Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 166 of 206 (267212)
12-09-2005 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by nator
12-09-2005 6:22 AM


more monkey business
Do you really believe that most or any primate species have a similar social structure to the Bonobos??
No. Nothing I said was meant to suggest that. Indeed I already implied that they were different and pointed out how that would only help my overall argument (if it would do anything). This is a nonissue, let it go.
Do I have to remind you that Bonobos are apes, not monkeys? (Hint: monkeys have tails, apes do not)
Thanks I'll try to keep that in mind. However it has no bearing on the argument under discussion. Monkeys beat off too.
I really do think you should tell us how you know a female of a particular species of monkey is receptive to penetrative intercourse.
Let's review shall we?
1) BKelly asserts that penetrative acts are naturally preferable, and that animals show this.
2) No one asks him for evidence to support this claim except for me. And I do this with an argument which includes a jokey visually reference to his not having hung around monkeys at the zoo. This was not an assertion that all monkeys jerk off from choice, or that I was excluding all other species from discussion including apes. It was a comical reference to readily visual counterevidence to BKelly's claim. Certainly some animals can be seen masturbating, and quite often.
3) You appear and assert that males may be masturbating because they are being denied penetrative sex by females. This means nothing to my point unless you are suggesting that is what happens all the time. Indeed you manage to assert this without any reference to primate females doing this at all. (note: Your only reference is to horses which are further removed from monkeys than Bonobos are, and which you are riding me about as some example).
4) I point out that this means nothing unless it for all cases, and break down how that fails if in fact that is what you meant.
5) You and crash both demand evidence of how I know whether females are receptive, such that I can then know that the monkeys are not masturbating simply because they have to.
In view of the above, here is my reply:
1) Do you believe that animals prefer penetrative acts over masturbation, and are incapable of having such preferences?
2) If so, how do you explain masturbation seen throughout species as is related in this essay?
Species that can masturbate do so! All humanoid lifeforms do it with their hands. Those that can will lick their genitals until orgasm, rub their antlers on the ground, large wild cats will gyrate themselves against tree trunks for pleasure & climaxes, some monkeys even construct particular tools, for example with leaves & twigs, specifically for the purpose of masturbation. Octopuses self-stimulate their own tentacles' sexual organs. The phenomenon is practiced across the natural kingdoms far and wide using a wondrous array of techniques.
"Masturbation also occurs widely among animals, both male and female. A variety of creative techniques are used, including genital stimulation using the hand or front paw (primates, Lions), foot (Vampire Bats, primates), flipper (Walruses), or tail (Savanna Baboons), sometimes accompanied by stimulation of the nipples (Rhesus Macaques, Bonobos); auto-fellating or licking, sucking and/or nuzzling by a male of his own penis (Common Chimpanzees, Savanna Bonobos, Vervet Monkeys, Squirrel Monkeys, Thinhorn Sheep, Bharal, Aovdad, Dwarf Cavies); stimulation of the penis by flipping or rubbing it against the belly or in its own sheath (White-tailed and Mule Deer, Zebras and Takhi); spontaneous ejaculations (Mountain Sheep, Warthogs, Spotted Hyenas); and stimulation of the genitals using inanimate objects (found in several primates and cetaceans).
Many birds masturbate by mounting and copulating with tufts of grass, leaves or mounds of earth, and some mammals such as primates and Dolphins also rub their genitals against the ground or other surfaces to stimulate themselves.
Masturbation in female mammals, as well as heterosexual and homosexual intercourse (especially in primates), often involves direct or indirect stimulation of the clitoris [...]. This organ is present in the females of all mammalian species and several other animal groups"
Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, p209-210
"Apes and Monkeys use a variety of objects to masturbate with and even deliberately create implements for sexual stimulation [...] often in highly creative ways"
Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, p71
3) If it is that in all of these cases it is something other than PREFERENCE, then what evidence do YOU HAVE that that is so?
You want me to explain how I know a female is receptive, but that is the same as asking to know whether she is not (which is your assertion)... or whether the male is receptive! If the point is we cannot know, for male or female, then my original point is not defeated. It simply leaves us with the observation that both males and females (funny thing you did not address) masturbate and no claims can be supported that they always prefer coitus.
So, since you are the one advancing a positive claim of knowledge (if it is going to have any effect on my position) you should tell me how you know when a female wants it, and also when you know a male wants it.
3) One line of argument I would make, to support my position, is that I have seen documentaries which show monkeys and apes (it was not just Bonobos) engaging in masturbation with females around and not being repulsive in attitude. Most positive sexual displays (in all animals) are pretty obvious. I'm not sure if you are wanting me to support this for every animal species or what? Is your position that most animals do not usually put on displays when they are interested, or that these displays (especially among primates) are not recognizable?
Likewise negative reactions to sexual advances are pretty obvious, as you have suggested in horses and I have seen in both lions and monkeys/apes. If we want to play the "how can you tell?" game, then I might just as easily ask you how you know female horses are spurning sexual advances instead of simply playing at some sex game, trying to turn the other horse on more.
You don't have to believe there are such documentaries, and I am stating outright I don't know how to find them at this point, and I cannot link to what I have seen at the zoo. But I am stating that I have seen these things.
If you doubt that I have or that such things can be told, there will be some curious results as you will see in a later point.
4) Another line of argument I would make is that I am a primate and I masturbate for fun and not simply when I don't have access to a vagina. As it is infant males (and females) will play with themselves. I suppose one can argue that they are not aware of penetratively willing partners, but I would argue they would still be likely to play with themselves from time to time. After all after learning about sex, and having willing partners, human boys and girls continue to masturbate. Is there a reason to believe that other primates will not act in that same way, enjoying playing with parts that are tingly and exciting?
5) Remember that the original line of argument was about animals choosing to masturbate. If the argument you use is correct, it has much greater ramifications than just for masturbation. If I remember correctly you have pointed out that some animals exhibit homosexual behavior, indeed that there can be homosexual animals. If you did not then I apologize.
In any case that idea would be removed completely. We could never say that they are simply forced into that behavior because of rejection from females. Do you believe animals can be said to be gay, and if so how if we cannot determine willing partners?
Here's an article from the straight dope on various monkey business, and its interesting to see how that was determined.
When paired individually with females, the male monkeys would exhibit conventional heterosexual behavior. However, when the two were put in a cage together with a female, they would hassle her and direct all their affections toward each other.
Hmmmmm, maybe there is no such thing as gay animals after all. Maybe the girls just didn't like them, and that's why they hassled the girl. I mean if your point is true that researchers can't tell if she was receptive.
Oh yeah, and Cecil has some other interesting things to note...
Monkeys engage in oral sex, mutual masturbation, and other similar activities.
I have a photograph here from a book of sex research (a perfectly sober volume, let me assure you) showing a male gorilla administering oral gratification to his lady.
He does this by climbing up on her thighs, leaning down, and perching on his head. The effect is not as graceful as it might be. A younger male gorilla observes with interest from the sidelines.
Elsewhere in the book we find detailed renderings of various positions from the monkey Kama Sutra, drawn from life by dedicated researchers. No doubt about it, zoology offers some fascinating career opportunities.
Oral sex and mutual masturbation are very clear signs that penetration is not the only preference as when you have two penetration is always possible.
Of course if you doubt what I said, you would have to doubt Cecil as well. Maybe you can write him and ask.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by nator, posted 12-09-2005 6:22 AM nator has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 167 of 206 (267463)
12-10-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by riVeRraT
12-05-2005 8:42 AM


