Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[ponderingturtle]

Sure.

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

Hey leave bestaility out of it, we have enough to argue about.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The onus is on you to not make these mistakes. Especially if you're going to start with the name calling. You wouldn't have made "an honest mistake" if you took the time to think before you typed. It's not that hard. Back up your ramblings or get called on them. You have yet to retract them, only make excuses for making them. Pretty lame.

I have admitted I was wrong and explained why I thought that. What do you want?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Did you, or did you not, say "a majority of males find the thought repulsive." ?

Which of course is not true, at least in america with respect to women being penetrated analy. If it was repulsive it would not be something most people experiment with.

Did you, or did you not, say "Trying to change people's attitude towards homosexuality isn't going to begin with telling people it's a perfectly normal and acceptable practice to engage in anal sex"?

Which is actualy kind of funny, as he was the one to tie homosexuality to anal sex in this thread to start with.

Did you, or did you not say "the anus is not the proper place to be putting a penis. Fact.", and, ""the thought of anyone doing it makes me physically ill"?

Have you forgotten that anyone can go back over this thread and see what you've written in your own words?

It is also too late for him to change most of them.

How does an evolutionary is imply a moral ought? Do vaginas secrete lubrication solely for the insertion of penises? On what basis do sheer weight of numbers inform social norms? You've not addressed any of these questions.

It also produices good arguments against oral sex, and that most women should not have orgasms as they can not achive it though penile penetration alone. But as it is not building a rational arguement but rationalizing his preconcieved notions I don't expect him to acknolwedge this.

Because, as I've explained on numerous occasions, your projecting your disgust onto the acts of other people renders your statement a moral one.

And he is using soceital standards and hence morality to support his declaration of sexual deviancy(perversion)

Your whole argument (and, might I say, your use of "LMFAO") suggests a juvenile, puerile approach to this topic. Your objections haven't risen beyond the level of the playground. "Bums! GROSS!"

And any examination of modern porn shows that most american men have no problem with women being analy penetrated. So this is his own sexual deviancy(by his own definitions).

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think it's weird how whenever homosexuality is debated on forums like this, it's almost always a bunch of straight dudes discussing anal sex.

Why is that so odd? I believe that far more men get analy penetrated by their girlfriends than by their boyfriends. It is a less prevelant activity in heterosexual couples than homosexual couples, and is certainly a taboo in our culture but it doesn't require a very high percentage of heterosexual men to reach a high absolute number than the percentage of homosexual men.

 

[volatile]

Yes, but you've attributed it to me. I was saying I think you would find a much more negative response in many males.

There is an area between acceptable and unacceptable. This is where I've been all along. This is what I've been saying. Why can't you see that? My God man, have you not been listening to anything? Just because I don't find it "perfectly normal and acceptable" doesn't mean I have to find it "unacceptable". I don't like being made to make these choices and it seems like I have to. Numerous times I've said I find homosexuality acceptable, it's that final defining act I'm not comfortable with. Why should I throw out the entire practice based on what I find uncomfortable? Do you know how many people I talk to that think it's wrong soley based on buggery? As if that is the only defining thing.

Would you like to borrow a shovel to help with that hole you're digging for yourself? The fact that you cloak your bigotry with a slightly thicker veneer of politeness than the "many people you talk with" isn't doing your case much good, I'm afraid.

Homosexuality is "acceptable" (whatever that might mean, you never did explain) as long as gay men don't do anything in bed that you personally don't happen to care for? Acceptable how? In what way? And what is the opposite of "acceptable", 3BP?

Do you understand that when you talk about something being "acceptable", you're making a moral statement?

Well I may have, I'll have to go and look back. I may have overstated it at some point today. If I did, I will retract that. Unless it was in reference to me, I'm not really keen on being raped.

What? You didn't understand the rape reference, did you? At all? I'll come back to it...

I did, you overlooked the defintion I sought out and asked you about. That's your shortcoming.

Not at all. You have summarily failed to explain what you mean by "normal", "proper" and "acceptable" save for laying out certain acts you feel fit into these categories. You have then, realising your error, gone on to reject other acts which fulfil the very criteria you yourself established as definitional for the terms.

So, I'll ask again. Please explain, in your own words, what you mean by "normal", "proper" and "acceptable". Simply stating acts and behaviours you feel fit into each category is not useful, as it tells us nothing about the definitional criteria you're using. "Penguins smoking crack is normal", "Jam is acceptable", "Caber-tossing is proper" tell us nothing about how the speaker defines any of those categories.

