Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

Way off.You have simply started with recognition of HIV where it hit the US population hardest initially. Patient 0 (the flight attendant) was not the cause of the disease and if he had not existed we still would have been hit, only in a different way first.Its beginnings have been reasonably tracked back to Africa where it began outside of sexual transmission altogether, as a likely mutated simian virus contracted by people butchering monkeys for meat. From there the most likely transmission routes were blood (including shared needles) and hetero sex. That is still its major routes within that region.Eventually someone coming out of africa with the disease got to a gay/bisexual vector which hit a totally unprepared, ostracized, and unprotected community. It could have hit blood banks first and been a slower spreading yet even slower to discover problem.I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people trying to connect sexual morality to health problems like HIV. It entered the gay community from the hetero. It was communicable from the get go otherwise it would not have spread and it was worldwide before we found out what it was. Horseshit. You can have as much sex as you want with as many partners as you want.The CORE PROBLEM is not identifying health status of individuals during a global pandemic and introducing some form of quarantine system which would be done if this had been anything OTHER than a sexual disease.The TERTIARY PROBLEM is people engaging in risk activities with those of unknown health status. Sex is not the only risk activity, and some sexual activity comes with 0 risks.The CONTINUING PROBLEM is people making these rather ignorant and outlandish claims about the nature of a contagion which is ravaging world populations.I agree that people who continue to engage in sex despite knowing they have a major STD are a health hazard and cross most moral, and should cross legal, boundaries. The line is not hard at all. If this wasn't sex we'd already have the answers in hand. Take this example...A new virulent flu strain has begun popping up all over the world. It is highly contagious. Who do YOU blame:1) People that breathe, for breathing, especially when they don't need to.2) People that breathe in large groups rather than confining their activity to the vicinity of only one partner.3) People that in their occupation breathe amongst all sorts of new people, called clients, which by their nature will breathe amongst others all over the world.Or does that sound like a bunch of dumbassery? Its a contagion. You don't blame anyone except those that know they are sick and yet act in ways to spread that contagion. You don't regulate the activity which acts as the vector, nor the occupations which include the vector.What one does is find the contagion within the population and isolate (quarantine) those with the contagion in some manner. Anything else is taking advantage of a medical emergency to push through moral controls.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That does not help. We do agree on that. Instead of treating it with common medical sense, we use common moral sense as you move on to do, for example... You couldn't get more wrong. You can have sex with as many people as you want, including people that are HIV infected and not get it.Think I'm lying? No, I am simply not defining my terms just as you are not. I am making the same ridiculous hyperbolic assertion you are but in a way not aimed at reinforcing negative stereotypes regarding sex.You can certainly engage in masturbation with any and all and not get HIV, unless for some reason you have open sores on your hands. Indeed there is some evidence that it is almost impossible to get HIV through oral sex, though it is made more possible by unknown cuts within the mouth (which you can't see or feel as well as on your hands, though you can if you do a careful check before playing). And all of this is aided by making sure genitals do not have lesions of any kind, and with oral sex if one wants to be 100%, use of a condom.My guess is you do not consider mutual masturbation and oral sex, something less than having sex.Your own commentary could be said to show a complete lack of understanding of medicine and morals.Multiple partners and anonymity is not the issue here, though it CAN make worse the true underlying problems. It can IF and WHEN it is combined with risky PENETRATIVE sexual acts (or any other where body fluids are allowed exposure to the circulatory system), AND someone that is infected.Those ifs and whens are serious and do not allow the moralizing you have conducted. There are vectors within sex, but not all sex. Any increase in contact an infected individual has with others does increase the degree of spread, but does not make increased contacts by everybody an issue.I gave you a very nice counter example using a new flu strain and you totally ignored it and its obvious implications, to essentially restate your false premise.I am in full agreement that the best way to be having any sexual contact, is to know the status (frankly of all STDs) before having sex. But that is NOT necessary to remove or drastically reduce risk, and sex without such precautions is not itself an immoral act as it is not necessarily itself an ACTUAL RISK.Most human activity involves unknown risk, including potentially fatal unknown risk. We don't normally get full tests and map out everything before taking such acts so as to be blameless. How many kids die of meningitis simply by going to school with others that are infected. Indeed do you NEVER eat food from places you do not have the food and the cooks fully tested? And do you refuse to hand people objects you may have used, or cook food for others until you have been fully tested for everything?HIV has been the greatest thing to happen for prudes in ages. It was the greatest way to make SEX look really scary, despite the fact that SEX isn't the cause. And for those that like sex but not promiscuity, they get to blame PROMISCUOUS SEX... but that is not a cause either.The first and foremost problem is that we have a fatal contagion, it is a virus, which is transferred through bodily fluids with a potentially long gestation period which masks its spread and WE DO NOT TAKE STEPS AS A SOCIETY to CONTAIN the virus. We have the ability and we still don't.The answer, for some reason, is to make everyone act differently with regard to their sex lives, so as not to disrupt the full lives of those few (percentage wise) who have the disease and don't want to know. Congratulations everybody.Promiscuity doesn't mean anything. It is NOT the problem. As ever in history it is IGNORANCE, and WILLFUL IGNORANCE being used to support moral beliefs. This is no different than back in long past plague times where people refused to see possible routes of staving off the disease or curing it, because it interfered with their believing what moral problems caused it and desiring to maintain that fear.I guess it looks to me like people are more afraid of a world where people can return to having sex in a safe, though more promiscuous, fashion, than a world where they might catch a known fatal illness through several different vectors (including sex) and the illness spreads more each day.