Heterosexual Discrimination

[lucasa]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Actually, I’d be very surprised if this is true. Generally lesbians report behaviors in numbers that reflect there being two females involved, and as such they tend to score lower for so-called “risky” behaviors.

Rates of domestic violence are lower, rates of adultery, etc., because lesbianism pairs two women and eliminates the men, who are far more likely to be big ol’ violent horndogs.[/quote]

You misunderstand or we differ in definition (I’ll assume you’re not speaking intentionally). I don’t consider domestic abuse to be risky sexual behavior. And depending on what study you look at, a given lesbian woman will have more sexual partners than a heterosexual woman at around 2:1. Lesbian women are comparable to hetero men in terms of number of sexual partners.

Because women have on average less sexual partners than men and are more likely to pair-bond, a pair of lesbians would have a combined lifetime-partners score lower than a heterosexual couple, reducing the risk of STD infection.

IMO, the data on sexuality and disease, is biased heavily in favor of HIV and other bloodborne STDs. Women in general are more susceptible to “robust” organisms and, logically, other STDs that predominantly affect women are higher in lesbian “communities” than straight women “communities”. Gonorrhea may be an exception.

Depression is higher among lesbians, there are some poorly designed studies that say addiction may be higher, inter-sexual violence goes down but intra-sexual violence goes up and supposedly under-reporting is greater for intra-sexual violence, but that’s between anecdote and conjecture. More importantly as I said in my post, much of what you point out as being “pro-lesbian” is actually “anti-male” data.

Hmm. I have absolutely no data to back this up, but I’m guessing that lesbians probably transmit HPV orally less easily. Surely the nature of male/female oral sex makes esophageal cancer more easily transmitted from a male to a female?

The most damning data is relatively recent, but this has been reported and assumed for a couple of years now. If it were more easily contracted from fellatio vs. cunnilingus, the incidence of esophageal cancer would be higher presumably in women. That wasn’t observed (It’s hard to prove an association isn’t there and a lack of observation is hardly proof, but it is evidence). The main difference is that women get both cervical cancer and esophageal cancer from the disease whereas men (obviously) don’t get cervical cancer. There’s no evidence that oral contraction leads to cervical disease, but the study does at least make that hypothesis seem worth testing.

Once again, I’m not against homosexuals as people or individuals/couples. I’m against things like parades celebrating or “hate crimes” unequally protecting behavior of minor justifiability/utility and major questionability (especially when similar behavior is out-and-out vilified).

[Headhunter]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
2. Why is being gay evil at all? Who does it hurt? And if smokers didn’t smell like shit, I personally wouldn’t care about them.

In the old days when the Earth needed populating, being homosexual was hurting the birth rates. By not reproducing, they weren’t exactly doing what was best for humanity. Today, things are different. The earth is getting a bit crowded. So if anything, queers are doing us all a favor.

You should stop invoking nature as proof that homosexuality is OK. Animals have no moral. Being a homosexual isn’t evil. It’s wrong. And there’s a world of difference between the two. Just like doing steroids, copyright infringement or self-abuse.

I have no data to back this up, but I expect promiscuity to be higher among queers. That leads to all kinds of crimes of passion and STDs. It’s also quite evident that this particular community gets more intoxicated than the average hetero.

I have no problem with homosexuals. I have a problem with the public display of their kind these past decade or so. The whole “gay” mentality. Whatever happened to don’t ask don’t tell? [/quote]

Lixy,

You’re in trouble now: I totally agree with this post.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
lucasa wrote:

Why does being gay require a parade or it’s own “Olympics”? I don’t see the connection.

A lot of gay people feel the need for things like that because they spend most of their lives being forced in the closet (especially by the “well meaning” homophobes who “really dont hate them… just want to force them to pretend to be something they arent for 99 percent of their lives”).

Of course, there’s always the argument that “I dont get a straight parade!” Question is, have you ever felt the need? Did you have to wrestle with the fear of admitting to loved ones that you were straight? Are you constantly told that being straight is not normal?

Also, I dont see whats bad about two gay people hooking up and doing whatever makes them happy.

You idiots are letting your ‘tolerance’ blind you.

Um, no, but thanks for asking.

