25715 réponses à ce sujet

[MACharlie1]

Unbannable wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

Not saying the rectum is - but the prostate is. Massaging the prostate stimulates the man and results in orgasm. And the vagina does rip...a woman does have to have kids through that channel. My best friend had a kid and she tore.

As far as I know, the only way to get to the prostate is through the rectum.  Also, while a vagina can tear, it's obvious that it was designed as a birthing canal, and so it has enormous capability to stretch..

And a penis is also a bodys exit for waste. Just...FYI.

Urine isn't inherently dirty (people have used it for healing purposes after all), and vaginas clean themselves on a regular basis via natural functions. 

Sorry to get graphic but ever had a really big turd? Ever hard of fisting? It's gross but a testament to man's ability to stretch the rectum. And anal sex isn't just a homosexual issue - plenty of heterosexual couples engage in this. 

And urine is still waste. 

[Blacklash93]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the rectum is the entry point for males to females in most mammals. It was designed for sexual use at some point in evolution.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:08 .

[MACharlie1]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the rectum is the entry point for males to females in most of the animal kingdom. It was designed for sexual use at some point in evolution.

We're going to get "evolution is just a theory" arguement next...

[Unbannable]

Ryzaki wrote...

...Oh boy.

There are people who have orgasmed and felt shamed and betrayed by their body because they felt pleasure while being raped. Let's not say who someone's body should feel when their violating them hmm?

There are also people that derive sexual pleasure from pain, so whats your point?

Both incidents aren't typical.

[Blacklash93]

Unbannable wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...Oh boy.

There are people who have orgasmed and felt shamed and betrayed by their body because they felt pleasure while being raped. Let's not say who someone's body should feel when their violating them hmm?

There are also people that derive sexual pleasure from pain, so whats your point?

Both incidents aren't typical.

So... rape victims who are "pleasured" are masochists?

Modifié par Blacklash93, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:11 .

[shepskisaac]

Unbannable wrote...

asdfluweflia

Dude, this is not a thread to discuss whether you find anal sex OK or not OK, get it?

[Ryzaki]

Unbannable wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

...Oh boy.

There are people who have orgasmed and felt shamed and betrayed by their body because they felt pleasure while being raped. Let's not say who someone's body should feel when their violating them hmm?

There are also people that derive sexual pleasure from pain, so whats your point?

Both incidents aren't typical.

I never argued it was. But it's not actually uncommon. (It's not common either I think it's around a 20% tile).

And a rape victim orgasming doesn't make them a maschoist. <_<

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:11 .

[FoxHound109]

Unbannable wrote...

The primary purpose of sex is reproduction, although most humans also use it for enjoyment.

There is far more to sex than simply reproduction and enjoyment in social species, and especially in human beings. Sex has an immense cultural, political, social, psychological, etc. impact on the human species. Pretty everything we deal with on daily basis is founded on sex: our religious and spiritiul beliefs, the way women are treated all over the world, how our political and governmental systems develop, etc. 

I would argue that for hmans beings reproduction is less the "primary" function of sex and more of the "natural/instinctual" function. 

Modifié par FoxHound109, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:14 .

[who would know]

jlb524 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Re: Priestly's comment. I think we'll get confirmation of LIs, but not who they're available for. 

But we already know all the LIs, so the point is moot.

Yeah...that won't help us much.

Will they release images, or just names?

[Unbannable]

MACharlie1 wrote...

And according to the Kinsey scale ( I think that's what it's called ) bisexuality is not black and white. Some men are really attracted to woman and some men, some equally, some more to men but still would go for women. 

Yes I acknowledge this, but it doesn't prove your point that everyone is bisexual.

Some people are surely, but all, or even most, are not.  Polling data suggests 4% of the human population identify as gay/bisexual.  I'm sure that more than 4% engage in some form of same sex behaviour though, but still, the vast majority of humans are firmly heterosexual.

[MACharlie1]

Unbannable wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

And according to the Kinsey scale ( I think that's what it's called ) bisexuality is not black and white. Some men are really attracted to woman and some men, some equally, some more to men but still would go for women. 

Yes I acknowledge this, but it doesn't prove your point that everyone is bisexual.

Some people are surely, but all, or even most, are not.  Polling data suggests 4% of the human population identify as gay/bisexual.  I'm sure that more than 4% engage in some form of same sex behaviour though, but still, the vast majority of humans are firmly heterosexual.

....and doesn't that by itself suggest that these polls you keep referencing are unreliable? How many are in the closet still? How many are in relationships with opposite sex and really shouldn't be? 

Modifié par MACharlie1, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:17 .

[Ryzaki]

You *do* realize that polling data is probably influenced by the fact that being gay gets you killed in many places yes?

If I could live without sardines (because one can live without sex and romance) I sure in hell wouldn't admit to liking them if doing so would get me dirty looks, less job opportunities, tortured or killed. I like being alive and unmolested thank you.

[FoxHound109]

Unbannable wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

And according to the Kinsey scale ( I think that's what it's called ) bisexuality is not black and white. Some men are really attracted to woman and some men, some equally, some more to men but still would go for women. 

Yes I acknowledge this, but it doesn't prove your point that everyone is bisexual.

Some people are surely, but all, or even most, are not.  Polling data suggests 4% of the human population identify as gay/bisexual.  I'm sure that more than 4% engage in some form of same sex behaviour though, but still, the vast majority of humans are firmly heterosexual.

There is no proof of absolute sexuality on either side, by the way. Being physiologically capable of reproducing doesn't necesserally support this idea. The bonobos are a group of apes that, despite being "physiologically heterosexual" as you call it, engage almost entirely in bisexual behavior. Being physiologically made for reproduction doesn't automatically mean that the species must, in all cases and at all costs, be heterosexual in majority.

http://news.national...ayanimal_2.html 

[Unbannable]

FoxHound109 wrote...

There is far more to sex than simply reproduction and enjoyment in social species, and especially in human beings. Sex has an immense cultural, political, social, psychological, etc. impact on the human species. Pretty everything we deal with on daily basis is founded on sex: our religious and spiritiul beliefs, the way women are treated all over the world, how our political and governmental systems develop, etc. 

I would argue that for hmans beings reproduction is less the "primary" function of sex and more of the "natural/instinctual" function. 

I never argued that sex was simply about reproduction.  I'm also well aware of how sex permeates every aspect of our lives..  I argued that it's primary purpose was for reproduction, and no one can deny that it isn't unless they want to deny reality.

[MACharlie1]

Ha. You guys are much better at debating this then I am. 

Modifié par MACharlie1, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:20 .

[Chris Readman]

Unbannable wrote...

The primary purpose of sex is reproduction, although most humans also use it for enjoyment.  Both external sex organs in males and females are conducive to the act of procreation, regardless of whether the man or woman is gay or straight.

For example, a penis is shaped to penetrate a vagina, and a vagina is contoured to accept a penis.  Even having an orgasm has a role in procreation.  It's also physically impossible for two people of the same sex to engage in biological sex.

That's debateable isn't it? That the primary purpose for sex is reproduction. For all you know, reproduction might be a side effect you get out of sex, while the primary purpose is for pleasure or some other undiscovered reason. I don't know, I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of reproduction, sure it is so that animals can pass on their genetic material and ensure that they survive another generation, but then again, what is the point of that exactly? Think of it this way, we are able to derive pleasure more so than we are able to achieve reproduction, considering that we are able to achieve pleasure in many many ways that are "non-productive".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to propose some wild theory. I'm just trying to say that the way you look at things isn't really definite. I do agree with some of the other points you bring up, such as the inherent need for homosexual relationships to be more discrete as compared to to heterosexuals, but it really seems like you're going off some strange tangent here.

[Blacklash93]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Ha. You guys are much better at debating this then I am. 

You've actually been doing pretty awesome.

[Unbannable]

Blacklash93 wrote...

So... rape victims who are "pleasured" are masochists?

Not saying that.  All I'm saying is that having an orgasm while being raped isn't a typical response. 

At any rate, sexual response is a very complex issue.  You could write a whole book on it.

[Hedera]

The fact that the bisexuality issue is hotly contested among the medical and psychological community means that it's not really something that can be arbitrarily determined. It depends on too many factors, including societal pressures, personal views, religion, and intentional withholding of information. I personally consider myself bisexual, but with a heavy slant towards women. Someone else in a similar situation might consider themselves completely heterosexual. The whole 'unmeasurable' factor being key in this debate.

[Ryzaki]

cgrimm54 wrote...

The fact that the bisexuality issue is hotly contested among the medical and psychological community means that it's not really something that can be arbitrarily determined. It depends on too many factors, including societal pressures, personal views, religion, and intentional withholding of information. I personally consider myself bisexual, but with a heavy slant towards women. Someone else in a similar situation might consider themselves completely heterosexual. The whole 'unmeasurable' factor being key in this debate.

This pretty much.

As for orgasms during rape. They're uncommon but they're not rare. Not in the least. 1 in 5 is not a rare percentage.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:25 .

[FoxHound109]

Unbannable wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

There is far more to sex than simply reproduction and enjoyment in social species, and especially in human beings. Sex has an immense cultural, political, social, psychological, etc. impact on the human species. Pretty everything we deal with on daily basis is founded on sex: our religious and spiritiul beliefs, the way women are treated all over the world, how our political and governmental systems develop, etc. 

I would argue that for hmans beings reproduction is less the "primary" function of sex and more of the "natural/instinctual" function. 

I never argued that sex was simply about reproduction.  I'm also well aware of how sex permeates every aspect of our lives..  I argued that it's primary purpose was for reproduction, and no one can deny that it isn't unless they want to deny reality.

I am not saying that you said sex has no other purpose. Read my post over again, my friend. I'm simply pointing out that the idea that sex is primarily for reproduction isn't exactly accurate. It's true in most cases, but the way sex is handled in social species actually has greater impact than people imagine. The idea that sex's primary function is reproduction is only true in the "natural" side of the argument, but not entirely true as social species evolve. We are already at a point in human social evolution where procreation is not necessarily the greatest ideal when it comes to sex. Overpopulation is a massive problem for us and our resources will only continue to dwindle. There will come a time (provided we live that long) where procreation will no longer be the primary purpose of sex. You also have to keep in mind that procreation and sex are no longer necessarily tied to one another: it is perfectly possible to procreate without sexual intercourse due to our technological advances.

Modifié par FoxHound109, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:27 .

[Unbannable]

FoxHound109 wrote...

There is no proof of absolute sexuality on either side, by the way. Being physiologically capable of reproducing doesn't necesserally support this idea. The bonobos are a group of apes that, despite being "physiologically heterosexual" as you call it, engage almost entirely in bisexual behavior. Being physiologically made for reproduction doesn't automatically mean that the species must, in all cases and at all costs, be heterosexual in majority.

http://news.national...ayanimal_2.html 

I'm not sure thats really analagous to our discussion, because animals use sex differently than humans depending on the species.

Bonobos use sex not just for procreation, but for bonding, conflict resolution, and a whole host of other reasons.

[Ryzaki]

Unbannable wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

There is no proof of absolute sexuality on either side, by the way. Being physiologically capable of reproducing doesn't necesserally support this idea. The bonobos are a group of apes that, despite being "physiologically heterosexual" as you call it, engage almost entirely in bisexual behavior. Being physiologically made for reproduction doesn't automatically mean that the species must, in all cases and at all costs, be heterosexual in majority.

http://news.national...ayanimal_2.html 

I'm not sure thats really analagous to our discussion, because animals use sex differently than humans depending on the species.

Bonobos use sex not just for procreation, but for bonding, conflict resolution, and a whole host of other reasons.

A. I want to be closer to you (sometimes this entails sex).

B. Make up sex.

What else? 

This post is only half serious.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:28 .

[Finis Valorum]

Ryzaki wrote...

A. I want to be closer to you (sometimes this entails sex).

B. Make up sex.

What else? 

You forgot an important one, workout sex.

[FoxHound109]

Unbannable wrote...
I'm not sure thats really analagous to our discussion, because animals use sex differently than humans depending on the species.

Bonobos use sex not just for procreation, but for bonding, conflict resolution, and a whole host of other reasons.

And we don't? Really? You just admited three posts ago that sex has immense impact and purpose in social species that go far beyond reproduction. So I'm not sure where you are getting at here. I would even argue that being a highly social species, the bonobos are about as "analogous to our discussion" as anything else in nature can get.

Anyway, your argument was that being phyisiologically built to procreate means that humans are automatically heterosexual in majority, that bisexuality is not the norm, and that homosexuals are not truly exclusive homosexuals because it is impossible to be due to your first assumption. I'm simply giving you an example of another species that is also "built to procreate" that happens to be entirely bisexual. But if you think I am incorrect here, I would like for you to list for me every single way possible in which human beings use sex, seeing as how in order to come to the conclusion that all humans are automatically heterosexual on some level because of design would require you to know all of these possible variables.

For the record, the bonobos are our closest living relatives. We share more genetic makeup with them than any other living species on the planet.

Modifié par FoxHound109, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:34 .