Need Bit of Advice...Somewhat Strange

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » April 3, 2004, 10:00 pm

Ok, there is this girl who I have known for nearly a year now, we met in Jamaica last summer and have talked with each other constantly every week since then (we live around 13 hours apart, even though its only 1 state). I am hopelessly in love with this girl (yeah whatever, you dont have to believe me, thats not the point) and I know she has a big thing for me because since we met she has turned down every guy who has asked her out and is planning on coming up this summer to stay with me for a week.

Also, I am going to see her tommorow, because she happens to be 2 hours away from me atm staying with her grandparents and other relatives for the weekend. We have a full day planned tommorow, but even though we are going to be kinda alone, we will have no transportation except for our parents (my parents wouldn't let me go alone, so no car for me) and we will mostly be in public places.

I need to tell her how I feel and more than anything I want to somehow find out if she is coming this summer to just hang out and meet my friends but not do anything serious or if she is wanting to actually have sex, because neither of us have had sex before, and in fact, she has never did more than kiss a guy. I KNOW we will do more than that at least, she has pretty much let me know that she wants to go farther than that, but how far I dont know. I am 16, nearing 17 and I am about to explode trying to wait for her but I really want her to be my first time and not some random slut that I really dont care for (of course, after this summer, its wide open).

I just need help with HOW I can get the point across about what I want to do this summer and see if she is thinking the same thing without scaring her. I'm really not sure if shes even ready (she is 14, almost 15), but this summer could be the last time we get to see each other for years as her father is in the military and unless he retires this year, next year she is going to Washington D.C. and then the next 3 years after that she will be in India.

Any idea at all would be great, and I help tonight because I get to see her tommorow and I will only have a small amount of time to really spend with her. I was expecting it to be easier than this, but now that its coming down the wire I am seeing that really, I don't know how I am going to ask her this.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » April 3, 2004, 10:04 pm

Braid your hair again slacker! I remember the pictures.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » April 3, 2004, 10:08 pm

Rellix wrote:Braid your hair again slacker! I remember the pictures.

Hehe, I should, its OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS longer and thicker now, I could have some kickass braids. But physical appearance isnt gonna be a problem, I have prolly twice the muscle mass I had last year, and a much better tan\no acne now.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » April 3, 2004, 10:09 pm

Did you fix the lazy eye yet?

How about the missing knee cap?

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » April 3, 2004, 10:13 pm

Rellix wrote:Did you fix the lazy eye yet?

How about the missing knee cap?

Glass eye and plastic knee!

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » April 3, 2004, 10:35 pm

Good to hear! Veeshan down!

MooZilla · Post by **MooZilla** » April 3, 2004, 10:35 pm

She's....14.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 3, 2004, 10:36 pm

So tomorrow you just want to establish whether or not she wants to lose her virginity with you over the summer? This subject specifically (you two having sex) has never come up on the phone before?

If you're going to be semi-alone just kiss her, hold her hand, put your arm around her whenever you can, etc. It's a lot easier and more genuine if you show someone how you feel about them than telling them.

But if you want to broach the subject of whether or not she's willing to have sex with you, just do it. At the right time, when it's not rushed, say something like (that is tomorrow) "I really care about you and have always imagined my first time being with someone special, and being that you're one in a million, unless I live to be two hundred, I'll die a virgin before meeting someone more special than you." OK that's really cheezy and doesn't exactly make sense, but you get the point. You'll feel silly when you say it and she'll probably laugh, but when your face turns red and she sees how sincere you are it will mean a lot to her and she'll totally go for it.

That would be perfect for if you two planned to do it tomorrow, but from the sound of it that won't be possible. If worst comes to worst and you feel like you just can't say it, whether circumstances won't allow it or you feel it won't work, do the things I said in the second paragraph, even if it feels a bit awkward. When she comes down for the summer it will feel completely natural to be physical with her. Furthermore, you could just talk to her on the phone sometime before she comes down and mention it (if you could stand waiting awhile longer before finding out). Some things are easier to say on the phone than in person.

I'll save you the speech of "you're just 16 and I can guarantee you in two years you'll back on this infatuation and laugh" (speaking from experience).

I feel like I'm rambling now, but not much more to do while waiting for the next game to start

.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » April 3, 2004, 10:39 pm

I may look back on this and laugh, but I dont know. I've NEVER met any other girl even remotely close to her. Also, this infatuation has lasted nearly a year now. Oh, and yes she is 14, but she will be 15 quite a while before I am 17.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » April 3, 2004, 10:47 pm

You do know that - assuming the same laws apply in your area that do here - once you turn 18, the sex stops for.. eh.. 3 years?

Somthing else, ok, you're almost 17, she's almost 15, only two years apart, trust me man, those two years for teenage girls are insane, hell, two years for you will be kinda crazy too. The odds of any relationship at your age passing that time frame to the point where you would both be actual adults, regarldess of how you feel now, expecially considering how hard it is to do a long distance relationship (trust me)..