quote:
I was not refering to any particular brand of sex, just a fact.
Huh? You're talking about fecal matter upon a penis and you have the temerity to say you weren't "refering" [sic] to any particular brand of sex? Exactly how would one get fecal matter upon a penis through sexual activity if not anal sex? Are you of the opinion that the vagina is an organ of fecal excretion?
quote:
Sticking you dinky is someones anus is healthy or unhealthy? Answer please.
Neither. The question cannot be answered by a simple either-or. What is your definition of "healthy"? What is the context in which it takes place?
And the word is "penis."
Next topic.
quote:
quote:
Three-quarters of all cases of HIV transmission happened through heterosexual sex. Thus, by definition, AIDS is a heterosexual disease. Heterosexuals are the ones most likely to be infected by it and they got infected by having heterosexual sex.
I disagree. I think it is a percentage thing. A more logical answer.
Huh? Do you not understand that factions are percentages? "Three-quarters" is identical to "seventy-five percent." Therefore, if three-quarters of all cases of HIV transmission happened through heterosexual sex, that means 75% of all cases of HIV transmission happened through heterosexual sex. Do I really need to show how 75% percent means that the overwhelming majority of cases of HIV transmission happened through heterosexual sex?
quote:
A simple question, yet you feel the need to include gays....again...get off it.
But you're the one who brought it up. If you didn't want to talk about it, why did you bring it up?
quote:
My point was that it was once rumored to have come from apes, or gorillas, or whatever. More unclean sex.
Huh? Sex? You think HIV crossed the species barrier to humans through sex? Do you know nothing about the biological history of HIV?
Does the term "bushmeat" mean anything to you?
quote:
quote:
Then why did you bring up male-male anal sex?
I did not, you did, next.
Can't remember your own words, eh?
Did you or did you not say the following:
Sticking you dinky in someones ass isn't exactly a clean thing to do
Now, don't be disingenuous and claim that because the words "AIDS" or "HIV" did not appear in your post that it somehow means you weren't referring to them. And don't compound the problem by trying to claim that you weren't referring to male-male anal sex.
quote:
I bet you there are more heterosexual people having anal intercourse than gay people.
Indeed, there are.
You weren't referring to them, however. You don't think AIDS is a heterosexual disease. Therefore, in a discussion that is referring to HIV and to have you bring up "sticking you [sic] dinky in someones [sic] ass" is clearly indicative of you talking about male-male anal sex, not heterosexual anal sex.
quote:
I wasn't even talking about AIDS when mentioning anal sex.
Right.
That's why you talked about "sticking you [sic] dinky in someones [sic] ass isn't exactly a clean thing to do." If you weren't referring to HIV, what were you talking about? You haven't mentioned any other disease.
quote:
I was merelt pointing out that anal sex is unhealthy, and I am right.
Really? Why? You have yet to explicate any particular reason why anal sex is more problematic than any other form of sex. Just how, precisely, is anal sex "unhealthy," especially compared to any other form of sex?
If you aren't referring to HIV, then you must be referring to such other things as herpes, syphillis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HPV, etc. Most STDs are easily transmitted through oral and penis-vagina sex. So what is so special about anal sex that has your knickers in a twist? How is anal sex "unhealthy" in ways that oral or penis-vagina sex are not?
quote:
Lets try to pretend that gays, and Aids aren't the only thing we are talking about here.
But then why did you bring it up? If you weren't referring to male-male anal sex and HIV, why did you say, "Sticking you [sic] dinky in someones [sic] ass isn't exactly a clean thing to do"? You weren't talking about heterosexuals, you weren't talking about lesbians, and you weren't talking about any other form of sex than anal sex. The only thing left is male-male anal sex.
quote:
quote:
It tells us that we should all become lesbians since they have the lowest risk of sexually transmitted HIV.
I wonder how many lesbians have yeast infections on their tongues?
About as many as heterosexual males. The most common form of sex, after all, is oral sex.
Are you implying that there is something about the Y-chromosome that prevents infection from the ingestion of vaginal fluids?
quote:
You will have to explain to the rest of this community how you pulled the word gay out of my comment.
Already done. You weren't talking about heterosexuals. You weren't talking about those who only engage in solo masturbation. You were referring specifically to male-male anal sex. As I said before, don't be disingenuous and try to claim that because the words "gay" or "AIDS" did not appear in your post, that that somehow means you weren't talking about them.
quote:
The topic here is broader than that, and that is what the rest of us are talking about.
Indeed...so why did you decide to focus on gay men having anal sex? Did you or did you not say, "Sticking you [sic] dinky in someones [sic] ass isn't exactly a clean thing to do"?
quote:
quote:
And thus, you have just proven that you don't understand what they're saying at all if you think they are advocating a "moral free society."
I didn't say that, and that would be impossible.
(*chuckle*) You really can't recall your own words, can you? I was quoting you directly. Did you or did you not say the following:
They want to live in a moral free society, where everything is ok if it really doesn't involve you.
quote:
quote:
Then why do you keep making other people's lives difficult? If you truly believed this, why do you feel that your phobias and neuroses must be inflicted upon others?
Maybe they are not phobias, or neuroses.
You seem to be fixated upon the sexual activity of people whom you will never meet, never have sex with, and never be affected by their sexual activity. If that is not a phobia and/or neurosis, what is? Why are you so obsessed about what is going on in other people's bedrooms?
quote:
At least I don't have a web-site to try and stop people from doing what they think is right.
No, you just vote for laws that try to stop people from doing what they think is right when their actions have no effect upon you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by riVeRraT, posted 12-05-2005 8:42 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 168 of 206 (267467)
12-10-2005 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by bkelly
12-05-2005 5:54 PM


