Well… thanks for sharing.
No Baby…i’m just a Cock fan 
Damn hamsters… Now who’s using a No True Scotsman argument? “All turn-ons are natural, because if it was unnatural, it wouldn’t be a turn-on.” Women can and do get pregnant without vaginal penetration, but that doesn’t alter the fact that vaginal penetration is the usual method - and penetration of other orifices has a vanishingly small success rate by comparison.
Equivocate how and where? Just because I challenge you for putting words into my mouth - say, about morality - doesn’t mean I’m equivocating.
And to do it he had to witter on about the vagina being an organ of elimination and an imputation that therefore any critique of anal penetration was equally applicable to vaginal - which I refuted by pointing out the one plain and obvious fact about vaginal intercourse which he’s having so much trouble with he’s having to fish around for obscure mammalian sexual practices.
You barge in accusing me of bigotry when 1) I did not condemn those who enjoy anal sex and 2) this very thread was arguing that anal sex is neither exclusive to homosexuals, nor universal among them. You tried to pin the homophobia label on me a year ago and you couldn’t make it stick then. I’m really sorry for you. It must break your heart when you thought you had a faggot-basher squarely in your sights and it proves not to be the case.
But I’m grateful to you for the logical precedent you established when you Pitted me, since it means I can say: Homebrew, you’re an asshole - and that’s insulting the asshole.
Context is important you reading-challenged fool. This thread is about homosexuality being linked with anal sex and you come in to incorrectly state that anal sex is “unnatural”. In fact, the term you used is “aberration”. This is clearly a loaded term meant to convey a moral judgement.
(emphasis added)
Shall we take a vote? I’d wager that people who review your posting history will conclude you are both misogynist and homophobic.
/Jerry/
Hate the cock!
That’s not an NTS. It’s a Modus Tollens. A -> B. ~B. Therefore, ~A. I see that your grasp of logic is equal to your grasp of the topic at hand.
You didn’t say anything about usual or unusual. You said that it was categorically natural.
You’re equivocating with the term “natural”. Sometimes, you use it to mean “normative”. Sometimes, you use it to mean “usual”. And sometimes, you use it to mean “of nature”.
Yikes! Please tell me more about this! My filthy little id is drawing pictures that my rational ego can’t cope with!
FWIW, I understood your point about vaginas. Heck, considering menstruation, the vagina is an organ of elimination. Our correspondent didn’t catch your use of the method of “reduction to the absurd.”
“It’s unnatural, like building houses and brushing your teeth. Let us pray.”
Trinopus
I bet this was inspired by those who say, when you say to them you’re gay, “oh, whatever floats your boat!” or “whatever trips your trigger!”.
ugh.
No. It is about so much more than erections and ejaculations. But you don’t want to know about all that “love” stuff, do you?
Ever since my gay friend was telling me about a group thing he got into at a party and I said “hope you used condoms” and he said “oh, no, we weren’t doing that!”
I have been intrigued as to the frequency of anal sex amongst gay male relationships - is it only a couples thing? Do some never engage in it? Actually, straight couple anal sex is just as interesting, wonder how many engage in it (percentage wise), not sure this is covered in the Dr Ruth study or the Johnson and Johnson study.
“Masturbation episodes normally occur at approximately 90-minute intervals in undisturbed horses.” — Stallion Management, EJACULATION, Physiology and Dysfunction, 0749-0739192, Sue M. McDonnell, PhD
Elephants do it, too. With their trunks.
It depends - IMO, anal sex is fairly important. Typically, some people just don’t want to bottom very much, if at all. They top instead, and part of the criteria for becoming involved with someone is that this other person enjoys to bottom in anal sex.
Some gays see anal sex as being a particularly intimate activity suitable only for lovers, whereas others aren’t so discriminating.
