Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So difficult to keep up! (Re: Memeber of the religious right running morally amuck)
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 221 (428562)
10-16-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by nator
10-15-2007 3:00 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
Is it normal to want to engage in oral sex? Is it natural for a woman to want to engage in sex at all?
Its normal to want physical and sexual contact with members of the opposite sex. But perhaps one can't simply make blanket statements.
The idea that women could, and even should, actually enjoy sex "naturally" repulsed people. "Wanton" women were considered disgusting, morally bankrupt, a dangerous influence, and unfit mothers.
Only when going outside of defined parameters. In todays zeitgeist, those parameters have become obscured. Therein lies the problem.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 10-15-2007 3:00 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 10-16-2007 8:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 167 of 221 (428579)
10-16-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 7:05 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
quote:
Only when going outside of defined parameters.
Not really.
At certain times in the not-so-distant past, "nice", proper women were not supposed to like sex. It wasn't considered natural.
Women who openly wanted sex, even within a marriage, were considered abnormal and unseemly. There were entire books written about why it wasn't natural.
The point is, Juggs, that what you consider normal, i.e. "It's normal to want physical and sexual contact with members of the opposite sex." was NOT considered normal for women at certain times in the past, and it was just an arbitrary rule that helped to maintain the social and cultural status quo and had NOTHING to do with "naturalness".
You likely think that this idea that society had was misguided, and that you know better now.
Can't you see that your rule is just as arbitrary?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 7:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 221 (428581)
10-16-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by crashfrog
10-16-2007 12:55 AM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
NJ, seriously - maybe you ought to concentrate a little less on your sniggering fantasies about Ian McKellen filling his Depends and ask yourself "what the fuck is wrong with us?"
Who is Ian McKellen?
Do you simply see this parade of moral hypocrisy and pedophilia and wave it off? "Oh, it's just as bad on the left, if not worse?"
Who said, other than you, a politically charged comment? When did I say anything along those lines? We're talking about how (un)natural anal sex is. In my opinion, I think its an aberration. You see it otherwise.
Gay people over here on our side don't have to fellate sleeping college students and take "wide stances" in men's rooms, generally, because of all the work we've done opposing the closet and the social opprobrium that necessitates it. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Who does "you people" consist of? And when have I defended a single one of those predators? They're wrong... I make no excuses for them. I stated, in no uncertain terms, that I believe anal sex is unnatural. That's really the extent of the argument, not blame specific people while morally exonerating others.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 12:55 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 8:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 185 by nator, posted 10-17-2007 8:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 169 of 221 (428584)
10-16-2007 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 8:41 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
Who is Ian McKellen?
Gandalf? He's gay. He's old. If anybody would have "gay bowel disease", as though that even existed, wouldn't it be him?
Who said, other than you, a politically charged comment?
Gay-bashing like you've been doing is pretty exclusively conservative. This whole thread is about the gay-bashing hypocrisy of the right.
We're talking about how (un)natural anal sex is.
Of all the sex acts I can think of, anal sex is hardly the most ridiculous or gross. I'm not into it, but I hardly see the utility in divying up sex acts into "natural" and "unnatural." I mean, what's the use of that? Isn't "fun" and "not fun" a much more useful category?
If you're so concerned about "unnatural sex", why don't you have a big hard-on about, say, whipped cream? (As part of a sex act.) For one thing, whipped cream shouldn't come from a spray can. For another thing, the human body is not capable of producing its own whipped cream. Isn't that just as "unnatural" as anal sex?
How about sexy lingerie? Rayon is a fundamentally unnatural cloth. It doesn't come from any kind of natural plant fiber. If my wife puts on the stockings and heels, aren't we having "unnatural sex"?
Golden showers? That's gotta be unnatural, right? But you're telling me you've never made a girl come so hard that she pees a little bit? (You're not doing it right otherwise.) Did you just do something "unnatural"?
Like I said. Surely you can't think the "unnatural/natural" categories are going to take you anywhere, right? The sole purpose of this conversation is so that you can say, as loudly as possible, "I don't want to be fucked in the ass."
Which is funny, because none of us said we were going to, which makes me wonder why you found it so important to insist on voicing your disapproval about anal sex. It kind of makes me wonder exactly who you're trying to convince. And it's axiomatic, these days, that homosexuality's loudest opponents are all gay, themselves.
