homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Where did the demonisation of homosexuality come from? (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Where did the demonisation of homosexuality come from?
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291

 - Posted      Profile for M.   Email M.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
L'Organist, I'm just wondering why you are hoping for a denouncement from a different denomination in a different country, or are you hoping for a denouncement from all denominations in all other countries (which makes more sense, I suppose, although I agree I wouldn't hold my breath for that)?

M.

Posts: 2267 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ahh, the Pissing Preacher.

L'Organist, Anderson isn't a legit Baptist, but a 'Baptist' with a strip-mall church. I'm also puzzled as to why the BUGB should make any kind of statement - US Baptists and UK Baptists have been very different for a long time.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5314 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174

 - Posted      Profile for itsarumdo     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting role of Baptists in the formation of the US states and institutions. And in the civil war. Quite a rollercoaster over a 50 year period. I don't see how they could not have become different from the UK.

--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron

Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry to confuse US 'Baptists' with UK Baptists - but then the UK 'Baptists' I've known belong to a church that labels itself as such but is not a member of the BUGB but has close links to US 'Baptist' churches.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4720 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
I thought the Baptists in the UK on the whole were liberal...

Unless you count 20% or so as "on the whole," then you're mistaken.

The Baptist Union of Great Britain has a conservative statement of faith backed up by a conservative praxis.

The man you mention is American and has no ties at all with BUGB.

Posts: 3759 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Sorry to confuse US 'Baptists' with UK Baptists - but then the UK 'Baptists' I've known belong to a church that labels itself as such but is not a member of the BUGB but has close links to US 'Baptist' churches.

It's not an easy nor a happy confusion for us UK Baptists! However, as you've discovered, there are more Baptists in the UK than belong to BUGB. "Baptist" simply refers to form of Government and the practice of adult baptism - it doesn't recognise any specific generic affiliation. BUGB would be astonished that their views would be out into anything close to the OP.

WIW I've not come across similar views to the OP in many years - and I find myself in a range of evangelical circles both denominational and outside. Some of the Baptists you mention (Southern Baptists) would see me as a dangerous liberal (we have women in leadership!) while many in my own denomination see me as an uncompromising evangelical.

Posts: 3759 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why THIS issue, and not some other?

Because it's always easier to denounce sins you're not inclined to commit yourself.
Or those with which one struggles in private?

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Struggles in private": is it not likely that the people with the most insecurity about an issue shout the loudest to demonstrate their allegiance to that idea?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5369 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"Struggles in private": is it not likely that the people with the most insecurity about an issue shout the loudest to demonstrate their allegiance to that idea?

Perhaps those who struggle with a perceived sin are either the ones who most vocally condemn it,m or else they are never drawn on the subject for fear of attracting attention.

When Jesus 'released' the woman taken in adultery some say that the reason he said 'let him who has no sin cast the first stone' was because each man was a sinner in that very same context and they were aggressive against their own guilt.

One theory about the present almost hysteria against sexual and child abuse could be that society as a whole feels its own guilt and complicity in it all - the sexualisation of children, etc though media, music and art - and thus it condemns it thoroughly with every individual, as if to make that individual a scapegoat. Jimmy Savile has suffered the condemnation for the sins of British society and not just his own.

We dare not admit our own guilt and so we heap all the punishment on someone else.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Until fairly recently gay people were firmly in the closet, so most heterosexual Christians didn't know gay people as friends, family, co-workers or neighbours. LGBT people were "out there" far away from them, which made them easy to demonize from a safe distance. There were also no visible examples of healthy, openly LGBT people in monogamous relationships until fairly recently as well, so most people didn't have any counterexamples that showed that it wasn't necessarily a mental illness or a destructive "lifestyle". While many Christians may be uncomfortable and may rationalize away the Biblical judgments and prohibitions regarding divorce and remarriage due to having friends and family members who are in second marriages, it was much easier to think that homosexuality was fundamentally different.

Secondly, for most of history, homosexuality and heterosexuality weren't regarded as fixed sexual orientations. Many, including respected psychologists/psychiatrists of the 19th-20th century, believed that everyone was generally heterosexual and only embraced homosexuality in moments of lust, decadence, or mental illness or trauma, which are by definition either sinful or disordered. These beliefs were held among secular people who rejected religion, including leading scientists. Gay people were castrated, put into mental institutions, subjected to electro-shock therapy and brain surgery, and/or shot up with hormones and other drugs to "cure" them on the advice of medical, psychological and psychiatric professionals in the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Homosexuality was only removed from the list of psychological disorders by the American Psychological Association in 1973, which isn't all that long ago. Total decriminalization occurred throughout the U.S. only 10 years ago.