Round we go again…
I did understand the reductio ad absurdum, but I thought it was invalid. The argument goes sort of like this: “If anal intercourse is repellent because it entails penetration of an organ of elimination, then so is vaginal intercourse, since the vagina is also an organ of elimination. But vaginal intercourse is not repellent. Therefore anal intercouse is not repellent.” (You can substitute whatever word you like for “repellent” without altering the thrust of the argument.)
So far so good. But I here interject “Although the vagina is an organ of elimination, it is also, reproductively, an organ of copulation. [For the hard of thinking] That is how mammals get little mammals. [/fthot] The anus is not. [For the hard of thinking] You cannot get little mammals by inserting the penis there. [/fthot] Hence the initial argument does not compare like with like. Hence it is not valid.”
Now the alert student will observe that I have merely rebutted an argument that purports to show that anal intercourse is not repellent. I have not, of course, proved that anal intercourse is repellent. Nor was the argument intended to do so. Nor does making the argument show that I think so, still less that I have any bone to pick with homosexual practices or, for that matter, any non-reproductive sex activity.
Libertarian then proceeded to go off at all manner of odd tangents, including quibbling over the word “natural” (for the purposes of discussing reproduction, I should think “as opposed to ‘artificial’ as in ‘artificial insemination’” would get the point across adequately), the possibility of impregnating women without actual penile penetration, ovulatory habits in mink and non-penetrative mounting in snow leopards, as though that had an ounce of relevance. None of this altered the fact that, reproductively speaking, the vagina is where the penis goes.
Somewhere along the line Libertarian threw in an American political simile. I’d better admit that I don’t get it and have no interest in getting it. As any fule kno, I’m English. American politics aren’t much concern of mine – not to the point of making similes about them part of my regular vocabulary, at any rate.
Homebrew has got his panties in a bunch over the word “aberrant”, even though I made it perfectly plain that the discussion was only in the context of sex-for-reproduction. Apparently it is an inflammatory term. I’m sure I apologise humbly for offending Homebrew, but the word was a natural one to use in the sense of “straying away from”, and the fact that you can find a dictionary entry which carries a sense of moral opprobrium is hardly relevant in the context in which I was using it – which was a discussion of reproductive activity, without reference to gay anal intercourse.
shrugs Should an astronomer never refer to the “aberration” of light, in your presence, HB? (I used to know what the term meant, once.) Should a statistician never say “standard deviation”? Should I watch every word I say in a context that has nothing to do with homosexuality for fear of offending your precious ears? It’s not going to happen.
As to the charges of homophobia and misogyny, HB, you tried that and failed once before. Any new angles to present, or do you just imagine a muttered “Res ipsa loquitur” and a nod in the direction of your cronies is going to carry the day, a year after you lost the argument? I realize I’m not in with a shout of persuading you that I’m neither homophobic nor misogynistic, but it’d save me a little tedium if I could make you aware that you’re making yourself look silly.
Reference the OP: I think the vehemence with which certain citizens seek to decry me over a perceived slight against the practice demonstrates adequately that the association between gay men and arse-banditry isn’t solely in the minds of straight bigots.
I read an erotic story once in which a female asked the man she was about to make the two-backed beast with “You’re not an arse-bandit are you?” over a concern that he was about to fuck her in the bum – so you can’t call me a homophobe over that one either. Too badski.
Were you intelligent, your condescension would not be so annoying. I picture you as a fat old fop during the American Revolution, sitting on your summer porch, sipping hot tea and complaining about the fly population as you mop your sweaty neck and bark orders at the servants while a battle rages in a nearby field. The original argument, which you have yet to address, is that anal sex is no more “unnatural” than vaginal sex. And if you think that insemination is not possible naturally without vaginal penetration, then you’re just stupid.
You dismiss dual roles pretty quickly.. in fact lips, breasts and our very skin have a major part in our sexual evolution. :) We lost our fur in order to have better quality sex too.I think you’ve been whooshed, Rashak.