I just think you might be getting way over your head here. I agree, sex is great, and while my viewpoints on it are markedly different than the rest of the board, I can't really advocate you trying to go for it, imo. Just sounds like a bad idea due to your ages and distance apart - moral issues aside.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 3, 2004, 10:53 pm

I'm surprised her folks are even letting her go out to see you for a week. I'd like to say don't stress about it, but that's pointless to say. Things will happen as they happen. I don't think the age thing is that big of a deal, you're both still kids (sorry, yes you are), but I don't know how state laws deal with it! If you really love this girl, sex shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of things. If she's already said you guys will fool around, just let yourself relax knowing you're on the right track and whatever will be will be.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 3, 2004, 10:55 pm

I agree with most of what Akaran says (except going out at 15 and 17 isn't that big of a deal unless the 15 y/o has been really sheltered and is immature). I was just trying to give advice, not give you the adult speech =p.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » April 3, 2004, 10:57 pm

Akaran_D wrote:You do know that - assuming the same laws apply in your area that do here - once you turn 18, the sex stops for.. eh.. 3 years?

Somthing else, ok, you're almost 17, she's almost 15, only two years apart, trust me man, those two years for teenage girls are insane, hell, two years for you will be kinda crazy too. The odds of any relationship at your age passing that time frame to the point where you would both be actual adults, regarldess of how you feel now, expecially considering how hard it is to do a long distance relationship (trust me)..

I just think you might be getting way over your head here. I agree, sex is great, and while my viewpoints on it are markedly different than the rest of the board, I can't really advocate you trying to go for it, imo. Just sounds like a bad idea due to your ages and distance apart - moral issues aside.

The law is 2 years apart, so even when I am 18, and she is 16, it will be legal. Anyway, I just really want my first time to be with her more than anything, chances are we wont see each other again for quite some time, especially if they move to Washington DC then India (but if her Dad retires, they are staying in Tampa, and I will end up seeing them OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS in the somewhat near future).

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » April 3, 2004, 11:23 pm

Well, I am sure it is quite nerve wracking, but try not to put too much into this as far as expectations, trying to make everything perfect, etc. Just have fun and don't sweat it! She is probably going through the same thing!

If you both rekindle what you started on the island, then all the better!

As far as sex goes...first time may as well be with someone you care about...that or a pair of russian hookers in Vegas. ;P

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » April 3, 2004, 11:36 pm

Canelek wrote:Well, I am sure it is quite nerve wracking, but try not to put too much into this as far as expectations, trying to make everything perfect, etc. Just have fun and don't sweat it! She is probably going through the same thing!

If you both rekindle what you started on the island, then all the better!

As far as sex goes...first time may as well be with someone you care about...that or a pair of russian hookers in Vegas. ;P

Well, I WANT it to be with this girl, after her I dont care, but first time has to be with her. I've tried to find another girl that I have any feelings for at all, but really, all of the ones that I even have any desire to pursue are just based off looks (to a point, I wont date snobby bitch girls).

Post by **Xouqoa** » April 4, 2004, 12:08 am

Hit it and quit it, Brittney style!

Trias · Post by **Trias** » April 4, 2004, 12:54 am

i think you should impregnate her when you see her tomorrow

then she will be yours!

P.S. Spankes told me to say that

Taly · Post by **Taly** » April 4, 2004, 1:38 am

i know this is VV but i have to be an adult here. your young by the time you are 25 you probebly would have forgotten her name. She is 15, she is to young to even think about sex.

Sex is for adults. Let her get there. Yeah I will probebly get flammed for this but I am a strong believer sex is not for kids and she is a kid.

Your 17, Don't push yourself with this sex thing. have fun in life you only get one shot at it. It will happen when it happens.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » April 4, 2004, 1:39 am

Trias wrote:i think you should impregnate her when you see her tomorrow

then she will be yours!

P.S. Spankes told me to say that

Sorry, I have spermicide lubricated trojan condoms! No babies for me!

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » April 4, 2004, 1:47 am

/agrees with Taly

chances are we wont see each other again for quite some time

Unless you're married, that is the absolute worst reason to have sex at your age.
How long is a long time? 6 months? Year? Multiple years?

You will - not maybe, but will - meet someone else down the line durring that time (or she will) that will be more in tune with you, or shares the same things that you do.. but lives 5 minutes away.

Feel free to come back when you're 25 and deck me if you two are still together, hel, I'll supply the plane ticket if I'm that wrong.

Syenye Squirrellyelf · Post by **Syenye Squirrellyelf** » April 4, 2004, 2:04 am

dude she's 14. that's still a little girl, really, no matter how old she looks.

if you really do love her as you say you do, you won't force the issue.

before you do anything, remember that her father is in the military and therefore has access to very large guns.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 4, 2004, 2:46 am

Don't fuck her. If you really feel the need for sharing something....give each other oral or something.

In the immortal words of Sherrif Buford T. Justice : You can think about it.....but dooon't do it.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 4, 2004, 2:52 am

I really think bringing it up will put too much pressure on the summer meeting. Just relax man and don't rush something important and don't put added pressure on on her or yourself...If you both want it, it will happen when it should happen...Enjoy the time you have with her...

eOmniz · Post by **eOmniz** » April 4, 2004, 3:03 am

I'd say don't do it. 14-15 is too young to be in love with someone a thousand (or whatever) miles away imo. Also, the multiple obvious possible consequences, while very tiny, would be too great to worth risking.

Besides, oral is just as good at that age.

If you have your heart set on it though, I wouldn't plan/ask in advance, just wait for the moment to arise and be prepared. And above all, communicate and think with the right head.

TheDarkreigns · Post by **TheDarkreigns** » April 4, 2004, 3:08 am

Here in Ontario the legal age of sexual consent is 14....which explains why the city I'm in has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Canada.

