Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

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.

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.

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Personal knowledge"? You think that is a legitimate form of proof?

---

​

I said BOTH personal knowledge AND...

---

...and guessing. So you have anecdote and guess. That's supposed to be some sort of golden standard? We don't accept that from any of the creationists around here. What makes your personal experience and guesswork any better than theirs? Come on, holmes, you know why personal experience is never, ever accepted as evidence. You haven't accounted for any specifics, haven't controlled for any variables, and haven't performed any longitudinal analysis. That doesn't mean diddly. You are the worst judge of your own experience precisely because you are too close to the events to maintain objectivity. Your focus is on what is immediately happening and not on the myriad other things that are happening at the same time.

quote:

---

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.

---

Huh? "Anecdotal evidence"? Are you saying there aren't millions of people having anal sex right here and now? If I recall the numbers correctly, Kinsey found that about 10% of both males and females had anal sex more than once within the past year. Surely they can't all be gay (since you can go to the local video store and rent movies that feature women having anal sex with men).

quote:

---

quote:

---

If one is looking to account for promiscuity, one cannot observe a lack of bath houses and conclude that there is little.

---

​

Yeah, and that's not what I was doing.

---

Except you were. Are you incapable of remembering your own words? Do I really need to go back and show you the repeated posts of yours going on and on about the dearth of places where straight people can go to have sex with each other as they do in gay bath houses?But let's cut to the chase. Did you or did you not say the following: What on earth was your point if not to say that because there is a dearth of straight bath houses while there are a fair number of gay ones, this means that there is more sexual promiscuity in the gay community than the straight? Just what on earth did you mean when you said, "tends to indicate there is a greater demand"? How does one interpret that to mean something other than "more promiscuity"?For someone who is trying so hard not to equate promiscuity with bath houses, you're doing a wonderful job of connecting the two. If there were a demand for promiscuity, there would be bath houses, yes? After all, the existence of those bath houses "tends to indicate there is a greater demand." No bath houses, no demand.And thus, you wander into the fallacy of the inverse. A -> B does not mean ~A -> ~B. The existence of bath houses implies promiscuity, yes. The lack of bath houses, however, does not imply chastity. It simply means that if there is promiscuity, it will be happening elsewhere and in different methods. Surely you aren't saying that the only way in which promsicuity shows itself is through the bath house, are you?As a simple example, let's just look at married people. By law in the US, only people of the opposite sex can get married. I think it is safe to reason that the overwhelming majority of those people are straight (or straight enough). If I recall the numbers correctly, about two-thirds of those married people, both males and females, will have an affair. It is only recently that the country switched to most people being single (though the latest numbers from the Census still puts the percentage of the population as a married couple at 50.6 percent for the years 2000-2003 with another 5 percent as unmarried partners).Let's see...two-thirds of one-half, that's one-third of the heterosexual population, within reason, screwing around. And that, of course, is a gross underestimate. It assumes only one affair, it assumes that they're having affairs with each other rather than any of the unmarried people, and completely ignores any sexual activity by the unmarried people.You really haven't thought this through, have you?

quote:

---

There is nothing comparable to the bath house as a venue for the same amount and degree of promiscuous sex within the hetero community.

---

And yet, the straights are having just as much sex as the gays. The average number of sexual partners over a lifetime is pretty much the same when accounting for sexual orientation. Therefore, if the straight people aren't doing it at bath houses, they must be doing it somewhere else. Once again, you are stuck on this silly notion that promiscuity means bath houses. This is the fallacy of the converse. A -> B does not mean B -> A. While bath houses imply promiscuity, promiscuity does not imply bath houses. Surely you aren't saying that the only way in which promiscuity shows itself is through the bath house, are you?

quote:

---

That certainly does mean there is less sex of that nature and less desire for such venues within that community.

---

But that is precisely what you are arguing: There are no bath houses, therefore there mustn't be as much promiscuity. Did you or did you not say: If the demand is the same, then why aren't there straight bath houses?

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be bath houses, and I will remind you that I have not only referred to bath houses.

