Of course that's utter nonsense.

Taking a shower or a bath does not impact the interior of the anus or rectum.

Further, there is no way, as openly gay ano-rectal surgeon Dr. Stephen Goldstone emphasizes, to "clean" the anus or rectum.

And it is just such thinking that got so many gay men infected -- and still does -- at the bath-houses.

He's had a shower, he looks clean, so he is clean.

But he's not.

Here's Dr. Goldstone writing on GayHealth dot com:

Hygiene

No matter how hard you try, your anus will always be an anus. You can't sterilize it. You can, however, gently wash the outer skin with a moist cloth or pad (try Tucks) to remove any fecal residue stuck to your skin. Avoid wet toilet paper or tissues because they flake and leave behind annoying bits of paper. If necessary, try to move your bowels prior to sex. 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.

Hmmmm.

We were just assured by our "Christian" site that no part of the body is "imperfect or unclean."

But the interior of the anus and rectum is unclean.

And can't, according to Dr. Goldstone, be made clean.

As a matter of fact, it might be useful to hear the rest of what Dr. Goldstone has to say about the "benefits" of anal penetration -- none of which are mentioned by our Christian website:

Complications

Bleeding: most often from a hemorrhoid of fissure (tear). If you see blood, stop. Most often the bleeding stops quickly. Do not have anal sex again until you stop bleeding with bowel movements. If you have hemorrhoids, experiment with different positions to see if you can tolerate one better than the other. Many men find that when the receptive partner is on his stomach, his hemorrhoids experience less swelling and bleeding.

Pain: Pain during anal sex most often results from your sphincter muscles going into spasm or from a tear. You can tear the sphincters or your delicate anal lining (a fissure). If it hurts, stop anal sex. Try treating your fissure conservatively with stool softeners, sitz baths (warm soaks) and hold off having sex until you are healed. STDs can often be present with pain in your anal area but the pain usually doesn't begin until several days after sex. Pain that begins during or immediately after sex usually results from a fissure or sphincter injury.

Perforation: A true tear through your colon wall is a very rare complication of anal sex. A penis is pliable and does not have the strength to rupture your colon. A toy, on the other hand, can cause serious damage - especially if it is long. Your colon makes a sharp bend to the left, approximately eight inches up. A penis can bang against this turn and you might notice a sharp pain in the pit of your stomach. It usually won't push through. A hard toy can push through and when it does, you are in a life and death situation. You feel intense pain and must get right to a hospital. Delay and the bacteria can spread throughout your abdomen. This type of infection (peritonitis) can take your life.

Incontinence: Incontinence is an inability to control your bowels or gas. If your anal sex is pain free, your muscles should be fine and you don't have to worry about this dreaded complication. Those who enjoy fisting or large toys can permanently overstretch their sphincters and are at increased risk for incontinence in later life.

STDs: Anal sex is the highest risk sex act that men who have sex with men can perform. Virtually every STD can pass between partners during anal sex, and for most, penetration isn't necessary and a condom may not protect you. STDs are harder to diagnose when they are inside your anal canal and not on your penis. STDs commonly passed during anal sex include: HIV, herpes simplex, gonorrhea, syphilis, molluscum contagiosum, crabs, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis, and chlamydia. MEN: Put a condom on early -- as soon as you anticipate contact between the anus and penis. Remember that fingers and toys used during foreplay can also carry STDs between partners. A condom doesn't cover the base of your partner's shaft, his scrotum or pubic hair -- these are all places where STDs can lurk or land.

HIV Risk

Anal sex is the highest risk sex act two men can perform.

This is also true for a woman if she's the anal receptive partner with a man. Your risk increases dramatically in proportion to the number or partners you have and if your sex is unprotected (whether you are inserting or receiving). One medical study published in 1987 found that anal sex with one partner increased your chances of catching HIV by three times -- five or more partners increased it 18 times.

That's a long list of complications, and if you refer to our article an anus is not a vagina, and Chuck Tarver's post The price of maintaining the anal-sex norm, you'll find even more.