Cherry picking. You've failed to consider the discussion an instead focussed on two things. The proper orfice to insert a penis into is a vagina.

No. I asked you what "proper" meant. You said vaginal sex was "proper" because the vagina becomes lubricated for penile insertion. If "promotes lubrication" is really your definition for "proper", then you will need to accept into the category of "proper" the insertion of a great deal more than penises.

Obviously, you don't want to do this, so obviously you misspoke when you defined "proper" in the way you did. So I'll give you the chance to try again or, if you're sensible, to reject the ridiculous classification altogether.

What do you mean by "proper"?

If you'll allow me to speculate, I think what you mean by "proper" is that vaginal sex is the "morally correct" way - you are making (if you remember the dictionary definition you used earlier) an absolutist statement and attempting to justify it with poor reasoned appeals to science to make yourself feel better. The fact remains, though: your stance is irrational and based on nothing but socially-constructed moral outrage and inculcated disgust.

The rectum is an alternative not physically equipped to deal with said insertion properly. There are physical responses in a vagina that facilitate the insertion of the penis that are not present in the rectum.

There are physical responses in the vagina that facilitate then insertion of cucumbers. Ergo, ease of penetration cannot be your defining category for "properness" if you want to include penile but exclude cucumber penetration. See? You're making a gross error and falling into the naturalistic fallacy. You're trying (and failing , might I add) to derive an ought from an is.

You're trying to claim that because evolution has facilitated vaginal insertion, vaginal sex is the only "proper" form of sexual intercourse. The two do not follow from one another. It's the same class of argument, and this is where rape comes back in, as saying that because men are evolutionary bent on propagation of their genes,we ought to allow rape. Evolutionarily, it's the "designed" strategy, and we see it across the animal kingdom even in our nearest cousin species. But I'm sure even you can see that just because something is, that has no bearing on whether it should be.

]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Who did I judge negatively?

All those people you don't think are proper, acceptable or normal? All those people whose private lives you said made you "physically ill"?

Let him stand forward and cast the first stone. I have several friends who would bitch slap you for saying this about me without knowing me. I've had this conversation with a few friends. They've either said "Don't knock it till you tried it" or "If you don't like it then don't do it". Never been called bigot. Well, except by people that only think they know me.

Strawman. I've never called anyone repulsive. Some of the most endearing people I've ever met have been and continue to be gay.

Do you tell your "friends", to their faces, that you find what they do in bed revolting? That they are deviant, not normal, and improper?

Do you not think that saying something makes you "physically ill" implies a degree of revulsion? Do you not think saying "lots of people find it repulsive" as a statement in your defence might suggest something about your attitude? Is English your first language?

 

[volatile]

And there is the whole problem of why include oral sex but not anal. Anal sex is certainly more sexualy stimulating to the recieving partner.

It also produices good arguments against oral sex, and that most women should not have orgasms as they can not achive it though penile penetration alone.

Two excellent points.

Any thoughts, 3BP?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, but you've attributed it to me. I was saying I think you would find a much more negative response in many males.

So because there are more unfairly biased people than you we should ignore your unfair bias? I mean sure you are not as bad as this guy. But there is such a thing as being damned by faint praise.

There is an area between acceptable and unacceptable. This is where I've been all along. This is what I've been saying. Why can't you see that? My God man, have you not been listening to anything? Just because I don't find it "perfectly normal and acceptable" doesn't mean I have to find it "unacceptable". I don't like being made to make these choices and it seems like I have to. Numerous times I've said I find homosexuality acceptable, it's that final defining act I'm not comfortable with. Why should I throw out the entire practice based on what I find uncomfortable? Do you know how many people I talk to that think it's wrong soley based on buggery? As if that is the only defining thing.

You just have to make sure people know you think of them as perverts, even if you pretty up your language a bit.

Cherry picking. You've failed to consider the discussion an instead focussed on two things. The proper orfice to insert a penis into is a vagina.

So now oral sex is deviant sexuality. This is your problem, you are not using any kind of rational consistent set of criteria to justify why you think anal sex is so taboo.

The rectum is an alternative not physically equipped to deal with said insertion properly. There are physical responses in a vagina that facilitate the insertion of the penis that are not present in the rectum. The rectums function is not the same as the vagina.

This depends. The anus is lubricated with anal mucus to promote passage of fecal material. So it is entirely possible to have anal sex with out artificial lubrication. It is easier to have problems but is it perfectly doable. Some people prefer it some people do not.

