/sugg/ - Suggestions / Meta

>>3868
I could have spent more time on that post; unfortunately I do not have an editor to review my writings before I post, and Seisatsu's interference with my thread was very unexpected.

Here's a crosslink for Seisatsu's post I quoted in the OP: >>>/ot/23094

> I though that my thread
I thought
> interference unjustified
interference _is_ unjustified

not sure how well said behaviour is if you insist continue the discussion on a new post when the original thread had been locked and ergo go against moderation, as well as then going so far as to threaten the chan as a whole to go on your shit list

your shameless bumping and even posting lorum ipsum on a chan as slow as this is also, i think, not particulary justifiable as clearly no one showed interest and yet you kept forcing it to the top.

do tell what you intend to do if this chan is on your shit list, good Samaritan?

>>>/ot/23094
> Yes there are medical risks to anal sex
"Women in the UK are suffering injuries and other health problems as a result of the growing popularity of anal sex among straight couples, two NHS [British National Health Service] surgeons have warned. The consequences include [fecal] incontinence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well as pain and bleeding because they have experienced bodily trauma while engaging in the practice, the doctors write in an article in the British Medical Journal. Tabitha Gana and Lesley Hunt also argued that doctors’ reluctance to discuss the risks associated with anal sex was leading to women being harmed by the practice and letting down a generation of women who are not aware of the potential problems."
… "National Survey of Sexual Attitudes research undertaken in Britain has found that the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds engaging in heterosexual anal intercourse has risen from 12.5% to 28.5% over recent decades. Similarly, in the US 30% to 45% of both sexes have experienced it. “It is no longer considered an extreme behaviour but increasingly portrayed as a prized and pleasurable experience,” wrote Hunt, a surgeon in Sheffield, and Gana, a trainee colorectal surgeon in Yorkshire."
"Many doctors, though, especially GPs and hospital doctors, are reluctant to talk to women about the risks involved, partly because they do not want to seem judgmental or homophobic, they add. “However, with such a high proportion of young women now having anal sex, failure to discuss it when they present with anorectal symptoms exposes women to missed diagnoses, futile treatments and further harm arising from a lack of medical advice,” the surgeons said. NHS patient information about the risks of anal sex is incomplete because it only cites STIs, and makes “no mention of anal trauma, [fecal] incontinence or the psychological aftermath of the coercion young women report in relation to this activity”. Health professionals’ disinclination to discuss the practice openly with patients “may be failing a generation of young women, who are unaware of the risks”."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popularity-of-anal-sex-has-led-to-health-problems-for-women
Rise in popularity of anal sex has led to health problems for women
Incontinence, bleeding and STIs among consequences, say two surgeons, who want doctors to raise the topic with patients
[The article text was edited slightly to condense it into fewer lines.]

>>>/ot/23094
> ultimately the choice lies with the receptive participant
I wrote this recently elsewhere: many—probably even most—receptive people are not aware of all of the risks involved, particularly the traumatic risks to themselves. As I pointed out numerous times over the years with varying wording, there wouldn't be so many people engaging in clearly destructive anoreceptive acts if they were aware of all of the risks involved to themselves — most especially the traumatic risks.

This currently is included in Trends & Associations (did you even bother to look at it?):

"Pornography has become a primary source of sexual education. At the same time, mainstream commercial pornography has coalesced around a relatively homogenous script involving violence and female degradation. Yet, little work has been done exploring the associations between pornography and dyadic sexual encounters: What role does pornography play inside real-world sexual encounters between a man and a woman? Cognitive script theory argues media scripts create a readily accessible heuristic model for decision-making. The more a user watches a particular media script, the more embedded those codes of behavior become in their worldview and the more likely they are to use those scripts to act upon real life experiences. We argue pornography creates a sexual script that then guides sexual experiences. To test this, we surveyed 487 college men (ages 18-29 years) in the United States to compare their rate of pornography use with sexual preferences and concerns. Results showed the more pornography a man watches, the more likely he was to use it during sex, request particular pornographic sex acts of his partner, [and] deliberately conjure images of pornography during sex to maintain arousal…"
"Pornography and the Male Sexual Script: An Analysis of Consumption and Sexual Relations." Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2016 May; 45(4): 983-94. PMID 25466233. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0391-2.
[The abstract text was corrected — "Erratum To: Pornography and the Male Sexual Script: An Analysis of Consumption and Sexual Relations." Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2016 May; 45(4): 995. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0744-0. (PMID 27025728)]

