Hogwash. From a sex-as-reproduction point of view, all that is necessary is a Dixie cup, an issue of Hustler, and the right lab equipment. The vagina of a sterile woman cannot lead to conception, so is it forbidden penile territory? Should a man never masturbate? A sock or shower drain cannot lead to conception either. Stupid also is the notion that the vagina is categorically where a penis naturally belongs. What if a man needs to piss? He pisses with his penis. Ought he to stick it up a vagina before releasing his bladder?
You’re too late to want me not to breed. I’m already a father of two.
And since this is the Pit: Pin 'em back and listen, arsehead, if you’ve got the nous to do so, which I frankly doubt since you couldn’t understand the very plain English I used in my last post. I merely took exception with Libertarian’s silly insistence that vaginal intercourse was just as unnatural as anal. This is obvious nonsense and I pointed out why. The dickhead is now chopping logic with me in a lame attempt to prove he was right after all. I don’t fancy his chances.
Esprix is popping up and doing an Esprix in the usual manner, hijacking the discussion away from my response to Libertarian’s idiocy into a whine about how homosexual relationships ought to be equally valid because, you know, they’re about love … and, it may astonish him to learn, I wasn’t even thinking about arguing about that.
Them who want to stick to the subject are free to do so. From the point of view of sex for reproduction the penis was designed to go in the vagina, so you can’t call vaginal penetration unnatural. Tomorrow I shall try to demonstrate that, with the axioms of mathematics as they are currently agreed, two plus two makes four. I expect to be argued with the moment I open my mouth.
Retract? Retract your foreskin, forcibly and repeatedly. You don’t get to stamp in, call me names and then volunteer to consider retracting some of them if I make the suitable placatory noises. You want to keep it nice, you start it out that way, rl.
Oh, and I haven’t a fucking clue what point you were trying to make about straight women. Have you?
Malacandra: “An elephant is a large mammalian quadruped with two tusks and a trunk.”
Libertarian: “But, but, what if it was born without a trunk, and it’s lost a leg in a trap and had its tusks sawn off by poachers? Is it suddenly not an elephant any more? Huh? Huh? Seems like something’s only an elephant if you want to call it one!”
Terribly uncool to post twice in a row, I know, but when the force is with you…
I don’t believe he said that. I read it as, “If you are going to insist that anal sex is unnatural because that’s where waste comes out of, you could make the same argument about the vagina, and that would be ridiculous.”
I’m not hijacking anything - you wrote your response poorly and myself (and it seems quite a few others) did not get what it was you were trying to say. That’s not entirely our fault, is it?
Esprix
Seems I was right about Malacandra afterall. Don’t worry I never doubted you’d expose your bigotry towards us shirtlifters.
The whole ‘unnatural’ argument doesn’t really hold any water with me, If you start out on that tack you have to consider what else isn’t ‘natural’. Computers don’t grow on trees, animals don’t where clothes etc. We have evolved into a higher form of life and with that comes the ability to stick what ever we like in our asses, mouths, armpits and vaginas. Anyone who comes out with the ‘it’s unnatural’ argument is basically an idiot unless of course you live in the woods ferral and naked and only ever have sex during rutting season.
I’ll do these in reverse order.
How are you defining natural? The fact is that if you posit that the purpose of sexual wossnamies is conception, then use of birth control or masturbation or oral sex are all just as abberant as anal sex. Now, given the amount of sex that is abberant by your definition vs. the amount of sex had with conception as a goal, which is abberant again?
And I still have hope for you. If you can provide a line of reasoning for your beliefs that sex has a purpose and why many other ways of avioding that purpose are abberant, then we’d love to hear it. If you’re just going to continue making unusually stupid assertions, kindly learn do distinguish a thought from a prejudice before opening your mouth (or posting).
Also, about the foreskin retracting: an insanely high percentage of people masturbate. Masturbation is not a good idea from a reproductive point of view. So is (nearly) everyone abberant? Or does your definition need work?
Oh, yeah, about the women: I was trying to make the point that if you define what is normal in a silly and self-limiting way, then you can get some really stupid conclusions about what normality is. You, for instance, are attempting to make the point that all sex has the same goal (reproduction), and that sex not likely to result in said goal is abberant. By similar reasoning, I can note that straight women make up the largest chunk of sex-having people, conclude that therefore whatever sex they want is normal and whatever sex other people want is abberant.
Or, I can stop playing silly buggers, and remember that trying to assign meaning to biological processes is as foolish as attempting to determine the correct sexual preference for everyone through statistics.
And it seems I was right about your comprehension skills. It’s fucking ironic that when the whole subject of the thread is that homosexuality is not correlated with anal sex, nor vice versa, anything I have to say about anal sex is considered to be obvious evidence of my homophobia. Of course, you’ve long since given this particular dog a bad name and I’m by no means surprised.
Libertarian’s argument was fundamentally ( 
) flawed, since there is no other natural way for mammals to reproduce other than sticking the penis into the vagina and hence to label such activity as unnatural is idiotic. Arguing that the vagina is an organ of elimination misses the point. Wittering about a man inserting his penis into a vagina to urinate is anile.
Maybe I should have tagged the whole paragraph, including the word “aberrant” which has so incensed a number of people that they’ve suddenly become unable to read plain English, in tags: [From the point of view of sex as reproduction] <argument> [/ftpovosar]. I’d have done it if I’d thought it necessary. I didn’t. I was wrong.
