File form 36-R, then insert A into B

October 4, 2005 8:17 PM

Welcome to Indiana: married straight parents only.The Indiana state legislature is considering a bill that would make it illegal for anyone other than a married couple to become pregnant by artificial means such as artificial insemination or egg/embryo donation. In addition, couples wishing to have their inseminations approved will have to apply and provide information including criminal history checks and "description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents, including participation in faith-based or church activities."
posted by XQUZYPHYR (78 comments total)

I can understand some people supporting the trampling of gay rights, but my god, how can they ask you about your "faith-based" activities?!
posted by phrontist at 8:20 PM on October 4, 2005

It's a shame (for them) that they can't just go all out and forbid unmarried people from fucking altogether, and perhaps even extend the restriction to those who weren't married in a Christian church.
posted by clevershark at 8:22 PM on October 4, 2005

"My question is 'What is the danger that we are legislating against?'"

For something like this to survive longer than 30 seconds in a lawsuit, the state would have to have some legitimate interest that the law was designed to protect. I see none.
posted by MrZero at 8:23 PM on October 4, 2005

She acknowledged such a law would bar single people from using methods other than sexual intercourse but said "all the studies indicate the best environment for a child is to have a two-parent family — a mother and a father."

Which indicates to me that she hasn't seen any of the studies. I'm not sure if I've ever seen even a single a peer-reviewed study that corroborates her claim.

Chalk another one up for the honesty of Republican lawmakers.
posted by solid-one-love at 8:27 PM on October 4, 2005

Two things. 1) I expect parts of this can be ruled unconstitutional if it actually passes. and 2) Just means people hop over to MI, IL, OH, KY to get the job done. Oh, and what's to prevent people from.. you know... being untruthful on the application/ Gonna send the inspector down to the church to make sure you show up. (seems like artificial insemination would be frowned upon in the church in some way).
posted by edgeways at 8:27 PM on October 4, 2005

Well, by gum, as long as heterosexual married couples can produce Hoosiers of the caliber of J. Danforth Quayle, then why mess with success?

Indiana: we am stupid by nature and design.
posted by the sobsister at 8:31 PM on October 4, 2005

This is what happens when 'church' and 'state' begin to mix. Maybe Roy Moore can win down in Alabama and show the the rest of the Red States what a real 'faith based' state would look and feel like: no sex, everyone Baptist, Genesis taught instead of Biology, the government/church will do all your thinking and tell you what to do and think..etc.

Disgusting.
posted by UseyurBrain at 8:32 PM on October 4, 2005

Well, thats discusting.

But not surprising.
posted by delmoi at 8:33 PM on October 4, 2005

for the love of your deity, this background checking and lifestyle screening may not be such a bad idea if it's extended to ALL prospective parents - along with a post-partum oversight clause extending to age 18.
posted by kcm at 8:36 PM on October 4, 2005

She acknowledged such a law would bar single people from using methods other than sexual intercourse

So - more sexual intercourse? Sounds okay.
posted by melt away at 8:37 PM on October 4, 2005

To echo sobsister, I do love this quote:
"We're not trying to stop people from having kids; we're just trying to find some guidelines," she said.
Has she seen some of the botch jobs that straight parents have done? I mean, if she's really trying to protect kids, then she'd be missing a massive number of them by not regulating everybody's procreation.

Unless, of course, this wasn't really abut the kids.
posted by Mercaptan at 8:42 PM on October 4, 2005

for the love of your deity, this background checking and lifestyle screening may not be such a bad idea if it's extended to ALL prospective parents - along with a post-partum oversight clause extending to age 18.

That's called eugenics. Personally, I think that only allowing sane people to raise children would be good, but who gets to define sanity? In practice I think letting anyone reproduce is the safest thing.
posted by delmoi at 8:47 PM on October 4, 2005

Perhaps this will be the death knell for reproductive therapy.
posted by filchyboy at 8:48 PM on October 4, 2005

Miller acknowledged that the legislation would be "enormously controversial" "a colossal waste of time."

Aside from the (unconstitutional) desire to uniformly apply personal values and faith to a broad and diverse spectrum of people, from what real need does this legislation arise?


