"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
. Listen, most discussions of sexual intercourse from a clinical perspective, outside the homo/hetero context will tell you this. Why does it not apply in this context?Really? Can I have a quote from the designer on this?
The biological component is procreation+anatomy.Yes, it is your own theory and deals with teh word "normal" which is as problematic as the word "natural". None of this, however, addresses my point about the biological component that is exclusive to heterosexuality.
I didn't say it is exclusive to homosexuals. What I said was that is was dangerous, and it seems less natural as a primary method of sexual activity than vaginal intercourse. To me That could be a reason to lean toward heterosexuality.Firstly, again, I need a quote from the designer that justifies your position on this. Secondly, sexual reproduction is not the only reason for sexual intercourse. Thirdly, you are talking about sexual behaviors... behaviors that are also performed by heterosexuals, so equating anal sex to homosexuals is irrelevant, both because it is a behavior, not an orientation and because it is not exclusive to gays. And lastly, I already posted that procreation is a separate issue from sexual orientation.
I don't think you do understand, to be honest, but thank you for being gracious.I understand your point of view. I do not accept it because of all the reasons I have outlined.
I do know both hetero and homosexuals who have "switched" for the sake of experimentation though. I haven't personally but I think their example is enough to prove your premise wrong.
So a few questions...is homosexuality fine for those men who do not engage in anal sex? Is lesbian sex fine in that most lesbians do not engage in anal sex? Is heterosexual sex bad if men and women engage in anal sex? Do you see the problem of trying to associate a sexual behavior with a sexual orientation?
Last edited by CriticalThought; 03-17-11 at 11:52 AM.