Who does "you people" consist of?
Your people. Conservatives. Republicans. Bush-voters. Opponents of "the gay agenda."
And when have I defended a single one of those predators?
Never, that I know of. You've just simply completely ignored them, and refused to make any sort of connection between their behavior and their public condemnation of homosexuality - the same condemnations you've been making here.
I mean, to the rest of us, nothing was more obvious than the connection between Larry Craig voting in "defense of traditional marriage" and trying to suck a guy's cock in the men's room. I mean we all said "duh!" when that happened, because its so obvious how many of homosexuality's attackers are themselves closeted gays.
You're saying you never made the obvious connection? Why on Earth not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 8:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:35 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 180 by Rrhain, posted 10-17-2007 2:04 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 221 (428597)
10-16-2007 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by crashfrog
10-16-2007 8:53 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
Gandalf? He's gay.
So, its not Gandalf the Gray," its Gandalf the gay"?
Sorry... Continue.
He's old. If anybody would have "gay bowel disease", as though that even existed, wouldn't it be him?
First of all, if he does have gay bowel disease, what makes you think that he would broadcast that kind of information about himself???
Gay-bashing like you've been doing is pretty exclusively conservative. This whole thread is about the gay-bashing hypocrisy of the right.
If saying that anal sex and homosexuality is unnatural is considered "gay bashing," then you must be constantly bashing conservatives right now. I'm curious to know what exactly the moral difference is. Can't I say that I don't agree with homosexuality without being slanderously referred to as a gay basher and a homophobe?
Of all the sex acts I can think of, anal sex is hardly the most ridiculous or gross.
What then is in your estimation?
I'm not into it, but I hardly see the utility in divying up sex acts into "natural" and "unnatural." I mean, what's the use of that? Isn't "fun" and "not fun" a much more useful category?
LOL! Not really considering some people find it "fun" to defecate on others. Would you seriously call that normal, sexual behavior or would you be more inclined to think that some pyschological trauma exists?
If you're so concerned about "unnatural sex", why don't you have a big hard-on about, say, whipped cream?
Probably because whip cream is not a sexual act....
How about sexy lingerie?
Not a sexual act.
Rayon is a fundamentally unnatural cloth.
Not a sexual act.
It doesn't come from any kind of natural plant fiber. If my wife puts on the stockings and heels, aren't we having "unnatural sex"?
No.
Golden showers? That's gotta be unnatural, right?
Urinating is natural. Desiring to urinate on people is unnatural. Defecating is natural. Desiring to cleanse their colon via a penis is not natural.
Surely you can't think the "unnatural/natural" categories are going to take you anywhere, right? The sole purpose of this conversation is so that you can say, as loudly as possible, "I don't want to be fucked in the ass."
If that's my motivation, then going by the same asinine rationale as yours would invariably mean that you do want it.
Which is funny, because none of us said we were going to, which makes me wonder why you found it so important to insist on voicing your disapproval about anal sex.
I was having a conversation with Phat. Phat seems to agree that there is something fundamentally unnatural about it. I agreed. But he was invoking it on moral principles. I then stated that using morals from an absolute sense won't illicit the same response as it would in terms of health benefits/risks.
Your people. Conservatives. Republicans. Bush-voters. Opponents of "the gay agenda."
I'm a moderate conservative who opposes the gay agenda, but will certainly allow for people to have as much gay butt sex they can handle.
You've just simply completely ignored them, and refused to make any sort of connection between their behavior and their public condemnation of homosexuality - the same condemnations you've been making here.
Because its a smearing campaign. You are trying to include me in with them by virtue of ideological association. What makes me different than you is that when someone who might loosely model after my beliefs runs counter to that ideology, I condemn it. But you seem to resolutely defend those of your ilk during their times of scandal, which makes you no better than they. At the least, you minimize what really happened.
I mean, to the rest of us, nothing was more obvious than the connection between Larry Craig voting in "defense of traditional marriage" and trying to suck a guy's cock in the men's room.
Then let Larry Craig indulge his homosexual side in prison. I certainly don't blame you for chastising the man. There is something abhorrent about such unfettered hyprocrisy. I understand the outrage. What I don't particularly like is you indicting me just because he said that he disagrees with homosexuality, and so have I-- therefore, I must either be a closet homosexual or someone foaming at the mouth over homosexuality.