As a related aside, my mother-in-law is a foster parent and, as far as I know, almost all of the kids that the system puts through her home are from straight couples.
How often do you hear about a single parent or a homosexual couple really screwing up a child after they put all of that deliberate, considered time, energy, money, and emotion into the process of artificial fertilization?
Sighting no study, my opinion is that the worst home environment for a child isn't one of single parentage or homosexual partnership, rather it's being conceived accidentally to unprepared or reluctant parents.
posted by Jon-o at 8:50 PM on October 4, 2005

If I could just be the first to add "What.
The.
Fuck.
Indiana."
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:18 PM on October 4, 2005

You know, if they really feel it necessary to put some kind of limit on peoples ability to have children, then lets do it right and have licenses for the right to bare kids. Test would go something like this.

1) McDonalds is a complete and healthy meal for your child.
A)True B)False

2) Shaking a baby is a safe way to make it stop crying.
A)True B)False

3) If your child has a seizure, you should:
A) Take him or her to the nearest hospital
B) Find your pastor, satan is posessing your child!

4) If you suspect your preschool son has The Gay:
A)It doesn't really matter, he's still your child and you love him anyway.
B) Be sure to rough him up a bit to make him a man. All that crying? That's just the sissy coming out.

Anyone who is already pregnant will still be forced to take the test, and if they fail to earn their liscense, we ship their kids to the gay couple that's going to raise the kid well.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:28 PM on October 4, 2005

wouldn't it suck to be the first gay household in America to raise your kids really, REALLY poorly? you'd ruin it for generations of hopeful-yet-fruity folks.
posted by kcm at 9:30 PM on October 4, 2005

Indiana: This time God will have to marry the poor girl
posted by nkyad at 9:32 PM on October 4, 2005

I don't expect this will become law....yet. It's mostly a bunch of vile pandering by deeply cynical politicians who don't expect it to pass into law; they're merely proposing it in order to shore up support among their more dimwitted voters.

However, as the years go by this sort of thing will be proposed more and more often, and eventually it'll pass, somewhere. Then it will be shot down by the courts, and used as a further reason to turn the judiciary into servile pawns of the Executive branch.

Some time after that the US will turn into a theocracy, and thereby formalize it's long slide into the third world. Next will come a theocratic federation, followed by a second civil war over the issue of whether Dale Earnhardt was truly the Second Coming, or whether it was that guy from Nebraska who said he could talk with dead people and besides, everyone knows Nebraskans are a little too "middle-of-the-road" if you know what I'm saying. Seems to me we didn't use enough nukes; coulda done with a few more strikes, if only those lousy Canadian peacekeepers woulda left us alone just a little longer. Anyway, praise Earnhardt and pass me one o' them meatoid things, no not those, the ones with the red sauce. Yeah, that's the stuff, thanks hon.
posted by aramaic at 9:33 PM on October 4, 2005

Why the surprise?
It's not like Indiana hasn't tried to pass some stupid laws before.
posted by papakwanz at 9:36 PM on October 4, 2005

Boggling.

Attention Indianans with brains: start moving out now, we'd be happy to have you. Once you're all out, we'll build a wall, ok?

I mean really, WTF??
posted by zoogleplex at 9:47 PM on October 4, 2005

Luckily, all this theocracy stuff is never gonna happen. Recent events have shown the most powerful conservatives (Bush) does not give a shit about his social conservative base and is not (amazingly) insane enough to nominante right wing nutjobs to the supreme court.

Corporate tools, yes, but right wing nutjobs, no.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:49 PM on October 4, 2005

alamaic: Well, I suspect it's slightly dirtier than that. What they want is ammunition for the elections next year so they can call people up and say, "did you know that your elected representative voted for dykes with turkey basters."

The original source article reveals than even some of her fellow Republicans have some reservations. But at this point, we are talking about a draft that hasn't been formally presented in committee. It's a trial baloon that will hopefully get popped quickly before it makes the full session.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:50 PM on October 4, 2005

Oh, and for those of you who have not followed Indiana politics for some time, it seems to be a tradition for some right-wing troublemaker to introduce some stupid culture-war bill every session.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:57 PM on October 4, 2005

Hopefully they'll tack on a financial means and a diet/nutrition component so that it dies even faster.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:05 PM on October 4, 2005

zoogleplex: Attention Indianans with brains: start moving out now, we'd be happy to have you. Once you're all out, we'll build a wall, ok?

