Tweet of the Day; Updated
**Written by Doug Powers
The Senate voted today 65-31 to send a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to President Obama’s desk.
Harry Reid was so excited that the first person he wanted to inform was… Lady Gaga?
“P.S. When should I tell my grandkids their free front row tickets to your Vegas concert will be arriving? Just don’t bite the head off Santa in front of them please.”
Harry Reid’s idea of his “constitutional duty” is spending as much of somebody else’s money as possible, and now he’s hell bent to impress Lady Gaga. I’m afraid to speculate what’s next.
Reid was obviously quite moved by Lady G’s impassioned, extended dance remix length DADT plea to the Senate in September:
Update: On Sunday, Reid circulated a list of events that have occurred since the signing of the START treaty. The list included “Lady Gaga debuted her meat dress.”
The needle on the obsession meter just reached “creepy.”
(h/t HAP)
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsHarry Reid worried ‘Tea Party zealots’ tossed out Lugar just for cooperating with Dems
May 10, 2012 09:39 PM by Doug Powers
147 Comments
Grin & Baier it: Debbie Wasserman Schultz tries to explain why the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in 1,091 days
April 25, 2012 04:40 PM by Doug Powers
120 Comments
Harry Reid leads the fight to protect senior citizens’ access to… junk mail
April 19, 2012 09:20 AM by Doug Powers
114 Comments
Harry Reid’s Pet Bullet Train Project on Verge of Securing $4.9 Billion Government Loan
March 26, 2012 03:32 PM by Doug Powers
100 Comments
Nice friends you got there, Harry and Barry
February 14, 2012 02:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
72 CommentsVideo: Mr. America
February 13, 2012 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 CommentsHarry Reid: Millionaire Job Creators are Like Unicorns
December 12, 2011 07:41 PM by Doug Powers
175 Comments
Harry Reid Offers Sneak Preview of Obama Re-Election Strategy
November 30, 2011 04:31 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Categories: Harry Reid,Music
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?Redstate
» Civility Fails For A Reason
I’d also like to point out that it was Bill Clinton and Democrats who wanted and pushed through “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the first place…
Maybe we could form a special services unit for homosexuals serving in the military. Their combat effectiveness is likely to be close to zero but I bet they would make close order drill quite entertaining…
Firstly, show me where I said anything was ‘disgusting’ … your words, not mine.
Reproduction is life itself. Just try to explain how it is not? We are a sexual species and have TWO complimentary genders biologically designed to continue our species. Anything else that ‘goes on’ is IRRELEVANT. Sterility is a physical dysfunction, (yes, it too occurs naturally like cancer does), homosexuality is a behavioral dysfunction – same outcome.
Rush is chiming in – “DADT will now become Show and Tell”, “Shouldn’t this DADT repeal have a name? How about the PFC Bradley Manning Act?”
“Don’t complain or don’t serve”.
No. It’s based primarily on where the majority of the means of production would lie. And our air force and navy are huge, but not so huge they can simultaneously blockade the entire world. But in any case, this is a silly distraction. And you are gravely overstating your case.
Nope. Logic and morality dictate that AoC laws are necessary. That there is no efficient way of determining exactly when someone has crossed the threshold into being able to consent, and that, in any ase, making such a determination after the fact would mean irreparable harm would already be done. That it is better that some underage people that could otherwise consent have to abstain from sex with adults than to basically have an open season on children. See, corkie…it isn’t enough to just throw out “socially backward” a half dozen times as a silly taunt, like you. AoC is clearly not socially backward. And discrimination against gays is.
How does my personal opinion affect anything?
I understand quite clearly. And once you get off your pedo-apologist kick and think about it, I am sure you agree.
Except that having a homosexual subset within a species has been proven to increase the fecundity of females within that species. Thus directly contributing to the very thing you claim most relevant.
So basically Chappy is in favor or enabling homosexuals to engage in behavior that will almost certainly kill themselves. But Chappy probably supports anti-smoking laws…
I know a lot of elderly men. I know almost no elderly homosexual men. It is the biology, or more correctly, the pathology, that gets them in the end, if you’ll pardon the pun.
The lifestyle is deadly. Just ask the CDC for statistics…
I never said they could, nor would that be necessary in order to win the war.
You’re simply a slave to current social stigmas – which dictate laws.
That’s a big no.
I support anti-smoking laws to the extent they involve public places where others would be exposed to the carcinogens without their consent. Otherwise, smoke em if ya got em.
I know several. I have a suspicion your narrow experience says more about you and the company you keep than the reality of things.
