Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 151 of 206 (266518)
12-07-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by AdminPhat
12-05-2005 8:29 AM


Re: enter holmes...
I understand your concern, but this is the coffee house, and I don't hold any punches, and take it as good as I give it.
I don't really feel I said anything wrong to him. If your going to make a comment about something, then back it up. (holmes)
If I am wrong, then I expect you to go and read some of the responses from others towards me, and give them the same warning. Fair is fair. there are many in here who argue the person, not the position, then claim to be logical.
I am in here to speak to people, as well as issues, thats part of Sreading the good word. I mean well in all of it, even if I am bit abrasive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by AdminPhat, posted 12-05-2005 8:29 AM AdminPhat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2005 6:00 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 157 by Phat, posted 12-08-2005 9:47 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 152 of 206 (266530)
12-07-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by riVeRraT
12-07-2005 5:22 PM


Re: enter holmes...
I don't really feel I said anything wrong to him. If your going to make a comment about something, then back it up. (holmes)
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 12-07-2005 5:22 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 206 (266533)
12-07-2005 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Silent H
12-07-2005 6:32 AM


gotta make this one short
Hello Holmes,
Not sure if you mean EvC, or the Coffee House.
I mean EvC in that it includes Coffe House, but that's fine. I find overall the entire forum is good.
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.
As I read this, you agree with my position but disagree with my conclusion. Animals including dolphins that try to hump everything are going for penetration. And I think it does follow. Those that don't prefer penetrating sex leave fewer decendants. That indicates a generic based tendancy.
Do you prefer to jerk off or be jerked off rather than penetrating sex? I did not ask what you do because of practicality, but what you find more satisfying? I suspect you and the majority of humans (and all animals) would say that penetrating sex is better. How many non humans do you see jerking off in preference to vaginal sex with a female?
Exposure to one virus of that contagion is not enough to become infected.
You say that as fact. I disagree but that is only belief.
That is patently incorrect. It would be reduced, not eliminated. There are other vectors.
No, not patently incorrect. But I will gladly concede it won't be stopped cold as I said. But essentialy, it will be stopped. I suspect the rate of infection via other vectors is quite small in comparison.
Thats enough quoting and I have other things I need to do. But I will toss this out.
If a flu epidemic or pandemic appears to be in the making, and if I have symptoms of flu, do I have the right to go out it public, breath on every one, cough, shake hands, exchange money and the such. I say no.
However, to pass a law limiting my activities would be extremely controlling by the government. I do not like that possibility. That would indeed be a slippery slope problem.
If this spawns a spirited discussion, I ask that we try to stay with the fundamental concept rather than nitpicking technicalities. In order to brief and concentrate on the core ideas, I prefer to toss out the concept and let the loose ends flap in the breeze.
Holmes, I must depart for now but thanks for the conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Silent H, posted 12-07-2005 6:32 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2005 6:26 AM bkelly has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 154 of 206 (266716)
12-08-2005 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by bkelly
12-07-2005 6:02 PM


Re: gotta make this one short
Animals including dolphins that try to hump everything are going for penetration. And I think it does follow. Those that don't prefer penetrating sex leave fewer decendants. That indicates a generic based tendancy.
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.
what you find more satisfying?
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.
How many non humans do you see jerking off in preference to vaginal sex with a female?
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.
You say that as fact. I disagree but that is only belief.
From this discussion on HIV transmission investigations you will find comments such as this...
the infectious dose of HIV (the amount of virus required for transmission)
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.
No, not patently incorrect. But I will gladly concede it won't be stopped cold as I said.
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.
But essentialy, it will be stopped. I suspect the rate of infection via other vectors is quite small in comparison.
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.
If this spawns a spirited discussion, I ask that we try to stay with the fundamental concept rather than nitpicking technicalities. In order to brief and concentrate on the core ideas, I prefer to toss out the concept and let the loose ends flap in the breeze.
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...
Although it is true that core members have many partners, they have fewer acts with each partner. Given HIV is not easy to transmit "under normal circumstances", core members would be unlikely to transmit HIV in a single act of intercourse.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by bkelly, posted 12-07-2005 6:02 PM bkelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 12-08-2005 7:25 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 155 of 206 (266729)
12-08-2005 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Silent H
12-08-2005 6:26 AM


Re: gotta make this one short
quote:
Apparently you have not been around a monkey cage at the zoo. They have hands. They have females. They make choices.
So do the females.
As in, just because there are female monkeys around doesn't mean that the females are letting the males have penetrative intercourse as often as the males would like.
Therefore, the males might be masturbating not because they prefer it but because the females are rejecting their advances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2005 6:26 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2005 7:39 AM nator has replied
 Message 158 by Phat, posted 12-08-2005 9:57 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 156 of 206 (266731)
12-08-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by nator
12-08-2005 7:25 AM


Re: gotta make this one short
Therefore, the males might be masturbating not because they prefer it but because the females are rejecting their advances.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 12-08-2005 7:25 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by nator, posted 12-08-2005 4:41 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 160 by bkelly, posted 12-08-2005 5:27 PM Silent H has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 157 of 206 (266768)
12-08-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by riVeRraT
12-07-2005 5:22 PM


