Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

purpledawn respond to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Here's some more questions to make you question your definition of "designed": If the anus were not a sexual organ, why does anal sex feel so good?

---

​

From a biological standpoint I would argue that the anus is designed as an exit, not an entrance to be used as the vagina is used.

---

Ahem. By this logic, the vagina is an exit, not an entry, either. Everything about the female genital tract pushes outward. The egg is released to the Fallopian tubes which have cilia the push toward the uterus. The muscular contractions of the uterus push toward the vagina. Those muscles also push toward the outside. The connection between the vagina and uterus is blocked by a thick cervix with only a tiny opening in it. The pH of the vagina is hostile to sperm.

quote:

---

The anus and anal canal do not produce lubricant as the vagina does.

---

Neither does the mouth. Does that mean the mouth isn't designed for sexual activity. Neither do the hands. Is masturbation verboten? Hand can only produce a minor amount of sweat.

quote:

---

Once through the anus and short anal canal (4cm) the rectum is not straight.

---

So? Do I need to again remind you that millions of people successfully have anal sex every single day? You seem to be heading down a road that there is some difficulty in having anal sex.

quote:

---

The rectum tilts toward the front of the body and then a few inches in, it curves back (sometimes as much as 90 degrees). After a few more inches it curves back towards the front of the body.

---

No, not really. Everybody's body is different. You are forgetting that the organs inside can and do shift to accomodate. Not only do people have no trouble taking an erect penis beyond the 4cm you're so concerned about, they can take fists and forearms. Some talented people are able to take it up to the elbow and beyond. Yes, they are exceptions, but you seem to be going down the road of claiming that a penis simply doesn't fit in the rectum.The millions of people who have anal sex prove you wrong.

quote:

---

The sphincter muscles, do not relax and expand when one is sexually aroused. It does not prepare itself to receive.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Have you been reading Paul Cameron? How many times do you need to be reminded that every day, millions of people around the world engage in anal sex before you consider the possibility that you're wrong?Next thing you know, you're going to talk about "gay bowel syndrome" as if that were an actual thing.

quote:

---

We can tense or relax the external sphincter whenever we want, but the internal sphincter is controlled by the involuntary nervous system.

---

(*chuckle*)You don't engage in anal sex, do you? Why do I get the feeling that the only way you could possibly be convinced that you've screwed up is to have it performed upon you?Repeat this over and over to yourself: Millions of people do it every day.If what you were saying is true, then they couldn't be doing it. Since they are, that must necessarily mean that what you are saying isn't true.

quote:

---

Supposedly one can learn to relax the internal sphincter. But it doesn't naturally relax for external entrance.

---

Huh? If you can relax it, then it is natural by definition. What are these bizarre definitions of "natural" and "design" that you harbor.By your logic, fellatio is "unnatural" since there is a gag reflex that is triggered if you go "too far." "Supposedly one can learn to suppress the reflex, but it doesn't naturally subside for vigorous entrance."So the mouth isn't designed for sex, either?

quote:

---

Humans don't seem to be limited by "design."

---

Hint: This is indicative of your definition of "design" being inadequate. Remember, if it weren't designed to do it, then you wouldn't be able to do it. If you can do it, then it was designed to allow it.

quote:

---

Humans weren't designed to stay under water.

---

Right, because we drown if we try. Since we can't stay underwater, we weren't designed to live underwater. But since we can engage in anal sex, we were obviously designed to have it. We wouldn't be able to if we weren't.

quote:

---

Humans weren't designed to go into space.

---

Right, because we die if we try to exist in vacuum. Since can't live in vacuum, we weren't designed to live in vacuum. But since we can engage in anal sex, we were obviously designed to have it. We wouldn't be able to if we weren't.

quote:

---

Humans weren't designed to fly.

---

Right, because we plummet to the ground when we try. Since we cannot maintain ourselves aloft, we weren't designed to fly. But since we can engage in anal sex, we were obviously designed to have it. We wouldn't be able to if we weren't.

quote:

---

Humans weren't designed to consume the chemicals that we consume.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? What do you think food is if not chemicals? If you meant toxins, you should have said. In that case, you'd be right because our biological functions cease (to varying degrees) when those toxins are introduced. Since our biological functions don't behave when certain toxins are present, we weren't designed to live with those toxins present. But since we can engage in anal sex, we were obviously designed to have it. We wouldn't be able to if we weren't.

quote:

---

While anal stimulation may feel good, IMO, since people adjust or learn to get around the design limitations

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You make it sound like one needs to undergo major surgery in order to engage in anal sex. And you make it sound like penis-vagina sex is the most natural act in the world requiring no technique or practice at all. Ask the average woman what her first time was like and I think you'd be surprised at the response. You have to learn how to accept a penis vaginally just as much as you have to learn how to accept it anally. You've never done it before and you have to figure out what the feelings are, what angles should be used, etc.There are no design limitations. In fact, given that some people can take an arm all the way to the shoulder, I daresay that the anus is much more designed to take a penis than the vagina. With the vagina, you wind up hitting the cervix. For some men, this means no full penetration and for the women involved, hitting the cervix is painful.You can get a lot more into your rectum.

quote:

---

feeling good may just be a side effect and not necessarily part of the design.

---

(*chuckle*)You seem to be indicating that somebody gave it some thought.

---

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.

Wow, you so didn't understand my post.

quote:

---

Remember, if it weren't designed to do it, then you wouldn't be able to do it.

---

Not really a true statement.A claw hammer is designed to remove nails. It has also been used to remove dandelions.Coca Cola is designed as a beverage, but it can be used to clean your battery.Just because something is designed for a specific job, doesn't mean it can't or won't be used in another fashion. Just because something is used in a different way doesn't change the purpose of the design.Do you have evidence that the sphincter muscles relax and expand when sexually aroused? Not after something is inserted causing it to expand, but as a response to arousal.I understand that bodies are different and the internal organs move, but my argument was from a biological standpoint. Since the anal path is not straight, it was not designed to receive a straight object.I didn't say people couldn't have anal sex.A catheter can be inserted in the urethra also, but that doesn't mean that the urethra was designed to receive objects.So since the anus does not provide lubrication, the canal is not straight, and the muscles tend to tense rather than relax when entered, IMO, the anus is not biologically designed for entrance.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then I suggest you simply aren't looking in the right places.

---

​

I think this is rather ironic. Exactly where should I be looking?

---

Elsewhere. I gave some examples in my post.

quote:

---

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.

---

And why wouldn't I? Think carefully, now.

quote:

---

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.

---

I know.I was contradicting you. There is just as much going on. It just isn't going on in the same way.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In fact, the phrase "free love" was not invented to describe gay sexual activity. "Wife swapping" and "key parties" were not invented by gays.

---

​

Yeah... and?