Sorry, are you really not reading my posts? You have already seized ownership of the term “natural” to the extent that “unnatural” has no meaning, so how can I possibly demonstrate that anything is “unnatural” under the terms you please to impose? What I have done is to demonstrate that your argument about organs of elimination is flawed, because it does not compare like with like.
Again, your definition of “natural” precludes any discussion of how insemination can occur “naturally”. But if “natural” meant “the way mammals have done it since they acquired warm blood and fur” then you’d have to concede that, randomly sampling, you’d have to look really, really hard to find any instances of insemination occurring without vaginal penetration. I’m astonished I have to keep labouring this simple point; I’m sure the audience got there some time ago.
“Were you intelligent”, blabs Libertarian, labelling his interlocutor as condescending :rolleyes:.
Is it at all possible for you to conduct discourse without being a snitty bitch? What you have demonstrated, so far, is that you don’t know what vaginas are for, that you know nothing about the sexual practices of mammals in nature, and that you are delusional — fancying yourself as the board’s professor and the rest of us as your students and audience. It’s lucky for you that I like you.
Er, the fact that the vagina is dual-purpose doesn’t change either purpose. The vagina is still an organ of elimination, and arguments against anal sex on the grounds that entails POE either need to include every orifice I can think of off hand
, or be dismissed as silly.
Q: given your counterargument, is sex with birth control repellent? It involves penetration of an OoE with no possibility of little mammals. Seems pretty damn like to me.
Finally, your counter-argument only holds if people have sex for the purpose of making little mammals. I wholeheartedly agree that anal sex, in the context of reproduction, is silly. Since most people have sex in very large part because they want to, and not strictly to have children, it’s silly to use reproduction as a primary cause of sex in us.
Comparing wierd reproductive sex with reproductive sex makes more sense than cmparing recreational sex with reproductive sex.
One more time: Sex != reproduction. Although it’s a nifty way to go about getting tiny mammals, it has more significance, especially to us humans, than merely that.
We were discussing sex. You brought in reproduction.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
shrugs Should an astronomer never refer to the “aberration” of light, in your presence, HB? (I used to know what the term meant, once.) Should a statistician never say “standard deviation”? Should I watch every word I say in a context that has nothing to do with homosexuality for fear of offending your precious ears? It’s not going to happen.
[QUOTE]
As I’ve said, you were the one who brought up reproduction in a thread already about homosexuality and anal sex. Connect the topics.
“You dismiss dual roles pretty quickly… in fact lips, breasts and our very skin have a major part in our sexual evolution. We lost our fur in order to have better quality sex too.”
radio static Labmonkey to tower requesting flyby, over
so obviously, it can’t be the definition of homosexual sex.
Not only do heterosexual couples enjoy regular anal sex, females also wear strap-ons or use vibrators/dildoes to enter their male partner’s anus. Besides that, there is always the use of fingers, toes and tongues. Much pleasure is derived from the “taint”. (Aint the dick, and it aint the asshole ~ it’s in between), as well as superficial stimulation of the anus. It’s certainly not basic, but is surely very common.
Conversely, the same is true for men. The female anus is explored in the same ways, as well as with penile penetration. Unfortunately, some men are emotionally repulsed by the thought of accepting this pleasure because of its connotations of gay sex. As liberal as we have grown to be, some things are tabboo. People do it, they just don’t talk about it.
If you’re doing it with a woman, how homosexual can it be, guys? And in a continuation of this arguement, if straight men do it with women, how can it be defined as “gay sex”.
Sex is sex. Whatever stimulation/satisfaction you get from your partner is construed as sex. Nothing more, nothing less. And don’t think that what you fantasize about, your goody-goody neighbours aren’t doing next door. There’s no “gay sex”, just like there’s no “Catholic sex”, no “mid-thirties sex”, no “period sex”, no “dirty sex”. Sex is sex.
If we’d all just admit to ourselves what we’re doing in the bedroom, we’d get over it. No, I can’t see you ~ but I know what you’re doing ;).