bkelly responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Obviously incorrect or you wouldn't be able to have anal sex.
Just because something can be done, does not mean it should be done or was designed to do that.
You do realize that those are two very different things?
What you haven't done is defend your claim that the anus was not designed to receive a penis. Obviously it was or you wouldn't be able to do it.
If you want to discuss if it is right to have anal sex, that's another question. Be warned, however, that it leads to some interesting stances that must be taken: Most anal sex is carried out by heterosexuals. In fact, there isn't really any sexual activity that gay couples engage in that straight couples don't (though docking comes to mind). You're going to have to deny everything except penis-vagina sex in order to maintain consistency.
quote:
As I noted a bit earlier, in the documentary the medical community confronted this person and discussed that people were getting sick and dying. That person made it clear he had no concern and was not about to change his ways.
And as I pointed out, that wasn't such a bizarre response: There was no test, no way to tell who had it until they got sick, he wasn't sick, and someone must have given it to him.
quote:
quote:
BWAHAHAHAHA! Studs fuck harder?
I did not say studs.
(*sigh*)
You and riVeRraT. So quick to retreat to literal mindedness when backed into a corner. Did you or did you not say the following:
In my estimation, when one has sex with so many so often, it will tend to be, shall we say, more enthusiastic with stronger motions and tend to cause more microtears than sex with fewer and maybe a single partner.
Is it not true that a male who "has sex with so many so often" is often called a "stud"? Are you incapable of comprehending synonyms? Is English a second language for you?
quote:
And I did say in my estimation rather than putting this out as a fact.
Don't you think that's a fairly foolish thing to do? What sort of justification can you possibly have for this claim other than personal stereotyping? That those who have sex with many must be careless, brutal people and who would be careless and brutal with the people with whom they have sex?
quote:
From watching the homesexual community
Oh? Where have you been watching them from? Are you a peeping tom?
quote:
and reading books and articles by members of that community,
Such as? I can't seem to find any indication that the sexual activity of gay men are any more brutal or even more promiscuous than those of heterosexual men.
quote:
I do hold that they tend to be more violent that the average hetro.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
You really believe that, don't you? You really think that gay men are more violent than straight men?
I love the complete disconnect this requires. Gay men are weaker, less physically capable, more emotional, more "womanly" than straight men, and yet, they are violent, powerful beasts who would just as soon rape you as say hello. Well, which is it? Are gay men weak or are they strong?
Question: If gay men are so much more violent than straight men, why do we find that gay men are less likely to commit violent crime than straight men?
quote:
You may dislike that as you choose, but thirty plus years of observation and reading has formed that opinion.
(*chuckle*)
And you're such a good and reliable observer. It's coming to my attention that you're trying to tell us something: Are you regularly dating men who don't treat you well? Have you considered the possibility that it isn't an issue with all of gay men but rather with the men you are dating? This is a common issue...we see the various afternoon talk shows and self-help books routinely talk about women who keep dating men who treat them badly.
quote:
Again, much of that reading was first person accounts of those participating, not second hand opinion.
Were these longitudinal studies of valid cross sections of the community? And how does one define "violent"? I get the feeling that there is a double-standard going on. Recall the hypocrisy of trying to define gay men as both weak and predatory simultaneously...anything that would paint gay people in a poor light.
quote:
During these early days of AIDS, there was much discussion about the use of condomes. Many user comlained of breakage and wanted tougher condoms. Lubricants were blamed on breakage. There was never this level of problem in the hetrosexual community.
Huh? "Never this level of problem in the heterosexual community"? Says who? There has always been a problem with breakage in penis-vagina sex. That's part of the reason why condoms, in typical use, have only an 80% or so rate of contraception effectiveness.
quote:
My statement stands.
No, it falls under the most basic of scrutiny.
Here's another question for you to ponder: What sort of lubricant is being used?
quote:
As I recall from the early and mid '80s, the homosexual community had far more cases of AIDS than did the hetrosexual community.
