As with all sexual interaction, indeed all human interaction, there are risks associated with anal intercourse.

The most commonly discussed risks are those related to transmission of infections – which are not truly the result of anal intercourse, per se, but the result of a lack of monogamy.

There are very few risks to “normal” anal sex provided that adequate amounts of lubricant are used and there is sufficient pre-insertive preparation. Although some anti-gay or anti-sex sites make bizarre scare claims, regular anal sex between monogamous partners who are free from infections have minimal risks.

This information is very readily available on a number of health sites on the internet. When perusing them, it is wise to avoid anti-gay political sites as they are not scientific or factual, and to be careful to distinguish between SDI risks (e.g. HPV transmission) and actual anal sex risks.

While this question is worth asking, sadly it was not one answered by Holsinger’s paper.

ATR works under the premise that his statements should be accepted at face value. Take as just one example the following assertion: “lesions in the penis (which occur even with lubrication, and condoms break).”

This is provided as though it is accepted fact. The implication is that lesions on the penis are so common as to be a relevant factor in bacterial disease transmission. No references are provided to support this startling presumption.

Well ATR is partially correct – though he got his facts wrong. In Africa and Asia there is indeed a problem with HIV tranmission from women to men during vaginal sex due to lesions on the penis. But they are generally the result of pre-existing STDs and not as a consequence of the sexual act itself.

But as for bacterial transmission resulting from anal sex and the confluence of lesions and breaking condoms in the United States… well, let’s just say that this hasn’t occured to the point where it has become relevant to the conversation.

But more disturbing than ATR’s willingness to fling unsubstantiated claims into the mix is 1) his willingness to extrapolate attributes from the clearly-nonrepresentative sample to the populations at large, 2) his refusal to separate anal sex per se from anal sex in certain circumstances, and 3) his false pretenses. Let me explain (the numbers tie):

1) As Jim clearly explained (and anyone rational can understand) the STD rates of those at STD clinics are not indicative of STD rates for people who are NOT at STD clinics. Yet ATR demanded that this was, indeed, the case and argued “How do you know that this population is neatly distinguishable from the ‘ordinary’ population?”

2) ATR argues that anal sex increases the risks of anal cancer and other various STDs. Yet the transmission of STDs requires the presense of STDs.

For that married couple who practice anal sex and who have never had another sexual partner, there simply is no way that anal sex can increase these risks. The act of anal sex does not spontaneously generate a virus.

And as for “sticking rather large objects into the anus”, well I don’t know if ATR is trying to compliment those who participate in anal sex, but in anal sex which involves a penis, in most cases that which goes in is not generally significantly larger than that which might be expected to pass out on a regular basis. (I hope that wasn’t too graphic or tasteless).

But ATR (and Holsinger) would have us believe that anal sex per se has the same risks as anal sex involving large foreign sharp pointed objects.

3) ATR would have us believe that his objection is to anal sex and not to homosexuality. His pretense is that he opposes heterosexual anal sex equally. But when looking at the entirety of his rants, it’s clear that they are not rants against anal sex, but rather rants against homosexual men. Look, for example, at this word choice: the extremist homosexual lobby. The only people who use this word combination are anti-gay activists. It does not occur elsewhere. Those who do not participate in conservative Christian activism are unlikely to have ever heard that combination and never use it.

Then look at ATR’s angry response to the suggestion that all sex is dangerous. Vaginal sex is forgivable for being dangerous because it results in procreation – in other words because it is heterosexual.

So when ATR makes the claim “You don’t know anything about me or my politics regarding homosexuality.” he’s mistaken. I think I have a pretty good idea about ATR’s politics.

Finally, let me say that there may indeed be some risks of anal sex that are not present in vaginal or oral sex – even for those who are monogamous and have had but each other as partners. But these risks have not been demonstrated either by Holsinger nor by ATR.

To oppose homosexuality per se, they have to impose on homosexuality the assumption that it always includes anal sexs. And to oppose anal sex per se, they have to impose on it the assumption that it is always in the presense of a virus or the use of large sharp objects. None of their arguments can stand alone.

And this is simply unacceptable in either a medical doctor or an academic. It is sad that those who are trained to be objective have such deep-seeded biases that they are compelled to toss out the rules of logic and good research.

If I violated your comments policy, I apologize for it. I have a shorter level of tolerance for people like ATR. I don’t engage in a rational debate with him because I don’t see him as capable of making one or even interested in it. I’m also more accustomed to rowdier venues, and it shows. But this is your house, and we play by your rules.

To A of TR –

I’m willing to meet you again, sir, on a field of your choosing. Pistols at dawn!

I did, and laughed all the way through. Thanks for reminding me.