---

Nice try, but that was my argument to you. I was the one that brought up the many other venues the straight people have to indulge their sexual desires. It is because the number of options available to straight people are so great and so varied, there is little demand to consolidate them into a single venue such as a bath house. Society is geared toward putting boys and girls together. Gay people have to carve out their own areas.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

​

That does not at all suggest that there are comparable amounts of promiscuous activity within the hetero community.

---

Incorrect. It shows an understanding and acceptance of sexuality for straight people. By giving them the nod and the brushoff, it doesn't stigmatize their activity. The problem is the venue, not the activity. The sex is encouraged. "Ah, young lovers," and all that. Every little bit adds up. By constructing society in such a way that encourages people of opposite sex to pair off and have sex, then we shouldn't be surprised to find them actually doing it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why not? That's what promiscuity is, after all: Multiple sex partners. You seem to think that if you don't get fucked by four different people in one night, then it isn't promiscuity. If you get fucked by four different people in four different nights of the week, you've had just as much sex as the person who gets fucked by four different people on Saturday.You seem to have a truly odd definition of what "promiscuity" means.

quote:

---

Those simply do not compare to immediate multiple partner (group) activity, in a wholly anonymous manner.

---

So? Why are you limiting yourself to only one form of promiscuous behaviour? We are talking about promiscuity and how it relates to disease and health. If you have four partners, what difference does it make if you have them all together or one at a time? It's still four partners.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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?

---

​

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?

---

That you have no idea what you're talking about? If you have four partners in a week, does it matter if they happen all at once or one at a time? Average number of sexual partners doesn't vary by sexual orientation.

quote:

---

There is no "averages" which help you here.

---

(*sigh*)"Average number of sexual partners doesn't vary by sexual orientation." Hmmm...I wonder what that word "average" means. It can't mean "average" since holmes says there is no average. Therefore "average" doesn't mean "average"...and "organ used for sex" doesn't mean "sex organ."What a strange and bizarre language you speak, holmes. No wonder we have so much trouble understanding each other.

quote:

---

Once again lets compare the size of the different communities, the number of venues, and those within those venues.

---

Yep. And despite all that, the average number of sexual partners over a lifetime does not vary by sexual orientation. Therefore, if gay people are having their sex at the bath houses, that must mean that straight people are having it somewhere else. If you have them all at the same time or over a period of time, that doesn't change the number of partners you've had.You do understand how averages work, yes? You claim you were trained as a sociologist. Not quite as rigorous as formal mathematical training, but I assume you were made to take some form of statistics.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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 can't, that's why I said it.

---

And yet, straight people are having just as many partners as gay people. So if the gay people are having their promiscuity showing in bath houses but there are no bath houses for straight people, that must mean that the straight people are having their promiscuity showing somewhere else. Since they're having just as many sexual partners as the gay people, they must be having sex with someone. That Studio 54 is no longer the pansexual haven it once was doesn't mean it isn't happening.You simply aren't looking in the right places.

quote:

---

And no it doesn't require a gay at a bath house to have sex with everyone else their.

---

It doesn't matter how you come across the partners. If you have four, it doesn't matter if you get them all at once or one at a time. It's still four. Average number of sexual partners doesn't vary by sexual orientation.

quote:

---

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.

