You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
People who have had more than five oral-sex partners in their lifetime are 250% more likely to have throat cancer than those who do not have oral sex, a new study suggests.
The researchers believe this is because oral sex may transmit human papillomavirus (HPV), the virus implicated in the majority of cervical cancers.
Well, I guess there is always porn - at least until they find it causes eye cancer.
25 Comments:
This is depressing news, It's been awhile for me anyway, but being single and looking for Mr. right, this takes the enjoyment out of it. Is there any safe way to get around this and still be able to have oral sex? Now the Fundies will say this is another punishment From God, I can just hear it already.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/10/2007 8:59 PM
If sucking only five cocks is worse than smoking, then I am the equivalent of a 250 pack a day smoker with the amount of dicks I've blown. I'm fucking doomed.
Earl, in addition to us, its also going to impact a lot of heterosexual men too who like nothing more than for a woman to go down on them, including many in the right wing community, to say nothing of the impact it will have on heterosexual prostitution. I guess for those to which this applies they'd need to resort to a dental dam, assuming the results of this study are accurate and can be verified.
If sucking only five cocks is worse than smoking, then I am the equivalent of a 250 pack a day smoker with the amount of dicks I've blown. I'm fucking doomed.
The incidence of throat cancer is much lower than lung cancer, so your risks of throat cancer are still significantly lower. 2.5 times the risk of something that isn't very likely is still not very likely. Not that it is good for those who get it, but I think there are a lot of other things to worry about.
Are you demonstrating, once again, that gay men are statistically living shorter lives because of their sexual activites and culture?
Just curious as to what point you were trying to make about gays, sexual activity and dealy diseases.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/11/2007 11:17 PM
No anon, as usual, like people on the right, you ASSUME that all gay people (or any other minority for that matter) are exactly the same. The point is that promiscuity has it's risks whether homo or hetero. I and most of my gay friends have not had nearly the number of sex partners that you would like to believe we've had. But of course it's easier to hate people if you think 'they deserve it'. Red V
posted by Anonymous, at
5/12/2007 9:43 AM
Red....the right wing will say or do anything to bring us down. If oral sex does prove to be linked to some form of throat cancer, you can bet they'll labor that a gay disease just as they did with AIDS. It would be tantamount to saying that cancer is a straight disease simply because more heterosexuals get it than do homosexuals per capita, its an absurd assumption either way. I often wonder how heterosexuals would have reacted had AIDS been overhwelmingly heterosexually transmitted. If only!
I am skeptical about this study, and I hope it will be subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Oral sex is VERY common, among heterosexual as well as homosexual folk. If the transmission risk were as great as this study suggests, we'd surely be hearing about an epidemic of throat cancer. The ranks of Gay porn stars alone would be decimated by the disease. I take this news with a hefty grain of salt.
That said, anybody who participates regularly in oral sex needs to be observing hygienic practices. Don't ever swallow ejaculate! Don't fellate people who insist on ejaculating in your mouth after you've asked them not to! And gargle with disinfectant as soon as you can after performing fellatio.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
5/12/2007 1:14 PM
And if I was such a horrible person - I would not have suggested getting a vaccination. DUH???
posted by Anonymous, at
5/12/2007 1:36 PM
Robert in NYC, at 12:31 you made this interesting observation:
"I often wonder how heterosexuals would have reacted had AIDS been overhwelmingly heterosexually transmitted".
Yes, a good point. It is worth remembering, I think, that currently in several African countries there are HUGE rates of HIV infection, and it is overwhelmingly caused by completely irresponsible HETEROSEXUAL promiscuity.
In 1987 a high-ranking UK Police Officer called Sir James Anderton hit the media because he said with reference to AIDS, that gays were "swirling around in a cesspool of their own making".
His voice and others like it are conspicuously silent regarding who is swirling around in what in African countries twenty years later. No-one is calling AIDS deaths in African countries God's judgement on heterosexuals.