Hit it while you can.

Edit: eOmniz there is no such thing as thinking with the right head because as soon as instinct comes into play all rational thought gets thrown right out the window. The two can not co-incide with eachother.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » April 4, 2004, 11:27 am

TheDark:
Yes, you can. I live with a vey attractive, very petite 22 year old woman. We both want to wait until after marriage for sex (her first, my second), but we still love doing things that couples do: Shower together, sleep together, romantic interludes together, full body massages together.

We've been doing this for about 2, 3 years now, and haven't had sex.

It is possible to use the big head in that situation.

Not very fun, but possible.

Phugg_Innay · Post by **Phugg_Innay** » April 4, 2004, 12:01 pm

Dont put all the emphasis on the sexual aspect.
A: for You it will last maybe 2 mins MAX (first time + warm and wet =BAM)
b: she will hate it anyway
c: virgins and sex dont last long (timewise , 2 mins MAX)
d: she is a thousand miles away
e: You are Both still very young

I'd say just get together , hang out , have fun. IF something sexual comes of it , great, if not , then at least you have met a great person.

emmer · Post by **emmer** » April 4, 2004, 2:48 pm

Don't break the vacation rule. What happens in Jamaica stays in Jamaica. Girls on vacation just want to have a good time and are usually more open to the idea of doing more with a guy they have known only a short while... this is a GOOD thing. In the future don't ruin it by allowing yourself to get attached. All it will lead to is heartache, a big phone bill and a huge case of blue balls.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » April 4, 2004, 3:02 pm

In the future don't ruin it by allowing yourself to get attached

And what, exactly, is wrong with getting attached to someone?

emmer · Post by **emmer** » April 4, 2004, 3:09 pm

Akaran_D wrote:
In the future don't ruin it by allowing yourself to get attached
And what, exactly, is wrong with getting attached to someone?

What's wrong with getting attached to someone you will probably will never see again when your vacation is over? Did you really just ask me that?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » April 4, 2004, 3:15 pm

Negative, misread it into a statement that relationships more than simple meet-drink-screw marry are bad decisions.

My bad.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » April 4, 2004, 3:49 pm

Puppy love!!

First of all, don't listen to any of these schmucks telling you that either she or you or both are too young to have sex. They cling to some old world notions that no longer hold true in this day and age. Secondly, don't make assumptions or have expectations about your visits with her, just go with the flow man. It's possible she won't be your first, try to accept that. But if it feels right, go for it!! It'll be the worst sex you'll ever have so get it out of the way asap.

good luck!

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » April 4, 2004, 3:54 pm

They cling to some old world notions that no longer hold true in this day and age.

Funny, I thought the old world notions advocated marriage at 14 to people that are more than twice your age, if you want to get really old world.

But I guess kids fucking and sucking each other sensless before they even have the emotional maturity (which comes OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS later in life than it did back in the "old world") to grasp the concept of what they're doing even as they beleive they are old enough to accept the consequences of what could happen if the condom bursts or the pill doesn't work when everyone knows about the hell that is teenage pregnancy - exp if they live 13+hrs apart - is entirely old world and not out of a more modern day concept of health and safety, regardless of moral issues.

edit: And if you need more of a reason to NOT do it, Xyun endorses it.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 4, 2004, 4:56 pm

I don't know, I lost my virginity at 15 and she was 14 at the time. Of course, that was '84 so AIDS was still just a chocolate chewable laxative to most people.

Beats the shit out of dry humping or even a handy (especially at that age, she'd probably yank it like she's pulling carrots out of the ground). Just wrap the damn thing and you'll be fine.

And to people who think you'll forget about the person in no time, that's bullshit. I still remember who I lost my virginity to. Hell, it wasn't even a quickie. At that age, I would jerk it no more than an hour before meeting her so I wouldn't erupt just because she kissed my earlobe. Do that before your first time and it may actually be fun for both of you.

Ahh, youth

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » April 4, 2004, 5:17 pm

Akaran_D wrote:
They cling to some old world notions that no longer hold true in this day and age.
Funny, I thought the old world notions advocated marriage at 14 to people that are more than twice your age, if you want to get really old world.

But I guess kids fucking and sucking each other sensless before they even have the emotional maturity (which comes OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS later in life than it did back in the "old world") to grasp the concept of what they're doing even as they beleive they are old enough to accept the consequences of what could happen if the condom bursts or the pill doesn't work when everyone knows about the hell that is teenage pregnancy - exp if they live 13+hrs apart - is entirely old world and not out of a more modern day concept of health and safety, regardless of moral issues.

edit: And if you need more of a reason to NOT do it, Xyun endorses it.

And what do you propose as a solution to this epidemic problem of teenage pregnancy? Pass a law banning teenagers from doing something they are going to do anyway? You may have not noticed, but we live in an extremely sexual culture, moreso than any culture ever. There are two reasons for the teenage pregnancy problem. The first is that for some reason, a lot of parents refuse to take the time to talk to their kids about the subject. They hold the mentality that if you sweep the dirt under the rug, it will magically fucking disappear. The other and more crucial reason is that fucktards with religious and moral agendas will not allow for the schools to educate children about the risks and consequences of sex, to talk to them about the bad things and the good things that are involved.

