Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 7:07 AM
18 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,820 Year: 4,857/19,786 Month: 979/873 Week: 335/376 Day: 12/116 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 196 of 206 (270288)
12-17-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Rrhain
12-17-2005 1:28 AM


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...

A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, narrowly defined, is any of those parts of the body (which are not always bodily organs according to the strict definition) which are involved in sexual reproduction and constitute the reproductive system in a complex organism...

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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Rrhain, posted 12-17-2005 1:28 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 197 of 206 (270692)
12-19-2005 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Silent H
12-15-2005 7:55 AM


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:

If there are many more gay bath houses, and almost no straight bath houses, that tends to indicate there is a greater demand for such free sex venues in the gay community than straight.

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 there are many more gay bath houses, and almost no straight bath houses, that tends to indicate there is a greater demand for such free sex venues in the gay community than straight.

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:

Dark-and-dank leather bar Wolf's has undergone a major personality change. After some 20 years, the owners decided that the North Park club needed to reflect its clientele, which had shifted from a leather crowd to an easygoing neighborhood one.

Now known as Re:Bar, the gay men's locale shows few traces of its past. Gone are the wolf mural and seedy black interior, replaced by a hip new logo and tagline -- "real men, no rules" -- and cheery decor.

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:

In the end, I would guess people have various different interpretations of partners. Some might include only important longterm partners, and some might decide to enhance their numbers just to be thought more virile (to themselves).

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:

Sadly (for me) hetero venues catering to that sort of activity are on the decline

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:

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

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:

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

Perhaps you're just not doing it right. Again, the reason for a gay bath house does not exist for the straight community. It is inappropriate to try to comare promiscuity rates between gays and straights by counting the number of bath houses.

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 243:338-348

The 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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Silent H, posted 12-15-2005 7:55 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Silent H, posted 12-19-2005 3:56 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 198 of 206 (270835)
12-19-2005 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rrhain
12-19-2005 7:31 AM


Rrhain makes a big mistake... *blink* Lifting Material?
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...

A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, narrowly defined, is any of those parts of the body (which are not always bodily organs according to the strict definition) which are involved in sexual reproduction and constitute the reproductive system in a complex organism...

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.

In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)--they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.

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?...

The table indicates the percentage of men having the given number of sexual partners in the previous year [top row: Binson; bottom row: Dolcini]:

orientation : no partners / 1 partner / 2+ partners
gay : 24 % / 41 % / 35 %
straight : 8 % / 80 % / 12 %

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...

The mean for gay men was listed as 6 while straight men had 5.

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...

A third major study, by Laumann, appears on the surface to indicate that gay men do have many more sexual partners than heterosexual men. However, a more extensive analysis of the data gives a more balanced perspective. Laumann fails to explore the radically skewed nature of the data. Typically this indicates that the mean, the statistic presented by Laumann, may not be the best measure to report. A further analysis of the GSS data (on which Laumann based his results) indicates that the median (50th percentile) number of sexual partners for heterosexuals is five and for homosexuals is six (http://www.jeramyt.org/gss/partners.html). The discrepancy between the mean and median is indicative of a small sub-population of gay males who tend towards high rates of sexual partners, skewing the mean, while the majority of gay men tend to have rates about the same as heterosexual males.

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.

Has it occurred to you yet that your personal experience isn't very helpful?

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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2005 7:31 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by nwr, posted 12-19-2005 4:13 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 201 by Rrhain, posted 12-23-2005 9:54 PM Silent H has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 199 of 206 (270844)
12-19-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Silent H
12-19-2005 3:56 PM


Re: Rrhain makes a big mistake... *blink* Lifting Material?
A review from the Wiki entry on Sex Organ...

A clear example of a Wiki mistake.

I don't have a reference handy, but it was in a "Dear Abby" column, perhaps 20 years ago or even earlier. According to that column, the most important sex organ is the brain. Personally, I am convinced that Dear Abby was correct about this. And the wiki entry on sex organs doesn't even mention the brain.


Impeach Bush.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Silent H, posted 12-19-2005 3:56 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Silent H, posted 12-19-2005 4:22 PM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 202 by Rrhain, posted 12-23-2005 9:59 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 200 of 206 (270847)
12-19-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by nwr
12-19-2005 4:13 PM


Re: Rrhain makes a big mistake... *blink* Lifting Material?
A clear example of a Wiki mistake.

