I think this what Coldfire is talking about. http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,3605,426590,00.html
So do you feel sorry for homosexuals?
Obsidian Flutterby
No, but the impression that I got from “I’m an adult” comment was that you felt you don’t have to answer to anyone else. I may have read more into than you intended, however.
You probably did and I can see how that works. A lot of adults (well older adults) look at a younger person going “I’m an adult I can do what I want now” without care to the consequences and I can see how I may have come off like that. My feelings are that I’ve lived on my own for well over a year, I have gotten some help from my parents over rough spots but that’s more like 20 bucks worth of groceries (ie ramen and such) than them bailing me out of my bills. I have managed decently well for my first time out on my own, I probably could have done better, but not everyone manages to stay afloat completely when they jump out into the world right off the bat.
My ‘I’m an adult’ comment comes from my family (mainly my Grandmothers and aunts/uncles) treating me like I still need to be taken in hand and held on the apron strings. The way their lectures come off as, though well meaning, seem to say that I’m still 13 and that I have to do things their way because they are the ones who are taking care of me and there is no other way. Most of what I have done with my life so far has come with an undercurrent of disapproval from both sides of the family. Moving away the first time meant I abandoned my mom. Moving out on my own meant I abandoned my Grandmother after my Grandfather died. Looking back at things though those were my decisions I did what I needed to what was best for me. In fact leaving Grandma’s was the best thing for both of us. She didn’t need another person to take care of. She needed to grieve and find her own life. She’s doing things she hasn’t done in years since my father was little! If I hadn’t left she would still be ‘babysitting’ me.
At present I am owning up to my mistakes that I have made (and whatever my family may think my child is not a mistake. They are an unexpected gift) and living up to my responsibilities as best as I can. Which is all anyone can do. At present my responsibility is to make the best life I can for myself and my soon to be born child. I’m just really pissed at being pressured towards adoption because I am not married and, yes, haven’t finished college. These things do not make me a bad candidate for motherhood, not when I am already making plans to rectify at least the college thing. It will be hard. I won’t pretend that it’s not going to be. But if my own mother at 40 something, newly divorced with 2 rebellious kids and no degree of her own can go and do it, then I can at least live up to her example.
As my Dad tells me, go and prove my detractors wrong. That I am not merely some fuck up that they have to put up with because I’m family. And that’s what I plan to do.
Gay men have sex of the penetrating kind. Lesbians? if they want that, there are toys I suppose, though I personally wouldn’t find them as fulfilling as actually having another body there.
Why are you so gung ho about this? Why can’t you just accept the fact that for most people the actual act of copulation isn’t something that is easily replaced? What is it about this concept that is eluding you?
I’m not banging my head against this wall anymore.
So, when I taught at the alternative school here, one of my **13 year old ** students was pregnant.
When her mom was in one day she was excited that she was about to become a grandmother at 28… :eek:
And all of this, straight people can do, without having “real” sex.
Huh? What makes you characterize me as “gung ho”? I just asked a question. I mean, there’s a large segment of the population that seems to have no problem forgoing “actual” copulation. So is there something to homosexuality beyond simply being attracted to the same sex? It’s not an issue of me not “accepting” it, but an issue of me being curious. As for what’s eluding me, it’s how something considered essential to one group can be so easily dispensed with by another. Why is that most heterosexuals think that not having “real” sex is a huge sacrifice, but homosexuals don’t? I also don’t understand why you’re so touchy about someone asking for your input in examining this question.
You didn’t just ask a question. What you did was write “So do you feel sorry for homosexuals?” a question that can easily be read as an insinuation that OpalCat’s statement was in some way demeaning to homosexuals. If you wanted to question OpalCat’s “Two bodies moving as one and all that”, this could easily have been done without such insinuations. (e.g. “I don’t agree. Gays seem to get along just fine without”.) That you choose not to do so, tells me it was deliberate. But perhaps I’m mistaken. Anyway why you suddenly feel a need to throw gays into the fray is a bit puzzling. This thread is about having children the natural way. Last I looked gays cannot have children (at least with each other).
If you approach the subject of sex and copulation with a Nancy Reagan “just say no” attitude, or “just suck” or “just pet” or whatever, you’re of course firmly and irreproachable seated high on your white pegasus. Meanwhile in the real world, it’s simply never going to fly.
- Rune
Uh, I think that I just said that homosexuals DO have 'real" sex, but you’re apparently far too stupid to grasp this. As to why I’m touchy, I just tend to get irritated when dealing with the criminally obtuse.