Thinking about this a bit too much, but quite honestly it's a tough call. I really don't feel like spending the rest of my life here. On the other hand, I think that in some ways the brain drain is something of a feedback loop, and that many of those who pack up and leave in search a better political environment turn around and engage in a pretty nasty culture and class war.

Perhaps the nastiest thing I learned during the last presidential election is that many people who claimed to be my allies before the election would be more than willing to fuck over me and mine because we have roots in the wrong voting district. Perhaps rather than talking of quarantine, perhaps it would be more productive to contact the Indiana Action Network, the campaign to Stop the Amendment or the ICLU.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:31 PM on October 4, 2005

I was being somewhat facetious, KJS. Of course it's better to fight from within.

Just boggles me that anyone would even attempt to introduce anything like this anywhere in the USA that I grew up in. Phoo!
posted by zoogleplex at 11:08 PM on October 4, 2005

when are you Americans gonna take advantage of that gun amendment and knock off some of these raving fundamentalists making a mockery out of the rest of your constitution?
posted by TrinityB5 at 11:22 PM on October 4, 2005

Another argument for splitting up the US into several smaller countries. Places like Indiana just don't belong in a country with the kind of Federal constitution the USA started off with.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:12 AM on October 5, 2005

Well it's nice to see that communism is alive and well in Indiana. Actually, not even communism got that far as mandating requirements for would-be parents, but that's only a tribute to the efficiency and spirit of initiative of Indiana lawmakers, that they have the vision to carry it further. Congratulations!
posted by funambulist at 2:12 AM on October 5, 2005

1) McDonalds is a complete and healthy meal for your child.
A)True B)False

Nice job sticking your little food puritan ideology into the mix. This is precisely why nobody should make these calls. Everybody is a irrational dictatorial idiot about something.
posted by srboisvert at 3:43 AM on October 5, 2005

5) Dimmer switches are the perfect switching system for illumination.
A) True B) False
posted by Captaintripps at 4:06 AM on October 5, 2005

The text of the proposed bill. (PDF)
posted by Captaintripps at 4:33 AM on October 5, 2005

Speaking of class and culture war:
Another argument for splitting up the US into several smaller countries. Places like Indiana just don't belong in a country with the kind of Federal constitution the USA started off with.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:37 AM on October 5, 2005

Way to pigeonhole an entire state because of one lunatic, folks. I doubt the proposal makes it out of committee. If it does, it will never pass.
posted by sciurus at 5:06 AM on October 5, 2005

Oh yeah, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana.

And the list of Indiana Legislative Committees (The Health Finance Comission is on page 26) so you know who to write.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:17 AM on October 5, 2005

srboisvert, I don't know what it's like in England, but at every McDonald's in the states, the only thing kids ever get is McNuggets, fries, and a soda and/or shake. There just might be some algae-derived ingredient in the shake, but that's the closest you'll come to a green vegetable. You don't have to be a 'food puritan' to see that this isn't a particularly balanced meal. (Note that I don't actually disagree with your final statement.)
posted by kimota at 5:46 AM on October 5, 2005

This is the most Un-American thing I've ever heard of.
posted by bshort at 6:22 AM on October 5, 2005

On behalf of the people of Michigan, we welcome your contributions to our failing economy, gay and affluent people of Indiana.
Frankly, having a lot of family in Indiana (the furthest north Southern state), I'm not sure why all of you haven't left already. that state is deep fucked.
posted by klangklangston at 6:31 AM on October 5, 2005

As a resident of Indiana, I have to say that this comes as no surprise. Our legislature (as well as several of our congresscritters) seems hell-bent on out-doing Kansas as the nation's most backward-leaning state.

Quayle was nothing. Have you guys checked-out Mike Pence?
posted by Thorzdad at 6:46 AM on October 5, 2005

Will abortions for unmarried lesbians will be free and required, or just required.

Oh, I forgot... CULTURE OF LIFE!
posted by illovich at 6:58 AM on October 5, 2005

posted by illovich at 7:07 AM on October 5, 2005

Nkyad wins.
posted by nofundy at 7:24 AM on October 5, 2005

Crazylawsfilter.