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I want to nitpick once again on this. You say any transmission of any disease and that is not correct. After all you can catch many diseases, even fatal ones, without direct skin contact.Its more accurate to say transmission of any STDs.And I want to ask why in an earlier post you agreed that indiscriminate sex was a problem. It did surprise me when you said that since I knew you had said the above before. Unless you were meaning indiscriminate includes choice of partner and activity.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay I get that people have limited time and may not hit everything. However, to restate the points you did required acting as if a challenge had not been brought to them. A challenge had been raised within that example.Its possible you didn't fully read through the example, or did not understand that in fact impacted your premise. Okay. But that's why I said what I said. Kind of a prod to get you to go back and look if you hadn't before.It had important ramifications on your premise. There are some here who do purposefully ignore counterevidence. It becomes clear over time whether that is what a person does. I have no idea if you are that time and I would say from what I have read so far you don't seem that type. But I gave you a verbal prod either way. That was part of stream of conscious writing and it came out wrong. I was anticipating what you might have thought about what I had said in the paragraph before. I guess I should have said "Would that sound like I was lying?" But to others it may be perfectly satisfying. And indeed perhaps part of the problem is that most societies are so fixated on penetrative sex as the best form of enjoyment, that they engage in risky behaviors rather than having safe fun.In any case if we made laws as you suggested, using "sex" as the active term, masturbation would of course get covered. When telling people sex is risky most would assume all sexual acts and include masturbation.If I jerk off 5 guys at a local bar, do I get to go home to my girlfriend and say I didn't have sex with anyone? Would fundies be all right as long as people just masturbated out of wedlock? As it stands a surgeon general of the US was driven from her office after suggesting that PERSONAL masturbation be discussed as alternatives to having sex with someone else, because that counted as teaching children to have sex. There is more than one case of oral tranference on record. However, they are extremely small and have without exception involved people with more than just a microscopic bit of blood in their mouth. And you will note then that this means just kissing can transfer the virus... yet we publicly say kissing should not be considered a risk activity.The risk from oral sex in a person without real damage to their mouth, including conditions like bleeding gums, remains theoretical.You are correct that engaging in any activity which will rip open the skin will increase the risk. That is why there is a caution that one should not have oral sex within two hours of brushing teeth. I'd also say one shouldn't if one has bitten one's tongue or cheek, or burned the heck out of their mouth with some hot pizza or something.But these cautions are precautions. They make sense but so far have not been shown to be necessary, beyond making sure you do not have real open sores or cuts where blood is flowing within the mouth.As it is saliva has been shown to have agents which kill HIV, and some preventative lubricants are being researched to protect vaginal and anal sex in the same way that researchers acknowledge that the mouth is being protected.I did not say the risk is nothing. I said the risk is extremely small. That is true. For all practical purposes, with care, none. I should mention not swallowing also helps immensely toward that end. If the person does not cum in the mouth at all that is all the better. With condom and precautions, then there simply is no chance.You are more likely to be killed by lightning while giving or receiving that blow job.I will mention that I am only discussing HIV. There are OTHER STDs which certainly can be transferred orally. I'm sorry what? It only takes one what? It takes one UNIT of HIV. That's why people aren't supposed to be afraid of smashing mosquitos and getting tainted blood, even if it is on an open cut.If you are suggesting that coating your cut hands in cum and rubbing it might result in an infection, you are right. Yeah, common sense would be that you don't do it if you have open cuts or sores, and you don't try to rub the cum into skin which may have recently had cuts and not be healed.If one is this frightened, one can always wear gloves. Then there will be no chance. Or anyway, squirt AWAY from yourself.You say you hold the risk is much higher from masturbation. Give me the evidence you are using to suggest there is a risk from this activity, and what that level of risk would be. Then explain how people are not supposed to be afraid of catching HIV from smacking mosquitos and sitting on toilet seats. Hey look at what is contained in the middle of your statement. Ignoring for a second that your claim is bogus as sex is not the only vector of HIV and so would not be stopped cold, part of you premis is known health status.Hahaha, in fact you just essentially restated the criticism I made of modern society's reaction to HIV as if it was something correct and reasonable.IF we have the ability to discover health status, why on earth would it be reasonable to have everyone curb their normal activity, rather than just determining the health status and removing the threat?Your argument is that everyone must change their behavior, so that people can choose not to know if they pose a threat. We are avidly protecting the health threat, by curbing normal behavior. Rather than protecting normal behavior by identifying and removing the threat.Don't you see how counter to