- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 24,780
- Reaction score
- 22,324
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Lol! Really? You think it was adapted to be penetrated? Please, explain why you think that.
Naw, human nature found a way.
Lol! Really? You think it was adapted to be penetrated? Please, explain why you think that.
Naw, human nature found a way.
And if sex didn't feel good but we wanted the species to survive we would still do it... .
It is if you're straight. It makes perfect rational sense.
It doesn't feel good for them? Why doesn't it feel good for them? I'm quite sure that it physically still feels good. It's still sex with a penis and a hole or holes, to put it bluntly. :lol:
[Rape]doesn't feel good for [women]? Why doesn't it feel good for them? I'm quite sure that it physically still feels good. It's still sex with a penis and a hole or holes, to put it bluntly. :lol:
Your point? Did I say anywhere that people will never want to have kids?
Do you really think the human race was supposed to continually fail at replacing their population? Does that make sense to you? If so, how?
Where do you get the idea it doesn't feel good? You are aware pleasure still happens even if you don't want sex or you're not attracted to the other person, right? I mean it's pretty common knowledge that rape victims feel pleasure from the experience.
Not really. It's actually impossible.
Impossible? Seems like it is successfully happening quite frequently every day in gay and straight communities.
As long as its 2 hotties and me its normal. If im not in on it, I condemn it!
I agree it depends on your definition of the terms, which of course, were not defined even when someone else tried to press that point.It depends on how you define your terms. It's natural as it occurs in nature. If you're going to define normal as being true of the average, no, but then again, having blue eyes and being left handed isn't normal by that criteria either. Therefore, I reject that definition and say that it is something that ought to be acceptable, thus normal.
But I would say it is Abnormal (maybe unnatural too) to have desire contrary to evolution's purpose for the design of each gender's respective genitalia obviously intended/fitted for reproduction, and the evolutionary reason for desire as well.
Not so.If that was the case, we wouldn't see homosexuality being a factor in many species in nature. Clearly, evolution hasn't edited it out, therefore it is natural. It occurs in nature.
Consider the closest relative to humans in the animal kingdom: the Bonobo chimp. This critter will have sex with pretty much anything with a pulse. And they've still managed to survive as a species, so it doesn't appear that going beyond intra-species procreation was ever an evolutionary problem.I agree it depends on your definition of the terms, which of course, were not defined even when someone else tried to press that point.
But I would say it is Abnormal (maybe unnatural too) to have desire contrary to evolution's purpose for the design of each gender's respective genitalia obviously intended/fitted for reproduction, and the evolutionary reason for desire as well.
Many, if not most, gay individuals are not at all repulsed by the opposite gender or are incapable of having sex with them. It's simply not something they're interested in pursuing.This is Not comparable to Right/Left-handedness so many have tried, with PC, to trivilialize it with. This is a significant contrary-to-procreation evolutionary purpose/design issue. And I imagine some/many people who are gay, struggle Emotionally with the problem. A problem that people with 'blue eyes' or left-handedness don't remotely have.
Not so.
That's not an answer to the the condition's contrariness to the evolutionary design and purpose of sex and sexual organs.
It's merely stating that it isn't restricted to humans.
Your PC is overriding your very good science. This is true of the vast majority of similarly smart people.
I don't see the relevance of this argument at all. The evolutionary purpose of sex (and desire for it) is reproduction. If some adolescent High-T Bonobo humps a broomstick.. so what?Consider the closest relative to humans in the animal kingdom: the Bonobo chimp. This critter will have sex with pretty much anything with a pulse. And they've still managed to survive as a species, so it doesn't appear that going beyond intra-species procreation was every an evolutionary problem.
Only proving My point.DifferentDrummer said:Many, if not most, gay individuals are not at all repulsed by the opposite gender or are incapable of having sex with them. It's simply not something they're interested in pursuing.
The greatest relevance is that nature doesn't seem to have had any need to restrict our sex drive for procreation only.I don't see the relevance of this argument at all. The evolutionary purpose of sex (and desire for it) is reproduction. If some adolescent High-T Bonobo humps a broomstick.. so what?
Okay, so, if a hetero couple decides that they don't have the resources to support any (more) children, are they then behaving in a way that isn't consistent with Nature/Evolution's intended purpose by trying not to procreate?Only proving My point.
They are not only "capable" of having sex with opposite gender, that IS evolution's purpose for !t, and the way the the great majority of All animal species practice it. Necessarily practice it in fact, for the very survival of that species.
The only debate here is what terms we use for behavior that isn't consistent with Nature/Evolution's obvious intended purpose/design of the genders' respective parts.
We of course "don't have to".. of course without it, no More us. Funny about evolution.The greatest relevance is that nature doesn't seem to have had any need to restrict our sex drive for procreation only.
I would refer you to ChrisL's post #386:DiffrentDrummer said:Okay, so, if a hetero couple decides that they don't have the resources to support any (more) children, are they then behaving in a way that isn't consistent with Nature/Evolution's intended purpose by trying not to procreate?[/b]
As others have pointed out, it all depends on how you want to define the terms. May as well be asking "which definition of 'normal' do you want to use here?"
In the strictest sense of the word, homosexuality is not the norm, so it is not normal. There can be no denying that "heterosexual sex has been the norm among humans throughout their existence."
If by normal and natural we simply mean that it occurs in nature, then I think we can all agree that it's not some form of supernatural phenomenon.
That's right, so define your terms and state your position.As others have pointed out, it all depends on how you want to define the terms.
The "state of being" as you call it didn't come into existence until very recently [at least in western culture], so I would say it is more cultural than natural.I am not asking about homosexual sex, but homosexuality. The state of being instead of the action.
There are people who claim that homosexuality is "natural" simply because it occurs in nature. If we wish to use that definition of the term, then one could argue that pretty much anything and everything is "natural" - the term becomes somewhat meaningless.I do not follow your point here.
I don't see there being one objectively "correct" use of terms - I guess that's my position. I listed two above; both of which I think are correct but not very useful in terms of stimulating debate.That's right, so define your terms and state your position.
No kidding. I've been trying to explain to Gath that gays can reproduce for this reason (well, to have kids) for a long time and just doesn't seem to believe it.
I also find it bemusing how they ignore that jerking off feels good for the same exact reason sex does, and it in fact lowers the sex drive temporarily...so it acts counter to this "instinct" to reproduce. How come we're built so that our hands can reach down there so readily if orgasm is solely to encourage reproduction? How come anal sex feels good for that matter? They can't account for non-reproductive orgasm at all.