Wait, that's actually a good idea for a website.
posted by fungible at 7:33 AM on October 5, 2005

Another argument for splitting up the US into several smaller countries. Places like Indiana just don't belong in a country with the kind of Federal constitution the USA started off with.

This is pretty amusing coming from a Canadian.

(Yes, I've said this before.)

I can think of at least four countries you could logically split Canada into: Ontario, Québec, maritimes, and western provinces and territories.
posted by oaf at 7:39 AM on October 5, 2005

srboisvert, I don't know what it's like in England, but at every McDonald's in the states, the only thing kids ever get is McNuggets, fries, and a soda and/or shake. There just might be some algae-derived ingredient in the shake, but that's the closest you'll come to a green vegetable. You don't have to be a 'food puritan' to see that this isn't a particularly balanced meal. (Note that I don't actually disagree with your final statement.)

It is the things that people claim are obvious to "see" that are dangerous. To many people the danger of non traditional families raising children is obvious. To others the toxicity of MacDonald's is obvious. Both are supported by rhetorical ploys, emotional appeals, distortions and the use of selective evidence gathering. Equating eating at McDonald's with child abuse, homophobia and medical neglect is ridiculous but it is exactly the same kind of things that the Indiana legislation is doing.

Eating at McDonalds indiscriminantly is probably bad (though i have never seen any real evidence of this) but so is indiscriminantly having penises shoved up your ass. Nobody (okay almost nobody) here would be in favour of an outright ban on homosexuality because some gay men occasionally have foolish unprotected anal sex yet people have an extremely strong reaction to McDonalds.

The choice as to what I eat or what any of my (hypothetical) kids eat is mine and theirs alone. Just like the choice of where my penis goes is mine. Any outside commentators who claim to know better than me and wish to control those decisions should smugly fuck their pious and dietarily superior selves whilst eating unflavoured tofu burgers.

Now I am going to go have a McDees quarter pounder with fries and a large Aspartame riddled diet coke. Freedom and liberty are beautiful and delicious. I suspect the children of gay parents think so too.
posted by srboisvert at 7:53 AM on October 5, 2005

oaf writes "I can think of at least four countries you could logically split Canada into: Ontario, Québec, maritimes, and western provinces and territories."

No way man, we don't want those pinko hippy types from BC lumped in with us good, pure, hardworking prarie types.
posted by Mitheral at 8:11 AM on October 5, 2005

My doctor can tell me why McDonald's food is bad in non-trivial amounts. My doctor cannot tell me why anal sex (of any permutation) is necessarily worse than god-afearin' missionarytastic man-on-woman action, all things considered.

Please take your man of straw with you on the way out.
posted by kcm at 8:12 AM on October 5, 2005

The list of legislation she's sponsored or co-sponsored is a hit parade of right-wing agenda items. I'm with aramaic, this is just pandering to the base.
posted by wheat at 8:39 AM on October 5, 2005

KirkJobSluder is right. This is just another right-wing nut job out to score a few culture war points.

"Are you fit for parenthood?"
A Helpful Guide by the Indiana State Department of Eugenics and Aryan Purity

Please answer the following questions honestly:

1. Are you a baptized Christian?

2. Are you a registered Republican?

3. Do you listen to music other than country? Please specify.

4. Other than being muslim can you think of anything wrong with a Taliban system of government?

5. In your opinion was Ronald Reagan just a god or the One True God?

6. How many broadway show tunes can you sing from memory?

7. Are you white?

8. Is American public television a tool of Satan, created by Satan, or simply enjoyed by Satan?

9. List the evils that are caused by women voters.

10. Which drivers placed 1st, 2nd and 3rd at last year's Nascar Winston Cup?
posted by StarForce5 at 9:30 AM on October 5, 2005

My doctor can tell me why McDonald's food is bad in non-trivial amounts. My doctor cannot tell me why anal sex (of any permutation) is necessarily worse than god-afearin' missionarytastic man-on-woman action, all things considered.

Please take your man of straw with you on the way out.

I would but it seems he is your doctor.
posted by srboisvert at 9:31 AM on October 5, 2005

WHAT? Am I the first to invoke Margaret Atwood in this thread? Unbelievable!

(I was having a good ol' rant about this story on my blog today because seriously...where will this craziness end?)

