[gringochileno]

(07-26-2012 03:11 PM)soup Wrote:  

Excellent doo-doo sheet, Sameseau.

I would have gone with data shit.

I've done anal one time, without a condom (which she wanted, and I only agreed to because I was wasted). Like Samseau said I didn't really find it to be much better or worse than vaginal, just qualitatively different in the shape and texture of the hole. I don't really have any desire to do it again, although I wouldn't be opposed if a girl was asking me for it.

One thing I do not care to repeat is doing anal raw-dog. The walls of the rectum are much thinner and easier to tear than the vagina, which makes it far, far easier for both parties to contract STDs. By the way, the reason why this:

Quote:

First of all, the argument that a woman's ass has more STD's than her pussy is questionable.


Every man she fucks will bang her pussy. Most men are too clueless, beta, or just too plain disgusted to fuck a woman in the ass.

Given that a woman's dick count for her ass is a lot lower than her pussy, there's less odds of catching an STD from it, no?

isn't true is because the most serious STDs you can contract (e.g. HIV, hepatitis) are carried systemically in the blood, and it's far easier to get them from contact with blood from a tear in the anal mucosa than it is to get them from contact with vaginal secretions.

If you regularly go raw in girls' asses, make no mistake that you are rolling the dice in a serious way. As someone without major STD-related objections to fucking in the vaj without a condom (pregnancy might be a different story), I have come to the conclusion that unprotected anal sex is a fucking stupid idea. Never again.

P.S. There's a self-selection component to this too. Think about the kind of girl who will readily let you raw-dog her in the ass. Do you think she is more or less likely than the average girl to have a serious STD?