I think even more importantly, homosexuality is uniquely threatening because it was something that had always been regarded as sinful, but is now being questioned. This growing doubt and uncertainty exists even within conservative Christian circles. If something that on the surface seems clearly condemned in Scripture (whether Scripture truly condemns it or not is debatable), turns out not to be sinful, what else could Christians have gotten wrong? Fundamentalisms rest on an all-or-nothing approach to a literal, surface reading of Scripture (or Church pronouncements) unless it clearly indicates otherwise, so any chink in armor may bring the whole thing down. To fundamentalists/evangelicals, either the Bible is "God-breathed", perfect in all its details and clearly understandable to everyone, or it has no value at all. Therefore, they must vigorously defend their beliefs in the face of growing questioning, doubt and uncertainty, especially from other believers. In their minds, all of their beliefs are being put on the line by this.

Finally, given the excessive focus on reducing gay men to nothing more than sex acts while ignoring lesbians altogether, I think there's a healthy amount of affront to patriarchy involved. Gay men aren't behaving like "real" men by allowing themselves to be the (passive) partner in sexual intercourse which is where women should be.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"Struggles in private": is it not likely that the people with the most insecurity about an issue shout the loudest to demonstrate their allegiance to that idea?

No, fucking hell, NO! Despite notable examples, hate doesn't need self-guilt. And pretending it does, doesn't help in reducing it.
Focusing on a perceived issue allows for the generation of power. Those people are a problem is a rallying point, a distraction from real problems and a convenient measure which diminishes one's own sins.
ToujoursDan,
Terrific post, but a minor quibble. I do not think that the mentalfundie problem with gay men v. lesbians is purely the passivity issue. It is also that women matter less, are not as threatening and "lesbians" play into much male fantasy.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17119 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ToujoursDan,

Excellent post. Two things I would add.

First, that fundamentalists always respond in such threatened ways on all issues. Because as you say, they convince themselves that if the bible is wrong about even one tiny thing then it is totally untrustworthy. However homosexuality isn't the first of these kind of issues, and it seems likely to not be the last. And the fundamentalist response once the dust is settled on these sort of issues is typically threefold: (1) Ignore any biblical passages mentioning the issue - avoid reading them and mentally skip over them if they come up. (2) If forced to focus on the passages, then reinterpret them, so they say anything else, in an attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance. (3) Be completely ignorant of history and historical fundamentalist beliefs, so they will have no clue that Christian fundamentalists were ever on the wrong side of the issue, and will assume all Christians always believed exactly whatever they currently believe today.

I think the underlying reason for their excessive focus on the sex acts of gay men and their ignoring lesbians is because a certain number of them believe that what Christianity/the bible/God is really against is anal sex. For some reason a lot of Christians of ages 50+ seem to be utterly convinced that the bible bans anal sex. They are thus horrified when I point out that I know straight evangelical Christian couples that have anal sex. I was amused to see a Christian comments thread recently, where an anti-gay Christian suggested that it would be okay for two gay people who loved one another to live together like a marriage in order to give mutual support and not be lonely, as long as they refrained from anal sex. 100% of the anti-gay Christian respondents said basically "Great idea! I Never thought of that before." So it seems like anal sex really is their one and only problem. I guess it deserves a thread of it's own: Where did the demonisation of anal sex come from? And it would be interesting to ask those anti-anal people where they think it comes from (which I never have). My own speculation as to where it comes from is that the levitical ban on having sex with a man as with a woman is interpreted as penetrative sex only (indeed, in my observation a lot of the older generation don't even seem to know what non-penetrative sex is). Likewise the NT prohibitions in 1 Cor 6 were translated as "sodomy" in many biblical translations of a certain period. So I think that at a popular level, Christians believed that the bible was against "sodomy" and that society's anti-sodomy laws were biblically based. Interestingly, the word "sodomy" seems to have initially referred to both anal and oral sex. So I think a survey of Christians who are 70+ years old would likely find a widespread view that it is 'unbiblical' to have either anal or oral sex due to it being 'sodomy'. But the meaning of 'sodomy' seems to have changed in public consciousness over time, possibly I think to the rising popularity of oral sex among heterosexual couples. As a result I think a lot of people in the 40-70 age bracket would say that oral sex is fine and that 'sodomy' that the bible bans refers to anal sex only. What has subsequently happened is that anal sex has become a popular sexual practice for heterosexuals in the <40 age group in the same way that oral sex became popular for the generation before. So when the older generations say "gay people are awful because they have anal sex!" that doesn't come across as a meaningful statement to heterosexuals <40 who are having anal sex themselves or know friends that do.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ToujoursDan