I’m not out to have a SWAT team kick in anyone’s bedroom doors or have people arrested for holding hands in public. Rather than the two discreetly gay individuals “organizing a gay agenda” and working to the mutual gain of homosexuals and heterosexuals, we have flag wavers who turn a blind eye to the real problems of the gay community and proselytize fence-sitters and prosecute naysayers with the BS about equal rights, and they use those tools to trump common sense.

Kinda lost me at the end there. What common sense are they trying to trump? Whats wrong with equal rights for gays, again? Are you suggesting that gay people do NOT deserve equal rights?

Sure, then if someone disappoints their parents by being gay then the parents shouldn’t be forced out of disappointment any more than the child should be forced to be straight.

I suppose not, no one should be forced out of bigotry.

Especially given all the malady associated with homosexuality.

All the malady associated with homosexuality seems to stem from the homophobia against them.

Your responses seem to indicate that - in your eyes - homosexuals have rights beyond those of heterosexuals because they are dismissed and ‘forced into the closet’ by homophobes.

If this was a straight guy doing this to a woman this thread would not exist and the offending crotch-grabber would be sitting in a very dark place with no chance to see sunlight again for a long, long time. If the woman cracked his skull open with a beer bottle we’d celebrate her courage, give her a parade and ask her co-host Oprah. [/quote]

Nothing I said indicates that I believe homosexuals have special rights. Nothing.

Furthermore, read my first post on this topic.

Thats strike two. Why not just skip the third, eh?

[EmilyQ]

Lucasa, I’m going to defer. You seem better informed, and certainly more self-assured, than I feel.

When you say that I’m making “anti-male,” rather than “pro-lesbian” points, you’re right. I mean no disrespect to men, my only point is that lesbians constitute a large segment of the homosexual population, obviously, and their behavior is generally lower-risk.

I have no particular dog in this race. I am pro-gay-rights, but tend to look askance at policies that favor groups unduly.

I believe that everyone should be able to throw a parade, for any reason or none, because parades are nice. I have mixed feelings about the hate crimes legislation. Were it up to me I would probably prefer stricter enforcement of the old laws against harassment, property destruction, etc.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:

Actually, I’d be very surprised if this is true. Generally lesbians report behaviors in numbers that reflect there being two females involved, and as such they tend to score lower for so-called “risky” behaviors.

Rates of domestic violence are lower, rates of adultery, etc., because lesbianism pairs two women and eliminates the men, who are far more likely to be big ol’ violent horndogs.

You misunderstand or we differ in definition (I’ll assume you’re not speaking intentionally). I don’t consider domestic abuse to be risky sexual behavior. And depending on what study you look at, a given lesbian woman will have more sexual partners than a heterosexual woman at around 2:1. Lesbian women are comparable to hetero men in terms of number of sexual partners.

Because women have on average less sexual partners than men and are more likely to pair-bond, a pair of lesbians would have a combined lifetime-partners score lower than a heterosexual couple, reducing the risk of STD infection.

IMO, the data on sexuality and disease, is biased heavily in favor of HIV and other bloodborne STDs. Women in general are more susceptible to “robust” organisms and, logically, other STDs that predominantly affect women are higher in lesbian “communities” than straight women “communities”. Gonorrhea may be an exception.

Depression is higher among lesbians, there are some poorly designed studies that say addiction may be higher, inter-sexual violence goes down but intra-sexual violence goes up and supposedly under-reporting is greater for intra-sexual violence, but that’s between anecdote and conjecture. More importantly as I said in my post, much of what you point out as being “pro-lesbian” is actually “anti-male” data.

Hmm. I have absolutely no data to back this up, but I’m guessing that lesbians probably transmit HPV orally less easily. Surely the nature of male/female oral sex makes esophageal cancer more easily transmitted from a male to a female?

The most damning data is relatively recent, but this has been reported and assumed for a couple of years now. If it were more easily contracted from fellatio vs. cunnilingus, the incidence of esophageal cancer would be higher presumably in women. That wasn’t observed (It’s hard to prove an association isn’t there and a lack of observation is hardly proof, but it is evidence). The main difference is that women get both cervical cancer and esophageal cancer from the disease whereas men (obviously) don’t get cervical cancer. There’s no evidence that oral contraction leads to cervical disease, but the study does at least make that hypothesis seem worth testing.

