Political Crossfire Forums

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9326 Location: Palm Beach

It has been said often that whether or not a persons sexuality is "natural" should not even be up to debate. And I agree with that, the Bill of Rights isn't about what is natural, because you still have the right.

But I want to challenge that assumption, that it isn't natural. Does anyone even know (and this question isn't for the squeemish) that a man can have an orgasm through anal sex as the reciever? I don't know about women, but I understand the prostate. With this part of sex it seems homosexual intercourse is more appropriate.

I hope you guys know what I'm talking about, I don't want to go farther into detail...

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9326 Location: Palm Beach

I'm sorry, was this too... risque...?

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Melchior wrote: It has been said often that whether or not a persons sexuality is "natural" should not even be up to debate. And I agree with that, the Bill of Rights isn't about what is natural, because you still have the right.

But I want to challenge that assumption, that it isn't natural. Does anyone even know (and this question isn't for the squeemish) that a man can have an orgasm through anal sex as the reciever? I don't know about women, but I understand the prostate. With this part of sex it seems homosexual intercourse is more appropriate.

I hope you guys know what I'm talking about, I don't want to go farther into detail...

I'm sorry, but this thread should get the thread of the year award on Political Crossfire! :rofl:

Excuse my intrusion ... please carry on with the discussions. :!oops:

Malencontreux · Joined: 25 Sep 2004 Posts: 1762 Location: Portland.

I'm not gonna join this discussion because I don't know what to say, but when I read it oh my god -- it was funny.

Let me tell you, being the reciever can be really painful.

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9326 Location: Palm Beach

But my point is, you can climax as the reciever because of the male prostate. While it isn't my intention to gross anyone out, it's the truth...

Locke25 · Joined: 12 Mar 2005 Posts: 3635 Location: Georgia

Melchior wrote: But my point is, you can climax as the reciever because of the male prostate. While it isn't my intention to gross anyone out, it's the truth...
:lol: A) You did gross me out
B) how does this prove that homosexuality is natural? :?

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9326 Location: Palm Beach

Locke25 wrote: Melchior wrote: But my point is, you can climax as the reciever because of the male prostate. While it isn't my intention to gross anyone out, it's the truth...
:lol: A) You did gross me out
B) how does this prove that homosexuality is natural? :?

It doesn't require much thought. There is only one way to stimulate the prostate.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Locke25 wrote: Melchior wrote: But my point is, you can climax as the reciever because of the male prostate. While it isn't my intention to gross anyone out, it's the truth...
:lol: A) You did gross me out
B) how does this prove that homosexuality is natural? :?

Well, why can men be stimulated that way if God didn't want homosexuality to be natural? Of course, one can argue that God was into the sex toys business! :lol:

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9326 Location: Palm Beach

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Locke25 wrote: Melchior wrote: But my point is, you can climax as the reciever because of the male prostate. While it isn't my intention to gross anyone out, it's the truth...
:lol: A) You did gross me out
B) how does this prove that homosexuality is natural? :?

Well, why can men be stimulated that way if God didn't want homosexuality to be natural? Of course, one can argue that God was into the sex toys business! :lol:

Exactly! :ok:

Locke25 · Joined: 12 Mar 2005 Posts: 3635 Location: Georgia

Melchior wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Locke25 wrote: Melchior wrote: But my point is, you can climax as the reciever because of the male prostate. While it isn't my intention to gross anyone out, it's the truth...
:lol: A) You did gross me out
B) how does this prove that homosexuality is natural? :?

Well, why can men be stimulated that way if God didn't want homosexuality to be natural? Of course, one can argue that God was into the sex toys business! :lol:

Exactly! :ok:

this does not prove its natural....

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Locke25 wrote: Melchior wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Locke25 wrote: Melchior wrote: But my point is, you can climax as the reciever because of the male prostate. While it isn't my intention to gross anyone out, it's the truth...
:lol: A) You did gross me out
B) how does this prove that homosexuality is natural? :?

Well, why can men be stimulated that way if God didn't want homosexuality to be natural? Of course, one can argue that God was into the sex toys business! :lol:

Exactly! :ok:

this does not prove its natural....

Well, clearly, based on the Christian dogma, God has created human beings. Based on that, he/she/it was the one who gave men the ability to enjoy prostate stimulation.

Geneviève · Joined: 16 Jul 2005 Posts: 668

Quote: But I want to challenge that assumption, that it isn't natural. Does anyone even know (and this question isn't for the squeemish) that a man can have an orgasm through anal sex as the reciever?