I'm having a conversation. I am relaying my views on a subject, as are you. Why you feel compelled to take it to another level is beyond me.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 8:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Rahvin, posted 10-16-2007 10:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 11:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 181 by Rrhain, posted 10-17-2007 2:26 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 186 by nator, posted 10-17-2007 8:26 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 171 of 221 (428598)
10-16-2007 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 10:35 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
Can't I say that I don't agree with homosexuality without being slanderously referred to as a gay basher and a homophobe?
"Can't I say that I don't like black people without being slanderously referred to as a bigot and a racist?"
NO! That's what those words mean!

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:57 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 221 (428601)
10-16-2007 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Rahvin
10-16-2007 10:43 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
"Can't I say that I don't like black people without being slanderously referred to as a bigot and a racist?"
No, since your race is inarguably something can do nothing about. The day homosexuality is proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be a natural phenomenon, I'll change my views on it. Since no one has successfully done that, I will continue to believe that its a psychological issue.
Secondly, I've never said that I don't homosexuals. I don't like the behavior. I think it hurts them in the long run. Just like I know a million and one people who abuse all kinds of virtues. It doesn't mean I don't like them. It means that I don't like destructive behavior.
Unfortunately, too many people only see in black and white terms. If you disagree with something, to them they assume it must be the scourge of the earth. If you think something is just okay, they must believe that its pie in the sky.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Rahvin, posted 10-16-2007 10:43 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 11:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 176 by Rahvin, posted 10-17-2007 12:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 177 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2007 12:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 182 by kongstad, posted 10-17-2007 3:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 184 by Dr Jack, posted 10-17-2007 5:26 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 173 of 221 (428603)
10-16-2007 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 10:35 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
First of all, if he does have gay bowel disease, what makes you think that he would broadcast that kind of information about himself???
Nothing makes an actor more happy than to be the public face of a disease. Do you know how much money Bob Dole got from shelling Viagra? If there's this "gay bowel disease" - which Rrhain has already explained doesn't make any sense from a medical perspective - why isn't the Super-Powerful Gay Agenda Lobby or whatever making it the male version of breast cancer? Where's Ian McKellen's brown ribbon?
It's a non-existent "disease." It's just homophobia dressed up in the DSM IV.
Can't I say that I don't agree with homosexuality without being slanderously referred to as a gay basher and a homophobe?
Don't agree what? That it exists? That's pretty hard to argue. Don't agree that you want to be gay? Nobody said that you did, NJ, at least not until you made it clear how obsessed you are with teh buttsecks. Don't agree that other people should be gay? They disagree, so who cares what you think?
I don't understand what you think you're doing, I guess.
What then is in your estimation?
The folks that buy camping toilet seats so they can poop on each other? That's pretty gross. Plus there's the panoply of "legendary" sex acts (the Dirty Sanchez, the Cleveland Steamer) that all the frat guys talk about but I don't believe anybody actually does.
Honestly if anal sex, which is usually pretty clean, is the grossest sex thing you know about, you've lead a remarkably sheltered (and boring) life.
LOL! Not really considering some people find it "fun" to defecate on others.
I don't see how that makes "fun" and "not fun" not useful. Can you explain? Because "fun" and "not fun" is the only category I break sex acts down into. Why would I break them down into "what NJ thinks is kosher" and "what he doesn't"? Why on Earth would I want to think about you during that time?
Some people put "pooping on each other" into the fun category. I don't. I still don't see why it's not a useful category, you'll have to explain further.
Or, just maybe, since I'm not starting from the position of having to develop a series of categories just so I can belittle people for having sex in a way I don't enjoy, maybe I'll never understand.
Probably because whip cream is not a sexual act....
What the fuck are you talking about? It's a sex act when you do it as part of sex, obviously. How can it not be? When you're shooting whipped cream all over your lady's naked body and licking it off, you're telling me that's not a sex act?
Are you just pretending to be stupid, or what?
Not a sexual act.
What the hell do you think it is, genius? It's a sex act if she's doing it as a part of sex, obviously. By your idiot logic we might as well say that anal sex isn't a sex act, and that pretty much makes your whole point irrelevant, doesn't it?
No.