This is bloody basic anatomy. No amount of handwaving or tropical fruit is going to change that.

And again you are factually incorrect and using inconsistent arguments on how you define deviant sex.

Who did I judge negatively?

With out a perverted definition of deviant sexuality, anyone you classed as a sexual deviant you called a pervert. So anyone who enjoys anal sex, and by your connection all homosexuals as you equated homosexuality with anal sex.

Let him stand forward and cast the first stone. I have several friends who would bitch slap you for saying this about me without knowing me.

While you call them sexual deviants I am sure. You have some kinky friends.

I've had this conversation with a few friends. They've either said "Don't knock it till you tried it" or "If you don't like it then don't do it". Never been called bigot. Well, except by people that only think they know me.

Do you call your friends sexual deviants to their face?

Strawman. I've never called anyone repulsive. Some of the most endearing people I've ever met have been and continue to be gay.

You know the "I'm not a bigot, some of my best friend are _____" doesn't actually ever convince anyone right?

It's funny, but most of the gay friends I've had get that I don't get it. I've never had anyone care. I've had the gross out competition. You say one thing they say another. They've been equally uncomfortable with the thought of vaginal sex as I have with anal. Possibly even more so.

The thing is that you are mixing things a bit. Not wanting to have sex with someone of the sex or gender that you don't want to is one thing, classifying everyone who is different than you as sexual deviants is another. Of course using your naturalist definition you are a sexual deviant as well. Of course you only apply naturalistic definitions to things you don't like, funny that. Well not really, it is just rationalizations and not a true coherent argument after all.

 

[volatile]

Oh, I missed that...

"The proper orfice to insert a penis into is a vagina"

Didn't you just tell us that blowjobs were OK, 3BP??

 

[Furcifer]

Oh, I missed that...

"The proper orfice to insert a penis into is a vagina"

Didn't you just tell us that blowjobs were OK, 3BP??

I've never seen someone fail at logic like this. Oral sex does not change anatomy. Are you confused about the word "proper"? Do you feel slightled because this implies everywhere but the vagina is "improper" and hence negative or dirty? I don't get this, it's a simple matter of anatomy. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Furcifer]

Which of course is not true, at least in america with respect to women being penetrated analy. If it was repulsive it would not be something most people experiment with.

And if it were normal people wouldn't be experimenting with it, they'd be doing it.

Which is actualy kind of funny, as he was the one to tie homosexuality to anal sex in this thread to start with.

No, I tied it in with deviant behaviour.

It is also too late for him to change most of them.

Why would I change anything?

It also produices good arguments against oral sex, and that most women should not have orgasms as they can not achive it though penile penetration alone. But as it is not building a rational arguement but rationalizing his preconcieved notions I don't expect him to acknolwedge this.

Then I won't.

And he is using soceital standards and hence morality to support his declaration of sexual deviancy(perversion)

Yes, all societal values are based on morals.

And any examination of modern porn shows that most american men have no problem with women being analy penetrated. So this is his own sexual deviancy(by his own definitions).

How do you study porn and know what people are thinking? I think 85% of your statistics are made up.

If you could actually show this were the case, and that a large percentage of people were engaging in anal sex on a regular basis it woould indeed be a societal norm. In that case I would stand corrected.

If you're going to base what is normal by studying internet porn...

 

[volatile]

I've never seen someone fail at logic like this.
Oral sex does not change anatomy. Are you confused about the word "proper"? Do you feel slightled because this implies everywhere but the vagina is "improper" and hence negative or dirty? I don't get this, it's a simple matter of anatomy. Nothing more and nothing less.

"No, the thought of anyone doing it makes me physically ill ... the anus is not the proper place to be putting a penis." The second clause is brought up to justify the first. If you want to claim that oral sex is OK, even if it isn't "proper", you're jettisoning the only argument you've offered in support of your opions so far, and are going to have to re-justify exactly why anal sex makes you feel physically ill.

This is the conversation we're been having:

You: I think anal sex is disgusting. It makes me feel uncomfortable.

Us: Why?

You: It's not proper.

Us: What do you mean by "proper"?

You: Anatomically and evolutionarily, the penis goes in the vagina. The proper place for the penis is in the vagina.


