and 'torture sex'?

By: ArmyOfKittens

ArmyOfKittens — Sat, 15 May 2004 06:22:15 -0800

A side-note: dejah420: Perhaps he/she is a he-she...thus explaining the dichotomy between the really fabu art posts and the really off the wall hate posts. S/he is just terribly, terribly conflicted...and the posts all depend on which hormones are in control that day? When you're defending a minority, insulting an even smaller minority is bad form. Okay, I know you didn't mean it like that, but still. It's disheartening.

By: t r a c y

t r a c y — Sat, 15 May 2004 08:12:29 -0800

kittens - dejah420 is not one to fling with the insults, it's just that this particular poster is a real ball of confusion, and people's curiosity has finally reached a point where any decorum has been left by the wayside. he/she refuses to offer up anything in the way of proof that they're not a character being played on us, or even just a simple email address so that certain discussions can be taken to email when things get out of hand. all that combined with the hate filled posts & this person has rendered themselves a non entity to such a degree that, yah, they're being treated as such.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Sat, 15 May 2004 08:13:39 -0800

111 none of this data means anything. The overall mortality rate has always included gays & lesbians. The non-homosexual numbers do as well. All of these numbers are just sheer nonsense disguised as wishful thinking. I'm sorry but you are filling your pretty head full of gunk based on bad data.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Sat, 15 May 2004 08:22:23 -0800

I wonder which is worse for you: being a homosexual or playing professional football?

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sat, 15 May 2004 08:24:55 -0800

Sex with anyone, anything, anywhere - exchanging bodily fluids - has always been dangerous. I blame god.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sat, 15 May 2004 08:30:51 -0800

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 15 May 2004 08:43:56 -0800

I wonder which is worse for you: being a homosexual or playing professional football? there's a difference???!?!?!?! you know, those ass pats coming out of a huddle. surely, as pedophiles are drawn to elementary school custodianship, homosexuals must be drawn to a sport where they can thrust their hands between the exquisitely rounded buttocks of a burly center? no school custodians were harmed in the making of this comment. all school custodians, however, were libeled mercilessly. if you are a school custodian, and wish to pursue possible legal redress against metafilter.com, please serve notice to user #1. oops, there's the lunch bell...

By: trondant

trondant — Sat, 15 May 2004 09:40:06 -0800

This thread gives me an idea...can we set up a MefiFecalMatterSwap? You know, mail a few turds off, get a few in the mail. It'd be something new, and we'd all learn who lives on an exclusive diet of peanuts and corn. Whaddya say?

By: romakimmy

romakimmy — Sat, 15 May 2004 09:50:12 -0800

MefiFecalMatterSwap? Sheesh, isn't MeTa enough shit swapping for y'all? I jest,I jest...

By: jonmc

jonmc — Sat, 15 May 2004 10:01:55 -0800

MefiFecalMatterSwap? "Hello, Mr. Metafilter, this is the Metropolitan Sewer Commission, and quite frankly we've had enough shit out of you."

By: ArmyOfKittens

ArmyOfKittens — Sat, 15 May 2004 10:22:21 -0800

t r a c y: I was more disappointed by the fact that it was dejah that said it (given her, in my opinion, exemplary posting history), rather than that it had been said. All the same, I get a little touchy when it is implied yet again that trans = mood disorder and/or "confusion". 111's posts could have been designed for people like me who like to argue with politicians on the telly, in that his or her opinions and answers to genuine questions seem to rely entirely on the existence of a parallel universe that only they inhabit. Plus, that first link was hilarious.

By: matteo

matteo — Sat, 15 May 2004 11:45:30 -0800

But at least you had some dusty coathangers to play with. posted by 111 at 2:49 AM CET on May 15 heh. classy. that made me remember an old Bill Hicks routine where he's talking about a wild scat scene involving Rush Limbaugh and Barbara Bush (the grandmother, of course, not George W's daughter). the (appalling) ending: a maggot crawls out of (finally happy) Limbaugh's uretra, wiggles away and joins a pro-life group. anyway here's the quote, substitute "Limbaugh" and "Rush" with "111" and you'll see, it is really really funny "Speaking of Satan, I was watching Rush Limbaugh recently... Doesn't Rush Limbaugh remind you of one of those gay guys who likes to lie around in a tub while other men pee on him. Can't you just picture his fat, corpulent body lying in a tub while Reagan, Quayle, and Bush stand all around peeing on him. 'Ooh, I can't get hard. Ronnie, pee in my mouth'. He still can't get hard, so Barbara Bush comes in. She takes off her pearls, stuffs them up his ass, and undoes her girdle. Her wrinkled, flaccid labia unfurl half way to her knees, like some ball-less scrotum. Barbara walks over, squats over his face, and squeezes out a link into his mouth. Finally, his tiny dick gets half-way hard. 'Oooh!' A little bubble forms on the end of his dick, with a little maggot inside. The maggot pops the bubble, and goes off to join a pro-life group somewhere. Rush Limbaugh is a scat muncher, don't ya'll see that?"

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 15 May 2004 13:42:17 -0800

matteo, thats just offensive to scat munchers everywhere. will you apologize, or must i haul your ass to meta? i mean, some of my best friends are... oh, never mind.

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Sat, 15 May 2004 17:15:11 -0800

Now, this thread hasn't been a waste of time, not at all. It's made me laugh harder than anything in days, and the comments from meehawl were fascinating-- the books that you mentioned are now on my reading list. See? Entertainment and education. God bless Mefi.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Sat, 15 May 2004 23:47:51 -0800

ArmyOfKittens, I assure you that I meant no insult to trans folks...especially since I've studied bioethics, have worked with various advocacy groups, and have spent probably way more time with trans people than 90% of the population. In fact, I popped two of my friends an email, one preop, one post op and asked their opinion. Both said that they laughed and were not offended. Granted, they know me, they know my "tone", and they realized that the comment wasn't meant with any level of seriousness whatsoever. But, it probably isn't reasonable to expect everyone reading the comment to groove on the fact that I've taught more boys how to do makeup and hair than I can count. :) (Now those bitches look better than I do...and they're taller, and their tits are gravity defying... I should smack them...I mean it.) ;) In any case, no offense was intended. I was merely playing on the rife speculation as to 111's actual identity.

By: ArmyOfKittens

ArmyOfKittens — Sun, 16 May 2004 00:14:18 -0800

dejah: neat. :)