And yet this "Christian" website is pushing hetero anal.

Fact is, in so doing, it's part of a nationwide trend.

And not a good one, according to an article written by Willam Saletan and posted on Slate dot com last year.

Saletan references a National Center for Health Statistics survey which shows a large increase among younger hetero people doing both oral and anal.

Saletan notes that when this report was released, the media paid almost exclusive attention to the data on oral, while ignoring the data on anal, and goes on to say:

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?

The figure that Saletan is quoting -- "the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected sex with an HIV carrier" -- is called "efficiency."

You'll notice that Saletan's CDC efficiency figures are way out of line with what Dr. Myron Cohen put forth to the President's Advisory Council on HIV / AIDS (PACHA) in June of this year.

CDC: 50 per 10,000 acts = one in two hundred.

Cohen: one in eight or one in ten.

In his testimony before the PACHA, Dr. Cohen made that crystal clear.

Big difference -- and that's because those CDC figures, though just from last year, are out of date.

I talk about that discrepancy in the post titled Blindsided, and I urge people to read that post and think about how profoundly misleading the conventional wisdom on HIV transmission was just one year ago.

We were being told then that, to make it country simple, you'd have to be fucked two hundred times, on average, by someone who's poz, before you'd get infected with HIV.

Now we're being told that you only have to get fucked eight times on average before you get infected.

Is that figure correct?

Well, notice that Saletan says "anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex."

But Halperin, in his 2002 poster presentation in Barcelona, found that anal was 10 to 20 times more dangerous.

I think the efficiency of anal is more like one in three.

That is to say, I think your chances of getting infected from any ONE act of penetration by someone who's poz or MAY BE poz, is extremely high.

Who knows what the actual figure is?

All you really need know is what Dr. Cohen said:

the efficiency of rectal intercourse changes everything because of the number of dendrite cells, receptors and trauma. So you can never overwhelm, you can't win against anal intercourse. ...

Anal intercourse is a really bad sexual practice for HIV transmission. It changes the equation.

You would think, given the far higher risk from anal and the increased prevalence of hetero anal, that the AIDS Service Organizations (ASOs) would be conducting public service campaigns warning people that anal is significantly more dangerous than vaginal.

But they're not.

Presumably because doing so would offend gay men.

Remember that when, in February 2005, Larry Kramer and I said that we needed to de-eroticize anal, a prominent gay San Francisco psychotherapist named Walter Odets attacked the idea as "homophobic."

But of course anal and homosexuality are not synonymous.

Homosexuality is one thing.

Anal sex another.

The ASOs, generally speaking, tell people that HIV is spread through "oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse," and to use a condom.

Every time.

But they don't present a hierarchy of risk.

They make it appear that each of these acts is equally risky -- and of equal worth.

So, what have we got?

1. Predictably, in a youth / young adult culture dominated by feminism, gender theory, and queer theory, and in which LGBT-friendly campuses are proliferating, sex acts which were once found predominately among gay men are now being seen in increasing numbers among young hetero couples.

2. In that atmosphere, a self-described "Christian" website appears on the net to further the progress of these acts among "straight" people, and to assure us that the depiction of these acts in pornographic videos is fine so long as the actors are married -- and, of course, Christians.

Thus, as gay men and gay male culture have become increasingly accepted, so have the sex acts which in the popular mind characterize those men and that culture.

And those sex acts are being touted not just in "liberal" or "blue state" circles, but in FUNDAMENTALIST circles.

With phrases like, "Although the anus is used for elimination, in reality it is not as dirty as you think, especially after a shower or bath."

What's the reality?

Is the anus dirty?

YES.

Is anal penetration dangerous?

YES.

Is anal penetration degrading?

YES.

What about, for example, a man penetrating a woman anally?

Is the woman degraded by that act?

YES.

Is the man degraded by that act?

YES.

Moreover, in a culture in which men and women are said to be equals, it won't be long before women begin asking why they can't penetrate their men.