Really good to see you posting again after a short break; adding my appreciation of your post as well.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20935 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually the whole thing about focusing on penetrative (anal) sex between gay men and ignoring lesbians altogether is down to the drafting clerks in the House of Lords, who thought that legislating against lesbian acts would only publicise their possibility.

In fact it could be argued there is no age of consent for lesbians because it has never been illegal.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4720 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually the whole thing about focusing on penetrative (anal) sex between gay men and ignoring lesbians altogether is down to the drafting clerks in the House of Lords, who thought that legislating against lesbian acts would only publicise their possibility.

In fact it could be argued there is no age of consent for lesbians because it has never been illegal.

Your first paragraph induced a fit of giggling right off, then more imagining a book of law as a sex guide.

The second sobered me, though. There is one less risk, but the other cautions are just the same.
I think also that the lack of prohibition also stems from the lack of perceived damage of future property.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17119 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just want to add my voice to the chorus thanking ToujoursDan, incisive & concise summary of why we are where we are.

[Overused]

Homophobia and patriarchy are conjoined, locked in a grotesque symbiosis, hate fueling hate. That foundation can't be cast aside, however much theologians dress it up.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not actually true that there is no legal age of consent for lesbians in the UK. Lesbian sexual consent is legislated by the Sexual Offences Act (2003) and the age of consent is 16 as it is for all sexual acts.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13599 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex, I think you'll find its not only a generational thing but also depends on the gender and the class thing...

Put another way, there's always been plenty of interest and a fair bit of practice among chaps who've been at public school; and post school some have carried on doing it with chaps, others have sought to persuade wives of the delights...

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4720 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex,

Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. Not the sort of stuff they teach in year 6 sex ed. Best avoided methinks - after all, the muscles THERE are meant for pushing out, not drawing in, not to say the dangers of infection from certain waste products.

[ 31. December 2014, 18:04: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posts: 3759 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex,

Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. Not the sort of stuff they teach in year 6 sex ed. Best avoided methinks - after all, the muscles THERE are meant for pushing out, not drawing in, not to say the dangers of infection from certain waste products.
Can you find some research that backs the assertion that anal sex leads to the loss of muscle tone? The only paper I could find was of a case of a woman whose male partner had been drunk and forced various sexual acts on her against her will.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13599 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex,

Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. Not the sort of stuff they teach in year 6 sex ed. Best avoided methinks - after all, the muscles THERE are meant for pushing out, not drawing in, not to say the dangers of infection from certain waste products.
Yet it seems that conservative evangelicals are experts in these problems and bring them up at every opportunity. If they really were as likely as you claim do you not think there would be some sort of public health advice about these alleged risks? The NHS website is full of advice about safe sex, STIs etc. but seems strangely silent about these apparently common dangers. Are you sure it's not just your homophobia showing?
Posts: 2858 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The President of Rwanda is apparently an expert on anal and oral sex:

quote:
"The sexual organs of human beings are highly specialized," Museveni said according to BuzzFeed. "Because that part is not for that purpose, it creates very unhealthy repercussions … the intestines come out — this is terrible!"

Then Museveni went on to warn about the "other terrible things" involved in the so-called homosexual lifestyle, including this gem: "Oral sex is an idiocy," he said. "The mouth is for eating."

http://www.advocate.com/world/2014/04/01/watch-ugandan-president-leads-5-hour-parade-celebrating-jail-gays-law

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. ...