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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by nwr, posted 12-19-2005 4:13 PM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Theus, posted 12-28-2005 11:19 AM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 201 of 206 (272278)
12-23-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Silent H
12-19-2005 3:56 PM


holmes accuses me of plagiarism
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?

More generally and popularly, the term sex organ refers to any part of the body involved in erotic pleasure. The larger list would certainly include the anus for either sex, the prepuce, the breasts (especially the nipples) for females, and the nipples for males.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Silent H, posted 12-19-2005 3:56 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Silent H, posted 12-24-2005 12:03 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 202 of 206 (272284)
12-23-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by nwr
12-19-2005 4:13 PM


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:

A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, narrowly defined, is any of those parts of the body (which are not always bodily organs according to the strict definition) which are involved in sexual reproduction and constitute the reproductive system in a complex organism; namely:

  • Male: penis (notably the glans penis and foreskin), prepuce, testicles, scrotum, prostate, seminal vesicles, epididymis, Cowper's glands

  • Female: vulva (notably the clitoris and labia), vagina, cervix, uterus, Fallopian tubes, ovaries, Skene's glands, Bartholin's glands.
More generally and popularly, the term sex organ refers to any part of the body involved in erotic pleasure. The larger list would certainly include the anus for either sex, the prepuce, the breasts (especially the nipples) for females, and the nipples for males.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by nwr, posted 12-19-2005 4:13 PM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Silent H, posted 12-24-2005 12:23 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 203 of 206 (272435)
12-24-2005 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Phat
12-08-2005 9:47 AM


Re: Easy, Cowboy

Really?
When I got "saved" and met God personally, my awareness of morality changed as well.

I am more responsible than I used to be. I know better than to have sex with anyone of any age or gender as it pertains to the church. Its like having sex within a family! Strictly taboo, in my opinion.

My morals did not really change. I mearly stop doing some things to myself and others. I stopped treating myself bad, and I stopped treating others bad. I feel God made me aware of some things that I was not aware of before.

Above all, I try real hard not to be a hypocrite.


Some churches would argue that the "gayness" is the sin and the issue. I would argue that we ALL sin, and the issue is the behavior of the individual...in any circumstance.

Yea but at what point did we ever say it's ok to sin?
Being saved is not a one time decision, it is a continuing process, and true repentance should accompany it.

All of the sins I do, I do have a problem with. If my sin starts affecting how others think, and is outwardly noticable, then I do not deserve to be a leader in my church. Our core values as a church says that we should point this out to each other in love, and encourage to stregthen each other.

So that would set up a scenerio where having a gay leader would be living a life of sin, and it would be accepted, and nobody could ever say anything about it. And that's not even the real problem. The real problem is that the person who is gay, may feel that it is perfectly ok, when it is clearly not from a biblical stand point.

But there is a part of me that is confused by the whole thing. And the fact that we all sin, including myself is a factor, and makes me some what of a hypocrite, something I despise. But I don't pretend that my sins are ok.


RiverRat writes:

Religous morals, and biblical morals are 2 different things.
Say what? Explain the difference between the two, from your perspective.

You answered your own quetion a few sentences back by saying this:

quote:
We make up rules as groups (churches) and also we choose which groups to belong to(as individuals).

Which can be different interpretations of the bible, and different perspectives on morals.


Do you think that teaching "laws" and "morality" about sexual prohabitions will help reduce the world population growth and allow us to take care of who is already here?

No, I think that loving others will set the record straight on morals, and feed the world. But I do not think it can happen. I think even the bible says it won't happen, but that we should not keep from trying..


RiverRat writes:

Tell us how you really feel, but this time don't hold anything back.
So much for intelligent conversation.
I really can't see how anyone could ever think you are logical.

See, Rat? Its comments like that last one that I highlighted that are un necessary! I am picking on you more than the others because you pray daily while they probably do not. You need to be a good example.

MY discussion with rhain and others in this forum, about rhains logic, is an on going thing.

Logic has nothing to do with emotions. So if I claim a person is not logical, it is merely from a logical stand point, and nothing to do with him, but has to do with his statements, and claims to being the logical one, and then others back him up.

