(untitled)

Generations of people have been, and continue to be, inspired by pervasive violence: namely a n o r e c t a l violence. Many perpetrators of this violence against one or more others especially in public pornography have not faced severe criminal punishment despite both 1) the high likelihood of a n o r e c t a l injury to a receptive person due to a n o r e c t a l fragility, and 2) the significance and potential severity (even lethality) of resultant traumatic consequences. What should easily be considered incriminating evidence worldwide not only proliferates unchecked, but also serves as an example to be copied in far too many cases. This situation is both one of the greatest injustices and one of the greatest contributors to societal decadence in the modern era. Facilitating factors include prevalent (willful) ignorance, apathy, and misinformation about a n o r e c t a l topics, which are enabling people with (self-)destructive tendencies to have a field day with a n o r e c t a l violence and to spread disinformation quite effectively.

far as i can tell ur desire here is 2 spred ur PSA. TLDR dont fug ur gf in da ass message re seived loud & cleer, will du fam mayb u shud go spred da word 2 other sites now i think u don ur werk here

>>63570 > far as i can tell ur desire here is 2 spred ur PSA. Indeed > TLDR dont fug ur gf in da ass Your tl;dr is excluding homosexual and bisexual men being on the receiving end, but essentially yes. > message re seived loud & cleer, will du fam If you're serious, then thanks. > mayb u shud go spred da word 2 other sites That's being done, and has been ongoing for far too many years now. > now i think u don ur werk here I doubt that. Censorship is a factor here. I appreciate the kinds words though.

>>63571 >I doubt that. Censorship is a factor here u have poasted dis so many times dat i dout any regular viewer in dis site has not seen it not sure wut ur point is in repoasting so much if nawt just to capture wide audeense plz elaborate thnks

>>63571 kind sans s. Whoops. Anyway: As of 2022/10/22 relevant English Wikipedia articles for many years have had major, inexcusable flaws. Among them: • The "human anus" article depicts a human female's anus and perineum that probably were damaged by some kind of major trauma. Biological human females normally lack an evident midline perineal raphe, or seamlike union/ridge, in the anogenital region; as the bulbospongiosus muscle is separated in them, embryologically it does not promote formation of an obvious, raised seam as it may in biological males [References: Anatomy & Trauma]. Furthermore, the "perineal raphe" article suggests otherwise involving fusion of urogenital folds, which normally doesn't occur in biological females[1]. • The "simple columnar epithelium" article explains neither its fragility nor (at least in the a n o r e c t a l region) absence of somatic innervation. The "anal sex" article ... • lacks neutrality; it gives the impression that opposition is limited to irrational religious positions by omitting any _scientific_ opposing perspective, e.g.: The human anorectum is very unsuited for many common receptive activities due to the region's anatomy and physiology. The single short-term benefit, _potential_ pleasure, is greatly outweighed by the many short- and long-term health risks to a receptive person. • fails to mention the normalization of injurious a n o r e c t a l violence in pornography featuring real people. • does not disambiguate "hemorrhoid(s)," which can refer to pathology or normal anatomy. Anoreceptive activity can both cause hemorrhoidal disease and worsen an existing case. • contains a logically-fallacious appeal to nature: "natural" is not necessarily good or desirable. Those contribute to rampant a n o r e c t a l violence along with misinformation facilitating it. Their persistence for far too long calls into question both the factuality and the impartiality of everything on the site. 1. Clinical Anatomy. 2013 Jan; 26(1): 134-52. doi:10.1002/ca.22177. (PMID 23169570)

>>63573 errybuddy no dat da big wik hab its bye asses, but i dowt dat many peeple chek up ona da wiki 2 see if anorekto violins r safe 2 do nawt sur may b u rite doh habing dem say dat iz dangrous wud b gud douh i guez, do we no y anoreckto violins so poplar deez dayz? iz dis bout contra septshun? seemz weerd 2 me dat peeple whu aint fagz wud do dis

>>63572 > u have poasted dis so many times dat i dout any regular viewer in dis site has not seen it That could be so, but still I try. Censorship and/or other negative administrative reactions to my posts make me feel as if I can take out my frustration freely on any site where I have a bad experience. At least it has a metaphorical cathartic effect, taking out my frustration on some people whom I feel are deserving of my ire. > not sure wut ur point is in repoasting so much if nawt just to capture wide audeense plz elaborate thnks Surely you've seen me point out before that ultimately this is not about me, and also have seen the text covering logically-fallacious diversionary tactics. I will say that I've been at this for over 15 years now, and it seems as if few if any people are actually listening, much less taking serious and effective action to address the issues covered. Here is something from nearly fifteen years ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20080609040506/http://damon4.bravehost.com/ (earliest version archived: 20080227)