Indeed, not too long ago I had an email from a female college student who told me that thanks to her gay male college professor, she'd become much more relaxed about anal and had even purchased a strap-on with which to penetrate her boyfriend.

Who was also penetrating her -- anally.

I told her that if he was letting her penetrate him, it was likely he was letting other guys penetrate him too.

And since he was still penetrating her -- she was at risk for any diseases he picked up while being penetrated.

I never did hear back from her.

But that's the reality, and that's what we're fighting against.

Anal penetration is core to a subculture and indeed society which seeks to de-masculinize men.

DE-MASCULINIZE.

EMASCULATE.

UN-MALE.

Gay-identified males were long ago de-masculinized through the process of heterosexualization.

The next step, on which great progress has already been made, is to convince straight-identified males to penetrate their wives and girlfriends anally.

And the step after that is to persuade them -- and their women, in this age of gender equality, will be gung-ho for it -- to allow their women to penetrate them.

And that's it.

At that point, you have a culture built not around reproductive sex and not around genital sex, but around anal "sex."

And you're really home.

The war against masculinity has been won.

It's the logic of heterosexualization.

Because the chief beneficiaries of heterosexualization are women and effeminate gay-identified males.

Remember what my foreign friend said in THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE:

The heterosexual society cares only for women. It sees men only as a problematic group that comes in the way of what is called women's rights.

Gay men are one of the most ardent supporters of heterosexualisation. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated / negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

Gay men (when I say gay men I mean feminine-identified males who like men) derive immense power from the heterosexual society. In fact they owe the heterosexual society their existence.

"the mutilated / negativised remnants of male-male sex"

That's what anal penetration is:

A mutilated and mutilating negativised remnant of true sex between men.

PHALLIC SEX.

Notice also that even on the "fundamentalist Christian" website, fundamentalism being, it is often claimed, the last redoubt of patriarchy, male homosexuality and threesomes involving two MEN and a woman are FORBIDDEN.

The man / husband must always be in control claims the site;

but how likely is that in a threeway containing two women and a man?

It's a set-up for the women to do in the bedroom what they already do in the churches: run the show.

And like I say, the site encourages a wife not just to engage in anal, but to FIST her husband.

With his consent of course.

On that "Christian" site, the one act which is utterly forbidden is MEN BONDING through sex.

PHALLIC BONDING.

That's what is feared and forbidden.

Not two women bonding.

TWO MEN BONDING.

Compare that to the scenario envisioned by Frances in her post A Woman's Viewpoint, in which she imagined two guys doubledicking a woman vaginally so as to impregnate her.

She saw that as an intense male-bonding experience and a hetero bonding experience as well.

She saw no inequality there.

As there would not be.

Because the phallic and purely genital sexuality would militate against it.

Now, guys, please be clear that we're not endorsing these sorts of threeways.

Sally was just speculating about how two bonded warrior-brothers might seek to biologically reproduce.

And that's something we need to think about more.

But what's important to understand, and what I hope you'll take with you from reading this post, is that what we can see in both the "Christian" analist website and the increase in the prevalence of hetero anal are the fruits of heterosexualization.

Heterosexualization, like analism itself, turns the world on its head.

By separating men from men and from their natural masculinity, it brings about sexual practices which are unnatural and abnormal.

Including most particularly anal penetration.

And on the "Christian" website we can see heterosexualization brought to its logical extreme: women are encourgaged to penetrate men and to enjoy other women sexually, while men are forbidden to have ANY sexual contact with another male.

It's the ultimate triumph of gender feminism.

And a feminized, de-natured, "Christianity."

FIGHT BACK GUYS.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Robert Loring

Re: The fruits of heterosexualization:

9-26-2006

Not surprising at all. For centuries now some have taken scripture and used it out of context in an effort to justify their own deviant behaviors just as they have also used it to condemn those that they disagree with. Scripture can be taken out of context and twisted to justify anything.

