Bill Weintraub

Re: A filthy, disgusting habit that will eventually destroy us and cost us a fortune

8-12-2005

Thank you Greg.

"improves their chances of finding a partner" is right -- and that's why so few online profiles mention Frot -- because too many Frot guys put finding a partner ahead of their own sexual practice and desires.

That's understandable -- people get lonely -- but not viable in the long term, as we can see in Danny's post Problems with my partner, where his partner is, predictably, pressuring him to do anal.

To me the only realistic way to date is to tell guys from the git go that anal is not and will never be a possibility.

That's what I did with Brett, and we never had a problem.

If I'd done anal to please Brett, not only would I have violated my innermost feelings, but I'd have been infected with HIV and almost certainly have died by now.

Because, sadly, very few guys who got infected in '82 are still around.

Now, as Greg said, the smoking analogy is a good one, which is why we use it.

For the first seven decades of the last century, smoking was glamourized incessantly, and advertising and other cultural messengers such as movies explicitly linked cigarette smoking with sexual attractiveness.

Indeed, in 1970, when I was in my early 20s, I had a crush on a guy who walked around with a pack of Camels -- unfiltered -- tucked into the rolled-up sleeve of his tee shirt.

That behavior was considered the ultimate in virility and macho sex appeal.

Nevermind that the object of my affections had, like other smokers, bad breath, stained teeth, a raspy voice, and an incipient smokers' cough.

He smoked -- therefore he was sexy.

There were literally millions of messages circulating in the culture supporting that view -- and that's why it was so prevalent.

The truth is that not only is smoking not sexy, but it actually destroys virility -- specifically, it causes erectile dysfunction aka impotence.

Yet the tobacco industry had, through the application of vast sums of money, managed to convince hundreds of millions of people that the opposite was true.

When the American Cancer Society and others concerned with public health sought to reduce the incidence of smoking, they understood that they had to de-glamourize the act.

And that aside from talking about death from cancer and emphysema and other horrible diseases, the easiest way to do that was to describe *accurately* the gritty side-effects of smoking which for years had been swept under the rug.

So they began talking about bad breath; stained teeth; the throaty voice; and of course smokers' cough, which was itself a sign of disease.

What's important to note here is that for decades the tobacco industry, which was huge and dominated the economies of many southern and border states, had induced the population to ignore those symptoms -- even though they were obvious and very much and quite literally, as anyone who's kissed a smoker knows, in your face.

The same thing has gone on with anal and gay men.

It's not just HIV and the other STIs.

There are a host of unpleasant and unsavory side-effects which more than three decades of glamourization and romanticization of anal has induced the gay male population to ignore and forget.

Our job is to help them remember.

That's why, when men say to me that they couldn't give up anal, I always ask, "Which would you miss most: the smell, the pain, or the shit on the sheets?"

I do that to break through their denial.

Which is exactly what the anti-smoking campaigns did.

There's nothing sexy about bad breath, or discolored teeth, or coughing , or a stratchy voice.

Nor is pain, the stink of rectal mucous, the brownish mixture of lube and fecal material which leaks from the bottom's anal sphincter, the skid marks on underwear and sheets, the flatulence and the need to have a bowel movement after sex.

They're not sexy.

Gay men are in denial about the fecal aspects of anal just as smokers were in denial about the gritty side-effects of smoking.

That denial must be shattered.

That's what's so great about blogger Jim Lynch's formulation "shit sex."

It puts shit where it should be in any discussion of anal -- at the forefront.

An anus is not a vagina, and anal is shit sex.

Once you've brought up those two points, never let the buttboyz change the subject.

It's like Frot man Mark said in an email:

Do you know ~any~ gay bottom who has not had some problems with anal sex? Even if you find the practice erotic in some way, the laundry list of potential problems ought to scare the shit (pardon the pun) out of anybody. There is no safe "anal." The butt boys can't deny this. It's like saying that there is a safe cigarette. So, they go on about how "fun" it is. Well, I suppose some people can and do convince themselves that anything is fun---arms up their rectums, whippings, being tied up, getting pissed on, being gang raped, nipple clamps so tight that they draw blood, etc., etc.

Well you know, they don't call your ass a "shithole" for nothing. Would you stick your finger in a pile of shit? Would you rub your cock in a pile of shit? Would you lick a pile of shit? But that's what the butt boys are doing when you come right down to it. And claiming it is erotic. Right.

But think about it---people can eroticize anything. How many kids imagine that licking a filthy smelly butthole is sexy? But there are many gay men into this. (That's one thing even I have not tried---yuck!) Are they wired to like this? How about getting an arm up your ass?

Mark's comments provide a number of really fine talking points:

1. Like smoking, anal penetration is intrinsically unhealthy.

From anal warts to mechanical damage, the anus is just too vulnerable to be penetrated.

2. "Would you stick your finger in a pile of shit? Would you rub your cock in a pile of shit? Would you lick a pile of shit?"

Again, don't let the buttboyz change the subject -- demand an answer.