---

(*sigh*)You need to think more broadly, holmes. Do you really think that most gay people go to bath houses? You seem to be suffering from a variant problem the homophobes have concerning how many gay people there are in the country. They obsess over the number (as if the temerity of trampling on the rights of people is affected by the number of people so afflicted) and claim that there are, at best, maybe one or two percent of the population who are gay. If this were the case, then it must be that every single gay person lives in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco. That's the only way to get only one to two percent of the population to be gay and be consistent with the gay populations of those cities. And note, we haven't mentioned such other gay meccas as Austin, Ft. Lauderdale, Boston, Philadelphia, Palm Springs, or any of the other large, urbanized areas such as Detroit, San Diego, Dallas, Atlanta, etc.Now, the next part of the question: How much of the local population of gay people, just in those areas that have bath houses, frequents the bath houses? Suppose you live in Los Angeles. You're thinking of going to Slammer. It's between West Hollywood and central LA, but you live out by Bellflower or Artesia. You really gonna frequent Slammer all that often? I mean, it's only 20 miles away, after all.Twenty Los Angeles miles. Despite what Mapquest says, that isn't 20 minutes.Yes, there are the bath house rats who are there all day, every day. There aren't that many of them.So we have a large number of gay people who don't live anywhere near a bath house and a large number of gay people who even though they live near one don't go to them. So even accounting for an incredible amount of promiscuity happening at the bath houses, we find that it has only a small effect on the total amount of promiscuity for the population as a whole.

quote:

---

I have already said I go to them and I talk with people in those worlds/businesses.

---

Irrelevant. Personal experience is not evidence. It is anecdote.

quote:

---

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?

---

(*sigh*)And just how many gay people avail themselves of their services? Yes, there are promiscuous gay people out there. A lot of them. How does that change the fact that average number of sexual partners is independent of sexual orientation?

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

​

1) How do you know it is not true for most (or do you mean most bars)?

---

Well, let's just take my city. Last time I looked, it was the 100th largest city in the world (the San Diego-Tijuana complex) and the city of San Diego, itself, is the sixth largest city in the US (eleventh by urbanized area). How many gay bars do we find? Not that many. Sign On San Diego only lists 22 gay venues, though not all of them are gay bars. For example the Corvette Diner is a 50s diner in Hillcrest, the gay ghetto of San Diego. Thus, they have a fair amount of gay clientele, but it is hardly a "gay bar." It's a restaurant. When you put your name down for a reservation, they give you a 45. When it plays on the jukebox, that means your table is ready.So, let's see. How many of those places have back rooms, do you think? Well, Wolfs had one. It was notorious in the 70s. But it got shut down a long time ago and, in fact, Wolfs has stopped being a leather bar and has shifted more toward a general mix. As the description for it reads: In fact, there aren't any bars with back rooms in San Diego. And that's in one of the larger cities in the country.How many bath houses does San Diego have? According to San Diegy City Beat, four. Three are gay male, Vulcan, Club San Diego, and Mustang. One is coed: The Tubs. There used to be another gay bath house in San Diego a few years ago, but Dave's shut down. And then there was 2200 which was shut down this year.

quote:

---

2) Few and far between compared to straight venues?

---

We're back to the promiscuity = bath houses fallacy again.

quote:

---

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).

---

Um, I'm confused. You seem to have confabulated bars and bath houses. That said, your final statement is immaterial. That it is a "non-public space" is not sufficient. That's part of the reason 2200 was shut down in San Diego. Members only (only $5 to join), but it didn't have a license to operate as a bath house.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, straight people don't need those venues.

---

​

Because they have which alternative venues for quick, casual, anonymous, multipartner sex?

---

Because they have alternative venues for having sex when they want. You seem to think that promiscuity requires sitting in a toilet stall and waiting for the next person to shove something up against the glory hole. If you get your four partners by going on four dates, that is just as many sexual partners as someone who gets four by sitting in a toilet stall and waiting for the next person to shove something up against the glory hole. The number of partners you have is independent of how you get them. Four partners is four partners.

quote:

---

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?

---

Because gay people do not have the societal support structure that allows them to meet people in their everyday lives. Part of this is the simple fact that there aren't nearly as many gay people as there are straight people. But straight society then does what it can to put the boys and girls together and make them couple off. Gay people, on the other hand, have to put it together for themselves.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If the number of partners is the same, then then amount of promiscuity must be the same.

---

​

Uh, that's not true at all.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?What on earth is your definition of "promiscuity" other than "number of partners"? No wonder we have such a difficult time understanding each other. You keep changing the definitions of words. "Promiscuity" isn't "number of partners." "Sex organ" isn't "an organ with which you have sex." "Average" is something other than an average.

quote:

---

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.