Easy, Cowboy
RiverRat writes:
I understand your concern, but this is the coffee house, and I don't hold any punches, and take it as good as I give it.
Yeah, I know. My whole angle was the very obvious WWJD? As an individual, you are welcome to get in it with the EvC crew! Who am I to judge anyone, right?
RiverRat writes:
If I am wrong, then I expect you to go and read some of the responses from others towards me, and give them the same warning. Fair is fair. there are many in here who argue the person, not the position, then claim to be logical.
Yeah, and I figure that in a forum like this, people be slangin ideas back and forth and it DOES get thick real quick at times! CoonDawg gets a bit feisty about rules, but he is nothing compared to Adminnemooseus or some of the other admins. We just want to remind everyone (Not just Rat) that focus on the issues is the main goal here.
Back On Topic:
randman, in original post writes:
I believe sexual taboos, such as multiple wives, homosexuality, multiple partners, even sex with minors, etc,...(but not rape), are more the result of moral judgments, and that a large part of morality is founded in religious beliefs though that's not the only source.
RiverRat writes:
We make up in our own head, what is acceptable for us as individuals. (...)There is no absolute religion. Only Jesus would be able to accomplish that. That is what the bible teaches me. I mean explain to me why one church would accept gay people in leadership, and another would not?
We make up rules as groups (churches) and also we choose which groups to belong to(as individuals).
Whether or not a person is gay is not the issue. The issue is whether or not a person is a responsible leader or teacher.
There are many instances of a 30 year old or older man or woman having sex with a parishoner or even a minor.
The issue is not the sexual preference. The issue is the behavior of the leader. IMHO, anyway.
Some churches would argue that the "gayness" is the sin and the issue. I would argue that we ALL sin, and the issue is the behavior of the individual...in any circumstance.
Lets look back at our Topic: ...mixing religion and the law.
What law? The law of human wisdom and precedent or the law of the Bible?
RiverRat writes:
I am instead careful how much science I let into my life. I mean I rellly love science, more than you know. But I am not a scientist, just a hobbyist. I also take a lot of it with a grain of salt, and if it crosses into my "religious" morals, then I have an issue. But so far my religious morals, are no different than the morals I had before I became "religious".
Really?
When I got "saved" and met God personally, my awareness of morality changed as well.
I am more responsible than I used to be. I know better than to have sex with anyone of any age or gender as it pertains to the church. Its like having sex within a family! Strictly taboo, in my opinion.
RiverRat writes:
Religous morals, and biblical morals are 2 different things.
Say what? Explain the difference between the two, from your perspective.
RiverRat writes:
There is 6 billion people on this earth. 2 billion of them are "Christians". Then why is there over 1 billion starving people? What kind of Christians are we?
Do you think that teaching "laws" and "morality" about sexual prohabitions will help reduce the world population growth and allow us to take care of who is already here?
RiverRat writes:
Tell us how you really feel, but this time don't hold anything back.
So much for intelligent conversation.
I really can't see how anyone could ever think you are logical.
See, Rat? Its comments like that last one that I highlighted that are un necessary! I am picking on you more than the others because you pray daily while they probably do not. You need to be a good example.
Yes, we are all sinners. Yes, everyone is human. As an Admin, however, I wish to emphasize the point that Behavior is a chosen form of morality...be ye a believer or be ye a skeptic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 12-07-2005 5:22 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by riVeRraT, posted 12-24-2005 11:57 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 158 of 206 (266772)
12-08-2005 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by nator
12-08-2005 7:25 AM


Re: gotta make this one short
Schrafinator writes:
As in, just because there are female monkeys around doesn't mean that the females are letting the males have penetrative intercourse as often as the males would like.
Therefore, the males might be masturbating not because they prefer it but because the females are rejecting their advances.
Yes, but monkeys have neither religion or law. They just DO it.
Not to get too far off topic, but this reminds me of a definition that I looked up in the Urban Dictionary.
This message has been edited by Phat, 12-08-2005 08:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 12-08-2005 7:25 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 159 of 206 (266915)
12-08-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Silent H
12-08-2005 7:39 AM