However…
Point out where I said “No one should commit a non-reproductive sexual act for any reason whatever”, still less “All those who commit non-reproductive sexual acts are filthy, unnatural bastards who should be immersed in boiling tar”, and you can come back and stone me all you like.
(I’ll now wait for the flaming from those who read only the second quoted passage above, and ignore the rest of this post :rolleyes: )
For all those who need to know, I am as big a fan of non-reproductive sexual activity as the next man. I advance thirty years’ regular masturbation, use of contraception, a fondness for oral sex and by no means repugnance towards anal. In my case it’s strictly hetero.
Meanwhile, Homebrew, given the context of this thread, I can cheerily say “You’re an asshole. Fuck you.”
Then I reckon the Mustela Vison is supernatural, since it has been observed to ovulate without copulation. (Adams CE. Observations on the induction of ovulation and expulsion of uterine eggs in the mink, Mustela vison. J Reprod Fertil 1981; 63:241–248). And I guess Snow Leopards are immoral since they may mount over a two day spell without copulating. (Rieger, I. 1980. Some difficulties in breeding ounces, Uncia uncia, at zoological gardens. Int. Ped. Book of Snow Leopards 2: 7695). What is unnatural, it seems to me, is to attempt making a logical argument about what is unnatural since what is natural is what happens in nature. People — including homosexual people — are a part of nature.
The problem is that there are all those terms out there, like fudge-packer for instance, that bring to mind anal sex in assosciation with gay males.
(There are a lot more but I won’t make a list)
You read the comment earlier about the elephant, yesno? Your smart-ass remarks about minks and snow leopards still don’t advance any justification for the point of view that inserting the penis into the vagina is “just as unnatural” as sticking it elsewhere.
Btw, you mentioned “immoral”; I didn’t. And what’s this:
Erm, sofuckinwhat??
Again the irony of dragging homosexual people back into the argument. Didn’t you read the OP? Didn’t you read my previous post?
And by your argument, if I were to rip your head off and shit down your neck by way of sexual relief, then that would be “natural” too - since Malacandra is an instance of class “people”, and hence a part of nature, and hence I am incapable of an unnatural act. If that is the stand you’re taking then I agree thoroughly.
In fact, you just sawed off the limb you are sitting on. Since I am part of nature and all I do is therefore natural, my making an argument cannot be unnatural, since I did it. You may possibly therefore have watered down the word “natural” to the point at which it offends nobody, but no longer describes anything useful. Care to try for the rest of the dictionary?
Of course, idiot, rape and molestation are natural, too. They happen all the time. That doesn’t make them moral. Your whole stupid argument is that “One can lead to conception, the other can’t.” In nature, there are animals that reproduce entirely without copulation, individuals who are unable to reproduce but copulate anyway, and whole herds of horses who masturbate every couple of hours. The next time you move your goalpost, move it to here: there is no biologically normal sexual practice. That way, we can agree.
Oh dear. I missed the part where I mentioned homosexuality and I missed the part where I mentioned morality, and now I’m missing the part where I moved my goalposts. I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to point out the invisible words for me.
Are you still taking the odd view that, because the vagina (into which penile insertion is the natural route of conception for pretty much all lifeforms that possess two sexes, each equipped with one of such organs) is also an organ of elimination, vaginal penetration can in any way whatever be called “unnatural”? Or have your own goalposts moved?
Who said that vaginal penetration is unnatural? When you repeatedly quote the phrase “just as unnatural”, you’re quoting yourself, dumbass. From here: “I merely took exception with Libertarian’s silly insistence that vaginal intercourse was just as unnatural as anal.” If you can’t even tell the difference between you and me, maybe you can’t tell the difference between a vagina and an anus.
The last is true in one specific instance: I can’t tell whether you’re a cunt or an arsehole. If you object to my saying “just as unnatural”, please tell me how I should have parsed the following:
If you weren’t therefore insisting that vaginal penetration is unnatural if anal penetration is unnatural, what case were you making? Mine was that vaginal pentration is conclusively natural, and from a reproductive point of view it’s the only one that is. From any other point of view… well, if I really need to fill in the blank then, once again, we’re back on the comprehension problem.
Funny you’d say that when it was your excess of stupidity here
that started the whole mess. You are too stupid to understand Libertarian’s point. His point was not that vaginal intercourse is unnatural; but that anal sex is natural as well.
How dare you, Malacandra , suggest that anal sex is anything but a sweet, emotional connection between two loving adults which is exactly the same as vaginal intercourse. :rolleyes: Of course it’s not “natural” in the biological sense, the rectum is not built for the same purpose as the vagina, whose intended dual duties are receptacle for the penis and birth canal. But then again neither are the lips for kissing. Breasts are to feeding children, our skin is a damned barrier against dehydration and microbes for chrissakes. this dosen’t prclude people from enjoying these things. I think that’s all the guy was trying to say. I didn’t see him handing moral down judgement on anyone, and you guys just fucking pile on him. Pretty fucking thin skins around here.
Cheers and flame on,
lab, who enjoys using things in all kinds of unintended ways, monkey
Yeah, the comprehension problem. The problem that causes you ask what case I was making. The problem that causes you to equivocate like a Republican whining about big government. And in case you didn’t know, women can and do get pregnant — naturally — without vaginal penetration. What is natural is what turns people on. That’s how sexual attraction works. It’s a brain thing, not a genitalia thing.
I Looove the COCK!
South Carolina fan?