---

Excuse me? Do you know nothing of population statistics and Bernoulli's Theorem (the Law of Large Numbers)? You claim to have been trained as a sociologist. Did you not take any statistics? In a nut shell, if you have a set of independent variables, each with an average u, you can define a new variable that is the sum of all the other variables divided by the total number of variables. As the number of variables goes to infinity, the mean approaches the mean of the entire population.In other words, outliers in a large population will be overshadowed by the rest of the population. Yeah, there are some really randy gay people out there who have, indeed, screwed anything that moved. But then again, we also have straight people who do the same. There's a reason all those 900 and 976 lines exist for the straight crowd. They're having sex.The populations are large enough that their averages indicate similar behaviour, not wildly fluctuating groups where outliers dominate.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's just a guess?

---

​

Yes, that's what I said. Are you hard of reading?

---

No, I'm hard of believing. You are seriously asking us to take your guess as sufficient? We don't put up with that from anybody else, holmes. Why do you think anybody should put up with it from you?

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Who said the gay's numbers were overestimates? Where does that come from what I said?

---

Did you not read my analysis of your comments? Do you not remember your own words? You were the one talking about how we couldn't trust the numbers. "I honestly would have no idea how many guys I have been with," you said, did you not? When Wilt Chamberlain said he had had sex with 20,000 women, did you consider that to be accurate, an overestimate, or an underestimate? At that rate, he would have had to have had sex with about three women every day for twenty years. A bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?This is typical. Thus, an overestimate.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Oh, and now they're "confused."

---

​

That is not anywhere close to what I said. I said people have different interpretations. There is no confusion.

---

Did you or did you not say the following: Because, after all, the surveyors wouldn't ever bother to actually define what they mean by a partner. Yeah, those pollsters. They don't know a damned thing about what they're doing. Hell, they couldn't even get the election right, right? Despite all those people who claimed they voted for Kerry, it turns out the pollsters across entire states managed to find only Kerry voters willing to respond to the poll. Therefore, the polls couldn't be trusted...except for where those polls said the reason for why they voted was "values." I never did understand that...the poll was inaccurate about who but accurate for why...something weird going on there. Of course, that could mean that the people they were polling were actually "values voters for Kerry." In that case, everybody screwed up on the interpretation of the polling data. But, I digress.No, actually, I don't. It shows that the people who perform these surveys are not morons. Getting an accurate poll takes a lot of time and effort, just to craft the questions so that you will get the information you are trying to collect. In a poll about the number of sexual partners a person has had, "sex partner" is defined for the respondent and not left to his whim.So the only thing left is to claim that they were "confused." This isn't surprising given the bizarre vocabulary you seem to speak. They have sex partner explicitly defined for them and still they don't quite understand that they're being asked about everybody and not just those for whom they've had "important longterm" relationships. So unless they're being deceitful, they must be confused.

quote:

---

You seem to have no knowledge regarding the weaknesses of statistical surveys, particularly of self reporting.

---

Hah! That's rich. You do recall I am a mathematician, yes? Applied math, yes? Numerical modeling, yes? This is right up my alley, so to speak.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

Not necessarily.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Straight men are more likely to pad their resumes in order to boost their image of virility than gay men? Right. Because gay men, after all, aren't men. They aren't taught to associate prowess with sexual virility and to value sexual conquest. Gay men are completely alien beings.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

​

You are right that merely the number of bath houses means nothing.

---

But that's what you keep coming back to: No straight bath houses, ergo no straight promiscuity. Because it is harder for a straight person to walk out the door, spend a few bucks to get a "membership" to the bath house, and immediately fall into an orgy pit, that must mean that there is much less promiscuity among straights than among gays.That's your argument, holmes: No bath house means no promiscuity.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Just because you have a dog in this fight, holmes, doesn't mean everybody else does. Stop projecting

---

​

What dog do I have in this fight?

