Ship of Fools: If homosexuality is a sin, is it on a par with the "sin" of nose picking?

Thread: If homosexuality is a sin, is it on a par with the "sin" of nose picking? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028555

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

I think so. [Two face]

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

Picking one's nose is uncouth and disgusting, but not likely a sin.

Posted by Manic Methodist (# 15679) on :

Guess it depends on whether or not you eat anything you find up there... [Devil]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Is "homosexuality" an action? A thought? How can an abstract noun be a sin?

<fastens seatbelt for trip to DH>

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

I have no right to attribute guilt to anyone except myself. But I do have a duty to try to live as God intended me to live, so for myself I have to decide what actions of my own would be sinful.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

MT got it right. This is DH stuff. Down you go.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Nose-picking entails putting a bodily organ to a function other than that for which it was created and is therefore objectively disordered.

Yours, St Ricardus Aquinas.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

If God hadn't intended for us to pick our noses, our nostrils would not be finger-sized.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

There isn't a person on Earth who has never picked their nose.

(Before you ask - yes, I have done the survey)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Nose-picking entails putting a bodily organ to a function other than that for which it was created and is therefore objectively disordered.

Yours, St Ricardus Aquinas.

But the stuff that comes out of my nose is a waste product.

The stuff that comes out of my penis has the potential to create life.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Nose-picking entails putting a bodily organ to a function other than that for which it was created and is therefore objectively disordered.

Yours, St Ricardus Aquinas.
But the stuff that comes out of my nose is a waste product.

The stuff that comes out of my penis has the potential to create life.

There's antibiotics for that.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There isn't a person on Earth who has never picked their nose.

What about someone born without hands?

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

That's what friends are for.

m

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Multipara , As the graffiti used say:

You can pick your nose
You can pick your nose
Why can't you pick your friend's nose?

And to pick up an earlier post, the "sin" would be in the homosexual act, not in the prediliction/leaning/what have you. Indeed, those who believe it to be a sin probably give bonus marks to those who are homosexual but choose to remain chaste.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
If homosexuality is a sin, is it on a par with the "sin" of nose picking?

(Why) do you think that nose picking is a sin?

If it's not, then the OP really means: "If homosexuality is a sin, is it on a par with something that isn't a sin?". And the answer is obviously 'no'.

So do you mean - is the objection to homosexuality based on things like politeness, hygiene, social conformity and not making other people feel queasy, which are the sort of grounds we might use to object to inappropriate nose picking?

If that's the question then no, it's not. The objection to homosexuality (for such Christians as do object) is that the Bible is considered to be an authoritative guide to moral behaviour, and the Bible appears to prohibit same-sex relations. The counter-argument is that the Bible is either not authoritative, or ought not to be interpreted, in that way.

The fact that there are some people who would feel uncomfortable sitting at dinner next to an openly practising nose picker, but not an openly practising homosexual, and vice versa is neither here nor there. There are very likely people who find one, or the other, or both, or neither, sort of behaviour viscerally distasteful on both sides of the argument.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

GeeD,

I've seen a lot of graffiti, but not that. The ladies' loos at Sydney Uni didn't run to that kind of message.

Anyway, the OP was (and is) idiotic.

m

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
...The fact that there are some people who would feel uncomfortable sitting at dinner next to an openly practising nose picker, but not an openly practising homosexual, and vice versa is neither here nor there. ...

I would be uncomfortable sitting at dinner next to anyone openly practising sex, be it heterosexual, monosexual, or homosexual.

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

I was intending for the OP to be absurdist rather than idiotic. I'm a recovering homophobe, but the homosexual act is still as "disgusting" to me as nose-picking is. What I was trying to point out. IMHO, as sins go, homosexuality is pretty minor and certainly not unforgiveable even for practicing homosexuals, we might as well say telling "white lies" will send us directly to Hell.

'

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
IMHO, as sins go, homosexuality is pretty minor and certainly not unforgiveable even for practicing homosexuals...

It isn't in the state of being and it isn't even in the "practice" where the sin may be found, IMO.

It's in the context of the practice which, oddly enough, applies to sex between people of opposite gender as well.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

All sins are forgivable. Picking your nose in public is not.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I was intending for the OP to be absurdist rather than idiotic. I'm a recovering homophobe, but the homosexual act is still as "disgusting" to me as nose-picking is. What I was trying to point out. IMHO, as sins go, homosexuality is pretty minor and certainly not unforgiveable even for practicing homosexuals, we might as well say telling "white lies" will send us directly to Hell.

'

The whole idea that there are degrees of sin, and hence 'minor' and 'major' sins, is theologically wobbly at best.

In earthly law, the seriousness of a crime is reflected in sentencing - a fine, a good behaviour bond, a short jail sentence, a long jail sentence.

Now, unless you are from a church that subscribes to the idea that one can spend time purifying oneself of the effects of a particular sin - whether here on earth or in Purgatory - the whole idea that there are a 'range of sentencing options' makes no sense in the Christian context. You're either a saved sinner going to heaven or an unsaved sinner going to hell. Which PARTICULAR sins you might have committed is, on that view, totally irrelevant.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I was intending for the OP to be absurdist rather than idiotic. I'm a recovering homophobe, but the homosexual act is still as "disgusting" to me as nose-picking is. What I was trying to point out. IMHO, as sins go, homosexuality is pretty minor and certainly not unforgiveable even for practicing homosexuals, we might as well say telling "white lies" will send us directly to Hell.

You are trying to sound accepting of homosexuality - but actually you still sound pretty homophobic to me. Imagine if I likened your bedtime tumbles with your partner to nose picking?

Not very recovered yet - imo.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
...the homosexual act is still as "disgusting" to me as nose-picking is. What I was trying to point out. IMHO, as sins go, homosexuality is pretty minor...

You've answered your own question there. People who think (as you do) that buggery is a bit icky, rather like nose-picking, do not see it as a serious sin.

Those who do see it as a serious sin do so for other reasons than distaste (though that may be an aggravating factor in how seriously they see do it).

There's only a slight correlation between disgustingness and immorality. Intentionally inflicting disgust on someone unnecessarily is inconsiderate, and therefore immoral. And strong moral disapproval can (but need not) inspire feelings of disgust. But that's all. Changing a nappy is disgusting, but not immoral. Committing adultery is immoral, but not disgusting.

[ 29. September 2010, 14:56: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I was intending for the OP to be absurdist rather than idiotic. I'm a recovering homophobe, but the homosexual act is still as "disgusting" to me as nose-picking is. What I was trying to point out. IMHO, as sins go, homosexuality is pretty minor and certainly not unforgiveable even for practicing homosexuals, we might as well say telling "white lies" will send us directly to Hell.
You are trying to sound accepting of homosexuality - but actually you still sound pretty homophobic to me. Imagine if I likened your bedtime tumbles with your partner to nose picking?

Not very recovered yet - imo.

I said I'm recovering, not RECOVERED. [Mad]

I was trying (as best as I could) to be honest and forthright about where I stood. I am WELL AWARE of my sins, "judge not..." So would you like a few more "mea culpas" or should I scourge myself?

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I said I'm recovering, not RECOVERED. I was trying (as best as I could) to be honest and forthright about where I stood. I am WELL AWARE of my sins, "judge not..." So would you like a few more "mea culpas" or should I scourge myself?

Why are you getting upset? It's been pointed out the error of your mistake. You have two options, as I see it: take it as a learning moment in your life and resolve to do better, or take it to Hell and gnaw your liver in rage.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You are trying to sound accepting of homosexuality - but actually you still sound pretty homophobic to me. Imagine if I likened your bedtime tumbles with your partner to nose picking?

Not very recovered yet - imo.

quote:
Originally posted by CA:
I said I'm recovering, not RECOVERED. I was trying (as best as I could) to be honest and forthright about where I stood. I am WELL AWARE of my sins, "judge not..." So would you like a few more "mea culpas" or should I scourge myself?

Not at all - but posting this thread is an odd way of saying it. You were inviting my kind of (slightly bemused) response.

My MIL used to say "I am not prejudiced but ....." You could guarantee the "But" would include a barrow load of prejudice.

Starting this thread sounds similar to me -

"I'm *not* homophobic, but what they do is disgusting isn't it?"

[ 29. September 2010, 16:03: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The term 'the homosexual act' has suddenly crept into this thread, plus the word 'buggery'.

There are many other 'homosexual acts' e.g. shopping at the supermarket, watching TV, cooking and washing up - then there's hugs, kisses....

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

I am tired of Holier-than-thou folks who believe that homosexuality is an unforgiveable sin. If a reprobate like me can't see the problem, why do they? I like to ask when they sinning? We are forgiven, sanctification is only aspirational. I make a distinction between "sins" and "Sin". I am, in some ways, a pretty "protty" Anglican, and there are times when I see "calls to righteousness" as calls to "works righteousness". And yes I'm somewhat of a universal salvationist.

As a yank, I am digusted at the Religious Right's stance on gay marriage. Churches can believe as they will, but they can't hold the rest of the Nation hostage.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...shopping at the supermarket, watching TV, cooking and washing up ...

Only homosexuals do those things?

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...shopping at the supermarket, watching TV, cooking and washing up ...
Only homosexuals do those things?

Maybe we do them in a homosexual way?! [Big Grin]

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

This thread must hold a record for number of stupid statements.

[checks: Nope, full moon was a few days ago - should have worn off by now.]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
"I'm *not* homophobic, but what they do is disgusting isn't it?"

1) Why is it homophobic to find particular sex acts distasteful? Disgust is a perfectly natural reaction to unfamiliar biological processes.

2) The whole point of the OP (as I understand it) is that disgust is a pretty flimsy reason for moral disapproval. CA is saying that it doesn't matter in the least that he finds the idea of anal sex (or whatever) uncomfortable, that doesn't give him grounds for condemnation.

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I am tired of Holier-than-thou folks who believe that homosexuality is an unforgiveable sin. [...] I am digusted at the Religious Right's stance on gay marriage.

I don't know anyone who thinks homosexuality is an unforgiveable sin, but I'm with you on gay marriage.

You are, I think, wrong to assume that the conservative Christian view is based on distaste for the physical act of gay sex. I've no doubt that many people do view it with distaste, but that's not the main or only reason why they think it wrong. That would usually be because the Bible (in their view) clearly says so.

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
ponders exactly what, for example, a lesbian way of washing up would look like...>

Two scrubbers with no handles.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...shopping at the supermarket, watching TV, cooking and washing up ...
Only homosexuals do those things?
Maybe we do them in a homosexual way?!
<ponders exactly what, for example, a lesbian way of washing up would look like...>

I believe it involves a flannel.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What is "the physical act of gay sex"? Mutual masturbation? Fellatio/cunnilingus? Vaginal penetration with a strap-on dildo? There are many physical acts of gay sex, some of which are also physical acts of hetero sex. There certainly is no THE physical act of gay sex.

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

There shouldn't be laws banning gay marriage any more than laws banning nose picking.

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

BTW, I started this rant in response to RC bishops sending out cds on roman catholic social teachings [Eek!]

and voting. I wish they would come out and say that they want to impose their religious doctrine on the rest of us. The same holds true for the Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Pentacostalist crowd, but they are no where as nearly well organized.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Laws don't ban marriage; laws create marriage as a legally-recognized relationship (other legally-recognized relationships would include business partnerships, landlord/tenant, etc). The proponents of gay marriage are asking to have the laws broadened to allow marriage between persons of the same sex.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

I think the expression "gay marriage" is not very helpful.

Let's talk about "marriage" and who may be thus joined. That's a much more constructive direction to approach it from.

CA, I appreciate and commend your intent. One advantage you have here is that you can talk *with* the folks that you're opining about rather than talking *about* them as part of your recovery.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

What's the point of this thread again? (And how is it different than the two dozen other threads on this topic here?)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...shopping at the supermarket, watching TV, cooking and washing up ...
Only homosexuals do those things?

My point is that those who condemn homosexuals don't seem to realise that they live lives pretty much the same way as everyone else.

The homophobes define gays by certain genital acts - that is an obsession with sex, defining people solely in terms of sex, reductionist.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...My point is that those who condemn homosexuals don't seem to realise that they live lives pretty much the same way as everyone else.
...

Then your point is stupid - likely no one thinks homosexuals do nothing but have sex.

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...My point is that those who condemn homosexuals don't seem to realise that they live lives pretty much the same way as everyone else.
...
Then your point is stupid - likely no one thinks homosexuals do nothing but have sex.

But for some folks they are defined by the fact that they are sexually attracted to and have sex with people of the same gender. Homosexuals are, to them, the "Other".

BTW, are there any heterosexuals out there who are "sin-free", without the slightest hint of homophobic thoughts or stereotyping?

[ 29. September 2010, 18:43: Message edited by: Christian Agnostic ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:

BTW, are there any heterosexuals out there who are "sin-free", without the slightest hint of homophobic thoughts or stereotyping?

Yes, of course there are. I am heterosexual. There are three homosexual people in my close family and I think of them no differently from anyone else.

I would have had no problem whatever if my sons had been gay - and made sure I told them so.

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:

BTW, are there any heterosexuals out there who are "sin-free", without the slightest hint of homophobic thoughts or stereotyping?
Yes, of course there are. I am heterosexual. There are three homosexual people in my close family and I think of them no differently from anyone else.

I would have had no problem whatever if my sons had been gay - and made sure I told them so.

You are a good person, and, sadly, rarer than one would like to believe. My great sin was to admit my sinfulness. I'm too trusting and maybe it would have been better if I had not been so open. I've met too many who aren't bigoted but still believe the stereotypes.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...My point is that those who condemn homosexuals don't seem to realise that they live lives pretty much the same way as everyone else.
...
Then your point is stupid - likely no one thinks homosexuals do nothing but have sex.

I may be 'stupid' but you are ignorant if you don't know that the likes of Akinola and Orombi call gay men 'worst than beasts' for precisely that line of thinking.

Is it only anal sex that is supposedly sinful? Not oral? Not kissing?Not hugging?

[ 29. September 2010, 20:11: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
My great sin was to admit my sinfulness. I'm too trusting and maybe it would have been better if I had not been so open. I've met too many who aren't bigoted but still believe the stereotypes.

There is nothing wrong with openness. I just wonder why the strange way of being open about it - the odd comparison with nose picking?

Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

There are many other 'homosexual acts' e.g. shopping at the supermarket, watching TV, cooking and washing up - then there's hugs, kisses....

I'd better not bump into you in Sainsbury's tomorrow, leo -- people might think we're a couple!

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
My great sin was to admit my sinfulness. I'm too trusting and maybe it would have been better if I had not been so open. I've met too many who aren't bigoted but still believe the stereotypes.
There is nothing wrong with openness. I just wonder why the strange way of being open about it - the odd comparison with nose picking?

It was an absurdist OP. I was trying to point out that homosexuality is no big deal. I (used) to believe that absurdist statements were a way to get people to see things in a different light. I was wrong [Help]

I was trying to point out that homosexuality was no big deal, and, it's possible that nose picking was worse. Sometimes I wonder if many on the Ship are way to literal minded. This discussion probably belonged in Hell. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I was trying to point out that homosexuality is no big deal.

But you don't engage with any reason why someone might think that it was a big deal.

All you do is refer to one morally-irrelevant misgiving you have about gay sex being unpalatable and assume that that's the whole of the objection to it. It's not. If it were, practically everyone would agree with you that it's no big deal.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Well, most people on the Ship would probably agree "gay sex" is no big deal, as would most of the hetero folks I bump into here in my neck of the woods (not the ones who voted for Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware Republican Primary -- I don't think they patronise the same restaurants and taverns that my partner and I do, and they tend not to sit at the bar in those places, certainly). However, sadly I think there are all too many Americans who do think it's a big deal -- most of them are either on social security and medicare or else they belong to a particularly sad segment of religious reactionaries, mostly evangelical prots. They listen to the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Don't like gay marriage? Then don't have one. But don't violate the 14th Amendment rights of my partner and me. We're married in Canada -- I'd like to have that marriage recognised in the USA.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...My point is that those who condemn homosexuals don't seem to realise that they live lives pretty much the same way as everyone else.
...
Then your point is stupid - likely no one thinks homosexuals do nothing but have sex.
I may be 'stupid' but you are ignorant if you don't know that the likes of Akinola and Orombi call gay men 'worst than beasts' for precisely that line of thinking.

Is it only anal sex that is supposedly sinful? Not oral? Not kissing?Not hugging?

hosting

Leo,
points may be stupid and arguments may be ignorant, but 'you are ignorant if you don't know X' posted to another poster is crossing the C3 line on name calling. Please either take the argument to Hell or be more careful in future.

Can other people also be mindful of this?

thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

[ 30. September 2010, 02:16: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
It was an absurdist OP. I was trying to point out that homosexuality is no big deal. I (used) to believe that absurdist statements were a way to get people to see things in a different light. I was wrong I was trying to point out that homosexuality was no big deal, and, it's possible that nose picking was worse. Sometimes I wonder if many on the Ship are way to literal minded. This discussion probably belonged in Hell.

Maybe - but then it would have been a slanging match, not a discussion [Smile]

I perfectly understood your absurdist statement. But your choice of nose picking really did reveal quite a lot of ignorance.

The answer to this kind of ignorance would be to spend some time with ordinary gay people and get to know them.

The problem, to me, is in seeing homosexuality as ANY kind of sin - even the mildest you can think of. Your sexuality isn't sinful, why should anyone else's be? (Unless they are hurting others by their actions - which is what sin is all about ino)

No big deal? I don't know about that either. My love life IS a very big deal to me - isn't yours to you?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
My great sin was to admit my sinfulness. I'm too trusting and maybe it would have been better if I had not been so open. I've met too many who aren't bigoted but still believe the stereotypes.
There is nothing wrong with openness. I just wonder why the strange way of being open about it - the odd comparison with nose picking?
It was an absurdist OP. I was trying to point out that homosexuality is no big deal. I (used) to believe that absurdist statements were a way to get people to see things in a different light. I was wrong I was trying to point out that homosexuality was no big deal, and, it's possible that nose picking was worse. Sometimes I wonder if many on the Ship are way to literal minded. This discussion probably belonged in Hell.

I think perhaps the problem is that you rather misjudged your audience. If you want to make this point, surely you want to make it to a bunch of people who think homosexuality IS a big deal.

Instead, you're saying it on the Ship where I would guess the majority of the audience already have the view that it isn't a big deal. Which is why you left your audience mystified. You were preaching to the choir, as it were, but treating the choir AS IF it consisted of people in need of conversion to the point of view you presented.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Have we had a thread on nasal sex before? I think there is a reference in Jean Genet's The Miracle of the Rose but it must be 40 years since I read it.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
ponders exactly what, for example, a lesbian way of washing up would look like
Two scrubbers with no handles.

And thank you for that...

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Absurdism just distorts the other side's position and doesn't really lead anywhere. To be fair to the traddies, sexuality is a bit more important than minor social grossness. Our sexuality has the power to generate life and lies at the centre of our most enduring relationships. Redefining marriage to include same sex couples is a radical step and involves alot of debate about what 'marriage' actually is. And Christian tradition and scripture do ON THE SURFACE seem to support traddy arguments. I know Christians who aren't at all homophobic, but don't feel that they can support same-sex marriage or whatever for scriptural reasons (and some of them would quite like to...it would certainly make their lives easier).

quote:
1) Why is it homophobic to find particular sex acts distasteful? Disgust is a perfectly natural reaction to unfamiliar biological processes.

I'm pretty liberal on LGBT issues, but I don't mind admitting that the thought of anal or lesbian sex grosses me out. But then I'm sure my sexual preferences would gross out alot of lesbians [Razz]

We're all different *Shrug*

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I'm pretty liberal on LGBT issues, but I don't mind admitting that the thought of anal or lesbian sex grosses me out. But then I'm sure my sexual preferences would gross out alot of lesbians ...

Ye heavens, dare one ask what bizarre things you get up to? [Eek!]

If by any chance you mean that many lesbians might be grossed out by sex between men and women, the answer to that is 'no', based on the research available. Many of us have a very fluid sexuality which allows a breadth of acceptance. The popular myth that lesbians become so because they hate men or hate the idea of 'normal' sex is indeed largely a myth, though of course there are some who do think that way.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Ye heavens, dare one ask what bizarre things you get up to?

I couldn't possibly comment [Devil]

Seriously, good point (for some reason all the LGBT people I know are men). I was making the point that most people can think of some harmless sexual act or other which they find a bit gross. It doesn't necessarily mean they have a prejudice against people who happen to disagree.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
So do you mean - is the objection to homosexuality based on things like politeness, hygiene, social conformity and not making other people feel queasy, which are the sort of grounds we might use to object to inappropriate nose picking?

If that's the question then no, it's not. The objection to homosexuality (for such Christians as do object) is that the Bible is considered to be an authoritative guide to moral behaviour, and the Bible appears to prohibit same-sex relations.

I'm not sure the Catholic position on sex actually claims to be particularly Biblical - I thought it was based more on "natural law", with the implicit corollory that everyone would think the same as them if they exercised their reason aright, with or without the Bible.

At any rate, I assumed the OP was referring to the "natural law" argument (which does at least exist) rather than a strawmen ickiness argument - hence my initial response.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

The "ick factor" argument is surely more than just a strawman?

I've read one theory that straight men are inclined to be repulsed by gay men for two reasons (amongst others):

transgressing accepted gender roles
association of gay sex with anal rape as a means of humiliation
thinking of what the ancients did when one army subjugated another -- rape was a common part of the deal

Maybe they're two sides of the same coin and arise from some undercurrent of misogyny.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Very odd, because most rapes is between male & female, but I don't think that the majority of people think "yuck - heterosexual sex is sometimes used for rape and humiliation therefore I think it's appalling".

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

Boogie
I currently have one gay friend, and my wife and I socialize with him and his partner. The topic of sexual practices never comes up, and on the topic of homosexualty we all rant about how utterly moronic the idea of government "marriage" is. If not for a whole host of legal issues, my wife and I have thought of getting legal "divorce" as a protest. The State would probably not grant this, as we would testify that we love each other and plan to live together as husband and wife and will remain married in the eyes of God and the church. I also have ties with folks who are encouraging clergy not to sign government marriage certificates.
I have gay aquaintances and admire many gay people in my profession.
Ricardus is right, I was spitting in the eye of "natural law". Homosexuality is natural!

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Homosexuality is natural!

Firstly, it depends on how you define 'natural'. Homosexuality is recorded in numerous species, but still isn't terribly common in most of them IIRC. In other words, if left to themselves most animals will 'naturally' seek to mate with members of the opposite sex. Ditto humans. And given that the 'natural' purpose of sexuality is to generate life, homosexuality is arguably 'unnatural' in its inability to do so. In other words homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. If it became universal in a particular species that species would die out pretty quickly. There's also the argument that not everything natural is therefore ethical. Nor are 'unnatural' things necessarily unethical. So I'm in the odd position of being quite liberal on LGBT issues while not being terribly convinced by the 'homosexuality is natural' argument, but then like you I'm not a huge fan of natural law arguments fullstop.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

The response that homosexuality is common in non-human species is only really valid in response to an argument that it's wrong because it's "unnatural". Ie. when someone says "It's just wrong. Not even animals do it," it's valid to point out that many animals do. However, I agree that the prevalence of something in nature doesn't really tell us anything about whether or not it's morally laudable. We can't look to animals for that - we have to work it out for ourselves. Even among our closest relatives, you've got a crazy bisexual free love fest among the bonobos, and gang rape among chimpanzees.

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

I'm not saying that nature isn't "fallen".

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Actually the notion of whether or not morality or moral culpability exists in nature would make an interesting purg thread methinks. Animals do indeed do some vicious stuff, and not just to other species.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Stephen the Stoned:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

There are many other 'homosexual acts' e.g. shopping at the supermarket, watching TV, cooking and washing up - then there's hugs, kisses....
I'd better not bump into you in Sainsbury's tomorrow, leo -- people might think we're a couple!

Not tomorrow but any Tuesday - by the Deli counter.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

The argument usually put to us is that sex and pairing with the same gender is a human thing, assumed to be not reflected in "nature" (i.e., animal behavior). And therefore, it must be something we as humans "choose" counter to morality (and are therefore objectively disordered, as it is so quaintly put).

Bollocks.

The variation of same-sex oriented behavior occurs across kingdom animalia which lends credence to the argument that same-sex attraction in humans is is simply part of our shared sexual diversity.

In that sense, it's natural; and it's reasonable to extrapolate that gay folk don't choose our sexual attraction any more than a couple of penguins or swans do (or the vast majority of opposite-sex attracted homo sapiens, for that matter).

What I want to understand is, why should gay folk be held to any higher standard than straight folk with regards to sexual ethics?

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
What I want to understand is, why should gay folk be held to any higher standard than straight folk with regards to sexual ethics?

They shouldn't. Christian ethics of chastity apply to everyone (or at least every Christian), gay or straight. Just because the game includes more players (so to speak) doesn't mean that the rules of the game have changed.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
The "ick factor" argument is surely more than just a strawman?

I'm not denying that many people find homosexuality icky - I just mean that they don't generally cite its ickiness as a reason for believing it to be sinful.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...My point is that those who condemn homosexuals don't seem to realise that they live lives pretty much the same way as everyone else.
...
Then your point is stupid - likely no one thinks homosexuals do nothing but have sex.

I think you (unwittingly?) underscore just how astute leo's point is: there are no things that "only homosexuals" do. That's my main problem with arguments against same-sex relationships: those that are relevant at all require some twisting and bending in order not to apply equally to heterosexual ones, unless you assume some kind of innate metaphysical significance to genitalia (and since a few who advance these arguments are women who have managed to get themselves ordained with clear consciences one assumes that they do not).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

There are plenty of things that other homosexuals do that this particular homosexual finds 'icky'.

SO I DON'T DO THEM!

And of course, all of those 'icky' things are things that heterosexuals are perfectly capable of doing, too. I just haven't really felt the need to spend a lot of time enquiring what heterosexuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms when they get bored with the missionary position. [Roll Eyes]

As for prevalence in nature, I seem to remember reading somewhere that it varies ENORMOUSLY between species. I'm sure I read a suggestion that male giraffes spend something like 90% of their sexual time doing it with other male giraffes.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are plenty of things that other homosexuals do that this particular homosexual finds 'icky'.

SO I DON'T DO THEM!

Oh come now*. Surely you people are all the same? After all, James Dobson said so, and would he lie to me?

*pun intended

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Without going into icky details, let's just say that the results of a survey by Australia's largest gay magazine revealed that about 1/3 of respondents never engage in one of the sexual activities stereotypically associated with gay males.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Sex is natural, fun, healthy and good for you. Why get so hung up about it?

Surely how we have sex is entirely between ourselves and our partners?

The rest is "TMI" in my view.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

The "ick" factor is, I'm told, to do with anal sex and yet research suggests that about 12% of straight couples have anal sex as part of their sexual repertoire - this means, given that lots of gay men don't do anal sex, that there is probably [undoubtedly?] more anal sex in straight relationships than there is in gay relationships.

Is that "ick" or what?

As it used to be my job I have talked with a lot of people about sex over the years and loads of men, even if they won't admit to doing it, have big fantasies about anal sex with women. I am less sure about women having fantasies about being penetrated anally by men.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

p.s. I do know some couples where the woman uses a sex toy to penetrate her male partner anally but can't link to any research on the subject offhand but I'm sure it's there if you care to look.

Posted by Protozoan (# 15583) on :

The icky response is irrational. The same way that a fear of the common British house spider is irrational. Unfortunately, some people have been conditioned from a young age to respond in this way. Personally, I think the OP should be given some slack for realising that this response is inappropriate and attempting to do something about it.

My partner’s mother is a classic example of someone who was brought up when homosexuality was illegal. It seems that the parenting technique of the time ranged from impressing that such things were ‘not nice’, to imprinting a reaction of fear and loathing. I presume this was to protect the youngsters from ‘falling pray’ of the supposed bogyman or (equally frightening for the parent) that the young person would be ‘that way inclined’ themselves and face arrest, imprisonment and misery.
(Please put these comments in the historical context).

Over the past couple of years my mother-out-law has gone a fair way in overcoming an icky response to same sex couples merely holding hands! In her dotage, she has finally met a gay couple at her regular holiday destination, got to know and like them, become firm friends and is in regular correspondence. It’s a remarkable turn around for her to now be in a position to enthusiastically show friends photographs of this couple’s civil partnerships ceremony etc. But that irrational icky response is still ingrained and although she loves them very much and enjoys spending time with them, she can’t quite get over the icky response enough to actually go and stay with the couple in their own home in California. She’s been invited, they have the space and she is afraid to hurt their feelings by saying that she would rather sleep at a guest house. Icky responses are deeply ingrained. Mother-out-law has a long way to go yet with some of her dinosaur attitudes, other-half, myself and her granddaughter do our best to not let her get away with homophobic (and racists) remarks but there are still decades of conditioning to ware down.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Well yes lots of things are irrational, but still very powerful, and not necessarily learned. Phobias are irrational (by definition) but not learned.

Posted by Protozoan (# 15583) on :

This is probably a tangent – but –
I think phobias can be learnt too. The reaction to harmless spiders being an example. I’ve seen children respond in a similar way to how their parents respond and these fears get pass from one to another. I’ve taught art lessons in an old barn that had it’s fair share of creepy-crawlies and if there were a few robust girls (they were all girls at it happens – aged 5 to 11) who would happily handle the spiders the others would be less inclined to squawk and fuss.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

That some people don't have phobias is hardly proof that those who do learned them.

Posted by Protozoan (# 15583) on :

Mousethief – that’s not what I was saying!
Being a bit of a tangent I didn’t want to fill up the space by elaborating too much. But just for you, I checked on an NHS website and

quote:
If someone shares the same phobia with another family member, such as a fear of spiders (arachnophobia), they may have learned to fear spiders as a child, rather than the phobia being passed on genetically (running in families).

I shall leave it to any psychologists here to explain to you how we learn our phobias if they want to. And yes I’m suggesting that we learn our icky responses in a similar way.

My illustration with the small girls and the spiders was to say that we can also un-learn phobias given a more positive role model.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Protozoan:
The icky response is irrational. The same way that a fear of the common British house spider is irrational. Unfortunately, some people have been conditioned from a young age to respond in this way. Personally, I think the OP should be given some slack for realising that this response is inappropriate and attempting to do something about it.

Why is the response inappropriate?

I don't have to like other people's idiosyncracies in any other area of life - and provided I treat them with politeness, fairness and respect notwithstanding the odd and wrong ways in which they cook, eat, dress, wash, talk, socialise, play, and wipe their arse, why should I be under some unique obligation to conquer my distaste for the odd way in which they fuck? It's none of my business if somebody else likes something which disgusts me, and none of their business that I'm disgusted by something which they like.

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

What if the OP had been: If non-vaginal sexual intercourse is a sin, is it on a par with the "sin" of nose-picking?. BTW, there are a lot of sexual practices between heterosexuals that my wife and I find "icky", so what?

[ 01. October 2010, 12:39: Message edited by: Christian Agnostic ]

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
The icky response is irrational.

I'm quite enjoying playing devil's advocate, so here goes [Biased]

TMI alert:

I'm not sure the ick factor IS entirely irrational. I expect that there's an evolutionary aspect...homosexuality isn't much good for perpetuating the species. Anal sex is also potentially uncomfortable and even injurious, so again the ick factor has a certain logic. As a woman I've often had frank discussions on sex with female friends and the attitude to anal sex was pretty uniformly 'ick'. Alot of straight men seem to rather like the idea of male-female anal sex and some women are willing to satisfy them on this one, but not many.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Are you suggesting that vaginal sex is never potentially uncomfortable or injurious?

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Quite. It's perfectly possible to get injured during standard sex if a partner isn't somewhat careful, and indeed to pick up infections, get pregnant etc. It's far from a risk-free activity.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Alot of straight men seem to rather like the idea of male-female anal sex and some women are willing to satisfy them on this one, but not many.

Not many? 34% according to Kinsey.
http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexualhealthqanda/f/anal_sex_common.htm

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Quite. It's perfectly possible to get injured during standard sex if a partner isn't somewhat careful, and indeed to pick up infections, get pregnant etc. It's far from a risk-free activity.

However it's a risky activity that is required to perpetuate the species; anal sex is not.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

But do straight folks have sex because it is required to perpetuate the species or because they enjoy it?

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

I've done all the species perpetuating I intend to do, I'm just doing it because it feels sooooo good! [Big Grin]

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
But do straight folks have sex because it is required to perpetuate the species or because they enjoy it?

Evolutionarily speaking, if it didn't feel good we probably wouldn't have done it (given that it can be a somewhat risky activity, especially for humans in a 'wild' environment in which they are not at the top of the food chain). That sex feels good encourages us to do it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
But do straight folks have sex because it is required to perpetuate the species or because they enjoy it?

Sex can be far less enjoyable when 'trying for children' - I am not sure why, something to do with pressure to concieve maybe.

Posted by MrsDoyle (# 13579) on :

Anal intercourse for men (regardless of the gender providing the service) has an anatomical pleasure in that it massages the prostate gland (which in turn produces the semen in which the sperm will swim, although it will do so without stimulation of course) which feels good; or so I am told.
Women have no prostate gland or similar structure in the anus so I suspect they indulge to please their partner. This is a supposition on my part as I am not a woman and would not presume to ask any women shipmates to disclose such intimacies [Smile]

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

I've been trying very hard to think how to answer that. Standard male-female penetrative sex doesn't lead to orgasm for the majority of women, unless accompanied by other forms of intimacy and emotional responses. Only 30% of women claim to achieve orgasm every time they make love, though for many that isn't the aim anyway: the intimacy rather than orgasm may be far more important to a good number of women.

For most women, the need for other forms of intimacy and emotional engagement is equally true for anal sex (assuming physical dimensions permit it at all).

Either way, though, very little sex is anything to do with producing a baby.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Oh come on, Wodders.

I would say that for all straight folk the majoriy of the time, sex ( assuming insertion-of-penis-into-vagina) is not had for the purpose of procreation. However, I don't believe for a moment that fun is on the agenda for every rutting heterosexual couple. There might be a few exceptions (such as married Hare Krishnas and the Duggars) for whom penetrative heterosex is strictly procreational, but for the rest of us lesser mortals "straight"sex in whatever form is not a race to procreate.

Otherwise , the contraceptive factories would close down.

m

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsDoyle:
Anal intercourse for men (regardless of the gender providing the service) has an anatomical pleasure in that it massages the prostate gland (which in turn produces the semen in which the sperm will swim, although it will do so without stimulation of course) which feels good; or so I am told...

As another shipmate and I have commented before, separately and on similar threads, this is what is called [i]Intelligent Design.[/b]

Posted by MrsDoyle (# 13579) on :

I am begining to sound FAR too knowledable about some subjects but the "anal orgasm" experienced by gay men (possibly straight ones too?) is also relatively rare (i.e orgasm by prostate
stimulation alone without touching the dangely bits). Intimacy and/or intensity seem to be pre-requisists for this in gay men in my experience.
I personaly do not believe this is because gay men require similar things to women or have sexual responses like women. They are, oh bugger it (pun intended),we are, after all, men and can objectify sex as much as our straight brothers can.

(Mrs Doyle scitters off for another sherry) [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

This is getting very TMI, but anyway...

quote:
Are you suggesting that vaginal sex is never potentially uncomfortable or injurious?

quote:
It's perfectly possible to get injured during standard sex if a partner isn't somewhat careful...

Yes, it is possible, but much harder. Vaginas are designed for the insertion of large* objects, being stretchy and self-lubricating. Vaginal sex might lead to injury in the woman is completely unaroused and the man if rough, but I doubt if that scenario happens much outside rape cases.

quote:
...indeed to pick up infections, get pregnant etc.

Yes, though from an evolutionary perspective getting pregnant is no bad thing, while HIV at least is more easily transmitted through anal sex.

quote:
Not many? 34% according to Kinsey.
http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexualhealthqanda/f/anal_sex_common.htm

Well no, 34% according to one survey conducted amongst men in 2004. Given that most straight men seem to quite like the idea (if its prolifieration in porn is anything to go by), its hardly surprising that a third of them claim to have done it (quite probably with no more than one women in each case). Anal sex is growing in popularity as a sex act amongst straights, but not because lots of women think its a great idea.
Its more about the influence of porn on men's expectations and the increasing pressure on women to satisfy their partners in every way. I'm drawing here on lots of frank conversations with women my own age (20s/30s) and year of reading books and mags and forums aimed at them (Cosmo in particular leaves nothing to the imagination on sex [Razz]

quote:
Either way, though, very little sex is anything to do with producing a baby.

The idea that sex can be decoupled from babies is a very, very modern one linked to the widespread availability of reliable contraception. For most of history regulating fertility was extremely difficult, hence the existence of numerous customs restricting sexual activity which seem horribly repressive to us but made sense in their context.

*Ideally [Devil]

[ 02. October 2010, 14:51: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Missed edit window...

"IF the woman is completely unaroused and the man IS rough"...doh

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsDoyle:
Women have no prostate gland or similar structure in the anus so I suspect they indulge to please their partner. shipmates to disclose such intimacies

In the past, many women 'submitted' to anal sex because they were afraid of getting pregnant.

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Has the Ship called a T 'n' T week without my noticing it?

This thread seems to have drifted waaaaayyy off course.... far TMI!

Interesting though it may be for some, let's get back to the original topic please.

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Indeed so, and (from many historical accounts) submitted to ordinary sex too, because in many cases a woman actually enjoying sex was seen as a Bad Thing and Sinful. Even in my mother's generation, "lie back and think of England" was the advice given to young newlywed women.

The interesting thing is that research on consensual heterosexual sex shows that (for example in one study) 11 out of the 15 women participating were found to have a degree of injury after sex, including bruising and/or minor tearing. Another study found the same in 56 out of 314 (18%) women who had consensual sex.

(x-posted with host -apologies)

[ 02. October 2010, 17:04: Message edited by: amber. ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Going back to the "ick factor" for a moment, I'm not sure it's as constant as it's portrayed to be. Given what I understand about the consumer demographics of lesbian-themed pornography, and that yaoi is marketed almost exclusively to straight women, a positive reaction to homosexuality seems common enough to support several booming businesses.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Surely a large aspect of the ick factor revolves around historic misogyny and sexism, in that a man is offending gender roles by choosing the "female" role of receptor. In many strongly patriarchal cultures being the active partner in the anal sex act is considered far more "manly" than being the passive partner. Those who are in the passive role are more acceptable in these societies if they are effeminate than if they are masculine.

Societies that have less differentiation between male and female roles seem to have less prejudice against male homosexuality.

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

I think the "ick" factor with regards to human feces might by instinctual. I was trying to point that out in the OP.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

With just a 5 minute cleaning prior to the event, it's quite possible to have an evening of vigorous and pleasurable anal sex without any interaction with feces at all. It's not that hard to clean the human bowel. Douche or give yourself an enema and you're right as rain.

Nose picking's intent is quite different.

[ 04. October 2010, 20:47: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

TMI [Eek!]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Well, the mechanics of all sex is TMI. The vagina isn't exactly always odour free and clean. They have commercials about these things.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Well, the mechanics of all sex is TMI. The vagina isn't exactly always odour free and clean. They have commercials about these things.

Not if you go to bed before 9.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

quote:
Going back to the "ick factor" for a moment, I'm not sure it's as constant as it's portrayed to be. Given what I understand about the consumer demographics of lesbian-themed pornography, and that yaoi is marketed almost exclusively to straight women, a positive reaction to homosexuality seems common enough to support several booming businesses.

I think the "ick" factor usually come more in finding homosexual acts by one's own sex icky, rather than finding homosexual acts by the opposite sex icky.

(Just for the record, I don't find either one icky myself.)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
homosexuality isn't much good for perpetuating the species.

Probably a topic that deserves its own thread, but I've occasionally seen discussion in places like New Scientist of research suggesting that homosexuality DOES help perpetuate the species... just because we don't do it directly, doesn't mean we're not helping the breeders out in some way.

Among other things, apparently we make excellent uncles.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Among other things, apparently we make excellent uncles.

Of that, I have no doubt... but aunts, though...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:

quote:
Going back to the "ick factor" for a moment, I'm not sure it's as constant as it's portrayed to be. Given what I understand about the consumer demographics of lesbian-themed pornography, and that yaoi is marketed almost exclusively to straight women, a positive reaction to homosexuality seems common enough to support several booming businesses.
I think the "ick" factor usually come more in finding homosexual acts by one's own sex icky, rather than finding homosexual acts by the opposite sex icky.

(Just for the record, I don't find either one icky myself.)

Interestingly, as a gay man I don't find lesbian sex icky, just utterly incomprehensible. It's almost like some kind of mental blank spot. I'm intellectually aware of the fact that it exists, and that's about it.

Whether this is just me, I don't know. One of my gay friends says he thinks lesbians are cute, but he seems to mean it in much the same way that you'd call a puppy or kitten cute.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
homosexuality isn't much good for perpetuating the species.
Probably a topic that deserves its own thread, but I've occasionally seen discussion in places like New Scientist of research suggesting that homosexuality DOES help perpetuate the species... just because we don't do it directly, doesn't mean we're not helping the breeders out in some way.

Among other things, apparently we make excellent uncles.

I've read this before as well. It takes a village to raise a child and those children who had [childless] aunts and uncles to aid in their development were better socialized, better able to form relationships and have more and healthier children themselves.

[ 05. October 2010, 02:54: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

* Ahem*

Toujours Dan, it appears that the sniffing of female bits is outside your area of experience. I suggest that you don't take at face value all those TV ads about smelly vaginas; such ads exist only to sell totally unnecessary products such as the largey discredited douches sprays etc. What can smell is the unwashed perineum because of all the anorecally-derived bacteria which live there and which produce smelly peptides after interacting with urine, faecal smears and otherwise odourless vaginal discharges.

There are of course exceptions to the rule, which one tends to experience in the course of doing a medical examination on some hapless female, such as the case of a missing tampon, a nasty (and not necessarily sexually-acquired) infection or a fistula. At least the first instance is quickly and easily fixed.

Over and out,

m ( eternally grateful that pre-sex prep has never included an enema)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
* Ahem*

At least there was some warning at the beginning of that post. Well done.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

[Killing me]

Ok. You win the internets today.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Wow. I just dropped in here as a tourist - and just look at the place....!

P.S. I know the OP is well-intentioned - but couldn't we get out of the "objectionable (to me) physical acts occurring at most once a week according to studies" mode at some point and talk about...oh, I don't know....love and companionship? Or something?

I mean, I appreciate sex as much as the next babe, but it's over pretty soon - and then what have you got? I think really the debate ought to center around the whole - you know - living thing....

[ 05. October 2010, 14:38: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I mean, I appreciate sex as much as the next babe, but it's over pretty soon - and then what have you got?

In the case of gay sex, two men who BOTH roll over and immediately fall asleep. [Snigger]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

We're efficient that way.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

I mean, I appreciate sex as much as the next babe, but it's over pretty soon - and then what have you got? I think really the debate ought to center around the whole - you know - living thing....

Me too - but the intimacy and pleasure of sex frame the living thing, give you a great (and good-for-you) 'high' to look forward to and help you both through the boring/tedious bits. It's a great way of strengthening the bond between partners, don't you think?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

I mean, I appreciate sex as much as the next babe, but it's over pretty soon - and then what have you got? I think really the debate ought to center around the whole - you know - living thing....
Me too - but the intimacy and pleasure of sex frame the living thing, give you a great (and good-for-you) 'high' to look forward to and help you both through the boring/tedious bits. It's a great way of strengthening the bond between partners, don't you think?

The problem is that you rarely see a post expressly dedicated to the "intimacy and pleasure of sex" between heterosexuals comparing it to "nose-picking" (or some other unappealing habit). IOW, sex is part of heterosexual life, not the whole thing - and it's not routinely described as something "the rest us have to put up with in order to be tolerant."

As I said, I realize the OP was well-intentioned, and really had no intention of doing this. But gay people think our partnerships - and the physical aspect of them - is pretty special and wonderful, just like heterosexuals do. When we're in love with our partners, sex is more than just a little pleasurable physical action.

On another point: while it's true that the view of sex as something purely recreational is very, very recent, I do suspect that people have always found ways to enjoy it "non-procreationally." I remember such things quite well from my teenage years, in fact....

[ 06. October 2010, 13:46: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(P.S. Lots of gay men don't have anal sex - and of course no lesbians do in the standard sense of the word - so I wish everybody could stop defining "homosexuality" by this means. Please.)

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I wish everybody could stop defining "homosexuality" by this means. Please.)

Who do you think is doing this?

The point of this thread seems to me to be the extent to which visceral distaste is at the root of moral objection to homosexuality, and if so, whether this makes the objection justifiable*.

Obviously the focus is going to be on such homosexual activities which most provoke visceral distaste**. Anal sex, like it or not, is going to feature. No one is suggesting that this is all there is to being gay. That would be silly.

(*My answers being - 'Not much' and 'no'.)

(**In some people. Not everyone.)

[ 06. October 2010, 15:05: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I wish everybody could stop defining "homosexuality" by this means. Please.)
Who do you think is doing this?

Everybody does it, all the time. Even when it's the generic "ick" factor that's allegedly under discussion. The talk turned to anal sex on this thread on page 2 and hasn't yet let up. You brought up "buggery," as a matter of fact, and "particular sex acts."

As we all know, there's a huge market in so-called "lesbian sex" that's aimed at men; there's obviously not much "ick factor" going on there. And then there's the whole "lesbian-until-graduation" phenomenon, and the alleged "fluidity" of female sexuality; so how come we always end up talking about anal sex, no matter what?

A priest at General Convention in 2003 stood up and starting started talking about it, for God's sake, to argue why gay people shouldn't be consecrated Bishop!

So this is really the issue, and I simply wish that "anal sex" would be the headline, instead of "homosexuality," if that's what we're going to be talking about.

But, I guess I'm fairly well resigned to listening to discussions about "anal sex and homosexuality" forever, even though it literally has nothing to do with me....

[ 06. October 2010, 15:51: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

The sexual fluidity of lesbians is pretty well researched and documented now, so I think it's moved beyond being alleged?
You're right that the porn market for 'lesbian' activity is very active, though of course immensely unrepresentative of reality for many of us.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

I mean, I appreciate sex as much as the next babe, but it's over pretty soon - and then what have you got? I think really the debate ought to center around the whole - you know - living thing....
Me too - but the intimacy and pleasure of sex frame the living thing, give you a great (and good-for-you) 'high' to look forward to and help you both through the boring/tedious bits. It's a great way of strengthening the bond between partners, don't you think?
The problem is that you rarely see a post expressly dedicated to the "intimacy and pleasure of sex" between heterosexuals comparing it to "nose-picking" (or some other unappealing habit). IOW, sex is part of heterosexual life, not the whole thing - and it's not routinely described as something "the rest us have to put up with in order to be tolerant."

As I said, I realize the OP was well-intentioned, and really had no intention of doing this. But gay people think our partnerships - and the physical aspect of them - is pretty special and wonderful, just like heterosexuals do. When we're in love with our partners, sex is more than just a little pleasurable physical action.

I agree 100% and my comment, which you quoted above, applies equally to homosexul and heterosexual people.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Everybody does it, all the time.

No one has done it on this thread.

quote:
You brought up "buggery," as a matter of fact,

Sure - in response to a reference to "the homosexual act", which I took to be a circumlocution for the same.

(And not because I imagined CA to be saying that anal sex is the only homosexual act worth talking about - any more than I would take a reference to "the conjugal act" to mean that penis/vagina interaction were the be all and end all of marriage - but because that is the act most likely to be euphemised).

quote:
and "particular sex acts."

Yes, and to make almost exactly the opposite point to the one you infer.

The reference was not especially to anal sex, but to those particular sex acts which are unfamiliar to any given person. My point was that it is not a fault to feel distaste for such things (provided that one acts fairly and charitably notwithstanding one's distaste).

An example of that would be a person with no inclination to anal sex finding the idea of using that for sexual pleasure highly uncomfortable - but the point I was making is that this is of general application. Any intimate biological process which desire has not made appealing or familiarity made mundane is potentially a cause of disgust. That just seems to be the way that (lots of) people are made. Feeling that way does not (in the case of homosexual activity) make one homophobic - which was the allegation I was refuting. Many children, learning about ‘straight' sex for the first time, think the idea is disgusting (I did). They usually get over it. Morally, that sort of distaste is of no significance whatever.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I wish everybody could stop defining "homosexuality" by this means. Please.)
Who do you think is doing this?

Everybody does it, all the time. Even when it's the generic "ick" factor that's allegedly under discussion. The talk turned to anal sex on this thread on page 2 and hasn't yet let up. You brought up "buggery," as a matter of fact, and "particular sex acts."

As we all know, there's a huge market in so-called "lesbian sex" that's aimed at men; there's obviously not much "ick factor" going on there. And then there's the whole "lesbian-until-graduation" phenomenon, and the alleged "fluidity" of female sexuality; so how come we always end up talking about anal sex, no matter what?

A priest at General Convention in 2003 stood up and starting started talking about it, for God's sake, to argue why gay people shouldn't be consecrated Bishop!

So this is really the issue, and I simply wish that "anal sex" would be the headline, instead of "homosexuality," if that's what we're going to be talking about.

But, I guess I'm fairly well resigned to listening to discussions about "anal sex and homosexuality" forever, even though it literally has nothing to do with me....

I'm also gay so completely understand your frustration here. But the ugly truth is that the church has been obsessed with where people put their bits for a long time. The Church Fathers railed against non-procreative sexual acts no matter how loving and faithful the couple was.

You can love someone until death do you part, but if you're "spilling the seed" you're sinning according to many Christians. I agree that it's a misplaced priority (especially now when science has revealed that men produce as much seed as needed) but it's always been there.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
The sexual fluidity of lesbians is pretty well researched and documented now, so I think it's moved beyond being alleged?
You're right that the porn market for 'lesbian' activity is very active, though of course immensely unrepresentative of reality for many of us.

Actually, I didn't say "lesbians" - I said "women." I'd be interested in seeing some research and documentation, though, for the former.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Everybody does it, all the time.
No one has done it on this thread.

quote:
You brought up "buggery," as a matter of fact,
Sure - in response to a reference to "the homosexual act", which I took to be a circumlocution for the same.

And Q.E.D.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm also gay so completely understand your frustration here. But the ugly truth is that the church has been obsessed with where people put their bits for a long time. The Church Fathers railed against non-procreative sexual acts no matter how loving and faithful the couple was.

You can love someone until death do you part, but if you're "spilling the seed" you're sinning according to many Christians. I agree that it's a misplaced priority (especially now when science has revealed that men produce as much seed as needed) but it's always been there.

You know, I really don't think "spilling the seed" has anything to do with it. As we know, 90% or more of Catholics worldwide use birth control (just as 75% of statistics you see on the internet are invented on the spot - but it really is some very high percentage!). And Protestants have been using BC for a long time now.

For some people, it's really that homosexuality seems "unnatural." As a matter of fact, I remember having a conversation about the "unnatural" thing with a young gay guy about 20 years ago, while we were looking at an image of two men (or maybe two women, I don't remember) kissing. That was all they were doing - and he said that even he had a hard time getting over the idea that it was "unnatural."

This was because it was taboo - forbidden. Images like this were shocking to people who'd never seen them before - even gay people! In fact, I remember hearing a woman literally scream at the kiss between Tom What's-His_name and Kevin Kline in the movie "In and Out." Literally, she screamed. This was in a suburban movie theater in New Jersey - hardly the most backwards place in the world.

This has been deep in all our psyches for a long, long time - and as somebody recently said, taboo is something people don't get over in 5 minutes. It takes a long time - and actually the rate at which homosexuality has become accepted in the West is pretty stunning, to me. But the physical thing is going to take longer.

And we'll always still be talking about anal sex, I'm completely sure. Willingly or unwillingly....

[ 06. October 2010, 16:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Ahhh well. Now that that The A List is on TV everyone will learn that gay people can be every be as vacuous and boring as everyone else. There's no way we'll overthrow the social order.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Ahhh well. Now that that The A List is on TV everyone will learn that gay people can be every be as vacuous and boring as everyone else. There's no way we'll overthrow the social order.

Good thinking! So maybe the question next time will be, instead: "If homosexuality is a sin, is it on a par with the 'sin' of forcing one's tedious manner of living on others through the scandal of Reality TV?"

I wanted to add that I think you had a good point above that the "man is offending gender roles by choosing the "female" role of receptor." But I'm not sure that "ick" factors into this, except if we're talking about anal sex (which we always are, of course).

There might a non-ick parallel with nose-picking, though - that is, that it's Simply Unacceptable Behavior in Our Society, ick or no ick. (Not sure, once again, that there's a lesbian counterpart, though. Men seem to have tighter strait-jackets all around....)

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You brought up "buggery," as a matter of fact,
Sure - in response to a reference to "the homosexual act", which I took to be a circumlocution for the same.
And Q.E.D.

All that demonstrates is the role of euphemism.

Phrases which might be in the same register as “the homosexual act” would include:

“The act of love” for sex. Doesn’t mean that all sex is loving or that all love is sexual.

“Conjugal rights” for sex. Doesn’t mean that spouses necessarily think of sex in terms of rights and obligations, or that there are not other sorts of rights in marriage.

“Marital aids” for sex toys. Doesn’t mean that single people don’t buy vibrators, or that some fur-lined handcuffs will always be the best thing to assist a struggling relationship.

“Solitary vice” for masturbation. Doesn’t mean that wanking is the only misdemeanour that you can engage in while alone. On that it has to be either vicious or solitary.

Similarly, a shaded reference to anal sex as “the homosexual act” doesn’t mean that all gays do it and that’s all gays do. Read it as you would any other euphemism.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You brought up "buggery," as a matter of fact,
Sure - in response to a reference to "the homosexual act", which I took to be a circumlocution for the same.
And Q.E.D.
All that demonstrates is the role of euphemism.

Phrases which might be in the same register as “the homosexual act” would include:

“The act of love” for sex. Doesn’t mean that all sex is loving or that all love is sexual.

“Conjugal rights” for sex. Doesn’t mean that spouses necessarily think of sex in terms of rights and obligations, or that there are not other sorts of rights in marriage.

“Marital aids” for sex toys. Doesn’t mean that single people don’t buy vibrators, or that some fur-lined handcuffs will always be the best thing to assist a struggling relationship.

“Solitary vice” for masturbation. Doesn’t mean that wanking is the only misdemeanour that you can engage in while alone. On that it has to be either vicious or solitary.

Similarly, a shaded reference to anal sex as “the homosexual act” doesn’t mean that all gays do it and that’s all gays do. Read it as you would any other euphemism.

I think you're missing the point, Eliab. Which is that a reference to "the homosexual act" immediately conjures up the image of anal sex - which is exactly what I claimed above.

I mean, surely you realize that the post could have been referring to other "acts," right? Here's the original statement:

quote:
I'm a recovering homophobe, but the homosexual act is still as "disgusting" to me as nose-picking is.

Now, there's no clue at all here what the poster was talking about - yet immediately the words "the homosexual act" heads off into "anal sex" territory. You think that's what he's referring to - but of course, he hasn't said so. Perhaps he actually was referring to "the homosexual act" - that is, male/male and female/female sexual behavior - in general.

But of course, that's NOT what's at issue here. So why doesn't the original post read: "Anal sex disgusts me, but then so does nose-picking," thus actually addressing the real issue, rather than making it allegedly about "homosexuality"?

IOW, this is an argument about penis-in-anus, rather than about "homosexuality" per se. So why can't we just have that discussion, and leave homosexuals in general out of it?

As a matter of fact, many of us have been making this very point for years and years now, in re the "Biblical prohibition of homosexuality." Because actually the Bible addresses this question in specific, too, as we lesbians (who aren't mentioned in Leviticus, although many Evangelicals continue to prefer to "read us in" to the prohibition there - while also claiming to be "inerrantists") have been pointing out for many years.

Interestingly, when you point out this simple fact - that the condemnation against "homosexuality" isn't really there, only a discussion of male/male sex of some kind - some Christians get very insulted and start saying things like "Well, if God had only meant to condemn male homosexuality, then that is a double-minded God I wouldn't want to worship." To which I respond: "Right! So maybe the original premise is wrong then?"

Sheesh. Let's get on with it, already.

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
I'm a recovering homophobe, but the homosexual act is still as "disgusting" to me as nose-picking is.
Now, there's no clue at all here what the poster was talking about - yet immediately the words "the homosexual act" heads off into "anal sex" territory. You think that's what he's referring to - but of course, he hasn't said so.

I guess I need to chime in here. I find human shit particularly disgusting, and I've changed more than a few diapers in my lifetime and I still find human feces "icky", maybe this is just a phobia. I see now that I've made unwise word choices (and how [Eek!]

) I'm a "breeder" (as my gay friend calls me) but have never been turned on by hetero anal sex. Sorry about all the fuss I started. [Waterworks]

I was trying to point out "ickiness" isn't a sin, and neither is homosexuality.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
I'm a recovering homophobe, but the homosexual act is still as "disgusting" to me as nose-picking is.
Now, there's no clue at all here what the poster was talking about - yet immediately the words "the homosexual act" heads off into "anal sex" territory. You think that's what he's referring to - but of course, he hasn't said so.
I guess I need to chime in here. I find human shit particularly disgusting, and I've changed more than a few diapers in my lifetime and I still find human feces "icky", maybe this is just a phobia. I see now that I've made unwise word choices (and how ) I'm a "breeder" (as my gay friend calls me) but have never been turned on by hetero anal sex. Sorry about all the fuss I started. I was trying to point out "ickiness" isn't a sin, and neither is homosexuality.

Actually I'm grateful to you, Christian Agnostic. What I'm saying here is not said in anger at all; I'm just being a drama queen for rhetorical effect. This post helps me point out once again the logical problems with the church's "anti-homosexual" stand, and the fact that I believe that the few Biblical verses allegedly addressing the topic are actually not saying what everybody claims they are.

I know you didn't mean to be mean, and actually I admire your honesty. I'm just pointing out certain things here that I don't think are being acknowledged, that's all.

Please don't cry! All is well, really.... [Smile]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I mean, I appreciate sex as much as the next babe, but it's over pretty soon - and then what have you got?
In the case of gay sex, two men who BOTH roll over and immediately fall asleep.

I meant to say, Orfeo, that this is quite funny!

Before I got distracted by the whole "dislike-for-anal-sex-masquerading-as-condemnation-of-'homosexuality'" thing, that is.... [Smile]

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
The sexual fluidity of lesbians is pretty well researched and documented now, so I think it's moved beyond being alleged?
You're right that the porn market for 'lesbian' activity is very active, though of course immensely unrepresentative of reality for many of us.
Actually, I didn't say "lesbians" - I said "women." I'd be interested in seeing some research and documentation, though, for the former.

Sexual Fluidity by Lisa Diamond can be previewed on Google Books and is a fairly good bit of research, thought and review on this topic of the sexual fluidity of women.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Sexual Fluidity by Lisa Diamond can be previewed on Google Books and is a fairly good bit of research, thought and review on this topic of the sexual fluidity of women.

Wow that is very interesting reading! (What I could read with the way it's set up on Amazon, with pages missing here and there.)

I had no idea. I may have to read that.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
The sexual fluidity of lesbians is pretty well researched and documented now, so I think it's moved beyond being alleged?
You're right that the porn market for 'lesbian' activity is very active, though of course immensely unrepresentative of reality for many of us.
Actually, I didn't say "lesbians" - I said "women." I'd be interested in seeing some research and documentation, though, for the former.
Sexual Fluidity by Lisa Diamond can be previewed on Google Books and is a fairly good bit of research, thought and review on this topic of the sexual fluidity of women.

Thanks. The reason I asked is that you don't see much in the way of scientific studies with lesbians in specific as subjects. I wonder, actually, if lesbians are as "sexually fluid" as some other women; given all the problems involved in living a gay life, it would seem to me that if they were, they'd flow over the heterosexual side of things.

On the other hand, in my life I've been somewhat "fluid" myself sexually - but not emotionally. I never have feelings for men, ever - except in a "brotherly" sort of way - and have never had a serious relationship with a man. I'd be really curious in seeing a study that looked at emotional "fluidity," if there's such a thing.

Thanks again for the link.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

James Weinrich does address that in Sexual Landscapes. It's been a while since I read it, so I won't try to summarize, but he goes into the differences in the ways men and women connect sex with emotion.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
James Weinrich does address that in Sexual Landscapes. It's been a while since I read it, so I won't try to summarize, but he goes into the differences in the ways men and women connect sex with emotion.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm interested in! Thanks a lot.....

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0