One thing I did read on another site that concerned me was that ok, yes, it's crazy legislation. Fine. It's ripe for a lawsuit if it passes, yup. But if it gets fought up to the Supreme Court, it could very well tip the whole right-to-privacy debate right over and (potentially) overturn cases such as Roe in its wake.

Thoughts, oh law scholars?
posted by bitter-girl.com at 10:44 AM on October 5, 2005

We usually save the Atwood references for dominionism threads, but I guess this'll qualify too.
posted by alumshubby at 11:27 AM on October 5, 2005

Indiana has been a leader in the movement for Eugenics, and at the risk of G*dwinning myself, it has been said that the Final Solution owed more than a bit to the pioneering Hoosiers
posted by Listener_T at 12:28 PM on October 5, 2005

10. Which drivers placed 1st, 2nd and 3rd at last year's Nascar Winston Cup?

No, it's the Nextel Cup now, and it's Indy, so you have to at least pay lipservice to the 500.
posted by sohcahtoa at 12:34 PM on October 5, 2005

Here are a couple of links that should have been in my last post
http://www.kobescent.com/eugenics/timeline.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/021500-02.htm
They are, respectively, a timeline of laws drawn up, enacted, and repealed in Indiana as relating to Eugenics, and an article about a Yale study about the parallels between US and German Eugenics movements.
posted by Listener_T at 12:59 PM on October 5, 2005

I think people like their safe, effective birth control too much for Griswold be overturned. That's what I think. Plus, what Supreme Court Justice wants to be remembered for helping to eliminate the right to privacy? Especially when it's also the main legal obstacle to the return of eugenics laws (which religious conservatives despise, and which this bill resembles all too closely, as others have pointed out)?
posted by skoosh at 1:48 PM on October 5, 2005

On behalf of the people of Michigan, we welcome your contributions to our failing economy, gay and affluent people of Indiana.

If I were to move out of Indiana due to idiocy like this, I don't think I'd be moving to Michigan.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:13 PM on October 5, 2005

It's horrifying that this even got to the bill stage.
posted by deborah at 2:33 PM on October 5, 2005

If I were to move out of Indiana due to idiocy like this, I don't think I'd be moving to Michigan.

Yeah, exactly, and there's this piece of shit as well .....

Indiana doesn't exactly have the market cornered on lunacy.
posted by blucevalo at 3:12 PM on October 5, 2005

My "faith-based activities" at this point involve praying that these idiot legislators get their asses fried by the smiting hand of whichever deity feels up to the task...
posted by bitter-girl.com at 5:06 PM on October 5, 2005

Actually the anal sex vs. McDonalds thing is stupid because the objection isn't to anal sex per se, but GAY anal sex. Same goes for dick sucking and gap lapping. It's all good if you're straight, but if you've got the gay...
posted by Eekacat at 6:20 PM on October 5, 2005

it's the litmus test.
posted by brandz at 6:34 PM on October 5, 2005

The bill has been withdrawn - hooray for the Internets.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 7:51 PM on October 5, 2005

I thought having a penis rammed up your ass is putting a body part in a place that wasn't built to receive it. That doing so generally results in small tears in the colon, which is part of why anal sex transmits HIV so much more than the vaginal variety.

Vaginas, on the other hand, have evolved for untold millions of years to handle forceful penile thrusting. So if you're going to thrust a penis, thrusting it into a vagina is thus a healthier option than tearing up someone's colon, which, after all, already has a purpose as part of the digestive system.
posted by beth at 8:01 PM on October 5, 2005

That comment that bears on this... how?
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:10 PM on October 5, 2005

WTF beth?
posted by five fresh fish at 8:13 PM on October 5, 2005

Oh, wait, I get it: Beth wants to tell us how we should be treating our colons. In fact, to even legislate how we use our colons. She is very concerned about our colons.

One would suppose that such concern would stem from a very deep and broad concern for one's own colon.

Beth, how is your colon? Is it pink and healthy? I can lend you a flashlight, if you're finding it's a little dark in there. It's a common complaint of those with their heads lodged up their asses: too dark to really see much.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:17 PM on October 5, 2005

Hey, if you like my colon, you should see my semicolon. ;-)
posted by jonp72 at 11:15 PM on October 5, 2005

The bill has been withdrawn - hooray for the Internets.

