/ot/ - off-topic

I saw you post this in g and the thread got locked/deleted and then post this thread again in /meta/ and then in /ot/ again, and honestly anon? It wasn't a good thread topic. It was way to specific and the topic wasn't simply and well defined in the op, you woulda had to read through all those paragraphs to understand what you were supposed to discuss, and even then how much do you want us to say about something as specific as "super rough anal sex causes damage"? It just wasn't good tbh

The second "Anal Avenger" thread that I posted on /ot/ and that also was locked is here: >>723591

>>723613
I'm not sure whether you are trolling or not (perhaps you have reading comprehension and/or attention issues), but there are plenty of things to discuss. I'm also calling for people to do something about the issues that I covered. I have been doing as much for far too many years now. I am very, very, VERY fucking tired of people not listening and taking serious and effective action.

>>723617
You seem unhinged, anon. If you don't like anal, fine whatever, but who dedicates years of their time to seriously advocating against butt sex. Out of all the things you could advocate against…

>>723618
1. I didn't write about "anal sex." I wrote this: Blatantly injurious erotic anorectal violence—involving a combination of rapid thrusting, a girthy penis/object, and a prolonged duration—is rampant worldwide, facilitated by widespread (willful) ignorance, apathy, and misinformation.
2. Ultimately this is not about me. Logically-fallacious diversionary tactics:

• A red herring logical fallacy is a tangential topic introduced as a distraction. One _very_ common example is trying to create an irrelevant discussion about a messenger/claimant (often by introducing alleged personal attributes or asking about unstated opinions).
• An ad hominem logical fallacy is an argument or implication that at least one supposed characteristic about 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 potentially _can be_ relevant: for example, it may be appropriate to question a person's honesty when she makes a claim about herself or her own experiences. However, the anecdotal evidence logical fallacy may apply in that situation.)
• Misrepresentation, or introducing a distorted version of something that is presented, is another form of red herring. Attacking such a fabrication as a means to suggest refutal of what was actually presented constitutes a straw man logical fallacy. (A refutation with one or more vague, sweeping claims for which no proof is provided may be related. The burden of proof rests on the claimant, so offering constructive criticism is a good idea: clear and specific, with citations if applicable.)

Purposely and repeatedly trying to divert attention away from anorectal anatomy and physiology, rampant anorectal abuse, associated traumatic risks, and an epidemic of ignorance and misinformation is suggestive of an agenda and/or psychopathy.

What the fuck is this shit lmao

>>723620
For emphasis:
> Blatantly injurious erotic anorectal violence
As for anal sex or "butt sex" without qualifiers, here is an old post of mine that is very relevant:

(Quoting myself)
> At best, anal sex and significant anal-insertive activities accelerate or guarantee the development of anorectal health problems.
That could in theory be untrue if such activities are done with ridiculously excessive care* all the time, every time.

* That includes, but is not limited to: ruling out preexisting anorectal conditions (possibly caused by prior sexual trauma), always using lubricant, avoiding lubricants that irritate/damage the rectal lining, avoiding enemas (all enemas, hyperosmolar or otherwise, probably remove the rectum's protective mucus barrier), always using a condom (particularly in the absence of an enema), never thrusting too rapidly ("too rapid" could vary for different people, at least for the anal tissues), never inserting anything too girthy ("too girthy" also could vary), never using numbing agents (pain indicates that something is wrong — anally, but not rectally), etc.

In practice using ridiculously excessive care is unrealistic — it'd be more of a chore than a pleasure. Furthermore, both ignorance and misinformation are rampant, porn sets a very bad example that some viewers get ideas from, and people with [self-]destructive tendencies are having a field day.

>>723620
>>723623
I think your local pharmacy has a refill of your meds ready, anon. Make sure you keep up with them.

This belongs perfectly well in the kinkshaming thread, anon >>>/ot/453716

>>723624
Samefag, wait you wrote that entire pic omfg

Wow, people really are going all-out with the personal attacks aren't they? I refer again to "logically-fallacious diversionary tactics:" >>723620

>>723607
I feel like writing a dissertation with above entry-level vocabulary on a topic is not worthy of a thread. Plus duplicate threads are against the rules too so. No one's going to read your posts that include paragraphs upon paragraphs, including citations. You would have been better off sparking a conversation in a related, yet already existing thread.

>>723627
Yes anon, I am a fed hired by the government to divert the public from the dangers of booty fucking

>>723625
This isn't about "kink shaming." It's partly about people with (self-)destructive inclinations, some affiliated with pornography companies, having a field day with anorectal violence and spreading disinformation. It's also partly about widespread (willful) ignorance, apathy, and misinformation facilitating rampant erotic anorectal violence. It's also partly about pornography featuring anorectal violence, which has become normalized, and the effects it can have on some viewers (including inspiring them to the point of emulation, even using coercion). It's also partly about pornography being used as a substitute for sexual education in some cases.

One thing this most certainly is not about is me.

See Trends & Associations.