Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[ponderingturtle]

strawman.

Not really. It is more reducto ad absurdem. You used a rather poor argument as a reason to dislike anal sex and are now objecting that your poor argument applies to things you support as well.

 

[Furcifer]

Explain the difference between the "proper" place for fingers and the "proper" place for a penis in the context of this discussion, please.
If you can do so without resort to fallacious reasoning or moralising, I'll give you a cookie.

Well if it sees an increased flow of blood and begins to secrete lubrication in anticipation it's probably the "proper" place for a penis.

I'm not following this logic with penises and fingers? It should be very clear to anyone that the penis is a sexual organ, and the vagina, not the anus is the anatomically "proper" place for it. The physical responses in a woman's vagina are specifically designed for the insertion of a penis. The anus is not.

Why are you playing ignorant to this fact?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well if it sees an increased flow of blood and begins to secrete lubrication in anticipation it's probably the "proper" place for a penis.

Ah so you are saying oral sex is improper and likely deviant, even if it is practiced by a majority of sexualy active individuals.

 

[volatile]

Well if it sees an increased flow of blood and begins to secrete lubrication in anticipation it's probably the "proper" place for a penis.

The vagina would do this with a cucumber. Is the vagina the "proper" place for a cucumber?

What do you mean by "proper"?!

I'm not following this logic with penises and fingers? It should be very clear to anyone that the penis is a sexual organ, and the vagina, not the anus is the anatomically "proper" place for it.

Proper by what criteria?

As you haven't explained, I'm left to guess what the hell you're talking about. Is it because that's how babies are made? Because most people do it that way? God made us to do that? All of those are logically flawed.

Or is it because the penis and the vagina tessellate? Or that insertion is pleasurable? Both of those reasons apply to anal sex too. So, I'll ask you again. Be explicit - what do you mean by "proper"?

The physical responses in a woman's vagina are specifically designed for the insertion of a penis.

Or a cucumber.

The point about fingers is - what do you think is the "proper" use of fingers, and on what criteria do you make that judgement. You've skirted around these questions of definitional categories, and you really need to address them. Tell me: what are the proper uses for fingers? Can I stick my finger in a girl's vagina, or is that deviant too?

 

[Ducky]

How do you feel about left-handed people? People with red hair?

Left handed redheads are hawt.

 

[lauwersw]

A rather recent study gives an interesting view:

http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/

Homosexuality can be genetically determined. Though the genetic trait is a disadvantage for the homosexual individual, it's such a large reproductive advantage for his mother and sisters that it stays in gene pool.

I don't know if this theory has been accepted, but it definitely would explain a lot.

 

[Furcifer]

Firstly - what is your definition of "normal"? And secondly, in what way does other people doing something that you personally would not wish to engage in make you feel anything at all, let alone "uncomfortable"?

What's with the insistence that it shouldn't make me uncomfortable? It makes me wonder what your motivation is? Do you feel guilty about something? If I told you I was a fecal freak wouldn't you feel uncomfortable? If I insisted you try it and blamed your phobia to do so on morality how would you react?

 

[volatile]

What's with the insistence that it shouldn't make me uncomfortable? It makes me wonder what your motivation is? Do you feel guilty about something? If I told you I was a fecal freak wouldn't you feel uncomfortable? If I insisted you try it and blamed your phobia to do so on morality how would you react?

Because I'm trying to get you to examine the root of your prejudices. This is sceptical forum, after all. And really, I'm not insisting anything. I'm encouraging you to think through, explain and justify your own opinions. If you can't do that, might it not be time to rethink them?

Why does what other people get up to, between themselves, with consent, make you feel anything at all?

If you told me you were a faecal freak, no it wouldn't "make me feel uncomfortable". Why would it? I'm not into scat myself, but I see no reason why other people should be condemned for doing it, nor why what they get up to should make me feel anything at all. How I feel about doing something, and how I feel about other people doing something, are entirely different concepts - something you should take note of, as you've not directly addressed it. I don't want to go horse-riding, but the thought of other people doing so doesn't fill me with discomfort. Why should it?

Why do you "feel uncomfortable" by what other people do, between themselves? That makes no sense whatsoever. And why are you talking about shame?

I also note you didn't answer the questions:

Firstly - what is your definition of "normal"? And secondly, in what way does other people doing something that you personally would not wish to engage in make you feel anything at all, let alone "uncomfortable"?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Why is there always this focus on anal sex? For that matter, why is the focus so often on male homosexuality, and not female homosexuality?

