Gay straight men.

[casavant]

Ha ha!! Looks like my dad trying to dance.

 

[musclebrains]

Ha ha!! Looks like my dad trying to dance.

Don't let Happy get near your dad, for god's sake.

 

[HansNZ]

On the contrary, I think most heterosexuals are a lot more concerned about where they stick it. In a vagina where it was intended to be stuck for ejaculation.

As far as the definition of a sexual act, the one you mentioned is the "Bill Clinton" defintion. I'm not sure I disagree with it as far as completing the act of sex.

On the contrary? My point WAS that heterosexuals are a lot more concerned about where they stick it. We are not disagreeing here!

As for the rest of your opnions/assertions, you make claims such as penises being stuck where they are "intended" or make comments such as man to man sex is "clearly" not "natural". Yet you fail to back up these assertions. I suppose, like your political opinions, when you explain them they are clearly based on false notions and assumptions, and limited beliefs, so you hesitate to do so.

As for the Bill Clinton definition I wasn't actually thinking of him. (Not everything in the world revolves around the USA as so many Americans seem to think). I was simply reflecting on observations and research.

As for a man knowing whether a woman is ovulating, he could always ask her. And anyway wouldn't she know? She does have to consent to a sexual act unless it is rape does she not?

In any case if sex was only about reproduction then post-menopausal women would not have sex drives. For that matter your theory suggests that a woman would have no sex drive when she is not ovulating either.

If every sex act was supposed to lead to reproduction then we'd be totally overpopulated and women would be simply unable to carry constant pregnancies. In your sort of world the human sex drive would only be a fraction of what it is now. Any people who had sex without the purpose of reproduction would be committing an "unnatural" act.

 

[Longhorn85]

He is arguing no such thing. His point is simply that to call heterosexual fucking more "natural" because it can be procreative is to deny that sex occurs just as often for pure pleasure, in which case definitions of "natural" attached to procreation are completely beside the point.

It is "natural" to have sex for pleasure. Heterosexuals engage in all kinds of sex play that has nothing to do with procreation.

He did indeed try to make that point, I think Hans speaks well for himself, thank you. But by natural design sex play between heterosexuals leads to intercourse, can't say the same of homosexual sex play.

Sex occurs most of the time for pure pleasure of course, what a grand design to ensure procreation.

 

[Longhorn85]

you make claims such as penises being stuck where they are "intended" or make comments such as man to man sex is "clearly" not "natural". Yet you fail to back up these assertions.

Any kid who has ever put a puzzle together can figure that one out Hans!

 

[musclebrains]

He did indeed try to make that point, I think Hans speaks well for himself, thank you. But by natural design sex play between heterosexuals leads to intercourse, can't say the same of homosexual sex play.

Sex occurs most of the time for pure pleasure of course, what a grand design to ensure procreation.

Or the simple pleasure of relating to another human being.

The decision that sexual pleasure is natural when it is procreative (just because it is mixed-gendered) and unnatural when it is not is purely aribtrary and in service to your personal morality. And no more rational than the Catholic Church's earlier claims that all sex except procreative sex was unnatural.

Gah, what about cloning? Oh my god, what if they clone a queer? Oh my god.

 

[musclebrains]

Any kid who has ever put a puzzle together can figure that one out Hans!

Oh yeah. The puzzle-maker -- namely you -- decided the penis doesn't fit in the mouth, the rectum, the hand, or an inflatable doll. All unnatural, thus spach ttlpkg, wannabe stripper (but only to ensure the procreative instinct).

 

[HansNZ]

Any kid who has ever put a puzzle together can figure that one out Hans!

Is that so? Well please explain this "obvious" truth.

 

[HansNZ]

He did indeed try to make that point, I think Hans speaks well for himself, thank you. But by natural design sex play between heterosexuals leads to intercourse, can't say the same of homosexual sex play.

Sex occurs most of the time for pure pleasure of course, what a grand design to ensure procreation.

And? But this intercourse in the vast majority of occasions never leads to procreation, so a gay sex act serves the same function.

You just keep reasserting the same opinions without explaining them. You state the obvious and then imply that it has this or that significance without proving why.

Another thought: If foreplay between heterosexuals is "natural" unlike such foreplay among homosexuals because this heterosexual foreplay leads to reproduction, then like the sex act itself this foreplay is only "natural" if the woman is ovulating otherwise they are behaving unnaturally.

 

[HansNZ]

One other thing, you use the terms "natural design" or "grand design" as if this has somehow been determined. Maybe this is based on some religious belief of yours (i.e. the bible says so). If this is so, to imply that these religious/philosophical opinions are the truth means that any other religions/beliefs/philosophies are wrong - and that takes us into an entirely different conversation altogether.