Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[Furcifer]

By what metric is "vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman" "normal"? What do you mean by "normal"? Is it a numbers issue - that is, is it normal because most people do that? Is it a reproductive / naturalistic issue - it's normal because that's the way babies are made? What?

By my own metric.

You're asking "what" when you mean "why". At least as far as I can tell. When you figure it out let me know

 

[Furcifer]

Why? I found a report from the Kinsey institute from 91 that made a point that even then almost 50% of married couples had experiment with anal sex, so why is it so deviant if by now it is likely more than 50% have experimented with it?

The very word "experimented" should tell you it's not normal. Why do you think they use that qualifier?

 

[Furcifer]

I think he is using what is a fairly common definition of normal "what I do is normal, what I would not do is perverted".

Strawman. I never once used the term "perverted". I like how you're putting words in my mouth. Ooops, Freudian slip

 

[volatile]

I found this:

"A statistical definition identifies deviance as a departure from conventionally predictable behaviour - in other words, any behaviour that is statistically infrequent.

Right, so you're going with numbers. Fine. We got there, finally. Any behaviour that is not enjoyed by more than 50% of the population is deviant. Are you sure you're happy with that definition?

That means you're a deviant for posting on internet forums. Are you comfortable with that?

Absolutist definitions are based on general principles and values that are assumed to be universal: deviance, in this perspective, constitutes a violation of such principles and values.

Oh, no. Wait. You're citing a different definition for deviance. In this one, deviance means deviant from moral norms.

Homosexuality is deviant because by an absolute moral code, it's bad. Are you happy with that?

I guess you're not, because you go on to cite yet another definition of deviance, which is different from the other two.

A reactivist definition would regard a deviant act as the result of a specific prohibition, be that formal or informal. In this view, deviance is a conduct that society and institutions define as such, and against which they react.

Homosexuality is deviant because society says so overtly and explicitly. Is this the one you want to pick?

Oh. I guess not, because here's another one:

Finally, a normative definition tautologically describes deviance as a violation of a norm, namely of a standard conduct to which most people feel they have to conform."

Homosexuality is deviant because society says so implicitly.

Feel free to explain how homosexual behaviour doesn't fall into these definitions. Thanks.

Why did you cite 4 definitions, which overlap with one another but which are not co-extensive? Did you think that would help? Why did you go off googling for definitions, when you could have just explained what you meant in the first place? How about rather than hide behind the dictionary, you actually say what you meant. What do you mean by "normal", in your own words?

 

[volatile]

By my own metric.

So you're making it up as you go along?

You're asking "what" when you mean "why". At least as far as I can tell. When you figure it out let me know

I know what I mean. If you are just randomly picking and choosing what you feel based on nothing but your prejudicial gut feelings and with no logic or consistency whatsoever, that's fine. But be man enough to admit that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I found this:

"A statistical definition identifies deviance as a departure from conventionally predictable behaviour - in other words, any behaviour that is statistically infrequent. Absolutist definitions are based on general principles and values that are assumed to be universal: deviance, in this perspective, constitutes a violation of such principles and values. A reactivist definition would regard a deviant act as the result of a specific prohibition, be that formal or informal. In this view, deviance is a conduct that society and institutions define as such, and against which they react. Finally, a normative definition tautologically describes deviance as a violation of a norm, namely of a standard conduct to which most people feel they have to conform."

Feel free to explain how homosexual behaviour doesn't fall into these definitions. Thanks.

Are you so sure? If so what are these princibles and values?

The only one that fits is the statistical definition and that is so rarely applied to these things.

 

[volatile]

Your questions are becoming banal and a tad absurd. I never judged my parents for having sex, but I certainly cringe when I think about it. Why? You tell me.

They're only banal because I have to keep repeating them, given your reluctance to engage with the topic at hand in any substantive way.

What is it about other people having sex in ways you personally would not wish to that so outrages you? Why do you even care?

And what, pray tell, do you think about cucumbers?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The very word "experimented" should tell you it's not normal. Why do you think they use that qualifier?

Why? They didn't feel enough of a prohibition on it making it so deviant that they wouldn't try it. That they didn't like it for what ever reason is a different issue. A certain ammount of that comes from poor exicution of the act.


So it is questionable if anal sex is even below typical, so that even a statistical definition works. I can say that in many areas it is not a taboo practice so that fails the non statistical definitions of deviant.

By the way which of the multiple definitions of deviance you cited are you actualy useing?

 

[Furcifer]

But.... we already have. The last sentence describes the world we - or at least I, I'm not sure on which planet you spend most of your time - reside on.