reason your position is?And now I will bring back my example... if a strain of flu surfaced would you actually believe that everyone should always be forced to wear masks and never touch or deal with anyone personally but family, and end all international travel, rather than just identifying and isolating those with the flu so as to stop the spread?I agree that until humans get it together and actually respond to this health crisis, one of the better methods is restricting onesself to those of known health status as they themselves can deal with it personally (nothing like pitting individuals against the plague). But that is not the only way to deal with the risk. The first two sentences show a problem that you have. Sex certainly does NOT have to be full body to be fun. I do agree that condoms suck. However they are useful in situations where a risk MAY be present. I use them. Despite a reduction in fun it is better than no fun.I do agree that some engage in more risky behaviors than others. They don't restrict themselves to mutual masturbation, or oral, and do engage in unprotected penetrative sex with others of unknown status. That is their personal risk.Other than my suggesting that they not do that, and my not participating in that myself, what else do I need to do? Their personal activity cannot directly effect me.I should say though that plenty do restrict themselves in exactly the way I suggest. I'm not sure if you are hanging out in sex theaters, clubs, and the like but I am. I see risky behavior to be sure. And I see a lot more realistic behavior.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Not sure if you mean EvC, or the Coffee House. If you mean the latter it will seem that way as that is really the only place where new material I am interested in discussing gets posted more frequently.I posted in other forums and have interest in material in other forums, but its rare to see anything new. Most of my earlier posts are still awaiting replies. The purpose of sexual reproduction is to reproduce. The purpose of our sexual organs are much more diverse than that. And no it does not follow at all that the "most enjoyable" will be any particular act. One might note that animals hump anything and everything. Dolphins are particularly known to engage in extra-species sex acts which have nothing to do with vaginal intercourse.I am not saying it is not enjoyable, just that one cannot argue which will be most enjoyable based on some teleological principle. Exposure to one virus of that contagion is not enough to become infected. I wondered the same thing, but the science has been pretty consistent about that. Otherwise mosquitos and toilet seats would be an issue. The example is not just of a bare virus on a mosquito or toilet seat. Say someone jerked off on a toilet and there was a residual pool of sperm which you happened to touch, maybe even just a thin film? What if a mosquito with HIV infected blood from someone else lands on you and you smash it smearing that drop of blood into a cut on your hand?Scientists say that a certain quantity is necessary for exposure to be meaningful and that simply is not enough. That is patently incorrect. It would be reduced, not eliminated. There are other vectors.And my argument when on to criticize your position because you are suggesting that individuals take more personal care to quarantine themselves, rather than the community finding the virus and quarantining it.And indeed that it is the selection of partner which is the only valid route, rather than selection of activity with partners. I agree that those of known viral positive status should be held to a greater degree of legal control/responsibility. The problem is that the community should (as it would in any other situation) not allow there to be a lack of knowledge on who has the virus.Instead of putting the onus on individuals to quarantine themselves and develop personal health code schemes, it should be the community stepping in to quarantine those infected from the rest of the population. Not only do they have the legal ability to do that already, I believe they have a duty to do so.Why invent new laws to effect a single vector (and include activities that are not even real vectors), instead of using those laws already available to remove and isolate infected people so the question of vectors is moot?Unlike your solution, which would not stop it cold, we could stop the spread of the virus cold by making sure we knew exactly who had the virus, and letting them know they had the virus, and instituting some form of quarantine. We don't have a difference in opinion, it is a difference in taste. And there is no problem in that. My issue was your positive statement that sex IS something. We do not in any fashion have to breathe in public. It is custom that we do but there is absolutely no reason that we have to. If we can arbitrarily decide that an existing vector may be closed off, rather than protecting the healthy which use that vector, that activity is as valid as any to be closed off.And essentially we do have to have sex at some point with some member of the public. The question is how many members and over how much time?The idea that people can live like monks (theoretically live) or like good monogamous Xians (theoretically live) is as pragmatic as that they can live like people in clean rooms of sterile labs or hospitals.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This had my name in it but I didn't know why. I haven't felt upset about anything you've said to me and I haven't complained to anyone. I think maybe you were being chastised for something in your interchange with Mammuthus?If you have something to say to me, go ahead.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-07-2005 06:00 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You are incorrect. Most try for frottage or some manner of rubbing their genitals against something else. The miracle comes in when two beings want to rub genital areas at the same time and so get sex.And once again you cannot argue preference and "best feeling" from teleology. My most satisfying sexual encounters are group sex with a gf and multiple partner where many different sex acts are engage in. If I have to pick one single sex activity as most penilely stimulating then it would have to be oral sex. If I have to pick one single activity which is guaranteed to give me the most pleasure it would be masturbation. 1) Only a small group of animals can jerk off, the rest are forced to mount something to at least rub their genitals. Not matter how much a dog humps a leg there is no chance at penetration.
