Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And you think women get excited by the sight of a penis? While possible I am not sure if it is not only the statisticaly deviant women who would find just a penis to be all that exciting.

 

[Furcifer]

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

Among other things.

Hey this has been great, but I've been called a bigot for trying to define normal. Between that, the lies, the strawmen and the smears I don't really see the point? If you can keep it to a discussion instead of name calling I'll be lurking. Peace.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Among other things.

Which are?

Hey this has been great, but I've been called a bigot for trying to define normal. Between that, the lies, the strawmen and the smears I don't really see the point? If you can keep it to a discussion instead of name calling I'll be lurking. Peace.

Which lies and strawmen? I made a mistake about the identity of your avatar, but I don't see why using synonyms is suddenly strawmen and smears.

 

[Pup]

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?

Clearly, not only should it be, it is. But then comes the interesting question of trying to figure out why each different facet has come about--heredity? environment? what?

It's like male nipples--illogical until one realizes it's more efficient to program nipples for everyone and just not use some of them. I expect that a lot of variation in sexual urges is like that--more efficient to program sexual urges with unique but varying triggers in everyone, and just not use some of them for reproduction. But it can't be all nature without any nurture, because what's considered sexually attractive by the majority of people in a society changes at least somewhat from one society to another, and also changes every few generations within a society.

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.

But that's only a problem if you're writing laws. Different societies have defined the age of consent differently, and 12 years old is within what's been considered consentual in the past.

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

Let me make one thing clear: I totally agree. I can't imagine thinking of a 12 year old as sexual attractive, let alone acting on it. Anything I say about pedophilia is completely devil's advocate here.

However, the first thing that occurs to me is, a couple generations ago, people might have said that a healthy homosexual relationship wasn't possible. We haven't evolved enough in two generations to change anything from an evolutionary standpoint, so clearly it's only a social (mindset) difference that's changed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Clearly, not only should it be, it is. But then comes the interesting question of trying to figure out why each different facet has come about--heredity? environment? what?

It's like male nipples--illogical until one realizes it's more efficient to program nipples for everyone and just not use some of them. I expect that a lot of variation in sexual urges is like that--more efficient to program sexual urges with unique but varying triggers in everyone, and just not use some of them for reproduction. But it can't be all nature without any nurture, because what's considered sexually attractive by the majority of people in a society changes at least somewhat from one society to another, and also changes every few generations within a society.

Keep in mind that biologicaly males are essentialy modified females. So the penis and clitoris realy are different versions of the same organ with essentialy the same sort of tissue.

But that's only a problem if you're writing laws. Different societies have defined the age of consent differently, and 12 years old is within what's been considered consentual in the past.

Possibly but I am not farmiliar with any culture what it was common at that age.

Let me make one thing clear: I totally agree. I can't imagine thinking of a 12 year old as sexual attractive, let alone acting on it. Anything I say about pedophilia is completely devil's advocate here.

However, the first thing that occurs to me is, a couple generations ago, people might have said that a healthy homosexual relationship wasn't possible. We haven't evolved enough in two generations to change anything from an evolutionary standpoint, so clearly it's only a social (mindset) difference that's changed.

The thing is what was their evidence for this? We have good evidence that such relationships are not healthy, with a strong backing in neuroscience and other areas. We have strong evidence that homosexual relationships are not unhealthy.

In the past many of these were guided more by religious and other cultural priciples. Now many people try to base them more on evidence.

 

[Furcifer]

Which are?


Which lies and strawmen? I made a mistake about the identity of your avatar, but I don't see why using synonyms is suddenly strawmen and smears.

Genetics, anatomy, social customs or established norms.

You erroneously jumped to an assumption about an avatar to make a claim and start name calling. Likewise people have made other unsubstantiated claims or tried to put words into my mouth. Do I really need to go back and explain this? I identified them immediately and made note of them. Playing ignorant now is kinda dumb dontcha think? I think it's just a ploy because you know I'm limited in my capacity to respond.

 

[Furcifer]

And you think women get excited by the sight of a penis? While possible I am not sure if it is not only the statisticaly deviant women who would find just a penis to be all that exciting.

No, I think the physical response is a result of anticipation for the insertion of a penis, not a cucumber. I hardly think the vagina evolved to accomodate vegtables. The response might be intiated by anything the woman fancies.

 

[Darat]

No, I think the physical response is a result of anticipation for the insertion of a penis, not a cucumber. I hardly think the vagina evolved to accomodate vegtables. The response might be intiated by anything the woman fancies.

What about homosexual males that do not engage in anal sex?

 

[volatile]

No, I think the physical response is a result of anticipation for the insertion of a penis, not a cucumber.

a) Not necessarily (which is entirely the point - sexual response can and is elicited not simply by penises)

I hardly think the vagina evolved to accomodate vegtables. The response might be intiated by anything the woman fancies.

and b) even if that were the case, since when did could one derive an ought from an is? T say "evolution did x" tells us nothing about how we as a society should treat x. You have fallen into what is known as the "naturalistic fallacy".

