Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

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)

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)

AbE: I originally had a very long post. After thinking about it, I have decided to revise it by cutting it down to the most salient points... Here it goes...1) I was not complaining that you responded to me, or that I am forced to respond to you. My complaint was that you were responding in a way that essentially built multiple strawmen. In fact you did not go on to show that it worked for you in this post.2) I don't believe in a designer, I don't believe in a teleological basis for development, and I argue that organs can validly be used for various activities. I'm not sure what basis you have for claiming that I am suggesting "design" other than wishful thinking.You have referred to my use of terms such as Purpose. I already explained how I used them. Your interpretation is not the only correct one, and stands in stark contrast to all of my other stated positions.In particular you had a problem with designations such as Primary. Labels such as primary, secondary, and tertiary are not moral labels and can be used (not to mention are used) to denote position in some quantitative rank order, or qualitative in a structural way. A molecule attached in a secondary or tertiary position is not thought of as perverse compared to one in a primary position. Molecules engaged in secondary reaction are not perverse compared to those in a primary reaction.In this last post you had problems with my used of Develop, insisting it must mean design, or have some connotation of design. What does a baby do in the womb? What does a photo do in a chemical bath? What does a sandbar do near the bank of a river? They form, or develop. There is no need for design.Indeed what does any structure do over time due to evolutionary pressures? Form or develop.3) You can't seem to grasp how organs are designated based on functionality. Contrary to your assessment, it does not require inference to design or limits on possible use. Here is an entry on "sex organ" at wikipedia. It explains how such a term is used and indeed all the organs which fall under the description of sex organ... You will note that it uses primary, and if you check the list at the site the anus is not on there. The closest it gets is the developmental fold which extends between the gonads and the anus. Here's the entry on digestive tract. Can you guess if the anus is listed there? Oh yeah and so is the mouth.If any organ that could be used for gratification in sex was a sex organ, almost all would be labelled as such. That would make such a descriptor useless.4) You asked why the anal area would be so sensitive, yet my post had answered that question. The developmental qualities of that area and the nature of the skin in that region would press many nerves into that area. It could very well be incidental to being located where it is, and that it is an opening into the body which requires thicker/denser skin.You also seemed to suggest anal sex might solve and environmental issue, as well as that anal sex itself might have caused a selective pressure. Unless human ancestors were vastly different in behavior to modern humans and modern primitive animals, it is unlikely they engaged in anal sex enough for that to create a selective factor for formation of an anus based on anal pleasure.5) I did not mean that childbirth was necessary for any act to be sex. However childbirth is part of the sexual reproductive system and so part of sex.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-17-2005 10:23 AM

