Ex-gay?Follow

Everyone allegedly knows that gbaji allegedly doesn't view sex as something that is allegedly just for procreation. Certain people allegedly sometimes want to allegedly take what they think is allegedly theirs. Consensual sex is for procreation, but non consensual sex allegedly is not for procreation, hence ovulation cycles and built in spermacide. Allegedly.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2011 11:46pm by Lubriderm

In one of the most well-known examples, Kees Moeliker of the Rotterdam Natural History Museum, Netherlands observed sexual activities outside his office between a live duck and a dead one. Two male mallards which Moeliker believed were engaged in rape flight, a common motif in duck sexual behavior, collided with his window. "When one died the other one just went for it and didn't get any negative feedback — well, didn't get any feedback," according to Moeliker, who described the event as "homosexual necrophilia." The case was reported scientifically in Deinsea 8-2001, along with photos, and earned Moeliker an Ig Nobel Prize in biology, awarded for research that cannot or should not be reproduced.

You can't be "disabled" if you're "abled". There has to be something abnormal.



You can't be this incredibly dense. You're using a different definition for the same word and are now trying to counter my argument. There's numerous definitions for these words and I've stated 3 times already that I'm not concerned about the words that you use but the definition.

Your analogy is stupid because with the definition that I'm using, I'm using "normal" based on how our bodies operate. I've stated that already. There's no biological evidence to support that our skin tone should be a certain color. Matter of fact, your skin tone interacts with the environment that you're in. On the other hand, there's nothing but biological evidence that supports that the ***** goes in the ******.

Look, it's very simple, no one cares what you do with your organs within reason, but don't come here and pretend that "ear-sex" and "nose-sex" are normal sexual behaviors for humans. Also, just because things become more common in society, doesn't make it "normal" in the context of how our bodies operate. Just because people start doing different stuff with their bodies (i.e. planking), doesn't change any biological evidence of how our bodies operate.



Well, you are completely wrong. That's like saying "food is for pleasure first and nutrition second". Just because you enjoy it, doesn't take away from it's primary function. Haven't you noticed the pattern? Eating food is great, it also provides nutrition. Having sex is great, it provides reproduction. Getting injured hurts, but it tells you that something is wrong with you.

That's how you learn not to touch fire, the pain. You don't like it, so you stop. Your hunger and thirst is your body telling you to drink and eat. If you removed the sexual cravings and good feelings of sex, do you think people would actually have sex? If you think about it, the concept of sex is pretty disgusting, especially in a "stay a hands length away from me" society. Our urges push us into those activities and the good feelings keeps us involved.

Your claim that our organs are for pleasure first is beyond silly. We have natural feelings and urges for food, drinks and pain at/before(?) birth. Sexual urges typically don't occur till around puberty, you know when sexual arousals, menstruation, etc. occurs.

If sex were for pleasure first, then it would be part of our other feelings, such as hunger, thirst, pain, etc. at younger ages and senior ages. The simple fact that those feelings don't even occur till a child is of an older age (when you are able to give birth) and die (when you are no longer able to give birth) is pretty evident that our sexual organs are not for pleasure first.



You fail at life. I used a different word to try to better explain the specific definition from the original word. Instead of grasping on that definition, you use an entirely different definition from that word. I don't know how to better explain it. I didn't want to use "normal" in the definition of "normal", but you're killing me here.

I'm referencing to "biological standards" as "common". Not, "It's common to use an umbrella in the rain", but "it's common for a fertile woman to get pregnant after sex". One is in reference to our biological body operations and another is reference to social practices. Anything and everything can be "common" under social practices, hence why your race example fails.



No, I didn't. Wait, someone brings up race in EVERY single homosexual argument as if sexuality and skin color are the same thing. Besides presenting an argument I wasn't making, the arguments that are similar and apply for apples do not apply for oranges. Ironic how people will constantly bring up racial arguments in the past but swears like it's no tomorrow that any SSM laws are not precedents to any other marriage laws.

Except that the prostate is the male equivilant of the g-spot.

Of course, if you actually believe that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure at all (which would make the clitorous completely uneccessary, and it would've disappeared through evolution, by the way) then you'll dismiss this as unimportant.

But if you honestly, truly believe that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure, even from a biological stand point, then you're just sort of a hopeless cause, aren't you?

If, on the other hand, you're arguing that sex is only biologically for procreation just to argue because you love it so much, then you've picked a stupid argument and should really be arguing against yourself, because you said you like to argue against stupid arguments.

See if you can figure THAT one out.

ETA: I just read all of Alma's post. To the stuff about how "it's reproduction first, pleasure second," I have no idea what that has to do with anything. That doesn't matter. Sex is, biologically, meant for pleasure. It is also meant for reproduction. One is not more important than another, nor is one more "normal" (using your definition of normal as being a biological somethingorother) than another.


Edited, Jun 24th 2011 10:58am by Belkira

Sometimes I hear it just goes into a meat grinder, for weird remedies and such. =X

Most teenage boys too, I suspect. I mean, a pie? Really?

Makes me think of the Louis C.K. joke where he says that young boys spend the time that their parents are out just trying to @#%^ random things in the house. Wish I could remember it, but I'm not about to google any part of that sentence.

Edited, Jun 24th 2011 11:53am by Eske

Mmm, part of it equates to "Body organs aren't for pleasure first and (insert bodily function or need) second" with a comment about how pain teaches you not to do things.

(And then there are the masochists...)

I know his stock reply for this from last time we tried it. It's precious, lemme tell ya.

Are you specifically referring to the "g-spot" or are you referencing to the entire ******?



The ******** is just evidence that sex primary function is not pleasure. Thanks for pointing that out. Matter of fact, the studies on the difference of men and women and their orgasms are also supporting evidence.



Now, you're just in denial. Just like with food, eating for nutrition is much more important than eating for pleasure. When you focus on pleasure and not nutrition, you become malnourished, increasing your chances of bad health and even death.

Likewise, you can sexually pleasure yourself WITHOUT the need of another person. Since you're countering TPGITV theory, why do people (primarily men) do so much for sex when you can sexually satisfy yourself?

You should reread my post for the other reasons on why reproduction is first satisfaction is second.



And dogs/cats/etc. have been sniffing each other butts and licking their private parts since the beginning of time. That doesn't justify that our tongues and noses are meant for licking and sniffing our body parts. That observation only shows that we are able to use our body parts in various ways. I was never denying that. I pick stuff up with my feet and I'm sure others do the same. That doesn't mean anything.



It doesn't. I've stated that numerous times. Two things.

1. People argued that there was no argument against SSM that wasn't out of hatred and/or fear. If you accept the fact that it isn't "biological normal" and if marriage were to be defined on "normal" relationships, specifically based on biological "intentions", then that would exclude SSM.

2. My main focus wasn't to demerit it, but to get people to accept the fact that it isn't "normal", so quit pretending that it is and it's somehow wrong for people not to accept it.



TL:DR: Sex primary function is not pleasure.

Can't wait.

It's pleasurable so that we will enjoy it, and will actively pursue it. It's pleasurable to ensure the survival of the species. But we're removed enough from pure instinct to be able to take advantage of it for recreation.

Normal is a relative word, with a very loose definition. And you are wrong for not accepting homosexuality. That's the truth of it.