Let's face it. Your view on sex is sublime. You believe it should only be done with someone you truely love, someone worthy of birthing your children. I actually commend you on holding it in such high regard and your ability to execute such discipline. However, when you have that person and still are going to wait till marriage, well in my honest opinion, you are torturing yourself. You are denying one of your most basic natural instincts for what you believe are moral reasons. And by not committing a crime against God, you are committing one against nature, and more importantly, yourself.

What you need to realize is that your view on sexuality is neither the only one nor the more righteous one. Sex has two functions: procreation and pleasure. Many people, including myself, try to find a happy median between the two. Some people also take it to the opposite extreme that you do. They fuck as much and as many people as they can. Those who take either function to its extreme usually pay the consequences in some form or another. We need to educate children, yes CHILDREN, on what these consequences are.

pwn.

cya

Colal · Post by **Colal** » April 4, 2004, 5:17 pm

Here is my advice, dont use that spermacide lubricated condom your first time, its to complicated. That sounds stupid but there are tricks to using condoms and you will learn them with experience, the lubrication makes accidents easier to happen. Use a normal strait up condom, and if you need the extra lubrication, which you definatly might being first times and all, use an external water based thingy, like ky or so, small amounts.

I don't think your to young to have sex, and maybe she isnt either. Sex is about reproduction, your body knows when its ready, it tells you what it wants. If your both craving it, your ready, inspite what the bible thumpers want you to believe. Of course there are emotional risks for both of you, but no one can really predict how they will effect you or her. Just understand you have a lot more to loose than you have to gain. And no, its never worth it, not even for the best sex in the world.

There are risks to having sex, and you know them. If you use your brain you can avoid most of them, but nothing is guaranteed, so be prepared to pay for the consequences of your actions. Most likely your to young to fully understand them, and she most definatly is.

If you decide to go for it (your 16 im sure you will), my advice is to just ask her about it. Knowledge is power, and knowledge about sex is even more so. Go into the situation with as many facts as you can and you will have a better experience. Its a good topic to talk about on the phone, your more comfortable and since you are apart from each other you cant act on your conversation immediatly, it forces you to consider it. You'll figure out a way to ask her. If she says yes, then great. If she says no, but still wants to be with you, then all that means is she is smarter than you, consider yourself lucky. If she says no and gets angry and wants to end it, better for you anyways (i'd hate to be attached to a girl who was offended that I found her attractive enough to desire sex with her). I'm sure it will be an akward conversation, but you can only benifit from it. Just don't be an asshole, and don't set your expectations to high.

p.s. long distance relationships suck, get out of it before it fucks you up to much.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 4, 2004, 5:23 pm

Chidoro wrote:I don't know, I lost my virginity at 15 and she was 14 at the time. Of course, that was '84 so AIDS was still just a chocolate chewable laxative to most people.

This is going a little off topic, but just to try to put the chances of getting AIDS into perspective:

According to a report by researchers Norman Hearst and Stephen Hulley in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million. With a condom it's even safer--one in 50 million. Just to put this in perspective, the chances of someone in your family getting injured next year in a bubble bath are 1 in 1.3 million (source: The Odds on Virtually Everything, Heron House, 1980). You're in much greater danger of being struck by lightning (1 in 600,000), having your house bombed (1 in 290,000), or being murdered (1 in 11,000).

So basically unless you're having sex with a gay guy or an IV drug user the chances are very very very very (continue with about a thousand more verys) slim. You don't see this fact very often because of the gay rights movement's propaganda machine. They've made every effort to make this seem like it's just as much a straight person's problem as a gay person's, for obvious reasons, and they've succeeded fairly well. And before you put words into my mouth, I'm not saying this was god's way of killing gays or any of that other homophobic crap.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » April 4, 2004, 5:47 pm

I agree Xyun, it's a problem caused by the parents that are not teaching their kids about it. In this age of 12 year olds on prozac, we're comming into a major problem with one horrible reason: shitty parenting.

As to the other side of the issue, yes, I agree that sex ed SHOULD be taught in schools.. and I'm probably one of those moralistic fucktards you refer to. The only thing greater than bad parrenting is ignorance - ignorance causes hate, breeds stupidity, and further dreks up this wonderful society we've created for ourselves.

However, there's a difference between educating and encouraging as you were doing in your post. Besides, we don't even know much about this girl aside from the fact that she's 14, going on 15, and living in jamacia. We have one guy's opinion that he thinks she might be ready for it... problem is, there's not a guy on this earth that knows what women want at any age, teenage years specifically.

As for the other part of your post, yes, I agree, I am torturing myself for not doing it with my loved one. However, I love her enough to agree and respect her decision about it and given both of our ages (still early 20's) the posibility of growing apart still exists in spades - so why do somthing that one or both of us may regret later? Been there and done that before. Minor physical torture now <<<< major emotional pain down the road.

Now I'm not flaming Asheran here at all. Sounds like he has an idea about what he's getting into, but why take the risk? Beleive me bud, there's nothing as nerve wracking as having sex in a long distance relationship and then wondering for the rest of your lives if you've actually gotten her pregnant or not, and if you did, if she's going to tell you you're the dad or even if she keeps the kid. (Yeah, that's personal experience there - it BITES having that worry on your heart.)