Not at all. Just want to know why you are so hung up on my personal belief on the subject. It is irrelevant to whether or not it SHOULD happen or whether or not not doing it provides a rational basis for continued discrimination against gays.
I won’t doubt that the AIDS epidemic did much to lower the lifespan of homosexuals in general a generation ago. However, I am sure you must be aware of the significant advances in both prevention and treatment. Gays ARE living past 25-30 now. They ARE getting old.
But in any case, does having a statistically shorter lifespan, as a class, provide any sort of rational basis for discrimination against them, WE82? How does that work, exactly?
Most of this thread is about personal beliefs on a certain subject. I’m sorry if I’ve surprised you by asking about a slightly different – yet related – subject.
It’s not completely irrelevant.
The discrimination is against their choice of behavior, not against them.
I notice that the ones who post their pro-gay military position have never, say again, never, spent jack day-one in any branch of the military, and they have no intention of ever serving. Since when is the military the leftist’s/progressive’s social experiment?
Chappy,
Let me get this straight. You encourage people to commit suicide via sex. And you accuse me of being discriminatory.
I bet in your left-wing, fantasy circles that makes sense, somehow…
1) I think calling being homosexual “committing suicide via sex” an absurd characterization. So I reject the premise of your assertion.
2) I don’t encourage or discourage anyone from being homosexual. Or not being. They are or they are not. No encouragement from me or anyone else changes that in the least.
Worse. I accuse you of being a bigot.
And by the way, even if your first premise were true (it’s not, but for the sake of argument) that would in no way contradict or diminish my assertion that you are either discriminatory or a bigot seeing as encouraging someone to do something they want is not in any way related to being “discriminatory.”
Maybe in your right-wing fantasy circles that made sense, somehow…
Hey, I lol’d.
My plans also include suicide via delicious foods.
Of course you reject my assertion. It contradicts one of the sacred rites of your religion. You are a bigot, blinded by your faith!
You obviously don’t care if people engage in behavior that will lead to their deaths, unless it smoking. Double standard much…
Ummm..clearly you do not have a firm grasp on either the definition of bigotry or discrimination.
The only behavior that WILL lead to death is living. Other than that, some behaviors carry more risk than others. No sex is ever risk free, hetero or homo. In the 1800s maternal death rates often approached 40%. I doubt, though, that you would have treated women that engage in hetero sex back them the same way. Fortunately, just as with HIV/AIDS, medicine has brought communication and fatality rates way down.
In any case, you still haven’t explained to me how different lifespans provides a rational basis for discrimination. And you know why? Because this alleged concern cite for the health of the gay person is nothing more than a cheap and transparent cover for a bigotry based on nothing more than disgust at the thought of two guys kissing.
Lastly, I already said I don’t care if people smoke. So long as I don’t have to suck it down as well. So you can drop that “double standard” canard.
It’s a small thing, I know, but am I the only one who noticed the misspelling in Harry’s tweet?
Once again, Chappy keeps claiming I said things I never said.
Obviously you are just an evil person, blinded by your unreasonable beliefs, who wants other people to die and you encourage and enable them to continue the behaviors that harm themselves.
Your mother must be so proud…
No, but having a psychological tendency towards behavior that would threaten military unit cohesion would.
It is fortunate, or rather unfortunate for those that would contine to cling to stereotype and paranoia, that in the real world this has been shown not to be the case. There are dozens and dozens of real life case studies out there that bear this out.
Chappy,
Why do you hate these people? Why do you want them to die? Why won’t you help them?
Chappy = “Evil Incarnate”
I neither hate nor love gay people as a class. I don’t want them to die any more or less than straight people. I suspect that, rather than help, they just want all the same rights as anyone else.
No, Chappy, you are obviously intentionally enabling these people to do great bodily harm to themselves. You obviously hate them.
You are blinded by your religious superstitions and hate and will not warn these people how dangerous their behavior is! These people make up less than 5% of the population but account for 50% of all AIDS/HIV infections! Studies indicate these people use meth at a rate 10 times higher than the general population! And you do nothing to dissuade them from their self-destructive behavior!
You are a bigot and your actions are akin to genocide. Why are you so full of hate for these people!
I guess we can add another word you clearly do not understand the meaning of.
Actually, let’s add yet another here. I’ll let you guess which one.
So, you admit you are an enabler of “auto-genocide.” And it is a title you proudly bear.
If you loved them, you would help them…
Wow. I would have bet money that you would at least know the definition of “admit.” And I guess I would have been paying.
