|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 362 of 404:
| 
Nov 28 05:45 UTC 1998 |
I dunno, rcurl, your words often pack a wallop! ;-)
|
mta
|
|
response 363 of 404:
|
Nov 28 16:30 UTC 1998 |
Grexers are, in my experience, far far more likley to debate you to death than
to raise a hand in anger.
Verbal people, which you pretty much have to be to enjoy Grex, tend not to
react physically.
|
senna
|
|
response 364 of 404:
|
Nov 28 17:19 UTC 1998 |
I need to hone my verbal wallop. I try not to undercut people too much,
because if I got really vicious I'd be able to really really get into
it. That's scary. I have teachers with horror stories.
|
brighn
|
|
response 365 of 404:
|
Nov 29 18:37 UTC 1998 |
Kevin> I grex out of an overwhelming sense of arrogance, since my opinions
are obviously so imoprtant to everyone esle, since they're mine. My purpose
is to amuse myself with the idiocy of others and to demonstrate to all
concerned how blindingly brilliant I am. Wasn't that obvious?
Rane, Kenton> It is my understanding that the chemical composition of saliva
is such that the HIV virus doesn't persist in it. The reason why you can
concievably get HIV from oral sex/French kissing is because there are
occasionally cuts in the mouth, particularly bleeding gums, esp. immediately
after brushing. If there is *fresh* blood in the saliva, there is (I suppose)
the remotest possibility of acquiring the virus. This is all my understanding,
which may be flawed, and I am not a medical professional or resource, nor am
I attempting to represent one.
|
lumen
|
|
response 366 of 404:
|
Dec 1 03:07 UTC 1998 |
re #365: That sounds conceivable, honestly: AIDS is, after all, a blood
disease. I am assuming that risk goes up when it is more likely that blood
will be involved.
I assume this is why anal sex is so risky-- the anus is dry and prone to tear
and bleed when penetrated and rubbed by a penis. I think former Surgeon
General Everett C. Koop said something to that effect.
I don't think oral sex *causes* cuts in the mouth; perhaps this is why the
risk is lower.
I think it's also been established that a man is more likely to infect a woman
than vice versa. That seems to be because of the biological plumbing, so to
speak. Perhaps the incidence of women infecting men goes up when sex is
performed during a mense, but that seems improbable and most find it gross,
although some do it.
The fact that many women don't ejaculate during orgasm (usually through
stimulation of the clitoris and the G-spot, I believe) might explain why
lesbians are less at risk when they have cunnilingus. Perhaps the only
factors that would increase rates would be ejaculation and cunnilingus during
menustration. Sound even grosser? Yep, that might be why the incidence is
so low.
re: the long homophobia debate-- again, I think the fear is just of homosexual
sex and attraction-- fearing that a homosexual may be attracted to you, or
that association with that person may taint the individual in the eyes of
others, who may assume that individual is homosexual and perhaps having
homosexual affairs, and hence, a fear of being associated with problems and
issues homosexuals face.
It seems to be a synergistic thing, and a reinforcer that is applied
throughout a network of people. Homophobia isn't rooted in one person alone--
it's a system of roots in segments of society-- or it kinda grows along
runners, like strawberries..well, at least that's my take on it.
I'm surprised Kenton still has made no mention of bisexuals. It's rather
ironic that fear and misunderstanding of them is actually undercommunicated,
or not in the way homophobia is, but then the issue blends into heterosexual
lines as far as those attractions are concerned, and there is no subculture.
Any bisexual expression, I guess, is assimilated into popular society anyway,
along with the few homosexual ones that have become acceptable through
connections to radical expression, I suppose (men accepting an earring, long
hair, etc., etc.. things that used to be connected to homosexuals).
but I would assume biphobia is very real..I, for one, didn't know what to
think of bisexuals. In some ways, I thought they would be a threat-- hitting
on me at times they weren't attracted to women (I speak of bisexual men).
And of course, there was no way I would know which way the attraction would
turn-- toward women, or men.
(Of course, most of you find this statement ironic, but I'll explain later.
If Kenton figures out the irony, maybe he'll understand better why homophobia
is so ridiculous.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 367 of 404:
|
Dec 1 14:06 UTC 1998 |
Ejaculate and blood both carry the AIDS virus, but it also seems to me that
female to male transmission is less common than male to female because the
female system is designed to intake ejaculate (semen), whereas the male system
isn't, so it seems to me that the only way a male could get HIV from a female
is either by swallowing a significant amount of her fluids (ejaculate and/or
blood), or by the misfortune of having a small cut somewhere (possibly, by
getting it into the urethra and having it infect into the bloodstream). I
mention the urethra because men do occasionally get yeast infections there
(and they are, allegedly, significantly more painful when they happen than
female yeast infections are), and I know one person who admitted to getting
an e coli infection there, so things DO creep in.
All right, enough ick for one post. =}
|
mary
|
|
response 368 of 404:
|
Dec 1 14:14 UTC 1998 |
There is a lot of misinformation in this discussion regarding the
transmission of the HIV. The virus gets transmitted
when infected body fluids come into contact with blood, broken
skin or mucus membranes. The lining of the sigmoid colon is
like the vagina so you don't need rips or tears to be at risk.
Splash infected blood in your eye and you have the same hazard.