---

And thus there is just as much promiscuity going on in the straight community as the gay community. The average number of partners is pretty much the same for gay and straight males, for example.

quote:

---

As already mentioned, these guys often contact girls ahead of time.

---

What does that have to do with anything? They're not being paid. They were recently sued because the women on the cover of the Snoop Doggy Dog version apparently did not agree to that. You can have a casting call and still get volunteers.Or have you never heard of "community theatre"?

quote:

---

But let's pretend that they never do. What they do not get is free sex wherever they go.

---

Then you're just not looking in the right places. To compare promiscuity rates between gays and straights, you cannot simply look for straight bath houses, find hardly any, and then throw up your hands and declare that gay people are so much more promiscuous.Straight people don't need bath houses to find each other when they want to have sex.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Trying to be as gentle as I can: Have you considered the possibility that the actual phrase is, "Most women in our culture simply will not with you"?

---

​

1) I wasn't discussing the frequency with which I can get action with other girls.

---

Did you or did you not say the following: And in this very post of yours, did you or did not just say above: It would seem that you are basing your conclusion upon your own personal experience. Have you considered the possibility that your own personal experience is insufficient to extend to the greater population?

quote:

---

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.

---

And it doesn't occur to you that the reason might be you rather than them?Are you seriously claiming that your personal experience is a perfect minimodel of the world at large and can be used as a standard for comparison?

quote:

---

2) Even if I was discussing my own sex life,

---

Did you or did you not say the following: When you used the word "I" and the phrase "my experience," was there some other person to whom you were referring other than yourself? For you to somehow claim that you weren't discussing your own sex life is fairly disingenuous when you make comments such as "I am in the swinging community of heteros" and "I'm trying to figure out how you would know more about the hetero free sex community than I do."You were holding your own sex life up for examination. You don't get to be pissy when somebody bothers to examine it.

quote:

---

If I can't for the life of me get laid by girls because I am "doing something wrong",

---

I would think that statement to be self-contradictory. You are doing something wrong because you aren't getting laid.

quote:

---

yet within minutes am guaranteed of having sex with another guy no matter what I do,

---

Even the pope? Every single male, no matter who, will agree to have sex with you?

quote:

---

we are seeing a difference in the free sex availability within each community.

---

And those who study the sex lives of the population at large don't come to the same conclusions. What is it you know that they don't? Straight males have, on average, the same number of partners over a lifetime as gay males.Those straight men have to be having sex with someone and it isn't with each other.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, the reason for a gay bath house does not exist for the straight community.

---

​

Actually I am not understanding what you mean with this other than that heteros can have sex elsewhere.

---

It means that society is designed to couple heterosexuals together. To take a flippant example, how many dating shows have there been on television over the years? And how many times have those shows featured same-sex couples? From the time we are able to walk and recognize other people as individuals, we pair the boys and girls off.

quote:

---

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.

---

Huh? They don't need a bath house. They have the entire world upon which to meet other straight people in order to have sex.

quote:

---

More heteros. percentage wise, are uncomfortable with unrestricted sexual activity as goes on in bath houses (or other venues).

---

Obviously not or they wouldn't be having sex in all those places. Lovers Lane is not where the gay people hang out. All the stories we hear about sex in the elevator and in the copy room and in the broom closet are not stories about gay people.

quote:

---

Just to let you know there are hetero versions of bath houses, it is just that the ratio is like 20:1.

---

But as you know, it is inappropriate to try to compare promiscuity rates between gays and straights by counting the number of bath houses.Straight people have little need of bath houses.

quote:

---

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.

---

Incorrect. It tends to indicate that there is less need for known spot where people of the appropriate sex will be congregating with an itch to get laid. Straight people don't need bath houses.

quote:

---

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.

---

But it only proves my point: Gay people need them because there is no place for them in the greater society. Straight people, being so numerous and in control of society, don't need bath houses to accomplish the same end.

quote:

---

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.

---

Strange, I would say the inverse thing about you. Your argument is more fallacy prone as you are arguing from a supposition that gays must be more promiscuous than straight and then dismissing the counterevidence.

quote:

---

You appear to be arguing that there must be other places where such activity occurs, despite no evidence for them.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?After giving you at least three different places to look for heterosexual free love, you then say that there is no evidence for it?Are you seriously arguing that the only place in which free love happens is at a bath house?

quote:

---

Now let me give you an example... Real life.

---

I thought you weren't discussing your sex life. Make up your mind, will you?[example deleted for space]Question: Are you assuming that everybody that goes to a bath house is a unique individual? You do understand the perils of averages, yes?

quote:

---

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).

---

Then you aren't looking in the right places.

quote:

---

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.

---

How many times must it be pointed out to you before it sinks in? It is inappropriate to try to compare promiscuity rates between gays and straights by counting the number of bath houses.Straight people have little need of bath houses.

quote:

---

So its not like I'm making this up.

---

I never said you weren't. I simply pointed out that you are not perhaps the best judge. Your personal experience is not generalizable.

quote:

---

You and I both know, or at least I'd guess you would know,

---

And why would you guess that? I know I've been very careful not to say either way whether I am gay, straight, or somewhere in between. I do not wish to have my comments interpreted in the haze of "You would say that...you're X."

quote:

---

that "gay" bars are on average more sexual than any straight bar.

---

No, not at all. I used to live in Vegas, remember.

quote:

---

Dark rooms exist in many, probably enough to call it "common", while that pretty much is nonexistant in straight bars.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you?

quote:

---

If you don't know this about the gay community, might I suggest you aren't looking in the right places?

---

What makes you think personal experience is ever sufficient evidence?

---

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.

bkelly responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Bingo! Give the man a prize.

---

​

You are rather good at turning a defeat into a victory by distoring words.

---

Hint: I wasn't being facetious.I am saying, sincerely and directly, the human brain is designed to stop a bullet precisely because it can. If it weren't, then it couldn't. Since it can, it is.

quote:

---

You work very hard to insult people and tell them how stupid they are

---

Wow...my posts are both "precise and inoffensive" and "insulting" all at the same time. No accounting for taste, I guess.That said, I don't insult people. I point out how they have insulted the intelligence of those around them. I do not call them stupid. I merely point out where their arguments are going wrong. Many people take it as insulting, however, but usually because they are incapable of reconsidering their own behaviour.

quote:

---

and as a result, you get to conclude how bright you are.

---

Well, I am bright. You seem to think that I should be ashamed of this. I do not need other people to tell me this nor do I need to lord it over others. Do not confuse the fact that I have spent time analyzing your argument with some sort of personal, emotional investment in you.

quote:

---

Look at your posts and see how often your statements can be seen as insuslting.

---

My posts run the gamut. They start off polite and as the person with whom I am talking degenerates into ad hominem commentary, I turn it around on them. If you don't like the treatment you are getting, perhaps you should stop dishing it out.

quote:

---

What you have tried to hide in humor is: You are a real dumb shit. The message is clear.