Incorrect. You are confusing the HIV outbreak in the West with the HIV outbreak in the world. Yes, in Western Europe and the United States, HIV was most commonly transferred between men who have sex with men. But HIV did not start with gay men nor has male-male sex ever been the most common vector for transmission as a whole. Yes, it was in the West, but the West contains only a tiny fraction of the total number of HIV cases. Approximately 1% of all people who have AIDS live in the US. A little less than that for Western Europe. While men who have sex with men have been the most common vector for most of the crisis (though Europe flipped to heterosexuals back in 1999 and about 56% of all new cases in Europe are through heterosexual sex), they represent only the tiniest fraction of cases of transmission.
quote:
I am not certain where to search for that information
AVERT is a good place to start.
quote:
but from being there as a married adult and with a child who had a future to worry about, I am relatively confident in that opinion.
You should reconsider your analytical abilities. Surely you have heard by now that anecdote is not evidence.
quote:
quote:
Sex does not generate disease.
There are always degrees of behavior.
Huh? There is no "degrees of behavior" about it. Sex does not generate disease. You can rub your sexual organs anywhere you want: It will not generate HIV particles. People who do not have HIV can share all the bodily fluids they want in any way they can imagine and they will never, ever come down with HIV. Sexual activity does not create HIV out of thin air. It is an infectious disease caused by a virus and if the virus is not present, it cannot pop into existence.
quote:
The articles and literature of that time from the homesexual community spoke often of how they would visit selected restrooms and have sex with a dozen or more strangers that walked in and agreed.
And there are no such things as prostitutes where heterosexual men can drive down the street and have sex with as many women as they wished. You seem to have a very selective memory about what sort of sexual activity takes place in the world. It's like the people who keep complaining about Pride Parades and how "there aren't any 'Straight Pride' parades" who are seemingly oblivious of Mardi Gras. I live in San Diego. The producers of Girls Gone Wild are from San Diego. They have made an awful lot of money simply by taking a Handicam and wandering around simply asking young women to lift their shirts and make out with each other.
quote:
These were first person accounts.
Of course. Bath houses still exist and there are still gay men who frequent them and have lots of sex with men they don't know and will never meet again.
You act as if this is somehow peculiar to gay men and that straight people never engage in this sort of activity.
quote:
quote:
100% guaranteed. I don't even need a condom to do it, either.
I do not agree with that statement at all. Any sexual contact with a person that has the HIV virus exposes you to risk of infection.
Incorrect. Who said you were even in the same room with me? You need to think creatively. Sex does not mean intercourse.
quote:
I see what you said about condoms, but just for the record, something like 10% of condom users get pregnant.
Ahem. I DON'T EVEN NEED A CONDOM TO DO IT, EITHER. What do you think that means? It means I'm not even going to wear a condom. And even though I'm not wearing a condom, there will be absolutely zero risk of HIV transmission.
Sex does not equal intercourse.
quote:
The sperm cell is far larger than any virus. Any hole the sperm cell can get trough is a highway for a virus.
(*sigh*)
You don't know a thing about how condoms work, do you?
When was the last time you read the package a condom comes in? "Each condom is individually electronically tested to help ensure reliability." Do you know what that means? It means that every single condom, not just a sample but rather every single one, is tested. They put the condom on an electrode. The condom-sheathed electrode is then put into an electrolytic solution and a current is run through. If any electricity pass across the condom, it is rejected.
Do I need to indicate that electrons are even smaller than either sperm or HIV particles, yes? I should point out that condoms are also waterproof and water is smaller than HIV. HIV is incapable of travelling on its own. It must be carried through fluid. Since fluid cannot penetrate the condom, HIV cannot penetrate a condom.
The reason why condoms are not perfect is not because of "holes in the condom." It's because the condom has broken, because there has been sexual activity without the condom (even though there was no penetration at the time, preseminal fluid can contain sperm and if penetration happens after, even with a condom, it can introduce sperm), or because care has not been taken when withdrawing and there is spillage. It isn't like the fluid can seep through the condom.
quote:
If you think you can have indiscrimate sex without condoms and never contract HIV, please let the world know.
I can.
Sex does not mean intercourse.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by bkelly, posted 12-05-2005 5:54 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by purpledawn, posted 12-10-2005 7:28 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 170 by Silent H, posted 12-10-2005 7:41 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 171 by bkelly, posted 12-10-2005 8:58 PM Rrhain has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 169 of 206 (267469)
12-10-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Rrhain
12-10-2005 6:53 AM