---

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

I'm going to make this as concise as possible.1) SEX ORGANS:
An organ used for sex is not a sex organ. I had a post you appear to have missed, explaining it to you nice and careful. A review from the Wiki entry on Sex Organ...
The anus is not listed in their accurate and detailed description of sex organs. However it is listed as being part of the digestive tract.If any organ that could be used for gratification in sex was a sex organ, almost all would be labelled as such. That would make such a descriptor useless. Are you clear yet?2) OPEN SEX VENUES:
I am not discussing bath houses. I tried to make this clear. I am discussing any open sex venues (OSVs). These are venues that cater to "4 in one night" encounters, over "1 every night for 4 nights". I would hope we can agree the former promotes or at least allows for a different and more promiscuous atmosphere than the latter.The OSVs within the gay community cater to a greater promiscuity than those within the hetero community, and that is on top of there being fewer OSVs within the hetero community. That, combined with the inverse populations, does show a greater promiscuity, or desire for promiscuity within the gay community.3) RATES OF PROMISCUITY FROM RESEARCH:
I asked you for studies that showed the rates you were claiming. I had not seen any, and could not find any. Your response was to insult me (as if I had done no work), followed by an apparent lifting of material from someone else to pretend you had done work.The reason I say "lifted" is that you listed the studies in the same way as the original source for the citations and results you mentioned. Unless you are Jeramy Townsley it looks like you should have cited that you did not collect this material on your own (which is the way you made it look). At the very least you seem to be taking it from someone who lifted it from Townsley.More interestingly though, you edited out information provided by Townsley about the studies. First and most important is that the studies did not come up with the results you quote, Townsley did. He reanalyzed data and compared results of studies which may not have been appropriate to compare. That paints a very different picture then what you did when saying the means from the studies showed 6 and 7.3.Indeed your second set of references and the statement that they showed more gays being celibate glossed over something those studies ACTUALLY showed about promiscuity, if one accepts the comparison of those studies. Shall we look at the table Jeramy included summarizing the data and you decided not to discuss?... While you are correct that it shows more gays are celibate than heteros, it also shows quite clearly that more gays are promiscuous than heteros. In fact there is even a greater difference between gays and straights on that issue than on celibacy.You then mention the Laumann study. I'm going to ignore for now the fact that they have more recent study results making news because it shows a drastic difference in promiscuity for gay men in Chicago. For the 1994 study you said... Well that's not true at all is it? Where did you get that figure from? Those were the MEDIANS which apparently Townsley produced and NOT Laumann... The irony in this is that this is EXACTLY the problem I was trying to discuss with you earlier and you handwaved away with discussing how means win out. Even Townsley admits this study showed that the mean was higher for gays (by over a factor of 2:1), and it was only by appealing to medians that a comparable number was achieved. The TOTAL OPPOSITE of what you claimed!And I might note that looking at the data analyses directly shows that gays in the "outlier" toward promiscuous were higher than for heteros. That means that gays who were very promiscuous were MORE promiscuous than heteros. That is the EXACTLY what I said!Now I am not claiming that any of these studies are worthwhile. Indeed I know of some issues I have from the little I have seen. But just taking them at their face value for right now (or at least as Townsley has reviewed them) we see that your assertions have been undercut and mine have been supported.Yes there are nonpromiscuous gay men. But there is a greater promiscuity within the gay community than within the straight community.By the way you left out the Bell and Weinberg study which appears to support heavy promiscuity among homosexuals. Townsley's only response to this is to dissect its possible problems for representing the entire gay community. I agree with such techniques but if I am to take it at face value (which I am forced to do with all the other studies) that is a study clearly supporting homosexual promiscuity. I'm surprised it never occured to you that I am really interested in this subject and would be willing to look at what you presented.If you lifted material as it seems, shame on you. If you were paraphrasing what you read somewhere, shame on you for trying to act like you put in some effort to collect information on research, and you knew this was accurate reporting of their results.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-19-2005 04:11 PM

---

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

You are kidding of course. The brain is part of the central nervous system and so connected with pretty much every system.It would be rather odd to say that you are doing theoretical physics with your sex organ.AbE: I forgot you were an admin. I'm sort of suprised to see that that was the only response you have to a post which suggests and delivers evidence that a poster is lifting material and passing it off as work they did.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-19-2005 04:36 PM