This may be news to some, but the purpose of butt plugs is NOT for sealing one's butt so nothing leaks out.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5398 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex,

Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. Not the sort of stuff they teach in year 6 sex ed. Best avoided methinks - after all, the muscles THERE are meant for pushing out, not drawing in, not to say the dangers of infection from certain waste products.
Hahahahahahaha!
Did you know that people with anti-gay beliefs have their brains slowly liquify and ooze out there ears? I'm guessing you didn't because its a false statement with zero basis in empirical fact - just like your one. Unfortunately conservatives seem to like to parrot anti-gay lies without fact checking them. Another common one is the claim that the lining of the anus is one cell thick (spoiler alert: it's not).

In actual fact, bodily muscles are strengthened by regular use. That is why exercising makes people stronger and fitter and not weaker and decrepit. As a result, regular anal sex will naturally strengthen the muscles involved, and can subsequently help prevent some degenerative conditions later in life, such as anal prolapse where loss of muscle tone becomes a significant problem.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
What has subsequently happened is that anal sex has become a popular sexual practice for heterosexuals in the <40 age group in the same way that oral sex became popular for the generation before. So when the older generations say "gay people are awful because they have anal sex!" that doesn't come across as a meaningful statement to heterosexuals <40 who are having anal sex themselves or know friends that do.

Any evidence for that and especially the bit about knowing friends who do? We must live in a very different society, because I would never have thought of discussing our sexual practices with even the closest friends.

60 years and so ago, there used be stories that young fellows on the northern beaches here practised sodomy with their girlfriends. In those far-off days, oral contraception was not commonly available and purchasing condoms not as easy as now. Far lower risk of pregnancy. But how much truth there was in the stories was never known then and impossible to find now.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6775 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The statistic I found when I was checking out Exclamation Mark's comment was that 1 in 4 heterosexual men and women have experienced anal sex 10% regularly take part in anal sex.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13599 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any evidence for that and especially the bit about knowing friends who do? We must live in a very different society, because I would never have thought of discussing our sexual practices with even the closest friends.

Depends which friends, for me. Some of our friends have no concept of too much information and will talk about almost anything. But then one of those friends did their final year art work entirely on representations of vaginas and was recently shouting from the rooftops about how excited she was about getting her nipples pierced. She may be exceptional in this regard but I think she's the extreme end of a continuum rather than an aberration.
Posts: 2858 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Someone like that would be a real aberration in our part of the world.

Cuiosity Killed: to me a statement that In fact, research suggests that only about 10% of women and men have had anal sex in the past year does not mean 10% regularly take part in it. Perhaps quite a few of the quarter who have tried it and not continued the practice are in that 10%. And for how many of the others has it been a regular or common practice. Very hard to say from such limited detail.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6775 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any evidence for that and especially the bit about knowing friends who do? We must live in a very different society, because I would never have thought of discussing our sexual practices with even the closest friends.

A few links to articles discussing various recent survey findings showing the increasing popularity of anal sex among relatively young demographics: Here, and here, and here. One of those three is from the CDC, so it's an official US government statistic that anal sex is increasing in popularity!

My friends don't discuss sex much, I only know they do anal from a couple of throwaway comments made in passing, and on another occasion the awkwardly painful looks that were exchanged when one of their younger brothers loudly exclaimed in their presence how disgusting he imagined the thought of anal sex to be. However various radio stations and university student newspapers aren't above discussing favourite sex positions etc on a semi-regular basis.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex,

Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. Not the sort of stuff they teach in year 6 sex ed. Best avoided methinks - after all, the muscles THERE are meant for pushing out, not drawing in, not to say the dangers of infection from certain waste products.
Hahahahahahaha!
Did you know that people with anti-gay beliefs have their brains slowly liquify and ooze out there ears? I'm guessing you didn't because its a false statement with zero basis in empirical fact - just like your one. Unfortunately conservatives seem to like to parrot anti-gay lies without fact checking them. Another common one is the claim that the lining of the anus is one cell thick (spoiler alert: it's not).

In actual fact, bodily muscles are strengthened by regular use. That is why exercising makes people stronger and fitter and not weaker and decrepit. As a result, regular anal sex will naturally strengthen the muscles involved, and can subsequently help prevent some degenerative conditions later in life, such as anal prolapse where loss of muscle tone becomes a significant problem.

Well your ideas are clearly news to a few people in this neck of the woods: anecdotal it may be but it's true just the same. I'd be interested to see the empirical evidence for the claims in your last paragraph.

I do agree with you on one thing: the lining of the anus is more than one cell thick.

Posts: 3759 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
anecdotal it may be but it's true just the same.