Earth. Why do you ask? I'm not sure which bridge you live under? Hey, at least my question is plausible.

So you cannot answer the question. Very well, I'll do it for you. There is no "proper place" for your fingers; the idea is completely absurd. And of course the same goes for a penis as it does for any other part of your body.

What? This is beyond words.

And there we have it - you're simply a bigot. OK, that certainly makes this conversation simpler.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion again? Oh right, because normal sex is intercourse between a man and a woman. lmfao.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Strawman. I never once used the term "perverted". I like how you're putting words in my mouth. Ooops, Freudian slip

Of course you mearly defined it as perversion with out using the word.

See the definition of perversion

1. Deviating from what is considered right and correct: a perverted idea of justice.
2. Of, relating to, or practicing sexual perversion.

Seems that devation is right in the definition so sexual deviancy is perversion by the meanings of the words.

 

[Furcifer]

What is it about other people having sex in ways you personally would not wish to that so outrages you? Why do you even care?

What outrage? Again, the thought of my parents having perfectly normal sex kinda makes me cringe. And I don't care.

And what, pray tell, do you think about cucumbers?

I prefer seedless. Again, you questions are quite banal. I already told you I can't find the post you mentioned something about cucumbers in. Bump it or ask the question again.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm, I just realized he had the butters anal sex video as his avatar. I am very much leaning toward troll.

 

[Furcifer]

Of course you mearly defined it as perversion with out using the word.

Seems that devation is right in the definition so sexual deviancy is perversion by the meanings of the words.

Hey listen, we're stuck on deviance right now, let's not jump to perversion without tackling this one first OK?

I think of deviance as in "standard deviation", normal distribution etc. "How many standard perverts from the normal distribution" just doesn't seem like the right thing to say.

 

[volatile]

What outrage? Again, the thought of my parents having perfectly normal sex kinda makes me cringe. And I don't care.

Are your parents deviants? Should we stop trying to "thrust the idea" of parental sex as normal in your face? Follow this thought through for me, and explain how it relates to your broader point.

I prefer seedless. Again, you questions are quite banal. I already told you I can't find the post you mentioned something about cucumbers in. Bump it or ask the question again.

You said vaginal sex was "proper" because the vagina moistens for penile insertion. The same would also be true for cucumber insertion. Is inserting cucumbers in one's vagina proper? By your definition, it would be, but I sense you'd disagree. Which means that either your definition is faulty, or you are hypocritical in its application.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I prefer seedless. Again, you questions are quite banal. I already told you I can't find the post you mentioned something about cucumbers in. Bump it or ask the question again.

The question made the point that there are many phalic objects that can illicit the same sexual responce as a penis interacting with the vagina. Of course this raises a whole seperate issue as well for what about women who can't have vaginal orgasms but require dirrect strong clitoral stimulation.

What objects is it deviant to use.

 

[volatile]

Hey listen, we're stuck on deviance right now, let's not jump to perversion without tackling this one first OK?

I think of deviance as in "standard deviation", normal distribution etc. "How many standard perverts from the normal distribution" just doesn't seem like the right thing to say.

So "numbers" is what you're going for? This is a numbers thing for you?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hey listen, we're stuck on deviance right now, let's not jump to perversion without tackling this one first OK?

Why? This is a large part of what you are saying in your language and the reason

I think of deviance as in "standard deviation", normal distribution etc. "How many standard perverts from the normal distribution" just doesn't seem like the right thing to say.

So you are using a highly deviant definition of deviant in this context.

It is the second third and fourth definitions in the list of definitions of deviant sexuality that are the most commonly used. Hence deviant sexuality or deviant sex means perverted. Your perverted definitions of deviant are the problem here.

 

[Furcifer]

Hmm, I just realized he had the butters anal sex video as his avatar. I am very much leaning toward troll.

Another lie. It's butters at the Devil's birthday party on Halloween. It's my Halloween avatar. Another failed smear. Keep trying!

 

[Furcifer]

You said vaginal sex was "proper" because the vagina moistens for penile insertion. The same would also be true for cucumber insertion. Is inserting cucumbers in one's vagina proper? By your definition, it would be, but I sense you'd disagree. Which means that either your definition is faulty, or you are hypocritical in its application.

If you think women get excited by the sight of cucumbers you really don't know women. You're pretty messed up to think that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Another lie. It's butters at the Devil's birthday party on Halloween. It's my Halloween avatar. Another failed smear. Keep trying!

He wears the same outfit in both, so it is an honnest mistake.