Just wanted to thank you for making me laugh this morning.
I loved the "dinky" correction. Purple Smiles
Seriously though, I found your last two post very informative. More info than I ever really wanted to know, but information that is good to know.
As usual your presentation is very precise and inoffensive.
Excellent!

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Rrhain, posted 12-10-2005 6:53 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 170 of 206 (267472)
12-10-2005 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Rrhain
12-10-2005 6:53 AM


Of course. Bath houses still exist and there are still gay men who frequent them and have lots of sex with men they don't know and will never meet again.
You act as if this is somehow peculiar to gay men and that straight people never engage in this sort of activity.
I move between the the hetero and homosexual worlds and my experience is that the amount of sex between the two, especially promiscuous or anonymous sex, simply does not compare.
Yes it does exist in the hetero world. I am not denying that at all. But it is more extensive and easily accessed in the gay world. Many times I wish I was gay because I could actually be living the life I'd like to be living all the time in the hetero world. It simply does not exist, unless you are extermely lucky or extremely rich.
Men will generally have sex for free, and are even willing to pay for it. Most women in our culture simply will not. They'll do it for free and promiscuously, but not in as public and accessible a way as men will... or at least not as frequently. And more women will ask for money, or try to use sex to gain wealth, rather than having sex solely for the pleasure.
I'm not saying this is inherent to all humanity, nor am I saying moral or medical conclusions should be drawn from this. I am simply stating that at this time there is a difference between the hetero and homosexual communities in the degree of promiscuous and anonymous sex taking place.
Sadly (for me) hetero venues catering to that sort of activity are on the decline, while gay venues are growing.
This message has been edited by holmes, 12-10-2005 07:42 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Rrhain, posted 12-10-2005 6:53 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by bkelly, posted 12-10-2005 9:10 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2005 6:32 AM Silent H has replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 206 (267648)
12-10-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Rrhain
12-10-2005 6:53 AM


Rrhain writes:
What you haven't done is defend your claim that the anus was not designed to receive a penis. Obviously it was or you wouldn't be able to do it.
Analogies abound, I will pick an extreme one. Was the brain designed to stop a bullet? It can do it, so you say it must have been designed to do it.
The remainder of the post is not worth bothering with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Rrhain, posted 12-10-2005 6:53 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2005 6:15 AM bkelly has replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 206 (267654)
12-10-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Silent H
12-10-2005 7:41 AM


just a talking point
holmes writes:
Yes it does exist in the hetero world. I am not denying that at all. But it is more extensive and easily accessed in the gay world. Many times I wish I was gay because I could actually be living the life I'd like to be living all the time in the hetero world. It simply does not exist, unless you are extermely lucky or extremely rich.
As I have read about homosexual men and women over the years, I had a thought as to a possible reason why some (no number specified or inferred) people chose that lifestyle.
Some men might choose it (in part or whole) because they don't want to put up with all the crap that many women attach to sex.
Some women might choose it because they don't want to put up with all the misogynistic behavior and all that "manly" crap that the men just cannot do without.
Obviously I just threw out the concept; you can fill in what ever details you might think appropriate.
Any takers on this possibility?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Silent H, posted 12-10-2005 7:41 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 12-10-2005 10:59 PM bkelly has not replied
 Message 175 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2005 6:21 AM bkelly has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 173 of 206 (267694)
12-10-2005 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by bkelly
12-10-2005 9:10 PM