2) Apparently you have not been around a monkey cage at the zoo. They have hands. They have females. They make choices. From this discussion on HIV transmission investigations you will find comments such as this...Indicating that 1 virus is not enough. That is also backed up in this discussion from the cdc. Look at their discussion of saliva and sweat in particular.I could not find the estimated amount which constitutes a UNIT of HIV, that is the quantity necessary for transmission, but it is clearly more than one. Hopefully you will agree that your belief was errant and my position is supported. That is by definition "patently incorrect". If something based on evidence widely available (in this case that hiv has more vectors than just sex), then a claim that regulating sex will stop hiv cold is patently incorrect. There is no such thing as "essentially stopped". It is stopped or it is not stopped. If it is not stopped then it continues. It may not be in as large of numbers, but the spread continues. I might remind you that evidence is it began outside of sexual promiscuity. I am trying to stick with the concept. Given that controlling sex will not contain the contagion, but will only act to contain sexual activity, including acts which would not have spread the virus anyway, such calls are merely to support moral beliefs about sex, rather than deal with the contagion.By the way from the first citation above, there is actually counterevidence to your theory about promiscuity being the problem. It turns out that a greater problem is serial monogamy. Promiscuous people actually have less risk given the nature of the sex they have... Other STDs seem to drive the increased chance of infection, and dealing with those in preventative ways seems to drive down transmission dramatically.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm sorry, are you claiming that masturbation among male monkeys is always because female monkeys don't want it?You must be because that is the only way your point would mean anything against my point. And of course there is no truth to that absolutist idea at all.Monkeys masturbate. I cannot say what any particular monkey would most love, but they do masturbate even among populations which include receptive females.Intriguingly female bonobos (and maybe other monkeys) also engage in sexual acts, sometimes nonpenetrative acts.Do you really hate sex and men that much that you project male monkey masturbation as a sign of victory over sexual repression by female monkeys?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, that's not what I said. He suggested that they wouldn't if they had a choice. I pointed out that they sometimes do.That's why I didn't understand what your point was in replying to me the way you did. No but I have seen lions do that sort of thing. What's the point? I was talking about monkeys. Are you serious? Have you watched bonobos or other monkeys? Uh... this only helps my point. BKelly was discussing preference for penetration being natural and arguing against preference for masturbation essentially existing at all.I did not try and make some huge break down of animal sexuality, including estrus cycles. If you would like me to I could. All I brought up was counterexamples. And as we get closer to humans the choice for purely recreational sex, or self-gratificational sex, autosexual activity, becomes more prominent.Maybe you should go back and look at the point I was addressing of BKelly's. ??? It was a joke. You don't like my joke? Ah well...

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

????? How can I distort her words when I ask her if that was what she was saying?See this is what happens when a person responds line by line, instead of reading everything through. You get a warped vision of what a person is saying.Let me outline it for you:1) I ask if she meant X
2) I explained that she must have meant X because only X would address my point. If she didn't mean X then my criticism is inherently that she stated something that was not relevant to my argument and the rest of my post is moot. Otherwise...
3) If she did mean X I have given a rebuttal. I'm sorry but I do not understand this statement. Yeah, that's true. So what? I'm not saying that monkeys never jerk off because they are hard up and only do so out of joy for it. I have only said that you can find instances of it happening out of choice.Now I will ask you, is the above statement supposed to suggest that is the ONLY way a monkey will choose to masturbate? If NOT, then my counterpoint to your claim stands. Check out the stats on schraf and my profile. We've been around a while and have a definite history on these kinds of topics. I was making a personal, inside joke to her. It was a mean one but right now I'm not to happy with her for doing a hit and run routine on me over several threads.You may find me full of myself. That's fine. However I have only stated what can be backed up with evidence. I have a post outstanding to you with two sources which should answer a couple of issues.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well I will tell you this, other than the few articles on Bonobo sexual behavior I have already posted at EvC a long time ago I don't need to post any more, and I don't know of any that go into female displays so you can see. However I have watched documentaries on the subject, which do show monkey sexuality. I cannot cite them or link to them. Maybe for fun today I'll see if I can dig something up for you.As it stands I was not talking to someone who has not seen those past cited articles which described their behavior. I am discussing this subject with the very person I cited those articles to. If she is pretending she does not know what they do then it is over the body of text she had been presented. If you missed it when I posted it for her, what can I say? I was writing to her.In both cases (BKelly and Schraf) I was joking around by mentioning hanging about and watching them. Although it is common to see that behavior it doesn't always happen and one may not hang around zoos that much. I guess I was lucky to live just down the block from one. I was humorously trying to point out that choice of masturbation can be found in nonhumans.Here's the irony... I did not suggest at all that every monkey engaging in autoerotic behavior was for preference. It is just that sometimes it is.Schraf tried to counter that for giving a reason they might masturbate. Okay, yeah a monkey might do that too. Now you just added another. Okay, yeah a monkey might do that too.Unless the accumulation of "other reasons" is to suggest that they NEVER choose to masturbate, then my point stands. And if you guys are making such an absolute claim, there is an evidentiary responsibility falling on your guys' shoulders, not mine.On the flipside, my side, it should be frickin' obvious. Human men (that means the relatives of monkeys) masturbate by choice, even with penetrative options. Some only engage in oral sex, even when penetrative sex is an option. Indeed some never even come close to vaginal sex in their life (though anal is still penetrative it is nonreproductive and so counter to BKelly's teleological argument for preference).Now if that relative of monkey does this, why could monkeys also not be choosing to do this? It seems there is an odd idea that because they are not human it is possible all their females have succeeded in some feminist revolution of sex?As it is, and here I will be discussing Bonobos in specific, they engage in multiple sexual behaviors including oral just like humans. Obviously if they are getting oral they could have just as easily gotten penetrative... right? Females themselves will engage in, initiate, nonpenetrative sexual behavior. That is also contrary to the ASSERTION that penetrative is the preference. Obviously if they want to penetrate they can penetrate themselves.And yes, to answer your initial question, female monkeys do put on displays to let male monkeys know that they desire sex. Whoops. They may take a number of submissive poses, and also engage in some groping behavior.I love how when I dismiss people's claims of absolute knowledge, I am the one that gets accused of arrogance. BKelly said penetrative sex was the preferred among animals. My claim was certainly no more arrogant than his, and at least has some facts behind it (you can see the activity). In the face of that, Schraf deconstructed visible monkey behavior to imply some nonchoice. That again would be more arrogant, unless she just meant that is one reason they may do it, on top of choosing. And that is something I have not denied, nor attempted to suggest they did not do.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-09-2005 06:17 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No. Nothing I said was meant to suggest that. Indeed I already implied that they were different and pointed out how that would only help my overall argument (if it would do anything). This is a nonissue, let it go. Thanks I'll try to keep that in mind. However it has no bearing on the argument under discussion. Monkeys beat off too. Let's review shall we?1) BKelly asserts that penetrative acts are naturally preferable, and that animals show this.
2) No one asks him for evidence to support this claim except for me. And I do this with an argument which includes a jokey visually reference to his not having hung around monkeys at the zoo. This was not an assertion that all monkeys jerk off from choice, or that I was excluding all other species from discussion including apes. It was a comical reference to readily visual counterevidence to BKelly's claim. Certainly some animals can be seen masturbating, and quite often.
3) You appear and assert that males may be masturbating because they are being denied penetrative sex by females. This means nothing to my point unless you are suggesting that is what happens all the time. Indeed you manage to assert this without any reference to primate females doing this at all. (note: Your only reference is to horses which are further removed from monkeys than Bonobos are, and which you are riding me about as some example).
4) I point out that this means nothing unless it for all cases, and break down how that fails if in fact that is what you meant.