Maybe you should stay off the blogs and stick to Highlights until you are up to speed.
oops; boy, have I fallen into the wrong thread…
So you prefer “confess?”
Okay with me. I’m not an enabler of crimes against nature, crimes against humanity and a fundamentalist religious bigot like you so I can live with that…
Too much wrong there to even count. Maybe Highlights was too ambitious. Perhaps this would be a more appropriate gift this yuletide season?
I’ll know that the apocalypse has started when I start taking Christmas gift hints from a bigoted, fundamentalist, atheist like you!
Oh, the humanity!
Who said anything about Christmas? I said “yuletide.” Sadly, your simple Christian-centric mind has been conditioned to equate the two.
And your profoundly simplistic, Christianity-denying, narrow-minded, fundamentalist, atheist mindset has been conditioned to hate Christmas and people who practice homosexuality.
I repeat, why do you hate those people?
And Yule and Christmas have only been equated for a thousand years, give or take a fortnight or two. I understand you are slow but I thought that would have been a sufficient interval for you to apprehend the change…
I don’t hate Christmas. I merely pointed out I didn’t say Christmas. Reading comprehension is key, WE82.
Only by those that wrongly appropriated a truly pagan holiday as their own to make assimilation of foreign beliefs more palatable. Alas, I suppose that is what one must do when the beliefs themselves can’t stand on their own.
We conquered the pagan Germans fair and square. Now, I see you are bitter as well.
And of course you hate Christmas. Anyone who could want people to die must hate Christmas…
Are you saying that Christian beliefs can’t stand on their own?
WWJSACTPG”FAS”OO?
While ignoring for the moment your (yet again) fallacious underlying premise, I would assume you, as a Christian, want everyone to die eventually. After all, how else does one reach Heaven, except through death?
So this means you either hate Christmas or hate the idea of people meeting Jesus in Heaven. Neither is very Christian. For shame.
Would that be the Gay Berets or the Rump Rangers? Of course they would be in the “Rainbow Brigade.”
In any case, maybe they could get us back to earth tone uniforms, which are pretty much standard for ground forces worldwide. Blue is for the Navy and Air Force.
And do away with ACUs and that stupid velcro!!!! How can you sneak up on your bunk buddy while ripping velcro?
In case you could not figure it out, I am not in favor of this action. Next I am going to have to accomodate my troopers who love their sheep, goats, etc.
As one of my lads used to say “I am actually quardasexual. I like men, wymyns, critters and inanimate objects. No sense in limiting ones choices. Any port in a storm!”
Uhhhh, duhhhhh…The cheesy late 70′s disco beats will EASILY drown that out.
God, it’s like you haven’t given this any logical thought at all.
What “stereotype”? The idea that homosexuals have a tendency to form sexual relations with persons of the same sex as themselves? I didn’t realize that was a stereotype. Man, I guess I really need to get with the program.
No. The stereotype that homosexuals are mindless animals driven by base sexual urges.
Because that is the underlying false assumption from which you build your castles made of sand.
That was not my assumption at all. My point was that sexual relations within the ranks (“mindless” or not) is toxic to unit cohesion.
Chappi, if the US was allowed by bho and congress to conduct unrestricted warfare we would be able to emerge victorious from our current conflicts/wars/areas of threat. It would also have the consequential effect of making it known that we are not to be trifled with.
This probably goes against all you feel, know and believe, but if someone challenges you and you back down or are forced to back down by opinion, it will continue and escalate until you are worn down or you lash out.
Sending troops outside the wire without ammo on presence patrols is ignorance run amok. We do it to win the hearts and minds of the locals. Personally, if the hearts and minds are splattered on a wall, I am convinced they are won. Enough of it and then the problem won’t exist. Not a lib message, but reality in the ‘stan.
You may not want to admit it, but yes it was.
Do you object to consensual sexual relations between men and women who both happen to be in the military?
Do you not think that, were there a regulation forbidding sexual relations between two gay men or two gay women in the same unit, that gays would be unable to control their urges and would blatantly disobey such a regulation?
Kinda like a lib trying to justify their side, isn’t it?
;oP
Not if they’re in the same combat unit, which is why I don’t think women should serve in combat.
Some would, some wouldn’t, as with heterosexuals. See above paragraph.
Or rather like an otherwise rational human being relying on absurd caricatures to base their policy decisions.
You pompous a$$.
Many commanders disallow EXACTLY that, but keep demonstrating how clueless you are about the military while you tell us what we are thinking.
Pretty sure you meant the exact opposite of this.