Once again, I’m not against homosexuals as people or individuals/couples. I’m against things like parades celebrating or “hate crimes” unequally protecting behavior of minor justifiability/utility and major questionability (especially when similar behavior is out-and-out vilified).[/quote]

[DS_007]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
lucasa wrote:

Why does being gay require a parade or it’s own “Olympics”? I don’t see the connection.

A lot of gay people feel the need for things like that because they spend most of their lives being forced in the closet (especially by the “well meaning” homophobes who “really dont hate them… just want to force them to pretend to be something they arent for 99 percent of their lives”).

Of course, there’s always the argument that “I dont get a straight parade!” Question is, have you ever felt the need? Did you have to wrestle with the fear of admitting to loved ones that you were straight? Are you constantly told that being straight is not normal?

Also, I dont see whats bad about two gay people hooking up and doing whatever makes them happy.

You idiots are letting your ‘tolerance’ blind you.

Um, no, but thanks for asking.

I’m not out to have a SWAT team kick in anyone’s bedroom doors or have people arrested for holding hands in public. Rather than the two discreetly gay individuals “organizing a gay agenda” and working to the mutual gain of homosexuals and heterosexuals, we have flag wavers who turn a blind eye to the real problems of the gay community and proselytize fence-sitters and prosecute naysayers with the BS about equal rights, and they use those tools to trump common sense.

Kinda lost me at the end there. What common sense are they trying to trump? Whats wrong with equal rights for gays, again? Are you suggesting that gay people do NOT deserve equal rights?

Sure, then if someone disappoints their parents by being gay then the parents shouldn’t be forced out of disappointment any more than the child should be forced to be straight.

I suppose not, no one should be forced out of bigotry.

Especially given all the malady associated with homosexuality.

All the malady associated with homosexuality seems to stem from the homophobia against them.

Your responses seem to indicate that - in your eyes - homosexuals have rights beyond those of heterosexuals because they are dismissed and ‘forced into the closet’ by homophobes.

If this was a straight guy doing this to a woman this thread would not exist and the offending crotch-grabber would be sitting in a very dark place with no chance to see sunlight again for a long, long time. If the woman cracked his skull open with a beer bottle we’d celebrate her courage, give her a parade and ask her co-host Oprah.

Nothing I said indicates that I believe homosexuals have special rights. Nothing.

Furthermore, read my first post on this topic.

Thats strike two. Why not just skip the third, eh?
[/quote]

“A lot of gay people feel the need for things like that because they spend most of their lives being forced in the closet (especially by the “well meaning” homophobes who “really dont hate them… just want to force them to pretend to be something they arent for 99 percent of their lives”).”

While your reply is sufficiently snappy and smug, I wonder how you’d categorize the above? It would appear to me that what you are saying is that homosexual’s actions (actions along the lines of public crotch-grabbing, I’d assume) are to be understood (and tolerated) because of the repression suffered at the hands of the homophobes.

So the connection that can be made here is that while it is unacceptable for a man to grab a woman’s crotch as she walked through the crowd at a bar, it is on some level acceptable (and certainly understandable) for a homosexual to do the same thing to another man.

Does that about sum it up? Do you see where I was coming from now or are you just too stupid to actually know what you are saying?

[Headhunter]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I believe that everyone should be able to throw a parade, for any reason or none, because parades are nice. I have mixed feelings about the hate crimes legislation. Were it up to me I would probably prefer stricter enforcement of the old laws against harassment, property destruction, etc.

[/quote]

What about parades for pedophiles? I saw something about this once, the parade being in Holland.

Hopefully, the pedophiles paraded right into prison cells…full of huge ‘lonely’ cons named Bubba…each with a 16 incher.

[EmilyQ]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:

I believe that everyone should be able to throw a parade, for any reason or none, because parades are nice. I have mixed feelings about the hate crimes legislation. Were it up to me I would probably prefer stricter enforcement of the old laws against harassment, property destruction, etc.

What about parades for pedophiles? I saw something about this once, the parade being in Holland.

Hopefully, the pedophiles paraded right into prison cells…full of huge ‘lonely’ cons named Bubba…each with a 16 incher.
[/quote]

I work with the victims of pedophiles. No one knows better than I how destructive their actions are. But I also know that almost all molesters were once molested children themselves. It’s not an excuse; we all make our choices and most abused kids do not grow up to become abusers themselves, but it is terrible and sad.

Your pedophile has probably already encountered a lonely Bubba with a 16-incher (???).