No cookie for you.

 

[Furcifer]

a) Not necessarily (which is entirely the point - sexual response can and is elicited not simply by penises)
and b) even if that were the case, since when did could one derive an ought from an is? T say "evolution did x" tells us nothing about how we as a society should treat x. You have fallen into what is known as the "naturalistic fallacy".

No cookie for you.

Hunh? You think the female reproductive system evolved around vegtables as opposed to the male sexual organ? lol, I bet you're quite the ladies man. How about you give it a try, in the heat of the moment bring out some vegtables and run your theory by her. I'm pretty confident you'll find yourself in the minority. I can already hear the words "sexual deviant" being muttered.

 

[Furcifer]

What about homosexual males that do not engage in anal sex?

I'll assume you grabbed that quote to ask the question?

I see that as normal. I can understand homosexuality up to the point of coitus. Then it gets fuzzy. How that makes me a bigot is even more confusing.

 

[volatile]

Hunh? You think the female reproductive system evolved around vegtables as opposed to the male sexual organ? lol, I bet you're quite the ladies man. How about you give it a try, in the heat of the moment bring out some vegtables and run your theory by her. I'm pretty confident you'll find yourself in the minority. I can already hear the words "sexual deviant" being muttered.

The point is: if your criteria for what kind of sex is "proper" (your term) is whether it promotes vaginal secretion (your definition), then you must include cucumbers. By your own "logic".

If you disagree with the "promotion of vaginal excreta" criterion for determining whether or not a sexual practice is "proper", could you explain what criteria you now wish to turn to? If making someone wet doesn't define propriety, what does, in your opinion?

And the further point on evolution is that the is of evolutionary biology tells us nothing about the ought of ethical conduct - else you'd be pro-rape. You cannot derive an ought from an is - to do so is to make a fallacious misstep.

 

[volatile]

I'll assume you grabbed that quote to ask the question?

I see that as normal. I can understand homosexuality up to the point of coitus. Then it gets fuzzy. How that makes me a bigot is even more confusing.

"Fuzzy"?

You're projecting again. Just because you d not see the pleasure in an activity, it does not make that activity inherently unpleasant. Over and over again you belie this projection. Over and over again you conflate your own desires with the moral status of the desires of others.

Stop it. It's absurd, illogical and offensive.

 

[volatile]

How about you give it a try, in the heat of the moment bring out some vegtables and run your theory by her. I'm pretty confident you'll find yourself in the minority. .

You're projecting again. Just because penetration with something other than a penis turns you and your partner off, this does not apply to everyone (or even a majority of people).

 

[Furcifer]

You're projecting again. Just because penetration with something other than a penis turns you and your partner off, this does not apply to everyone (or even a majority of people).

WTF, projecting is my reply. Get you own witty come backs.

 

[Furcifer]

You're projecting again. Just because penetration with something other than a penis turns you and your partner off, this does not apply to everyone (or even a majority of people).

This is a fail. Let's just head community and run a poll. If you're right you're right. Do you accept?

 

[Furcifer]

The point is: if your criteria for what kind of sex is "proper" (your term) is whether it promotes vaginal secretion (your definition), then you must include cucumbers. By your own "logic".

If you disagree with the "promotion of vaginal excreta" criterion for determining whether or not a sexual practice is "proper", could you explain what criteria you now wish to turn to? If making someone wet doesn't define propriety, what does, in your opinion?

And the further point on evolution is that the is of evolutionary biology tells us nothing about the ought of ethical conduct - else you'd be pro-rape. You cannot derive an ought from an is - to do so is to make a fallacious misstep.

What? You're jumping around and trying to draw lines. I'm not sure if you see this or what?

 

[volatile]

Was it another user called "3BodyProblem" who said:

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.

in response to the question

Explain the difference between the "proper" place for fingers and the "proper" place for a penis in the context of this discussion, please.

?

By your criteria, the vagina is the proper place for anything which causes the vagina to secrete lubrication. I guarantee you that I could, and have, made a woman secrete vaginal lubrication from things other than my penis; ergo, your argument about vaginal sex being "proper" and penetration being "improper" on grounds of secretion is entirely absurd.

Did you forget your own argument? Would you like to reformulate it?

 

[volatile]

This is a fail. Let's just head community and run a poll. If you're right you're right. Do you accept?

You think if I asked the question "Can objects other than penises (including but not limited to phallic fruit) promote vaginal secretion?" I'd get a negative answer?

Wanna bet on that?

 

[Furcifer]

You think if I asked the question "Can objects other than penises (including but not limited to phallic fruit) promote vaginal secretion?" I'd get a negative answer?

Wanna bet on that?

Sure.

lmfao, phallic fruit...this thread had totally gone to the dogs.