>>63574 > nawt sur may b u rite doh It's not merely a matter of my being right when I'm making a claim backed up by what is said by one or more cited sources. > habing dem say dat iz dangrous wud b gud douh i guez More emphasis needs to be placed on traumatic risks for a receptive person especially in light of the regional fragility. > do we no y anoreckto violins so poplar deez dayz? iz dis bout contra septshun? seemz weerd 2 me dat peeple whu aint fagz wud do dis Spend some time reading through material included in Trends & Associations. I can reference additional studies and articles of relevance as well, but I'm not sure doing so here is the greatest idea due to the aforementioned censorship that I have come to expect. I'll include a few below though: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popularity-of-anal-sex-has-led-to-health-problems-for-women "Anal sex is an ancient and persistent taboo, a long-stigmatised sexual practice (McBride and Fortenberry 2010). Recent empirical studies, however, suggest an increasing prevalence of anal sex among heterosexual partners (Herbenick et al. 2010; Mosher, Chandra and Jones 2005; Satterwhite et al. 2007), and heterosexual anal sex has been identified as an emerging social norm among women (Fahs and Gonzalez 2014; Fahs, Swank and Clevenger 2015; McBride 2019). The literature on women’s experiences and motivations with anal sex points to a range of subjective experiences, ranging from women’s own pleasure and desire to violence and coercion (Fahs and Gonzalez 2014; Reynolds, Fisher and Rogala 2015). The experience of anal intercourse has been reported as painful by some women, especially the first time it occurs, although others describe more pleasurable experiences (McBride 2019; Stulhofer and Ajdukovic 2011). Relational factors have been found to be crucial motivators, with several women reporting experiences of acquiescence grounded on the desire to please a male partner, sometimes describing it as a form of reward or ‘treat’ to their partners (McBride 2019)." ... "The increasing visibility of anal sex in the media is observable across different contexts and platforms (McBride and Fortenberry 2010). Writing in 2007, Gill stated that “anal sex seems to have replaced oral sex as the favourite heterosexual taboo for women’s magazines” (Gill 2007a, 193), combining “a frisson of risk and danger and [encouraging] women to ‘break the last remaining taboo”’ with “[y]ou should never do anything you don’t feel comfortable with” (Gill 2007a, 193)." ... "Cosmopolitan’s portrayal of an on-going process of normalisation of anal sex seems to position the respective authors as spectators observing its occurrence. However, considering Cosmopolitan’s reach and large audience, the diagnosed cultural change is not an outside statement: when diagnosing a social shift around anal sex towards its normalisation, the magazine is already and actively participating in the construction of the same normalisation process that is being report[ed]." ... "Ultimately, this portrayal of anal sex as pleasurable and intimate not only coexists with, but happens to correspond to, the explicit assumption of a so-called male obsession with anal sex. However, instead of promoting the adherence to what could, consequently, be perceived as a male-centred sex act, the discourses refashion anal sex for women as a personal and self-pleasing decision – therefore removing any clear sign of what could resemble old-fashioned female submission. In conclusion, the common feature of Cosmopolitan’s discourse could be framed as ‘men are obsessed, but women should do it for themselves’." "Representations of heterosexual anal sex in Cosmopolitan magazine." Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2021 Aug; 23(8): 1050-1065. doi:10.1080/13691058.2020.1755453. (PMID 32463331) Epub 2020 May 28. [PMID 32463331 MLy] [DO NOT CITE: This study cites Herbenick, McBride, and Fortenberry.]

>>63576 >It's not merely a matter of my being right i waz reffuring 2 ur pertikulr intrest in da big wiki peed, i imagin dis iz sumting dat spreds tru udder meens & peeple dont reesrch deir seks plans on wiki b4 dey do em. problee troo dat der is sum influence, is sad dat wiki is how id iz. danks 4 udder linx. dee guardian seems 2 jus beeleev its 'poplar', mayb bcuz porn. hm. strange strange i mite be blocked from posting in dis thread srry if I drop off

>>63576 > [PMID 32463331 MLy] That's for my own personal reference of MedLine indexing status. > [DO NOT CITE: This study cites Herbenick, McBride, and Fortenberry.] I hadn't meant to include that either. Certain sources are on my "blacklist" because I consider them to be questionable for one or more reasons, and so I try to avoid referencing anything involving them or that cites them. That said, I may still quote such material if it seems overall better to draw attention to it than not doing so. Don't expect to see such material included in the named quote collections though. >>63577 > i waz reffuring 2 ur pertikulr intrest in da big wiki peed Plenty of people use the site as a source of information, even relying solely on information from it when they should instead treat it only as a starting point to find more in-depth and/or more accurate material. > i imagin dis iz sumting dat spreds tru udder meens & peeple dont reesrch deir seks plans on wiki b4 dey do em. Some people don't. For those whom do, the major issues I covered in those Wikipedia articles should be addressed. > is sad dat wiki is how id iz Agreed, but we are only fallible humans, and so perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Wikipedia, as a human creation, is flawed as well. > danks 4 udder linx No prob > dee guardian seems 2 jus beeleev its 'poplar', mayb bcuz porn. That's certainly a major part of it, yes. A study currently included in T&A, PMC4156810, has some additional notions. > i mite be blocked from posting in dis thread srry if I drop off That's fine. Thank you for spending your time, being thoughtful rather than hostile. I am, sadly, quite used to hostile reactions.