Some months ago, however, a commentator on the NARTH website tried to "spin" the comments of an African politician to suggest that it was homosexuality that was causing HIV in Africa. My disgust at NARTH reached new heights at that.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/12/2007 2:03 PM
No anon I am not sooooo ignorant of myself or crying politcal fanatic. It was the TONE of your first post that was offensive---we've heard it all before with the AIDS epidemic et. al. The commenter *pretends* to be concerned about the health of gay men, but the undertone is thinly veiled finger wagging moralizer. Do we over-react sometimes?---hell yeah! Most minorites DO when there is even the hint of the old oppression and bigotry under which they (we've) suffered for centuries. And if there's a vaccine, I think we have the wherewithall to get one if we think we need one. Duh yourself! Red V
posted by Anonymous, at
5/12/2007 2:35 PM
That tone was your own "conflict" being projected on to someone else.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/12/2007 3:06 PM
OH - and duh there is a vaccine. Or maybe you don't watch T.V. ?? And now you have just exposed your ignorance again since the HPV vaccine has been flouted in recent news. DUH?? I can tell you are a person who is keeping up on health risks and preventitive medicine. For a gay man who want to attack others on information and knowledge - you sure do seem lack ALOT yourself. FYI - warn your partners that you're not informed.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/12/2007 3:15 PM
You may go to planned Parenthood. It is three shots at a cost. It is not yet funded by the government. I am not aware of an HPV antibodies test but could it hurt to cover yourself???
posted by Anonymous, at
5/12/2007 3:51 PM
Phil, I so concur with you. I truly believe that one day, WE will win, truth is on our side, slowly but surely. Don't give up, any of YOU, we WILL be victorious, don't let the bigots win. Hang in there! Remember, 2008....[they] can no longer use wedge issues to divide us. And............forget Obama.......and Clinton none of whom believe in equality! I'm not enamored of any democrat since none has ever earned my vote with the exception of NY State Governor Eliot Spitzer,Sens. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Don't forget the Greens, the only party with a REAL platform.
Anonymous whoever you are or whoever is paying you (maybe NARTH, Focus on the Family or something), why don't you spend your time and energy educating heterosexuals about their own promiscuity starting with the hetero brothels and prostitutes who engage in high risk behavior and why are you so obsessed with our private sex lives anyway?
Another thing Anonymous....why don't you give your time to young heterosexuals who are having unprotected sex at alarming rates instead of preaching to the choir if you're so concerned about STD's. Get your own house in order first. You seem to have some prurient interest in Gay websites, I wonder why.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/13/2007 6:13 PM
Robert - you attacked me for stating the obvious and then I backed it up with facts from your own community (as if to educate you) Since, you claim I am preaching to the choir then so be it. It's just that you don't sound too informed or are trying to mask the obvious by calling me names. Why don't you go attack the right wingers.
Actually, you sound like you are embarrassed for making such an obvious faux pas and now just have too much pride (no pun intended) to stop arguing.
I used to be gay. Now I watch this blog because he claims that being ex gay is a myth.
Hmmm. Answer your question.
BTW, I doubt you volunteer any measurable time at the GMHC - otherwise you would have been aware of this issue and topic.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/13/2007 6:44 PM
Robert,
In all honesty, remember the 1980's and the early 90's when all of our friends were dying left and right??? I do.
Why can't you look passed your own nose and take what information is of value and use it rather than entangle yourself in some argument that I did not start??
Don't you think Earl in Monroe could use some education? I do. How many more people have to suffer?? I ask you - how many more because of ignorance, prejudice, mistrust etc...?
HOW MANY?!
But then you "volunteer". And you know everything. Okay.
You sure do sound silly to me. You are not about helping people or looking out for your community. You have some straight woman come here and make suggestions to you - and then you have every bit of hostility that you can summon up just to spit on me and leave your brothers in the dust -or the grave.
Anonymous,you're nothing but a phoney. You volunteer NOWHERE. You assume the air of moral superiority by calling me silly and stupid. You're probably not even a socalled "ex-gay" but a homophobe of the worst kind. An ex-gay volunteering at a legitimate Gay center, puhleeeeeeez! Contrary to anything aversion therapy teaches.