Let's be clear: The idea that large numbers of gay people need to wear nappies due to too much anal, is absolute and utter BS. It was an idiotic claim made up by someone who had absolutely no idea what they were talking about, and gets repeated from time to time.

There are plenty of gay people who have had anal sex on a daily basis for decades, and definitely still don't need nappies. I've met and chatted to numerous older gay men, and have listened to amusingly awkward conversations where they discussed erectile dysfunction drugs. But there were still no nappies. The only times I've ever heard gay people mention nappies is when a retired gay guy was making jokes mocking the false rumours that gay people need nappies.

I think what propagates the rumour is that there are some medical conditions that people can have which do require nappies. So ignorant and naive people make the false assumption that anal sex might be a contributing cause of those medical conditions, when actually nothing could be further from the truth.

quote:
I'd be interested to see the empirical evidence for the claims in your last paragraph.
I'm a little confused as to which parts you want empirical proof of, because it's all pretty obvious stuff:

"In actual fact, bodily muscles are strengthened by regular use."
Duh? Do I need to give proof that exercising makes people stronger???

"That is why exercising makes people stronger and fitter and not weaker and decrepit."
Duh?

"As a result, regular anal sex will naturally strengthen the muscles involved,"
This is a logical consequence of the observation that exercise strengthens muscles. There is certainly plenty of people on the internet who report observing that their partner's anal muscles became visibly more tight and toned over time as a result of anal sex. Though I giggle at the thought of a scientific study trying to quantitatively measure increases in anal muscle tone resulting from anal sex. But since we presumably agree that sex uses muscles, and since we presumably agree that using muscles strengthens them... so I'm somewhat confused as to why we apparently can't simply agree that having sex strengthens muscles?

"and can subsequently help prevent some degenerative conditions later in life, such as anal prolapse where loss of muscle tone becomes a significant problem."
See here for a general discussion of how incontinence can result from a loss of muscle tone and general recommendations to do exercises to strengthen the muscle tone. And see here for a medical explanation about exercising the anal sphincter and how that helps people suffering from fecal incontinence.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you for those links. As you say, the CDA is the only reliable one of them, but it is still far from saying that anal sex has anal sex has become a popular sexual practice for heterosexuals in the <40 age group. The most you can say is that the proportion of those reporting at least one experience of it has increased, but there is no indication that many include it in their normal repertoire.

Apologies to hosts for continuing this tangent. Now back to nappy-wearing.

[ 01. January 2015, 09:37: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6775 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This will probably gross some of you out, but...

Look, the idea that penis-in-anus sex makes you end up wearing nappies is utterly, utterly absurd. If anything is going to do it, it's fisting - inserting a whole hand and forearm.

But even with that - which based on pictures I've seen can cause a change in visual appearance of the anus - I've not heard of people ending up in nappies. It is in any case a far rarer activity which relatively few people, gay or straight, engage.

In fact, a bit of googling showed me that when a republican adviser made the nappies (or diapers) claim a couple of months ago, and was challenged to provide any evidence, the only fragment of material he could find related to fisting, and even that seems to have been an assertion rather than a scientific study.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18148 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The President of Rwanda is apparently an expert on anal and oral sex:

quote:
"The sexual organs of human beings are highly specialized," Museveni said according to BuzzFeed. "Because that part is not for that purpose, it creates very unhealthy repercussions … the intestines come out — this is terrible!"

Then Museveni went on to warn about the "other terrible things" involved in the so-called homosexual lifestyle, including this gem: "Oral sex is an idiocy," he said. "The mouth is for eating."

http://www.advocate.com/world/2014/04/01/watch-ugandan-president-leads-5-hour-parade-celebrating-jail-gays-law
[pedant alert]

As suggested in the URL, Museveni is NOT the President of Rwanda. Paul Kagame may have his faults but, as far as I am aware, making asinine homophobic comments is not one of them.

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In fact, a bit of googling showed me that when a republican adviser made the nappies (or diapers) claim a couple of months ago, and was challenged to provide any evidence, the only fragment of material he could find related to fisting, and even that seems to have been an assertion rather than a scientific study.

There's been two different cases of it in the US fairly recently.