They have asked me to prove it, that is what I am doing. You are either logical or you are not. If you are going to claim you are logical, then make ilogical, emotional statemnts, then you will recieve my response. It's my right to. It also does not lead to intelligent conversation, or is it a scientific method way of looking at things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Phat, posted 12-08-2005 9:47 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 204 of 206 (272436)
12-24-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Rrhain
12-23-2005 9:54 PM


Re: holmes accuses me of plagiarism... and proved it!
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 USE

It 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...

Take the penis. Its primary use is as an organ of elimination.

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 PLAGIARISM

I 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 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.

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...

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

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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Rrhain, posted 12-23-2005 9:54 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 205 of 206 (272440)
12-24-2005 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rrhain
12-23-2005 9:59 PM


Watch Rrhain divert attention away from his plagiarism!
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?

So in direct contradiction to what holmes claims, the Wikipedia entry declares the anus to be a sex organ.

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!

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?

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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rrhain, posted 12-23-2005 9:59 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Theus
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 206 (273484)
12-28-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Silent H
12-19-2005 4:22 PM


History
It would be rather odd to say that you are doing theoretical physics with your sex organ.

Obviously, you guys haven't been hanging out with the right physisists.

Seriously though, a division needs to be made between the physical act of sex and the reproductive benefits of such activity. In the former, it requires the abscense of the mind (bada-bump), in the latter it involve's intensive involvment over long periods of time.

And speaking about long periods of time, I do think we are taking a very limited view of sexuality here (What? You mean there are other sexual norms besides those in America!). The length of time now used to increase one's reproductive success have dramatically changed over the past thousands of years.

Earlier, individuals such as Randman and Holmes were debating the age of sexual participation, and how the legal age corresponds to the religious age, etc. Bear in mind folks, we come from a long line of child-marriages by our legal definitions. In the medival, Rennasaince, hell, even Enlightenment periods the accepted age of marriage was very, very low, in the low teens. Hell, a unmarried woman at the age of 19 was already thought of as a spinster. 13 was perfectly acceptable to be a mother. That's all of our ancestors. They were kids with limited information and limited opportunities in the world, and made stupid decisions that make even today's teenage parents look like savants.

Going further back to the nascense of Western Civilization, we head down to Athens where homoerotic pedophilia wasn't just common, it was the norm. To the same minds that developed concepts such as Democracy and atom, it was the moral imperative that a young boy have his first experience with an older man. Why? Because as mentioned by this discussion's participants, the first sexual act can be traumatizing and have serious consequences. To the Athenians, it was best that a young boy have a mentor in that there would be no resultant pregnancy and that they would be with someone experienced who wouldn't try to use them for all they're worth.

I don't necessarily aggree either extreme of the Athenians or medival ages, but I do think that we need to be less prosteletized by the idea of sex. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that we should do our best to make sure our children have their first sexual experiences in High School.

Why?

Because it's important to have a means of support when one begins to have sex. Instead of sending our kids to college or marriage to learn about sex with it's social and biological ramifications, we should give them a safe environment free from our own moral insecurities where they can learn. And, if things go bad, they have a family to support them, as opposed to a young family that they have to support. I am morally against waiting for sex until marriage, because the same questions and struggles must be dealt with. And today, with more knowledge and luxuries than ever seen before on the Earth, it's a shame to be holding our children to such antiquated moral standards... and from the spread of HIV and other STDS it's obvious our current policies aren't appropriate.

I myself come from a small, conservative midwest town with very strong messages of abstinence taught. And what happened? Many girls dropped out of college because they were pregnant at the age of 19, if it hadn't hit them when they were in High School. In a High school with an enrollment of about 300 men and women, 6 women were pregnant... and that's just the women who chose to have the child, not taking into account those that had abortions.

The larger issue is not whether we are comfortable with our next-door neighbors having anal sex... the question is how do we allow people to be who they are while minimizing sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies?

But aside from that, everyone's opinions on sex are absolutely correct... so long as you hold only yourself to that standard and no on else. And, as such, are yourself responsible for your own decisions, no one elses. But for the love of whatever deity you have choosen to believe in, allow kids to be who they are, whether you are a lib or con.

سلام

Theus


Those that can make you believe absurdaties can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Silent H, posted 12-19-2005 4:22 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019