Why not, NJ? What could possibly be more unnatural than a synthetic fiber?
Phat seems to agree that there is something fundamentally unnatural about it.
Sure. He's wrong, of course, and so are you. The only problem here is that you've confused "doesn't sound fun" or even "sounds fun but I'm ashamed to admit it to myself" with "unnatural."
Here's a hint; the terms are not synonymous. We all get it, NJ. You've loudly proclaimed your desire not to be fucked in the ass by a man. You've said it so often, in fact, that I'm now quite sure it's just a front, like it was for Larry Craig (who still won't admit to being gay, even after the whole fucking world knows, it's hilarious) and Mark Foley. And now you too.
You are trying to include me in with them by virtue of ideological association.
You've included yourself by ideological association. You don't like it? Change your ideology. Nobody's twisting your arm to make you bash gay people. Although if you hate them so much, you might ask yourself why you're voting for the party that seems to contain so many, and in secret.
But you seem to resolutely defend those of your ilk during their times of scandal, which makes you no better than they.
It's because liberals are simply better people, Democrats are usually better people, and quite simply, the scandals you're referring to are almost always conservative inventions.
It's the Honesty Gulf, and it's very wide. Democrats and liberals simply are a lot more honest and law-abiding than conservatives, Republicans, and the rest of you right-wing authoritarian follower types (as described, scientifically, by Altemeyer) and as a result there's a great deal less actual scandal.
Then let Larry Craig indulge his homosexual side in prison.
In prison? In prison for what?
Precisely what do you think he should go to prison for, NJ? Being gay?
What I don't particularly like is you indicting me just because he said that he disagrees with homosexuality, and so have I-- therefore, I must either be a closet homosexual or someone foaming at the mouth over homosexuality.
If that's true in so many cases, which it is, why shouldn't I assume it's likely to be true about you? It's certainly not normal, NJ, to get on the internet and complain about homosexuality this much. Anal sex between men just isn't on the minds of most people as often as its on yours. What on Earth is the deal with that? Don't you ever ask yourself why you're thinking about anal sex between men so much more than everybody else is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2007 7:18 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 174 of 221 (428604)
10-16-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 10:57 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
The day homosexuality is proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be a natural phenomenon, I'll change my views on it.
Seems like we did that years ago. I can't imagine what you're waiting around for.
It means that I don't like destructive behavior.
How would you classify the behavior of "spending too much time on the internet obsessing about whose dick is in whose ass"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 175 of 221 (428608)
10-16-2007 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by macaroniandcheese
10-15-2007 3:42 PM


Re: Sex abuse v. rape
brennakimi writes:
quote:
being randomly grabbed in a crowded nightclub.
being groped by your friend's dad in her bedroom after church.
do you see the difference?
Yep. And neither of them rises to the level of rape.
I should point out that it seems that one of the issues regarding sexual abuse, particularly among children, is that the reaction by people the victim is supposed to trust has a profound effect upon how the victim recovers. If everybody treats the victim as a fragile piece of glass, forever shattered, and can only hope at best to regain a tiny inkling of the trust once had, then that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that sexual abuse is innocuous. It means that if you treat someone as if they were destroyed, they will often start to think that they were. Being groped by a stranger is one thing. Being groped by a trusted authority figure is another. And both of them do not compare to rape.

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 147 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2007 3:42 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 176 of 221 (428613)
10-17-2007 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 10:57 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
No, since your race is inarguably something can do nothing about.
If I were to tell you, just for the sake of the argument, to suddenly enjoy sex with another man...would you be able to? I wouldn't. Sexual attraction isn't a choice, NJ, and that has been proven over and over and over again.
The day homosexuality is proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be a natural phenomenon, I'll change my views on it.
The only people who continue to argue that fact, NJ, are you and the other gay-bashing homophobic bigots. Sexual orientation is not a choice, period.
Since no one has successfully done that, I will continue to believe that its a psychological issue.
I have the feeling you won't believe any evidence short of your god coming down from heaven and saying it to your face, since it HAS been proven repeatedly, and evidence has been cited on this very site.
Secondly, I've never said that I don't homosexuals. I don't like the behavior
"I never said I don't like black people. I don't like the color of their skin."
I think it hurts them in the long run.
