That doesn’t fly. Sex isn’t just about reproduction.
Having bright red hair is natural but not normal. Is the application of hair dye necessary for such handicapped people to function normally?
DetTVDir:
Difficult to answer without knowing how the increments on the scale of “naturalness” are defined? It would be helpful too, to know above or below what degree signals that a human characteristic or behavior is – what? – sinister? A failing? Moral? Immoral? Is this a universal measure of “naturalness”? Other than sexuality is there a scale of “naturalness” for thousands of other expressed human characteristics like, say, intellect, athleticism, musical ability, ambidexterity, handedness, hair color, skin color and height ? If not, is sexuality uniquely subjected to the scrutiny of the “naturalness scale”? Why just sexuality, do you reckon?
Tell me, do you think that, generally, it is more natural, less natural, or equally naturally for a penis to be in a vagina as opposed to a mouth or a tongue to be in a vagina?
(And, since anal sex is prevalent among heterosexuals, how does this have any bearing on what is “natural”?)
For artificial sexuality, google “sybian” and “fleshlight.”
DetTVDir:
Curious distinction. How, do you reckon, does the masturbatory behavior of non-human animals – particularly higher-order primates – for which there is copious evidence, stack up on the “naturalness” scale with human masturbation practices? For example are clever female orangutans, who have been frequently observed masturbating using sticks as dildos, behaving more or less naturally than a human male masturbating with, say, a “fleshlight”?
Seems to me before the “it ain’t natural” business proceeds any further, some clever poster ought to define “natural” and enumerate the degrees of “naturalness” along this continuum that is supposed. What are the rules for lining up on either side of an increment?
The distinction provided, thus far, was “one is found in nature and one has to be constructed.” Sticks are found in nature; fleshlights are constructed.
DetTVDir:
Would the “naturalness” of the act be improved if the male human used a stick too (gently one would hope)? It seems to me the act itself is natural; the nature of a handy object by which the desired effect is accomplished doesn’t change the “naturalness” of it.
Still and all, I wonder how homosexuality relates to this distinction and how, as it has been postulated, that it is “less natural” than heterosexuality? I don’t see that there’s a proper analogy here.
dettvdir: your user name shows up automatically above every post. It’s really not necessary to append it. Plus, it’s really annoying.
You could just as easily use some “natural fleshlight” like a clump of moss or something.
I am not sure that moss would give someone the same experience as latex (or whatever is in a fleshlight).
Beyond that, where do you think the discussion is heading at this point? I was not sure what point dettvdir was trying to make, but he asked a question to which there was an actual answer, so I responded to the question. His response to me made no sense to me, so I let it slide, and I really have no idea where you are going with your point.
Having answered dettvdir’s question, I think I will back out of this odd twist of the discussion.
DetTVDir:
The thread was diverted when I responded to “Magellan’s” question which implied there were degrees of “naturalness”. I asked if he (she?) would define “natural” and wondered if he (she?) would also enumerate the increments and thresholds on the “naturalness” scale. Would it take the “naturalness” measure of other human traits – like intellect, athleticism etc. – too? If not then why just sexuality’s themes, I inquired? The thread proceeded from there. Anyway in the biological sense, homosexuality is neither more nor less “natural” than heterosexuality. It’s merely expressed less frequently than heterosexuality.
I know you are just playing Devil’s Advocate here, but if it’s “sane” it means that it’s “natural.”
If you took a chainsaw to a woman’s clit, hetero as hell you might be, would that be sane? Or consensual? – if so I’d consider an asylum for all parties involved. And boatloads of psychotropic drugs.
Fuck safe at at that point – you are five towns beyond it…
Ain’t nothin’ saner than buttsex.
I’ll take…eh…your word for it. My shoot is butt (sp is just fine) one way: out.
But hey! Enjoy!
Well, except for chute anyway.
:smack: Both work: I’d shoot or I chute. Not like I’m going to reporting anytime soon. 
This is in response to your debate about homo and hetero SEXUALITY.
Every word you uttered in your thesis is related to why we must continue to fight the Atheistic agenda. WHY?
Because few if any atheists are against pre, post, and extra marital sex OF ANY KIND.
That is not only a threat to marriage, it’s a threat to humankind. Without marriage producing children we cease to exist.
Now let’s not even debate about over population. How would you feel if half of that population had the diseases you mentioned?
We are headed in that direction.
Why are you against post-marital sex? That seems like the best way to make new children.
(This is in response to your debate about homo and hetero SEXUALITY.
Every word you uttered in your thesis is related to why we must continue to fight the Atheistic agenda. WHY?
Because few if any atheists are against pre, post, and extra marital sex OF ANY KIND.
That is not only a threat to marriage, it’s a threat to humankind. Without marriage producing children we cease to exist.
Now let’s not even debate about over population. How would you feel if half of that population had the diseases you mentioned?
We are headed in that direction.) :smack: :smack: :smack:
Give yourself a smack while your at it.
Dear lord, he’s copy-pasting.