We should ban anal sex

Can we have legal slavery if we call it a public health law?

 

Why not? Some racist can declare "Blacks are too dangerous to society, to be allowed to roam around freely. They need to be in chains and watched over by white people. It's a public health matter."

(BTW, we've seen a few here at PF, who come DAMN close to saying that, don't we?)

 

Why are you trying to prevent me from being a pain in my wife's ass?

 

Makes no difference.

 

Because he wants to be a pain in your ass.

 

No woman ever let me do this including my wife. I am apparently not the physical "type" for it. So, no skin off my nose if its banned.

How will this law be enforced though?

 

You didn't try tequila did you?

 

LOL. I tried quite a few things and narrowly missed getting a broken ribcage from a kick or two. No more trick shots from me.

 

While it is true that there are precedents for regulating behaviors that cost the system more money, the biggest issue (aside from the obvious legal precedent that has deemed laws of this nature unconstitutional) with this law is that it's unenforcible.

Even if it passed with no connection to religion and was somehow not struck down by the courts, you couldn't really enforce it except if the act was public -- which there are already laws against public sex anyway.

 

Did you try chloroform?
Enjoy!

 

First, it doesn't matter AT ALL how many hetero women (and therefore also men) do it. This law would be non-discriminatory, applying of all orientations equally. And I don't propose cameras in bedrooms, no. All the forth amendment protections that we have left would still apply.

>>>MOD EDIT Trolling Removed<<<

 

This thread is kind of scary. It opens up the possibility of soooo many a**hole jokes, particularly about our beloved politicians.
Enjoy!

 

What, are you saying it's merely a matter of semantics? Do you dispute the increased health risk of anal in comparison with other forms of sex? Or are you just trying to play the tired gays/blacks equivocation shtick again?

- - - Updated - - -

And why is that, in your own words? Try to actually construct an argument, if you can.

 

I believe this law is sufficiently different from similar laws to warrant a different judgement. Old sodomy laws are all attempting to enforce morality, not public health.

True, mostly this would rely on self enforcement combined with the type of education that would be given in cases when something is illegal. IOW, sex ed classes would say "don't do this" instead of "here's how try getting away with doing this dangerous act without consequence".

 

If you don't want to get an STD through anal sex then there's a simple solution: don't have anal sex. Others might feel that the [risk]x[hazard] posed by anal sex is worth it for the pleasure or whatever else. That's their business, their health is their own concern.

Government will come up with whatever excuse it can to squeeze sovereignty from the individual and place it in legislative bodies and with the majority.

 

I fully agree that this would be acceptable, if society had no obligation to pay for the associated costs of such behavior. If we lived in an "every man for himself" society, then people should be able to do whatever jackassery they can imagine. But we don't. Saying, "you can do whatever you want, and we'll pay for it" just cannot work as a policy. This is, of course, just part of a larger issue.

 

Now why would you want to do that? Are those things high risk activities? How would that serve the public health?

 

Just telling people not to do something only works to a point.

DARE, for example, is aimed at showing kids why using drugs is dangerous, but I've yet to see any evidence of it lowering drug use.

Sex education is more about how sex works than it is about telling people what to do and what not to. Granted, it does explain all of the nasty VDs you can get and how to use a condom.

- - - Updated - - -

Oral sex has increased the spread of HPV considerably and led to an increase in the oral cancers related to HPV.

 

Ummm yes- I am saying it is a matter of semantics.

The Supreme Court has ruled that laws against consensual sodomy- aka anal sex- are unconstitutional.

They are as unconstitutional as if a state passed a law permitting slavery of black people with the excuse that they were going to use the law to reduce sickle cell anemia.

 

Yeah its just like Iran, only more technologically advanced, now you can put video cameras into people's bedrooms. I wonder where all that funding will come from. The taxpayers? Nah, no way. The evangelicals will send in donations, that must be enough to cover such a large and expensive big brother program.

 

The people receiving the health service don't pay for the service. We've collectivized the cost, such that any individual's decline in health costs society. If we stopped doing that all of a sudden it becomes possible.

Jackassery is only wrong when it interferes with the property of others.

 

Why not just ban sex all together? The actual act of sex is no longer required for procreation today. Then the STD rate would be near zero.

Not to mention males would develop big strong right arms. . .

 

But if cost is the issue, I think it's been shown pretty clearly that socialized medicine and having some form of a social safety net are cheaper in consequences than systems without them.

America pays a pretty hefty cost on anything medical, and countries without any social safety net usually pay a pretty high price in terms of crime.

 

DARE is a bad example. The program is more of an advertisement for drugs than anything else. "Hey kids, this is what heroin looks like, and here's how you do it. Now, don't do it now, OK? (wink, wink)" Prison is big business; they don't want people to stop using drugs.

Now that is concerning. But is it more risky than normal sex, and if so, how much?

 

All sex is a known health hazard- and anal sex is associated with a relatively small portion of the STD's in America.

Lets look at STD's- 2012
Chlamedia- 1,422,976 cases
Gonorrhea- 334,826 case
Syphilis- 15,667 cases
HPV- numbers unknown- but 1.6% of women for all ages.
Herpes- maybe 240,000 cases
HIV- (2011) new cases 32,000

Of those cases- most of them are the result of heterosexual sex.

A law requiring condoms for all sex acts except if attempting pregnancy would actually address the issue on a much broader scale.

Not that I think that any such laws would work- but if we are proposing theoretical laws, and assuming that adults will actually follow them- then a law requiring condom use would be far more effective at reducing STD's.

I mean if that is what you really want to accomplish.