If only 10 out of 100 could not resist their innate gay urges and ended up spewing their gay all over the barracks, would this be a fair price to pay for not having to spend billions and discharge thousands of otherwise able and patriotic Americans?
What about 5 out of 100?
1?
This is entirely rich coming from you, corkie.
Is it official Army policy? Is this required by statute?
You should take notice because you know I have high tolerance for this.
Is what official Army policy? A policy which allows commanders to dictate such rules when they feel it’s appropriate?
The only high tolerance you have is for your own arrogance. Like they say, you always think your own S*** don’t stink.
Don’t be stupid. If you can’t see the difference between the outright ban on gays in the military and your own “counter-example” (using that term very loosely) then you are not nearly as smart as you think.
Please, you know I’ve been amused by your cockiness in the past. But your pompousness has damaged your credibility on this issue.
What’s wrong with you today? Blackstone’s point was much more narrow than that.
In any case, corkie’s ramblings aside, I am sad that I will go to sleep not knowing whether WE82 hates Christmas or whether he hates Heaven.
According to his “logic” (again using the term very loosely) it has to be one or the other.
Blackstone’s point was anything but narrow.
Then why the heck did you counter by asking him about objecting to consensual sexual relations between men and women???
Seriously, chapoutier. You’ve become irrational about this issue.
One other thing that worries me is the amount of time Chappy has spent pondering what kind of music might drown out velcro as he attempts to bugger an unsuspecting victim…
And now, Chappy moves on to displaying his vast ignorance of and bigotry toward Christianity.
And not everyone need necessary die to meet Jesus. If Chappy had any understanding of Christian eschatology he would know that…
Would openly homosexual soldiers serving in the military give a whole new meaning to the term “foxhole?”
What about the term “Dear John?”
I’ll bet Pete and Joe will be happy to know that Steve wants to have mad, monkey, horney sex with them. No doubt they will love taking showers together, and crouching close together in hiding while waiting for the enemy to be in striking range. Steve can give Pete and Joe a little treat, even if Pete and Joe are totally grossed out by the whole man on man sex thing.
When Steve finds out that Robbie is getting it on with Jimmy, will that affect Steve’s performance? Will Steve, Robbie, and Jimmhy get into a three way brawl while their team is out there fighting the Taliban or al Qaeda.
I am certain that straight soldiers are going to feel so comfortable when the homosexual soldiers hit on them.
You see, it is okay for the straight soldiers, and straight citizens, to be “offended,” or to feel uncomfortable at homosexuals hitting on them, leering at them, and trying to seduce them, and trying to tell them that they are really “gay” inside, so just give in, and it is okay for homosexuals to engage in homosexual, disgusting behavior that grosses out and offends straight people, but we cannot have homosexuals and their supporters offended at straight people who find homosexuality gross and offensive.
Just ignore it. It isn’t important.
Once again, the deviant behavior and disoirder is condoned and forced upon the rest, while those who suffer discomfort and offense at what they find objectionalbe must shut up and live with it.
I’ve been attempting to follow the WarEagle82/chapoutier throwdown and somewhere along the way it just turned into two people taunting each other.
WE82 quotes from a 1997 study about gay men’s lifespans being reduced thanks to AIDS. There is no doubt about that. In fact, AIDS slaughtered, as epidemics do, those most susceptible to the disease, in this case, promiscuous homosexual men who engaged in unprotected anal intercourse. That 13 year old study could use some updating. The prevalence of AIDS has greatly diminished in this country, peaking in 1993. By 1997, AIDS has behaved like most epidemics that have run their course and is now an endemic.
It continues to rage in 3rd world locations, such as poor countries in Africa where it is primarily spread through horrid healthcare conditions–children receive injections from contaminated needles for instance.
Yet, worldwide, AIDS peaked as a disease in 1999. It isn’t the threat it once was and never was for heterosexuals who do not engage in receptive anal sex.
But, before chapoutier started taking the bait on the contrived argument regarding loving or hating gay men (or whatever that bit was,) he did ask a valid question: what on earth does that have to do with allowing men and women to serve openly in the military?
And speaking of anal sex, only about 60% of gay men actually do that. There are other ways of making love than anal penetration. But tell that to heterosexuals, where upwards of 35% of straight women do it. Someone must be doing the penetrating. Is it straight men?
I wonder if straight soldiers do that, too? What will it do to military cohesion?
And just in case there are ad hominem arguments percolating: I’m straight, a veteran, not even close to being a progressive and I don’t engage in name-calling. I missed out on yesterday’s back and forth because I spent the day with my family doing Christmas stuff in Williamsburg, VA.