Re: just a talking point
Some men might choose it (in part or whole) because they don't want to put up with all the crap that many women attach to sex.
Women are crazy; no doubt, but there's no amount of women-being-crazyness that would make me not want to have sex with them. And that doesn't seem to be an unusual opinion among hetero men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by bkelly, posted 12-10-2005 9:10 PM bkelly has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 174 of 206 (267722)
12-11-2005 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by bkelly
12-10-2005 8:58 PM


bkelly responds to me:
quote:
quote:
What you haven't done is defend your claim that the anus was not designed to receive a penis. Obviously it was or you wouldn't be able to do it.
Analogies abound, I will pick an extreme one. Was the brain designed to stop a bullet? It can do it, so you say it must have been designed to do it.
Bingo! Give the man a prize.
Yes, the brain must have been designed to do it because it can. If it weren't, then you couldn't. F'rinstance, a chicken's eggshell isn't designed to withstand being stepped on by an elephant. We can tell this because when an elephant steps on a chicken's egg, the shell shatters rather than withstanding the weight.
Now think: Might this mean that you have a poor conception of what the word "designed" means? Might it be possible that I am trying to get you to rethink your claim about what the anus was "designed" to do?
Here's some more questions to make you question your definition of "designed": If the anus were not a sexual organ, why does anal sex feel so good? It must, after all, since so many people engage in it. I'm not saying everybody likes it, but not everybody likes oral or vaginal sex, either. And having somebody else masturbate you never feels the same as you doing it yourself. It takes a very talented person to make it feel as good. Therefore, since a huge number of people find anal sex to be pleasurable, how can anybody possibly claim that the anus is not a sex organ?
Oh, that's right..."it's an exit, not an entry!" But if that were the case, then the penis couldn't possibly be a sex organ, either, since it is the organ of urination and by the logic given above, no organ can possibly serve two functions. It is either a sex organ or an excretion organ. It can't possibly be both.
On top of that, if the anus weren't supposed to be involved in sexual activity, why is it that the best and most effective way to stimulate the male prostate is through anal manipulation? Oh, you can try to get some stimulation through manipulation of the perineum, but its nothing compared to direct stimulation through the anal cavity.
"But men hate going to the proctologist! It hurts!" Yeah, and women hate going to the gynecologist and it hurts them, too. The problem is not the mere act of penetration. It is the context in which it takes place: You're naked with someone whom you barely know who is prodding around inside of you like a carcass in the context of trying to find out if you have cancer and might die. You're nervous, the doctor is being clinical. No wonder it doesn't feel good. Combine that with heterosexual male paranoia (if the doc sticks his finger in my ass and it doesn't hurt like a mother, then that must mean I'm gay!) and you've got a scenario where the guy is doing everything he can to make it hurt.
"But procreation requires penis-vagina sex, not anal sex!" Yes, but unless one is claiming that all sex outside of penis-vagina sex is unnatural and the organs involved in such sex were not designed for that, then one is being hypocritical in whining about anal sex but letting oral and manual sex off the hook.
I warned you...you're going to have to contort yourself into knots in order to maintain consistency.
quote:
The remainder of the post is not worth bothering with.
So you admit that you know nothing about the etiology of HIV nor the history of the epidemic. That's fine. Ignorance can be cured. But, the first step is admitting that you're ignorant.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by bkelly, posted 12-10-2005 8:58 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by purpledawn, posted 12-11-2005 8:45 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 180 by bkelly, posted 12-11-2005 11:30 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 175 of 206 (267723)
12-11-2005 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by bkelly
12-10-2005 9:10 PM


Re: just a talking point
bkelly writes:
quote:
Some men might choose it (in part or whole) because they don't want to put up with all the crap that many women attach to sex.
Some women might choose it because they don't want to put up with all the misogynistic behavior and all that "manly" crap that the men just cannot do without.
Ah, yes...the "political lesbians": Women who decided to be gay because they didn't like the patriarchy. And the narcissist men who felt women were beneath him and decided to have sex only with other men since only they could appreciate what a wonderful specimen of manhood he is.
Right...there were about six of them. When society grants you all sorts of benefits from being heterosexual, why on earth would anybody "choose" to engage in sexual activity that they found physically repulsive and resulted in the worst social ostracism they could possibly find?
"Hmmm...I hate the sex and everybody hates me for engaging in it. Sign me up!"
Right. Pull the other. It has bells on.
By the by: Gay relationships tend to last longer than straight ones...gay male ones the longest. If gay men were gay because they didn't want the love and commitment part of relationships, why would they be the ones that are best suited to commitment?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by bkelly, posted 12-10-2005 9:10 PM bkelly has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 176 of 206 (267724)
12-11-2005 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Silent H
12-10-2005 7:41 AM