I'm sorry but this fisting behavior, et.al., disgusts me. Why would anyone in their right mind want a human fist or arm going up their anus? Wouldn't that HURT?? Not to mention the health risks of such behavior! Of course the site you mention seems to completely ignore the health risks of such behavior. Perhaps their real hidden motto is "Have weird sex and then DIE SUCKER!"

Obviously the site is the creation of some porn king or queen using scripture to support their own LOST and creepy personal agenda. Then again it could be the product of some lost and confused soul(s) out there who is trying to justify their own error in their own mind(s).

The anus was made for elimination of waste. It was not created to be a sex organ. When you screw, fist, or whatever an anus you are literally fucking SHIT! That's NOT my idea of joyful sex, male OR female!

It truly astounds me that not only is our modern society turned upside down but that the psychosis seems to increase daily and knows no bounds. We are expected to except any crockery that comes along no matter how sick it is. Sorry but I'm NOT buying into it.

Christian website?

Yeah...riiiigggght !!!!!!!!!!

Bill Weintraub

Re: The fruits of heterosexualization:

9-28-2006

Thank you Robert.

It's good to see you back on the boards.

What I'm concerned with here is that there's a cultural process at work, one which I, and I think anyone of good sense should, find alarming.

And in that respect, maybe I should have presented the information from Saletan's article first.

He's looking at the rise in anal among people doing hetero sex:

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.

So: "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."

This time around, for about the same age group -- 25 to 44 -- it's 40 percent.

The prevalence of hetero anal has doubled in no more than 15 years.

And it's younger people, both male and female, who "are more likely to have tried it."

What has happened to bring about that increase?

Taking the long view, we can say that first off, there's been a process we've termed heterosexualization, which is the result of the immense wealth and technological progress generated by the industrial revolution.

And that heterosexualization has worked to the detriment of natural masculinity and masculine-identified men.

But in the short run we need to look at the cultural climate in which we're living right now.

Part of that climate is the mainstreaming of effeminized gay males, and with them, sexual acts associated, as I've said, in the popular mind with "gay."

That mainstreaming is taking place, as I've chronicled on this board, in articles which, for example, praise drag or Judy Garland impersonators or the transgendered in the mainstream press.

There's also the constant attention paid to "gender issues" by major media like the NY Times.

The Times just did an article on kids who are born intersexed -- that is to say, with the genitals of both sexes.

This is an extremely rare condition.

According to the Times, one in 4500 births or 0.02%.

That's tiny.

Compare that to Down Syndrome, which, according to the National Institutes of Health, occurs in 1 out of every 800 births -- 0.125%

Or various types of oral-facial clefts, like cleft lip, which, according to the March of Dimes, occur in about 1 of every 1000 births -- 0.1%.

Again, this condition of being born intersexed is very rare.

But the Times gave it SIX pages.

And of course it was high on the "most emailed" list.

At primary issue in the article was whether corrective surgery should be done on these children in infancy -- as it is with kids born with cleft lip.

And there's clearly room for debate on that issue -- though again this is an anamolous condition which affects very few.

And the article itself was clearly being driven by ONE intersexed individual who's become an anti-surgical-intervention activist.

So: this is a condition which affects very few people and which has been brought to the fore by ONE person.

Yet the Times used the article to call into question all traditional concepts of biological sex being linked to gender.

Among the arguments against genital surgery [to correct this condition in children] is the fact that sexual identity does not derive solely, or perhaps even primarily, from a person’s genitals. As Eric Vilain, professor of human genetics, pediatrics and urology at U.C.L.A., has shown, many genetic markers go into making a person male or female, and those markers affect many parts of the body. In studies of mice, he has found 54 genes that work differently in male and female brains just 10 days after conception. In humans, we’ve all been taught, and we’d like to believe, that being male or female is as a simple as having XY or XX chromosomes, but it is not.

But to all intents and purposes it is.

Yes, there are ancillary genes which impact secondary sexual characteristics.

