Please address rampant anoreceptive violence along with factors facilitating it.

I'll probably create a PDF with my summaries plus the references soon. That will be less bothersome than posting the references as 5-6 separate images. (This is only a stopgap measure until the next references compilation is finalized. On places where I encounter repeated censorship I don't normally try to post the individual images too often.) Now is a good time for feedback on all of those sources I'm citing, before the next compilation is done. Currently I'm trying to skim through every study that I cite looking for obvious "why am I citing this!?" issues. That said, humans do make mistakes: If I try to weed out studies (or books for that matter) with mistakes, I'll probably be left with very few to cite... Generally, unless I quote something, don't expect me to defend it. For my own quotes I can fix others' mistakes with brackets if necessary (c.f. all of those bracketed additions clarifying hemorrhoidal terminology). Remember: Even very flawed sources can offer tidbits of truth (although I do hope that I'm not citing anything which anyone could provably call "very flawed"). Painting a flawed source as "it's all wrong because of these mistakes!" is ad hominem thinking. If I quote anything that is provably wrong, let's talk; I may just do something about that. (N.B. TAKE ACTION variant 9 purposely does not include my "justice" paste nor my "decadence" paste. Material in Trends & Associations should speak for itself.)

Here are additional reference images once again.

>>52160 Here is AR3 for completeness. Speaking of flawed sources, the "gay bowel syndrome" study might qualify. I haven't seen any convincing argument against it however; only ad hominem ones. I am aware that correlation does not equal causation, but sometimes correlation can be strongly suggestive of causation and may warrant further investigation of etiology (causation). I'm very tempted to quote the following, but I'd have to add bracketed qualifiers. Tempting, but ... no. "Anal sex is mechanically similar to large stools and straining, only in reverse and much longer in duration. In addition to fissures and [hemorrhoidal disease], it is likely to cause infections and ulcerations that may turn cancerous. Also, by age 35-40, anal sex is likely to provoke irreversible, anorectal nerve damage that commonly precedes chronic constipation." https://web.archive.org/web/20211008031129/https://www.gutsense.org/colon-cancer/avoid-cancer-triggers.html

>>52165 > I'm very tempted to quote the following, but I'd have to add bracketed qualifiers. Tempting, but ... no. Here's what I mean. It's basically putting words into someone else's mouth, which is a bit too much (and I experience far too much of that myself). If a source is vague, it's not up to me to determine precisely what was meant. "[Prolonged girthy and vigorous] Anal sex is mechanically similar to large stools and straining, only in reverse and much longer in duration. In addition to fissures and [hemorrhoidal disease], it is likely to cause infections and ulcerations that may turn cancerous. Also, by age 35-40, [repeated? repeated girthy and vigorous? regular girthy and vigorous? etc.] anal sex is likely to provoke irreversible, anorectal nerve damage that commonly precedes chronic constipation." I'd probably have to throw in a "receptive" or two in there somewhere as well. I'd rather just ask the author for sources, if they have any, and consider citing those sources with a much less vague summary/paste I write backed up by said sources. >>52160 > Currently I'm trying to skim through every study that I cite looking for obvious "why am I citing this!?" issues. Here is an example of one such issue. I currently cite PMC2710774. It has plenty of good information. In a portion that I do not quote, however, is this statement (not citing another source; it's a direct claim): "It is important to note that there is no increased risk of cancer in hemorrhoids." That contradicts this source: "Colorectal Cancer Risk in Patients with Hemorrhoids: A 10-Year Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021 Aug; 18(16): 8655. PMC8394877. doi:10.3390/ijerph18168655. Key point from that study: Hemorrhoidal disease is associated with anal/colorectal cancer, likely due to chronic regional inflammation. The study has its own issues however, such as this one (from a post of mine elsewhere): It seems unclear whether internal hemorrhoidal prolapse and external hemorrhoidal thrombosis on their own are linked to cancer development. Rather, potential complications of hemorrhoidal disease (vague, I know) seem to be implicated, chiefly inflammation.

>>52173 Email the author anon, kek

>>52174 Perhaps I shall. Still, I'm trying to move away from web site citations entirely, so I'm not sure I'd want to cite GutSense in any case. I'd rather cite medical studies or medical books.