I don't have much doubt that a few dozen negative editorials and hundreds of people calling their local legislators also helped push this one into the grave.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:51 AM on October 6, 2005

I thought having a penis rammed up your ass is putting a body part in a place that wasn't built to receive it. That doing so generally results in small tears in the colon, which is part of why anal sex transmits HIV so much more than the vaginal variety.

Vaginas, on the other hand, have evolved for untold millions of years to handle forceful penile thrusting. So if you're going to thrust a penis, thrusting it into a vagina is thus a healthier option than tearing up someone's colon, which, after all, already has a purpose as part of the digestive system.

Unfortunately, my Google-fu has failed me, but I remember reading a verse that went something like this:

The penis fits perfectly with the anus; it's shaped to exactly match it.

If it were made for a vagina, it would be shaped like a hatchet!

And plenty of guys I know have no problem handling forceful penile thrusting, thank you very much.

But in any case, neither the vagina nor the anus was "built" to receive a penis - it's not like some intelligent designer sat down and thought, "how can I make these two shapes fit together?"

Oh, and don't you pee out of that vagina of yours, Beth? Doesn't it already have a purpose as part of the excretory system? Ewww.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:56 AM on October 6, 2005

Actually, me & my monkey, women pee out of their urethra, just like men do, and it's conveniently located about a half inch north of the vaginal opening, on its own little bit of real estate. So no, Beth doesn't pee out of her vagina, and no, it doesn't have a purpose as part of the exretory system- vaginas are made for sex, periods, and babies.

In other news, Patricia Miller got bitchslapped and withdrew the idiotic bill.
posted by headspace at 11:21 AM on October 6, 2005

Actually, me & my monkey, women pee out of their urethra, just like men do, and it's conveniently located about a half inch north of the vaginal opening, on its own little bit of real estate. So no, Beth doesn't pee out of her vagina, and no, it doesn't have a purpose as part of the exretory system- vaginas are made for sex, periods, and babies.

Yeah, I know, I was just counting on them being close enough together to increase the potential yuck factor. I mean, half an inch, that's not a lot of distance ...
posted by me & my monkey at 11:48 AM on October 6, 2005

Well geez, you don't have to be forceful. It's possible to be pretty gentle with a penis! You know, sliding softly instead of violently jackhammering?

I guess some penis owners aren't too careful about that sort of thing, and I'm sorry if you've run across some of them, beth. Unfortunately, these things don't come with a manual, and of course the powers-that-be these days are trying to make sure that they never do, either.
posted by zoogleplex at 1:54 PM on October 6, 2005

I was responding to this statement of kcm's:

My doctor cannot tell me why anal sex (of any permutation) is necessarily worse than god-afearin' missionarytastic man-on-woman action, all things considered.

And I think people should be free to rip their anuses to shreds if they like, hell, invite a horse in there and see if you end up like mr. hands or that dead guy. I don't care what you do with your colon.

I'm just saying, colons get injured with anal sex. The tears can be microscopic. Digestive tissue was not evolved for the purpose of withstanding penile thrusting. I notice no one has contradicted my assertion about colon damage.

And I don't believe in intelligent design, sigh, it's just useful to speak in terms of things being designed for a purpose because it takes fewer words than delicately and elaborately indicating how those less fit for the purpose were removed through successive iterations of natural selection over millions of years. I guess you really want to split hairs on that point but to me it's a waste of time. Whatever.
posted by beth at 6:35 PM on October 6, 2005

Thank you for clearing that up. I withdraw my head-up-ass comment.

Instead of "design" you could use "mathematically selected," which is really what evolution boils down to in the end: a big calculation of probabilities, and you know whether your selected subject creature is going to have children.

Maybe "god" is being able to actually calculate that number.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:54 PM on October 6, 2005

is a mouth digestive tissue? and a tongue?
posted by brandz at 7:21 PM on October 6, 2005

I think the mouth and tongue are far more robust in handling a variety of objects that may be inserted, since they do have to deal with undigested food as a matter of primary function.

But honestly I do not know what the penis-mouth transmission rates of HIV are compared to penis-vagina transmission and penis-colon transmission. I just know that penis-vagina is safer than penis-colon (considering the cases where condoms are not used, and biological fluids flow freely and unimpeded).
posted by beth at 8:36 PM on October 6, 2005