And you're wrong. Stable long-term monogomous homosexual relationships are no more harmful than heterosexual ones. And a LOT of heterosexual couples have sex the same way homosexuals do.
Just like I know a million and one people who abuse all kinds of virtues.
Irrelevant. Heterosexuality isn't a virtue, as virtue involves choice. And abstaining from sex results in severe psychological issues much of the time. See various Republicans recently.
It doesn't mean I don't like them. It means that I don't like destructive behavior.
Their behavior is a direct result of their sexual orientation, which is a part of the basic makeup of who they are. "It doesnt mean I dont like black people. It means I dont liek the color of their skin."
Unfortunately, too many people only see in black and white terms. If you disagree with something, to them they assume it must be the scourge of the earth. If you think something is just okay, they must believe that its pie in the sky.
It's not that you disagree with anyone, NJ. It's that you ARE, in fact, being a bigot, and that IS the scourge of the Earth.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 177 of 221 (428616)
10-17-2007 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 10:57 PM


Born Gay
The day homosexuality is proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be a natural phenomenon, I'll change my views on it.
NJ, it's been shown repeatedly that the chance of a male child being gay is increased by the number of older male siblings from the same mother.
The studies show that this is independant of whether or not the child was raised in the same house with the siblings.
The leading hypothesis is that it's caused by the mother's reaction to the repeat exposure to testosterone.
The fact that younger male siblings (even those given up for adoption and raised as only children) have a greater chance of growning up to be gay, indicates that what they've been telling us all along is in fact correct. They were born gay.
I assume this means you'll now be changing your tune.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 178 of 221 (428625)
10-17-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2007 11:30 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
We were talking about phallic objects, are we not?
What does this have to do with anything? There are many, very obvious signs that the vagina is exit-only. You're focusing on one and then trying to say that because one doesn't handle the other, that means there's no evidence of anything.
The sign that the vagina is designed to keep the penis out is that the muscular contractions push it out and that the woman has to actively work to accept the penis. Trying to penetrate a vagina when the woman doesn't want you to is not easy (and I don't mean from her fighting you off.)
quote:
Where does sperm and the pH balance of the vagina factor in to the equation?
You seriously don't know? OK...here's how babies are made, NJ: When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much....
Surely you aren't saying that the reproductive part of sexual activity has no bearing on sex, are you? You were the one saying that disease is horrendous in anal sex because the lining of the rectum has the consistency of a Happy Tree Friend and thus pathogens just flow right in and make the person sick. So if you're going to talk about about the effect of biologicals that remain in the anus after sex, then it is only fair that we discuss the effect of biologicals that remain in the vagina after sex.
quote:
Vagina's are designed, whether by God or through natural selection, to conform perfectly the penis.
As is the rectum. In fact, you can take much more rectally than you can vaginally. Eventually, you hit the cervix. Those who claim that the rectum isn't "designed" to take a penis will have to explain all the people who manage to have anal sex successfully, enjoy it, and are eager to do it again.
Hint: Most of them are straight.
Hint: Many women find vaginal sex quite painful, so we can't use the concept of "painful" or "difficult" as a strike against anal sex.
quote:
By what-- default?
No, by design. Everything about the functioning of the female genital tract, from ovary to vagina, pushes out. If that is the hallmark of "exit-only" that you insist upon for the anus, then that necessarily holds true for the vagina, too.
quote:
Could we say that nostrils are for ingestion, not expulsion, simply because objects, powders, and liquids can physically make its way up them?
Logical error: Excluded middle. Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't it be both? Since it is quite possible to successfully engage in both, where does this idea that it can't be for both come from?
quote:
You said something that in an earlier post that seemed to imply that you were both gay and fond of anal sex, which would account for my asking.
(*chuckle*)
I have been very careful not to make any mention one way or the other regarding my sexual or religious orientation. I do not wish to have my arguments dismissed with, "Of course you would say that: You're an X." I realize this is maddening to some people. I have had people accuse me (and I use that term deliberately) of being straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, and even Satan himself.
As Westley said to Inigo when he demanded, "I must know":
Get used to disappointment.
I notice you skipped over the possibility that I'm getting old. Here's another possibility that I didn't mention previously: I have gay friends and/or family and I care about them.
But no, you assumed that it had to be because I was gay...and to quote you, "wink."
