So difficult to keep up! (Re: Memeber of the religious right running morally amuck)

So there I am at the News Cafe with a friend. This was about '98 or '99 time frame, back when I was a pagan.We're there enjoying a humus and pita appetizer, while drinking some exotic beer we've never tried before.I notice at the bar two very good looking girls. Ordinarily I'm very reserved and never do the typical pick up. But I'm feeling especially bold today. Besides, the blond is down right attractive.I mosey on up and strike up a conversation. They end up coming to sit with us at the bar. It was obvious the other girl had no interest in my friend. I, on the other hand, am getting along famously with the attractive blond.After some time, we all depart. Not before she and I exchange phone numbers and set up a date.It turns out that she is an avid runner and a fitness junky like me. So we have a very unorthodox date. We go for a run. I ran her in to the ground, so it wasn't very fulfilling as far as workouts go. But at the same time, she seems really cool, and there is no mistaking the sexual tension.So, we depart and decide to meet up later to go to South Beach. After we showered up I picked her up at her dorm room at the University of Miami. We head out to Miami Beach. She gets a little tipsy.After bar/club hopping (which is a scene that has always been out of character for me), she finally decides that she's had about just enough holding out on the sexual tension.I would offer to go to my place, but I had a roommate at the time. So we go back to her dorm. We start fooling around. Sooner than later, we're butt naked getting all kinds of silly.After some foreplay, its getting to that time. I get out a condom. She says that she doesn't want any straight intercourse-- rather, she only wants to have anal sex.Well, I'm not too big on this idea and ask her why. She gave me some half-assed excuse and I begrudgingly accepted, thinking she might change her mind.I don't need to get too graphic, but I went for the gold when she starts just getting nasty on me-- a total freak. The things coming out of this girls mouth were so disgusting that I started to become flaccid. I'm completely getting turned off by it.I began to lose all interest. She sensed it and we stopped. She then finagles her way back in to my good graces. So we proceed, and she is now on top of me.I'm hoping for some straight up, natural, vaginal intercourse. And its looking like its starting to go that way, when she starts placing her body in such a way that it was covering my mouth and nose. It was really difficult to breathe.So I adjust my head. Each time I move my head, she follows. At first I thought maybe she was just uncoordinated. Keeps happening. Then I think she's an idiot and doesn't know any better. Keeps happening.After connecting the dots, I'm now acutely aware that this chick is getting off on smothering me-- and not with affection! This girl is in to suffocation or something. Now I'm completely turned off and am contemplating how I'm going to get out of this tactfully-- especially since its now painfully obvious to me that this girl is not all there. Something terrible had to have happened to her or something, and she's taking her repressed aggressions out on me!At this point, she has wrapped her legs around my legs in such a way that she was trying to prevent me from rolling her over. And it keeps happening. I keep telling her that I can't breathe, and she acts ambivalent, pretending not to hear me. Yeah right..... By now I'm getting claustrophobic, not to mention down right angry. In my mind, I'm now plotting how I'm going to crack her right in the temple, because as you might imagine, I'm thinking that I've just opened up Pandora's Box for this freak and she's gonna kill me. (Trust me, is was that weird and that freaky).She keeps doing it and the intensity increases. Right before I crack her in the ribs, she gets up real fast and goes in to the bathroom. Well, given the disposition of this girl, my mind is racing with a thousand different scenarios-- namely, she's coming out with a straight razor slashing at me in a matter of seconds.I grab my clothes and haul butt out of that room completely naked in to the halfway of about 10 other ogling, perplexed college girls.I get in my car and leave that place and never return.That was my single anal sex experience. Every other girl has not seemed too interested in it, which is fine by me.Anyway, thought you'd all get a kick out of the Christian kid telling lurid sex stories. Eh, my wife gets a kick out of that story.The moral of the story is: Don't have anal sex because it makes people prone to smothering their victims to death.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Heh... It was.