Anyways. I, me, just me, for whatever my opinion is worth - if it's worth anything, which is doubtful - don't think it's a good idea and if I had had someone to tell me that durring my first time, I hope I would be enough of a person to not do it and just settle for good old fashioned oral sex.

ps: Brotha, that's one thing I keep hearing about AIDS.. you're fine unless you're a homo. Why do people think that? What studies have been done to support it? Is it just close minded thinking, or what? What about bisexuals? They engage in homosexual practices, yet also hetrosexual ones... so what about the girl that loves a bi man who has a bi boyfriend? Aside from being a fugly little love triangle, what sort of chances does she have of getting aids - and what about the partners she has while she's doing Bi-Boy1?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 4, 2004, 5:53 pm

make her a mix tape

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 4, 2004, 6:26 pm

Akaran_D wrote:ps: Brotha, that's one thing I keep hearing about AIDS.. you're fine unless you're a homo. Why do people think that? What studies have been done to support it? Is it just close minded thinking, or what? What about bisexuals? They engage in homosexual practices, yet also hetrosexual ones... so what about the girl that loves a bi man who has a bi boyfriend? Aside from being a fugly little love triangle, what sort of chances does she have of getting aids - and what about the partners she has while she's doing Bi-Boy1?

Here's a great piece. Some excerpts (it's pretty long):

The campaign was also effective in achieving substantially higher funding levels for government agencies involved with AIDS programs. The Journal, describing this as "a key desired effect," reported that federal funding for AIDS-related medical research "soared from $341 million in 1987 to $655 million in 1988, the year after the CDC's campaign began." For 1996, the figure stood at $1.65 billion. "Meanwhile, the CDC 's prevention dollars leapt from $136 million in 1987 to $304 million in 1988; $584 million was allocated for 1996." The National Research Council reported in 1993 that AIDS-related programs at that time constituted more than 40 percent of the CDC budget. [2]

The two leading causes of death in the United States are heart disease and cancer. In 1991, these two diseases accounted for 2.9 million deaths. By comparison, the official 1991 death count for AIDS was 29.5 thousand, and it was the ninth leading cause. There were about 98 times as many deaths from heart disease and cancer, yet AIDS received the largest amount of dollars for federally-funded medical research, prevention, and treatment programs during four of six years from 1991 through 1996. In fiscal year 1995 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) received 2.7 billion dollars for AIDS, compared to 2.4 billion for cancer and .8 billion for heart disease

The May 21 Letters to the Editor from CDC officials and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop continue to advance the CDC's campaign of distortion and exaggeration of HIV risk. CDC officials Satcher and Gayle suggest that in 1987 it was impossible to know that there was no risk of a US heterosexual HIV epidemic. They wrote that those at highest risk are not readily distinguishable from the rest of the public. Their statements are indefensible in view of numerous articles in scientific literature, as well as publications of their own agency.

In December 1987, the CDC issued a publication which specifically delineated groups at increased risk for HIV infection as follows: exclusively homosexual males, males with infrequent homosexual contact, injecting drug users, hemophiliacs, and other groups. The "other" classification included heterosexual partners of persons at high risk, heterosexuals born in Haiti and Central Africa, and blood transfusion recipients. These groups appear to be fairly 'distinguishable' from the rest of the public.

With the exception of women who might be the sexual partners of bisexual males who conceal their history of sex with men, it is easy for one to know whether he is a member of one of these groups identified at risk. Those members of the US population not belonging to any of the groups listed above were classified by the CDC as 'heterosexuals without specific identified risk.' The CDC estimated the size of this population to be 142 million. The agency estimated that the HIV infection rate in this group -- the vast majority of American adults and adolescents -- was 2 in 10,000 compared to 20 to 25 percent for homosexual males. Thus, for gay males the infection rate was 1000 times greater compared to heterosexuals outside of specific risk groups. (Source: CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, December 18, 1987, Vol 36/No. S-6, Table 14).

Further, in April 1988 CDC officials James Allen and James Curran published an article in which they cited several papers presented at the 1987 Third International AIDS Conference in Washington, DC. They also cited a publication by Nancy Padian, and thus indicated awareness of her expertise and reputation. (Source: American Journal of Public Health, April 1988, Vol 78/No 4, pages 381-386). How could they have overlooked her paper, presented at the 1987 conference, in which she demonstrated that the odds were 1000 to one against transmission of HIV in a single act of unprotected vaginal sex between an infected male and an uninfected female?(Source: Abstract THP.3-48:171, presented at the Third International AIDS Conference, Washington, DC, June 1987).

In a 1988 publication, researchers took information of this nature and demonstrated that the odds were 5 million to one against a new HIV infection taking place in a single act of unprotected vaginal sex between two people who are members of that massive population which the CDC recognized and labeled as "heterosexuals without specific identified risk." (Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 22/29, 1988, Vol. 259/No. 16, pages 2428-2432). Are we to believe that Koop and his associates at the CDC were not capable of figuring this out?

For brevity's sake I refrain from citing numerous other scientific articles demonstrating the extremely low risk of HIV transmission by means of vaginal sex. If CDC officials were unable to draw appropriate conclusions from the available evidence, they should be held to account for their incompetence. If they knew of this evidence (the more likely hypothesis), then they should be held to account for the extraordinarily dishonest, deceitful, and expensive scare campaign they have orchestrated.