​

Do you enjoy saying that to people?

---

Yes. It's funny. It shows, through a humorous method, that some concepts that are being taken very seriously by the population at large are actually quite ridiculous. People are actually trying to say that we should leave the question of how life diversified on this planet to fourteen-year-olds as if they have the biological skills and experience necessary to determine if a piece of evidence is valid or not. Children who have never seen the inside of a professional lab.If I can get them to see the ridiculousness of their position through a humorous method, then that's a good thing.Of course, those who don't have a sense of humor will be offended. That isn't my problem. Those without a sense of humor will have a hard time being convinced that they need to reexamine their assumptions.

quote:

---

What do you gain from the insults you throw?

---

The ability to show others that if they don't like when I do it to them, then they shouldn't have done it to me.

---

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.

purpledawn responds to me:

quote:

---

Wow, you so didn't understand my post.

---

Nor you mine.I am trying to get you to reconsider your definition of what "design" means.

quote:

---

A claw hammer is designed to remove nails. It has also been used to remove dandelions.

---

Which means it is also designed to remove dandelions. If it weren't, then you would be physically incapable of doing it.

quote:

---

Coca Cola is designed as a beverage, but it can be used to clean your battery.

---

Which means it is also designed to clean corrosion (it does contain acid, after all). If it weren't, then you would be physically incapable of doing it.

quote:

---

Just because something is designed for a specific job, doesn't mean it can't or won't be used in another fashion.

---

Which means it's designed for that other fashion, too. Do not confuse conscious intent with design. Design refers to the physical construction. Your intentions in creating the object, however, are not transferred to the object and thus, you cannot tell another that it isn't "designed" to be used that way. If it works, obviously it was. You didn't mean for it to be used that way, but you designed an object that can.

quote:

---

Just because something is used in a different way doesn't change the purpose of the design.

---

You've changed your criteria. Purpose is not design.

quote:

---

Do you have evidence that the sphincter muscles relax and expand when sexually aroused?

---

Yes. Those who engage in anal sex will relax their anal muscles in order to accomodate what will be inserted. Just as those who engage in vaginal sex will relax their vagina muscles in order to accomodate what will be inserted.That's part of the way that you can tell if it was rape or not: If the person isn't willing, they tighten up and you have to force your way in. If they were willing, they relax.

quote:

---

Not after something is inserted causing it to expand, but as a response to arousal.

---

Have you never had anal sex?

quote:

---

I understand that bodies are different and the internal organs move, but my argument was from a biological standpoint.

---

As was mine. The anus is much more capable of accepting large phallic objects than the vagina. And yes, I know full well that a baby comes through the vaginal opening, but it comes from the inside out after a great deal of hormonal work goes to loosen the cervix. Outside of pregnancy, the uterine cavity is sealed off by the cervix and some men will be incapable of full penetration.He'll have much greater success anally since there is no cap.

quote:

---

Since the anal path is not straight, it was not designed to receive a straight object.

---

And yet simple observation shows that claim to be wrong. People are having anal sex. With full insertion. By very well-endowed men.Do you need to have someone have anal sex in front of you before you consider the possibility that your claim is false?

quote:

---

I didn't say people couldn't have anal sex.

---

Yes, you did. You said it just above: The erect penis is, for the most part, straight. Your claim is that the anal path is not straight. Therefore, anal sex should be extremely difficult.And yet, it is clear to all but the most casual observer that there is something wrong with such a claim: People keep having anal sex with absolutely no difficulty.

quote:

---

A catheter can be inserted in the urethra also, but that doesn't mean that the urethra was designed to receive objects.

---

Yes, it does. If it weren't, you wouldn't be able to do it. The fact that you can is proof positive that it was.Take, for example, some carnivorous plants. They have stiffened hairs in the tube that point in only one direction. As the insect enters the tube, travel can only happen in one direction: The spines prevent backwards motion and the insect is trapped.The anus is not like that. You can achieve insertion just as you can achieve insertion in the vagina. If the anus was not designed for penetration, then the vagina wasn't, either.So which is it?

quote:

---

So since the anus does not provide lubrication

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?I take it you've never had anal sex. Of course the anus provides lubrication. How do you think the fecal material moves down? Or is your diet so poor that you suffer from chronic diarrhea?

quote:

---

the canal is not straight

---

Neither is the vagina, really. But that is neither here nor there as it is straightened during sexual activity. This is proven by simple observation of those having anal sex.

quote:

---

and the muscles tend to tense rather than relax when entered

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Do you really need to have people have anal sex in front of you before you consider the possibility that you are mistaken?

quote:

---

IMO, the anus is not biologically designed for entrance.

---

And yet, the millions of people who are having anal sex right now are proving you wrong.Why do you persist in claiming that they are incapable of doing what they are doing right here and now?Remember, if it weren't designed for it, they wouldn't be able to do it. Since they can, it was.

---

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.

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)

Okay look, I have nothing against anal sex, and I certainly don't believe the ass was "designed" for anything, but your position is getting a little ridiculous.The digestive tract did not form over time because anal sex was important or happening with some regularity. You are correct that anal sex is like oral sex, in that it is fine and not "against" any purpose. But it is having sex using either end of the digestive tract which does have the primary purpose (utility) of digestion.A vagina really has only one purpose and that is sex. It can be primary importance of reproduction, or secondary for fun, but are sexual and there really isn't much else use except perhaps as a storage compartment?And unlike what you've been saying, the vagina does react to anticipation of sex and actual acts of sex in ways the ass does not.About the one thing that can be said for the ass is that it is externally loaded with nerves and so external stimulation is sexually exciting, and it does spasm during orgasm which can be used to heighten orgasm.It is not as easy to learn to have anal sex as you suggest. Its possible, but not as many people are able to engage in it as you appear to be implying... even if they would like to. Yes I have seen people with hands and even arms (yes Rrhain is right about this) jammed up there. That does not make it a feat many or most are capable of.I have read that tears are more common within the intestinal tract than inside a vagina. I am open to different info, but that would seem to make sense as the vagina has to be generally capable of handling a baby... an ass does not.You really do seem to go overboard in "defending" things which are typically considered "gay" issues. That is you seem to have to make everything equal or "better", rather than just show it is what it is.Its sort of odd to see someone arguing that vaginal and anal sex are physical equivalents, and that they have equal functions to human sexuality.

---

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

quote:

---

There may be absolute morals, but we will never know them. There are absolute morals amoung religions. But I guess it can vary from religion to religion.

---

Absolute morals that vary from religion to religion? It may not be absolute morality but that logic is absolutely ridiculous

quote:

---

What I don't like about science is that we live thinking things are a certain way for so long, using that knowledge to help us go through life, then science has the right to just say we were wrong, and this is how it really is based on new discoverys.