And am I the only one who finds "thrust in my face" to be rather Freudian?

And somewhat arousing?

 

[volatile]

Why is there always this focus on anal sex? For that matter, why is the focus so often on male homosexuality, and not female homosexuality?

And am I the only one who finds "thrust in my face" to be rather Freudian?

And somewhat arousing?

Not at all. And I'm straight.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why is there always this focus on anal sex? For that matter, why is the focus so often on male homosexuality, and not female homosexuality?

I have no idea, but it does seem that when someone starts to take issue with homosexual sex, it going to end up being about anal sex very soon.

Given that around 10-20% of married heterosexual couples have regular anal sex it would seem that homosexuals are in the minority of people who have regular anal sex.

And am I the only one who finds "thrust in my face" to be rather Freudian?

Not at all.

And somewhat arousing?

Not me.

 

[Furcifer]

Because I'm trying to get you to examine the root of your prejudices. This is sceptical forum, after all. And really, I'm not insisting anything. I'm encouraging you to think through, explain and justify your own opinions. If you can't do that, might it not be time to rethink them?

Why does what other people get up to, between themselves, with consent, make you feel anything at all?

If you told me you were a faecal freak, no it wouldn't "make me feel uncomfortable". Why would it? I'm not into scat myself, but I see no reason why other people should be condemned for doing it, nor why what they get up to should make me feel anything at all. How I feel about doing something, and how I feel about other people doing something, are entirely different concepts - something you should take note of, as you've not directly addressed it. I don't want to go horse-riding, but the thought of other people doing so doesn't fill me with discomfort. Why should it?

Why do you "feel uncomfortable" by what other people do, between themselves? That makes no sense whatsoever. And why are you talking about shame?

I also note you didn't answer the questions:

Firstly - what is your definition of "normal"? And secondly, in what way does other people doing something that you personally would not wish to engage in make you feel anything at all, let alone "uncomfortable"?

Don't get snitty, I had to run and now I'm on my berry. It's hard to format a response on a berry. I'm certainly not dodging any questions. And I think I answered your question.
In any event I still think you're projecting, you obviously don't understand me or what makes me uncomfortable or what my response to it is.

 

[volatile]

Don't get snitty, I had to run and now I'm on my berry. It's hard to format a response on a berry. I'm certainly not dodging any questions. And I think I answered your question.
In any event I still think you're projecting, you obviously don't understand me or what makes me uncomfortable or what my response to it is.

No, I don't. So I'd like you to explain. You haven't, so far. That's why you're posting in this thread, right? To explain your response?

What are your definitions of "normal", and "proper"? And in what way does other people doing something that you personally would not wish to engage in make you feel anything at all, let alone "uncomfortable"?

 

[Pup]

I'm totally puzzled at the negative response to 3bodyproblem. It seems reasonable to say that cucumbers, anuses, mouths, etc. are desirable because we're programed to want penile-vaginal sex, because if we didn't we wouldn't have reproduced, and therefore things which feel like that kind of sex are also desirable. I mean, that seems to be evolutionary theory 101. Why is it not obvious?

And so "normal" is shorthand for the most direct route to reproduction, which is the main thing that's necessary to continue a species.

The further one gets from imitating penile-vaginal sex, the harder it is to understand the immediate evolutionary benefit, and thus there's more need for discussion, research, etc. on those topics, whether it's homosexuality, foot fetishes, whatever. (geez, how do you write this without a zillion double entendres? )

And there are also things that make a lot of people cringe when they see or think about others doing it. Self-mutilation, eating something really gross, etc. The whole carnival geek industry is built on it, just like the whole carnival ride industry is built on fear of injury or heights or similar things. It's widespread to be grossed out by some things that other people do, or even just thinking about things that other people might do (eyeball sliced with a razorblade for example), so I don't see the point in criticizing someone for having that trait.

What if this whole conversation were about pedophilia rather than homosexuality? One could make an evolutionary case that men having sex with women as soon as they're old enough to reproduce, say 11 or 12 in a lot of cases, is as much within the range of "normal," (leading directly to reproduction) than homosexuality. Yet I doubt that anyone here would be willing to step forward and make a case that sex with 12 year olds should be widely accepted in society today.

Yes, I believe we need to jump on what appears to be intolerance to homosexuality, and also to jump on what appears to be any tolerance of pedophilia, from a current social standpoint. But those are legal-moral constructs that change from society to society faster than we could possibly evolve. They're just a blip on the long, long timeline of evolution.