---

Your ability to have sex. You're the one going on and on about your sex life, how you find it so hard to get laid by a woman, how you and the various sex workers you know are "bemoaning" the dropoff in clientele. Do I really need to quote your own words back to you? Did you or did you not say the following: Now, I don't recall saying anything about my own sex life. I have not "bemoaned" the state of sex clubs in San Diego. For all you know, I could be getting laid right now as I'm typing this. It has no effect upon the veracity of my argument. You're the one who keeps trying to make this personal. You bring up your own life as an example and when I refuse to respond in kind, you claim I'm being defensive somehow.If you don't want to appear as if you have something personal at stake, then you should stop talking about how sad you are that there aren't as many straight sex clubs as there used to be.

quote:

---

You are the one trying to downplay the relatively greater promiscuity within the gay community for whatever reason.

---

(*chuckle*)Notice the attempt to deflect the criticism by denying its existence. Are you sure you're not a Republican? "Downplay the relatively greater promiscuity"? That's what this entire conversation is about! There isn't any greater promiscuity in the gay population than there is in the straight population. The average number of sex partners over a lifetime, and that is the definition of "promiscuity," doesn't vary by sexual orientation.I have to keep reminding myself that when I speak to you, I have wandered through the looking glass with you as Humpty Dumpty: If we can't even agree on what "promiscuity" means, then there is no point in continuing and perhaps you should take me up on that reminder of not responding to my posts.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then it does affect you. If you have a personal stake in the outcome, then it affects you.

quote:

---

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.

---

Huh? Who said anything about "frumpy"? What part of "average number of sex partners over a lifetime does not vary by sexual orientation" leads you to conclude that gays are "frumpy" compared to straights? Do not confuse my taking your arguments to their logical conclusions of straight people being more promiscuous as my actual opinion on the matter. You do understand how rhetoric and debate work, yes? How you take your opponent's claims and show how they lead to errors? That doesn't mean you believe the errors.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And you expect me to take you seriously?

---

​

Yes you should.

---

BWAHAHAHAHA!That's rich. You're so cute when you're trying to be so sincere. That's just precious. The man who says that the organs you have sex with aren't actually sex organs is telling me to take him seriously! Thanks, holmes, you've made my day.

quote:

---

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.

---

BWAHAHAHAHA!Let's look at what I actually said, OK: Considering how I've been going on and on and on about personal anecdote not being evidence, do you really think I was making an ad hominem comment? What do you think the phrase, "Trying to be as gentle as I can," means? Might it possibly be an indicator that I am making a response to a personal statement you made but am trying to do so in a way such that you will not take it personally? Nah, couldn't mean that. I'm so emotionally invested in you. I'm defensive. I'm in denial.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

That's incorrect. Anecdote is not wholly useful, but it can when qualified and in conjunction with other facts.

---

Incorrect. Anecdote is never, ever evidence. It has no controls established. We have absolutely no idea if the event described took place as described. You are the worst person to judge your own experience. You are too close to the event and are focused solely upon details and not the big picture.That was the big problem with Shere Hite's reports on sexuality: They were nothing but anecdote. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of anecdotes meaning absolutely nothing. Anecdote is great to get questions asked, but it is lousy for actually answering them.

quote:

---

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.

---

Nope.Since you seem to be so obsessed about my personal life, I offer a personal experience.Apple-designed products are the most user vicious, error prone pieces of crap ever made. I have yet to interact with an Apple product without it having some sort of meltdown within twenty-four hours. I just received a gift of the new video iPod. As I was downloading my CD collection into it, it crashed. I wasn't doing anything bizarre. It just decided that it didn't want to work anymore. In order to regain control, I had to reboot my computer. Twice in a row.My friends are members of the Mac faithful. When I go and visit their house, I use their machines. And sure enough, the Macs never seem to have any problems until I get behind the keyboard. Suddenly I've got little spinning color wheels of death and we have to pull the plug on the machine in order to get it to reboot because the keyboard has crashed and isn't accepting the reboot salute.So is my anecdotal commentary useful? No, not really. In order for it to be useful, we're going to need to know a hell of a lot more about the specific scenarios. What software was installed? What, exactly, was the sequence of actions I was taking? Is there a known conflict between certain pieces of software trying to run at the same time that I was unaware of?

quote:

---

Your level of dismissal means talking to anyone is meaningless.

