Because we masturbate. It says so here.
Have at it, heathens. And thanks, Bro. Stan, for the link.
-
Search It!
-
Recent Entries
- Kids? I gotta go.
- And again! Happy Labor Day!
- Spanish health care providers say yes to caring for immigrants
- I’ll say it again: Happy Labor Day!
- How to provide for your family if you’re famous but not-rich
- Catholic leader says some children seduce pedophiles into action
- It’s Labor Day! Time for a picnic!
- Bless Joplin’s heart
- And a dead woman will lead them
- Hmmm….
-
Links
Well…………………
…maybe ten minutes…..
The linked article seems like it was written by two different people. What a bizarre experiment. Wouldn’t it have been a lot simpler if the men had used condoms? Don’t the Brits have the equivalent of an Institutional Review Board? Unprotected sex between unmarried partners in the age of AIDS and other STDs?
Other than that, I think it’s a valid question to ask if having 24/7 access to electronic imagery is going to cause our own imagination and visualization abilities to atrophy.
I scanned the article quickly … thanks, DJ, I think I’ll have to blog it … and gleaned that we’re special because we masturbate, and the writer suggests we masturbate because only we can fantasize.
Which I think is a stretch, despite the speculation of some evolutionary biologists.
And Sharon … my reading of the article is that they weren’t just collecting sperms, so they needed people who don’t use condoms. The article also didn’t say “unmarried.” It just said heterosexual couples.
And since you went there, I’m going to say something that is colossally incorrect, but only politically and socially: The chance of getting AIDS is almost nil for those who are strictly heterosexual and don’t use intravenous drugs.
Which is not to say people shouldn’t be careful and practice safe sex. And there has been a value in wanting everyone to be on-board with efforts to combat the disease and find a cure. But I think the extent to which fear of AIDS has been bound to any sexual activity is unhealthy.
How do you figure, the chance of getting AIDS is almost nil etc.?
Only if the couple involved is monogamous…
That’s my take on it. And that they have been monogamous for some time.
It didn’t say “unmarried,” but it did refer to “girlfriend” or “boyfriend,” so I assumed from there.
There are many reputable sources of numbers to back up what I am saying.
I looked for a good quick summary, here’s one …
“the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million. With a condom it’s even safer–one in 50 million. Just to put this in perspective, the chances of someone in your family getting injured next year in a bubble bath are 1 in 1.3 million (source: The Odds on Virtually Everything, Heron House, 1980). You’re in much greater danger of being struck by lightning (1 in 600,000), having your house bombed (1 in 290,000), or being murdered (1 in 11,000). ”
As a writer and as a person, I’ve become a little irked at the pervasiveness of the “sex can kill you” meme. It’s very strange to me, based on the numbers, that the sex act, itself, is so closely linked with death in the public mind.
Maybe that was to bring people back from the brink of godless coupling? Dunno. But your numbers are pretty daunting.
I think that’s part of it, certainly.
So I take it those numbers aren’t what you would have guessed.
They are not. The chances are much lower than I would have guessed.
“It’s very strange to me, based on the numbers, that the sex act, itself, is so closely linked with death in the public mind.”
Compared to the 70s, when I lost my virginity, and when the Pill was all a woman needed, … yeah … in the 80s I was completely and thoroughly indoctrinated. If you don’t know your partner’s sexual history for the last 10 years, you’d better be using a condom.
I’ve done a lot of reading on this … and it’s a 25 year story that I won’t attempt to some up in a couple of paragraphs. There came a time in the 1990s when I wondered, “Just what is it that I should be afraid of, here?” And I found that the answer was: Not very much, at least for myself.
Fear … I’m generally against it.
Amen. A clenched muscle doesn’t work as well as a relaxed one.