I don't think it is either, but in order to be persuasive to an irreligious group you can't give moral reasons because their version of morality is so flexible that it can justify what ever it desires.You then must show physical evidence, juxtaposing biological functions with fetishes.The rectum is lined with a thin layers which is in stark contrast of the stratified, squamous lining of the vagina. The vagina is far more resilient and allows objects to either be expelled or inserted, whereas the rectum is designed with an "exit only" function for the expelling of feces.When an object enters the rectum, it is going against the grain which poses a much greater danger to blood vessels than the vagina. This is precisely why proctologists do not recommend anal sex-- among other reasons, as we will see.The chances of transmitting an STD increases exponentially through anal sex because that thin lining of the rectal walls are so delicate in comparison to the vagina.Aside from that, the rectum is rife with bacteria, more so than the vagina. Causing small fissures, either in the rectum or the penis, likens either the recipient or the giver's chances of infection.And whether someone uses protective measures or not will not ameliorate the damage to the rectum, plus it increases the likelihood of the condom tearing. Aside from which, latex condoms do not provide adequate protection as is. The microscopic pores in a latex condom is approximately 50 times larger than the average spermatozoa. And the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than the average sperm, thus only providing nominal protection.Aside from diseases and infections, anal sex poses a risk of gay bowel syndrome, which is largely denied by the homosexual population, but nevertheless exists.Therefore, anal sex is just not a good idea, either for a man or a woman. These facts need to be considered before haphazardly jumping in to a sexual practice such as this. Not necessarily, but it is certainly something to consider. There are many people that engage in anal sex that were not molested in any way. However, I wouldn't hesitate to presume that pornography has exacerbated the issue.What once naturally repulsed people has now become more acceptable through desensitization and over-exposure to such practices. Yes, that likely factored in to how this reverend fell from grace. The problem for many Christians is not knowing where the line of demarcation is for sex. Their often extreme puritanical ways become burdensome so that they no longer know how to express themselves sexually in a healthy way. Thus, they end up turning to extreme end of the spectrum.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Thank you chaos for getting it right so often!I guess I should ask what a ph balance has to do with either entrancing or exiting. And to think we're all here against such staggering odds. Miraculous! What do you need a proctologist for then? Is it that you're gay, and you're offended by scientific fact? Yes, but with fellatio no one is vigorously moving so that cuts would occur. I'm glad you're being mature about the whole thing. Well, that's not true. The most effective way is abstinence. The second most effective way is being faithful to one partner and to have your partner reciprocate that faithfulness. The third most effective way is the use of condoms. And yet people still get diseases and pregnant even with condoms. I'm aware that condoms are somewhere in the order of 90-97% effective, which is all fine and good. But we aren't talking about the effectiveness of condoms in conjunction with anal sex. This act significantly lowers how effective the condom will be.Or should we rely on your personal experience here? Well, you know Rrhain, when people started dying from some unknown disease, they started figuring out which demographic was dying. From these similarities, they deduced that homosexual anal sex was present in 100% of the early cases. It was so prevalant that before AIDS was called, "AIDS," it was first called "GRID" (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). I guess a medical dictionary is a bad place to corroborate this fictitious syndrome? Yes, in fact they do. Unfortunately, it mostly has nothing to do with sex. Vaginitis or urinary infections can be caused by multiple things. (Especially since a penis doesn't go inside the urethra. If ever one does, I think there are other issues to deal with). Unfortunately for those who avidly partake of anal sex, there is only one way to get gay bowel syndrome, and that's lots of anal sex. I'm completely calm, trying to have a nice conversation, while you're the one guffawing over nothing. Its one thing to challenge the claim, but its another to be so incensed that frothy spittle accumulates on the screen. Settle down big guy.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

quote:

---

What do you need a proctologist for then?

---

I was asking Rrhain.

quote:

---

Yes, but with fellatio no one is vigorously moving so that cuts would occur.