A study published in 1987 found that 45 of 65 females remained uninfected even after having each had more than 100 sexual events with HIV-positive males. This result was observed even though two-thirds of the women who remained HIV-negative did not use condoms.[7] A more recent Italian HIV study involving 343 women described as the "stable, monogamous partners of infected men" found that annually 93% of the women not using condoms still remained free of infection.[8] An American partner study published in 1991 reported that 80% of 307 female partners of HIV-positive men remained uninfected. The majority of participating couples had been monogamous since 1978.[9] Sixty percent of the females in this study reported no condom use.

The CDC/Gay Alliance: Denying Risk of Anal Sex

Likewise, numerous studies have demonstrated that women who have sex with HIV-positive men are at far greater risk if they engage in anal intercourse. Nancy Padian's partner study done in the mid-1980s found that, for females in long-term relationships with infected men, those having anal intercourse were 2.3 times more likely to acquire infection than those who had vaginal sex only.[30] This does not mean that anal transmission risk on a per-contact basis is only 2.3 times greater than vaginal. It means that women in the study who engaged in any anal intercourse were 2.3 times more likely to become infected than those who did not.

From a later study of a similar nature she reported that 30% of the women who had any anal sex became infected compared to 14% of those who did not.[31] A 1988 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association advised physicians that patients should be told to avoid anal intercourse.[32] The following year the same publication cautioned that HIV is transmitted by "a particular form of sexual behavior, anal intercourse."[33]

Candid Gay Comments

Occasionally gay spokesmen writing for periodicals not intended for mainstream audiences will candidly admit to the political nature of the campaign to spread fear within the general public. In a Village Voice article, writer Robert Massa stated bluntly that "AIDS is a gay disease." [44] In the same paragraph he admitted that AIDS activists have argued forcefully that AIDS is not a gay disease, because this line was seen as "the best way to rally resources." So long as the dream of a miracle cure remains unrealized, many gay activists will blame "homophobia" and the government for their illnesses. Massa continues:

Homophobia has escalated the epidemic, driving people at risk away from health care, crippling the self-esteem needed to practice safer sex, fueling the hysteria that contorts public-health policy, allowing the government to sit back and watch us die.

Gay AIDS patient Michael Callen once disclosed that he had been asked not to talk about the fact that some AIDS patients "seem to have survived full-blown AIDS for 5 or more years." He added, "It's bad for fund-raising, we're told. . ." [45]

Not typical as a spokesman from the gay world is lesbian Camille Paglia, who told the Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review that she celebrates the fact that gay men have pushed "the freedom of the sex impulse" to its limit. On the other hand, she bluntly states that "AIDS is a gay disease," and expresses no sympathy for the gays' political demand that society should bear the consequences of their self-indulgent behavior by paying the cost of drug development:[48]

Stop whining! Stop saying 'I'm a victim; Ronald Reagan should have gotten me out of this.' Look, you've destroyed yourself. . . .Live free and die, I say! But stop whining.

Another gay writer who stands in stark contrast to the orthodoxies of AIDS activism is New York resident Richard Berkowitz, who denies neither the health hazards of anal sex nor the reality that heterosexual sex is insignificant as an HIV risk. In 1993 he pointed out that "a grand total of 17 out of more than 30,000 cases of AIDS" in New York City were "men who claim their only risk factor is sex with a woman." [49] He says that the delusions spread about AIDS have cost thousands of lives, undermined effective safe sex education, and misdirected billions of dollars "into a wrong, useless, and wasted direction." Similar views have been expressed by Arthur Leonard, writing in the gay publication New York Native:[50]

However much we may be enchanted by the 'party line' about heterosexual transmission that has finally focused the attention of the media, the public, and the government on AIDS, heterosexual men are, next to lesbians, probably the least threatened by AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease. The 'party line' . . . may do more harm than good by deflecting attention from groups who need the most help.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » April 4, 2004, 6:29 pm

Brotha wrote:
Akaran_D wrote:ps: Brotha, that's one thing I keep hearing about AIDS.. you're fine unless you're a homo. Why do people think that? What studies have been done to support it? Is it just close minded thinking, or what? What about bisexuals? They engage in homosexual practices, yet also hetrosexual ones... so what about the girl that loves a bi man who has a bi boyfriend? Aside from being a fugly little love triangle, what sort of chances does she have of getting aids - and what about the partners she has while she's doing Bi-Boy1?
Here's a great piece. Some excerpts (it's pretty long):

The campaign was also effective in achieving substantially higher funding levels for government agencies involved with AIDS programs. The Journal, describing this as "a key desired effect," reported that federal funding for AIDS-related medical research "soared from $341 million in 1987 to $655 million in 1988, the year after the CDC's campaign began." For 1996, the figure stood at $1.65 billion. "Meanwhile, the CDC 's prevention dollars leapt from $136 million in 1987 to $304 million in 1988; $584 million was allocated for 1996." The National Research Council reported in 1993 that AIDS-related programs at that time constituted more than 40 percent of the CDC budget. [2]

The two leading causes of death in the United States are heart disease and cancer. In 1991, these two diseases accounted for 2.9 million deaths. By comparison, the official 1991 death count for AIDS was 29.5 thousand, and it was the ninth leading cause. There were about 98 times as many deaths from heart disease and cancer, yet AIDS received the largest amount of dollars for federally-funded medical research, prevention, and treatment programs during four of six years from 1991 through 1996. In fiscal year 1995 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) received 2.7 billion dollars for AIDS, compared to 2.4 billion for cancer and .8 billion for heart disease

The May 21 Letters to the Editor from CDC officials and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop continue to advance the CDC's campaign of distortion and exaggeration of HIV risk. CDC officials Satcher and Gayle suggest that in 1987 it was impossible to know that there was no risk of a US heterosexual HIV epidemic. They wrote that those at highest risk are not readily distinguishable from the rest of the public. Their statements are indefensible in view of numerous articles in scientific literature, as well as publications of their own agency.