This guy claimed on his facebook page that gay sex causes a need for diapers, and people generally responded with "?!?!??!?!??!??! Evidence please?!" and then subsequently mocked him when zero evidence was forthcoming. As you say, he eventually mustered up a link to the Family Research Council (an anti-gay hate-group, whom shouldn't be believed on any subject) which made the unevidenced assertion that fisting causes damage. (For the unenlightened: Fisting is an extremely rare practice in which a person's entire hand is inserted into another person's anus. It's always struck me as sounding unpleasant and dangerous, although I've heard of surprisingly few negative medical consequences resulting from it. People on the internet seem to attest that it results in strengthening the muscles involved, and the dangers appear to be more along the lines of sharp fingernails rather than having to do with large objects.)

Similar also is Gordon Klingenschmit, who's just been elected in Colorado, who thinks: gay people are demonically possessed, thinks teaching children about gay marriage is like mentally raping them, and is convinced gay men will make poor soldiers because they'll have to "pause on the battlefield to change their diapers". He also apparently thinks Obama is possessed by demonic spirits of paganism and death, and that Obama is, of course, homosexual.

On the whole gay people tend to respond by laughing at this sort of stuff and simply mocking it. But I've found a surprising number of conservatives seem to believe the claims about anal sex being physically damaging - despite them not generally believing other claims being spouted by the same people. So I now make it a point to point out that it's false whenever I see it, rather than merely laughing at it.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am glad to hear that there is no need to wear nappies after anal sex - think of the landfill problems which would otherwise caused by all these extra gays that we keep being told about by the Phelpses and their ilk - including this new representative.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6775 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd be interested to see the empirical evidence for the claims in your last paragraph.

I think both claims are unevidenced and wishful thinking. Actually the latter claim is probably more accurately called wishful, the former claim had legs because people liked the idea of gay sex being harmful, which is probably more accurately called spiteful thinking rather than wishful thinking.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Accepting (I emphasize arguendo) that doing it up the ass lands you in diapers, so what? It has no ethical bearing whatsoever on homosexuality; it's merely practical advice to avoid anal sex.

Presumably ExclamationMark would recommend that taking the back door be replaced by fellatio and handjobs? If not, why not?

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Presumably ExclamationMark would recommend that taking the back door be replaced by fellatio and handjobs? If not, why not?

Because he's anti-gay and the made-up 'dangers' of anal sex are an excuse not a reason? (I thought I'd answer your rheterical question. [Biased] )

I think there's also a widespread misconception, especially among conservatives about how universal anal sex is among gay couples. A statistic I've seen floating around is that one third of gay couples never do anal. Not sure how scientifically backed that statistic is though, but it sounds plausible to me.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, the anal sex obsession's bizarre. Even "open" evangelicals have started ranting about the dangers of "sodomy."

They seem curiously uninterested in the dangers of cunnilingus and 69ing. Either lesbians don't concern them, or they're not about to condemn their own DVD rack ...

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
A statistic I've seen floating around is that one third of gay couples never do anal. Not sure how scientifically backed that statistic is though, but it sounds plausible to me.

At some point I saw a survey in an Australian gay magazine that backed this up (or maybe it was even the original source?). It was roughly 1 in 3 do it a lot, 1 in 3 do it sometimes, and 1 in 3 do it rarely or never.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18148 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course it was a news item a couple of years back that evangelical girls were having anal sex so they could remain virgins for their wedding night. The following link, a novelty song by Garfunkel & Oates, is NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

The Loophole

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63203 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am now hooked on Garfunkel & Oates, clicking on all their videos.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18148 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I am now hooked on Garfunkel & Oates, clicking on all their videos.

Word. [Snigger]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
St. Stephen the Stoned
Shipmate
# 9841

 - Posted      Profile for St. Stephen the Stoned   Author's homepage   Email St. Stephen the Stoned   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thinking outside the box. I never knew it meant that.

--------------------
Do you want to see Jesus or don't yer? Well shurrup then!

Posts: 518 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I assumed that fisting was more common than Starlight states, but maybe that's just vaginal fisting. Vaginal fisting is relatively common amongst gay/bi women, but given that the average woman's fist is much smaller than the average newborn's head, it doesn't do damage if done properly - and vaginal muscles work differently anyway.

Certainly, anal sex is not just a gay thing and it's not like female porn stars who regularly have anal sex as part of their work end up in nappies.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5314 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The homophobes define homosexuality by anal sex.

Does that mean that gays who never have anal sex are not, by definition, 'homosexual'?