---

Well, that is too bad for you but science is not undertaken to caress our egos or fullfil our biases. In fact, it does its best to control bias and remain free of dogma. If you don't like that then it is hard to reconcile this with your previously stated admiration of science. Science progresses..dogmatic religion does not.

quote:

---

So if that isn't a prime example of what I am saying, then I don't know. This person wants to base a moral belief on science, while disregarding religous morals. Trading religion for science. If science is so correct all the time, and we can base how we live on it, then why is it allowed to be wrong? You see my point?

---

That was not a quote from me. But in any case, why not disregard religious morals? You already said that they vary from religion to religion and people pick and chose based on what they like. At least the quoted person based his behavior on a low risk of harm. If your "religious based morals" cause physical or psychological damage to people by repressing them then I find your religion immoral and would chose a morality that did not lead to such dogma proscribed harm.In any case, the person you quoted is using science to determine whether sex or monogomy are dangerous or not..not if they are moral.

quote:

---

Science does not know a thing. Science knows no more than the word run.

---

Strange incoherent statements. not sure what you are trying to get at.

quote:

---

My 40 years of existance tells me different

---

One can exist without any clue whatsoever for lengthy periods of time...that is hardly an indication that your position is correct.

quote:

---

It is right until it is wrong.

---

You mean from the absolute moral perspective which can vary depending on the preference or whim of the "absolutist"? Ok, then it is wrong.

quote:

---

That was a different time, a different way of life.

---

That is what I love about Xianty..the complete lack of consistency..absolute morals vary by preference, by time, way of life..but they are still absolute. In effect, you can do anything you want..even become a serial killer and it is still absolutely moral as long as you put it into some kind of favorable context...and I as an atheist am supposedely immoral with no ethics?

quote:

---

Not exactly. The bible says there are many ways to live, but only one idea will get you into heaven. Believe in Jesus, Love God, and love others. Its pretty simple. Those are some of the absolutes I live by now that I am a witness.

---

You do realize however, that there are a lot of people who completely disagree with you who are Xians? And they also justify their positions with the bible.

quote:

---

I don't believe you.
You are just avoiding the quetion. You know what Jesus is all about, you've read the bible, what would he think of you?

---

Your not believing me is your problem..not mine. The real question is what does Gandalf think of you? I am assuming you regard Gandalf as a fictional character from Lord of the Rings and don't believe he has an opinion of you since he does not exist in reality...well, that is how I feel about your question.

quote:

---

Gravity does not = science.
Gravity is what is, science is the study of what is.
Your bluring the lines agian.

---

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, yet lots of people disbelieve both. But your statement was that science cannot explain anything...yet you would probably subscribe to the current scientific consensus of the theory of gravity even though it is based on what you would call scientific BS.

quote:

---

This is more evidence to me of what you might have been through regarding religion.

---

Actually, my experiences with religous people have been largely benign. But I do have a lot against those who claim moral authority based on their own personal mythologies and try to sell it as absolute...also those who claim their personal preferences are somehow equivalent to the objectivity of methodological naturalism or that remaining ignorant is a necessary state.

quote:

---

This is really just a big bogus statement and has nothing to do with any of what I am saying.

---

You said unless every single individual that ever lived was tested for the same thing, we cannot know anything..that is the bogus statement.I am fine with you believing what you want to believe and rejecting science in fact. If you prefer prayer to modern medicine that is fine...if you rather throw up your hands in the air any time you are confronted with what you don't understand and saying "goddidit"..great for you..but some of us rather actually know how the universe works and what reality is...unfortunately, there seem to be very few of us that are American anymore.

That part is correct, you were just wrong. Not nearly as bight as you think you are. You haven't figured out that holmes and (I think it was) purpledawn have also blown many of your positions in the weeds. Your first reply contains your signatere, i.e. You are a dumb shit. You start your conversations by talking about how other people are dumb shits. You may not have figured it out, but you do work hard at being insulting.Hopefully, some day you will figure this out. Then you can put your brain to good use.

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

Okay look, I have nothing against anal sex, and I certainly don't believe the ass was "designed" for anything, but your position is getting a little ridiculous.

---

Must...maintain...control...don't...laugh...no!

quote:

---

The digestive tract did not form over time because anal sex was important or happening with some regularity.

---

I never said it did. You seem to have the same trouble with the word "design" that bkelly and such do. You also seem to be stuck on the "only one use" schtick. As an owner of a penis, surely you are aware that an organ can be used for more than one thing.

quote:

---

You are correct that anal sex is like oral sex, in that it is fine and not "against" any purpose. But it is having sex using either end of the digestive tract which does have the primary purpose (utility) of digestion.

---

"Primary"? Says who? I don't recall getting a manual with this body that told me what the function of each fiddly bit was. I will handily agree with you that the digestive tract is most commonly used for digestion, but that hardly makes it "primary" in some sort of "designed" sense.Instead, the digestive tract is the most efficient method of taking in nutrients. It isn't the only way, however.And your example of the mouth doesn't even survive the concept of "most common" as a definition for "primary." You use your mouth much commonly for breathing and speaking than you do for eating.So what on earth is your definition of "primary"? And why does it even matter? Isn't that the point behind evolution? There is no such thing as "design" or "purpose" in any sort of sense of consciousness or intent. Instead, things happen due to efficiency. If an environmental challenge arises and a certain solution proves to be good enough, then that solution becomes more common and more efficient structures around that process are selected for.

quote:

---

A vagina really has only one purpose and that is sex.

---

Huh? I should think that the baby coming out of it would claim it has an entirely different purpose. Or are you claiming that sex includes giving birth?

quote:

---

It can be primary importance of reproduction, or secondary for fun, but are sexual and there really isn't much else use except perhaps as a storage compartment?

---

Why not? Why is your conscious decision to use the vaginas you come across only in a certain way some sort of biological mandate and all other uses are "perverted"? When did you become god and in control of evolutionary processes?

quote:

---

And unlike what you've been saying, the vagina does react to anticipation of sex and actual acts of sex in ways the ass does not.

---

I never said it didn't. You have your arrow of implication backwards. Just because the anus doesn't react identically to the vagina when sexual activity is anticipated doesn't mean that the anus doesn't react at all. They do share some traits, however. Sexual arousal in someone anticipating anal sex is accompanied by a relaxing of the anal muscles just as sexual arousal in someone anticipating vaginal sex is accompanies by a relaxing of the vaginal muscles. For both anal and vaginal sex, someone who does not want to have sex will tense those muscles and it will be difficult to achieve penetration.

quote:

---

About the one thing that can be said for the ass is that it is externally loaded with nerves and so external stimulation is sexually exciting, and it does spasm during orgasm which can be used to heighten orgasm.