>>3873
> This currently is included in Trends & Associations (did you even bother to look at it?)
This too:

"Experts say teenage girls are copying what they see in pornography and seeking treatment from family doctors for injuries sustained during “rough sex”. They believe it’s part of the dark side of the sexualisation of the internet generation."
… "According to Reality and Risk, more than 90 per cent of boys and 60 per cent of girls have watched pornography online. Of those videos, more than 88 per cent include physical aggression."
… "Allison Pearson, a columnist for The Telegraph in London, wrote earlier this year that young women are engaging in sex that their bodies are “simply not designed for”. She said a GP she spoke with confessed a growing number of teenage girls were being treated for internal injuries caused by frequent anal sex “not because (they) wanted to, or because (they) enjoyed it — on the contrary — because a boy expected (them) to”."
… "[Dr Meagan Tyler, a research fellow at RMIT University] said research shows women are suffering from faecal incontinence as a result of anal sex and that they’re “uncomfortable” with the assumption that it’s become “the norm”. “That’s the brutal material reality for what it means for these young women’s lives.”"
… "Dr Tyler said tackling the problem is not easy but it’s time educators had a more realistic conversation with young people about what they’re seeing online. “You can’t pretend pornography doesn’t exist,” she said. “I think we’re getting somewhere in that there’s more public discussion about it (but) we’re going to need to start talking about more serious and comprehensive sex education.”"
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/boner-garage-posts-a-window-into-the-world-of-sexualised-young-women-online/news-story/f7d83a68c48e378027430fd8e93da349 (June 02, 2015)

>>3871
> the original thread had been locked
Yes it has been, for invalid reasons as I explained. I expect it to be unlocked.
> posting lorum ipsum
I did not post that. Somebody else did.
> threaten the chan as a whole to go on your shit list
I do not lightly include a site in that list. Seisatsu, if (s)he does not reverse course, has earned this site's inclusion in it for reasons that ought to be very obvious from what I pointed out previously.
> do tell what you intend to do if this chan is on your shit list, good Samaritan?
Speaking of someone ignoring what I wrote… As I pointed out countless times before, ultimately this is not about me. See also what was written about logically-fallacious diversionary tactics, reproduced below.

Logically-fallacious diversionary tactics:
• A red herring is a tangential topic introduced intentionally as a distraction or inadvertently. Trying to create an unrelated discussion about a messenger or claimant (e.g. by introducing alleged personal attributes or asking about unstated opinions) is one _very_ common example.
• An ad hominem logical fallacy involves arguing or implying that some supposed attribute(s) of a messenger or source somehow affects the validity of one or more claims presented when any such characteristic is completely irrelevant — and this is nonsensical for cases in which information originates from others. (Sometimes such characteristics can be relevant: For example, it may be appropriate to question someone's honesty when she makes a claim about herself or her own experiences. However, a better idea may be to mention the anecdotal evidence logical fallacy, i.e. favoring some personal anecdote(s) over evidence based on science and logic.)
• Misrepresentation—introducing a distorted version of something—is another means of creating a diversion. Attacking a fabrication in order to suggest refutal of what was actually presented constitutes a straw man logical fallacy. (A refutation featuring one or more vague, sweeping claims without proof may be related. The burden of proof rests on the claimant.)

It is suggestive of a nefarious agenda and/or psychopathy to purposely and repeatedly try to draw attention away from anorectal anatomy and physiology, rampant anorectal violence, associated traumatic risks, and an epidemic of ignorance and misinformation. These topics, plus the voluminous amount of information from others, are far more important than anything about a lone person trying to raise awareness of them. It is very likely that pornography industries utilize psychopaths as deceitful and manipulative "psyop" agents when some pornography companies already make use of them for perpetration of violence against one or more others.

>>3868

You're right, I did not read your entire article and full thread in the little time I have each day to make moderation decisions, I spent about 10 minutes gathering what I could from the posts (admittedly while still waking up) and made a judgment based on my personal biases, and drew on my experiences with ways that people try to mask propaganda. This is very spammy and uncomfortable but I guess it's valuable info and really doesn't violate any rules. I really don't have the time or energy to fully examine something this girthy so I'll take your word for your motivations. Sorry I locked your thread, I will unlock it now and lock this one.