To summarise: You said "the vagina is the proper place for the penis", as a justification for your disdain towards anal sex. Your purported discomfort towards the very notion of other people having sex you don't like is because said practices are not evolutionarily or anatomically "proper". Remember that? Remember why we're talking about the word "proper" in the first place? You have stated that anal sex makes you "uncomfortable" because it is not "proper", with proper being defined along evolutionary grounds. This is your argument.



So: By your own logic, how can you therefore be for oral sex and against anal sex, whilst still maintaining your objections on grounder of "properness" and your own defintion of what you mean by "proper".

Can't you even follow the logic of your own argument?

 

[Furcifer]

So because there are more unfairly biased people than you we should ignore your unfair bias?

You've made this a libelous statement by attaching that link. You may consider my thinking biased, but to link it with a prejudiced jerk that acted upon them and attacked somebody?

There very thing I advocated against. How very pathetic of you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've never seen someone fail at logic like this. Oral sex does not change anatomy.

What? You seem to have some strange misconceptions going on here. What do you think anal sex changes?

Are you confused about the word "proper"?

No your choice of language is illustrative of your position.

I don't get this, it's a simple matter of anatomy. Nothing more and nothing less.

Being proper or not is not a question of anatomy but of morals, ethics and social standards derrived from morals and ethics.

 

[Furcifer]

To summarise: You said "the vagina is the proper place for the penis", as a justification for your disdain towards anal sex. Your purported discomfort towards the very notion of other people having sex you don't like is because said practices are not evolutionarily or anatomically "proper".

No, I said the rectum wasn't the best place, give all the options. I was asked why I had that crazy notion and I cited al the biological factors that make the vagina the "proper" place. Not the only place, but the place that was designed for it.

This has become tiresome. I'm not comfortable with it, I never will be. I just don't understand it. It has never affected how I treat people, nor will it ever.

It's your preconcieved notions projected onto me that have led you to this very erroneous evaluation of who I am and what I think. It's one small part of homosexuality. Unfortunately conversation gets steered this way every time it gets mentioned. When it does, there is an underlying prejudice by people that in order to accept homosexuals you need to accept anal sex as a normal part of human sexuality. You and a few others have demonstrated this over and over again. My "hang-ups" or someone elses "hang-ups" shouldn't affect how I or other people carry on their lives. It is however an unfortunate part of having to define oneself by their sexuality.

Despite the personal attacks I've enjoyed talking with you. I'm certainly more comfortable today than I was yesterday.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And if it were normal people wouldn't be experimenting with it, they'd be doing it.

Ok again define normal? It is not a strong social taboo which was one of the many ways you were defining deviant.

No, I tied it in with deviant behaviour.

Yes you long for the days where you could force people into aversion thearpy to cure their deviant behavior.

Why would I change anything?

To hide your goalpost shifting and the inconsistencies in your positions. You made a whole big stink yesterday about being away from a computer after I asked you a question but had posted many times from the computer after I asked the question.

Then I won't.

So you admit that your position is logicaly inconsistent.

Yes, all societal values are based on morals.

Ah, and homosexuals are immoral then. They violate soceities values that are based on morals, so they must be immoral. Why are you trying to hide from what you are dirrectly saying, just in somewhat more polite language than many?

How do you study porn and know what people are thinking? I think 85% of your statistics are made up.

I cited no statistic. Anal sex is very common in a lot of main stream pornography. Most people have or will try at some point. It is getting very very hard to fit it into your mathmatical definition of deviant, so classifying them as sexual deviants means that they ingage then in immoral sex. And why is anal sex immoral?

If you could actually show this were the case, and that a large percentage of people were engaging in anal sex on a regular basis it woould indeed be a societal norm. In that case I would stand corrected.

Why does it have to be on a regular basis? If 90% of couples have tied eachother up a few times but do not do it on a regular basis is tying a parter up deviant or not? It is not taboo to a majority of people, so what does it matter for this how many people practice it regularly?

If you're going to base what is normal by studying internet porn...

I could cite the 18 year old kinsey report if you want, but I suspect that anal sex numbers have gone up since then.

Of course the percent of people who practice something regularly is not the percent of people who think it should be classed as perverted, taboo or deviant.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You've made this a libelous statement by attaching that link. You may consider my thinking biased, but to link it with a prejudiced jerk that acted upon them and attacked somebody?

You are calling people sexual deviants, which is the very definition of the word pervert. Everything you have said here fits with the position that you are a polite and eduacated homophobe. You are presenting the same arguments that they do, in the same fashion.