---

Which is what I originally said: If it weren't "designed" for sex, why does anal sex feel so good? Why would so many people engage in it if it weren't "designed" for sexual activity? Don't people engage in sex in order to achieve sexual pleasure (among many other things)? Why would people engage in anal sex if it didn't provide sexual pleasure? They're all doing it out of a sense of duty? Politics? Art?

quote:

---

It is not as easy to learn to have anal sex as you suggest.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Why should we believe your claim as opposed to the millions of people around the world who are engaging in anal sex right now? And not for the first time.

quote:

---

Its possible, but not as many people are able to engage in it as you appear to be implying... even if they would like to.

---

Then why are they? Why should we consider your claim to be accurate when simple observation shows us millions of people having anal sex? Why does your claim of inability trump all the examples of actual anal sex?

quote:

---

Yes I have seen people with hands and even arms (yes Rrhain is right about this) jammed up there. That does not make it a feat many or most are capable of.

---

I never said they did. I simply said it was possible. The average penis, however, is nowhere near that size. Comparing what comes out of the anus to what is trying to be inserted, a penis is no trouble at all.Or are you claiming that most everybody goes through agony when having a bowel movement?

quote:

---

I have read that tears are more common within the intestinal tract than inside a vagina.

---

I never said otherwise. What does that have to do with anything? You seem to be saying that if there is any trauma, then it must be a "perversion of design."

quote:

---

You really do seem to go overboard in "defending" things which are typically considered "gay" issues.

---

Ah, and here we have it. The psychoanalyzing over the net. Because I have a strong opinion and defend it vigorously, that must mean I have an extremely personal stake in the issue. This is precisely why I don't talk about my sexual orientation. I want you to focus on the information being presented, not the person presenting it. Would my comments have their truth value change if I were gay? Straight? Bi? Asexual? Zoo? Kinky? Does the fact that I know about fisting mean I engage in it?Just what was your point in your comment above, holmes?

quote:

---

That is you seem to have to make everything equal or "better", rather than just show it is what it is.

---

Strange, I would say the opposite. Those that I am arguing with have to make everything worse rather than just showing it what it is. After all, I am not the one saying that anal sex violates some sort of "design." My argument is that it happens. A lot. And the people who engage in it seem to be extremely happy with it or they wouldn't be doing it over and over again.Therefore, this argument from "design" holds no water. There is no such thing as "design."

quote:

---

Its sort of odd to see someone arguing that vaginal and anal sex are physical equivalents, and that they have equal functions to human sexuality.

---

Huh? Who said anything about "equal functions"?All I did was point out that anal sex happens and that it feels good according to those who engage in it. How does that lead one to claim that it is of "equal function" to vaginal sex?

---

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.

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

Your posts are a riot.

---

I'm glad I can keep you company.

quote:

---

1) I am discussing both my personal knowledge...

---

Stop right there."Personal knowledge"? You think that is a legitimate form of proof? We chide the creationists for confusing anecdote with evidence, holmes. What makes you think you get off the hook simply because it's your anecdote?[attempted justification of anecdote as evidence deleted for space since holmes seems to be averse to thorough responses]

quote:

---

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.

---

Incorrect. You have the arrow backwards.Bath houses imply promiscuity. Promiscuity does not imply bath houses. If one is looking to account for promiscuity, one cannot observe a lack of bath houses and conclude that there is little.

quote:

---

Apparently nearly everything in the world is designed for heteros to get together and have... promiscuous sex????

---

To a great degree, yes. Bath houses exist for a societal as well as for a functional reason. For example, when the cops come across a heterosexual couple having sex in the bushes, they are much more likely to give them a clearing of the throat, a stern talking to, and let them go on their way. They will likely arrest a homosexual couple in the same scenario.

quote:

---

Even at lovers lane the idea is not that lovers switch cars every ten minutes or so.

---

So? At lovers lane, you often find the same people over various nights...but not with the one they were with the last time. Do I really need to explain how averages work?

quote:

---

Most hetero sex locations are designed for monogamous (even if serial) hookups.

---

Indeed...now think about how you can use that and still come up with just as much promiscuity as happens in a bath house?You don't really think that everybody in a bath house has sex with everybody else during their stay, do you? Do I really need to explain the statistical concept of "outliers" to you?

quote:

---

Gay bars and other venues (I'm talking about more than just bath houses) are often designed for promiscuous multi-partner sex in house.

---

While this is true in some of the larger cities in the world, this is not true for most. Yes, there are lots of bars out there with back rooms. They're few and far between, though. You lose your liquor license if you get raided.

quote:

---

You do not find that outside of the small, and relatively shrinking swinging lifestyle venues for heteros.

---

Again, straight people don't need those venues. They exist in the gay community for societal reasons and those reasons are not much of a concern for the straight population.

quote:

---

3) You claim that the number of sexual partners are equal between homosexuals and heteros. Maybe the average does ? I dunno.

---

Yes, the average. Sexual orientation has no bearing on the average number of sex partners a male has. Those men have to be having sex with someone. If the number of partners is the same, then then amount of promiscuity must be the same.

quote:

---

My guess... and yes this is a guess.. that people would be less likely to report the number of promiscuous encounters, especially gay men.

---

So now we've gone from your personal experience to a gut reaction? You don't even have the flimsy excuse of anecdote to justify your claim? It's just a guess?

quote:

---

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).

---

Then by your logic, straight people are even more promiscuous than gay people. Since the average number of partners as surveyed is the same and since the gays' numbers are overestimates, that must mean that straight people have more partners than gay people.

quote:

---

In the end, I would guess people have various different interpretations of partners.

---

Oh, and now they're "confused." But again, this would mean that straight people are even more promiscuous than gay people. If the gay people are including everybody they've ever gotten off with while the straights are only counting "important longterm partners," then the straight numbers are underestimates.Combine this with your previous assertion that gay people are overestimating their numbers and you have to conclude that it's amazing that heterosexuals get anything done with all the sex they're having.

quote:

---

some might decide to enhance their numbers just to be thought more virile (to themselves).

---

And wouldn't that apply across the board? Ergo, it would have no effect.

quote:

---

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.

---

Incorrect.I keep claiming that promiscuity is not accurately measured by looking only at bath houses. You have the arrow of implication backwards. Bath houses imply promiscuity but promiscuity does not imply bath houses.

quote:

---

I would like you to defend that more in depth.

---

It's simple logic. The inverse of a true statement is not necessarily true. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

quote:

---

I'm not sure why you are being so defensive about this

---

(*chuckle*)Yes, that's right. Anybody who dares to disagree with you and refuses to accept your "personal experience" and your "guess" as convincing proof must be "defensive" about it. Just because you have a dog in this fight, holmes, doesn't mean everybody else does. Stop projecting.

quote:

---

and trying to sling personal attacks at me

---

No...I shouldn't...but I will.This coming from someone who just called me "defensive"? And you expect me to take you seriously?

quote:

---

including an attempt to dismiss my involvement in both communities as giving me no insight into them.

---

Anecdote is not evidence, holmes. You know that. Just because it's yours doesn't give it any more weight.

quote:

---

If such arguments are true I guess we can chuck everything Jane Goodall or what any anthropologist ever did.

---

Are you claiming to be an anthropologist? What journals have you published in regarding sexology? How did you randomize your samples?Do you have any argument that isn't anecdote or guessing?

---

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.

You've returned to the line by line response I see, attempting to score points on things I address later in the same post, yet you act like it wasn't.Hmmmmm... maybe I should just deliver one word replies. I just said it wasn't designed, and I go on to discuss that things may have more than one use. This criticism makes no sense. It is a strawman. Not even a nice try. Oh I'm happy enough using "most common use", rather than "primary". But my use of primary had nothing to do with design concepts as I said that right in the first sentence. Any organ does or can serve a number of functions for the body, its most common function and especially those functions which would have been part of the natural selection process would in my mind be primary.There is no concept that primary refers to a moral stance and that a secondary or tertiary use is somehow less valid. That's not necessarily so. Breathing is often done through the nose instead of the mouth. That's one of the reasons there are filters in the nose for breathing, and a tongue in the mouth for testing foods, and not the other way around.In any case, we can juggle which is more common and so the more primary (in my terms) usage, but that will not change the fact that when you engage in oral sex it is generally with an opening to the digestive tract. One swallows cum, one does not inhale it. Or if one does, it is considered an error. Yeah, there was no environmental challenge which was solved by anal sex, nor was the asshole developed in the face of penises trying to penetrate posteriors.That is unlike the vagina. Yes. That should have been obvious. When did you leave the rails? I never said or suggested mandate nor did I ever hint at a concept of moral label such as perverse. You are developing a rather large strawman out of my use of the word Primary. I'm sorry but that isn't really relevant. Its not just relaxation of the muscles which goes on. It is true that you can train yourself to accept anal penetration and anticipate it, but that does not mean that the body has a base set of automatic responses for sex which include preparation for anal sex. Uh... yeah. When I argue against people that are making a design argument that is something I bring up. Indeed I love to use these kinds of things on ID people.I'm not arguing design. Anal stimulation (I am not going to say full sex) feels good because the area has lots of nerve endings. Anal sex feels good for many because of the outer stimulation (though NOT everyone can enjoy the full width of a cock), an enjoyment of a full feeling inside (which is NOT enjoyable for all), and the fact that you can stimulate the back of the prostate gland from inside.For those that enjoy it it is a perfectly valid use of the ass. No one is doing anything wrong or misusing it. Will this stick with you? Oh I really don't want to get into discussing the dynamic qualities of shit, but the comparison is NOT the same. For instance most people use softeners not hardeners. No, I'm simply stating that the area is not used to accomodating that particular usage. This is funny coming from the guy that decided I must be a child molester and suggested maybe he should call the police. As it is you are suggesting you know what I think about anal sex, which you don't.The point of my comment... and the following portions of the same argument which you answered to separately... is that it seems that when there is an issue which is related to gay issues you are not simply content with evaluating facts and allowing some plausible criticism to come in. Instead you seem to argue that they must be equal or better in all ways.That makes your positions both inaccurate in fact and apparently irrational. You appear to be trying too hard to justify activities.Whether you are gay or not is besides the point. Indeed I wasn't actually suggesting you were gay, but pointing out what you are doing. Yeah, I do think you are gay but that is not the point. I am what most would consider bi, so there would be no point in my suggesting you should not be believe because you are gay.The point is you are being too defensive and so lose credibility. Well I agree that there are those which do argue that way. I'm not one of them. But just because they argue one way does not make your style of argument different in style. You seem to exaggerate the other way. You did. You called the ass a sexual organ, in comparison to the vagina. It is not a sexual organ, even if it gets used in a sex act. Sex organ is a functional description.

---

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

I said BOTH personal knowledge AND...Its the combination which adds credence to the anecdote. For a guy arguing that anal sex is great based on anecdotal evidence of the same sort, I don't see what your problem is here. Yeah, and that's not what I was doing. There is nothing comparable to the bath house as a venue for the same amount and degree of promiscuous sex within the hetero community. That certainly does mean there is less sex of that nature and less desire for such venues within that community.It doesn't have to be bath houses, and I will remind you that I have not only referred to bath houses. That does not at all suggest that there are comparable amounts of promiscuous activity within the hetero community. And you are WAYYYYYYYYYY off suggesting that most things are set up for hetero promiscuity. I have made it very clear we are not just discussing individual swappings, or quick pickups at bars.Those simply do not compare to immediate multiple partner (group) activity, in a wholly anonymous manner. Uh, if you don't see the difference between people coming in from all over to hop from car to car having sex with anyone, and individual couples that have met and decide to go to a remote location to have sex with each other only... what can I say?There is no "averages" which help you here. Once again lets compare the size of the different communities, the number of venues, and those within those venues. You can't, that's why I said it. And no it doesn't require a gay at a bath house to have sex with everyone else their. If it is your position that gays at bath houses and bars and venues like that typically only have sex with one person during a visit, then you have definitely not been anywhere near a typical gay free sex venue... or you are outright lying.I have already said I go to them and I talk with people in those worlds/businesses. I am familiar with such venues on both sides. The promiscuous activity betwen hetero and homosexual communities does not compare. Might I recommend you go to squirt dot org or similar sites to review what kind of venues and activity goes on there? 1) How do you know it is not true for most (or do you mean most bars)?2) Few and far between compared to straight venues?3) That is not always true. And some have gotten around that buy not selling liquor in the first place, and also by having people by memberships on entry (thus making the establishment a nonpublic space). Because they have which alternative venues for quick, casual, anonymous, multipartner sex?Can you explain to me why gays cannot meet and have sex in the same way heteros do without the rather numerous (in comparison) open free sex areas? You can't pass it off that gays would get arrested in the bushes after hooking up in a bar, because if one looks it is also parks where gays are having sex more often than straights, and in any case they can go home and have sex. Uh, that's not true at all. You can have a similar average between populations with a few people having lots of partners though most have a few, and one in which most have a large number than the most of the other but fewer than the highest from the other. Yes, that's what I said. Are you hard of reading? By the way that is not my only issue. You need to read a whole piece before criticizing. Who said the gay's numbers were overestimates? Where does that come from what I said? That is not anywhere close to what I said. I said people have different interpretations. There is no confusion. You seem to have no knowledge regarding the weaknesses of statistical surveys, particularly of self reporting.Do you want a full breakdown of issues I have? You know what, let's start with the studies you are alluding to. Cite one. I'm not saying I doubt you, but I would like to see one and so I can break down what my issues would be on something specific. Not necessarily. You are right that merely the number of bath houses means nothing. I have already said how the comparison must actually be made. Since you dispute my position, you are the one making the error. What dog do I have in this fight? You are the one trying to downplay the relatively greater promiscuity within the gay community for whatever reason. It does not affect me one way or the other which actually has the more promiscuity, other than I'd personally enjoy the same level of promiscuity which exists in the homosexal community to exist in the hetero one.And no not just so that I can get laid. I think the gay sexual lifestyle is more natural and healthy in general. I like to see the laid back atmosphere generated in such communities better.This desire is not aided by arguing that gays are more promiscuous. If they weren't then I'd just say hell yeah heteros are gettin' on, compared to the frumpy gay scene.I'm not projecting, but you are in serious denial. Yes you should. Might I remind you that you started in with the ad hominem arguments from the start? Your first reaction was that I could only be disagreeing with your position if I couldn't get laid. That's incorrect. Anecdote is not wholly useful, but it can when qualified and in conjunction with other facts. If you are an american and have served in govt then your anecdotal commentary of what it is like for an american in govt is useful, including issues facing people in that specific community.Your level of dismissal means talking to anyone is meaningless. Well I am a sociologist by training (education). It was going to be anthro, and then the college abandoned that degree program to consolidate it all under sociology.I don't have anything published in a journal on that subject right now. Do you? That's an interesting question. One part of that is to take samples from a broad array of a community, a cross-section. One also gets help in this by using results from others sampling throughout communities. I have suggested how I have a sort of lead in this. What's yours? Yes, how about you? The best I see coming from you is an assertion of a study that says hetero and homosexual men report the same number of sex partners.The rest has been personal insults and building strawmen.

---

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

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

You've returned to the line by line response I see, attempting to score points on things I address later in the same post, yet you act like it wasn't.

---

Waaaah! Somebody is actually paying attention to what I wrote and is standing up to me! How dare he! Waaaaah! Make it stop!No. Grow up.

quote:

---

Hmmmmm... maybe I should just deliver one word replies.

---

You know, I keep reminding you of this: If you don't like the way I respond to you, don't pay attention. Nobody is forcing you to read my responses. Nobody is forcing you to respond. If it is such a trauma for you to take the time to go through my work and come up with a reply, then perhaps you should do yourself a favor and simply stop reading my posts.Do you think you can do that? Do you think you are capable of controlling yourself and simply not do things that you don't like to do and don't have to do?

quote:

---

I just said it wasn't designed

---

But you're talking about it as if it were. Don't tell me that because a person doesn't use a word, that doesn't mean he isn't talking about it. That's the entire point behind "intelligent design." It's creationism without that g-word.The fact that you don't use the d-word doesn't mean you're not talking about it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the most ridiculous claim as you did at the end that organs used for sexual activity somehow aren't sex organs.

quote:

---

and I go on to discuss that things may have more than one use. This criticism makes no sense.

---

Can't remember your own words, eh? And you wonder why I give such thorough responses. Did you or did you not say the following: What is that if not a claim that there is some sort of intention to the physical structure? For someone who is trying so hard to claim that there is no "design," you keep talking about "purpose" and "importance" and the like. If you truly don't agree with the concept of design, then why do you keep talking about it? The fact that you don't use the word "design" is immaterial.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I will handily agree with you that the digestive tract is most commonly used for digestion, but that hardly makes it "primary" in some sort of "designed" sense.

---

​

Oh I'm happy enough using "most common use", rather than "primary". But my use of primary had nothing to do with design concepts

---

Then you truly misspoke yourself because there is no other way to interpret it.

quote:

---

Any organ does or can serve a number of functions for the body, its most common function and especially those functions which would have been part of the natural selection process would in my mind be primary.

---

But every other purpose would have been part of the natural selection process. And since it is being used for multiple things and has multiple structures that are adapted toward those multiple items, how on earth can you possibly determine which one is "primary"?

quote:

---

There is no concept that primary refers to a moral stance and that a secondary or tertiary use is somehow less valid.

---

Who said anything about morality? We're talking about "design," holmes. Design requires intent. There is a difference between a pattern that arises out of adaptation to the environment and pattern that arises through intention. We have this argument all the time with crationists, holmes. Why is it you seem so quick to latch onto it when its your pet topic?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You use your mouth much commonly for breathing and speaking than you do for eating.

---

​

That's not necessarily so. Breathing is often done through the nose instead of the mouth.

---

Did I say otherwise? Do you have a problem with comparative statements? For someone who is so adamant about the concept of "primary" and "secondary," insisting that he is only talking about incidence of use, you seem to be having some trouble in comparing one thing to another with regard to frequency. It is necessarily so that you use your mouth for breathing more often than you do for eating.

quote:

---

That's one of the reasons there are filters in the nose for breathing, and a tongue in the mouth for testing foods, and not the other way around.

---

(*sigh*)Yes, most people breathe through their noses rather than their mouths. What on earth does that have to do with whether or not you use your mouth to breathe more than you use it to eat? Yes, you use your tongue for tasting. What on earth does that have to do with whether or not you use your mouth to breathe more than you use it to eat?Take some time to think about it, holmes. Even when you're eating, is your mouth continually engaged in mastication and swallowing? So all the time sent sitting at the table, your mouth isn't constantly being used for ingestion. And when you open your mouth to take that bite, what do you commonly do? That's right...breathe in a little. So even when you are eating, you're using your mouth to breathe.Now, can you think of other times you might be using your mouth with air moving in and out of it? Can you add up all the time you spend masticating and swallowing food and compare it to the amount of time you spend moving air in and out of your lungs? Can you not see that you use your mouth for breathing much more often then you do for eating?

quote:

---

In any case, we can juggle which is more common and so the more primary (in my terms) usage, but that will not change the fact that when you engage in oral sex it is generally with an opening to the digestive tract. One swallows cum, one does not inhale it. Or if one does, it is considered an error.

---

What on earth does this have to do with anything? The question is one of "design." Since you can, it must mean that the organ is "designed" to do it because if you it weren't, then you couldn't do it.

quote:

---

Yeah, there was no environmental challenge which was solved by anal sex

---

Huh? There are plenty of environmental challenges solved by anal sex. The first one I can think of is sexual gratification. People have anal sex because they want to.

quote:

---

nor was the asshole developed in the face of penises trying to penetrate posteriors.

---

There's that "design" claim again. "Developed"?That said, how on earth do you know? You have a complete record of the biological history of the human species from the moment of its origin to the present covering every single human who has ever lived such that you are capable of determining that the incidence of anal sex was so infrequent as to be a negligible factor? If there were no selection pressures regarding anal sex, why does anal sex feel so good? Why is the anus so sensitive to sexual stimulation?And that, of course, only deals with active selection pressures. It doesn't deal with things like neutral drift.

quote:

---

That is unlike the vagina.

---

Huh? Because two structures don't follow the exact same biological etiology, that means there is absolutely no way they could share a common functionality? Well, so much for bats and birds being able to fly. Only one of them can, by your logic.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or are you claiming that sex includes giving birth?

---

​

Yes. That should have been obvious.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You are aware that humans are one of the few species out there where the female does not go into estrus but rather is sexually receptive at all times, yes? Are you claiming that sex is only for procreation? That every act of sex is initiated in an attempt to procreate? Humans have sex for sex's sake. For the plain, unadulterated gratification it provides. It simply feels good. No other need or purpose or "design" or function is required.Simple observation shows your claim to be wrong.

quote:

---

quote:

---

biological mandate and all other uses are "perverted"? When did you become god and in control of evolutionary processes?

---

​

When did you leave the rails? I never said or suggested mandate nor did I ever hint at a concept of moral label such as perverse. You are developing a rather large strawman out of my use of the word Primary.

---

Then you severely misspoke yourself because that's what the word means.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Sexual arousal in someone anticipating anal sex is accompanied by a relaxing of the anal muscles just as sexual arousal in someone anticipating vaginal sex is accompanies by a relaxing of the vaginal muscles.

---

​

I'm sorry but that isn't really relevant.

---

Then why did you bring it up? If you weren't trying to argue the issue of the ways in which the anus and vagina react with regard to muscle relaxation in preparation for sex, why did you bother responding? Did you or did you not say the following: You see why I do the line-by-line thing? You tend to forget your own words.If you weren't trying to make a point about the relaxing of muscles, why did you respond to my comment about that?

quote:

---

Its not just relaxation of the muscles which goes on.

---

I never said it wasn't. You have been paying attention, haven't you? That was the specific example brought up by purpledawn: And again: If you aren't going to bother to pay attention to the discussion, perhaps you should do all of us a favor and pay attention to that little voice in your gut that is telling you not to get involved. You have such a bad time whenever you talk to me, perhaps you should just control yourself and not do it in the future. I've reminded you of this ability of yours to control your destiny before. Are you having trouble? Is somebody forcing you to respond?

quote:

---

It is true that you can train yourself to accept anal penetration and anticipate it, but that does not mean that the body has a base set of automatic responses for sex which include preparation for anal sex.

---

Incorrect. That's the point behind Kegel exercises, after all. All those muscles are interconnected. When a man has an orgasm, his ass twitches.

quote:

---

I'm not arguing design.

---

Then you have seriously misspoken yourself because that is all you are doing.

quote:

---

Anal stimulation (I am not going to say full sex) feels good because the area has lots of nerve endings.

---

And why, pray tell, might it have so many nerve endings? Think carefully.

quote:

---

(though NOT everyone can enjoy the full width of a cock)

---

I never said they couldn't. But by this logic, we should be questioning vaginal sex since not every woman can enjoy the full width of an erect penis, either. For some women, vaginal sex is always painful.A very few number of people are capable of taking their leg, bending it behind their backs, and touching the top of their head with the ball of their foot. But if the body were not "designed" to be able to do that, then they wouldn't be able to do so. Since they can, it obviously was.

quote:

---

For those that enjoy it it is a perfectly valid use of the ass. No one is doing anything wrong or misusing it. Will this stick with you?

---

(*chuckle*)That's my argument. You're the one talking about "primary" and "function" and all that. The entire point is that if you can, then it must be able to be.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Comparing what comes out of the anus to what is trying to be inserted, a penis is no trouble at all.

---

​

Oh I really don't want to get into discussing the dynamic qualities of shit, but the comparison is NOT the same. For instance most people use softeners not hardeners.

---

Excuse me? "Nausea, heart burn, upset stomach, indigestion, [I][B]diarrhea[/i][/b]," as the new Pepto-Bismol commercial goes (emphasis added).And if you're diet is good, you don't need any of it. You may not want to discuss it, but that's the entire point: The fecal material is just as large as the typical erect penis. As most of us know, desire and will has a lot to do with sexual arousal. If you're expecting it to hurt, chances are it will.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that if there is any trauma, then it must be a "perversion of design."

---

​

No, I'm simply stating that the area is not used to accomodating that particular usage.

---

It's got one up on the vagina, then. For most of human history, the vast majority of women haven't had anything inside their vaginas by the time they get around to having intercourse. Most people have had years of training to handle something passing through the anus.

quote:

---

As it is you are suggesting you know what I think about anal sex, which you don't.

---

Incorrect. I am directly stating that what you are claiming about anal sex isn't true. There's a difference, you know.

quote:

---

The point of my comment... and the following portions of the same argument which you answered to separately... is that it seems that when there is an issue which is related to gay issues you are not simply content with evaluating facts and allowing some plausible criticism to come in. Instead you seem to argue that they must be equal or better in all ways.

---

And here, folks, we see the classic issue of "projection." Backed into a corner, holmes reacts by lashing and claiming that I am the one being "defensive." The goal of this action is to deflect attention from himself and attempt to put me into the very defensive position he is accusing me of. By playing into his hands, it appears that he was right and since it is extremely difficult to show someone is not being defensive without appearing to be defensive, there is very little point in taking the bait.Congratulations, holmes. You almost played that just as well as a Republican would have.

quote:

---

That makes your positions both inaccurate in fact

---

This coming from one who can only express anecdotes and guesses?

quote:

---

and apparently irrational. You appear to be trying too hard to justify activities.

---

I'm not the one trying to determine what my sexual orientation is, holmes. I already know. Why do you care? Are you trying to ask me out on a date?

quote:

---

Whether you are gay or not is besides the point.

---

Then why do you keep asking about it? If it makes no difference what my sexual orientation is, why are you obsessed with it? Why are you making such an issue of it? Why on earth did you bring it up? For someone who claims that it isn't the point, you sure get breathless when the subject of what I do with my genitals comes up.Are you trying to tell us something, holmes?

quote:

---

Indeed I wasn't actually suggesting you were gay, but pointing out what you are doing.

---

Right..."You really do seem to go overboard in 'defending' things which are typically considered 'gay' issues." Those sneer quotes are the signs of someone who is being detached. Look, holmes, if you want to ask me out, just ask. Stop beating around the bush. You'll never get what you want unless you ask for it.

quote:

---

The point is you are being too defensive and so lose credibility.

---

That makes twice now. Why do you have such an obsession about my sex life?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Who said anything about "equal functions"?

---

​

You did. You called the ass a sexual organ

---

Indeed. Why does that equate to "equal functions"? The hands are also sexual organs, but they don't have equal functions to the anus or the vagina. The physical structures are different. They can all be used to attain sexual gratification, but I think I am safe in saying that anal sex does not feel the same as vaginal sex and neither feels the same as manual sex nor oral sex.

quote:

---

It is not a sexual organ, even if it gets used in a sex act.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Organs used in sexual activity aren't sex organs? If having sex with it isn't good enough to call it a sex organ, what on earth is?

quote:

---

Sex organ is a functional description.

---

So how does an organ used to carry out the function of sexual gratification somehow manage to avoid being described as a "sex organ"?

---

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.

Join me in chat.