I just can’t work up much steam for parades. I don’t think a parade of pedophiles is going to sway anyone to embrace pedophilia as a lifestyle and I’m inclined to think that if something like that IS the catalyst that tips some guy into acting on his urges, he’d have eventually tipped anyway.

I’ll remind you of that comment the next time a group of Nazi’s want to throw a parade to celebrate the killing of 6 million Jews.

Here again, I can’t get too concerned. Better the Nazis walk down city streets clutching balloon strings and playing trombones than meet furtively in back alleys to plan attacks on synagogues or the people worshipping within them.

I know I sound as if I don’t share your outrage (both of you, Headhunter and Mick). I do! I’m glad prison is a brutal place for rapists and child molesters. I hope it’s that way for modern-day Nazis, too. It’s just that things like parades don’t concern me. A parade is just a symbol. Eliminating a parade doesn’t eliminate anything of substance.

None of which is to say that I think homosexuality or gay pride should be eliminated. I’m speaking to the pedophile/nazi thing here.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
“A lot of gay people feel the need for things like that because they spend most of their lives being forced in the closet (especially by the “well meaning” homophobes who “really dont hate them… just want to force them to pretend to be something they arent for 99 percent of their lives”).”

While your reply is sufficiently snappy and smug, I wonder how you’d categorize the above?

[/quote]

I’d categorize it as “An answer to the question of why gay people feel the need to throw gay pride parades.” This does not indicate special rights for gays as, obviously, anyone can have a parade for whatever reason they want (so long as the parade doesnt violate the rights of others). So where is the “special” rights in saying that gay people can have parades?

It would appear to me that what you are saying is that homosexual’s actions (actions along the lines of public crotch-grabbing, I’d assume)

Did you read my first post in this thread? Go back and read it, then feel really, really stupid. Although I’m sure you’re used to it, if you regularly take such bold leaps in logic that “gay pride parade” and “violation of someones personal space” are somehow the same thing to you.

You are attempting to build stramen. Stop it.

are to be understood (and tolerated) because of the repression suffered at the hands of the homophobes.

Strawman. Explaining why gay people feel the need for parades is not justifiying every action ever made by every gay person. Your logic is laughable.

So the connection that can be made here is that while it is unacceptable for a man to grab a woman’s crotch as she walked through the crowd at a bar, it is on some level acceptable (and certainly understandable) for a homosexual to do the same thing to another man.

No, fool, put down the disjunctive fallacy, ok? “Gay pride parade” does not equal “assaulting another person”. Its really sad that you cant see the difference.

Again, read my first fucking post in this thread, idiot.

[quote]
Does that about sum it up? Do you see where I was coming from now or are you just too stupid to actually know what you are saying? [/quote]

hahahhahahahahahahahaha

I explained why gay people get together for gay pride fests.

You interpreted it as “Its ok for a gay guy to walk up and grab another guys crotch because…”

You are too stupid to understand what I write. It is not my responsibility to make sure that idiots dont wildly misinterpret what I’ve said.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

Hey DS007,

since you’re too ignorant to actually go read it, here is my first post in this thread:

apbt55 wrote:
I pose a question.

You are at a club in Miami, you are a heterosexual male, and a homosexual male walking by grabs your nuts and winks at you.

My friend reflexively punched the guy in the face and walked away.
My friend was charged with harassment/assault M3 charges and tried to press sexual assault and harassment charges back on the guy just to get the charges dropped, but that didn�??t work.

In the civil suite to pay for the guys medical bills the homosexual male was also allowed to file a suite based on sexual discrimination.

Does anyone else think this is messed up?

[b]That is absolutely fucked up.

If anyone invades anyones personal space like that, touching them in an intimately private area no less, the person being assaulted has every right and reason to defend themselves.

No one has the right to do what that man did to your friend. He got what he deserved.[/b]

You were wrong. You lose. Go away.

[RocSt]

I used to come to T-Nation just for the lifting articles, but I made the mistake of checking out this politics and world issues section… big mistake. Many of the people who post on here are so convinced they’re right, unwilling to listen to opposing reason and insulting that it became addicting to read. I’m going to try to break the habit… right after this post.

As for this whole subject I agree the guy who grabbed your friend’s balls was a jerk and probably deserved to be reminded that what’s his is his, and what’s not is not. But the reality is that physically attacking someone, whether they may have deserved it or not in our minds isn’t the way you produce a civil society, and it’s not a very “big” thing to do.

I’d have thought your friend far more stoic and honorable had he walked away from it. I know the hyper masculine types around here might think that sounds “sissified,” but that’s one reason why we have laws… to control people who otherwise have limited ability or interest to use reason to make moral decisions. If your friend was under continued assault then certainly I’d expect the best choice would be to fight back. I know what it’s like to have uninvited and unwanted attention of that sort. I’m gay and I’ve had guys and a few girls try that kind of crap (I’ve never done that to anyone, nor would I ever). Some tried more than once. All were repelled with a strong hand (why lift weights after all?) and a firm reminder. Angry? Yup. Punch any of them? Nope. Still alive, healthy, and secure? Sure. Any lasting mental damage (even from the females)? Nope. Guess it wasn’t worth breaking their face eh?

This discussion turned into something about the validity of gay pride parades, homosexuality itself, disease etc. I don’t see how any of that has any real bearing on the discussion that started this.

For the record I don’t think there should be special hate crimes laws. Deliberately killing or hurting people is still killing or hurting them no matter what they were screaming when they did it. I also hate gay pride parades. I hate the fact that some straight people think that that’s how all or even most gay people act. And a lot of gay people hate me for hating on their parade.

Unfortunately for generalizations, but fortunately for the rest of us gay people are as diverse as just about any other somewhat artificial division of people… except for the fact that they all like people of the same sex. Most of my friends are straight because for the most part I tend to share more interests with them than with the other gay people I’ve occasionally met, although I have several very good gay friends too. I realize gay sex is more risky than straight sex, unless you count the possibility that any girl I try to screw might end up mentally scarred after I puke on her. But I don’t like men because it’s a good idea… I just do damn it. I never consciously chose it. Ever since I got a crush on my best friend when I was in kindergarten it seems to have just gone that way.

Sorry for getting all personal on ya and “shoving my sexuality in your face.” But I beg your pardon, aren’t you kind of shoving your face in my sexuality? I read this post and couldn’t help but feel like as a gay person I was being put on the defensive.

Bottom line… there are jerks everywhere who will be sexually aggressive or abusive to someone else. Plenty of straight guys who do that to girls every day right? Well unfortunately there are plenty of gay guys who will do it to. He’s not a jerk because he’s gay. He’s a jerk because he’s a jerk.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But, as one gay person put it once, if straight guys had as many opprotunites with women as gay men do with men, they’d be gettin’ busy just as often.

Perfect nonsense. “If everyone were allowed to contract the disease, they would. So that justifies homosexuality!”

And I’d be willing to bet that in any state, in any country in the world, incidents of heterosexual sex outnumber homosexual sex at least 2:1.[/quote]

Wow. You need to learn to fucking read.

The argument was that AIDS and other STDs or more rampant in the gay community because gay men have more sexual parters and more sex (individually) than straight men.

The point I was arguing is that straight men only have less sex because women are less likely to jump in bed. Sure, you can be like most and lie and claim that its out of self respect blah blah blah, but the truth is that if every girl you wanted to fuck was willing to fuck you, you’d be having just as many sexual partners as any gay man.

And, given that the number of sexual partners would increase, the incidence of STDs would also likely increase.

“if everybody could contract the disease they would”

You are a fucking moron.

[lucasa]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But, as one gay person put it once, if straight guys had as many opprotunites with women as gay men do with men, they’d be gettin’ busy just as often.

Perfect nonsense. “If everyone were allowed to contract the disease, they would. So that justifies homosexuality!”

And I’d be willing to bet that in any state, in any country in the world, incidents of heterosexual sex outnumber homosexual sex at least 2:1.

Wow. You need to learn to fucking read.

The argument was that AIDS and other STDs or more rampant in the gay community because gay men have more sexual parters and more sex (individually) than straight men.

The point I was arguing is that straight men only have less sex because women are less likely to jump in bed. Sure, you can be like most and lie and claim that its out of self respect blah blah blah, but the truth is that if every girl you wanted to fuck was willing to fuck you, you’d be having just as many sexual partners as any gay man.

And, given that the number of sexual partners would increase, the incidence of STDs would also likely increase.

“if everybody could contract the disease they would”

You are a fucking moron. [/quote]

Okay moron,

1. Telling people they don’t know how to read and then rewriting what you wrote in a longer and more drawn out fashion is oxymoronic.

2. You need to spend more time thinking. I actually did simplify what your friend was saying and managed to cut out the bullshit in the middle that you felt the need to state. That same bullshit in the middle doesn’t make sense, as EmilyQ pointed out, lesbians enjoy the partner rates of heterosexual men without the associated disease rates for HIV.

Not only is there no guarantee that more heterosexuals having more sex leads to higher disease rates in any direct manner, but the data pretty clearly indicates otherwise. On a per incident basis, homosexual male sex has a higher rate of transferance than other activities.

So, not only are you arguing in skewed hypotheticals that not only fail to jive with the data, but actually run counter to it. In the case of HIV homosexual males engage in the riskiest behavior most frequently, even if the frequency of incidents was identical, the risk is still disparate.

3. Even if the hypothetical were true all the way to rates of HIV equivalence, the justification still doesn’t make any sense. It’s like saying, “Everybody drives 150 mph if there weren’t some sort of regulation in place so I can drive as fast as I want to!” Moronic.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But, as one gay person put it once, if straight guys had as many opprotunites with women as gay men do with men, they’d be gettin’ busy just as often.

Perfect nonsense. “If everyone were allowed to contract the disease, they would. So that justifies homosexuality!”

And I’d be willing to bet that in any state, in any country in the world, incidents of heterosexual sex outnumber homosexual sex at least 2:1.

Wow. You need to learn to fucking read.

The argument was that AIDS and other STDs or more rampant in the gay community because gay men have more sexual parters and more sex (individually) than straight men.

The point I was arguing is that straight men only have less sex because women are less likely to jump in bed. Sure, you can be like most and lie and claim that its out of self respect blah blah blah, but the truth is that if every girl you wanted to fuck was willing to fuck you, you’d be having just as many sexual partners as any gay man.

And, given that the number of sexual partners would increase, the incidence of STDs would also likely increase.

“if everybody could contract the disease they would”

You are a fucking moron.

Okay moron,

1. Telling people they don’t know how to read and then rewriting what you wrote in a longer and more drawn out fashion is oxymoronic.
   [/quote]

No, it makes sense. You lack the ability to comprehend what I wrote the first time, thus I wrote it again, in a longer, more drawn out, spoonfed version (since you didnt understand it the first time).

2. You need to spend more time thinking. I actually did simplify what your friend was saying and managed to cut out the bullshit in the middle that you felt the need to state.

You didn’t simplify what he said, you misinterpreted it. What the fuck does being “allowed” to contract a disease have to do with anything? As though its something people want to do?

[quote]That same bullshit in the middle doesn’t make sense, as EmilyQ pointed out, lesbians enjoy the partner rates of heterosexual men without the associated disease rates for HIV.
[/quote]

And the point was that the disease rates for gay men are correlated with the partner rates of GAY men. Saying that lesbians have the same partner rate as HETEROSEXUAL men (lower than gay men) and have less disease rate only goes WITH my point, fool.

Not only is there no guarantee that more heterosexuals having more sex leads to higher disease rates in any direct manner, but the data pretty clearly indicates otherwise. On a per incident basis, homosexual male sex has a higher rate of transferance than other activities.

You are claiming that there is no correlation between the number of sexual partners a certain group of people have and the risk of STDs within that group? Are you serious?

Let me spell it out for you: If you have sex with 1000 people, you have a greater risk of getting an STD than if you have sex with 10. Its really not that complicated. So, if gay men have an average of 100 partners in their lifetime, and straight men have an average of 20 in their lifetime, who will be at a greater risk to get (and spread) STDs? Gay men. Why? Because they have sex with more partners.

Why do I need to keep spelling this out for you?

So, not only are you arguing in skewed hypotheticals that not only fail to jive with the data, but actually run counter to it. In the case of HIV homosexual males engage in the riskiest behavior most frequently, even if the frequency of incidents was identical, the risk is still disparate.

Please cite this data that proves that having more sexual partners does not correlate to a greater risk of contracting an STD. I simply dont see how its possible.

3. Even if the hypothetical were true all the way to rates of HIV equivalence, the justification still doesn’t make any sense. It’s like saying, “Everybody drives 150 mph if there weren’t some sort of regulation in place so I can drive as fast as I want to!” Moronic.

hahahaha. I’ve been called the king of false analogies, but even I couldnt come up with something that stupid.