3. "People can eroticize anything. [But] how many kids imagine that licking a filthy smelly butthole is sexy?"

Question for the buttboyz: is this something you fantasized about as a child?

Or are you doing this cause gay male culture tells you to?

Once again, stick with "shit sex."

If a buttboy claims there are ways to minimize the shit, call him on it.

Cause the fact is, an anus will always be an anus, and there's no way to make it squeaky clean.

Ano-rectal surgeon Stephen Goldstone of GayHealth dot com points out that not only does douching strip away what little natural defenses the anus has, but the liquid pumped into the bowel is likely to emerge in a big shitty mess in the middle of "intercourse."

I do not advise enemas or douching, which may increase the risk of HIV transmission. Enemas -- even if they are just plain water -- irritate the lining of your colon and make it easier for HIV to get in or out. The motion of the sex toy, your partner's hand or penis also stimulates colon contractions. Frequently you won't evacuate the entire liquid enema before sex, and the remainder is forced out during sex by increased colon contractions, making a bigger mess than the one you took the enema to avoid.

Real attractive.

And note what Goldstone says: "The motion of the sex toy, your partner's hand or penis also stimulates colon contractions."

Translation: Getting fucked stimulates the colon.

Which pushes shit into the anus.

Stay on message with that guys.

Smoking is a filthy, disgusting habit, and anal penetration is shit sex.

Bill G

Re: A filthy, disgusting habit that will eventually destroy us and cost us a fortune

8-13-2005

Well said Bill, clear and concise.

I hope others understand this. The correlation to smoking is perfect, just as anal is promoted now, so was smoking promoted. I only hope more people wake up, but I am pessimistic. After all how many people do you still hear about who claim, even after 40 years of warnings, they didn't know smoking could cause cancer.

Bill G

artcon

8-15-2005

Re: A filthy, disgusting habit that will eventually destroy us and cost us a fortune

Hi Bill and frot friends,

It's been a while since I've posted anything on here. I joined a few years ago, but wasn't sure this site still existed, so I was happy to find it tonight "alive and well."

This string had me thinking, as I had never before held a correlation between anal sex and smoking. But you folks have a point. I should admit that I am a smoker, even though I had a heart attack in 2002 when in my late 40's, and I certainly should know better. (The marvel of modern science: I had a stent implanted, feel fine now, and therefore somewhat invincible -- if not delusional.)

But since my partner and I have been together 23 years now (he's 67 and does not smoke -- he quit after his own heart attack when he was just 40, a few years before I met him), this series of postings does have me thinking.

I rejected anal sex for the usual reasons (mostly because I don't enjoy it!), plus the health concerns (we met in 1982, a nasty time in gay/AIDS history), so maybe here's another reason to decide to quit smoking. Gives me something to think about. Thanks again!

-- Warrior Artcon (Steve in Las Vegas)

artcon

Bill Weintraub

8-18-2005

Re: A filthy, disgusting habit that will eventually destroy us and cost us a fortune

Thanks Bill G and Steve.

Steve I hope you can quit smoking soon.

What both Bill G and Steve understand is that anal, like smoking, owes its prevalence to cultural messages which promote it.

And that once you recognize that cultural messages are propping up the behavior, it's easier to leave the behavior behind.

Bill G, you asked, "After all how many people do you still hear about who claim, even after 40 years of warnings, they didn't know smoking could cause cancer?"

I don't know, but I wouldn't think very many.

The anti-smoking message is everywhere now; doctors counsel their patients not to smoke -- a doctor who didn't counsel his/her patient not to smoke would be liable for a malpractice suit; the tobacco companies themselves have been sued repeatedly -- in addition to all the private lawsuits, in 1998 the tobacco companies settled a suit by the states for $246 billion, and currently face a federal suit which could cost them $120 billion; smoking is banned in all sorts of public places; and there are both prescription and non-prescription remedies widely available to help people quit.

Imagine something comparable with anal.

Imagine that doctors routinely counseled their patients that even with a condom, anal penetration is the highest risk "sex" act two people can perform; and that doctors were required to have literature available spelling out alternatives to anal.

Imagine that a group of AIDS Service Organizations had been successfully sued by someone who developed HIV or hep C, sued for promoting anal and promiscuity while failing to discuss non-anal alternatives.

Imagine that gay and other sexually-oriented media, including TV shows like QAF, routinely carried public service messages and articles and programs all conveying the same message: "Anal is for shit," and "Frot is Hot."

Imagine that there were support groups in every town for guys who didn't like anal or wanted to stop doing anal.

There'd be a lot less anal.

And a lot more Frot.

The key point here is that anal penetration is a learned behavior, and there's nothing inevitable about it.

As Bill G said, "The correlation to smoking is perfect, just as anal is promoted now, so was smoking promoted."

And, just as smoking has been de-promoted, so can anal be de-promoted.

It's a learned behavior which can be easily unlearned.

So it's not a question of whether we *can* return anal to the shadows, to the shit-filled abyss from which it emerged.

It's a question of whether we have the will to do so.

And that's a question only you can answer.