It seems you are trying to avoid the reality of the position you are advocating here. This is what you are saying, listen to yourself.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, I said the rectum wasn't the best place, give all the options. I was asked why I had that crazy notion and I cited al the biological factors that make the vagina the "proper" place. Not the only place, but the place that was designed for it.

And teath make the moths an improper place. There are fun ER stories about blowjobs as well, involving braces or seizure conditions.

This has become tiresome. I'm not comfortable with it, I never will be. I just don't understand it. It has never affected how I treat people, nor will it ever.

Except that you class them as perverts.

It's your preconcieved notions projected onto me that have led you to this very erroneous evaluation of who I am and what I think.

No it is your word choice and arguments. And the fact that you apply unique personal definitions to common words and expect others to accept your definition.

It's one small part of homosexuality. Unfortunately conversation gets steered this way every time it gets mentioned. When it does, there is an underlying prejudice by people that in order to accept homosexuals you need to accept anal sex as a normal part of human sexuality. You and a few others have demonstrated this over and over again. My "hang-ups" or someone elses "hang-ups" shouldn't affect how I or other people carry on their lives. It is however an unfortunate part of having to define oneself by their sexuality.

Of course it could be your saying this

I made it clear that under no uncertain terms do I consider gays as deviants, I merely objected to the practice being thrust in my face as "normal".

As your own definition shows when you call someone a deviant you are not talking about the statistical definition of deviant but the moral one. Provided you have any understanding of the english language. So you explicity called them immoral. This is a bigoted statement at the least, and you have made many other bigoted statements.

Now sure people who are not bigots can make bigoted statements, but the number of them and the way you defend them when you get called on your bigotry make me convinced that you are a bigot.

 

[Furcifer]

You are calling people sexual deviants, which is the very definition of the word pervert. Everything you have said here fits with the position that you are a polite and eduacated homophobe. You are presenting the same arguments that they do, in the same fashion.

It seems you are trying to avoid the reality of the position you are advocating here. This is what you are saying, listen to yourself.

Listen to myself? Why don't you try talking to what I've wrote instead of what you think I meant? I never advocated for putting people in asylums to treat deviant behaviour, I said it was no one elses business so they should forget about it. You are so far off it's pathetic. It's strawman after strawman, I expected more from a member I actually respected. I think there's more going on here than you would like to admit. Get a grip, read for comprehension and start addressing what I wrote.

fyi- Im now mobile and busy so please, if you could stop spamming me then claiming I dodged your strawmen that would be great.

 

[volatile]

No, I said the rectum wasn't the best place, give all the options. I was asked why I had that crazy notion and I cited al the biological factors that make the vagina the "proper" place. Not the only place, but the place that was designed for it.

OK, so given all that - why does anal sex disgust you and oral sex is OK? If it's not because of "design" or any sense of what is, and what is not, "proper", we're back to square one and you're going to have to explain exactly why you think anal sex is "disgusting" (not just if you were to do it, but when anyone does it!) and oral sex is not.

This has become tiresome. I'm not comfortable with it, I never will be. I just don't understand it. It has never affected how I treat people, nor will it ever.

I don't understand horse-riding, but I don't think it's disgusting or deviant, nor do I complain about it being "thrust in my face". You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to explain just how icky the very thought of butt-sex is, no matter who's doing it, and how it "makers you feel uncomfortable", and that it makes you feel "physically ill". Given all that, your assertions that this does not affect your behaviour rings rather hollow.

As you now seem to accept yourself, your disdain towards homosexual sex is based on nothing more than irrational prejudice. That, my friend, is bigotry. Loud and clear.

It's your preconcieved notions projected onto me that have led you to this very erroneous evaluation of who I am and what I think.

No. I didn't know anything about you ("pre"-conceived?) until you popped up on this thread and started telling everyone just how offensive and disgusting you found not only gay sex, but the effort of those who would seek to legtimise it in the popular perception. That the very thought that some people think there's nothing wrong with gay sex "makes you feel uncomfortable" is what has given me the conception that you are a bigot. Nothing "pre" about it.

It's one small part of homosexuality. Unfortunately conversation gets steered this way every time it gets mentioned. When it does, there is an underlying prejudice by people that in order to accept homosexuals you need to accept anal sex as a normal part of human sexuality.

You brought up anal sex. And yes, you do need to accept it, because it is a normal part of human sexuality.

 

[Furcifer]

So if a man is uncomfortable with performing oral sex on a woman, because he doesn't feel it's proper or dirty or whatever, he's a bigot. That's what you two are saying. That's unbelievably messed up.