In December 1987, the CDC issued a publication which specifically delineated groups at increased risk for HIV infection as follows: exclusively homosexual males, males with infrequent homosexual contact, injecting drug users, hemophiliacs, and other groups. The "other" classification included heterosexual partners of persons at high risk, heterosexuals born in Haiti and Central Africa, and blood transfusion recipients. These groups appear to be fairly 'distinguishable' from the rest of the public.

With the exception of women who might be the sexual partners of bisexual males who conceal their history of sex with men, it is easy for one to know whether he is a member of one of these groups identified at risk. Those members of the US population not belonging to any of the groups listed above were classified by the CDC as 'heterosexuals without specific identified risk.' The CDC estimated the size of this population to be 142 million. The agency estimated that the HIV infection rate in this group -- the vast majority of American adults and adolescents -- was 2 in 10,000 compared to 20 to 25 percent for homosexual males. Thus, for gay males the infection rate was 1000 times greater compared to heterosexuals outside of specific risk groups. (Source: CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, December 18, 1987, Vol 36/No. S-6, Table 14).

Further, in April 1988 CDC officials James Allen and James Curran published an article in which they cited several papers presented at the 1987 Third International AIDS Conference in Washington, DC. They also cited a publication by Nancy Padian, and thus indicated awareness of her expertise and reputation. (Source: American Journal of Public Health, April 1988, Vol 78/No 4, pages 381-386). How could they have overlooked her paper, presented at the 1987 conference, in which she demonstrated that the odds were 1000 to one against transmission of HIV in a single act of unprotected vaginal sex between an infected male and an uninfected female?(Source: Abstract THP.3-48:171, presented at the Third International AIDS Conference, Washington, DC, June 1987).

In a 1988 publication, researchers took information of this nature and demonstrated that the odds were 5 million to one against a new HIV infection taking place in a single act of unprotected vaginal sex between two people who are members of that massive population which the CDC recognized and labeled as "heterosexuals without specific identified risk." (Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 22/29, 1988, Vol. 259/No. 16, pages 2428-2432). Are we to believe that Koop and his associates at the CDC were not capable of figuring this out?

For brevity's sake I refrain from citing numerous other scientific articles demonstrating the extremely low risk of HIV transmission by means of vaginal sex. If CDC officials were unable to draw appropriate conclusions from the available evidence, they should be held to account for their incompetence. If they knew of this evidence (the more likely hypothesis), then they should be held to account for the extraordinarily dishonest, deceitful, and expensive scare campaign they have orchestrated.

A study published in 1987 found that 45 of 65 females remained uninfected even after having each had more than 100 sexual events with HIV-positive males. This result was observed even though two-thirds of the women who remained HIV-negative did not use condoms.[7] A more recent Italian HIV study involving 343 women described as the "stable, monogamous partners of infected men" found that annually 93% of the women not using condoms still remained free of infection.[8] An American partner study published in 1991 reported that 80% of 307 female partners of HIV-positive men remained uninfected. The majority of participating couples had been monogamous since 1978.[9] Sixty percent of the females in this study reported no condom use.

The CDC/Gay Alliance: Denying Risk of Anal Sex

Likewise, numerous studies have demonstrated that women who have sex with HIV-positive men are at far greater risk if they engage in anal intercourse. Nancy Padian's partner study done in the mid-1980s found that, for females in long-term relationships with infected men, those having anal intercourse were 2.3 times more likely to acquire infection than those who had vaginal sex only.[30] This does not mean that anal transmission risk on a per-contact basis is only 2.3 times greater than vaginal. It means that women in the study who engaged in any anal intercourse were 2.3 times more likely to become infected than those who did not.

From a later study of a similar nature she reported that 30% of the women who had any anal sex became infected compared to 14% of those who did not.[31] A 1988 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association advised physicians that patients should be told to avoid anal intercourse.[32] The following year the same publication cautioned that HIV is transmitted by "a particular form of sexual behavior, anal intercourse."[33]

Candid Gay Comments

Occasionally gay spokesmen writing for periodicals not intended for mainstream audiences will candidly admit to the political nature of the campaign to spread fear within the general public. In a Village Voice article, writer Robert Massa stated bluntly that "AIDS is a gay disease." [44] In the same paragraph he admitted that AIDS activists have argued forcefully that AIDS is not a gay disease, because this line was seen as "the best way to rally resources." So long as the dream of a miracle cure remains unrealized, many gay activists will blame "homophobia" and the government for their illnesses. Massa continues:

Homophobia has escalated the epidemic, driving people at risk away from health care, crippling the self-esteem needed to practice safer sex, fueling the hysteria that contorts public-health policy, allowing the government to sit back and watch us die.