---

Rrhain said that mouths are filthier than the rectum and used oral sex as anecdotal evidence that bacteria doesn't really present a problem. I then countered by saying that shouldn't be getting tears, either in the mouth or on the genitalia. We all know that if any cuts are being produced, somebody is doing something wrong, as a whole lot of "teeth" are being involved. If you couldn't trust your partner, then you would need to ask yourself why you are in that relationship at all. HSV and HPV can be transmitted with or without a condom, especially if an infection site cannot be covered by that condom. See, this is what I'm talking about. It was neither ignorant or intolerant. That's the community first identified with the disease, that's where it first spread, that's who was getting the disease. It has nothing to do with ignorance or intolerance. It was a perfectly legitimate medical observation. They only had to change it, not out of ignorance, but because heterosexual women were becoming infected too.Medicine has no concern with political correctness... or at least it shouldn't. It was Rrhain that started bringing up all the gay questions. I merely stated the problems with anal sex-- male or female. I'm just following his lead. Timeline of early HIV/AIDS cases - Wikipedia What does that have to do with the fact that G.R.I.D., first identified in San Fransisco (wink-wink), had to do with the epidemic of gay men in the early years? We all know that it can affect any human being. I'm just telling you that in the early years, it was first identified in homosexuals.But now we're getting off track. The question really is whether anal sex is natural/healthy or not. The biological functions between the vagina and anus are clearly different. But people's defense of anal sex seems to be little more than, if it fits, then its fine. Well, if I try hard enough, I could eventually fit a round piece in a square mold, but clearly one is not supposed to be in the other.I think this is an opportune time for fans of anal sex to explain why its perfectly natural.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

God. *shrugs* About the same time I decided I was a human-- meaning, never. If it is, I haven't snapped out of it. Well, yes... Clearly I'm neurotically afraid of members of the same sex, which is why I only associate with female friends. I have. On three separate occasions. Every time it was just.... no. And that's not including the time I was molested by my neighbor. The ladies responded well to it. I've never known that to be the case. However, homosexuals have attempted to seduce me to their "lifestyle" on a multiple occasions. I'm not flaunting it. I'm just debating. Yes, I would want my children to be heterosexual, because of the problems they'd face as homosexuals. Don't most homosexuals say they'd prefer if their children were straight? No, being that homosexuality comprises a small percentage of the human population, the disproportionate number seems to afflict the homosexual male ranks. But we can even further deduce that the overwhelming trend for child molesters is that 95% or higher are male, period. How do I feel about strange men watching my children-- either my child or daughter? I'm apprehensive at the least, and refuse it at the worst.Its like my wife says. We see an add on Craigslist for a male daycare provider. And he may be perfectly wonderful and capable. No doubt about it. Unfortunately, given the deplorable history of males around children, she simply feels much more at ease when a female is watching the kids. Call that sexist if you will, but I, a male, feel the same way as she does. Because they often follow worldly advice that only compounds the issue, and places a band-aid over amputation wound. Depends on the heterosexual. Some more than others. The "menace of overpopulation?" I suppose homosexuality is natures way of population control? No, unless they gave me some inclination otherwise. I don't. Nature does that, and some people try to war against it. I'm in the military, and I don't see any kind of incompatibility. What is incompatible about it? The contrast is what makes it beautiful, and the way God/Nature very clearly intended for it to be. No, since one has nothing to do with the other. The same reason why that the Kinsey Institute has reported that 60% of their case studies of homosexuals have had more than 250 sexual partners, and 28% have had more than 1,000 lifetime partners. People are often driven by their salaciousness. What? I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. Can you reword it please? Because its not God-given. Is this in contrast to the grossly disproportionate amount of homosexuals that commit suicide?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

