September 23, 2005

THERE'S A REASON GOD DIVIDED THE PLUMBING:

Ass Backwards: The media's silence about rampant anal sex. (William Saletan, Sept. 20, 2005, Slate)

There's no delicate way to put this, so I'll just quote the survey report: "For males, the proportion who have had anal sex with a female increases from 4.6 percent at age 15 to 34 percent at ages 22–24; for females, the proportion who have had anal sex with a male increases from 2.4 percent at age 15 to 32 percent at age 22–24." One in three women admits to having had anal sex by age 24. By ages 25 to 44, the percentages rise to 40 for men and 35 for women. And that's not counting the 3.7 percent of men aged 15 to 44 who've had anal sex with other men.

The last time major national surveys asked about this practice, in the early 1990s, only 20 percent of men aged 20 to 39 said they'd had anal sex with a woman in the preceding 10 years. Only 26 percent of men aged 18 to 59 said they'd ever done so. In the first survey, the 10-year limit excluded half the sexual career of half the sample, but that isn't enough to explain a doubling in the percentage saying yes. In the second survey, according to the current report, the inclusion of men aged 46 to 59 might have diluted the sample with "cohorts that were less likely to have had anal sex." But that's the point: Newer cohorts are more likely to have tried it.

Why does this matter? Because anal sex is far more dangerous than oral sex. According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math. Oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex. Presumably, oral sex is far more frequent than anal sex. But are you confident it's 50 times more frequent?

A CDC fact sheet explains the risks of anal sex. First, "the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the [HIV] virus to enter the body." Second, "condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex." These risks don't just apply to HIV. According to the new survey report, the risk of transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases is likewise "higher for anal than for oral sex," and the risk "from oral sex is also believed to be lower than for vaginal intercourse."


Many respondents likely just confuse doggy-style with actual anal sex, but if only the MSM would be this forthright about why male homosexuality is pathological...

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 23, 2005 9:26 AM
Comments

We need to know this ....?

Posted by: erp at September 23, 2005 6:18 PM

What part of the percentages are attributable to the simple explanation of "oops".

Posted by: AllenS [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 23, 2005 6:22 PM

Allen:

You're old enough to have had your prostate checked: 0%.

Posted by: oj at September 23, 2005 6:31 PM

erp:

Because anal sex isn't just a choice--it's evil.

Posted by: oj at September 23, 2005 6:32 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people lied to the pollsters -- after all, this is something of a backdoor practice.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 23, 2005 7:18 PM

Because anal sex isn't just a choice--it's evil.

But Orrin also believes that lesbian sex is the highest form of sexuality, so draw your own conclusions as to his credibility.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 23, 2005 8:48 PM

Michael:

Not at all. I just think it's more socially acceptable that women be so terrified of men as to find solace in each other. Doesn't mean they aren't ill.

Posted by: oj at September 23, 2005 8:52 PM

Michael:

But at least he believes some things are evil, as opposed to those around here who use their impressive analytical and rhetorical skills to prove there is no such thing.

Posted by: Peter B at September 24, 2005 4:49 AM

oj, I had a blood test done. PSA (prostate screening test). My results were 2.9. Normal values are 0-4.0. For my age, I was told that those were good numbers. I was not probed with a finger.

Posted by: AllenS [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 24, 2005 12:03 PM

Allen:

Get a finger probe and you'll know no one ever had anal sex without knowing it was the wrong orifice.

Posted by: oj at September 24, 2005 1:56 PM

Orrin:

You really should have been Moses' speechwriter at Sinai. I can see them all saying: "OK, now I get it".

Posted by: Peter B at September 24, 2005 7:21 PM

Peter B: He wasn't?

Posted by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 26, 2005 12:30 AM

One more example of how and why a particular value system can have survival impact.

It has long been understood that the unsanitary habits described above favor the transmission of disease. This is never discussed. Rather, the discussion, and here I include what is is taught in public school in my city, is diverted to anything goes, and that "There is no Right or Wrong."

College professors, especially in "Women's Studies" and "Gay Studies" teach that moral structurs against unnatural acts are part of a conspiracy by the patriarchate (Ye holy Patriarchs and Prophets, pray for us!) to subjugate queers and women.

Let me suggest that these tendencies cannot be combatted by allowing ourselves to be backed into the corner of theocracy, from which we say nothing more than, "You shouldn't do it because it's agin' the Good Book." While that's not a bad reason, we need to be up front about the practical, medical considerations involved.

This is going to require taking on the queer lobby and it's going to involve bearding them in the den of public education.

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 26, 2005 1:34 PM
« JUST ANOTHER MAJOR REWRITE: | Main | THE DISCIPLINE OF AN ELECTORATE: »