So why can't one say that anything obviously aiming toward reproduction is "normal" including pedophilia with children old enough to reproduce, and anything not obviously explicable in terms of reproduction deviates from that norm?

That would make mating displays normal, pedophilia normal, heterosexual sex with women after menopause deviant, anal sex deviant, and so forth. Yes, it seems strange to us, and is not really helpful in passing laws or deciding who to ostracize, but it seems to me to be a perfectly logical starting point for figuring out what other things help reproduce the species directly (gay uncles maybe) or merely imitate the "normal" things (oral sex maybe), from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

[Furcifer]

No, I don't. So I'd like you to explain. You haven't, so far. That's why you're posting in this thread, right? To explain your response?

What are your definitions of "normal", and "proper"? And in what way does other people doing something that you personally would not wish to engage in make you feel anything at all, let alone "uncomfortable"?

I already explained both.

 

[Ducky]

Why is there always this focus on anal sex? For that matter, why is the focus so often on male homosexuality, and not female homosexuality?

And am I the only one who finds "thrust in my face" to be rather Freudian?

And somewhat arousing?

I am happy to focus on female homosexuality. Let's start a lab study on it.

I'll have you advertise, because I can't get any lesbians to come to my lab!

 

[Furcifer]

Well I said picking your nose was a deviant, everyone seemed to accept it as such. I don't see anyone making a case for the recovery of much needed salt.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm totally puzzled at the negative response to 3bodyproblem. It seems reasonable to say that cucumbers, anuses, mouths, etc. are desirable because we're programed to want penile-vaginal sex, because if we didn't we wouldn't have reproduced, and therefore things which feel like that kind of sex are also desirable. I mean, that seems to be evolutionary theory 101. Why is it not obvious?

But in so much of the animal kingdom sex is about more than just reproduction. With the most sofisticated social structure in the world, why shouldn't human sex be about much more than reproduction as well?

What if this whole conversation were about pedophilia rather than homosexuality? One could make an evolutionary case that men having sex with women as soon as they're old enough to reproduce, say 11 or 12 in a lot of cases, is as much within the range of "normal," (leading directly to reproduction) than homosexuality. Yet I doubt that anyone here would be willing to step forward and make a case that sex with 12 year olds should be widely accepted in society today.

I will readily say that it is entirely possible that pedophiles are hardwired in their sexual turn ons. The problem is that you are equating a consentual relationship with non consentual relationship.

It is that having a healthy homosexual relationship is possible, a healthy relationship with a 12 year old is not.

Yes, I believe we need to jump on what appears to be intolerance to homosexuality, and also to jump on what appears to be any tolerance of pedophilia, from a current social standpoint. But those are legal-moral constructs that change from society to society faster than we could possibly evolve. They're just a blip on the long, long timeline of evolution.

Why should we jump on tolerance of pedophilia provided that the pedophile is not molesting children? There are annecdotal accounts of such individuals and I see no reason why I should be supprised about it. Such people I feel sorry for, because their sexual desire is attainable not not moraly attainable. So it is distinct from totaly unattainable desires or desires that can be modified into being moraly attainable.

So why can't one say that anything obviously aiming toward reproduction is "normal" including pedophilia with children old enough to reproduce, and anything not obviously explicable in terms of reproduction deviates from that norm?

From an reproductive point of view it is hard to make that arguement, but then 3BP was the one in the thread basing his arguments on reproduction.

That would make mating displays normal, pedophilia normal, heterosexual sex with women after menopause deviant, anal sex deviant, and so forth. Yes, it seems strange to us, and is not really helpful in passing laws or deciding who to ostracize, but it seems to me to be a perfectly logical starting point for figuring out what other things help reproduce the species directly (gay uncles maybe) or merely imitate the "normal" things (oral sex maybe), from an evolutionary standpoint.

And you found a good reason why this would be a form of the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well I said picking your nose was a deviant, everyone seemed to accept it as such. I don't see anyone making a case for the recovery of much needed salt.

Well purely nose picking is not deviant, in that 90+% of people pick their nose to remove dried nasal secreations. You are again mixing up distinct behaviors by linking nose picking to eating the results of nose picking.

You again are conflating two distinct and different behaviors. This is sloppy writting at the least.

 

[Furcifer]

I am happy to focus on female homosexuality. Let's start a lab study on it.

I'll have you advertise, because I can't get any lesbians to come to my lab!

I really don't think too much about Lesbian sex. As a male I can kinda understand it. It doesn't really involve any uncomfortable imagery. I just find it perplexing.