The Black Vault

Ah yes.. another infamous blackvault thread about how the gays caused it all.

Careful everyone... masterbation causes you to go blind as well.

i love you man LOL

that's the new best post i've ever seen.

that was fucking funny.







i love you too panda.

Hmmm, the threesome?


I don't know, that's a tuffy, and bukkake, ewwww hell no! I don't understand that fetish at all.Bukkake has nothing to do with being gay? That supposed to be done to the women no? how would that be gay, it's gross as hell, but not gay.

I thought panda was trying to show the odds factor, but really wasn't paying attention.


And lash, c'mon me and saturos have even been getting along lately. stop rocking the boat




BloodStone...

Yeah I don´t really like threesomes either...
Best is 2 people making love.

Just sex...is stupid...I don´t know what THAT fuzz is all about.
Specially if you don´t remember much of it the next day.
It´s like you´ve never had sex at all really

You do not know the CDC statistics apparently, and your statement shows you do not know what is defined as Hi-Risk hetrosexual behavior, as defined by the CDC. Hi-risk is defined as hetrosexual contact with anyone who is in the other Hi-risk groups or those in that persons chain of contact. In other words, a bisexual lesbian already is in a risk group of homosexual contact, but not the primary top groups to transfer. Male to male, IV drug users are the top. Female to female is certainly not a primary risk, but is defined as a risk group also. You are missing the boat when you say unless you sleep with a gay guy, you are wrong. You could be many down the line, in his chain of contact. Bisexual activity, certainly is a risk becasue the statistics from CDC show 31% of new reported cases are bisexual groups, and over 50% still is from male to male group.

Greeney....

Ok, read it again. You said:

Female to female contact is not one of the top 5 risk groups by the way, however bisexual sex is.

So. Without contradicting yourself, you would have to have stated right here that a bisexual female is not putting anyone in any substantial risk by acting out their bisexuality. Read it again until you understand what I'm saying. The logic is undeniable, you've said it in that very sentence, all you have to do is a bit of "extrapolation".

A female bisexual, has a low chance of transmitting diseases to a female.
A female bisexual has a higher chance of recieving a disease from a male after sex.
So from a contraction of infections point of view a bisexual woman is FAR better then a straight woman, and a lesbian is damn near holy, in comparison. SO you're argument is flawed.

The ONLY way you are going to get a disease from someone who is gay, is if they (the GAY person) puts their semen into someone who sleeps with you. I mean, however long down the line it is, maybe the WOMAN that the GAY MAN slept with who got the disease gave it to another man, who gave it to another woman, who gave it to you etc, you know?

I wonder what the risks are of becoming a US Marine or an infantryman? Hmmm?? Which is more miserable? getting an STD or getting blown into little pieces while driving down the road? Hmmm??

Decisions... Decisions.

In the end, they are NOT your decisions to make. Bottom line.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/res ... ts/wsw.htm

I am not contradicting myself. I said female to female contact by itself is not a major risk, but it is still a risk group, and not risk free. However, that is not the same thing as female bisexual behavior, which in itself implies sexual contact with both genders. HIV is not limited to only semen, and the link will explain this. And as you say, the entire chain of contact has to be considered with this disease. The link also states that many of the HIV females also had other risk factors. This is what I said, and this places bisexual behavior, within Hi-risk hetrosexual groups by definition. IV drug use was a factor to many of the female to female only group but were still HIV positive. 91% of the cases. Many fell into more than one risk behavior, also had history back to HIV males, or combination of other risk groups.

Don't demonisze me becasue these statistics are very clear. About 1/2 dozen of you have called me names only because of what I read in these statistics. Even with all these groups being educated, and knowing how important protection is, they are not doing it. Worst part is many have admitted to knowing they were HIV postive and still did not use protection.

As I said before, if you must be gay, find a lifelong monogomous partner, but that seems to be the rariety.

Of all the things everyone has seemed to wisecrack about, not one of you has refuted or proven the CDC statistics are anything but genuine.

Before you call me more names, at least spend 30 minutes in the CDC site reading the reports and facts.

im not going to call you names

I have read the stats I have been a huge presense in my community about the importance of sex education and these statistics. But like you said these people are not using protection (thus the being on the stats sheet). What im trying to express to you is that you can be a responible party to yourself and in choosing partners. We dont apprciate being lumped into these stats. I refuse to live my sexual life according to what people think is right and wrong. I dont believe if you are of a non consenting age or an animal that it is right to have sex with these groups. Because they cannot make a concious descsion. Everything else is fair game. I dont like the idea of some body out there getting off to peeing on another person.....but that is not for me to judge or any of my business.

We do have the education of people and their bodies in common our; only difference is the belief that the acts are right or wrong in moral and religious terms.

Crap, didnt you see the sexual revolution in person??

you ARE a HOMOPHOB
dont like it??? dont be one

Was this directed to me Panda? This is what I'r talking about namecalling.


As far as the education part, the gay community hasn't done a very good job of actually practicing all the safe sex education. If they had, the statistics would be reversing, yet they arn't.

The Female to female group is supose to be a good example of why this is so harmless, but had a 91% rate of also being IV drug users, in new cases. They doesn't speak well for a lifestyle and doesn't speak well for crying discrimination.

91%?

Uhm, well then... The USA must be a WHOLE lot more screwed up then I thought!

I know, personally, 4 or more bisexual females. Of these 4 I happen to be sure that 4 of them do not use IV drugs. So my real life statistics versus your CDC/drug use statistics. How did they extrapolate that I wonder? Might be worth looking into. In fact, it might be worth it overall to look at how the CDC/WHO etc extrapolate information, but I bet you haven't despite your use of them.

Don't demonisze me becasue these statistics are very clear. About 1/2 dozen of you have called me names only because of what I read in these statistics.

Well I've not been one of them. Homophobe doesn't really count as a name though, considering that via reading you posts it is very suggestive of you being a homophobe. Note this does not make it so, I've noted quite carefully that you have never said you hate or have contempt for homosexuals.

Now on to the thing with you saying that bisexual female activity is risky.

Here is the thing. Semen is, like you said, not the only thing that can pass on disease/infection. However! It should be noted that semen IS responcible for more transmission then anything else! So.
Information we can gather from this raw data:
Female to male contact is more risky for the female, if the male has the disease, then it would be for the male, should the female have the disease.
And that female to female intercourse has a lower chance of passing the disease from one another, then female to male.