Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[Roboramma]

Please, just get to your point. If your doing Yoga yes, if your eating at a restaurant no. If you are climbing Everest no, working in a circus yes. If you are displaying your flexibility to onlookers yes, going through a metal detector at an airport no. If you're on your way to the chiropractor no.

Okay, so the reason that it is "deviant behavior" is not that the proper place for my torso is not in between my legs. Thus anatomy has nothing to do with it.

Similarly if two people are eating at a restaurant, one of them putting his penis in the other's anus might be improper, but while having sex, it would not be.

 

[Roboramma]

It's a bunch of videos of people being shown two lesbians engaging in scat. Volatile is comfortable with scat, but I can assure you most people react uncomfortably to the practise. I'd be willing to say Volatile has admitted to deviant behaviour. I don't think he's a sexual deviant though.

Wait, now you're defining deviant as that which makes most people uncomfortable to watch?
How many contradictory definitions do you have?

 

[Roboramma]

For purposes of defining things it's certainly acceptable. To make decisions on how we treat each other as human beings no. And that's my point. There are many deviant behaviours, we all engage in them from time to time. It's doesn't
mean you should be treated any different as a person.

I wouldn't have a problem with your definition of deviance based on numbers if you would simply stick to it.

If homosexuality is deviant only in that it is practiced by a small percentage of the population, then that's fine. Of course, it also means that playing tennis is deviant behavior, but that's okay. Define the word that way, and use it that way, and that's not a problem.

But you are not doing that. You're saying, homosexuality is deviant because it's practiced by a small percentage of the population, but playing tennis is not deviant.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you do think that playing tennis is deviant behavior. But if it isn't, then clearly there is some criteria other than just the numbers that makes something deviant or not.
In which case you need to demonstrate more than just numbers to show that homosexuality is deviant.

You have also suggested that it is deviant because many homosexuals engage in anal sex. And anal sex is deviant because the proper place for a penis is not an anus.
Yet other activities which also put the penis in an "improper place" are not considered deviant, so again this clearly is not your criteria for determining deviance.

Finally you say that homosexuality is deviant because it goes against certain cultural norms. Which, as I said before, is fine, if that's how you define deviance I'm happy to accept that by that definition homosexuality is deviant. So is eating with a knife and fork where I live, but that's okay.

 

[Furcifer]

But you are not doing that. You're saying, homosexuality is deviant because it's practiced by a small percentage of the population, but playing tennis is not deviant.

But sex is a defining characteristic of human behaviour, while tennis is not. We're talking about sexuality, if there were "Tennissexuals" you'd be right. But I'm pretty sure there aren't. You aren't born with a tennis racket as an appendage.

 

[Furcifer]

Wait, now you're defining deviant as that which makes most people uncomfortable to watch?
How many contradictory definitions do you have?

I never defined it! You asked why people should be uncomfortable with what other people do and I gave you an example of people being very uncomfortable with what other people do.

 

[Furcifer]

You say anal sex is deviant because the anus is an anatomically improper place to put a penis. Yet, other "anatomically improper" places to put the penis are not deviant.
Clearly, then, you are not consistently applying anatomy to determine deviance.

If you relegated yourself to only having oral sex, or you only got off on oral sex I think it's considered deviant. So there, the exact same behaviour could be considered deviant in some and not deviant in others.
Which begs the question, what if a heterosexual man can only have anal sex? If a buddy came to me and told me this I'd think it would be pretty messed up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I already posted a definition of deviance, taken from a sociology textbook. It made no mention of pervert.

Because it was not talking about sexual devaints. It also provided 4 different definitions of devaint, so you can conviently shift what definitions you mean as you write. It makes moving the goalposts and obscuring what you mean very easy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Becauyse we are considering the number of people who engage in oral sex on a rountine basis. You've already pointed out that women rarely achieve orgasm through vaginal stimulation alone. Men and Women both engage in oral sex routinely. They don't "experiment" with it.