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23075 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does that mean that straights who use the back door are gay, despite being of different genders?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5369 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm hesitating to tread on this path to be honest because I know the heat is more evident than the light.

My intent is to be objective, questioning, conciliatory and thoughtful.

My basic premise is that if we take for granted that the Levitical laws were actually given by God then there is a reason behind them (whether we agree with that reasoning today, or not).

Why prohibit the consumption of shell fish?
Why prohibit the murder of your enemy?
Why prohibit sheeping with a woman during her cycle?
Why (famously) prohibit the mixture of fibres?
Why the prohibition of cooking a goat in its milk? (or something like that anyway)
Why no tattoos 'for the dead'?
Why the prohibition against drinking blood?
Why circumcise on the 8th day? (as opposed to the 7th or 9th)

Whether we agree that these rules have relevance today or not, we can possibly agree that there was some rationale behind them at the time.

Maybe it's food hygiene - oysters in a desert might not be a good thing as far as food poisoning is concerned.
Maybe it's physiological - I'm sure I read somewhere that after the 8th day the clotting agent in a baby's blood is at the optimum for the healing of circumcision.
Maybe it's common civil order - murdering your mother in law isn't going to keep the peace between families is it!?
Maybe it's religious - God (priests) wanted the Israelites to copy nothing from other religions that would hint at syncretism - that might include tattoos for funeral practices, cooking goats a la pagan sacrificial culinary norms, and might even cover mixed fibres because that was the fashion for pagan priests (I have no idea).

My point therefore is that all the Laws and prohibitions were 'for their own good' but some were simply to say 'You are different - don't copy the cultural practices of the various 'ites' in Canaan.

Which might lead us to suggest that some of them, in and of themselves, are not particulalrly evil, wicked or disgusting, it's just that God is saying, 'Let them Jebusites get on with their lifestyle, I have called you to be holy (i.e. 'different')

My only illustration is the drinking of alcohol. There is nothing in the Bible against wine, etc, (even though drunkenness is frowned upon) but we in The Salvation Army feel we are called to be teetotal; not because alcohol is evil or other Christians are sinful, but simply because we are asked by God to be different, 'other', alternative.

Now, when God (or the priests) says things about same sex activity, from what I can see (and recognising entirely that the Bible seems not to recognise orientation or stuff like that) he is only talking about sodomy. It is an abomination to lie with a man as with a woman. Nothing about any other activity - manual or oral; it's all intercourse.

What might be the bronze age reason for that?
Health?
Civil order?
Just to be 'different' from the surrounding tribes who did it a lot when they worshipped their fertility gods?

I have no idea.
I would be very interested to see what the 'why' of the sodomy prohibition would be in the context of the other prohibitions.

Finally, I would be very interested to find out what the original Hebraic words are that the KJV translates as 'detestable' or abomination'.

If I were to say that strawberry jam is detestable or that Manchester United are an abomination, that seems a bit OTT to describe them as such. Maybe the KJV and other versions subsequently, have used these loaded words to translate words that were not so utterly 'disgusted' with the behaviour.

For example, might we use the word 'taboo' instead of 'abomination' which carries with it a suggestion that there is less of a value judgment on the activity, but merely an instruction to Jews not to take part because 'whatever the rights or wrongs of sodomy, it ain't for you lot because you're different'?

Just a few ramblings really, trying to work out whether there is a reason for the same sex prohibition that goes beyond the 'ick' (for some) factor) and which may or may not still apply today. And if it does not apply today, trying to work out how to express the original prohibition in a way, and in language, that doesn't damage the text's overall integrity but allows for thoughtful application of principle rather than specifics.

What do you reckon?

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I must apologise, Mudfrog. I'll admit I saw your name as the last poster, though "here we go" and was waiting all through your post for you to stick the knife in. Thanks for a thoughtful and considered post.

My understanding is that the word translated as "abomination" has connotations of ritual uncleanness, but IANAHS (Hebrew Scholar).

Posts: 2858 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I must apologise, Mudfrog. I'll admit I saw your name as the last poster, though "here we go" and was waiting all through your post for you to stick the knife in. Thanks for a thoughtful and considered post.

My understanding is that the word translated as "abomination" has connotations of ritual uncleanness, but IANAHS (Hebrew Scholar).

Too kind. Maybe I have set myself up for such reactions. My opinions are often far more nuanced than might sometimes appear.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools