Is the CDC running a bathhouse?

Everything that the CDC says or does is, by definition, scientific. Science requires that hypotheses be tested and data gathered. The CDC is now offering scientific advice on how to have sex in group settings without contracting monkeypox. Ergo, the CDC must either be running its own bathhouse or gathering data in a bathhouse run by others. Let’s look at “Safer Sex, Social Gatherings, and Monkeypox” (CDC, August 5):

Spaces like back rooms, saunas, sex clubs, or private and public sex parties where intimate, often anonymous sexual contact with multiple partners occurs—are more likely to spread monkeypox.

Unless the CDC is running a bathhouse, how has it determined, scientifically, that the bathhouse lifestyle is more likely to spread monkeypox than some other lifestyle?

Condoms (latex or polyurethane) may protect your anus (butthole), mouth, penis, or vagina from exposure to monkeypox. However, condoms alone may not prevent all exposures to monkeypox, since the rash can occur on other parts of the body.

Where is the CDC doing its scientific testing with condoms?

Consider having sex with your clothes on or covering areas where rash is present, reducing as much skin-to-skin contact as possible. Leather or latex gear also provides a barrier to skin-to-skin contact; just be sure to change or clean clothes/gear between partners and after use.

Has the CDC tested washed versus unwashed leather and latex gear to determine, scientifically, if the suggested cleaning makes a difference? Where has the CDC done the experiments of a leather party versus a non-leather party and a clothes-on versus a clothes-off party in order to have a scientific basis for the above statements?

A rave, party, or club where there is minimal clothing and where there is direct, personal, often skin-to-skin contact has some risk. Avoid any rash you see on others and consider minimizing skin-to-skin contact.

The CDC has done experiments with laypeople and discovered that they are able to recognize rashes in dimly lit clubs? If it doesn’t run its own bathhouse, how can the CDC know that “see and avoid” is an effective means of avoiding monkeypox?

Separately, what would the CDC’s bathhouse be called? All of the people on the “Meet the Staff” page appear to identify as “women”. Would it make sense to have a bathhouse for the 2SLGBTQQIA+ named after a woman?

I already suggested that “Karen’s” be the name of a restaurant chain in which masks and vaccine papers are required. So the CDC bathhouse can’t be named after those who would seek to keep others on the path of righteousness. The CDC is headquartered in Atlanta and is run by the Feds. Combining that fact fact with the above text, how about “Sherman‘s House of Latex”?

11 thoughts on “Is the CDC running a bathhouse?

  1. I propose that the CDC’s experimental bathhouse be named “The Epidemic of Love Spa.”

    Shutting down churches and synagogues to prevent the spread of COVID: Necessary due to Science.
    Shutting down bathhouses to prevent the spread of monkeypox: Bad, not Science.

    It’s been sad to see an organization as respected as the CDC lose all of its credibility by mistaking liberal public policy for science.

  2. I think we are in the “droplet theory” stage from early 2020, when we were told that the COVID-19 particles would fall down to the ground within 1.5 meters and therefore we’d be safe in a subway without a mask.

    Particularly fascinating is the recommendation to still have sex with rashes, provided that they are covered up (by a cloth mask?).

    > Where is the CDC doing its scientific testing with condoms?

    One would hope that the CDC, which, according to the cited pamphlet, is “the most respected government agency” [1], has a thriving 2SLGBTQQIA+ group eager to sacrifice themselves for Science.

    [1] This is admittedly a low bar, but still suspect.

  3. We had to keep children home from school for months/years even though they were at very low Covid risk, but here is the CDC explaining that it’s ok to rub against the bare skin of an infected stranger at a rave if you “avoid any rash you see.”

    Obviously, they are not running a bathhouse, they are just going to many (and to raves, nightclubs, etc) and taking copious notes. I assume they wanted to do this with elementary classrooms but had a harder time finding willing staff? (So much for the “grooming” theory of primary education.)

  4. For anyone who didn’t click on the link, the CDC actually is giving advice about latex gear and “buttholes”. All that stuff wasn’t our host providing hilarious satire.

    Also, the accompanying cartoon contains a progressively interracial couple (though somewhat regressively *only* a couple, and *only* in a bed).

  5. OMG it is the hottest fucking health advisory thing I’ve ever read. The CDC needs to have a big cold waterfall HTML5 graphic that just pours icy cold water on it to put it out! Put it OUT! Then when you read it all, you get to the bottom and it just lights up in flames and the page just burns itself right into your memory!

    That guidance page is so explicit that the first thing it makes me want to do is go grab a pair of gloves, some lube, a Speedo, and join the anonymous gangbang orgy of completely normal men who are now aware of Monkeypox.

  6. Maybe the name of their bathhouse should be “Meet the Staff”! (Sorry couldn’t resist).

  7. I’ll assume you’re asking a serious question, so I’ll answer it. Local health authorities interview patients about their activities based on known or suspected risks. This is forwarded to the CDC. The process is set out in any of the various histories of the HIV epidemic.

    The interesting part is how they decide to apportion coocurring risks, which requires iterative statistics and common sense. If you were exposed to mosquitoes, using someone else’s toothbrush, a blood transfusion, a dirty needle, kissing, and a solid buttfuck, which gets the “credit” for your infection.

    They CDC published some amazing HIV mosquito research circa 1980. How much blood does a mosquito hold? How many retroviruses per that amount of blood? How many retroviruses are required for HIV to “stick” (I seem to recall it was four)? The pamphlet files of my local library had that paper. The paper concluded that the risk of getting HIV from a mosquito was extremely low. The public health staff translated that to “zero risk.”

    • Thanks for your serious comment.

      “The interesting part is how they decide to apportion coocurring risks, which requires iterative statistics and common sense. If you were exposed to mosquitoes, using someone else’s toothbrush, a blood transfusion, a dirty needle, kissing, and a solid buttfuck, which gets the “credit” for your infection.”

      I think that’s a big issue with respect to covid.

  8. CDC is scared of the woke and is lost in “political correctness”, they lost their way of science. If CDC has the balls, it could have published 3 words to the gay community on how to prevent Monkeypox: “Don’t fuck around.”

  9. A reminder to follow the science, published on “” and listed under “ScienceAdvances”:

    “Public attitudes that are in opposition to scientific consensus can be disastrous and include rejection of vaccines and opposition to climate change mitigation policies. Five studies examine the interrelationships between opposition to expert consensus on controversial scientific issues, how much people actually know about these issues, and how much they think they know.”

    Please cover your lesions with a cloth (#Science-07-08-2022)!

Comments are closed.