Oh, and I honestly do think anal intercourse is a rather nasty way of pleasuring oneself, hetero- or homosexually. But, I also don’t think it’s my business to inflict my opinions on the matter to other consenting adults.
What’s your cite for “billions”? From a pro-homosexual website:
Military/Gay Timeline:1992, “The General Accounting Office reports that almost seventeen thousand service men and women were discharged for homosexuality between 1981 and 1990, at a cost of $493,195,968 to replace them.”
That’s half a billion over 9 years. Pretty tiny sliver of the overall military budget, and yes, worth it for the sake of unit cohesion.
Geez, Doug, I hoped you might have realized the farcical nature of my comments. Evidently Chappy didn’t notice either…
And I’m not sure where you get your info but AIDS hasn’t run its course. Men who have sex with other men are engaging in increasingly risky behavior and suffering for it greatly and the epidemic is far from over.
Was this the only thread on Saturday’s DADT vote? It seems this should have generated a bigger headline on this blog than it did. The DREAM act has gotten way more coverage here, and I think DADT is just as big.
No, there was a secret thread where all the best people were making really witty comments. Sorry you weren’t there…
I was hoping you weren’t serious, but I wasn’t sure why chapoutier was taking the bait.
AIDS in the US is no longer an epidemic, however anyone having unprotected receptive anal sex is playing games with their life. Info on AIDS prevalence and incidence rates is available from the CDC and other sites like wrongdiagnosis.com. The link takes you to prevalence and a slight scroll down will show the incidence rate.
Latest data show prevalence at 0.33% and incidence at 0.01%. This is not epidemic level data and it has remained relatively steady for years.
FWIW, gay men, having unprotected receptive anal intercourse, account for 57% of the number of incidents (40,000) each year.
Compare these numbers to nearly 800,000 new cases of diabetes and 1,200,000 new coronary attacks each year.
AIDS simply isn’t a major public health problem (despite the efforts of gay rights organizations, Dr. Koop and the mainstream media to make it so) compared to mostly preventable diseases that kill far more each year.
Doug,
I only said that men having sex with other men leads to enormous health issues. I never compared it with other leading health problems for the population at large.
And AIDS is still epidemic for men having sex with men. That group is <5% of the population but accounts for 50% of AIDS cases and huge percentages of other STDs. Homosexual sex is deadly. That was one of my main points.
Men having sex with other men is the primary cause of these men getting sick and dying. Most of these men don't need to worry about geriatric diseases because most of them won't live long enough to die of them.
I would say that unprotected sodomy is risky. The vast majority (if not nearly all) of cases of sexually-transmitted heterosexual AIDS/HIV infections are caused by anal sex, not vaginal which make up over 35% of the incidence rate (with dirty needles coming in a distant third.) Many people think of sodomy purely as a homosexual behavior.
Other than that, I think we agree on the points you make.
I would also reiterate that there is a large minority (40%) of gay men that don’t participate in anal sex. Also, having anal sex with a clean partner in a monogamous relationship isn’t likely to be life-threatening.
As it relates to the military, wouldn’t the same rules about fraternization and PDA and all the other rules regarding sex apply to homosexual soldiers, seamen, airmen, and Marines as it does to heterosexuals? You just don’t have a sexually intimate relationship with someone in your unit. When you do, you’re both punished or reassigned, depending on rank and so forth. We’ll obviously see how it plays out, but I can’t imagine overt displays of sexuality will be tolerated from anyone.
Young men and women will act like young men and women, but they are also a more tolerant and open lot than folks of my generation. They will adapt and make it work. Americans always do.
1. It’s only risky if your partner has an infection.
2. A heterosexual man is much less likely to have an infection than a homosexual man.
3. A heterosexual woman is less likely to have an infection if she has never had sex with a bisexual man.
So, a man is less likely to contract HIV if he never has sex with a man and never has sex with a woman that has had sex with a man that has had sex with a man (yes, you read that correctly).
I’d like to see that study construct and the raw data. People lie about their sex all the time. Many man that contract HIV lie about ever having had sex with another man. These numbers may or may not be accurate.
I’m sure accusations of sexual aggression will only be made by homophobic bigots.
I can’t disagree with that. The CDC is the source and the ultimate source are people answering questions. Lies, especially in this area, would not be uncommon.
1. is a point I also made. 2. is undoubtedly true. And to 3. I would add “or an IV drug user.”