Gay AIDS patient Michael Callen once disclosed that he had been asked not to talk about the fact that some AIDS patients "seem to have survived full-blown AIDS for 5 or more years." He added, "It's bad for fund-raising, we're told. . ." [45]

Not typical as a spokesman from the gay world is lesbian Camille Paglia, who told the Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review that she celebrates the fact that gay men have pushed "the freedom of the sex impulse" to its limit. On the other hand, she bluntly states that "AIDS is a gay disease," and expresses no sympathy for the gays' political demand that society should bear the consequences of their self-indulgent behavior by paying the cost of drug development:[48]

Stop whining! Stop saying 'I'm a victim; Ronald Reagan should have gotten me out of this.' Look, you've destroyed yourself. . . .Live free and die, I say! But stop whining.

Another gay writer who stands in stark contrast to the orthodoxies of AIDS activism is New York resident Richard Berkowitz, who denies neither the health hazards of anal sex nor the reality that heterosexual sex is insignificant as an HIV risk. In 1993 he pointed out that "a grand total of 17 out of more than 30,000 cases of AIDS" in New York City were "men who claim their only risk factor is sex with a woman." [49] He says that the delusions spread about AIDS have cost thousands of lives, undermined effective safe sex education, and misdirected billions of dollars "into a wrong, useless, and wasted direction." Similar views have been expressed by Arthur Leonard, writing in the gay publication New York Native:[50]

However much we may be enchanted by the 'party line' about heterosexual transmission that has finally focused the attention of the media, the public, and the government on AIDS, heterosexual men are, next to lesbians, probably the least threatened by AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease. The 'party line' . . . may do more harm than good by deflecting attention from groups who need the most help.

I am your friend Brotha and have been for years...but

That is quite possibly the most retarded post I have ever read in my entire life...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 4, 2004, 6:38 pm

finally brotha says what weve all been thinking. aids is a fag disease; it's god's wrath on the unclean of sodom and gomorrah. so all straight people go ahead and have as much sex as you want with as many partners as you can, because the chances of non fags getting aids is statistically zero!

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 4, 2004, 6:45 pm

What? Is he right on all the points? Probably not, and I'm sure several of his facts can be disputed. I'm basing my opinions on a lot more than that (just saw it 30 minutes ago).

My point is that there without a doubt has been a deliberate effort within the gay community to make this seem like it's just as much a problem for straights as gays in the US and that's simply not accurate. The fact of the matter is that if you have unprotected sex with someone who's not at high risk (IE the vast majority of the population) there's almost no chance of you getting AIDS.

Edit:

kyoukan wrote:finally brotha says what weve all been thinking. aids is a fag disease; it's god's wrath on the unclean of sodom and gomorrah.

Brotha wrote:And before you put words into my mouth, I'm not saying this was god's way of killing gays or any of that other homophobic crap.

Wow...we were able to discuss this for all of 20 minutes without kyoukan throwing around stereotypes. Isn't that some kind of record?

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 4, 2004, 7:31 pm

Okay, so she's 14, she's never done more than kiss, and you want her to be ready to have sex with you in a week or less, when that's barely more time than you'll have spent together in person total? That's way too much pressure to put on someone you care about.

Hell, even if you don't ask her about it months beforehand (which you shouldn't!) and all you do is think about it, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Don't put so much pressure on yourself, or on her, to do anything when you've been apart for a long time. The more time you spend thinking about it, the greater the chance that it won't live up to your expectations. Neither of you will be able to enjoy any of what you do physically if you obsess over it for weeks and months beforehand. Trust me on this one.

As to whether or not you guys should even have sex, well, that's up to you and whether you think you're ready. But I'd be careful, because the way you're talking in your post, it makes it sound like you haven't given too much consideration to if she's even ready for that. Be careful not to give her the impression that she *has* to sleep with you no matter what. Personally, I think you should both wait, simply because I don't see the point in having sex until both people know their bodies well enough to communicate to their partner what they really like (and there's no way a 14 year old girl, and probably not a 16 year old boy, can do this). But *if* you're both ready, and *if* it comes about naturally during her visit, then have fun.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 4, 2004, 7:38 pm

Why isn't my sig working

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » April 4, 2004, 7:47 pm

Because you're using < and > when you should be using [ and ].

Tis UBB code, not HTML in the sigs.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 4, 2004, 7:47 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:Why isn't my sig working

Mine stopped working too Dregor.../

Zetar · Post by **Zetar** » April 4, 2004, 8:15 pm

The question is why are you trying to rush having sex? You said yourself that she will be leaving soon, how would having sex with her help things. Some people here would have you think that sex means nothing and it is just something to treat very casual, but its not. If you really do love her why not wait till she is older. 14-16 is a very emotionaly trying time for everyone. Many teenage females will have sex just for approval and acceptance. If you honestly care about her why would you burden her with that kind of choice, one she can not take back.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » April 4, 2004, 11:08 pm

Well never really got a chance today, only times we were really "alone" we were in a public place (McWaine Center in Birmingham) and so didnt get to ask her. Think I am going to go the phone route and I'm not just gonna ask her about sex, I think I should start smaller I guess, but I really do want it to happen this summer. I so want my first time to be this summer, I mean, I could have sex with someone else before that if I wanted to but it wouldn't be the same. I love this girl, I really do, and I have always wanted my first time to be with someone I love (or at least someone who is very special to me, and there is no one else thats near this close right now).

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 4, 2004, 11:51 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Because you're using < and > when you should be using [ and ].

Tis UBB code, not HTML in the sigs.

I didn't change a thing, it just stopped working on it's own