Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So difficult to keep up! (Re: Memeber of the religious right running morally amuck)
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 181 of 221 (428632)
10-17-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 10:35 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
therefore, I must either be a closet homosexual or someone foaming at the mouth over homosexuality.
No...it's too easy...something about Blanche, Bette Davis, and Joan Crawford...must...maintain...control....
quote:
Then let Larry Craig indulge his homosexual side in prison.
Right...because gay people SO like being raped.
And you wonder why people think you're a homophobic bigot.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 182 of 221 (428641)
10-17-2007 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 10:57 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
So its ok to say that you dont like christians, atheists, buddhists etc? Religion is just a chosen lifestyle, so it should not be protected in any way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 183 of 221 (428655)
10-17-2007 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Rrhain
10-17-2007 1:34 AM


Re: Nature & Design of the Anus
As is the rectum. In fact, you can take much more rectally than you can vaginally. Eventually, you hit the cervix. Those who claim that the rectum isn't "designed" to take a penis will have to explain all the people who manage to have anal sex successfully, enjoy it, and are eager to do it again.
I don't get this line of argument, I really don't. I think it's quite obvious that the penis and vagina are co-evolved for sexual reproduction, whereas as the anus and penis aren't - unless you have some kind of evolutionary explanation as to what selective advantage is conferred by such a co-evolution?
What I really don't get is why anyone is arguing this point. "Natural" and "unnatural" are utterly stupid arguments for or against anything. Eating food at a table is "unnatural", using a computer is "unnatural", dying from diseases is quite "natural", having a significant number of women die in childbirth is "natural" - in short, being "natural" or "unnatural" tells us exactly nothing about whether something is good or bad.
Further, your line of argument, Rrhain, that people's enjoyment of anal sex implies some kind of "design" is absurd. We enjoy all sorts of things that there is no possible way we can have been "designed" (by which I mean have evolved adaptively) to enjoy: computer games, driving fast cars, injecting Heroin, and so on, and so forth.
Edited by Mr Jack, : Meaningful subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Rrhain, posted 10-17-2007 1:34 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by bluegenes, posted 10-17-2007 9:34 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 199 by Rrhain, posted 10-18-2007 5:51 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 184 of 221 (428656)
10-17-2007 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 10:57 PM


Re: Homosexuality is destructive behaviour?
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.
What makes you think it's destructive behaviour, Nemesis? I look at my gay, and bisexual, friends and I don't see that their behaviour is any more destructive than that of my straight friends. Sure, some of them are messed up, so are some of my straight friends but among them they also have some of the strongest and most supportive and loving relationships I know. Why do you think they're harming themselves by that?
Edited by Mr Jack, : Meaningful subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 185 of 221 (428671)
10-17-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 8:41 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
quote:
We're talking about how (un)natural anal sex is. In my opinion, I think its an aberration. You see it otherwise.
Oral sex is obviously unnatural, right?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 8:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 186 of 221 (428674)
10-17-2007 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Hyroglyphx
10-16-2007 10:35 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
quote:
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?
If saying that interracial marriage and race mixing is unnatural is considered "bigoted", 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 the mixing of the races without being slanderously referred to as a racist and a bigot?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 10:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 187 of 221 (428683)
10-17-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Dr Jack
10-17-2007 5:22 AM