We were talking about phallic objects, are we not? Where does sperm and the pH balance of the vagina factor in to the equation? Vagina's are designed, whether by God or through natural selection, to conform perfectly the penis. Heck, a vagina and the penis were built for each other. Juxtaposing the anatomy of the two sexual organs unambiguously supports this.And it thus renders your tangent about sperm moot, since you seem to be conflating issues that have nothing do with one another. By what-- default? Could we say that nostrils are for ingestion, not expulsion, simply because objects, powders, and liquids can physically make its way up them? You said something that in an earlier post that seemed to imply that you were both gay and fond of anal sex, which would account for my asking. I'm sure you have amazing credentials, but a sex educator doesn't sound like a real job to me. But I should always allow the benefit of doubt. It could be the coolest job known to man for all I know.Where do you practice, doctor? UCSD? As erotic as that sounds and all, my backdoor is an exit only. But don't let me ruin your fun. I'm sure a prolapsed rectum is oodles of fun. I had a great one last night as a matter of fact, thank you very much. I'll give my wife your regards though. I've noticed a few people saying that I haven't factored in the teeth... Of course I have. If teeth factor in to fellatio, then the giver is doing something wrong.But all this is aside from the point. I would be very curious to the ratio of infection between anal and oral sex. If ever such figures were taken, I certainly wouldn't be surprised that 95% comes from the anal side of the house. Say what you want. Its all documented. Obviously both parties would be tested prior too. Or in the unheard of case of people abstaining until marriage, such a thing would not be necessary. I listed condom breakage as a factor of considerable consequence in anal sex. Which happens more often, in your professional opinion: Condoms tend to break more in the vagina or the rectum? The vagina produces its own lubrication, whereas the anus does not, which is another sure way of knowing that one is for sexual intercourse and the other is not. Being that there are far less gay men than there are heterosexuals, I wouldn't doubt that it occurs less. However, the tiny fraction is simply not plausible. I'd be curious to see any documentation to the contrary, however. I would agree. You object to the name, since it seems exclusive only to gay men. And that's fine. I was not bringing that up to undermine homosexual males, but rather as an evidentiary claim that anal is not advised from a medical perspective. Back when I was a philandering man-whore, this never appeared to be a problem for me and my partners. Buyt the delivery method of said infectious agents should be taken in to account, should they not? After sharing hypodermic needles, via intravenous routes, is not anal sex the number one way to procure such diseases? What is hysterical about it? I never said they were ineffective. I said that during anal sex, because of the anatomy of the rectum, makes them inadequate protection. Condoms, when used properly, during vaginal intercourse are quite effective. Not foolproof, certainly. But effective. Anal sex makes the protection inadequate, whether used properly or not.Surely you must know this is a fact since condom companies have introduced a series specifically designed to hold up to the rigors of anal sex. Obviously there is much truth in what I said. You should try your own jagged pill pill some time. Its hard to swallow. Whew! Thanks for the heads up... Well, you must be invested at least in part, being that you've taken the time to respond to each and every one of my posts, whether directed to you or someone else.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Since you're the expert I won't disagree. Let the scraping begin. Useless semantics. The point is that the vagina very clearly is designed for sexual intercourse. Can you make the same astute observation for anal sex beyond, "Well, if it fits....?" So? Is that suppose to undermine the point that vagina's are designed for sex? The remainder of the female sexual organs don't work well, along with the rest of the body as we age. Is that really all that surprising, or moreover, how does that justify the assertions?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Its normal to want physical and sexual contact with members of the opposite sex. But perhaps one can't simply make blanket statements. Only when going outside of defined parameters. In todays zeitgeist, those parameters have become obscured. Therein lies the problem.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Who is Ian McKellen? Who said, other than you, a politically charged comment? When did I say anything along those lines? We're talking about how (un)natural anal sex is. In my opinion, I think its an aberration. You see it otherwise. Who does "you people" consist of? And when have I defended a single one of those predators? They're wrong... I make no excuses for them. I stated, in no uncertain terms, that I believe anal sex is unnatural. That's really the extent of the argument, not blame specific people while morally exonerating others.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

So, its not Gandalf the Gray," its Gandalf the gay"? Sorry... Continue. First of all, if he does have gay bowel disease, what makes you think that he would broadcast that kind of information about himself??? If saying that anal sex and homosexuality is unnatural is considered "gay bashing," then you must be constantly bashing conservatives right now. I'm curious to know what exactly the moral difference is. Can't I say that I don't agree with homosexuality without being slanderously referred to as a gay basher and a homophobe? What then is in your estimation? LOL! Not really considering some people find it "fun" to defecate on others. Would you seriously call that normal, sexual behavior or would you be more inclined to think that some pyschological trauma exists? Probably because whip cream is not a sexual act.... Not a sexual act. Not a sexual act. No. Urinating is natural. Desiring to urinate on people is unnatural. Defecating is natural. Desiring to cleanse their colon via a penis is not natural. If that's my motivation, then going by the same asinine rationale as yours would invariably mean that you do want it. I was having a conversation with Phat. Phat seems to agree that there is something fundamentally unnatural about it. I agreed. But he was invoking it on moral principles. I then stated that using morals from an absolute sense won't illicit the same response as it would in terms of health benefits/risks. I'm a moderate conservative who opposes the gay agenda, but will certainly allow for people to have as much gay butt sex they can handle. Because its a smearing campaign. You are trying to include me in with them by virtue of ideological association. What makes me different than you is that when someone who might loosely model after my beliefs runs counter to that ideology, I condemn it. But you seem to resolutely defend those of your ilk during their times of scandal, which makes you no better than they. At the least, you minimize what really happened. Then let Larry Craig indulge his homosexual side in prison. I certainly don't blame you for chastising the man. There is something abhorrent about such unfettered hyprocrisy. I understand the outrage. What I don't particularly like is you indicting me just because he said that he disagrees with homosexuality, and so have I-- therefore, I must either be a closet homosexual or someone foaming at the mouth over homosexuality.I'm having a conversation. I am relaying my views on a subject, as are you. Why you feel compelled to take it to another level is beyond me.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