This is why female orgasms are often improper by your defintion of proper.

This has been explained before, just not to your satisfaction. You keep asking questions waiting to hear what you want, and don't listen to what's being said.

You are inconsistent with your explanations of what is devaint behavior though. It is clear that you do not have a consistent set of criteria you apply but rather rationalize your existing prejudices.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That was in regards to the place to put a penis, remember?

You two can't keep anything straight.

So Cunnilingus is OK but Felatio is right out? You should have been more clear about what oral sex is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Use the normative one.. I already told you that.

Good so anal sex is not deviant. Case closed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No the mouth isn't the anatomoically proper place to put the penis, and no that doesn't mean oral sex is improper.

Improper means not proper.

You just set up a logical contradiction.

 

[Furcifer]

Because it was not talking about sexual devaints. It also provided 4 different definitions of devaint, so you can conviently shift what definitions you mean as you write. It makes moving the goalposts and obscuring what you mean very easy.

Nor was I. I was talking about the behaviour. If being a sexual deviant is a prescibed result of engaging in a sexually deviant behaviour so be it. I'm not really certain thats true.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What? I suppose that makes sense to you.

You still haven't answered why that 2 girls 1 cup reaction works the way it does. Based on your failed logic it shouldn't bother anyone. You don't have any clue what you are talking about, at all.

Because being disgusted by something is not enough for people to condem it. I find coffee to be disgusting, but I do not consider coffee drinking to be improper or wrong.

There is sex that I do not understand and am repulsed by. But I understand that as long as the sex is with in the bounds of safe, sane and consentual sex it is really MY problem with being unconfortable with it, not that they are doing anything wrong.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, if he walks around like that all day. I knew a border collie that walked around on it's hind legs all the time. It was a deviant behaviour. The first time you saw it it was pretty cool. After a while it becomes a little disturbing though.

And you again ignore the different when talking about human behavior between devaint behavior and uncommon behavior. Because several of the defintions you cited contained the idea of devaint behavior being immoral, it is perjorative when describing people, as you are calling them immoral.

This is the point you have not grasped at all.

Do when you say all gays are sexual deviants people hear all gays are perverts.

That is with the common defintion of pervert being a sexual devaint

 

[ponderingturtle]

You probably want to read the entire thread. I initially used the term "proper" to discretely refer to vaginal sex. People keep asking for definitions based on entirely different things.

No, people are trying to understand how you determine what is proper and not deviant sexual behavior.

 

[ponderingturtle]

NO, I said anal sex is a deviant behaviour. I thought you said you read the thread? edit: yes, cultural norms and anatomy suggest anal sex is a deviant behaviour.

So, then it has nothing to do with statistical defintions of deviant then.

Can we finaly stop pretending that numeric definitions of deviant play any role in what you classify as deviant.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes because in this context a "proper" place and a "proper" act are different. The conditions that apply to a proper place aren't going to transcend to a proper act. Talking loudly in church isn't proper, but are you going to apply that to talking at a bar?

Damn, I got to let the ministers know that, all this time everyone looks up to him and he constantly engages in improper behavior.

 

[ponderingturtle]

For purposes of defining things it's certainly acceptable. To make decisions on how we treat each other as human beings no. And that's my point. There are many deviant behaviours, we all engage in them from time to time. It's doesn't
mean you should be treated any different as a person.

As long as they know that you consider your own behavior to be superior to theirs of course.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But you "anatomy definition" of deviance is self-contradictory.

He has had this pointed out many times, he will not accept that he has no clear standards for the determining of what is deviant behavior.

He is like too many people in this regard, his definition is really

"The sex I like is OK, they sex I would never want to have is right out"

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay, so the reason that it is "deviant behavior" is not that the proper place for my torso is not in between my legs. Thus anatomy has nothing to do with it.

Similarly if two people are eating at a restaurant, one of them putting his penis in the other's anus might be improper, but while having sex, it would not be.

I think this depends on the resturants policies toward public sex.