Re: Nature & Design of the Anus
Mr Jack writes:
I think it's quite obvious that the penis and vagina are co-evolved for sexual reproduction, whereas as the anus and penis aren't - unless you have some kind of evolutionary explanation as to what selective advantage is conferred by such a co-evolution?
The anus could have evolved a secondary function as an alternative way for couples to have penetrative sex. For use during pregnancy and when there were already a plenitude of young children in the family/tribe. Nature's contraceptive. That's speculation, I know, but it might explain why penetration of the anus can be enjoyed by the recipient as well as the penetrator.
Looked at that way, it might explain how the vagina would be the easy fit first choice, but the anus (and mouth) viable seconds.
If same sex relationships played a role, bonobo-like, in our ancestors, and sexual bonding between males helped a group to survive, then the "pleasure feeling" anus would also be selected for due to that reason.
I agree with you that "natural" vs "unnatural" arguments are fairly pointless. It is actually natural to our species to invent and make tools, and to build up sophisticated high tech. cultures, in the broad sense of the word, otherwise we wouldn't have done it.
In the narrow sense of the word, meaning perhaps our biological nature stripped of culture, I think that both the mouth (lips particularly) and the anus probably do have evolved characteristics that are directly related to sex, as do breasts (obviously), so if people are obsessed with what's "natural", they should just go ahead and use whatever comes naturally to them!
Fingers, on the other hand, are very useful in sex, but it seems unlikely that they've needed to evolve in respect to it. We could speculate about the extra length of the middle one if we wanted to.
In all cases they're secondary functions, and the penis and vagina could be said to differ in that respect, because their primary functions are reproductive. We could have a pissing system without them.
The whole system provides quite a good argument against intelligent design. Who would put a sewer in the middle of a pleasure garden?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Dr Jack, posted 10-17-2007 5:22 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-17-2007 9:54 AM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 205 by Dr Jack, posted 10-18-2007 3:45 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 188 of 221 (428686)
10-17-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Rrhain
10-17-2007 1:34 AM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
I dare say your women probably didn't tell you about their UTIs or yeast infections in any graphic detail if at all.
most women won't talk about these even with a long term parter. there are two kinds of married people, those that pee with the door open and those that pee with the door closed. the door closed people probably don't talk about utis and yeast infections.
As does the rectum, or you wouldn't be able to pass stool. And just like the vagina, natural lubrication increases during sex.
that's a really good point. thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Rrhain, posted 10-17-2007 1:34 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 189 of 221 (428688)
10-17-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by bluegenes
10-17-2007 9:34 AM


Re: Nature & Design of the Anus
Who would put a sewer in the middle of a pleasure garden?
a civil engineer. it's something about mixed use land and funding i'm sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by bluegenes, posted 10-17-2007 9:34 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 190 of 221 (428690)
10-17-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2007 11:30 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
I never said they were ineffective.
yes you did. liar.
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.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2007 11:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 191 of 221 (428704)
10-17-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
10-12-2007 8:40 AM