Yes, one has to wonder, if male anal sex is so "unnatural", exactly what the function of the prostate gland is.
I mean, all sqeamishness aside.
Do you suppose God put it there to make taking a crap more enjoyable for men, or what?

:!?:

Valdimar · Joined: 12 Dec 2004 Posts: 711 Location: San Francisco

Ummm. uh... yeah. Wow. I am speechless.

Geneviève · Joined: 16 Jul 2005 Posts: 668

Valdimar wrote: Ummm. uh... yeah. Wow. I am speechless.

.... :rotf:

Malencontreux · Joined: 25 Sep 2004 Posts: 1762 Location: Portland.

Taking a crap more pleasureful? Well I wouldn't know how a girl feels but ... well ... when you do release yourself of bodily junk nevermind. Lol.

The AntiChrist · Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 2240 Location: Cleveland, Ohio

I used to know a woman, that could have an orgasm from anal sex. :twisted:

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:23 am Post subject:

The urge for sexual gratification is natural - though I suppose someone will try to dispute even that premise. We must be careful here not to confuse what is 'natural' with what is 'moral' - they aren't necessarily the same thing. Certainly such urges are designed around at least one obvious purpose - reproduction. But is it the only purpose? Or the only one that matters?

If we posit as truth that this urge is natural while putting aside for the moment questions about the purpose of that urge, can we continue to consider it unnatural for a person with a homosexual orientation to pursue sexual gratification with a person of the same gender, in keeping with that orientation? I would have to say 'no'.

The argument then has three dimensions:

1) Can we have a discussion about sexual drives without having to get mired in arguments about the purpose(s) for their existance?

2) Are sex acts that don't have the potential for procreation unnatural?

3) Is it natural for some people to develop a homosexual orientation?

I would assert that the answer to #1 is 'yes'. Quite clearly people act on those urges all the time with sexual gratification the only purpose in mind. That being true, I see no point in saying we have to include the question of reproduction in every discussion we have about them.

The people who would answer 'no' are most often those who approach it from a religious perspective where the focus is not so much on what is natural (the fulfillment of sexual urges), but on what is alleged to be required by one's God (the practice of restraint with regard to urges that aren't coupled with a conscious decision to attempt procreation).

The second question is fairly easily refuted if you accept that we can have a discussion of sexual drives without making procreation the central focus of the arguments. People obtain pleasure from sex and being the innovative creatures that humans are, it is perfectly natural for them to pursue that gratification via a number of avenues.

The third question is much more complex - one that has many different facets, each probably warranting it's own thread. So I will not attempt to delve into this for now.

I personally disagree with framing this question around one specific sexual act - one that isn't even the preferred act among homosexuals (most studies I've read about say oral sex is the preferred method. My preference isn't for either, but I'm not going into details because I don't want to provoke a thread lock by getting too descriptive).

Heterosexuals and Homosexuals both engage in non-procreative anal & oral sex acts, as well as those that involve some other form of non-insertive friction. Not to mention plain old heterosexual intercourse that involves the use of contraceptives. Yet we rarely here the 'unnatural' argument used on heterosexuals. One must assume then that the thrust of these arguments isn't really whether certain sex acts are unnatural, but whether it is acceptable for heterosexuals to engage in them while judging such acts between couples of the same gender as unnatural.

I am forced to conclude that a double standard exists.

The AntiChrist · Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 2240 Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Skeptical Mystic wrote: The urge for sexual gratification is natural - though I suppose someone will try to dispute even that premise. We must be careful here not to confuse what is 'natural' with what is 'moral' - they aren't necessarily the same thing. Certainly such urges are designed around at least one obvious purpose - reproduction. But is it the only purpose? Or the only one that matters?

If we posit as truth that this urge is natural while putting aside for the moment questions about the purpose of that urge, can we continue to consider it unnatural for a person with a homosexual orientation to pursue sexual gratification with a person of the same gender, in keeping with that orientation? I would have to say 'no'.

The argument then has three dimensions:

1) Can we have a discussion about sexual drives without having to get mired in arguments about the purpose(s) for their existance?

2) Are sex acts that don't have the potential for procreation unnatural?

3) Is it natural for some people to develop a homosexual orientation?

I would assert that the answer to #1 is 'yes'. Quite clearly people act on those urges all the time with sexual gratification the only purpose in mind. That being true, I see no point in saying we have to include the question of reproduction in every discussion we have about them.

The people who would answer 'no' are most often those who approach it from a religious perspective where the focus is not so much on what is natural (the fulfillment of sexual urges), but on what is alleged to be required by one's God (the practice of restraint with regard to urges that aren't coupled with a conscious decision to attempt procreation).

The second question is fairly easily refuted if you accept that we can have a discussion of sexual drives without making procreation the central focus of the arguments. People obtain pleasure from sex and being the innovative creatures that humans are, it is perfectly natural for them to pursue that gratification via a number of avenues.

The third question is much more complex - one that has many different facets, each probably warranting it's own thread. So I will not attempt to delve into this for now.

I personally disagree with framing this question around one specific sexual act - one that isn't even the preferred act among homosexuals (most studies I've read about say oral sex is the preferred method. My preference isn't for either, but I'm not going into details because I don't want to provoke a thread lock by getting too descriptive).

Heterosexuals and Homosexuals both engage in non-procreative anal & oral sex acts, as well as those that involve some other form of non-insertive friction. Not to mention plain old heterosexual intercourse that involves the use of contraceptives. Yet we rarely here the 'unnatural' argument used on heterosexuals. One must assume then that the thrust of these arguments isn't really whether certain sex acts are unnatural, but whether it is acceptable for heterosexuals to engage in them while judging such acts between couples of the same gender as unnatural.

I am forced to conclude that a double standard exists.

:clap: Great post! Completely agree, all sex acts are natural, regardless of partner/position.

jimmyz · Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:04 pm Post subject:

The AntiChrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: The urge for sexual gratification is natural - though I suppose someone will try to dispute even that premise. We must be careful here not to confuse what is 'natural' with what is 'moral' - they aren't necessarily the same thing. Certainly such urges are designed around at least one obvious purpose - reproduction. But is it the only purpose? Or the only one that matters?

If we posit as truth that this urge is natural while putting aside for the moment questions about the purpose of that urge, can we continue to consider it unnatural for a person with a homosexual orientation to pursue sexual gratification with a person of the same gender, in keeping with that orientation? I would have to say 'no'.

The argument then has three dimensions:

1) Can we have a discussion about sexual drives without having to get mired in arguments about the purpose(s) for their existance?

2) Are sex acts that don't have the potential for procreation unnatural?

3) Is it natural for some people to develop a homosexual orientation?

I would assert that the answer to #1 is 'yes'. Quite clearly people act on those urges all the time with sexual gratification the only purpose in mind. That being true, I see no point in saying we have to include the question of reproduction in every discussion we have about them.

The people who would answer 'no' are most often those who approach it from a religious perspective where the focus is not so much on what is natural (the fulfillment of sexual urges), but on what is alleged to be required by one's God (the practice of restraint with regard to urges that aren't coupled with a conscious decision to attempt procreation).

The second question is fairly easily refuted if you accept that we can have a discussion of sexual drives without making procreation the central focus of the arguments. People obtain pleasure from sex and being the innovative creatures that humans are, it is perfectly natural for them to pursue that gratification via a number of avenues.

The third question is much more complex - one that has many different facets, each probably warranting it's own thread. So I will not attempt to delve into this for now.

I personally disagree with framing this question around one specific sexual act - one that isn't even the preferred act among homosexuals (most studies I've read about say oral sex is the preferred method. My preference isn't for either, but I'm not going into details because I don't want to provoke a thread lock by getting too descriptive).

Heterosexuals and Homosexuals both engage in non-procreative anal & oral sex acts, as well as those that involve some other form of non-insertive friction. Not to mention plain old heterosexual intercourse that involves the use of contraceptives. Yet we rarely here the 'unnatural' argument used on heterosexuals. One must assume then that the thrust of these arguments isn't really whether certain sex acts are unnatural, but whether it is acceptable for heterosexuals to engage in them while judging such acts between couples of the same gender as unnatural.

I am forced to conclude that a double standard exists.

:clap: Great post! Completely agree, all sex acts are natural, regardless of partner/position.

How about sex acts with my dog?or a squid?how about a latex doll?

Whacked post by a whacked poster.Melchoir,in between giving yourself a 'shocker' and posting this crap why don't you get a life.

ps:I loved all the shocked responses by admitted homosexuals here.Like you never.......oh never mind. :moon: ...Doh apropos emoticon huh? :lol:

The AntiChrist · Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 2240 Location: Cleveland, Ohio

jimmyz wrote: How about sex acts with my dog?or a squid?

So animals feel natural to you, Jimmy?

jimmyz wrote: how about a latex doll?

Completely natural. Along with masturbation, also natural.

jimmyz wrote: Whacked post by a whacked poster.Melchoir,in between giving yourself a 'shocker' and posting this crap why don't you get a life.

You are a homophobic troll, Melchior is posting this "crap", after the continual assaults, from the bigots, that are saying gay sex is "unnatural".

From your use of punctuation, you should get an education.