If it's too close to tell, then why the heck would you suggest she
might have a problem at all?
Anyone who goes back and reads your post can see that you did that.
It's not close enough. As to why I said that, it's because Vicky claimed that she had no problem at all with anal sex. Maybe she meant that in the choice sense, but I took it to mean in the health sense.
We both offered our opinions. The difference between what we said is that your opinion was obviously going to offend EVEN IF there was something to support what you were saying -- and there isn't. If someone (anyone, not just an OCSM) posts a picture of themselves, it's just plain rude to suggest something like that.
As I stated before, I've been looking at porn for a long time. The picture that was posted is detailed enough for me to see bulging areas that
could possibly be what I claimed. Since no one here seems to be a proctologist, though, we're going to have to conclude that it's a moot point.
I did. They warn of possible dangers and the like... and then go on to describe methods to minimise the likelihood of such things occurring. If you're trying to convince people that there can be complications with anal sex, most people are aware of that.
The point I'm trying to get across is that damage is extremely likely. All of the reputable links back up that assertion. Dr. Delvin even claims that having anal sex often results in visible changes.
If anal sex is truly so risky, then should it be as popular as it is? I don't think that it should be.
Education is fine -- I only bothered to comment because what you said about Vicky's picture seemed a little nasty.
I won't deny that I need to work on the whole sugar-coating concept.