Re: gotta make this one short
quote:
I'm sorry, are you claiming that masturbation among male monkeys is always because female monkeys don't want it?
No. Not always.
That's why I used the word "might" in my statement:
Therefore, the males might be masturbating not because they prefer it but because the females are rejecting their advances.
I hope that this clears up your mistake regarding what I wrote.
quote:
You must be because that is the only way your point would mean anything against my point.
Not true.
You said, essentially, that the reason male monkeys choose to masturbate even though there are females around is because they prefer that to penetrative intercourse.
I was simply bringing up the obvious point that female monkeys are not neccessarily receptive to every single male monkey's sexual advances in every single instance.
Indeed, very few species of animal, including many monkey species, have females which engage in much, if any, sexual interaction, including penetrative intercourse, when they are not "in heat". This is not true of male monkeys and other species, which are usually ready to mate at all times.
quote:
And of course there is no truth to that absolutist idea at all.
Oh yeah? Ever seen a mare kick the shit out of a stallion that tries to mate with her before she is interested? I have.
However, if you can tell me which species of mammal, other than a few higher primates, in which the females commonly mate even when they are not "in heat", I'd be very surprised.
quote:
Monkeys masturbate. I cannot say what any particular monkey would most love, but they do masturbate even among populations which include receptive females.
I never said they didn't.
However, how do you know that the females are receptive?
quote:
Intriguingly female bonobos (and maybe other monkeys) also engage in sexual acts, sometimes nonpenetrative acts.
Sure, but that's Bonobos. They are very special, just as we humans are, because they engage in sex when the females are not in heat.
But I doubt that is true for most primate species, including monkeys.
quote:
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?
Yes holmes, I really do.
You really do need to get over yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2005 7:39 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2005 5:39 PM nator has replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 206 (266934)
12-08-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Silent H
12-08-2005 7:39 AM


Re: gotta make this one short
holmes writes:
I'm sorry, are you claiming that masturbation among male monkeys is always because female monkeys don't want it?
I don't see that in her response at all. You have distorted and abused her words.
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.
Yes, there is a lot of truth in it. You are the one that is behaving absolutist.
Monkeys masturbate. I cannot say what any particular monkey would most love, but they do masturbate even among populations which include receptive females.
If female A accepts male B but not male C, although there are receptive females in the vicinity, C may not be able to have sex. Masturbation may be his only outlet.
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?
Where do you get that out of schrafinator's response? After chatting with you for a while I must agree with her post. You really are full of yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2005 7:39 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2005 5:56 PM bkelly has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 161 of 206 (266938)
12-08-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by nator
12-08-2005 4:41 PM


Re: gotta make this one short
You said, essentially, that the reason male monkeys choose to masturbate even though there are females around is because they prefer that to penetrative intercourse.
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.
Oh yeah? Ever seen a mare kick the shit out of a stallion that tries to mate with her before she is interested? I have.
No but I have seen lions do that sort of thing. What's the point? I was talking about monkeys.
However, how do you know that the females are receptive?
Are you serious? Have you watched bonobos or other monkeys?
Sure, but that's Bonobos. They are very special, just as we humans are, because they engage in sex when the females are not in heat.
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.
You really do need to get over yourself.
??? 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by nator, posted 12-08-2005 4:41 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2005 7:02 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 165 by nator, posted 12-09-2005 6:22 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 162 of 206 (266945)
12-08-2005 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by bkelly
12-08-2005 5:27 PM


Re: gotta make this one short
I don't see that in her response at all. You have distorted and abused her words.
????? 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.
Yes, there is a lot of truth in it. You are the one that is behaving absolutist.
I'm sorry but I do not understand this statement.
If female A accepts male B but not male C, although there are receptive females in the vicinity, C may not be able to have sex. Masturbation may be his only outlet.
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.
Where do you get that out of schrafinator's response? After chatting with you for a while I must agree with her post. You really are full of yourself.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by bkelly, posted 12-08-2005 5:27 PM bkelly has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 206 (266963)
12-08-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Silent H
12-08-2005 5:39 PM


Re: gotta make this one short
Schrafinator writes:
However, how do you know that the females are receptive?
Holmes writes:
Are you serious? Have you watched bonobos or other monkeys?
You mean, you could tell she wanted it by the way she was dressed? Sorry Holmes - that was mean of me. But I like to watch monkeys at the zoo, too, and I still have no idea what you're talking about here. If there's some kind of obvious behavioral cue for female sexual receptivity that you're picking up on before actual penetration occurs, I think you owe Schraf and your readers a little more than arrogant derision.
In regards to monkey masturbation - I've heard stories about it that indicate, to me at least, that it could be a sexual display. A kind of "conspicuous consumption" as a display of virility; "I'm so virile that I can waste it if I want. Here, see?"
Just a third alternative I'm throwing out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2005 5:39 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Silent H, posted 12-09-2005 6:15 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 164 of 206 (267102)
12-09-2005 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
12-08-2005 7:02 PM


monkey business
If there's some kind of obvious behavioral cue for female sexual receptivity that you're picking up on before actual penetration occurs, I think you owe Schraf and your readers a little more than arrogant derision.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2005 7:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 165 of 206 (267106)
12-09-2005 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Silent H
12-08-2005 5:39 PM


Re: gotta make this one short
However, how do you know that the females are receptive?
quote:
Are you serious? Have you watched bonobos or other monkeys?
Yes, I'm serious.
Do you really believe that most or any primate species have a similar social structure to the Bonobos?? Do I have to remind you that Bonobos are apes, not monkeys? (Hint: monkeys have tails, apes do not)
I really do think you should tell us how you know a female of a particular species of monkey is receptive to penetrative intercourse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2005 5:39 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Silent H, posted 12-09-2005 2:00 PM nator 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