---

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

Unlike any other fight we've had this one ends in clarity. The data is fully on my side, and you cheated to try and make your case. For shame.1) SEX ORGANS...I was not quote mining the Wiki entry. I suggested that I was using a clinical definition to get to a definition based on primary function. You repeatedly suggested that I was being outrageous and that such a definition was not realistic.I then showed you that it was realistic based on the Wiki entry. Yes it was narrow, and it said it was focusing on those with the primary characteristic. But that does not reduce its validity. See that was the point. My usage was perfectly valid and exactly what is used when looking toward definition of any specific organ based on primary function. It was not as absurd as you claimed at all.2) PRIMARY vs SECONDARY USEIt was interesting enough that Wiki used the word primary which you found so contentious when I used it, but then I saw you say this... You spent a few posts criticizing me for using the word "primary", saying that it meant that I believed in design and any other use was a moral "perversion". Now you up and use it in the EXACT same way I did originally?Well I guess I'll take that as a concession. Yep, like I said in the first place, organs can and do have more than one valid function. The ass most certainly can serve the valid function of sexual pleasure. The use is secondary to its primary use for defecation as part of the digestive tract.Unlike the ass, the vagina pretty much only has sexual uses. Either the primary use related to sexual reproduction, or the secondary use for sexual pleasure. About the only tertiary use it might have is as storage space.3) ON PROMISCUITY and PLAGIARISMI used promiscuity consistently whether a person has 100 partners in a night, or another 100 across a lifetime. Both would be promiscuous individuals. I only differentiated in the NATURE of any promiscuous act.The first person engaged in a more promiscuous act by having sex with 100 in one night, especially if it involved totally anonymous sex. The second person, while promiscuous, engaged in less overtly promiscuous acts, especially if they involved exchanges of more personal information and emotion.You state that... But it does prove to be true on simple inspection. I showed this quite clearly using the primary source for the data you yourself ERRONEOUSLY cited.More gays are promiscuous as a percentage within that community, than hetero men are within the straight community. And promiscuous gays are more promiscuous than straights. That was shown within the very data that came out of those studies, even when manipulated by JTownsley, the author whose metadata you were using.The best you had, and that is assuming there was no problem with his comparisons of data from different studies, is that there are more celibate gays than straights, and that of the monogamous gays, they had a comparable (though higher) number of lifetime partners.One claim you presented (regarding the Laumann study) was wholly fallacious. You said the mean was reported as about equivalent, when the actual study had the mean of gay sexual partners at over twice the value of straights. The conclusion of the study supported higher promiscuity among gays.The author of the article where you got your data was clear about this and then stated his result of the MEDIAN, which you reported as MEAN, showed how the study should be interpreted that extremely promiscuous gays were skewing the data. That was a problem I discussed in an earlier post and you criticized me for. The mean, according to you, reaches parity with the population's true average.That article in particular nixed you twice.What's interesting is that you assert the numbers support your position, and refuse to deal with the fact that they don't, ending before you reach that horrible fact, with... Are you suggesting that you happened to find the same studies as the source I pointed to, then grouped them in the same way for purposes of meta-analysis, then came up with the same data in your analysis?That seems like a bit of a stretch.I grant that you may not have taken from the original source (Townsley) of the meta data. And I hope you didn't because then that suggests further deceit. But at the very least you appear to have taken from someone who had taken from Townsley. And in that case you didn't even bother to check to make sure of the accuracy of that information... nor discuss where you got it.Really, it couldn't have happened any other way. You have been caught. The best idea is to just admit your error, and deal with the ramifications of the actual data from the studies.There is no question here. I win and you lose on this one.

---

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

Wow, so after having pagiarism charges proven against you, as well as getting your claim about what current data (on promiscuity of gay men) shows flushed down the toilet using your own cited studies, you go for the ol' "hey look over there" trick? Wrong. It states that according to one list it ISN'T, and on another list it is. When one is looking to see if it is part of the REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM, it ISN'T.I was discussing whether it was part of the reproductive system. Remember? I said the vagina was and the anus was not. It was in that context. Then you tried to make like NO ONE could define sex organ like that.That's what the entry showed and all I had to show. I didn't "cherry pick" anything, unless by that you mean provided all I needed to show what I was saying was accurate and did not exclude anything which stood against my position.A Doctor, or biological text would not include the anus as part of the reproductive system and thus a sex organ. It isn't! Duh... because it didn't include it as a sex organ using the very concept we were discussing! Remember. PRIMARY vs SECONDARY. The wiki quote itself put the list as that related to PRIMARY characteristics. So what that specific sentence means to me is that I was right and you were wrong. Man you can't even admit the obvious.So much for your attempt to make me look like some slimy guy trying to quote mine to make my point.Now maybe you can address the real problem... your plagiarism and the fact that the data you continue to claim says one thing, in fact says something else entirely.

---

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