holmes responds to me:
quote:
I move between the the hetero and homosexual worlds and my experience is that the amount of sex between the two, especially promiscuous or anonymous sex, simply does not compare.
Then I suggest you simply aren't looking in the right places.
Hint: One shouldn't try to compare the amount of promiscuity between gay and straight cultures by trying to find the straight bath houses. The reason for the existence of gay bath houses doesn't exist for the straight community. That doesn't mean there isn't plenty of anonymous, "free love" going on in the straight comunity. It simply means that it isn't taking place in the same way as it is in the gay community.
In fact, the phrase "free love" was not invented to describe gay sexual activity. "Wife swapping" and "key parties" were not invented by gays. Spring Break and Mardi Gras and Winter Break were not developed by gay people. The fact that a couple of bozos in San Diego were capable of becoming millionaires simply by walking down the boardwalk with a video camera and merely asking the women to do what they do is fairly indicative of how free sex can be for straight people. No money, no request for favors, no contact at all beyond what it takes to get them in front of the camera.
quote:
Men will generally have sex for free, and are even willing to pay for it. Most women in our culture simply will not.
Trying to be as gentle as I can: Have you considered the possibility that the actual phrase is, "Most women in our culture simply will not with you"?
Perhaps you're just not doing it right. Again, the reason for a gay bath house does not exist for the straight community. It is inappropriate to try to comare promiscuity rates between gays and straights by counting the number of bath houses.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Silent H, posted 12-10-2005 7:41 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by nator, posted 12-11-2005 7:14 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 179 by Silent H, posted 12-11-2005 10:31 AM Rrhain has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 177 of 206 (267725)
12-11-2005 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Rrhain
12-11-2005 6:32 AM


quote:
The fact that a couple of bozos in San Diego were capable of becoming millionaires simply by walking down the boardwalk with a video camera and merely asking the women to do what they do is fairly indicative of how free sex can be for straight people. No money, no request for favors, no contact at all beyond what it takes to get them in front of the camera.
If you are referring to those "Girls Gone Wild" videos, it's pretty well known that most, if not all in some cases, of the young women depicted in them are hired ahead of time and brought along on the shoot by the video makers.
here's the casting call ad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2005 6:32 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 178 of 206 (267738)
12-11-2005 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Rrhain
12-11-2005 6:15 AM


quote:
Here's some more questions to make you question your definition of "designed": If the anus were not a sexual organ, why does anal sex feel so good?
From a biological standpoint I would argue that the anus is designed as an exit, not an entrance to be used as the vagina is used.
The anus and anal canal do not produce lubricant as the vagina does. Once through the anus and short anal canal (4cm) the rectum is not straight. The rectum tilts toward the front of the body and then a few inches in, it curves back (sometimes as much as 90 degrees). After a few more inches it curves back towards the front of the body.
The sphincter muscles, do not relax and expand when one is sexually aroused. It does not prepare itself to receive.
We can tense or relax the external sphincter whenever we want, but the internal sphincter is controlled by the involuntary nervous system. Supposedly one can learn to relax the internal sphincter. But it doesn't naturally relax for external entrance.
Humans don't seem to be limited by "design."
Humans weren't designed to stay under water.
Humans weren't designed to go into space.
Humans weren't designed to fly.
Humans weren't designed to consume the chemicals that we consume.
While anal stimulation may feel good, IMO, since people adjust or learn to get around the design limitations, feeling good may just be a side effect and not necessarily part of the design.

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2005 6:15 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2005 5:56 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 179 of 206 (267748)
12-11-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Rrhain
12-11-2005 6:32 AM


