http://www.prweb.com/releases/adult_products/sexuality/prweb4177964.htm

It goes by many names, and is giggled and whispered about, but anal sex has become an accepted part of the sexual repertoire. Besides being what many consider the ultimate taboo sex act, anal sex is enjoyed by nearly half of the adults in the United States.

Adam & Eve recently asked over 1,000 American adults how they felt about the controversial act of anal sex. Of the 68% who admitted they had tried it, 45% said they enjoyed it.

“We are pleased to note that most Americans now view anal sex as an accepted and normal part of sexuality,” says Chad Davis, Marketing Director for Adam & Eve. “For years, anal sex has had a bad reputation… it speaks well for the open-mindedness of Americans that it is now included as a healthy part of sexuality.”

Additionally, the survey revealed that of those adults who engage in anal sex, only 2.2% always include anal sex, while 7.6% said they include it often and 26.6% said they engage occasionally.

“Adam & Eve encourages American adults to get the facts on anal sex before adding it to their sexual activity,” says Davis. “We also promote a healthy, open attitude toward all types of lovemaking between consensual adults, and are pleased to see anal sex is an acceptable part of lovemaking for a number of adults.”

But she does say that her experience taking it up the ass for over 11 years shows that alarmist propaganda about anal sex is nonsense that isn't supported by the medical facts.

http://news.avn.com/articles/Belladonna-to-Light-Up-the-Loveline-401884.html

Bella said she may take the opportunity to challenge Loveline host Dr. Drew Pinsky's stance against anal sex. (Pinsky memorably commented to Sasha Grey during her appearance on The Tyra Banks Show that if she continued performing anal in her movies she would be "wearing diapers by the time you're 30.")

"He does probably have a very valid reason for believing that, but I'm almost 30, I've been doing anal sex for 11 years, and that's not how I feel," Bella said. "I think the big misconception is that people think you're doing it all day long, and every time you do it, you're doing it with these massive, large things, and that's just not the case. And like anything you do, you have to prepare yourself for it. You won't just go do a scene like that without preparing your body for it. It's like an athlete—they don't go to the Olympics without training themselves for it. It'll be interesting to have a conversation with someone about it. But it'll be fun."

I have tried to find any examples of cases in which people who are having anal sex in the ways in which it is normally had have actually ended up with some kind of anal sphincter damage. Pretty much every "expert" warns against it, usually with some anecdote about some gay guy they heard about with "anal leakage".

But, it is quite hard to find any substantive medical studies or examples of a woman having normal anal sex reporting any kinds of problems. And you would think with all the rightwing obsession with anal sex and their paranoia about anal sex that they would be trumpeting any actual cases or studies far and wide thru every corner of the mediasphere.

Here's what the wiki says – notthat one should trust the wiki, but, still, here is what it says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Physical_damage

Physical damage

Physical damage to the rectum and anus can manifest as generalized ano-rectal trauma, hemorrhoids, anal fissures,^[12] and rectal prolapse.^[78] An insufficient amount of lubricant can make it especially painful or injurious.^[79] Damage is more likely to occur if intercourse is forcible or aggressive or if alcohol or other drugs have dulled sensitivity.

Loss of control over the bowels, though rare according to some, is thought to be a valid concern^[80] and is reported to be caused by repeated injury, or by the insertion of large objects,^[81] or simply by regular anal sex, which "leads to internal sphincter dilation and soiling."^[82]

A 1993 study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found that fourteen out of a sample of forty men receiving anal intercourse experienced episodes of frequent anal incontinence.^[83] However, a 1997 study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology found no difference in levels of incontinence between homosexual men who engaged in anal sex and heterosexual men who did not, and criticized the earlier study for its inclusion of flatulence in its definition of incontinence.^[84]

Dr. Jack Morin recommended kegel exercises to prevent loss of muscle tone from anal fisting or insertion of large objects in a presentation of clinical aspects of anal sexuality, delivered at the 1998 joint conference of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality and the American Association of Sex Educators. He added, however, that he had never personally observed "loosening" in any of his patients^[85].

So, if anyone knows of any verified reports of anal damage from anal sex in women who have anal sex in a normal fashion (that is, women who are not prostitutes specializing in anal having it multiple times a day), please point me to that study.

