I find it hard to believe you two actually believe the stupid shit you keep spewing out but just in case you’re serious let me make a few points:
1.) The word “natural” is basically meaningless. Everything in the universe is “natural.” Nothing can occur unless it occurs “naturally.” All human behavior is natural. All sexuality is natural.
2.) Now then, “natural” does not necessarily mean good or right or ethical or desirable. All it means is that it is a phenomenon which occurs in the universe. War is natural. Racism is natural. Assholes like you are natural.
So yes, rape and molestation are “natural.” They are rejected and sanctioned as unacceptable behaviors in human populations not because they are “unnatural” but because they have a toxic and corrosive effect on the well-being and survival of the population as a whole.
3.) The fact that humans engage in anal sex ipso facto makes it “natural.” The facillitation of reproduction has nothing to do with whether it’s natural and reproduction is not the sole purpose for sexual behavior. Even in heterosexual couplings, penile-vaginal intercourse is usually NOT engaged in for reproduction.
4.) Guess what, dickweeds, ANIMALS engage in anal sex…oral sex too. Is it “unnantural” when animals do it? Yes or no? And how are you defining “natural?”
5.) The point of the OP is that homosexuality as an orientation cannot be reduced to a particular sexual act. It’s not even accurate to say that homosexuality can be defined by any sexual behavior. You can be gay and not have sex. You can have anal sex with a guy and not be gay (it happens). I’ve actually read that most gay males do not engage in anal sex, at least not regularly.
So the OP is right and Lbertarian’s assesment of Malacandra’s intellectual acumen have been right on target.
Humorless is too good a word to describe you, Diogenes the Cynic. Tit for tat then I suppose, how pedestrian :rolleyes: . Ahem, fuck you,blah blah blah, asshole, blah, call me dickweed will ya, blah, blah, why I oughta…sprinkle in asshat here and there… there,more your speed you fucking reactionary little pissant?
Tangent: If the word “natural” means, essentially, “everything in the universe,” then the true opposite of the word would not be “artificial,” it would be “supernatural.” That is to say, “things not in this universe,” or more specifically, “things that do not exsist.” Astronomy is natural. Astrology is supernatural.
As for Malacandra’s blathering, his arguments only work if you take for granted the proposition that the only purpose of sex is reproduction. Since this is manifestly untrue, the distinction he is trying to create between anal sex and vaginal sex is clearly meaningless. Also, stupid.
Only in one widely-disputed instance which happened a couple of thousand years ago. Given the trouble which resulted from it, there are some who’d say that’s a good thing!
Those who were paying attention to the very first post I made in this thread would have noticed that I said “From the point of view of sex as reproduction…” at the start of the argument. Apparently this is a very small proportion of the readership. Or, possibly, a very large proportion, and it’s only the very small proportion who have taken it on themselves to call me an idiot.
Since I then specifically mentioned sex for other purposes as well to make the distinction even clearer, I despair of those who think that I think that the only purpose of sex is reproduction. Since I’ve mentioned my own enjoyment of masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, and my own use of contraceptives, I’m forced to conclude that certain people hereabouts would rather pile on than take notice of what’s hitting their retinas.
I can convey meaning, but not understanding.
Sheesh. “Fighting ignorance”, yet.
So… from the definitions of “natural” that have been floating around in the thread, I guess harvesting an egg from an unborn foetus, replacing its nucleus with a genetically-modified orang-utan cell nucleus, implanting it in the uterus of a hundred-year-old woman and using massive medical intervention to bring the resulting pregnancy to term would count as “natural” reproduction? After all, all the participants would by definition be “natural” creatures and nothing that they did could possibly be unnatural, am I right? Just answer yes or no.
Stop being so intellectually desperate. If the best you can do every time you post is accuse people of not reading, then just shut up. People have responded to your “from the point of sex as reproduction” by explaining to you how myopic and irrelevant a point of view it is. You know, from the point of view of philosophy as a vehicle for whiny brats, Schopenhauer was an enlightened genius. So what?
Not so much desperate as driven to mild distraction by the fact of having context continually ignored. Personally I think that, if you want to demonstrate that vaginal intercourse is natural, then a nod in the direction of the reproductive functions of the organs involved is entirely relevant. But what do I know?
What you don’t know is that everyone, including me, has conceded that vaginal intercourse is natural. But you have not conceded that anal intercourse is equally natural. Not from a reproduction perspective — this is not a thread about the definition of homoreproduction — but from the prespective of sexuality. Get it?
Ah, I see where we’re getting confused. Show me where I said that anal sex was unnatural, and then we’ll see about me saying that it’s natural.
I did say that from a reproductive point of view it is aberrant - meaning that, stick your dick up there, and good luck for your chances of making any babies that way, whatever your species - and it is; but that was my sole harsh word on the subject. Consequently, any lambasting of me on the grounds that I said it was unnatural falls by detail. It should be enough for you that I haven’t said one way or the other. Dictating my private opinions is egregious thought-policing.
Actually this thread was about the non-synonymity of anal sex and homosexuality…
Um, no. Are we going to go round and round on the definition of “natural reproduction” again? The above quote is arguing about the naturalness of vaginal intercourse. I make no statement that “other sexual activity is unnatural”. I say, in terms of other sexual activity that makes little mammals, there isn’t any - and I don’t suppose you’re about to advocate anal intercourse as a natural means of conception, surely?
And the Good Lord knows, that is such a vitally important point to make that it needed to be defended in the most acrimonious manner possible for at least two pages.
So WTF does reproduction have to do with the topic? Anal sex is not a “natural” way to cook spaghetti either. So the fuck what? That isn’t why it’s done.
Still plenty of wittering I see. Still no-one establishing that I said anal sex was unnatural in the first place. It’s hardly my fault this thread has gone on for two pages.
WTF does reproduction have to do with the topic? To demonstrate that vaginal intercourse is validated by biological necessity and hence that Libertarian’s earlier comparison between it and anal intercourse is not valid. Not to demonstrate that anal sex is unnatural. Still less to demonstrate that all those who engage in it are foul deviants. But you could be forgiven for thinking that I had been saying exactly that from the flaming I’ve been getting.
And He also knows that it was vitally important for you to pitch in and toss your own $0.02-worth of acrimony and contribute nothing else. Schmuck*10^100 and no returns. There’s some reason why I should sit back and passively accept being accused of thoughtcrime? I don’t fucking think so.
Will now sit back and wait for Lib et. al. to say “I understand, Malacandra”.
takes 12-bore and sights on approaching flock of prime pork