Then I suggest you simply aren't looking in the right places.
I think this is rather ironic. Exactly where should I be looking?
Given that I am in the swinging community of heteros, and indeed am involved with pretty much all forms of online and real world types of hookups for heteros, I'm trying to figure out how you would know more about the hetero free sex community than I do.
I already said it was not that there is no action going on in the hetero community, my whole point was that the amount going on within both simply does not compare.
In fact, the phrase "free love" was not invented to describe gay sexual activity. "Wife swapping" and "key parties" were not invented by gays.
Yeah... and?
The fact that a couple of bozos in San Diego were capable of becoming millionaires simply by walking down the boardwalk with a video camera and merely asking the women to do what they do is fairly indicative of how free sex can be for straight people.
As already mentioned, these guys often contact girls ahead of time. But let's pretend that they never do. What they do not get is free sex wherever they go. Girls flashing tits and asses, does not compare to actually getting laid (or even getting jerked off or oral sex) pretty much on demand.
Trying to be as gentle as I can: Have you considered the possibility that the actual phrase is, "Most women in our culture simply will not with you"?
1) I wasn't discussing the frequency with which I can get action with other girls. I was discussing the amount of free love action going on around me by others. I am active in that world on both sides. There simply is no comparison.
2) Even if I was discussing my own sex life, that would still suggest exactly what I was arguing. If I can't for the life of me get laid by girls because I am "doing something wrong", yet within minutes am guaranteed of having sex with another guy no matter what I do, we are seeing a difference in the free sex availability within each community.
Again, the reason for a gay bath house does not exist for the straight community.
Actually I am not understanding what you mean with this other than that heteros can have sex elsewhere. I think there is a lot to be said from the fact that heteros are not free enough to enjoy bath houses compared to homosexuals. More heteros. percentage wise, are uncomfortable with unrestricted sexual activity as goes on in bath houses (or other venues).
Just to let you know there are hetero versions of bath houses, it is just that the ratio is like 20:1.
It is inappropriate to try to comare promiscuity rates between gays and straights by counting the number of bath houses.
Actually that's not entirely correct. If there are many more gay bath houses, and almost no straight bath houses, that tends to indicate there is a greater demand for such free sex venues in the gay community than straight. Given that gays are in a vastly inferior number to the overall population of heteros, that makes divergences in free sex establishments even more noteworthy.
In fact your argument seems to be more fallacy prone as you are arguing from a supposition that heteros must be the same or more promiscuous than gays, and then dismissing the possible counterevidence. You appear to be arguing that there must be other places where such activity occurs, despite no evidence for them.
Now let me give you an example... Real life. Years ago I would come to Amsterdam and there was a relatively free sexual community. You had hetero and gay establishments. The gay outnumbered the hetero, but it was still a place where one could find swinging sex. And by that I mean not paying for individual "fuck and suck" encounters at the windows.
Over the years the hetero free sex community has shrunk to a very small community. People talk about that within the swinging community. Even strippers at strip clubs are bemoaning the fact that straight guys are simply not coming in like they used to, and they are disappearing.
If you go to couples sex clubs there are less girls than before, and generally the ones there are mostly above 35... or they are being paid.
On the flipside, despite having a smaller population percentage-wise, the number of gay sex locations is booming. It has grown and continues to grow. It is unbelievable.
Thus free sex gay activities were greater in number and have only grown greater. What there was within the hetero community, has shrunk to small pools. Doesn't this suggest something different is going on within those communities, other than "heteros must have found new places they haven't told you about"?
Now this is not a question of if I can get laid or not. I can go out and go for hours if not days without seeing heteros engaging in truly promiscuous sex (that is not for money). But I can guarantee you within the hour (and frankly my guess would be more like 10 minutes) I can find guys having sex with each other. Obviously some establishments are more busy than others, and some are downright dead. But the amount going on at the more popular establishments blows all comparisons to what goes on in any hetero establishment and community away.
Despite searching, I have never found a place with 100s of naked heteros engaging in open and massive orgies for hours at a time. Maybe a few dozen? Tops. I have seen that quite a bit in the homosexual community.
You know I have no moral issues here with promsicuous sex, so I am not trying to argue any moral superiority. Indeed I lament the fact that heteros are increasingly more repressed. To me that is a moral failing for heteros.
So its not like I'm making this up. I am actually comparing evidence of what is going on out there in both communities. Although you can find free sex within the hetero community, I am totally saying that happens, there simply is no comparison in the amount between the hetero and homosexual communities. There is much more availability of free sex venues, and more activity at such venues.
You and I both know, or at least I'd guess you would know, that "gay" bars are on average more sexual than any straight bar. Dark rooms exist in many, probably enough to call it "common", while that pretty much is nonexistant in straight bars. A guy might end up with one girl that he picked up at a bar (or vice versa) if they are lucky. Going to a gay bar can mean sex with several other guys right at the bar.
If you don't know this about the gay community, might I suggest you aren't looking in the right places?
This message has been edited by holmes, 12-11-2005 10:40 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2005 6:32 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2005 10:19 PM Silent H has replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 206 (267754)
12-11-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Rrhain
12-11-2005 6:15 AM


Hello Rrhain,
Bingo! Give the man a prize.
You are rather good at turning a defeat into a victory by distoring words.
You are quite intelligent and knowledgable. But I don't care to cary on here and though you certainly don't care, I will briefly tell you why. You work very hard to insult people and tell them how stupid they are and as a result, you get to conclude how bright you are. Look at your posts and see how often your statements can be seen as insuslting.
Look at your signature:
Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
What you have tried to hide in humor is: You are a real dumb shit. The message is clear.
Do you enjoy saying that to people?
What do you gain from the insults you throw?

Truth fears no question.
bkelly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2005 6:15 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Rrhain, posted 12-12-2005 1:28 AM bkelly has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024