No, since your race is inarguably something can do nothing about. The day homosexuality is proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be a natural phenomenon, I'll change my views on it. Since no one has successfully done that, I will continue to believe that its a psychological issue.Secondly, I've never said that I don't homosexuals. I don't like the behavior. I think it hurts them in the long run. Just like I know a million and one people who abuse all kinds of virtues. It doesn't mean I don't like them. It means that I don't like destructive behavior.Unfortunately, too many people only see in black and white terms. If you disagree with something, to them they assume it must be the scourge of the earth. If you think something is just okay, they must believe that its pie in the sky.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Gay bowel syndrome isn't a disease. No. How much? Because its a bad hash mark on the homosexual movement since its cause is directly associated with their actions. That would be like a smoker telling the public how bad cigarettes are while they're smoking on the commercial.

quote:

---

Can't I say that I don't agree with homosexuality without being slanderously referred to as a gay basher and a homophobe?

---

No, that its existence acts negatively. Because if you allege that people are inherently born gay, then you would inexorably have to say similar things about pedophiles, cutters, zoophiles, or any psychological condition. I think many want to be gay, and so in their mind, they are. There are a few homosexuals that have conceded that their homosexuality is purely for reasons of pleasure, as they find it highly erotic. Of course I agree. But what precisely gives you the ability to decide something is gross, but not allow me the deference of the same? By what standards of clean are you using? .... Okay. *shrugs* Then I should ask you the exact same thing. What gives the right to voice your opinion on the matter over my opinion? Sure you do. You just can't admit it. You've already made judgment calls about me so that I neatly fit in the box you've made for me.

quote:

---

Probably because whip cream is not a sexual act

---

Fellatio is a sex act. Intercourse is a sexual act. Using whip cream on people as some kind of aphrodisiac is not a sexual act in and of itself, anymore than wearing lingerie is a sexual act. How is whip cream a sexual act, whereas anal sex isn't? Please tell me. Its just a prop that some people use in conjunction with the act. Is lubricant a sexual act? Is a condom a sexual act? Is a birth control pill a sexual act? So why would whip cream be either? Next time you call someone an idiot, make sure you aren't making an idiotic claim yourself in the process. A synthetic fiber is not an act either. Wrong in a sort of absolute way, or wrong in the Crash way, which is mere opinion? Crash, I'm aware that many people enjoy it. But enjoying something isn't the acid test for figuring out what is good. A lot of people enjoy drag racing backwards because they derive some sort of endorphin rush from it. But I wouldn't call that a good thing. I'd call it reckless. A lot of people think that monogamy is antiquated. If it feels good to be with multiple sexual partners, I wouldn't call this acid test for what is good. I'd say that's indulgence in a reckless lifestyle. Lies and ad hominem... The last ditch effort. Its not going well for you. I understand. But try to debate with some honesty and some tact. We're having a discussion. If you can't handle the discussion, maybe you should disengage from it. The world according to Crashfrog: What ever perception I have in my mind is infallible. If I'm gay bashing, then you Christian bash and conservative bash. You aren't really that obtuse Crash. Think it through. I don't hate anyone. Is this an objective fact? I feel like a Dutch television host. For being a conservative. Why else? ...... We're discussing it currently. If I'm obsessing over "anal sex," and "homosexuality," then what are you doing????? Think it through, Crash. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

The vagina lubricates. The anus does not. What do mean by the "same glands" when they very evidently don't? Post-menopausal women don't procreate, which makes it a moot point either way.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias