|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: If homosexuality is a sin, is it on a par with the "sin" of nose picking?
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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 ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) 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]](icon_redface.gif)
Maybe - but then it would have been a slanging match, not a discussion ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
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.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) And thank you for that...
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
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]](tongue.gif) We're all different *Shrug*
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
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!]](eek.gif)
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.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Ye heavens, dare one ask what bizarre things you get up to?
I couldn't possibly comment ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
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.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
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".
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Agnostic
Shipmate
# 14912
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"
Posts: 493 | From: The Great North Woods | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Agnostic
Shipmate
# 14912
|
Posted
I'm not saying that nature isn't "fallen".
--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"
Posts: 493 | From: The Great North Woods | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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]](rolleyes.gif)
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Protozoan
Shipmate
# 15583
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I would rather use pictures than words...
Posts: 92 | From: Exeter | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well yes lots of things are irrational, but still very powerful, and not necessarily learned. Phobias are irrational (by definition) but not learned.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Protozoan
Shipmate
# 15583
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I would rather use pictures than words...
Posts: 92 | From: Exeter | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
That some people don't have phobias is hardly proof that those who do learned them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Protozoan
Shipmate
# 15583
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I would rather use pictures than words...
Posts: 92 | From: Exeter | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Agnostic
Shipmate
# 14912
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"
Posts: 493 | From: The Great North Woods | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
The icky response is irrational.
I'm quite enjoying playing devil's advocate, so here goes ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
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.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
Are you suggesting that vaginal sex is never potentially uncomfortable or injurious?
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
But do straight folks have sex because it is required to perpetuate the species or because they enjoy it?
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I've done all the species perpetuating I intend to do, I'm just doing it because it feels sooooo good!
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsDoyle
Shipmate
# 13579
|
Posted
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
Posts: 343 | From: Manchester.England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
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
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
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]
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsDoyle
Shipmate
# 13579
|
Posted
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)
Posts: 343 | From: Manchester.England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
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 ).
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
[ 02. October 2010, 14:51: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Missed edit window...
"IF the woman is completely unaroused and the man IS rough"...doh
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