Anyway, here's the quick summary – a recent study demonstrated the POSSIBILITY that most of the lubes we use for anal sex, including my favorite astroglide and second favorite KY liguid, may increase the chance of transmission of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and other viral STDs. The effect has to be confirmed with studies of actual people, as I understand it.

The effect is caused by the salt properties of the water based lubes – they change the salt concentration against the cell walls causing the cell walls to be damaged and become more porous.

The study did not test silicone lubes, so no news on wether silicone anal lubes are better or worse.

The only lube that did not have this salt effect was one designed for women who wnat to get pregnant – a lube called Pre – which is chemically balanced to mimic the human bodys salt concentrations.

I think we can expect the major lube brands to offer new more expensive "safer" lubes this next year.

About.com had the best article I found on this new study and it's implications – so go read it.

http://sexuality.about.com/b/2010/05/31/understanding-new-research-on-lubricant-use-during-anal-intercourse.htm

The overall purpose of the study was to see if lubricant might play a role in increasing risk of STD transmission during anal intercourse. To this end, the researchers wanted to understand what, if any, direct damage lubricants might have on rectal and cervical tissue. They also wanted to see how the lubricants might impact healthy bacteria that are present in the rectum. There are, of course, many ways to damage rectal tissue. In this study the researchers focused on one particular effect which can damage the tissue in the rectum essentially by drying up cells, causing them to die and slough off. This can happen if the lubricant being used has higher concentrations of salts and sugars than are found in the skin cells it comes in contact with. The lubricant can draw water out of the cells, resulting in damage that can increase risk of infection (the science minded among you can find more detailed explanations here, here, or here).

They found that the four water based lubricants that had higher concentrations of salt (Astroglide, Elbow Grease, ID Glide, and K-Y Jelly) did in fact damage the outer layer of skin cells of the rectal and cervical tissue whereas the silicone lubricant and the water based Pre lubricant did not. In terms of how the lubricants impacted the healthy bacteria, they found that both Astroglide and KY Jelly had a negative effect (KY much worse than Astroglide) and that the other lubricants did not have a toxic effect.

A second study looked at the use of lubricants during anal intercourse outside the laboratory. This study included 229 men who had reported having receptive anal intercourse in the past month, and 192 women who reported having receptive anal intercourse in the past year. Participants completed a computer assisted self-interview about sexual behavior. Among other things, participants were asked about use (or non-use) of lubricants and the particular brands they used during anal sex. From that group, 302 participants also had rectal tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Most of the participants reported using lubricant the last time they had receptive anal intercourse. Of the 302 participants, 25 tested positive for an anal STD. More than two-thirds of the people diagnosed with an STD reported using lube the last time they had receptive anal intercourse, compared with one third of people who had not used a lube. Read another way, people who reported using lubricants the last time they had anal sex were about twice as likely to have chlamydia or gonorrhea as those who did not use lubricants.

Taken together, these two papers seem to be suggesting that using lubricants, or at least some kinds of lubricants, might actually be a bad idea when you're on the receiving end of anal intercourse. And if you listen to the press conference that followed the presentation of the data, it sounds like at least some of the researchers are comfortable interpreting this very early data with some significance.

But don't put away that lube bottle just yet (and probably you won't be putting it away ever). Remember that collecting data, interpreting it, and reporting on it are three very different activities. While some blog posts have suggested this is radical news, consider the fact that all of the reporting from the researchers themselves and from IRMA makes it clear that this is very preliminary research, and should be interpreted as such. It's actually the first research of it's kind, and it involved sample sizes too small to draw any significant conclusions from. It raises far more questions than it answers. Here are just a few:

The clinical study of people based on recall of past anal intercourse wasn't able to take into account which lubricants were used. Participants reported using many different kinds of lubricants across encounters, sometimes combining different lubricants in a given sexual encounter. If, as the laboratory study suggests, some lubes are better than others, we need to figure out which ones are better, and do they need to be used every time, in full concentration, to be "safer"?

I think it's interesting that some people are saying this study means anal sex is "better" without a lube – that seems problematic, considering the possible physical chafing. But I have said before here that human saliva, good old spit, makes a surprising good anal lube, if you can generate enough of it.

So, we may see a resurgence of anal spit lube, lol.