Anti-Sodomy Laws Under Attack!

[Cleo671]

"The bottom line is that the rectum was not designed for sexual activity. Indeed, because of its one-cell-wall thickness and rich supply of blood vessels, the rectum is almost ‘perfectly suited for infection." - from the link..

I remember being in high school at the time when HIV made it's presence and there being a change in the curriculum for Personal Development classes. Back then, yes ' the rectum' was not designed for sex, that was it, no further explanation at all. It was what could be comparable to the 'Middle Ages' of the 80's, where the best 'preventative' measure was to scare the hell out of people or insinuate that anal sex took place amongst 'those that deviated' from standard sexual intercourse. We might as well have been given Sunday school lessons at the same time where 'spillage of seed on the ground' was a sin.

The article is something that is perfect reading for teens - in terms of the health aspects in relation to various sex practices, a female friend that I had was diagnosed with a gastro intestinal infection, the bacteria of which were associated with fecal matter, and it was a painful infection, she wasn't aware that transmission of this bacteria, ie penile inserted into vagina following anal intercourse, would be the culprit. Once there is awareness of the various health aspects, then these can be prevented and health risks minimised.

So many professional associations are in favor of legalizing sodomy and protecting those who engage in homosexuality that a layman could be excused for having just this view. These professional associations claim that the ‘scientific evidence’ proves that anti-sodomy laws are not only unwarranted but -- get this -- also harmful to public health!

Maybe in my post NYE haze, I read the above wrong..but I'm getting the impression from the introduction that overrall 'anti sodomy laws' are justified in relation to the article itself?

As for sodomy laws being 'warranted?'..well I don't think that articles like this 'justify' warranting such laws, I can't understand why there are anti sodomy laws in the first place. Sure there is an educational element which is important, but why can't it be left to that? I'll never forget a case here in Australia where a homosexual couple in the state of Queensland (they were all over the current affairs programs, in the papers) were arrested and prosecuted for 'sodomy'. The basis of this arrest? Because they 'were observed' having sex, now I think 'someone got a thrill from watching them' or was vindictive to make this observation/graphically record it in order to submit it for evidence, something which originated from their homophobic or hatred toward homosexual men. But these men (in the state they resided in) were at risk of being imprisoned, losing the home they owned etc. All due to sodomy laws. They weren't under the legal age of consent, they were in the mid to late 30's, and were in a long term relationship, even if they were engaging in a one night stand, it still doesn't matter.

Histologically, the rectum is not the ideal place for intercourse, that is medically known, only from the cell wall dimensions, types of cells and the durability of the sphincter muscles. That's why I used to shake my head in disbelief when happening to witness anal sex in 'mainstream' porn years back - 'gigantor' cock thrusting in and out of a poor woman. 'Enlargement' of the anus or rectum to that a degree that comes through - well extreme anal - does have an after effect in that the sphincter muscles don't work efficiently, and this does have an effect in the elimination of feaces( a daily need for laxatives, enema's etc, but this is on a small scale). But this doesn't happen to everyone either.

But that doesn't mean that anal sex doesn't have a 'place' or 'shouldn't' be engaged in, or legislation is required based on 'medical' data.

We swap a larger number of bacteria when we tongue kiss a person, in comparison to anal sex.

so yeah, over the top a tad..in relation to anti sodomy laws.