WinstonSmith
And a knife can easibly be stabbed into the user’s abdomen, yet I do not fault knife manufacturers for failing to include the warning “caution: this knife is not intended to be stabbed into the user’s abdomen”. If I want to say that OpalCat’s statement was demeaning, I can do so myself. I don’t need you to put words in my mouth for me, nor is the fact that you find it easy to do so much of an excuse.
And I did. The insuation was yours, not mine. If you mean “this could easily have been done without creating an opportunity for people to put words in your mouth”, I disagree. Those that are determined to take offense will always find a way.
OpalCat implied that non-penile-vaginal sex is unsatisfying. Presumably, that is the only type that homosexuals have. I think the relevance is rather obvious.
More precisely, they do not engage in acts that result in children, nor do they seem to have an inclination to do so. So why do they differ in that regard?
OpalCat
No, what you said was that homosexuals have penetration. If that is the standard, it is quite possible for heterosexuals to have penetration without the risk of pregnancy.
By " ‘real’ sex", I mean “sex which, by itself, constitutes a satisfying sexual relationship”. So, using that definition, is non-penile-vaginal sex “real” sex for heterosexuals? That is, is a relationship which involves no penile-vaginal sex satisfying for heterosexuals? Is it for homosexuals?
I think there’s something seriously wrong with a value system in which failing to understand someone’s position is “criminal”, but being a complete jackass is just fine.
SanibelMan, if you think you’ve got it bad…you should see the kind of gasps my wife gets when people see her with our almost-2-year-old son.
Then you should see the vacuum-inducing gasp that ensues when they ask if he’s our oldest, and she replied that he’s our fourth.
FYI: she’s 27, but is built very space-efficiently, and looks very young. (but she was only 20 when our oldest was born)
Uh, no I didn’t. I implied penetration. The point that I was making at the time was that oral sex isn’t always satisfying enough. YOU are the one saying vaginal. YOU AND ONLY YOU.
So don’t put words in my mouth, fucktard.
I was going to write that your inability to understand how your statement could be read as putting judgments into OpalCat’s mouth makes be feel sorry on your behalf, but decided not to ( 
) since you apparently did not intend it so. As for gays, I think the fact that they’re not voluntary choosing to forego sexual intercourse (that can lead to pregnancy), but are in fact physical incapable thereof, makes all the difference. Unless you’re arguing that they somehow belong to a higher sort of moral category, that even had they the chance – they would never have sinned as us plain straights do. Perhaps it’s me, but somehow to me gays haven’t ever come off as having a strikingly superior sexual restraint. Also I think most gays would rather not have to carry that extra burden.
The discussion has now moved quite a distance from the OP, and I don’t really know what you’re arguing for? It’s wrong to have children when young? It’s swell to have children when young? I’m only saying that if you make plans disregarding human nature, they’re just not ever going to amount to very much in the real world. People get pregnant (well women at least) - sometimes unplanned. Young women get pregnant - sometimes unplanned. Now let’s deal with it. Saying they needn’t or shouldn’t, or that it is wrong isn’t very constructive.
As for my own opinion:
Some apparently think young parents is a big problem, personally I’m more inclined to think older parents are more of a problem these days.
- Rune
He is putting words in my mouth by saying that I was meaning strictly male + female vaginal intercourse, which I was not. The issue was whether or not a sex life limited to fellatio/cunnilingus was a satisfying sex life. I said that sometimes people wanted intercourse, the full body experience of two people “going at it”… which is by no means limited to vaginal intercourse. He was being intentionally narrow in his interpretation for the sake of being an argumentative prick.
You’re the one putting words in my mouth. I said that you implied it, not that you said it.
No, it wasn’t. The question was whether a sex life limited to non-reproductive sex is satisfying. This whole discussion derived from DtC’s statement “Also, only [vaginal] intercourse causes pregnancy, so abstinence isn’t necessary. No one ever got pregnant from a blow job.” DtC was presenting oral sex as an example of non-reproductive sex. This led to the discussion of whether thusly limiting oneself is satisfying, you said that it was not, I asked about gays, since that’s the only type of sex they practice, and you went mental.
In the context of the thread, without further clarification, I was justified in assuming it was so limited.
No, there was nothing intentional about any misunderstanding on my part. You seem quick to assign sinister motives.
Uh, whatever. Because I say that oral sex isn’t enough for most people, that most people like the bump and grind of actual intercourse, you make the huge leap that I feel sorry for homosexuals? That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard, and if it’s indicative of your general level of intelligence I think I’ll be quite happy with just ignoring your posts from now on.
:rolleyes:
buh bye. I’m done with you.