I do understand. You don’t. And you have revealed yourself by saying that you find it disgusting. You are a fool who wants to disseminate your twisted, narrow view. My dick was made for a vagina as much as your head belongs up your ass.
So, get your head out of your ass and grow up.
Sure there are. Fingers and tongue.
**
:rolleyes: Of course, this forum was designed for great debates, but you’ve persisted in being obsure, bigoted, and pendantic.
Whether you use designed or evolved, the fact is without, lubrication anal sex can cause damage. Also, there is really no medical reason for a penis to be in there but with vagina intercourse there is. I don’t want to veer too far from the topic, but I do realize you can’t turn vagina secretions on and off but I’m sure you’d agree that when a female is sexually aroused (generally), lubrication forms. This is elementary stuff people. I’m not saying your freaks or anything like that. Just look at it in a logical sense. In general, men are attracted to women. There’s an instinct that occurs in with every animal in nature to reproduce. When a straight couple has sex, they’re usually not thinking, “ I want to reproduce,” but having that urge to have sex can logically be attributed toward reproduction. When men look at women we look at your breast, shape, and if your homely or not. It’d be logical to think the reason we do that is because we’re involuntarily looking for a good child barer that we can have goodlooking offspring with. In general, women want men that are in good shape. I attribute this with involuntarily picking what DNA would produce the best offspring. Or how much money he has, so he’d be able to support the offspring. I believe these are primitive instincts that are passed in our DNA to insure our survival as a race. Just like in nature. “Survival of the fittest” is going on everyday under our noses without us even knowing it. Even it you don’t agree with me, you’d got to admit it makes sense.
Speaking from facts that I view (notice i said that I VIEW)prove heterosexual sex is at least SUGGESTED by the human anatomy doesn’t make me a bigot. But because you call me one, it does prove your unwillingness to understand other viewpoints.
Okay Hastur, your penis and anus must be the only ones in the world that have “evolved” for anal sex. I guess that would make you a mutant
The same is true of vaginal sex, especially the “first time” (remember that question about the hymen I asked you, which you have conveniently failed to answer?).
Medical reason? I’ve never heard of anyone having sex for “medical reasons”. (Well, actually, there can be medical reasons for having sex, but in all probability any activity that leads to orgasm will do for the purpose.)
In general, true, because the majority of people are heterosexual. But that doesn’t make being homosexual any more unnatural than having blue eyes is unnatural.
The remainder of what you wrote was deleted because it relates to theories of heterosexual mate selection that are really quite irrelevant to this discussion.
I know you guys are smarter then this. To not know the anatomical difference between vaginal sex and anal sex is ridiculous. To not know the anus isn’t designed or “evolved” for anal sex is ridiculous. And to not except that nature suggests heterosexual sex even though the majority of people ARE heterosexual is ridiculous. But I’ll give you guys the benefit of the doubt and dig up all the medical journals expressing the “design” of the parts of human anatomy in question and what their purposes are.
Rook
I was going by your second definition. So, would it also be your assertion that kissing, hugging, oral sex and other physical displays of affection are not natural (by your second definition) regardless of the gender of people involved? These activies are not suggested in anyway by anatomy, does that make them unnatural?
I refuse to understand your viewpoint because you use flawed analogies, baseless, uncited assertations, and inane theories that you try to pass as fact. If you acted as if you had read any of the links provided or tried to understand any of the information by people who have posted in this thread, I would not have posted such a thing about you.
The point you were trying to make four pages ago has long been overpassed by everything else you’ve posted. Thinking that humanity is made for straight sex doesn’t label you a bigot in my book- it comes from observation of the sum total of the rest of your posts.
Interesting question. I feel that a certain amount of socialization and a need for other human contact is a natural instinct we all have. An example of this is solitary confinement in prison. This is used as a punishment because, in general, humans enjoy each others company and have a need to interact with other humans. I believe kissing and hugging CAN fall into this category. We all know the difference between a hug or kiss with a friend or family member. But kissing and oral sex, in general, is used also used as foreplay to sex. Since vaginal secretions usually need a stimulant to begin, that would be where kissing and oral sex would fall in.
Rook
But mouths are designed for eating and drinking. There is nothing anatomical that suggests that it is natural that they be used for kissing and oral sex. Can a mouth be used for a natural purpose different from the one it was designed for?
Rook:
This has to be a record for the most ignorant statement ever made on the SDMB. Oral genital stimulation of children, by their parents, no less? Wouldn’t that be criminal sexual child abuse? And the use of the word “usually” implies “more often than not” which means most parents are sex offenders and most of us were ourselves abused in our childhood. NOT! Or is that where the OP is coming from?
uhhh…i’m pretty sure they meant spoken words
That’s the first question i’ve heard that actually made me think. Unfortunately, my work day is through and i’ll have to continue this tomorrow. I’ll be looking forward to further this discussion
Rook,
Again, maybe I don’t fully understand your posts. If all you’re meaning to say is, “You won’t have a baby if you only have anal sex with someone.”, nobody would disagree with that, I don’t think. But, that’s different than saying, “People are physically and mentally designed to have heterosexual sex.” Some people are not mentally designed to be heterosexual…that seems obvious, and that’s what the evidence, even the evidence you give, shows.
Rook:
In our society yes, this would be criminal activity. However, the author of this paper was discussing other cultures in that paragraph.
Here is the a quote that immediately precede that passage:
She then follows this sentence by outlining the pattern in these societies, starting with infancy.
It didn’t evolve for anal sex, it just works for it, you maladapted imbecile. Watch the mutant thing, you intellectually deprived pseudo-biped. Your desire to hold on to fallacious thinking is amazing.
Hastur, please, don’t say things like that. I was just about to get that very point (multiple natural uses for anatomical structures) across to Rook. I thought I was making some progress too. If you want to fire up the grill, take it to the BBQ pit.
Well, Rook, since according to your profile your interests include “useless questioning”, we can all see why you posted this OP and where you are going with it.
I say we stop feeding him.
Although he has thrown a bone to several people with his “I did not know that. However…” comments, I don’t really think we can explain this to him.
As for these comments which seem to keep popping up:
and
and
and
and
I think it is safe to say that his agenda goes a little further than just asking a question. I’m sure you have all heard this before–He doesn’t hate gay people–he has a friend who’s gay.
Quoted by Rook
We generally call this kind of thing prison rape, and not attraction. Nobody in prison considers it attraction. (hey, I’m a recovering addict. Half the people I know have been prison). Oh’ sure, a closeted homosexual may come to terms with his orientaion while inside, but that, IMHO, is not what is being described in yor quote.
I think a better way of phrasing would be “people in prison who spend long periods separated from the other sex may turn to same-sex victims.”
Just a thought.
This, in no way, describes sexual attraction.