5) You and crash both demand evidence of how I know whether females are receptive, such that I can then know that the monkeys are not masturbating simply because they have to.In view of the above, here is my reply:1) Do you believe that animals prefer penetrative acts over masturbation, and are incapable of having such preferences?2) If so, how do you explain masturbation seen throughout species as is related in this essay? 3) If it is that in all of these cases it is something other than PREFERENCE, then what evidence do YOU HAVE that that is so?You want me to explain how I know a female is receptive, but that is the same as asking to know whether she is not (which is your assertion)... or whether the male is receptive! If the point is we cannot know, for male or female, then my original point is not defeated. It simply leaves us with the observation that both males and females (funny thing you did not address) masturbate and no claims can be supported that they always prefer coitus.So, since you are the one advancing a positive claim of knowledge (if it is going to have any effect on my position) you should tell me how you know when a female wants it, and also when you know a male wants it.3) One line of argument I would make, to support my position, is that I have seen documentaries which show monkeys and apes (it was not just Bonobos) engaging in masturbation with females around and not being repulsive in attitude. Most positive sexual displays (in all animals) are pretty obvious. I'm not sure if you are wanting me to support this for every animal species or what? Is your position that most animals do not usually put on displays when they are interested, or that these displays (especially among primates) are not recognizable?Likewise negative reactions to sexual advances are pretty obvious, as you have suggested in horses and I have seen in both lions and monkeys/apes. If we want to play the "how can you tell?" game, then I might just as easily ask you how you know female horses are spurning sexual advances instead of simply playing at some sex game, trying to turn the other horse on more.You don't have to believe there are such documentaries, and I am stating outright I don't know how to find them at this point, and I cannot link to what I have seen at the zoo. But I am stating that I have seen these things.If you doubt that I have or that such things can be told, there will be some curious results as you will see in a later point.4) Another line of argument I would make is that I am a primate and I masturbate for fun and not simply when I don't have access to a vagina. As it is infant males (and females) will play with themselves. I suppose one can argue that they are not aware of penetratively willing partners, but I would argue they would still be likely to play with themselves from time to time. After all after learning about sex, and having willing partners, human boys and girls continue to masturbate. Is there a reason to believe that other primates will not act in that same way, enjoying playing with parts that are tingly and exciting?5) Remember that the original line of argument was about animals choosing to masturbate. If the argument you use is correct, it has much greater ramifications than just for masturbation. If I remember correctly you have pointed out that some animals exhibit homosexual behavior, indeed that there can be homosexual animals. If you did not then I apologize.In any case that idea would be removed completely. We could never say that they are simply forced into that behavior because of rejection from females. Do you believe animals can be said to be gay, and if so how if we cannot determine willing partners? Here's an article from the straight dope on various monkey business, and its interesting to see how that was determined. Hmmmmm, maybe there is no such thing as gay animals after all. Maybe the girls just didn't like them, and that's why they hassled the girl. I mean if your point is true that researchers can't tell if she was receptive.Oh yeah, and Cecil has some other interesting things to note... Oral sex and mutual masturbation are very clear signs that penetration is not the only preference as when you have two penetration is always possible.Of course if you doubt what I said, you would have to doubt Cecil as well. Maybe you can write him and ask.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I move between the the hetero and homosexual worlds and my experience is that the amount of sex between the two, especially promiscuous or anonymous sex, simply does not compare.Yes it does exist in the hetero world. I am not denying that at all. But it is more extensive and easily accessed in the gay world. Many times I wish I was gay because I could actually be living the life I'd like to be living all the time in the hetero world. It simply does not exist, unless you are extermely lucky or extremely rich.Men will generally have sex for free, and are even willing to pay for it. Most women in our culture simply will not. They'll do it for free and promiscuously, but not in as public and accessible a way as men will... or at least not as frequently. And more women will ask for money, or try to use sex to gain wealth, rather than having sex solely for the pleasure.I'm not saying this is inherent to all humanity, nor am I saying moral or medical conclusions should be drawn from this. I am simply stating that at this time there is a difference between the hetero and homosexual communities in the degree of promiscuous and anonymous sex taking place.Sadly (for me) hetero venues catering to that sort of activity are on the decline, while gay venues are growing.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-10-2005 07:42 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think this is rather ironic. Exactly where should I be looking?Given that I am in the swinging community of heteros, and indeed am involved with pretty much all forms of online and real world types of hookups for heteros, I'm trying to figure out how you would know more about the hetero free sex community than I do.I already said it was not that there is no action going on in the hetero community, my whole point was that the amount going on within both simply does not compare. Yeah... and? As already mentioned, these guys often contact girls ahead of time. But let's pretend that they never do. What they do not get is free sex wherever they go. Girls flashing tits and asses, does not compare to actually getting laid (or even getting jerked off or oral sex) pretty much on demand. 1) I wasn't discussing the frequency with which I can get action with other girls. I was discussing the amount of free love action going on around me by others. I am active in that world on both sides. There simply is no comparison.2) Even if I was discussing my own sex life, that would still suggest exactly what I was arguing. If I can't for the life of me get laid by girls because I am "doing something wrong", yet within minutes am guaranteed of having sex with another guy no matter what I do, we are seeing a difference in the free sex availability within each community. Actually I am not understanding what you mean with this other than that heteros can have sex elsewhere. I think there is a lot to be said from the fact that heteros are not free enough to enjoy bath houses compared to homosexuals. More heteros. percentage wise, are uncomfortable with unrestricted sexual activity as goes on in bath houses (or other venues).Just to let you know there are hetero versions of bath houses, it is just that the ratio is like 20:1. Actually that's not entirely correct. If there are many more gay bath houses, and almost no straight bath houses, that tends to indicate there is a greater demand for such free sex venues in the gay community than straight. Given that gays are in a vastly inferior number to the overall population of heteros, that makes divergences in free sex establishments even more noteworthy.In fact your argument seems to be more fallacy prone as you are arguing from a supposition that heteros must be the same or more promiscuous than gays, and then dismissing the possible counterevidence. You appear to be arguing that there must be other places where such activity occurs, despite no evidence for them.Now let me give you an example... Real life. Years ago I would come to Amsterdam and there was a relatively free sexual community. You had hetero and gay establishments. The gay outnumbered the hetero, but it was still a place where one could find swinging sex. And by that I mean not paying for individual "fuck and suck" encounters at the windows.Over the years the hetero free sex community has shrunk to a very small community. People talk about that within the swinging community. Even strippers at strip clubs are bemoaning the fact that straight guys are simply not coming in like they used to, and they are disappearing.If you go to couples sex clubs there are less girls than before, and generally the ones there are mostly above 35... or they are being paid.On the flipside, despite having a smaller population percentage-wise, the number of gay sex locations is booming. It has grown and continues to grow. It is unbelievable.Thus free sex gay activities were greater in number and have only grown greater. What there was within the hetero community, has shrunk to small pools. Doesn't this suggest something different is going on within those communities, other than "heteros must have found new places they haven't told you about"?Now this is not a question of if I can get laid or not. I can go out and go for hours if not days without seeing heteros engaging in truly promiscuous sex (that is not for money). But I can guarantee you within the hour (and frankly my guess would be more like 10 minutes) I can find guys having sex with each other. Obviously some establishments are more busy than others, and some are downright dead. But the amount going on at the more popular establishments blows all comparisons to what goes on in any hetero establishment and community away.Despite searching, I have never found a place with 100s of naked heteros engaging in open and massive orgies for hours at a time. Maybe a few dozen? Tops. I have seen that quite a bit in the homosexual community.You know I have no moral issues here with promsicuous sex, so I am not trying to argue any moral superiority. Indeed I lament the fact that heteros are increasingly more repressed. To me that is a moral failing for heteros.So its not like I'm making this up. I am actually comparing evidence of what is going on out there in both communities. Although you can find free sex within the hetero community, I am totally saying that happens, there simply is no comparison in the amount between the hetero and homosexual communities. There is much more availability of free sex venues, and more activity at such venues.You and I both know, or at least I'd guess you would know, that "gay" bars are on average more sexual than any straight bar. Dark rooms exist in many, probably enough to call it "common", while that pretty much is nonexistant in straight bars. A guy might end up with one girl that he picked up at a bar (or vice versa) if they are lucky. Going to a gay bar can mean sex with several other guys right at the bar.If you don't know this about the gay community, might I suggest you aren't looking in the right places?This message has been edited by holmes, 12-11-2005 10:40 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hehehehehheheh... Your posts are a riot. Since you have decided to revert to your old style of ad nauseum I'm condensing to the main points. If I miss an important point, add it into your reply.1) I am discussing both my personal knowledge of the free love worlds of hetero and homosexual communities, as well as the study of them. However, you are equivocating on the personal knowledge part whereas I am not. There is a difference from being a part of the swinging community and so being familiar with issues within a community because you talk with people in that community, and "personal experience" of whether I am getting laid or not.Essentially your argument is a running ad hominem: Don't believe Holmes because he can't get laid and so is trying to extrapolate from that experience.Hahahhahahahaha... okay joke is over now. That doesn't work.That's not what is being extrapolated from. I'm discussing my experiences of interaction within those communities, including what OTHER people are saying and doing within those communities. You claim to have work in Las Vegas and so that seems to mean you know something about promiscuous hetero sex venues? Uh, I've been around more and in contact with more than just that.2) First you claim that you cannot tell how much promiscuous sex is going on by the number of bath houses there are, then construct an argument of how much sex is going on in the hetero world by how many venues there are for people to have sex in the hetero world. Apparently nearly everything in the world is designed for heteros to get together and have... promiscuous sex????Remember that was what we were discussing. Even at lovers lane the idea is not that lovers switch cars every ten minutes or so. Most hetero sex locations are designed for monogamous (even if serial) hookups. Gay bars and other venues (I'm talking about more than just bath houses) are often designed for promiscuous multi-partner sex in house. You do not find that outside of the small, and relatively shrinking swinging lifestyle venues for heteros.I'm sorry that these facts don't correspond to your experience, but it is apparent your experience is lacking. The fact that you would try to bring in lover's lane and Mardi Gras as comparisons to gay bath houses and bars, kind of shows your disingenuity here.3) You claim that the number of sexual partners are equal between homosexuals and heteros. Maybe the average does ? I dunno. But I would hold such self-reporting of stats rather flimsy. My guess... and yes this is a guess.. that people would be less likely to report the number of promiscuous encounters, especially gay men. To be honest, I can count the number of girls I've been with, but I honestly would have no idea how many guys I have been with. Its just that quick and easy. Hell, when you go to straight establishments there are often enough more gay men hanging out waiting to lure a straight guy, than girls willing to be with anyone but their own partner (soft swinging is much more likely than full swap).Indeed perhaps you can tell me how the men in dark rooms end up knowing how many men they have had sex with? And you can perhaps discuss the numbers of busy dark rooms in hetero establishments so we can compare likelihood for such activity to skew results? Oh yeah, there are like almost none, when compared to homosexual establishments.In the end, I would guess people have various different interpretations of partners. Some might include only important longterm partners, and some might decide to enhance their numbers just to be thought more virile (to themselves). I don't trust self-reported sex averages within populations of people hung up on sexual issues.4) You keep claiming that number of bath houses, and activity at such venues cannot be used to measure promiscuity in the gay community because so much else in the world caters to hetero promiscuity. I would like you to defend that more in depth.Bath houses and gay bars with dark rooms and gloryhole sections are not just for people to hook up. They are specifically designed for a kind of sex: quick, multiple, promiscuous, and anonymous. With all of your great knowledge of hetero establishments, I would like you to explain where heteros may experience this kind of sexual activity?Yes my guess is hetero guys everywhere will be glued to this answer. Where are large numbers of hetero girls waiting around and willing to strip off their clothes and have sex with pretty much any guy who starts feeling them up, indeed in a darkened interior so that many and any man can do so? Where are these places you have sex with one girl, then grab a beer and then go have sex with another... heck maybe while you're still drinking the beer?Hetero establishments are tame in comparison to gay establishments. Many when they do involve open sex try to limit single men entry so women do not get scared away. More intimate and one on one. Oh sure there are a few girls who do, and some establishments are more open. But none have the amount of open, promiscuous, anonymous sex as you will find in gay venues.Now you take the ratio of gays to straights, and you compare that to the ratio of open, promiscuous sex venues (of equal calibre). The result is suggestive of something different going on between those communities. I don't see how you can argue away the significance of that. It really does suggest that gays are more desiring of promiscuous, anonymous sex than straights. The demand is there and so it is filled. If the desire was for that in the straight community such venues would be there. They aren't.And that fact cannot be dimissed with the handwave of "heteros can do it somewhere else, and if they can't they are doing it wrong."I'm not sure why you are being so defensive about this, and trying to sling personal attacks at me, including an attempt to dismiss my involvement in both communities as giving me no insight into them.If such arguments are true I guess we can chuck everything Jane Goodall or what any anthropologist ever did.I know I can invite hetero guys (even swinging guys) out to gay sex venues that would blow them away with the amount of sex (and the nature of that sex) going on. If you want to I can list addresses. Please let me know where there is anything in comparison for straights. Knock my "jaded" socks off.Indeed to be honest, I can get any straight guy a blow job from a gay guy (and more than one) within the hour. No not from anyone I know. I mean I can send them to a place (well a couple places actually) and they will get blown (unless they are obviously disease ridden or smelly). Can you tell me where a straight guy can go to get that from a girl, guaranteed within the hour? Without paying for it?If you can't then that is a pretty big statement about the difference in communities. If you can, you'll be doing a great service for the straight community by letting the genie out of the bottle.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-12-2005 06:03 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)