---

Incorrect. You had a personal experience. It was real. It is part of who you are and your memory of it shapes your personality.It doesn't tell us anything about the world at large, though. There is a difference between you and the world around you, you know.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you claiming to be an anthropologist?

---

​

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?

---

Nope, but I haven't claimed that my personal experience or guesses should be taken as evidence. While the argument from authority is invalid, we at least listen to authorities' guesses because they stand a better chance of having something useful to say than those without any experience.When was the last time you did a sexology research study?

quote:

---

quote:

---

How did you randomize your samples?

---

​

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.

---

Excuse me, but when did bath houses and sex clubs represent a "broad array of a community, a cross-section"? You're back to the "promiscuity = bath house" fallacy again.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have any argument that isn't anecdote or guessing?

---

​

Yes

---

Then what is it? So far, you've done nothing but recount your own experience and, to use your word, "guesses." I would expect to see a list of them here, since I asked you for them.And you said nothing.So I guess this is another case of "holmes-speak" where "yes" actually means "no."

quote:

---

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.

---

Go look at the journals. I'm not going to do your homework for you. OK, fine...here's a few:J Billy-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60
R Fay-1989, Science 243:338-348The mean number of sexual partners for gay men was 4.2. For straight men, it was 7.3.Here's a bit more:D Binson-1995: Journal of Sex Research 32: 245-54.
M Dolcini-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25: 208-14.This shows gays are much more likely to be celibate than straights (24% to 8%).Then there was:Laumann, Edward, et al. The Social Organization of Sexuality : Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.The mean for gay men was listed as 6 while straight men had 5.Has it occurred to you yet that your personal experience isn't very helpful?

---

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:

---

An organ used for sex is not a sex organ.

---

And thus we see the source of the problem. If an organ used for sex is not a sex organ, then what is it? What is this strange language you use?

quote:

---

A review from the Wiki entry on Sex Organ...

---

Wikipedia? That is your reference? I think you need to rethink your sources. But that said, you apparently didn't read your own source:

quote:

---

A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, [B][I]narrowly defined,[/b][/i]

---

Emphasis added. What do you think "narrowly defined" means"? And look here! What is the very next sentence after the part you quoted? Why did you leave this part out, holmes?

quote:

---

The anus is not listed in their accurate and detailed description of sex organs.

---

Huh? "The larger list would certainly include the anus for either sex," and yet here you are saying that the anus is not listed as a sex organ. Is this yet another example of holmes-speech where words don't mean what they actually mean? "Anus" doesn't mean "anus," "average" doesn't mean "average," "sex organ" doesn't mean "organ used for sex," and "promiscuity" doesn't mean "number of partners."

quote:

---

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?

---

Nope, because you have it backwards. You're absolutely write that almost all would be labeled as such. As the cliche goes, the most important sex organ of all is the brain. If you want it to be used for sex, then it can be used for sex. For people who get into fisting, for example, the hands are sex organs, to be inserted into that other sex organ, the anus.The thing you seem to be less than clear about is the importance of context. When you have an organ that is used for more than one thing, context determines how you use it and regard it. Take the penis. Its primary use is as an organ of elimination. That doesn't make it any less a sex organ. Similarly, using it for sex does not make it any less of an organ of elimination. But unless you're into watersports, those two uses don't happen at the same time.Which leads us back to the above hatchet job you did on the Wikipedia entry: There is a difference between reproduction and sex. It certainly is true that the anus is not an organ of reproduction. And while it is true that reproduction generally requires sex. However, that doesn't mean that sex is only about reproduction. Once again, you have the arrow of implication backwards: A -> B does not mean that B -> A. Reproduction requires sex but sex does not require reproduction. Only if one is narrowly defining "sex organ" to mean "bodily structures used specifically for the purposes of reproduction." But the most simplistic observation of how people have sex shows that such a definition is ridiculously narrow.

quote:

---

I am not discussing bath houses. I tried to make this clear.

---

Then you failed. You were the one who brought up bath houses. I was the one that brought up other places, pointing out that the reason there are so few straight bath houses compared to gay ones is because straight people don't need them. To use your term, the entire world is their "open sex venue."

quote:

---

These are venues that cater to "4 in one night" encounters, over "1 every night for 4 nights".

---

Huh? This is another ridiculously narrow definition. Why on earth does it matter how many people you have sex with in this open sex venue? We're talking about promiscuity, aren't we? Oh, that's right...I forgot about that damned holmes-speak. "Promiscuity" doesn't mean "number of partners." It has some silly time frame attached to it so that a person who has sex with 100 people over his lifetime but has them concentrated over the course of a year or two before settling down with one partner is somehow more promiscuous than a person who has sex with 100 people over his lifetime but does it one at a time, never really settling down with any one person.

quote:

---

I would hope we can agree the former promotes or at least allows for a different and more promiscuous atmosphere than the latter.

---

Only in the most trivial sense. You're back to the promiscuity = bath house fallacy.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then how can it be that promiscuity doesn't vary by sexual orientation? You keep harping on a point that a place that promotes easy sex leads to people taking advantage of the easy sex is irrelevant. Your arrow of implication is backwards. Bath houses imply promiscuity but promiscuity does not imply bath houses.

quote:

---

That, combined with the inverse populations, does show a greater promiscuity, or desire for promiscuity within the gay community.

---

But that is shown to be false by simple inspection: Number of partners doesn't vary by sexual orientation. Therefore, there cannot be a greater promiscuity or desire for promiscuity within the gay community. If there were, there would be a greater number of partners for gay people. Since there aren't, your claim fails.Oh, but I keep forgetting: In holmes-speak, "promiscuity" doesn't mean "number of partners." A person who has sex with four people in one night is somehow more promiscuous than someone who has sex with four people over four nights. The fact that they had sex with the same number of people doesn't enter into it.

quote:

---

I asked you for studies that showed the rates you were claiming. I had not seen any, and could not find any.

---

And thus we see the problem: I went and looked up the information while you relied upon your personal anecdote and guess. And now that you've seen the results, you're going to whine about it.

quote:

---

Your response was to insult me (as if I had done no work)

---

And you obviously hadn't. I found the information I quoted to you within ten minutes of starting to look.

quote:

---

followed by an apparent lifting of material from someone else to pretend you had done work.

---

Huh? Where did I ever claim to be a sexologist? Of course I'm going to be using the results of studies performed by other people. What a bizarre world you live in where someone cannot cite the work of another as support of a claim. Only directly acquired evidence can possibly be allowed.Well, there goes the entire scientific process. Are you an evolutionary biologist, holmes? Have you ever done a twenty-year population on the genetic structure of lab rat worms where you put one population in one habitat and another in a separate habitat in order to determine the effect of reproductive isolation upon speciation events? I know I certainly haven't.And yet, I cite Weinberg, et al. (1992) as an example of speciation. When the creationists whine about how "we've never seen speciation," we point out these studies that have shown speciation. We do not accept them then claiming that because we didn't do the work, it is unacceptable. What on earth makes you think that you get a pass for your pet claim?

quote:

---

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.

---

You're accusing me of plagiarism?There's no point in continuing.

---

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.

nwr responds to holmes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

A review from the Wiki entry on Sex Organ...

---

​

A clear example of a Wiki mistake.

---

No, a clear example of holmes cherry-picking data that suits him. Here is the entire entry. Note what holmes has left out: So in direct contradiction to what holmes claims, the Wikipedia entry declares the anus to be a sex organ. The entry makes a distinction between organs used in reproduction and organs used in sex.One has to wonder why holmes decided to claim that Wikipedia does not include the anus as a sexual organ. What does he think, "The larger list would certainly include the anus for either sex," means?

---

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.