Just say gay
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
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.