And you wonder why people think you're a homophobic bigot.
quote:
I'm sure you have amazing credentials, but a sex educator doesn't sound like a real job to me.
(*chuckle*)
Tell that to Dr. Ruth, Dr. Johanssen, Dr. Drew, etc. and those are the just the ones everybody knows about. When someone has a talk and invites a representative from Planned Parenthood to speak, who do you think they send? When the various groups do outreach to sex workers to teach them how to keep themselves safe, who do you think they send?
quote:
Where do you practice, doctor? UCSD?
Get used to disappointment.
quote:
As erotic as that sounds and all, my backdoor is an exit only.
Nobody is telling you to do anything you don't want to do. However, don't confuse your personal squick factor with a universal. The fact that people all over the world engage in anal sex successfully and eagerly is indicative that this "exit-only" thing is nothing more than a hangup.
quote:
I had a great one last night as a matter of fact, thank you very much. I'll give my wife your regards though.
And you really think your wife's mouth is as pristine and unblemished when she was through as it was when she started?
quote:
If teeth factor in to fellatio, then the giver is doing something wrong.
Again, you have never had a good blowjob then. Oh, there are ways to use teeth correctly and ways to use them incorrectly, but to rule them out completely just means the person doesn't know how to use them.
That said, when I was referring to teeth, I wasn't referring to the giver's teeth on the recipient's penis. I was referring to the giver's teeth on the giver's mouth. The mouth is filled with tears, abrasions, and cuts specifically because the mouth is filled with teeth.
quote:
I would be very curious to the ratio of infection between anal and oral sex.
Better yet, think about the ratio of infection between anal and vaginal sex. And then consider between oral and vaginal sex. If you're truly going to complain that anal sex is bad because of infection, then you're going to have to discard vaginal and oral sex, too, and restrict yourself to well-lubricated hand jobs delivered by yourself upon yourself.
quote:
Obviously both parties would be tested prior too.
And yet, women commonly get urinary tract infections from sex, even though they are in a faithful relationship with a clean partner. You're seemingly confusing sexual activity with promiscuity.
quote:
I listed condom breakage as a factor of considerable consequence in anal sex.
And yet, it is a problem in vaginal sex, too. The solution is simple: Use lubricant.
quote:
Which happens more often, in your professional opinion: Condoms tend to break more in the vagina or the rectum?
When used correctly? It's hard to say. The effectiveness rate of preventing HIV-infection between sero-discordant partners who use condoms every single time is pretty much at the same rate of prevention of pregnancy.
quote:
The vagina produces its own lubrication
As does the rectum, or you wouldn't be able to pass stool. And just like the vagina, natural lubrication increases during sex. But, just like the vagina, the amount of natural lubrication is rarely enough. With sufficient foreplay on the part of both partners, one can successfully engage in both vaginal and anal sex without the need for external lubrication, but if you're going to use a condom, you always need more.
quote:
whereas the anus does not
Incorrect, as previously established.
quote:
Being that there are far less gay men than there are heterosexuals, I wouldn't doubt that it occurs less. However, the tiny fraction is simply not plausible.
Don't take my word for it. Go look up the WHO statistics. According to AVERT, two-thirds of new HIV infections are from heterosexual sex. Drug use is another 10%. And we haven't even touched mother-child transmission (11%) or blood products (about 5-10%). Male-male sexual transmission is only about 5-10%. I realize that living in the United States makes you think that it's a gay disease, but the US is not the world. The US is one of the last places on earth where the primary transmission vector is male-male and even then, it's only a slim majority. In the UK, heterosexual sex became the primary vector back in 1999 and it was one of the last European countries to flip.
In 2006, 4.3 million people became infected with HIV. In North America, there are only about 1.4 million people total that are. Only about 5% of all cases of HIV infection are in the West.
quote:
I'd be curious to see any documentation to the contrary, however.
It's called a "search engine." You do know how to use one, yes?
quote:
I was not bringing that up to undermine homosexual males, but rather as an evidentiary claim that anal is not advised from a medical perspective.
But you're missing the point. Those same diseases are transmitted via vaginal sex. And yet, the only reason you're bringing them up is because someone decided to lump them all into "gay bowel syndrome." Because we don't have a comparable "straight vaginal syndrome," you are making anal sex out as something different. If you're going to rule out anal sex because of those diseases, then you must necessarily rule out vaginal sex because it happens there, too.
quote:
Back when I was a philandering man-whore, this never appeared to be a problem for me and my partners.