But the determining factor is the presence or absence of the Y chromosome.

Once again, the genes the reporter, Elizabeth Weil, mentions, are ancillary to the XX / XY pair.

The Y chromosome in particular has a profound effect on the entirety of the rest of the genetic machinery.

Yet Ms. Weil would have you believe that isn't true.

Because she adds

Even the International Olympic Committee acknowledged this when it suspended its practice of mandatory chromosomal testing for female athletes in 2000, reflecting current medical understanding that a female who tests positive for a Y chromosome can still be a woman.

Uh-huh.

First of all, it's suspected that such "women" have *fragments* of the Y chromosome.

Not a complete Y chromosome.

And remember what I said: "The Y chromosome in particular has a profound effect on the entirety of the rest of the genetic machinery."

And you can see it:

Anyone who's seen such "women" knows that they don't look like women.

Their shoulders are broad, their faces angular, they have pronounced Adam's Apples, etc.

How many biological women look like that?

Not many.

Most women look like women.

Most men like men.

Human beings are sexually dimorphic.

That's what we are.

And that there are a few athletes competing as women who may or may not be women -- does not change that fact.

Yet the effect of the Times' article is to attack and subvert not just traditional but experiential ideas about sexual identity, and in particular the relationship between that identity and genital manhood.

A relationship which is profound.

Just last week yahoo carried a report of a penis transplant in China which had to be amputated.

Why?

Because both the man and his wife found it profoundly disturbing for him to have someone else's penis.

Doesn't that tell us anything?

Such as, that for the overwhelming majority of men on this planet, and women too, there's a relationship between the manhood and the man.

Think about it.

To the vast majority of the world's men, castration is the ultimate horror.

Nothing is more chilling to the male pysche than the thought of losing the male genitals.

Further, though many men, regardless of sexual orientation might fantasize about having a larger penis, whose penis would they want it to be?

Someone else's?

NO.

They fantasize about their OWN penis being larger.

Again, think about it.

Would you want another man's penis, in place of your own, on your body?

No.

Try a thought experiment.

Try to imagine having someone else's penis in place of your own.

I guarantee you'll find it intellectually difficult and emotionally unsettling.

Does that not suggest that contrary to what the Times claimed, the genitals and sexual identity -- indeed personal identity -- are intertwined and cannot be separated?

Clearly, if you were born intersexed, that's not a conclusion you'd wish to reach.

But that doesn't mean you can simply obviate that fact for everyone else on the planet.

Yet the Times, in a de facto endorsement of the views of the intersexed activist profiled, declares that sexual identity does not derive from a person's genitals; and in so doing lends its considerable weight to what is actually a bogus inference based upon a rare genetic anomaly.

This sort of journalism, derived from and combined with agitation from feminists and transgender activists, has the effect, desirable from a gender feminist standpoint, of destabilizing traditional sex roles.

And legitimizing what were previously fringe sexual acts.

Thus the increase in hetero anal penetration, an act associated with feminized gay males.

And thus the appearance of the "Christian" website which endorses not just anal, bondage, threeways, and fisting; but role reversal as well, in which the wife fists her husband.

And in which any sort of male bonding through homosex is explicitly forbidden.

The logical outcome of the legitimization of anal and of role reversal is that women will increasingly penetrate men anally, using dildos and strap-ons.

And the Times will write about it.

Approvingly.

Glowingly.

But here's the fact:

Nothing is more important to Man, in terms of his sexual identity, than his genitals -- his MANhood.

We say it.

Even when no one else will.

And even when there are few donors to support our saying it.

Given what appears daily in the press and online -- given the realities of the culture -- the continuing failure of the vast majority of you to donate has become very disturbing to me.

Because we're the only people who are dealing with these issues in a rational way.

The analist left and its gender feminist ideologues think notions of transgender and intersex are just ducky.

The religious right condemns all discussion of love between men.

And you guys sit on your hands.

You need to think about what you're doing -- and not doing -- with your one sweet precious life.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.