Just say gay
(media.scored.co)
Comments (25)
sorted by:
https://archive.ph/Fv7zY
Another gem:
No the best way to be protected is to not be a whore 😂. But why say that when you can charge someone for a high risk vaccination that was successfully sued over for having damaging side effects…
I wonder if the few monogamous gays who are apart from sexual preference are normal aren't affected by this?
As I'd like to link all this to just being a degenerate whore than have this used against me by a girlfriend as why I can't get a birthday bj lol.
It’s the action that causes the cancer in anal sodomy. Fellatio/ blowjobs are different in the only way to get throat cancer is from HPV. So if you don’t have HPV, she has no argument at least on a medical level, you have a higher risk of throat cancer from hot beverages.
Kind of. Anal "sex" is traumatic and unnatural and causes loads of medical problems by its very nature, yes. But over 90% of anal cancer is HPV-related. The other 10%, if I had to guess, is probably almost entirely related to trauma.
Not over 90%, 9/10ths are “HPV related” which is a lazy way of saying gay men spread hpv with other infections caused by micro abrasions from sodomy. It’s like saying people who died in a car crash while having Covid was a “covid related” death. Sodomy spreads disease where sex doesn’t, HIV rates and risks, monkeypox rates and risks, on and on.
Good because you KNOW they'd go 'women can't give men oral because of cancer risks' while being silent about faggotry. Same way anti lockdown protests 'were a covid risk' but 'the summer of love' wasn't.
Most if not all sexually related diseases, infections and cancers are because we didn't vilify the degeneracy of gays enough and it spread to normal sexual relationships both medically and culturally.
HPV ( and the resulting cancers from cellular damage ), monkeypox, HIV, etc, are propagated by promiscuity in a ''pool of partners'' where those exists, and facilitated by contact with delicate or damaged tissues creating openings.
If your ''pool of partners'' is one person, who also has only you, and neither of you have blood-borne diseases, then you're not getting cervical, anal or throat cancer from an HPV infection you cannot get.
Now there are ''mechanical'' health problems that can occur from repeatedly shoving big things up your anus... but not cancer.
If your girlfried brings-up throat cancer for refusing to do oral sex ( she dosen't need a reason anyway ), she is thus saying she thinks you have HPV. And why are you in an intimate relationship with someone who thinks you have STDs? Promiscuous culture?
The ''you can get throat cancer from oral sex without STDS'' sounds alot like ''monkey pox isn't an STD''. It's a slut cope.
Doesn't sodomy nearly always cause micro-lesions? Surely they would still be able to catch a plethora of infections from the regular contact between their blood and fecal matter.
Blood-borne diseases more easily transmited with micro-wounds. Don't stick random dicks up your ass. News at 10.
It does except:
My point was mostly that even monogamous gay men could easily get various infections just from their standard sexual habits, regardless of HIV infections.
Yeah. Somehow how I confused your post with another and thought it was a comment on why there weren't more cases of infections among the general population.
I would however add an additional risk factor to this mix:
Blood transfusions, specifically if they use blood from those at risk groups. We've seen them just recently remove barriers for donating blood from gay people.
Blood donation bans against men who have sex with men should have never been removed, as Monkeypox proved : they are always two steps ahead in spreading unknown blood-borne diseases due to hyper-promiscuity.
It took decades to figure there was a new problem, and how to test for HIV in blood donations, and discover the ''window period'' ( test negative, still infectious ). Hundreds of thousands of victims got infected from tainted blood in the meanwhile.
There will be a new HIV-like deadly disease with long incubation at some point. And we removed the most effective barrier to this new disease getting into the blood banks.
The whining of ''stigmatizing people for who they are'' always pissed me off.
It's accurate risk-management based on BEHAVIOR.
I was never banned from donating blood, because I do not have sex.
Fee-feels shouldn't matter more than the safety of patients recieving blood.
I've been banned from donating blood before, because I ate beef in Britain during one of the mad cow scares.
Neato, I'm not in a country where they pay you to donate blood, it is 100% just a voluntary "nice thing to do" thing. They don't want it? That just saves more blood for myself. No pain, no tiredness, no lightheadedness, no other side-effects, no risks of embolisms or other risks whenever a needle goes in you. Just plusses to not donating blood, really, if the rest of the population is still doing it.
I don't have encephalitis (mad cow disease), I've been checked, but they want to stay safe just in case, and that's just fine with me. Less risk to me, less risk to the future receivers. I don't see why this other group is whining over it, it's just net profit.
What I find insanely alarming is how just many sexually promiscuous individuals do NOT bother getting tested for STD's on a regular basis.
I mean I get that a lot of these sorts don't exactly fit into the category of people who you'd expect to take any kind of serious precautions in general, but for fucks sake, it's not like there's fewer common medical resources available than there were in the 90's or early 2000's.
It's probably not a problem of availability of medical resources, but the person's resources. Going to test (especially regularly) takes time and probably money.
Admittedly true in a lot of cases, but that's also what I was referring to, especially in countries with semi-free healthcare.
There are a lot of understandable reasons why they wouldn't. Not good enough reasons, but reluctancy that at least isn't wrong.
Its a doctor's office, which means you need them to be open when you are available (quite difficult depending on area). It has a cost, which could be a bit beyond people's "budget."
And the most important is the anxiety. Most people these days can't even make a fucking phone call on their own, you expect them to have the balls to go in and ask for an STD test in a public waiting room in front of a bunch of people? Because if you are going in everyone assumes you did something dirty and are panicking.
Now, if you aren't willing to get over yourself and those humps then a logical person would just not have sex or be safe. But these are degenerates who treat constant sex as an addiction that shouldn't be controlled.
Aye, those are some fair points/examples. And I guess it's something that typically doesn't flow with most kinds of regular doctor's checkups either.
And admittedly, most of the individuals I've rarely come across who were fairly open and straight forward about how they got regularly tested, were usually women.
I imagine it's far less cumbersome for women to get things checked out every so often, particularly if they see a gynecologist regularly.
"Oh, sure. Now you let us say 'gay.'"
~Regressive Florida teachers
I thought "men who have sex with men" was the new term.
Front Hole Not-Havers who have sex with Front Hole Not-Havers