I dare say your women probably didn't tell you about their UTIs or yeast infections in any graphic detail if at all.
quote:
After sharing hypodermic needles, via intravenous routes, is not anal sex the number one way to procure such diseases?
Only in the sense that two paper towels are thicker than one...and it also depends upon the specific infectious agent. You're stuck on HIV, aren't you?
There are other diseases besides HIV, you know.
quote:
What is hysterical about it?
Have you not read your own posts?
"...is not anal sex the number one way to procure such diseases? "
"...which is another sure way of knowing that one is for sexual intercourse and the other is not."
"I certainly wouldn't be surprised that 95% comes from the anal side of the house. "
"I listed condom breakage as a factor of considerable consequence in anal sex."
"However, the tiny fraction is simply not plausible."
And that's just in this one post. You're making anal sex out to be the worst possible sexual activity one can engage in...without having bothered to look up a single reference ("I'd be curious to see any documentation to the contrary, however.") Your sole justification is an emotional squick factor: "my backdoor is an exit only."
That's the definition of hysteria. The fact that you're not using exclamation points doesn't mean you're not spewing emotional vomit.
quote:
I never said they were ineffective. I said that during anal sex, because of the anatomy of the rectum, makes them inadequate protection.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
The method provides "inadequate protection" and you claim that you're not saying they are "ineffective"? Surely you're not about to be disingenuous and claim that by "inadequate protection," you were really claiming that since there is a non-zero effectiveness rate, that makes them "not ineffective," are you?
The effectiveness rate of preventing HIV transmission among sero-discordant individuals is about the same as for preventing pregnancy.
quote:
Surely you must know this is a fact since condom companies have introduced a series specifically designed to hold up to the rigors of anal sex.
It's called "marketing." It's there for the same reason that there are no "small" condoms. There's no indication that current condoms are deficient. They prevent HIV-transmission with the same effectiveness as pregnancy and for that, condoms are only beaten by the Pill and sterilization.
quote:
Well, you must be invested at least in part, being that you've taken the time to respond to each and every one of my posts, whether directed to you or someone else.
Incorrect. You are confusing interest in the topic and the art of debate with interest in 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 157 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2007 11:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Jack, posted 10-17-2007 5:22 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 188 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-17-2007 9:48 AM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 179 of 221 (428626)
10-17-2007 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Can you make the same astute observation for anal sex beyond, "Well, if it fits....?"
Yes.
Besides, what more is required beyond "if it fits"? By your description, oral sex isn't sex because the mouth is not genitalia. Masturbation isn't sex because the hand is not genitalia.
One would be curious how you would describe frottage that involved sliding the shaft of the penis up and down against the labia without penetration.
"It fits."
The very fact that millions upon millions of people engage in anal sex is pretty indicative that yes, the rectum is designed for sex.
You wouldn't be able to do it if it weren't.
quote:
Is that suppose to undermine the point that vagina's are designed for sex?
No. It's supposed to point out your logical error of special pleading. The vagina is in the same boat as the rectum but you somehow make exception for one based not upon any difference between the two but rather because you're grossed out.
If you're going to insist that the vagina can be used for sex despite the fact that it quite often doesn't produce enough lubricant for the act, why are you insisting that the rectum isn't?
quote:
how does that justify the assertions?
That's our question to you. You're the one engaging in special pleading. We have shown that the characteristics of the vagina and rectum are parallel.
So if you're going to claim that the vagina is capable of sex, then what possible justification can you put forward to exclude the rectum?
Especially since huge numbers of people engage in it? If you weren't functional for sex, then you wouldn't be able to do it.
Why is "It fits" insufficient?

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 163 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 4:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 180 of 221 (428628)
10-17-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by crashfrog
10-16-2007 8:53 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
crashfrog writes:
quote:
Rayon is a fundamentally unnatural cloth. It doesn't come from any kind of natural plant fiber.
True, but misleading. Rayon is made from cellulose. It isn't actual cellulose fiber (and thus is "synthetic"), but you get rayon by starting with plant fibers.
We now return to the previous topic.

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 169 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 8:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024