The mucus membranes of the mouth would allow the same transmission but for
the pH of saliva, which makes the environment hostile. HIV is really
quite a fragile virus. Last I heard the CDC was stating that transmission
of HIV through kissing without the exchange of fluid was totally safe.
Deep kissing, even though it had not been proven to be the route of any
known infections, could not be ruled out as a potential risk.
|
mary
|
|
response 369 of 404:
|
Dec 1 14:18 UTC 1998 |
Paul slipped in. The lining of the urethra (even the part that
is in your penis at the glans) is mucus membrane and any infected
fluid in contact with that tissue puts the male at risk.
|
lumen
|
|
response 370 of 404:
|
Dec 1 17:41 UTC 1998 |
re #367: I thought I had inferred that, but thanks for clarifying. re
#367-369: yes, the urethra lining is mucus membrane, but is a lot smaller,
and usually, fluids aren't injected backwards through that opening.
<raunch = off>
|
brighn
|
|
response 371 of 404:
|
Dec 2 04:30 UTC 1998 |
I don't know what you inferred, Jon.
If you mean that you implied it, then yeah, I was clarifying.
Quickie language lesson:
"I inferred x" means that, from what you said, I determined that x was true.
"I implied x" means that, from what I said, I meant for you to determine x
was true.
On an interpersonal communication level, it's typically better to say "I
inferred x" than "you implied x," because the latter is accusatory and may
be untrue. ("I feel that you implied x" serves the same function as "I
inferred x".)
End of lesson.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 372 of 404:
|
Dec 2 04:48 UTC 1998 |
Slight correction: infer and imply do not concern truth, but only information
conveyed. "I inferred x" means that, from what you said, *I understand
that you are saying you mean x*.
|
remmers
|
|
response 373 of 404:
|
Dec 2 12:58 UTC 1998 |
(I disagree partially with Rane, but won't say why, so as not to
contribute to this line of drift. Let's get back to gay-bashing issues
and icky stuff.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 374 of 404:
|
Dec 2 16:21 UTC 1998 |
That's not a correction, Rane. I wasn't discussing truth, I was discussing
perceived truth... If I want you to believe x but don't wish to say it
directly, I''ll imply it... particularly good for politicos.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 375 of 404:
|
Dec 2 16:37 UTC 1998 |
(Sorry John...) By implying it all you are doing is conveying a view or
opinion. The inference of truth is a simple error by the inferee.
|
keesan
|
|
response 376 of 404:
|
Dec 2 18:58 UTC 1998 |
I infer that Rane likes to argue fine points of vocabulary.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 377 of 404:
|
Dec 2 22:24 UTC 1998 |
That is a case in point, as the inference is not true. You might infer instead
that I like to argue with pedants. 8^}
|
faile
|
|
response 378 of 404:
|
Dec 2 23:48 UTC 1998 |
<jessi ducks, and asks someone to let her know when this blows over>
|
brighn
|
|
response 379 of 404:
|
Dec 3 01:43 UTC 1998 |
#375> But an inference NEED NOT be false, either. I think we're arguing
objective vs. subjective truth, and it seems that for you a "truth" must be
objectively true...
Let us say, in response to the question, "Did you and Monica ever have sexual
relations." I respond, "Monica and I did not have a sexual relationship. I
never had sex with Monica." I intend to imply that Monica nad I never had
sexual relations, which is a fair inferrence from my response. In order for
me to imply this, the truth value of "Monica and I had sexual relations" is
irrelevant... what is relevant is the truth value I want you to infer for
"Monica and I had sexual relations."
Which is what I said at the outset.
This is different from a presupposition. In saying, "I corrected you," you
pressuppose, "You said something inaccurate." Since I never said anything
inaccurate, you could not have corrected me.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 380 of 404:
|
Dec 3 05:11 UTC 1998 |
I only infer from the statement made that you have said that you did not
have sexual relations with Monica (I also infer that you seem to get
around....). I have no idea what you intended to imply - I only know what
you said. This is especially true as the statement is ambiguous, as what
constitutes "having sex" is not self-evident. *I* have sex - I am male. A
man talking to a woman is a sexual relation (among many other things). I
think that what is inferred from that statement reflects more upon the
predilections of the inferee (perhaps, to "believe the worst"?) than in
the content of the message.
|
brighn
|
|
response 381 of 404:
|
Dec 3 06:38 UTC 1998 |
I just forgot... are we arguing?
I think we're just saying the same thing and giving everyone else headaches.
I think we should both stop showing off. =}
|
senna
|
|
response 382 of 404:
|
Dec 3 13:51 UTC 1998 |
My god. It's a logic course.
Can I get credit for reading this?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 383 of 404:
|
Dec 3 16:18 UTC 1998 |
Yes, but you have to pay tuition first. Send tuition to Grex, Office of
Admissions, and we will credit you.
|
brighn
|
|
response 384 of 404:
|
Dec 3 19:07 UTC 1998 |
Actually, it's a rhetorics course.
Make checks payable to Paul Kershaw, Direcotr of Admissions.
Any amount will do.
|
md
|
|
response 385 of 404:
|
Dec 3 20:55 UTC 1998 |
And we wonder why M-Netters find Grex boring.
|
brighn
|
|
response 386 of 404:
|
Dec 3 23:24 UTC 1998 |
No ideas, m'self. I'm having a good time.
Aren't you, Rane?
|