That certainly could be added. But 3 is true even without adding it.
This is simply NOT true. Anal sex is terribly risky for anyone who engages in it…
Yes, that’s the rule, but in practice, how often would it be observed?
Keep in mind, that link’s just about uninvited sexual advances. It doesn’t even touch on consensual sexual activity. Keep in mind also, that there are plenty of gradations of romantic entanglement that don’t necessarily reach the level of sexual penetration, but still can create a serious problem for unit cohesion in a combat situation.
If neither partner has an infection, then what is the terrible risk?
Having trouble posting. Wondering if it is key word getting filtered…
Think about it and then google it if it isn’t obvious within 15 or 20 seconds…
Even Wikipedia, that bastion of socially conservative right-wing opinion, states unequivocally that “Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice,”
Think about it and then google it if it isn’t obvious within 15 or 20 seconds…
Even Wikipedia, that bastion of socially conservative right-wing opinion, states unequivocally that “Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice,”
And never mind that studies show that more than 60% of men engaging in homosexual acts don’t know the infection status of their partners…
The odds aren’t in your favor.
Odd, that the offending word in my post appears to be “R u s s i a n R o u l e t t e.”
Think about it and then google it if it isn’t obvious within 15 or 20 seconds…
Even Wikipedia, that bastion of socially conservative right-wing opinion, states unequivocally that “Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice,”
And never mind that studies show that more than 60% of men engaging in homosexual acts don’t know the infection status of their partners…
It isn’t quite like playing “R u s s i a n R o u l e t t e” with a semi-automatic but the odds aren’t in your favor.
It doesn’t matter if you know the infection status of your partner if your partner doesn’t have an infection – which was quite clearly the condition of the statement.
What are you talking about? That statement is based on risks due to the potential spread of infection.
Of course there are some physiological risk associated with the act, but certainly nobody could characterize such risk as terrible.
Define “infection.”
How many people IN THE ENTIRE WORLD don’t have some pathogen in this place on their body.
Google the risks associated with the act and tell me it is not inherently risky!
What part of the 3rd paragraph of the wiki article escaped your attention?
Um, the risks are due to the likelihood of infection being spread.
Um, again, it’s clear that the risks concern the spread of disease.
Concerns regarding exposure to bodily pathogens that are associated with normal physiology (not associated with a disease) certainly don’t represent a terrible risk. So how can you call it “terribly risky[?]“
Corkie:
Anal tissues are very delicate and easily ruptured; an undetected or untreated tear can quickly develop into a serious infection that could lead to other ailments.
I think that falls into the definition of a physiological risk. I wouldn’t characterize the combination of ‘probability of occurrence’ and ‘possible outcome’ as “terribly risky[.]“
Seriously, what part of this did you not comprehend…
I still can’t believe I can post all this stuff but “Russ.ian Rou.lette” gets blocked…
None.
And how long will it take you to understand that the paragraph is claiming that anal sex is a high risk practice because of the risk of spreading infection??
Maybe you need help understanding that the paragraph is explaining why infection is likely to spread during anal sex.
Good grief, you really can’t read.
The mention of “infections” points out that there is NOBODY who DOESN’T have pathogens there. Therefore, there is NO partner who is NOT infected as you claimed…
BTW, still predicting 8% unemployment in November, just before the election?
Good grief. You are an idiot.
The pathogens of someone that doesn’t have a disease aren’t terribly risky.
The paragraph is claiming that anal sex is a high risk practice because of the risk of spreading disease type infections – not normal bodily pathogens.
Nope. You remember that the prediction was predicated on my prediction that Obamacare wouldn’t pass. But Obamacare did pass, and it precluded the recovery.
Overall, my prediction was wrong.
Glad to see you simply can’t read. But, obviously, you can’t and I am tired of typing words like “anal sex” so this will be the last time I say you can’t read.
* Pathogens ARE diseases!
* Everyone has them in that place!
* Nobody DOESN’T have them in that place!
* There is no partner that is NOT infected with some pathogens!
* There are real risks due to anal sex that have nothing to do with pathogens!
Anal sex is an inherently risky practice. You can die from it even if you don’t get a disease from it.
What part of that escapes your comprehension?
Look, just admit that this is the best you have to support your claim of “terribly risky” so that we can leave it at that.
We’ll let the audience decide if they think that exposure to normal bodily pathogens and the danger of eventual incontinence and prolapse (which is no doubt after quite a bit of such activity) is considered “terribly risky.”
Yes, and anal cancer is no biggie either…
Your risk assessments are irrational.