You’re claiming that those who dont (straight men not having as many partners/people who dont speed) are doing so by CHOICE since they dont want to risk the consequences. Also stupid, because, again (you need things repeated a lot), straight men arent keeping their numbers low by choice.

So a better analogy for people like you is “Yeah, I know I TRY to drive 150mph, but my car wont go that fast, and I WOULD drive 150mph if I had the chance, but since I cant I’ll pretend that its a pesonal choice.”

[EmilyQ]

[quote]RocSt wrote:

Bottom line… there are jerks everywhere who will be sexually aggressive or abusive to someone else. Plenty of straight guys who do that to girls every day right? Well unfortunately there are plenty of gay guys who will do it to. He’s not a jerk because he’s gay. He’s a jerk because he’s a jerk.[/quote]

You’re absolutely right. I doubt there are many girls over the age of 18 who are even moderately good-looking who haven’t been subjected to unwanted touches. Ass-grabs and the like. Or worse, being cornered and pressed into.

No female runner (or walker or skater, I guess) fails to recognize that running alone too early or too late in the day or in too isolated a spot is risky behavior, as is the use of earbuds, and as such “invites” trouble. There are a lot of jerks.

You guys (T-Nation readers) just don’t know about them because bullies typically like to prey on people who are smaller or less aggressive than themselves. It’s surprising that the OP’s friend was targeted.

Anyway, great post altogether, RocSt. Well written and, to me, at least, compelling.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:

Here again, I can’t get too concerned. Better the Nazis walk down city streets clutching balloon strings and playing trombones than meet furtively in back alleys to plan attacks on synagogues or the people worshipping within them.

Just like a silly liberal. [/quote]

Am I silly? Perhaps. I’m also female so if you’d like, and if you think it would bolster your point, you can call me illogical and over-emotional, too. I don’t, however, consider myself a liberal. Maybe compared to you, who knows, but my liberal friends sometimes find me rather shockingly conservative.

Here’s a shocker for you: THEY CAN DO BOTH.

Yes, but NOT AT THE SAME TIME. Maybe we should all be for more parades.

[quote]It’s just that things like parades don’t concern me. A parade is just a symbol. Eliminating a parade doesn’t eliminate anything of substance.

But having a parade may celebrate the very qualities which so many people find disgusting.[/quote]

Okay, true. But doesn’t it then just reinforce your beliefs? Maybe the undecideds looking on will be revolted and will come to feel as you do.

[quote]None of which is to say that I think homosexuality or gay pride should be eliminated. I’m speaking to the pedophile/nazi thing here.

Yea, really what’s wrong with a bunch of homo’s parading down the street dressed like women and groping each other. It’s certainly something wholesome that you’d want to take your kids to.

LOL[/quote]

I imagine that if a child asked me to explain what you’re describing, I would just shrug and say “I don’t know, I guess that’s just how they do things.” Same as I’d say about Amish people or extreme bodybuilders or anything else that was noticeably different from the norm.

Have you watched mogul skiers race? It’s crazy, and I can’t understand why they would do that to themselves. But you know, I don’t need to understand it or approve of it. That’s just how they roll.

Actually, coming to think of it, their public displays make me less likely to experiment with moguls. I ski around them now. But that’s just how I roll.

[Zen_warrior]

[quote]lixy wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Your friend could have filed a complaint with the police and all would have been ok but he decided to pursue justice on his own and got burnt in the process.

I can picture the face of the cop who’ll take such a deposition. He’ll be telling the story for weeks.

While I agree with you in essence, I know I can’t go to a police station and report such things as a dude grabbing my balls. It’s just too weird.[/quote]

Well, there’s a few missing details here, but I find the double standards funny.

Grab a girl’s breast in public, you’ll end up in jail in no time. A guy grabs your 3piece set and it’s alright…

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
. And yet a group of homosexuals kissing and groping each other…why that’s no problem at all.

[/quote]

No, actually, that isn’t a problem.

It doesn’t intrude on anyones rights or put anyone at a risk of danger. Its no more a problem then a man and a woman kissing and groping each other at Spring Break.

But wait… oh no… an idiot like you might think its yucky! Boo fucking hoo.

Its cool Mick, you can come out of the closet one day.