To atheist/agnostic alt-righters

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I've had a conversation like this before. You're speaking as if homosexuality exists in an STD-free vacuum, unfortunately it does not. Thinking like that is entirely divorced from reality.

HIV and other STD statistics seem to indicate otherwise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075729/

Unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) is the main risk factor for HIV among MSM as demonstrated by a 20-fold increased risk of HIV seroconversion over 6 months among MSM who reported UAI compared with those who did not. [22]

Anyway, your logic is failure.

Men are naturally promiscuous.

Women prevent promiscuity in heterosexual men.

Therefore men that are heterosexual suffer less degenerate consequences from their unsuccessful promiscuity.

Men are naturally promiscuous.

Men encourage promiscuity in homosexual men.

Therefore men that are homosexual suffer more degenerate consequences from their successful promiscuity.

Therefore MSM homosexuality is more degenerate than heterosexuality.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

You're speaking as if homosexuality exists in an STD-free vacuum,

Nope. I disapprove of all promiscuity purely on the basis of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. This would also include heterosexual men seeing prostitutes, and banging your way through tinder.

suffer more degenerate consequences

How is an std a degenerate consequence?

It's an infection. It's like saying football and boxing are degenerate because they cause head injuries.

If your objection is purely based on promiscuity mediated infections, you are actually anti promiscuity, not anti homosexuality.

What you find if you poll them is that most are having the same level of unprotected sex and numbers if partners as heterosexual men. What's happening is a minority of them are having truly massive numbers of partners, and they are the ones spreading disease.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Nope. I disapprove of all promiscuity purely on the basis of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. This would also include heterosexual men seeing prostitutes, and banging your way through tinder.

I can agree with you on that.

How is an std a degenerate consequence?

How is it not? I don't think behavior that increases the prevalence of HIV, syphilis or any other STD should be encouraged.

If your objection is purely based on promiscuity mediated infections, you are actually anti promiscuity, not anti homosexuality.

This is where you're living in a vacuum. I cited CDC statistics showing that MSM are 70% of new infections despite being something like 2% of the population. You see to want to ignore this fact as if all promiscuity results in equal consequences when it demonstrably does not.

What you find if you poll them is that most are having the same level of unprotected sex and numbers if partners as heterosexual men. What's happening is a minority of them are having truly massive numbers of partners, and they are the ones spreading disease.

That could be possible but that doesn't explain that 140-fold increased risk of HIV.

Regardless, my suggestions about a strong PSA campaign and MSM HIV insurance stand.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Actually it does explain the massive increase in HIV. It's like Covid, there are a small number of superspreaders.

https://www.patientcareonline.com/view/hiv-transmission-networks

Most gay men hit around the same average number of partners per year as a straight guy, it's about one more I think. What you have with MSM is a strong shift in the ability of the super-promiscous to get masses of sexual partners, and I mean hundreds/thousands. Which means these individuals are almost guaranteed to catch it and pass it on repeatedly. Whereas a normally sexually active MSM would be massively less likely to catch it, and if they did catch it probably wouldn't infect more than one person.

Some data.

https://ibb.co/WWgKPmm

About 42% of them have none to one sex partners per year, the mode is the same as a straight guy. Where the real difference pops up is the minority hitting 4 plus.

A recent report from the EXPLORE study [7] found that having four or more sex partners within six months was the behavioral factor that contributed most to HIV incidence, with an attributable risk of 32.3%

This basically demonstrates what happens when you get a slight shift in a distribution curve in human behaviour. The extremes become far more extreme and more common while the change to the average isn't that big.

The only female close comparison are prostitutes for numbers of partners. But being female they are more risk averse and more likely to want safe sex.

My point about football causing irreparable damage same as promiscuity is a valid one. Why is one degenerate and the other not?

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Most gay men hit around the same average number of partners per year as a straight guy, it's about one more I think.

That's not what your table shows. +4 partners: nearly 3x as frequent (31%) in MSM than heterosexual men (11%).

Why is one degenerate and the other not?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075729/

Unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) is the main risk factor for HIV among MSM as demonstrated by a 20-fold increased risk of HIV seroconversion over 6 months among MSM who reported UAI compared with those who did not. [22]

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That 31% doesn't make much difference to the average.

And again, a bunch of activities cause damage/infections but why are you only focused on gay men as 'degenerate'?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

activities cause damage/infections but why are you only focused on gay men as 'degenerate'?

We don't only focus on gay men as degenerate. /u/Nombre27 is focusing on it because it's the topic of the thread.

Looks like you also full admit that homosexuality is an 'activity' and not something you're born with. At least we can agree on that.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Some data.

https://ibb.co/WWgKPmm

There's no way the "straight women" category data is accurate. What's the original source?

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What about that particular category irks you?

It's from research by Paula England and Eliza Brown, who publish papers on this sort of thing.

https://contexts.org/blog/an-unequal-distribution-of-partners-gays-versus-straights/

Data from the National Survey of Family Growth surveys, collected between 2002 and 2013.

Other by the same.

https://sociology.berkeley.edu/paula-england-increases-sex-same-sex-partners-across-cohorts-how-gender-and-racial-inequality-affect

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So you want me to believe, that 79% of non-virgin straight women, in their prime carousel years, have had either one or no partners in the last year? Have you seen the world? In actuality, their distribution should probably look a lot like the gay men's distribution (where you would really see a difference is breaking out an extreme category like 10+). What this data really says, though, is that up to 2013, Western women weren't proud of being whores yet.

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So you want me to believe, that 79% of non-virgin straight women, in their prime carousel years, have had either one or no partners in the last year?

It was 11%. Where did the 79% come from?

Yeah, that's pretty standard. I'm unusual as an adult woman in that I've never had a dry spell, I met my husband at 16. Most of the women I've know had quite long spells single when young.

The modal number of sexual partners per woman in a lifetime us something like three (the mean is higher because some really go for it). Number of sex partners in college actually hasn't changed much since the sixties.m, despite what you might think.

Why the hell would the number of female sex partners look like a gay man's?

Women are usually looking for THE guy, gay men a usually looking for A guy. We are way less interested in casual sex. I've known two women who were into that my whole life.

If you're going to go for the old incel trope of "they all lied in the polls", the male numbers match up to the female. These low numbers also match up to epidemiological studies into STD spread. And it comes out the same in different polls.

Where you do see some dishonesty is women tend to leave non consensual or abusive sex partners out of the numbers, and men tend to overestimate. Women will go through the names and count up in these polls. Men will say 'about' X number, but then can't match it exactly on a named partner basis.

The average incel has heavily bought into the MRA bullshit about women "riding the cock carousel" until "they hit the wall". Truth is that's a minority of women (about 7% are into casual sex), most will have a pattern of a couple of partners in school and college then settle down with a LTR in their twenties. That often means long spells celibate, and it may shock you that women are way less bothered by that than men are.

Sex in the city isn't real life you know. Women are way pickier and most would rather go a year or two without, rather than risk getting tangled up with someone who's not a good long-term prospect.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It was 11%. Where did the 79% come from?

11 + 68 = 79

Most of the women I've know had quite long spells single when young.

It's possible that there's some selection bias here (for one or both of us), because that doesn't match my experience at all.

Number of sex partners in college actually hasn't changed much since the sixties.m, despite what you might think.

Well all this Weimar crap was already taking off in America by the 60s.

Why the hell would the number of female sex partners look like a gay man's? Women are usually looking for THE guy, gay men a usually looking for A guy.

I thought your point with this data was that, for the most part, gay male behavior is similar to that of straight men. And the modern woman is like a man with less accountability.

We are way less interested in casual sex. I've known two women who were into that my whole life.

So you've only known 28 other women in your whole life? (going by the 7% figure)

If you're going to go for the old incel trope of "they all lied in the polls",

Women are more concerned with social expectations, this is borne out by many studies. This is a big reason why more women are oversocialized leftists. And because they are physically weaker, women rely on manipulation and deceit to get their way.

the male numbers match up to the female.

It would be somewhat believable if they actually were the same, but they're clearly far from it. And that's hard to explain without some serious under-reporting on the part of women.

These low numbers also match up to epidemiological studies into STD spread.

The most important factor here is rectal fragility. Anal intercourse is particularly risky, and it was virtually absent in women until the 90s. It's almost impossible for a guy to catch HIV through ordinary sex with a girl, so if you have a functional medical system (i.e. one which doesn't reuse needles), it doesn't become established within the straight population. HIV spreads through semen. A low STD rate among lesbians is certainly not due to their cleanliness or chastity, god no. It's a matter of anatomy.

Where you do see some dishonesty is women tend to leave non consensual or abusive sex partners out of the numbers

But also: all straight sex is rape.

The average incel has heavily bought into the MRA bullshit about women "riding the cock carousel" until "they hit the wall".

The problem with incels isn't their analysis, but their defeatism, nihilism and hedonism.

Truth is that's a minority of women (about 7% are into casual sex)

Where is this figure coming from? And what do we consider "casual" here? Because it's all casual with the death of marriage. And even if a girl only starts seeing a new guy every 3 months, that'll already put her in the 4+ category. If half of the college-aged women are seeing a new guy at least every three months, then that alone would put the proportion of women with 4+ partners at 12%. That would actually be in line with the 11% for straight men. That would also mean that for every one promiscuous woman to accurately report their activity, two lie.

Women are way pickier and most would rather go a year or two without, rather than risk getting tangled up with someone who's not a good long-term prospect.

But the important point here is that should they want to, they have an endless stream of potential suitors made constantly available by Jewish dating apps.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The most important factor here is rectal fragility. Anal intercourse is particularly risky, and it was virtually absent in women until the 90s. It's almost impossible for a guy to catch HIV through ordinary sex with a girl, so if you have a functional medical system (i.e. one which doesn't reuse needles), it doesn't become established within the straight population. HIV spreads through semen. A low STD rate among lesbians is certainly not due to their cleanliness or chastity, god no. It's a matter of anatomy.

Old one from Cernovich if you never saw it

https://archive.fo/w33HS

https://archive.fo/ZdzsK

Larger version of the graph from there https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/images/2012/Incidence-fact-sheet-fig1.jpg

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

11 + 68 = 79

Ah I misread the comment. And yes you should believe that.

Where is this figure coming from? And what do we consider "casual" here?

It was more than a certain number per year, and actively pursuing new temporary partners on dating apps or in clubs.

The 7% was from a different study of human sexual behaviour, not personal experience. I've not known enough women to make changes that kind of statement.

But also: all straight sex is rape.

Sigh. No.

Anal intercourse is particularly risky, and it was virtually absent in women until the 90s. It's almost impossible for a guy to catch HIV through ordinary sex with a girl,

HIV rates in the prostitutes of Africa and their male clients beg to differ. Anal sex not a big thing over there.

HIV spreads through semen.

It spreads through micro-tears in the sex organs. Which is why anal sex is riskier, it tears more easily.

What you seem to be missing (I'm guessing deliberately) is that 68% of women are only having one partner per year, and 11% had none in the past year.

If you're wigging out at the numbers (and they are consistent between studies) it's because you've absorbed some extremely distorted ideas about female sexual behaviour from MRA/incel sites that aren't based on fact.

And even if a girl only starts seeing a new guy every 3 months, that'll already put her in the 4+ category. If half of the college-aged women are seeing a new guy at least every three months, then that alone would put the proportion of women with 4+ partners at 12%. That would actually be in line with the 11% for straight men. That would also mean that for every one promiscuous woman to accurately report their activity, two lie.

Yeah... the modal number over a lifetime for females in the west is one.. Same for men. Your little scenario is not at all common. As the data shows, the modal number of partners per year on only one, for a start. So that's 79% having one or no partners.. so that "if half of college age women" theory just isn't a goer right from the start.

But the important point here is that should they want to, they have an endless stream of potential suitors

The important point is they only want one.

There's a paper knocking around that asked how many sex partners men and women wanted in the next year. The answer was nearly all 'one' for the women, and the men too.