But man, two wetsuits? A little moderation in all things is a wise dictum.
He wanted to feel tight!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 8:40 AM nator has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 221 (428839)
10-17-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by crashfrog
10-16-2007 11:04 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
Nothing makes an actor more happy than to be the public face of a disease.
Gay bowel syndrome isn't a disease.
Do you know how much money Bob Dole got from shelling Viagra?
No. How much?
If there's this "gay bowel disease" - which Rrhain has already explained doesn't make any sense from a medical perspective - why isn't the Super-Powerful Gay Agenda Lobby or whatever making it the male version of breast cancer?
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?
Don't agree what? That it exists?
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.
Don't agree that you want to be gay?
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.
The folks that buy camping toilet seats so they can poop on each other? That's pretty gross.
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?
Honestly if anal sex, which is usually pretty clean
By what standards of clean are you using?
you've lead a remarkably sheltered (and boring) life.
.... Okay. *shrugs*
Why would I break them down into "what NJ thinks is kosher" and "what he doesn't"?
Then I should ask you the exact same thing. What gives the right to voice your opinion on the matter over my opinion?
Or, just maybe, since I'm not starting from the position of having to develop a series of categories just so I can belittle people for having sex in a way I don't enjoy, maybe I'll never understand.
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
What the fuck are you talking about? It's a sex act when you do it as part of sex, obviously.
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.
By your idiot logic we might as well say that anal sex isn't a sex act, and that pretty much makes your whole point irrelevant, doesn't it?
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.
Why not, NJ? What could possibly be more unnatural than a synthetic fiber?
A synthetic fiber is not an act either.
Sure. He's wrong, of course, and so are you.
Wrong in a sort of absolute way, or wrong in the Crash way, which is mere opinion?
The only problem here is that you've confused "doesn't sound fun" or even "sounds fun but I'm ashamed to admit it to myself" with "unnatural."
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.
We all get it, NJ. You've loudly proclaimed your desire not to be fucked in the ass by a man. You've said it so often, in fact, that I'm now quite sure it's just a front, like it was for Larry Craig (who still won't admit to being gay, even after the whole fucking world knows, it's hilarious) and Mark Foley. And now you too.
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.
You've included yourself by ideological association. You don't like it? Change your ideology.
The world according to Crashfrog: What ever perception I have in my mind is infallible.
Nobody's twisting your arm to make you bash gay people.
If I'm gay bashing, then you Christian bash and conservative bash. You aren't really that obtuse Crash. Think it through.
Although if you hate them so much, you might ask yourself why you're voting for the party that seems to contain so many, and in secret.
I don't hate anyone.
It's because liberals are simply better people, Democrats are usually better people.
Is this an objective fact?
Democrats and liberals simply are a lot more honest and law-abiding than conservatives
I feel like a Dutch television host.
In prison? In prison for what?
For being a conservative. Why else?
If that's true in so many cases, which it is, why shouldn't I assume it's likely to be true about you? It's certainly not normal, NJ, to get on the internet and complain about homosexuality this much. Anal sex between men just isn't on the minds of most people as often as its on yours. What on Earth is the deal with that? Don't you ever ask yourself why you're thinking about anal sex between men so much more than everybody else is?
...... 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 11:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Rahvin, posted 10-17-2007 7:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 194 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2007 8:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 201 by Rrhain, posted 10-18-2007 6:19 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 193 of 221 (428849)
10-17-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2007 7:18 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
Gay bowel syndrome isn't a disease.
No, it's not. It's a fabrication.
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.
Minus the cutters, those are sexual attractions, NJ. To be born with such an attraction is not immoral. The only reason following through is immoral is becasue one party is not a consenting adult. With homosexuality, that is not the case. It's when you make these retarded comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia and bestiality that you show yourself as a disgusting bigot.
I think many want to be gay, and so in their mind, they are
Why on Earth would anyone desire to be in a minority regularly persecuted by people like you, NJ? There are no benefits to being gay, and many drawbacks socially. Again, because of people like you.
There are a few homosexuals that have conceded that their homosexuality is purely for reasons of pleasure, as they find it highly erotic.
That would be very nearly the definition of sexual attraction, NJ. I like women sexually purely for reasons of pleasure, and I find sex with them to be highly erotic. Are you reading what you're typing?
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?
You can feel free to say you think gay sex is gross. I wont call you a bigot for that. But that's not what you're doing, NJ. You're making shit up to say that it's harmful or immoral. Youre equating it to child rape. That's a lot different from saying "I think that's icky, so it's not for me."
By what standards of clean are you using?
Ever had vaginal sex? It's not all that clean, either, even though the fluid secreted is typically clear. In fact, the first thing I and my girlfriend tend to do after sex (anal or vaginal) is take a shower. And besides, a condom provides a nice barrier for either orifice.
Then I should ask you the exact same thing. What gives the right to voice your opinion on the matter over my opinion?
Becasue you posted your bigotted, homophobic opinions on a debate forum, maybe?
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.
Your own words are the only things that define your box, NJ. You're the only one who doesn't see it.
If I'm gay bashing, then you Christian bash and conservative bash. You aren't really that obtuse Crash. Think it through.
Tu Quoque much? You ARE gay bashing. Whether Crash is bashing Christians and conservatives is irrelevant to that fact.
I don't hate anyone.
If it looks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck...

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2007 7:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 194 of 221 (428850)
10-17-2007 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2007 7:18 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
Gay bowel syndrome isn't a disease.
Well! Finally something we agree on.
No. How much?
Enough to make it worth the embarrassment of admitting, on national television, to erectile dysfunction. I'd assume that's quite a bit.
Because its a bad hash mark on the homosexual movement since its cause is directly associated with their actions.
Please refresh your memory - the GLBT movement isn't comprised entirely of gay men. Even if the gay men are working as hard as they can to jam radio transmissions about "gay bowel disease", presumably the bisexual ladies, lesbians, and MtF trannies would have no particular stake in propping up the Thin Brown Line, or whatever.
The idea that there's some kind of secret conspiracy to hide "gay bowel disease" from an unsuspecting populace is just absurd, especially considering how medically absurd the supposed syndrome is, in the first place. As Rrhain said, when you work out a muscle, it gets stronger, not weaker.
There are a few homosexuals that have conceded that their homosexuality is purely for reasons of pleasure, as they find it highly erotic.
It's the finding it erotic that they have no choice over; it's the finding it erotic that makes them gay.
That's rather the point. They're obviously not "queer by choice", if they didn't find it erotic - which they don't choose to do, they just do - they wouldn't be queer.
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.
No, just the conditions that appear to be fixed at birth. Unfortunately, I think pedophilia is one such condition, as is sociopathy; we nonetheless restrict the acting out of those desires because of the cost to their victims. In fact probably everybody with a paraphilia was born that way.
Two adult gay men having sex is victimless when they both consent to it. As you've been reminded in the past, consent is the key.
But what precisely gives you the ability to decide something is gross, but not allow me the deference of the same?
I'm not disallowing you anything. You can say how gross it is, all you want. That you're obsessed with doing so even when it's not remotely on-topic is interesting to me, but I wouldn't claim to stop you.
But "gross" doesn't mean "unnatural", and "gross" doesn't mean "there should be a law against it", either. If you intend to defend either of those positions, you need to use some evidence aside from "grossness."
By what standards of clean are you using?
As clean as a vagina or mouth, two other things that penises commonly are put into. (Apple pies being a third? I dunno.) What, NJ, you think the people that are having anal sex are crapping all over their penises and dildoes? Jesus, how much do you think they must spend on sheets?
Did it ever occur to you to find out about the practice before you decided to condemn it? You know, from people that actually do it and enjoy it?
What gives the right to voice your opinion on the matter over my opinion?
Oh, my apologies, NJ. I didn't realize you saw yourself as the great potentate, descending from On High to gift us all with your sage opinions and advice.
How dare the rest of us peons speak in the presence of your holy sun!
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.
Oh? It's not?
So if your wife was with some other man, dressed only in her sexiest lingerie, getting whipped cream spread all over her and being licked off by the other guy, you'd have no problem at all with that because it isn't a sex act?
I doubt it, somehow. Obviously the whipped cream thing is a sex act. You're just being deliberately obtuse to avoid having to respond to my point. You can stop at any time, please.
How is whip cream a sexual act, whereas anal sex isn't?
Either they both are or they both aren't. Shooting whipped cream onto somebody's naked body and licking it off is clearly a sex act. Anal sex is clearly a sex act.
You're the one who needs to explain to me how, in your view, one is and the other isn't. I don't see how you can draw a line in between them. If you can pay a hooker to do it, it's probably a sex act, I'm just saying.
But, you know, if you don't think the whipped cream thing is sex, by all means send your wife over here, I just bought a new can.
Its just a prop that some people use in conjunction with the act.
Using the prop as part of sex is what makes using it a sex act. It's pretty fuckin' simple, NJ.
But enjoying something isn't the acid test for figuring out what is good.
I don't understand why you're so wrapped up in whether or not it's "good." How about whether or not it's harmful to a non-consenting person? Two gay men having sex consensually have accepted the risks of their behavior, just like anybody who consents to sex must, so I don't see what makes what they're doing any different than what my wife and I choose to do. What they're doing wouldn't be good for us. What we're doing wouldn't be good to them. Both of us couples are having the sex we think is "good", and the only people getting hurt are the people who agreed to.
What's the problem with that? I don't see it. "Fun" and "not fun" makes a lot more sense here than "natural" and "unnatural", which gets us nowhere useful - just somewhere judgmental. Who gives a crap about judging others? I simply don't have the time.
What ever perception I have in my mind is infallible.
I can only call it like I see it. Don't confuse the fact that your arguments don't make any sense and aren't convincing for some kind of recalcitrant stubbornness on my part. I can't help it if you can't put an argument together, or say a single thing that is true.
For being a conservative. Why else?
...what?
If I'm obsessing over "anal sex," and "homosexuality," then what are you doing?????
Pointing out how obsessed you are. Obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2007 7:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 221 (428856)
10-17-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by macaroniandcheese
10-16-2007 4:46 PM


Re: Conservative Blogs tell a different story
it seems very obvious to me that if the lubrication glands are external to the vagina and the anus is "downhill," then the same glands may provide sufficient lubrication depending on the care and concern of the partner and the amount of lubrication
The vagina lubricates. The anus does not. What do mean by the "same glands" when they very evidently don't?
if sex is meant for procreation and the justification for intercourse is sufficient lubrication, then, yes, that would mean that a post-menopausal woman's vagina is not an appropriate vessel.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-16-2007 4:46 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-17-2007 10:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 197 by Rahvin, posted 10-17-2007 10:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2007 10:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 203 by Rrhain, posted 10-18-2007 6:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024