Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

CaptainCanuck · Post by **CaptainCanuck** » Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:58 pm

Alex wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:59 pm
CaptainCanuck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:46 am
Alex wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:23 am
Big Daikon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:24 am
Alex wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:23 am Obviously, many STDs spread just fine by means of the old in and out - heterosexual vaginal intercourse.
Looking at the data, we can see that MSM are much more likely to contract and transmit STDs.

In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States.
https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm

In 2019, MSM accounted for 69% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview ... statistics
But is that because of the "unnatural sex acts" they perform, or rather than - men being men - them having plenty of opportunity to screw around more with many different partners?

If Willie had said something like "fucking around with many people instead of being in a monogamous longterm relationship is being punished", it would have been hard to argue the fact that people who frequently change sex partners are at a higher risk of catching (and spreading) STDs.

Why is the truth so offensive to you .... Clearly as the stats prove, male homosexual relations are the leading cause of STD's.

His terminology might be rough but the stats bare him out .... While your sanitized version is totally misleading .... Personally I prefer hard truths to comforting lies .... But hey that's just me .... Oh yeah, personal opinions not vetted but the standing committee of purity is verboten .... My apologies.
If you had actually read what I wrote, you should have realized that I didn't argue the stats. I just think it's more prevalent promiscuous behavior rather than "unnatural sex acts" that is the main cause for the "punishment" by means of suffering from STDs.

You of course are 100% correct sir, you didn't 'argue' the stats ...you completely ignored their findings and reworded the conclusion as to be misleading at best and factually incorrect at worst .... I mentioned earlier the determination of many to defend the gay community at any cost and here you are proving my assertion .... It matters not 'what you think' ... The math says something completely different and your feelings on the matter have zero value except as willfully ignorant personal opinion.

xandreu · Post by **xandreu** » Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm

General Mackevili wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:53 am
Just to be extra clear, asi know there's people out there who would love to read as wrongly as possibly into what I say, I have nothing against gays, but when maybe 5% of the population (not sure what % of Americans are gay men, but guessing around 5%?) are getting 69% of all new HIV cases and 83% of all new syphilis cases, that seems like maybe there's an elephant in the room that some people don't want to see for whatever reason? That sounds like they're being waaaaaaay overrepresented, no? Does "men just being men"really explain it? That's around 5% of the population getting way more than 10 TIMES what they statistically should be getting, if all sexual acts were equally risky.

*And apologies again to anyone who thinks simply discussing this somehow implies that you have something against gays, that's just silly.

There is another elephant in the room that nobody is talking about and that's the fact that for many decades, this disease has largely remained within the confines of some of the homosexually repressive societies in the world, where just being suspected of being gay can lead to you having your hands and legs bound together and pushed off a tall building. I'm not saying that gay people don't exist in these countries, or that homosexual sex doesn't occur, but these are deeply, deeply religious countries which equate homosexuality with witchcraft. And yet, monkeypox is still prevalent.

Funny that, for a such a 'gay' disease.

Kammekor · Post by **Kammekor** » Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:19 pm

Kung-fu Hillbilly wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:00 pm
WillieW wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:38 pm <cut>discourage it along with other prejudices.
<cut>should be silenced and banished to the hinterland

Kammekor · Post by **Kammekor** » Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:33 pm

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:16 pm I think we’re hovering in “thought police” territory here, homosexual acts may well be natural, for homosexuals, but those acts may well be distasteful to the minds of others, in the same way that certain heterosexual acts may be considered unnatural or distasteful to some heterosexual people.
Thinking a sexual act is unnatural, is not the same as saying that it is unacceptable, people are entitled to their opinions, as are you.
At the risk of being crass here, not all women are into giving oral to their male partners, considering the act unnatural, while plenty of other women think it’s perfectly “normal” to do so.
Should the women who think it’s unnatural be considered intolerant, or bigots? and be silenced because another party considers their own opinion to be superior?
There’s a big problem in the world these days, with people claiming the moral high ground, and insisting on other people being cancelled for their opinions and beliefs, supposedly in the name of tolerance, while showing zero tolerance for the opinions of others.
Live and let live, and sometimes we need to agree to disagree.

I totally agree, but when I read a post containing the following words in one sentence, so apparently they're related according to the poster:

Unnatural sex
Males on males
Anal sex
Bestiality
'punished' by mother nature

I see a red flag. Because mentioning male on male sex with bestiality and 'punished' by nature strongly suggests the people performing male on male are more or less (like) animals.

I know it's not there, and I know it's not been said, but for me, the suggestion is there. That's why I didn't like the post.

Chad Sexington · Post by **Chad Sexington** » Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:25 pm

Kammekor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:33 pm
Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:16 pm I think we’re hovering in “thought police” territory here, homosexual acts may well be natural, for homosexuals, but those acts may well be distasteful to the minds of others, in the same way that certain heterosexual acts may be considered unnatural or distasteful to some heterosexual people.
Thinking a sexual act is unnatural, is not the same as saying that it is unacceptable, people are entitled to their opinions, as are you.
At the risk of being crass here, not all women are into giving oral to their male partners, considering the act unnatural, while plenty of other women think it’s perfectly “normal” to do so.
Should the women who think it’s unnatural be considered intolerant, or bigots? and be silenced because another party considers their own opinion to be superior?
There’s a big problem in the world these days, with people claiming the moral high ground, and insisting on other people being cancelled for their opinions and beliefs, supposedly in the name of tolerance, while showing zero tolerance for the opinions of others.
Live and let live, and sometimes we need to agree to disagree.
I totally agree, but when I read a post containing the following words in one sentence, so apparently they're related according to the poster:

Unnatural sex
Males on males
Anal sex
Bestiality
'punished' by mother nature

I see a red flag. Because mentioning male on male sex with bestiality and 'punished' by nature strongly suggests the people performing male on male are more or less (like) animals.

I know it's not there, and I know it's not been said, but for me, the suggestion is there. That's why I didn't like the post.

Fair comment, I think so much is open to the interpretation by the individual.
Bestiality would normally be interpreted as describing people who have sex with animals, which I think most would agree is unnatural. But I agree that in this instance, it could be seen to imply that gay sex is animalistic, or that there’s an association between gay sex and actual bestiality, which is obviously untrue.
Regarding the “punished by Mother Nature” claim, I would not have been in the least bit surprised if it had read “punished by God” which is undoubtedly the opinion of followers of some religions/faiths.
I think my main point in all this is again, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, and I strongly disagree with the assumption of some that “if I don’t agree with someone’s opinion, they shouldn’t be allowed to have one”.
If someone disagrees with another person’s opinions so strongly, by all means they should be allowed to debate them, criticize them or attempt to convince them to think otherwise, but on failing to do so, they should be prepared to agree to disagree, not insist that they are silenced.

Kammekor · Post by **Kammekor** » Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:34 pm

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:25 pm
Kammekor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:33 pm
Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:16 pm I think we’re hovering in “thought police” territory here, homosexual acts may well be natural, for homosexuals, but those acts may well be distasteful to the minds of others, in the same way that certain heterosexual acts may be considered unnatural or distasteful to some heterosexual people.
Thinking a sexual act is unnatural, is not the same as saying that it is unacceptable, people are entitled to their opinions, as are you.
At the risk of being crass here, not all women are into giving oral to their male partners, considering the act unnatural, while plenty of other women think it’s perfectly “normal” to do so.
Should the women who think it’s unnatural be considered intolerant, or bigots? and be silenced because another party considers their own opinion to be superior?
There’s a big problem in the world these days, with people claiming the moral high ground, and insisting on other people being cancelled for their opinions and beliefs, supposedly in the name of tolerance, while showing zero tolerance for the opinions of others.
Live and let live, and sometimes we need to agree to disagree.
I totally agree, but when I read a post containing the following words in one sentence, so apparently they're related according to the poster:

Unnatural sex
Males on males
Anal sex
Bestiality
'punished' by mother nature

I see a red flag. Because mentioning male on male sex with bestiality and 'punished' by nature strongly suggests the people performing male on male are more or less (like) animals.

I know it's not there, and I know it's not been said, but for me, the suggestion is there. That's why I didn't like the post.
Fair comment, I think so much is open to the interpretation by the individual.
Bestiality would normally be interpreted as describing people who have sex with animals, which I think most would agree is unnatural. But I agree that in this instance, it could be seen to imply that gay sex is animalistic, or that there’s an association between gay sex and actual bestiality, which is obviously untrue.
Regarding the “punished by Mother Nature” claim, I would not have been in the least bit surprised if it had read “punished by God” which is undoubtedly the opinion of followers of some religions/faiths.
I think my main point in all this is again, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, and I strongly disagree with the assumption of some that “if I don’t agree with someone’s opinion, they shouldn’t be allowed to have one”.
If someone disagrees with another person’s opinions so strongly, by all means they should be allowed to debate them, criticize them or attempt to convince them to think otherwise, but on failing to do so, they should be prepared to agree to disagree, not insist that they are silenced.

Yes, we're all entitled to our opinion, but sometimes rhetoric, the use of words, is used to hide the opinion one really has. All kinds of style forms have been discovered for this over time. Because this is all online and not face to face, it makes statements difficult to judge / interpret.

Chad Sexington · Post by **Chad Sexington** » Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:44 pm

Kammekor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:34 pm
Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:25 pm
Kammekor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:33 pm
Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:16 pm I think we’re hovering in “thought police” territory here, homosexual acts may well be natural, for homosexuals, but those acts may well be distasteful to the minds of others, in the same way that certain heterosexual acts may be considered unnatural or distasteful to some heterosexual people.
Thinking a sexual act is unnatural, is not the same as saying that it is unacceptable, people are entitled to their opinions, as are you.
At the risk of being crass here, not all women are into giving oral to their male partners, considering the act unnatural, while plenty of other women think it’s perfectly “normal” to do so.
Should the women who think it’s unnatural be considered intolerant, or bigots? and be silenced because another party considers their own opinion to be superior?
There’s a big problem in the world these days, with people claiming the moral high ground, and insisting on other people being cancelled for their opinions and beliefs, supposedly in the name of tolerance, while showing zero tolerance for the opinions of others.
Live and let live, and sometimes we need to agree to disagree.
I totally agree, but when I read a post containing the following words in one sentence, so apparently they're related according to the poster:

Unnatural sex
Males on males
Anal sex
Bestiality
'punished' by mother nature

I see a red flag. Because mentioning male on male sex with bestiality and 'punished' by nature strongly suggests the people performing male on male are more or less (like) animals.

I know it's not there, and I know it's not been said, but for me, the suggestion is there. That's why I didn't like the post.
Fair comment, I think so much is open to the interpretation by the individual.
Bestiality would normally be interpreted as describing people who have sex with animals, which I think most would agree is unnatural. But I agree that in this instance, it could be seen to imply that gay sex is animalistic, or that there’s an association between gay sex and actual bestiality, which is obviously untrue.
Regarding the “punished by Mother Nature” claim, I would not have been in the least bit surprised if it had read “punished by God” which is undoubtedly the opinion of followers of some religions/faiths.
I think my main point in all this is again, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, and I strongly disagree with the assumption of some that “if I don’t agree with someone’s opinion, they shouldn’t be allowed to have one”.
If someone disagrees with another person’s opinions so strongly, by all means they should be allowed to debate them, criticize them or attempt to convince them to think otherwise, but on failing to do so, they should be prepared to agree to disagree, not insist that they are silenced.
Yes, we're all entitled to our opinion, but sometimes rhetoric, the use of words, is used to hide the opinion one really has. All kinds of style forms have been discovered for this over time. Because this is all online and not face to face, it makes statements difficult to judge / interpret.

Again, fair comment.
The curse of the interweb, remember when people used to mostly interact with others face to face, they were far more inclined to be polite and respectful, and you could determine a lot from their tone of voice, facial expressions and body language.

CaptainCanuck · Post by **CaptainCanuck** » Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:58 pm

Kammekor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:34 pm
Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:25 pm
Kammekor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:33 pm
Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:16 pm I think we’re hovering in “thought police” territory here, homosexual acts may well be natural, for homosexuals, but those acts may well be distasteful to the minds of others, in the same way that certain heterosexual acts may be considered unnatural or distasteful to some heterosexual people.
Thinking a sexual act is unnatural, is not the same as saying that it is unacceptable, people are entitled to their opinions, as are you.
At the risk of being crass here, not all women are into giving oral to their male partners, considering the act unnatural, while plenty of other women think it’s perfectly “normal” to do so.
Should the women who think it’s unnatural be considered intolerant, or bigots? and be silenced because another party considers their own opinion to be superior?
There’s a big problem in the world these days, with people claiming the moral high ground, and insisting on other people being cancelled for their opinions and beliefs, supposedly in the name of tolerance, while showing zero tolerance for the opinions of others.
Live and let live, and sometimes we need to agree to disagree.
I totally agree, but when I read a post containing the following words in one sentence, so apparently they're related according to the poster:

Unnatural sex
Males on males
Anal sex
Bestiality
'punished' by mother nature

I see a red flag. Because mentioning male on male sex with bestiality and 'punished' by nature strongly suggests the people performing male on male are more or less (like) animals.

I know it's not there, and I know it's not been said, but for me, the suggestion is there. That's why I didn't like the post.
Fair comment, I think so much is open to the interpretation by the individual.
Bestiality would normally be interpreted as describing people who have sex with animals, which I think most would agree is unnatural. But I agree that in this instance, it could be seen to imply that gay sex is animalistic, or that there’s an association between gay sex and actual bestiality, which is obviously untrue.
Regarding the “punished by Mother Nature” claim, I would not have been in the least bit surprised if it had read “punished by God” which is undoubtedly the opinion of followers of some religions/faiths.
I think my main point in all this is again, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, and I strongly disagree with the assumption of some that “if I don’t agree with someone’s opinion, they shouldn’t be allowed to have one”.
If someone disagrees with another person’s opinions so strongly, by all means they should be allowed to debate them, criticize them or attempt to convince them to think otherwise, but on failing to do so, they should be prepared to agree to disagree, not insist that they are silenced.
Yes, we're all entitled to our opinion, but sometimes rhetoric, the use of words, is used to hide the opinion one really has. All kinds of style forms have been discovered for this over time. Because this is all online and not face to face, it makes statements difficult to judge / interpret.

Well put .... all the more reason to ask for clarification if it’s not especially clear or argue with reason and logic ..... but defiantly the default of cancel culture is wrong either way ..... cutting out the tongue of someone you disagree with doesn’t make your point of view correct.

YouTube · Post by **General Mackevili** » Sat Aug 20, 2022 6:12 am

timmydownawell wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:54 pm
CEOCambodiaNews wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 12:03 pm Official version from the US Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

Take the following steps to prevent getting monkeypox:

Avoid close, skin-to-skin contact with people who have a rash that looks like monkeypox.
Do not touch the rash or scabs of a person with monkeypox.
Do not kiss, hug, cuddle or have sex with someone with monkeypox.
Do not share eating utensils or cups with a person with monkeypox.
Do not handle or touch the bedding, towels, or clothing of a person with monkeypox.
Wash your hands often with soap and water or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer.
In Central and West Africa, avoid contact with animals that can spread monkeypox virus, usually rodents and primates. Also, avoid sick or dead animals, as well as bedding or other materials they have touched.

That's a lot of ways you can catch the pox that don't involve being "banged in the cornhole".

Uh oh, I think we have bad news about this. It appears that the scientific community is now starting to come around and side with all those 'homophobic bigots' who have been saying for weeks that it's clearly an STD being spread almost exclusively from gay male sex. I think it's time we start to put more pressure on all the tech giants to ban things like 'facts, science, and statistics' as these are clearly just propaganda of the extreme right wingers who are filled with nothing but hate.

From NBC News:

Sex between men, not skin contact, is fueling monkeypox, new research suggests

The claim that skin-to-skin contact during sex between men, not intercourse itself, drives most monkeypox transmission is likely backward, a growing group of experts say.

Since the outset of the global monkeypox outbreak in May, public health and infectious disease experts have told the public that the virus is largely transmitting through skin-to-skin contact, in particular during sex between men.

Now, however, an expanding cadre of experts has come to believe that sex between men itself — both anal as well as oral intercourse — is likely the main driver of global monkeypox transmission. The skin contact that comes with sex, these experts say, is probably much less of a risk factor.

From Vox:

Monkeypox can spread through anal and oral sex, like other STIs. Let’s talk about it.

During an Infectious Disease Society of America press briefing last week, the director of a large LGBTQ health clinic delivered what’s become a standard talking point among health authorities: “Skin-to-skin contact is causing transmission of this virus” in the context of sex, he said.

He wasn’t wrong, per se: The virus does spread most readily when one person’s skin is exposed to another’s open sores. But many officials seem hesitant to talk in detail about the role of penetrative sex between men — that is, body part-in-orifice sex, like anal and oral sex — in the current outbreak.

It’s part of a larger trend of health officials across the country being mealy-mouthed when it comes to clear risk communication. A story in the Washington Post referenced one state health department official who argued that “urging people to have less sex unfairly places the onus on individuals to end the outbreak,” which seems to minimize the options people have for reducing their infection risk. The official also argued that urging people to have less sex “distracts from other potential sources of transmission, such as dancing in packed clubs.”

Similarly, a New York City health department epidemiologist wrote of his employer’s unwillingness to publicly recommend sexual behavior changes that “we seem paralyzed by the fear of stigmatizing this disease.”

Many health officials’ reluctance to speak frankly might be coming from a well-intentioned place. As other journalists have noted, some of the vague-speak may be an effort to avoid giving ammunition to people who’d use gay and queer men’s sexual practices to demonize same-sex sexual contact and justify discrimination.

*Again, I just find it completely insane that our health 'experts' are more concerned about making sure they walk on eggshells so that they don't possibly cause any offense than they are about actually spreading information that was beyond obvious a month ago that would clearly have helped stop the spread of monkeypox among gay men. If I were a gay man, I would be furious at these health experts for looking out for my feelings rather than my health, not at the people pointing out this insanity.

Kammekor · Post by **Kammekor** » Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:32 am

Read a case study about Monkeypox yesterday. Young male had symptoms of what seemed Monkeypox, he was subsequently tested for Monkeypox and tested positive. Doctors didn't trust it and ran more tests on the young man, they found both a syphillis infection and a HIV infection which already had evolved into an early stage of AIDS. Thus compromising his immune system.

Just one case, I know. Case study didn't mention the man was gay or not, but I suspect he has an active and varied sex life.

Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Re: Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Re: Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Re: Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Re: Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Re: Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Re: Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Re: Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Re: Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Re: Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Re: Is monkeypox now in Cambodia?

Who is online

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: