Bisexuality
Fabian Mogelsdorfer
I like to have sex with both men and women.
I like to be dominant with women, but with men, I am passive OR
active.
IMO most people are bisexual.
Many young girls had their first kiss with another girl and a growing
number of young males does have experience with the same sex, although
kissing males not so common yet.
Have you already had sex with a partner of the same sex?
Fabian
Alan J Rosenthal
>IMO most people are bisexual.
Some people are; some people aren't.
Think of it this way: Why should we believe that you are bisexual?
When you say you are attracted to a particular person, why should we
believe that you are _really_ attracted to them, and not just saying so?
Then please extend the same courtesy to someone who says that they are
_not_ attracted to someone -- that they are not attracted to men or
not attracted to women (or both).
I speak as a former member of the "everyone is bisexual" camp. It's just
not true, and not respectful of people's sexuality. Some people are relaxed,
non-phobic, and honestly introspective about their sexuality, and have
concluded with great care that they really are heterosexual or homosexual.
I've know some of each. (I've also known a bunch of 'phobes whom I could
easily believe are "really" something other than what they say and think.)
Serene Vannoy
> Hi,
>
> I like to have sex with both men and women.
>
> I like to be dominant with women, but with men, I am passive OR
> active.
>
> IMO most people are bisexual.
You're probably wrong, and it's not very nice to tell straight people
and gay people that they're not really the orientation they say they
are, so it's probably more polite to keep that opinion to yourself in
mixed company.
>
> Many young girls had their first kiss with another girland a growing
> number of young males does have experience with the same sex, although
> kissing males not so common yet.
>
> Have you already had sex with a partner of the same sex?
I have, but I'm bisexual. Most people are not.
Serene
David Dalton
<afa0cb6f-6249-4721...@y31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Fabian Mogelsdorfer <bilde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like to have sex with both men and women.
>
> I like to be dominant with women, but with men, I am passive OR
> active.
>
> IMO most people are bisexual.
I don't think a majority of people are bisexual but I think
far more are bisexual (have significant attraction to both
genders, regardless of who they have sex with) than get reported.
You might want to try newsgroup soc.bi as well.
David
James and LuAnne Smith
has it been?
Elizabeth
wrote:
> Prop 8 is still in the courts I dont think that it will pass so how long
> has it been?
I don't understand what you're referring to. Can you please elaborate
for those of us who live outside the US?
suzeeq
It's a California measure on gay marriage, IIRC. Not really sure what it
has to do with bisexuality.
sue
Sidney Lambe
I live in Washington state, so I can't remember whether Prop 8
is for or against gay marriage.
But most of the people against gay marriage are against anything
but heterosexuality.
Even though I believe that people are simply sexual, I've never
been attracted to anyone who wasn't a woman.
When I was younger, I experimented with sex with men, just to
make sure that I was being honest with myself. I found the whole
experience kind of sad and pathetic and distasteful. I did _not_
engage in anal sex. I don't do that with women, either. It's
not healthy.
--
Sidney Lambe - Evergreen
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com - http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh
Lusus Naturae
>I did _not_ engage in anal sex. [...] It's
>not healthy.
That would depend on your definition of "healthy". Sex itself, in any
of its myriad expressions, could be considered unhealthy, since it can
encourage and transmit diseases. No need to single out anal sex on that
score. Probably those who are knowledgeable about the risks and take
pains to minimize them are no more apt to develop or contract diseases
from such play than equally informed practitioners of other forms of
sex.
Certainly, if your definition of "healthy" includes mental health, then
among those who are strongly attracted to anal play, the ones who
indulge may preserve mental health better than the ones who repress.
--
Lusus Naturae
Remus Shepherd
> When I was younger, I experimented with sex with men, just to
> make sure that I was being honest with myself. I found the whole
> experience kind of sad and pathetic and distasteful. I did _not_
> engage in anal sex. I don't do that with women, either. It's
> not healthy.
I experimented in the same ways, with the difference that I did try
anal sex and just about everything else. I enjoyed almost all of it. But
there was almost no emotional component. Yes, a man could get me off, but
I could only fall in love with women, and that made my preference clear.
Sexuality is a continuum, not a series of fixed categories. Some people
have zero predeliction toward one sex or the other, and there's a smooth
gradient of preferences in between.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
New Webcomic: Genocide Man http://www.genocideman.com/
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
Serene Vannoy
Prop 8 is Proposition 8 ("Proposition Hate"), a California ballot
measure (largely funded by Utah Mormons) to make a constitutional
amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage, and it DID pass, though it's
currently in the appeals process, and has been overturned on the one
hand, and upheld on the other, while allowing the people who married
while it was legal to stay married. It's a big old mess.
Serene
suzeeq
And I still don't see that it's got a lot to do with bisexuality....
sue
Serene Vannoy
Many many bisexuals are affected by a law that will not allow them to
marry same-sex partners. I'm one of them.
Serene
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>
>>I did _not_ engage in anal sex. [...] It's not healthy.
>
> That would depend on your definition of "healthy".
No, it wouldn't.
> Sex itself, in any of its myriad expressions, could be
> considered unhealthy,
So the joy of sex, that which is responsible for life itself, is
'unhealthy'?
You must be a very unhappy person.
> since it can encourage and transmit diseases.
I have never gotten any diseases from having sex.
> No need to single out anal sex on that score.
I didn't. I just said it was unhealthy, and it is.
> Probably those who are knowledgeable about the risks and take
> pains to minimize them are no more apt to develop or contract
> diseases from such play than equally informed practitioners of
> other forms of sex.
So when you think of anal sex, you think of disease. This
is appropriate.
>
> Certainly, if your definition of "healthy" includes mental
> health, then among those who are strongly attracted to anal
> play, the ones who indulge may preserve mental health better
> than the ones who repress.
That's absurd.
Serene Vannoy
> On soc.sexuality.general, Lusus Naturae<LususN...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>> No need to single out anal sex on that score.
>
> I didn't. I just said it was unhealthy, and it is.
Cite?
Serene
Sidney Lambe
> On 03/25/2011 05:20 AM, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>> On soc.sexuality.general, Lusus Naturae<LususN...@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> No need to single out anal sex on that score.
>>
>> I didn't. I just said it was unhealthy, and it is.
>
> Cite?
Common sense.
[delete]
Serene Vannoy
> On soc.sexuality.general, Serene Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>> On 03/25/2011 05:20 AM, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> On soc.sexuality.general, Lusus Naturae<LususN...@pobox.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> No need to single out anal sex on that score.
>>>
>>> I didn't. I just said it was unhealthy, and it is.
>>
>> Cite?
>
> Common sense.
>
> [delete]
>
That's moronic. Making a health claim and backing it up with "'cause
everyone knows that, duh!" is idiotic.
Serene
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> On 03/26/2011 09:34 AM, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> On soc.sexuality.general, Serene
>> Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/25/2011 05:20 AM, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On soc.sexuality.general, Lusus
>>>> Naturae<LususN...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No need to single out anal sex on that score.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't. I just said it was unhealthy, and it is.
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>> Common sense.
>>
>
> That's moronic. Making a health claim and backing it up with
> "'cause everyone knows that, duh!" is idiotic.
Not "everyone". Everyone who hasn't numbed themselves to much of
their common sense.
"There is nothing more uncommon than common sense."
-- Frank Lloyd Wright
> Serene
Nystameatcha.
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>
>> When I was younger, I experimented with sex with men, just to
>> make sure that I was being honest with myself. I found the
>> whole experience kind of sad and pathetic and distasteful.
>> I did _not_ engage in anal sex. I don't do that with women,
>> either. It's not healthy.
>
> I experimented in the same ways, with the difference that
> I did try anal sex and just about everything else. I enjoyed
> almost all of it. But there was almost no emotional component.
> Yes, a man could get me off,
So can your own hand. Or a pillow...
> but I could only fall in love with women, and that made my
> preference clear.
It _is_ hard to define.
>
> Sexuality is a continuum, not a series of fixed categories.
> Some people have zero predeliction toward one sex or the other,
> and there's a smooth gradient of preferences in between.
And a person's preferences can gradually change over time, or
suddenly, at key points in their lives.
I'm quite happy being heterosexual. No need to worry about
running out of potential female partners, is there? I mean,
there are billions of them out there.
Although, frankly, only a tiny percentage really turn me on.
Gordon
[snip]
>
> "There is nothing more uncommon than common sense."
>
> -- Frank Lloyd Wright
>
Of which you are showing us all.
Dave
be Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca> typed:
>On soc.sexuality.general, Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>> On 03/25/2011 05:20 AM, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> On soc.sexuality.general, Lusus Naturae<LususN...@pobox.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> No need to single out anal sex on that score.
>>>
>>> I didn't. I just said it was unhealthy, and it is.
>>
>> Cite?
>
>Common sense.
So what exactly is unhealthy about it?
Tom Allen
> On soc.sexuality.general, Serene Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't. I just said it was unhealthy, and it is.
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Common sense.
>>>
>>
>> That's moronic. Making a health claim and backing it up with
>> "'cause everyone knows that, duh!" is idiotic.
>
> Not "everyone". Everyone who hasn't numbed themselves to much of
> their common sense.
You must subscribe the the "natural" school of sexuality: anything other
than Tab A into Slot B is unnatural, and therefore, unhealthy.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. However, I am known to be a carrier.
sleepy
and indeed the law of marriage in practical terms has absolutely nothing
to do with sexuality whatsoever, it has to do with your legal rights as
civil partner, such as inheritance, guardianship, parental rights,
medical decisions in extremis, right of abode and so on and so on.
Serene Vannoy
>
> and indeed the law of marriage in practical terms has absolutely nothing
> to do with sexuality whatsoever,
I disagree. Lots of marriage law is affected by sex; one can/could, in
many places and/or past times, sue for divorce if the sex ends, or if
one partner cheats, where divorce itself was illegal otherwise, and
certainly I can think of cases where one partner "won" in a divorce
and/or child custody case because of the other partner's homosexuality.
> it has to do with your legal rights as
> civil partner, such as inheritance, guardianship, parental rights,
> medical decisions in extremis, right of abode and so on and so on.
>
>
Mostly that stuff, yes, but certainly sexuality has something to do with it.
Serene
Sidney Lambe
How right you are. In America, the majority of people have been
suckered by myths like 'Adam and Eve' and 'Darwinism'. So you get
garbage like "Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus", when
it is obvious that men and weomen are about 98% alike.
As is often the case in the West, industries spring up around
cultural practices and they will stop at nothing to defend
themselves. The Marital-Industrial Complex is one of those
industries.
Children are a big part of that industry.
I lived for years on a hippy commune. Nudity was the norm.
You see enough hairy cunts staring you in the face and it soon
becomes obvious that sex and nudity are not the same thing
at all.
It's something special. One moment you are just talking with
a woman (in my case) whom you like as a person and enjoy the
company of. And the mext moment they are suddenly a new kind of
food and you are incredibly hungry for it.
It is a beautiful mystery.
>
> --
> http://www.momfoodproject.com
I read "What is Mom Food." I have heard it called "comfort food".
Unfortunately, a lot of it is food that I no longer eat, mostly
for envirnmental reasons. Being an adult means that one can break
free of parental conditioning at will. So I find comfort in new
foods of MY choosing. My Mom doesn't get a vote.
Serene Vannoy
> On soc.sexuality.general, Serene Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/27/2011 01:55 PM, sleepy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> and indeed the law of marriage in practical terms has
>>> absolutely nothing to do with sexuality whatsoever,
>>
>>
>>> it has to do with your legal rights as
>>
>>> civil partner, such as inheritance, guardianship, parental
>>> rights, medical decisions in extremis, right of abode and so
>>> on and so on.
>>>
>>
>> Mostly that stuff, yes, but certainly sexuality has something
>> to do with it.
> How right you are. In America, the majority of people have been
> suckered by myths like 'Adam and Eve' and 'Darwinism'.
I sure hope you're putting Darwinism in quotes because of the fake
evolutionary pop psychology social darwinism garbage, and not because
you think that the theory of evolution is on par with the fairy tale of
the bellybuttonless morons in the garden who talked to snakes.
> So you get
> garbage like "Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus", when
> it is obvious that men and weomen are about 98% alike.
Eh. I don't think it's obvious. I think it's complex, and it's hard to
tease out nature from nurture, so people latch onto theories that
explain things in ways that confirm their own biases.
>
> As is often the case in the West, industries spring up around
> cultural practices and they will stop at nothing to defend
> themselves. The Marital-Industrial Complex is one of those
> industries.
>
> Children are a big part of that industry.
>
> I lived for years on a hippy commune. Nudity was the norm.
> You see enough hairy cunts staring you in the face and it soon
> becomes obvious that sex and nudity are not the same thing
> at all.
That's a pretty foul way to put it but yeah, I agree: nudism doesn't
sexualize life; it tends to desexualize it in general.
<snip>
>> http://www.momfoodproject.com
>
> I read "What is Mom Food." I have heard it called "comfort food".
> Unfortunately, a lot of it is food that I no longer eat, mostly
> for envirnmental reasons.
Which is certainly your prerogative. I am lucky enough that my own
personal comfort foods include lots of fruits and veggies and wholesome
foods. My partners were not so lucky. The one I live with, especially:
his mother overcooked simply EVERYTHING, and he didn't eat fresh
vegetables or salads until he moved out of her home.
> Being an adult means that one can break
> free of parental conditioning at will. So I find comfort in new
> foods of MY choosing. My Mom doesn't get a vote.
Again, that's certainly your prerogative. As it happens, I get joy and
comfort out of the foods of my childhood, and out of spending time with
my mother talking about and cooking the foods of my and her youths.
Since I'm all for more joy in life, I'm glad this is part of what I do.
If you prefer to go a different way, I think that's perfectly fine,
not that you needed my approval, but since you were dissing my choice, I
thought I'd make it clear that I'm fine with yours.
Serene
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I sure hope you're putting Darwinism in quotes because of the
fake evolutionary pop psychology social darwinism garbage, and
not because you think that the theory of evolution is on par
with the fairy tale of the bellybuttonless morons in the
garden who talked to snakes.
Nothing in Genesis need be taken literally. Plenty of
evolutionists are also devout Christians, which suggests that
there's no incompatibility there.
Orlando
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> On soc.sexuality.general, Serene
>> Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org>
>
>>>>>> I didn't. I just said it was unhealthy, and it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>> Common sense.
>>>
>>> That's moronic. Making a health claim and backing it up with
>>> "'cause everyone knows that, duh!" is idiotic.
>>
>> Not "everyone". Everyone who hasn't numbed themselves to much
>> of their common sense.
>
> You must subscribe the the "natural" school of sexuality:
> anything other than Tab A into Slot B is unnatural, and
> therefore, unhealthy.
All I have said is that anal sex is unhealthy.
And it is.
The rest is your fantasy. You can believe it if you want.
No skin off my teeth.
I certainly am not going to waste my time arguing with
someone who has such a flimsy grasp of logic.
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> On 03/27/2011 03:39 PM, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> On soc.sexuality.general, Serene
>> Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/27/2011 01:55 PM, sleepy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> and indeed the law of marriage in practical terms has
>>>> absolutely nothing to do with sexuality whatsoever,
>
><snip>
>
>>>> it has to do with your legal rights as
>>>
>>>> civil partner, such as inheritance, guardianship, parental
>>>> rights, medical decisions in extremis, right of abode and so
>>>> on and so on.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mostly that stuff, yes, but certainly sexuality has something
>>> to do with it.
>
>> How right you are. In America, the majority of people have
>> been suckered by myths like 'Adam and Eve' and 'Darwinism'.
>
> I sure hope you're putting Darwinism in quotes because of the
> fake evolutionary pop psychology social darwinism garbage, and
> not because you think that the theory of evolution is on par
> with the fairy tale of the bellybuttonless morons in the garden
> who talked to snakes.
It is even more of a fairy tale than that, Serene, so I guess
your hopes have been dashed.
Darwinism is superstitious nonsense.
There is not one scrap of solid evidence indicating that the
Earth was ever devoid of biological life, just for starters.
> > So you get
>
>> garbage like "Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus",
>> when it is obvious that men and weomen are about 98% alike.
>
> Eh. I don't think it's obvious. I think it's complex, and it's
> hard to tease out nature from nurture, so people latch onto
> theories that explain things in ways that confirm their own
> biases.
Well said. But you _did_ misunderstand me.
>> As is often the case in the West, industries spring up around
>> cultural practices and they will stop at nothing to defend
>> themselves. The Marital-Industrial Complex is one of those
>> industries.
>>
>> Children are a big part of that industry.
>>
>> I lived for years on a hippy commune. Nudity was the norm. You
>> see enough hairy cunts staring you in the face and it soon
>> becomes obvious that sex and nudity are not the same thing at
>> all.
>
> That's a pretty foul way to put it
What would you rather I said? That I've seen enough labia, vulvas,
clitoral sheaths and pubic hair?
Get a grip.
> but yeah, I agree: nudism doesn't sexualize life; it tends to
> desexualize it in general.
Doesn't really desexualize. It just makes you understand
what sexuality really is. Puts it in perspective.
><snip>
>
>>> http://www.momfoodproject.com
>>
>> I read "What is Mom Food." I have heard it called "comfort
>> food". Unfortunately, a lot of it is food that I no longer
>> eat, mostly for envirnmental reasons.
>
> Which is certainly your prerogative. I am lucky enough that my
> own personal comfort foods include lots of fruits and veggies
> and wholesome foods. My partners were not so lucky. The one I
> live with, especially: his mother overcooked simply EVERYTHING,
> and he didn't eat fresh vegetables or salads until he moved out
> of her home.
I limit my animal product intake to less than 10% of my diet, and
eat only locally, and humanely and evironmentally, raised and
killed chickens, eggs, and rabbits.
[delete]
Serene Vannoy
> On soc.sexuality.general, Serene Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org>
> wrote:
>> I sure hope you're putting Darwinism in quotes because of the
>> fake evolutionary pop psychology social darwinism garbage, and
>
>> not because you think that the theory of evolution is on par
>> with the fairy tale of the bellybuttonless morons in the garden
>> who talked to snakes.
>
> It is even more of a fairy tale than that, Serene, so I guess
> your hopes have been dashed.
>
> Darwinism is superstitious nonsense.
>
> There is not one scrap of solid evidence indicating that the
> Earth was ever devoid of biological life, just for starters.
That's probably the most ignorant statement I've seen this week, outside
of failbook.com.
Serene
--
http://www.momfoodproject.com
Lusus Naturae
>Darwinism is superstitious nonsense.
Ah, now I understand. Anal sex is unhealthy because you say so; and all
the vast body of scientific knowledge about the course of evolution on
this planet is wrong because you say so. Okay, that's the part I didn't
get before.
--
Lusus Naturae
Spare Cycles
> It is even more of a fairy tale than that, Serene, so I guess
> your hopes have been dashed.
>
> Darwinism is superstitious nonsense.
This belongs in talk.origins, not ssg. Thanks.
ObFairyTaleSex: Do you think Rapunzel liked using her hair for bondage?
-- cycles
Dave
be Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca> typed:
>On soc.sexuality.general, Tom Allen <tao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>
>>> On soc.sexuality.general, Serene
>>> Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org>
>>
>>>>>>> I didn't. I just said it was unhealthy, and it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> Common sense.
>>>>
>>>> That's moronic. Making a health claim and backing it up with
>>>> "'cause everyone knows that, duh!" is idiotic.
>>>
>>> Not "everyone". Everyone who hasn't numbed themselves to much
>>> of their common sense.
>>
>> You must subscribe the the "natural" school of sexuality:
>> anything other than Tab A into Slot B is unnatural, and
>> therefore, unhealthy.
>
>All I have said is that anal sex is unhealthy.
So you keep saying, but what exactly is unhealthy about it?
>And it is.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it"?
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 09:02 AM, Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> On soc.sexuality.general, Serene
>> Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>
>>> I sure hope you're putting Darwinism in quotes because of the
>>> fake evolutionary pop psychology social darwinism garbage,
>>> and
>>
>>> not because you think that the theory of evolution is on par
>>> with the fairy tale of the bellybuttonless morons in the
>>> garden who talked to snakes.
>>
>> It is even more of a fairy tale than that, Serene, so I guess
>> your hopes have been dashed.
>>
>> Darwinism is superstitious nonsense.
>>
>> There is not one scrap of solid evidence indicating that the
>> Earth was ever devoid of biological life, just for starters.
>
> That's probably the most ignorant statement I've seen this
> week, outside of failbook.com.
And your empty statement is supposed to be accepted by everyone
as proof of the validity of Darwinism?
Of course. It's all the evidence YOU need.
:-)
Most Darwinists are true religious fanatics: they believe
that their beliefs are facts and do not ever question
them.
Dave
be Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca> typed:
>And your empty statement is supposed to be accepted by everyone
>as proof of the validity of Darwinism?
>
>Of course. It's all the evidence YOU need.
>
>:-)
>
>Most Darwinists are true religious fanatics: they believe
>that their beliefs are facts and do not ever question
>them.
You've never really sat down with many and talked, have you? The point
of science isn't any particular belief, but rather, the belief that we
follow evidence to learn, understand, explain and comprehend. "I don't
know" is a valid answer, as is "I think this is why"
In fact, just about the only forbidden answer to anything is "I have a
clue but I believe it anyway"
We see evolution in bacteria, as generations of antibiotic resistant
bacteria win out over those vulnerable to common antibiotics.
We see rodents living around Chernobyl that are starting to develop a
resistance to radiation, when those rodents are taken out of a
radioactive environment and bred, their offspring (who have never been
exposed to anything beyond nominal background radiation) retain this
trait.
We're seeing what might be evolution within our own species. For
example, the Sherpas living in the Himalayan region have increased
nitric oxide production, enzymes to allow hemoglobin binding, and hearts
that can utilize glucose directly, adaptations that are genetic rather
than environmental.
Darwinism obviously isn't the complete picture of evolution, but the
principles matched the evidence available to Darwin, and they match what
modern science demonstrates. It might turn out to be completely wrong,
and if so, I suspect you'll find that nearly all scientists (and us
followers) will follow wherever the evidence leads us and right now,
there's a lot of evidence for evolution and little that disproves it.
The start of life here on Earth isn't known (and it's possible that it
didn't even start here on Earth, although that hardly matters since it
must have started somewhere so the question is the same even if the
location changes)
Dave
to be Dave <calga...@gmail.com> typed:
>In message <slrniouqd0.3...@3f8s2dcr5.net> someone claiming to
>be Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca> typed:
>
>>On soc.sexuality.general, Tom Allen <tao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On soc.sexuality.general, Serene
>>>> Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org>
>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't. I just said it was unhealthy, and it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Common sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's moronic. Making a health claim and backing it up with
>>>>> "'cause everyone knows that, duh!" is idiotic.
>>>>
>>>> Not "everyone". Everyone who hasn't numbed themselves to much
>>>> of their common sense.
>>>
>>> You must subscribe the the "natural" school of sexuality:
>>> anything other than Tab A into Slot B is unnatural, and
>>> therefore, unhealthy.
>>
>>All I have said is that anal sex is unhealthy.
>
>So you keep saying, but what exactly is unhealthy about it?
Well? You keep making the claim, lets hear it.
Tom Allen
> Sidney Lambe<ever...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>> It is even more of a fairy tale than that, Serene, so I guess
>> your hopes have been dashed.
>>
>> Darwinism is superstitious nonsense.
>
> This belongs in talk.origins, not ssg. Thanks.
OMG - talk.origins is still around? I don't think I've been there in 10
years.
I've only set up newsgroup access on this one pc, so there's so much
I've been missing lately. A few years ago, my ISP dropped NG access, so
I've had to use the free access services, and it was a PITA to set it up
at work. Also, I don't seem to have an easy way to get NGs on my phone.
Serene Vannoy
> Spare Cycles wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe<ever...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>>> It is even more of a fairy tale than that, Serene, so I guess
>>> your hopes have been dashed.
>>>
>>> Darwinism is superstitious nonsense.
>>
>> This belongs in talk.origins, not ssg. Thanks.
>
> OMG - talk.origins is still around? I don't think I've been there in 10
> years.
>
> I've only set up newsgroup access on this one pc, so there's so much
> I've been missing lately. A few years ago, my ISP dropped NG access, so
> I've had to use the free access services, and it was a PITA to set it up
> at work. Also, I don't seem to have an easy way to get NGs on my phone.
ObSex...
Serene, trolling for sex-related posts
--
http://www.momfoodproject.com
Tom Allen
Oh poop - I was so thrown off by talk.origins that I forgot.
Umm... oh yeah.
Can a person be situationally bisexual, but (absent that situation) be mono?
Serene Vannoy
>
> Can a person be situationally bisexual, but (absent that situation) be
> mono?
Do you mean is someone who has a threesome automatically non-monogamous?
Serene
Tom Allen
> On 04/02/2011 06:54 PM, Tom Allen wrote:
>
>>
>> Can a person be situationally bisexual, but (absent that situation) be
>> mono?
>
> Do you mean is someone who has a threesome automatically non-monogamous?
That would be another way of putting it.
I guess I'm going back to the "everybody is bisexual" comment, and my 15
year old brain (i.e., the part of my brain that never matured beyond
high school) wondered if there could be situations in which people
*acted* on a sexual urge with someone of a non-preferred gender, but
outside of that situation would never give it a thought. Does that make
them bisexual? Or is the term itself too vague?
Serene Vannoy
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>> On 04/02/2011 06:54 PM, Tom Allen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Can a person be situationally bisexual, but (absent that situation) be
>>> mono?
>>
>> Do you mean is someone who has a threesome automatically non-monogamous?
>
> That would be another way of putting it.
>
> I guess I'm going back to the "everybody is bisexual" comment, and my 15
> year old brain (i.e., the part of my brain that never matured beyond
> high school) wondered if there could be situations in which people
> *acted* on a sexual urge with someone of a non-preferred gender, but
> outside of that situation would never give it a thought. Does that make
> them bisexual? Or is the term itself too vague?
The way I define it tends to be based on a couple things (and just to be
clear, I'm using the generic "you" throughout):
1) Attraction: If you're attracted to more than one gender at all, to my
way of thinking, you're bisexual. IF you had that threesome and you
were sexually attracted to the motss (member of the same sex), then the
fact that you never did it before and don't plan to do it again doesn't
mean you're not at least theoretically attracted to other motss, so
"bisexual" seems more accurate to me than "heterosexual."
2) Politics (because the personal really is political): If the only
reason you're resisting identifying as bisexual is because you don't
want people to think you might be gay, that doesn't make you not bisexual.
None of which really is really relevant to the question of monogamy. I
think there are behavioral and orientational questions around monogamy
that are similar to, but not the same as, those around sexual orientation.
Serene
--
http://www.momfoodproject.com
Tom Allen
> None of which really is really relevant to the question of monogamy. I
> think there are behavioral and orientational questions around monogamy
> that are similar to, but not the same as, those around sexual orientation.
Do go on.
Serene Vannoy
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>
>> None of which really is really relevant to the question of monogamy. I
>> think there are behavioral and orientational questions around monogamy
>> that are similar to, but not the same as, those around sexual
>> orientation.
>
> Do go on.
>
Hee! Can we equal out love and sex first? That is, let's just pretend
that everyone you have sex with is someone you love, or that sex is the
only thing involved in monogamy/nonmonogamy, or something, just to make
my language simpler in my examples.
There's (to my way of thinking) a behavioral element to
monogamy/nonmonogamy, and an orientational element. If you have a
threesome, you're clearly not behaving monogamously by most definitions,
but certainly, if you and your partner set this up as a one-off, you saw
that third person only once, and you have no desire to have
relationships with anyone other than your partner, I could see you
thinking of yourself as monogamous, even though your behavior last night
says otherwise, just as I could see a guy who fucked another guy once
and liked it might think "well, I'm still straight because it was just
the once."
On the other hand, one can be monogamous (or serially monogamous) on the
behavioral axis and be orientationally nonmonogamous. And now I can use
the specific "you" in the example. :-) Let's say you were married to
someone -- let's call her Mrs. Tom -- and Mrs. Tom is not only
monogamous, but prefers that you remain monogamous while you're in a
relationship with her. You could spend the whole rest of your life
being monogamous with her, and that wouldn't tell us anything about what
your relationship preference is, the same way you can't tell from their
sexual partners whether a virgin is straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, or
something else.
I have always been poly, even when I was behaving monogamously within a
relationship that required it. It was actually the first argument my
first wife and I ever had: No, I'm not monogamous now. No, I'm also not
a lesbian. Just because I'm fucking only you and you're a woman, that
doesn't mean my desires/orientation suddenly shifted like the wind.
Serene
--
http://www.momfoodproject.com
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> On 04/02/2011 06:54 PM, Tom Allen wrote:
>
>
>> Can a person be situationally bisexual, but (absent that
>> situation) be mono?
>
> Do you mean is someone who has a threesome automatically
> non-monogamous?
Whether he means it or not, that's true.
Monogamous means must what it says.
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.
Sidney Lambe
>
> ObSex...
>
> Serene, trolling for sex-related posts
Me too.
Haven't seen "troll" used that way in a long time. I used to
troll for trout in Yellowstone Lake in a canoe with a tiny
motor.
Okay. Now I'll make this sex-related:
You doing anything tonight?
:-\
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
Remus Shepherd
> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org>:
> > ObSex...
> >
> > Serene, trolling for sex-related posts
> Well, we could discuss the evolution behind different sexual behaviours
> seen in humans and other species (extra-pair mating, homosexuality,
> sexual response, etc).
(cracks his knuckles) I think that's my cue. ;)
Bisexuality is seen in a lot of species, but seldom is it a life-long
behavior. It's common for adolescents of several species to engage in same
sex pairing before growing up and acquiring an opposite sex mate. Youthful
experimentation, it seems, is constant throughout the animal kingdom.
Of course, there are a lot of species where deviant sex is difficult to
observe. I remember one researcher saying that when female sheep wanted to
have sex, they stayed perfectly still. It's difficult for lesbians to hook
up with those kind of instincts. :)
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
New Webcomic: Genocide Man http://www.genocideman.com/
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org>:
>
>> ObSex...
>>
>> Serene, trolling for sex-related posts
>
> Well, we could discuss the evolution behind different sexual
> behaviours seen in humans and other species (extra-pair mating,
> homosexuality, sexual response, etc).
Or, for those of us who understand the physical universe to be an
extension of a multi-dimensional framework, we could discuss the
blending characteristics we call 'sex' from that perspective.
Most of the people in the world think Darwinism is nonsense. And
that includes some of the most impressive technologists. It pays
to note that technology can be mastered by such people. Whether
they believe in Darwinism or not is irrelevant.
The spirit becomes flesh. Energy changes form. The body is
the soul in chemical clothes. Sex is one of our best natural
therapies, if we don't interfere with it by accepting the absurd
fantasies of clueless geeks who never look at reality, but
just read books that are supposedly about it.
This is hardly the first example of a religion interfering with
the essential beauty of life.
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
suzeeq
> On soc.sexuality.general, Arctic Stone <arcti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org>:
>>
>>> ObSex...
>>>
>>> Serene, trolling for sex-related posts
>> Well, we could discuss the evolution behind different sexual
>> behaviours seen in humans and other species (extra-pair mating,
>> homosexuality, sexual response, etc).
>
> Or, for those of us who understand the physical universe to be an
> extension of a multi-dimensional framework, we could discuss the
> blending characteristics we call 'sex' from that perspective.
>
> Most of the people in the world think Darwinism is nonsense. And
> that includes some of the most impressive technologists. It pays
> to note that technology can be mastered by such people. Whether
> they believe in Darwinism or not is irrelevant.
Darwin's original theory of evolution has been refined quite a lot over
the years, it was too simplistic. Scientists are discovering that it's a
lot more complex than originally conceived. Near the end of his life he
had some doubts about it himself.
> The spirit becomes flesh. Energy changes form. The body is
> the soul in chemical clothes. Sex is one of our best natural
> therapies, if we don't interfere with it by accepting the absurd
> fantasies of clueless geeks who never look at reality, but
> just read books that are supposedly about it.
>
> This is hardly the first example of a religion interfering with
> the essential beauty of life.
True.
sue
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> On soc.sexuality.general, Arctic Stone <arcti...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org>:
>>>
>>>> ObSex...
>>>>
>>>> Serene, trolling for sex-related posts
>>>
>>> Well, we could discuss the evolution behind different sexual
>>> behaviours seen in humans and other species (extra-pair
>>> mating, homosexuality, sexual response, etc).
>>
>> Or, for those of us who understand the physical universe to
>> be an extension of a multi-dimensional framework, we could
>> discuss the blending characteristics we call 'sex' from that
>> perspective.
>>
>> Most of the people in the world think Darwinism is nonsense.
>> And that includes some of the most impressive technologists.
>> It pays to note that technology can be mastered by such
>> people. Whether they believe in Darwinism or not is
>> irrelevant.
>
> Darwin's original theory of evolution has been refined quite
> a lot over the years, it was too simplistic. Scientists are
> discovering that it's a lot more complex than originally
> conceived. Near the end of his life he had some doubts about it
> himself.
Any theory can be refined. It still remains merely a theory
until it has been substantiated by experience. I've spent much
of my life living close to primary nature and never seen
any evidence at all supporting this theory.
It's a self-referential mental edifice. quintessential circular
reasoning.
You start with assuming, on blind faith, and against all
evidence, that the physical senses tell you all there is to know
about reality. Then you formulate a theoretical cosmogeny and
cosmology that substantiates your blind faith.
Darwioism is a religion, no more and no less.
>> The spirit becomes flesh. Energy changes form. The body is
>> the soul in chemical clothes. Sex is one of our best natural
>> therapies, if we don't interfere with it by accepting the
>> absurd fantasies of clueless geeks who never look at reality,
>> but just read books that are supposedly about it.
>>
>> This is hardly the first example of a religion interfering
>> with the essential beauty of life.
>
> True.
>
> sue
>
Nystameatcha. I'm Sid.
We really do need some sexual content here, and it should
be specifically on-topic.
It is my understanding that human beings are simply sexual.
We each contain the male and the female to different degrees.
Children who are raised without a parent (whether biological
or otherwise) of the opposite sex don't have their anima
or animus activated.
This can be truly tragic. I know a young woman who was raised
with only women around.
She's almost all female. Her need to balance herself out with the
male is so intense that men reguarly walk into light poles, and
even cars, when she walks by. It's astounding.
The first time I met her, I didn't know what was going on and I
found myself asking her to _marry_ me, for god's sake!
I'm a very strong person, but she reduced me to a blubbering
beggar. A walking hardon. And she isin't even that attractive.
Pretty, but no more.
Her life consists of seeking men to balance herself out It's .
incredibly sad. .
So far, I've managed to refrain from coupling with her, and
I am searching the world for a cure.
(No, this is not the woman I am in love with that I can't
have sex with.)
Want to hear a beatiful song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COkya7N3pB8&feature=fvwrel
Spare Cycles
> Any theory can be refined. It still remains merely a theory
> until it has been substantiated by experience. I've spent much
> of my life living close to primary nature and never seen
> any evidence at all supporting this theory.
Take it to talk dot fucking dot orgins. Only leave the fucking out
because that belongs here and the Darwin talk belongs there. It
still exists and the moderator is still alive and the only origins
you should be talking about here are conception and maybe the
delivery.
> It's a self-referential mental edifice. quintessential circular
> reasoning.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has some lovely circular noodles
with which he noodles all the ladies while discussing Last
Tuesdayism, but only the noodling is sexuality.
-- cycles
Dave
be Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca> typed:
>Any theory can be refined. It still remains merely a theory
>until it has been substantiated by experience. I've spent much
>of my life living close to primary nature and never seen
>any evidence at all supporting this theory.
That's kinda like looking at a baby and saying "I don't see any evidence
that this create grows into an adult"
suzeeq
That's because it takes more than one person's lifetime for evolutionary
changes to occur. Unless you take a look at bacteria. Some strains have
changed in just a couple decades to be more and more resistant to
antibiotics. That's survival at work.
>
> You start with assuming, on blind faith, and against all
> evidence, that the physical senses tell you all there is to know
> about reality. Then you formulate a theoretical cosmogeny and
> cosmology that substantiates your blind faith.
You're making an assumption that I take it on blind faith I don't. I
look at the evidence.
> Nystameatcha. I'm Sid.
>
> We really do need some sexual content here, and it should
> be specifically on-topic.
>
> It is my understanding that human beings are simply sexual.
> We each contain the male and the female to different degrees.
>
> Children who are raised without a parent (whether biological
> or otherwise) of the opposite sex don't have their anima
> or animus activated.
>
> This can be truly tragic. I know a young woman who was raised
> with only women around.
>
> She's almost all female. Her need to balance herself out with the
> male is so intense that men reguarly walk into light poles, and
> even cars, when she walks by. It's astounding.
>
> The first time I met her, I didn't know what was going on and I
> found myself asking her to _marry_ me, for god's sake!
>
> I'm a very strong person, but she reduced me to a blubbering
> beggar. A walking hardon. And she isin't even that attractive.
> Pretty, but no more.
>
> Her life consists of seeking men to balance herself out It's .
> incredibly sad. .
>
> So far, I've managed to refrain from coupling with her, and
> I am searching the world for a cure.
Looks like she's handling it in her own way.
> (No, this is not the woman I am in love with that I can't
> have sex with.)
>
> Want to hear a beatiful song?
No...
Dave
to be Dave <calga...@gmail.com> typed:
>In message <slrnipjl0l.4...@3f8s2dcr5.net> someone claiming to
Let me try that again:
That's kinda like looking at a baby and saying "I don't see any evidence
that this creature grows into an adult"
In other words, you spend an hour or a day with a baby, it might seem
equally unlikely that it will grow into an adult without prior
knowledge. Similarly evolution takes place over a longer period of time
than most individuals personally observe.
Dave
<su...@imbris.com> typed:
>That's because it takes more than one person's lifetime for evolutionary
>changes to occur. Unless you take a look at bacteria. Some strains have
>changed in just a couple decades to be more and more resistant to
>antibiotics. That's survival at work.
There are other examples that we can see in our own lifetimes too:
Rodents living around Chernobyl are developing radiation resistance.
Sherpa's living in the Himalayan region have increased nitric oxide
production, enzymes to allow hemoglobin binding, and similar adaptations
to low oxygen environments that are as a result of genetic variations.
Dave
someone claiming to be Arctic Stone <arcti...@gmail.com> typed:
>Interestingly, almost everyone who has studied biology in any depth are
>firmly in the "evolution is not in doubt" camp. The very term
>"Darwinism" indicates a lack of understanding of science.
In fairness he's right, few people believe in "Darwinism", especially
not scientists. It's just a strawman argument, and only slightly
removed from "have you stopped beating your wife?" in that he's only
offering Darwinism vs Creationism while most learned people believe in
evolution rather than either of those.
Sidney Lambe
You don't look at nature. You look at documents; media.
You listen to people's words.
There's a world of difference.
>> Nystameatcha. I'm Sid.
>>
>> We really do need some sexual content here, and it should be
>> specifically on-topic.
>>
>> It is my understanding that human beings are simply sexual We.
>> each contain the male and the female to different degrees .
>>
>> Children who are raised without a parent (whether biological
>> or otherwise) of the opposite sex don't have their anima or
>> animus activated.
>>
>> This can be truly tragic. I know a young woman who was raised
>> with only women around.
>>
>> She's almost all female. Her need to balance herself out with
>> the male is so intense that men reguarly walk into light
>> poles, and even cars, when she walks by. It's astounding.
>>
>> The first time I met her, I didn't know what was going on and
>> I found myself asking her to _marry_ me, for god's sake!
>>
>> I'm a very strong person, but she reduced me to a blubbering
>> beggar. A walking hardon. And she isin't even that attractive.
>> Pretty, but no more.
>>
>> Her life consists of seeking men to balance herself out .
>> It's incredibly sad. .
>>
>> So far, I've managed to refrain from coupling with her, and I
>> am searching the world for a cure.
>
> Looks like she's handling it in her own way.
You are very wrong about that. She lives in perpetual
torment. She has no life except her condition.
>
>> (No, this is not the woman I am in love with that I can't have
>> sex with.)
>>
>> Want to hear a beatiful song?
>
> No...
>
I believe that.
Sidney Lambe
> Arctic Stone <arcti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org>:
>>
>> > ObSex...
>> >
>> > Serene, trolling for sex-related posts
>
>> Well, we could discuss the evolution behind different sexual
>> behaviours seen in humans and other species (extra-pair
>> mating, homosexuality, sexual response, etc).
>
> (cracks his knuckles) I think that's my cue. ;)
>
> Bisexuality is seen in a lot of species, but seldom is it
> a life-long behavior. It's common for adolescents of several
> species to engage in same sex pairing before growing up and
> acquiring an opposite sex mate. Youthful experimentation, it
> seems, is constant throughout the animal kingdom.
>
> Of course, there are a lot of species where deviant sex is
> difficult to observe. I remember one researcher saying that
> when female sheep wanted to have sex, they stayed perfectly
> still. It's difficult for lesbians to hook up with those kind
> of instincts. :)
Someone named 'Sheperd'talking about the sex lives of sheep?
Hehehe. Nuff said...
suzeeq
> On soc.sexuality.general, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Arctic Stone <arcti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org>:
>>>
>>>> ObSex...
>>>>
>>>> Serene, trolling for sex-related posts
>>> Well, we could discuss the evolution behind different sexual
>>> behaviours seen in humans and other species (extra-pair
>>> mating, homosexuality, sexual response, etc).
>> (cracks his knuckles) I think that's my cue. ;)
>>
>> Bisexuality is seen in a lot of species, but seldom is it
>> a life-long behavior. It's common for adolescents of several
>> species to engage in same sex pairing before growing up and
>> acquiring an opposite sex mate. Youthful experimentation, it
>> seems, is constant throughout the animal kingdom.
>>
>> Of course, there are a lot of species where deviant sex is
>> difficult to observe. I remember one researcher saying that
>> when female sheep wanted to have sex, they stayed perfectly
>> still. It's difficult for lesbians to hook up with those kind
>> of instincts. :)
>
> Someone named 'Sheperd'talking about the sex lives of sheep?
>
> Hehehe. Nuff said...
A shepherd would know about sheep.
sue
sleepy
That reminds me of the story of an Axminster carpet salesman who, when
asked what virgin wool is, told the the customer that virgin wool is
wool from sheep that can run fastest.
BTW I read the story many years ago in a court case - the customer did
not find the joke amusing, and started a prosecution under the Trades
Descriptions Act.
Remus Shepherd
> >
> > Hehehe. Nuff said...
> A shepherd would know about sheep.
I prefer horses and dogs, but yeah, I know a little.
By the way, 'Remus Shepherd' isn't my real name. It's a psuedonym that
I chose carefully.
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca>:
>
>> > Well, we could discuss the evolution behind different sexual
>> > behaviours seen in humans and other species (extra-pair
>> > mating, homosexuality, sexual response, etc).
>>
>> Or, for those of us who understand the physical universe to
>> be an extension of a multi-dimensional framework, we could
>> discuss the blending characteristics we call 'sex' from that
>> perspective.
>>
>> Most of the people in the world think Darwinism is nonsense.
>> And that includes some of the most impressive technologists.
>> It pays to note that technology can be mastered by such
>> people. Whether they believe in Darwinism or not is
>> irrelevant.
>
> Interestingly, almost everyone who has studied biology in any
> depth are firmly in the "evolution is not in doubt" camp.
What you are saying is that anyone who has been thoroughly
indoctrinated into your religion now believes that nonsense.
This is, of course, true for ANY religion.
You are boring me.
[delete]
Sidney Lambe
> On 04/04/2011 03:50 PM, Remus Shepherd wrote:
>
[delete]
>> Of course, there are a lot of species where deviant sex is
The idea that homosexual sex is deviant sex' comes from the
erroneous cnncept that sex has its origins and primary functions
in breeding. And this in turn comes from that Darwinisn
religion.
If that were true, women past the change would no longer
experience sexual desire. And men wouldn't be sexually attracted
to them. Nor would men be attracted to to men and women to women.
This happens a LOT more often than most people want to admit.
The primary purpose of sex is health and happiness and love.
I know this by observing the world, not from reading textbooks
while ignoring the world.
Only a tiny percentage of human sexual acts result in children
(thank goodness) and breeding isn't the motivation for the
vast majority of them.
The Darwinists will say that that 'breeding instincts'
are responsible for all sexual acts, but that's just hot air.
Like most of their ideas, this cannot be proven.
So they call any sexual behavior that couldn't result in breeding
'deviant'. Which is pure bigotry and no different from the moral
condemnation of homosexuality by the Christians.
This has resulted in a great deal of suffering and violence
that didn't need to be. And it is still going on.
The Darwinists have picked up the bigotry torch from the
Christians. The new religion has arrived. And it isn't
much different than the old one.
> That reminds me of the story of an Axminster carpet salesman
> who, when asked what virgin wool is, told the the customer that
> virgin wool is wool from sheep that can run fastest.
LOL
>
> BTW I read the story many years ago in a court case - the
> customer did not find the joke amusing, and started a
> prosecution under the Trades Descriptions Act.
Sorry. I don't speak Greek.
Remus Shepherd
> > On 04/04/2011 03:50 PM, Remus Shepherd wrote:
> >> Of course, there are a lot of species where deviant sex is
> The idea that homosexual sex is deviant sex' comes from the
> erroneous cnncept that sex has its origins and primary functions
> in breeding.
No, in this case the idea that homosexual sex is 'deviant' sex
comes from the concept that the dictionary definition of 'deviant' is
'deviating or different from the norm'. I'm a scientist, and at the
moment I'm being clinical, so I'm just using the precisely correct word.
I'm not making moral judgements.
Serene Vannoy
I <heart> you.
ObSex: Sex is for more than reproduction/evolution. It's for fun and
entertainment and power and a lot of other things.
Serene
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>ObSex: Sex is for more than reproduction/evolution. It's for fun and
>entertainment and power and a lot of other things.
I can definitely do without the power dynamics. Sex is best when it's as
egalitarian and generously shared as possible.
Orlando
suzeeq
Not power over another, but empowerment, power from within.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Not power over another, but empowerment, power from within.
It's hard to feel empowered when others are constantly trying to limit one's
experiences.
Orlando
suzeeq
It's not what others do to us, but how we react to what they're doing.
They only do what we let them do.
sue
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>It's not what others do to us, but how we react to what they're doing.
>They only do what we let them do.
That analysis is far too simple. If someone shoots me, I don't have a choice
but to get wounded by the bullet. If someone fires me from a job, I have no
choice but to lose that job and either appeal the dismissal or look for another
job. People can indeed do things to me that oblige me to react in a limited
way, suggesting that they're controlling the game. If someone shoots me, I can
either recover or die. But in recovering, I might be paralyzed and thus unable
to do the cartwheels I might have chosen to do before getting shot. Therefore,
it's not a question of what we let people do us, but rather, how we make the
best of the limited reactive possibilities their actions have imposed on our
lives. The fact that we now have limited reactive possibilities means they
already have too much power to shape our destinies.
Orlando
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
>
>> > On 04/04/2011 03:50 PM, Remus Shepherd wrote:
>> >
>> >> Of course, there are a lot of species where deviant sex
>> >> is
>
>> The idea that homosexual sex is deviant sex' comes from
>> the erroneous cnncept that sex has its origins and primary
>> functions in breeding.
>
> No, in this case the idea that homosexual sex is 'deviant'
> sex comes from the concept that the dictionary definition
> of 'deviant' is 'deviating or different from the norm'. I'm
> a scientist, and at the moment I'm being clinical, so I'm
> just using the precisely correct word. I'm not making moral
> judgements.
My apologies.
But a LOT of other people use the word in the way I described,
Darwinists and Christians alike. (These being the two largest
groups in America, by far.) It's used as a pejorative.
If you want to be accurate, then you should identify yourself as
a physical scientist. There are other sciences.
I, for example, am a student of magickal science. And whether you
like it or not, I believe, because of experienctial evidence,
that it is far more accurate than scientific materialism.
Please note that I was raised by a biologist and read "On
the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" when I
was about 8 years old. (Yes, the original work on the subject.) I
was also his lab and field assistant for many years. I've spent
more time with an autoclave than I have with a computer.
The physical science books he made me read would fill an entire
bookcase. And I enjoyed every one of them. But I never believed
it. Which is why I didn't pursue a career in the field.
The idea that phyiscal science is open-minded is sheer nonsense.
They examine the world through the filter of their beliefs,
There is, for example, far more evidence for the existence
of reincarnation than there is of black holes. But physical
scientists ignore it, because it conflicts with their beliefs.
This is sheer religious bigotry.
Serene Vannoy
> Not power over another,
Sometimes power over another. It's not my thing, but it's something some
people engage in, in a loving and consensual way, and I included it
mainly to point out that sex isn't all about reproduction, or even love.
(The person whose contribution I deleted and will always delete doesn't
understand that just because a certain sexual practice is abhorrent to
him, that doesn't mean that practice is sick and wrong. I don't like
pain or scat or power games; that's a really good reason for me not to
use those things as sex practices, but consenting adults who like those
things should continue to get joy from them, whatever provincial,
proscriptive assholes might say.
> but empowerment, power from within.
Can be about that, too, yes.
Serene
Serene Vannoy
> It's not what others do to us, but how we react to what they're doing.
> They only do what we let them do.
I don't think that's always true, but absent some kind of actual
coercion/force/abuse, I think it's a good place to start if one wants
one's life to be better.
ObSex: One day, I decided having no sex at all was better than being in
relationships that made me feel dirty, unfulfilled, and unhappy. My life
got better from that point on, even though I was having less sex.
Serene
--
http://www.momfoodproject.com
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Sometimes power over another. It's not my thing, but it's something some
>people engage in, in a loving and consensual way, and I included it
>mainly to point out that sex isn't all about reproduction, or even love.
Just because two people think that what they're doing is loving or consentual
doesn't mean it actually is. Furthermore, just because an activity is allegedly
consentual doesn't make it right.
>(The person whose contribution I deleted and will always delete doesn't
>understand that just because a certain sexual practice is abhorrent to
>him, that doesn't mean that practice is sick and wrong.
When I opine that something is wrong, my reasoning is not based on mere
religious prescription, but rather sound moral judgment.
>I don't like pain or scat or power games; that's a really good reason for me
not to use those things as sex practices, but consenting adults who like those
>things should continue to get joy from them, whatever provincial,
>proscriptive assholes might say.
Excrement is meant to be discarded rather than played with. This is why it's
designed to repel all our senses. As for pain, even the lowliest animal on the
evolutionary chain figures out how to avoid pain. Supposedly consenting adults,
presumably in possession of at least some intellectual faculties, should
therefore learn from all sentient beings and avoid unnecessary pain.
Orlando
Sidney Lambe
Wow! She's a bleedin' genius!
'Know' -- To have sexual intercourse with.
Look it up,
Sure, it's an archaic definition. But then, shepherds are archaic
too. These days, sheep are raised for the most part on factory
farms by yuppies in SUVs.
Tom Allen
>
> ObSex: One day, I decided having no sex at all was better than being in
> relationships that made me feel dirty, unfulfilled, and unhappy. My life
> got better from that point on, even though I was having less sex.
It used to cost me $250 an hour to feel dirty and used, and some of you
were getting it for free?
Damn.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. However, I am known to be a carrier.
Serene Vannoy
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>
>>
>> ObSex: One day, I decided having no sex at all was better than being in
>> relationships that made me feel dirty, unfulfilled, and unhappy. My life
>> got better from that point on, even though I was having less sex.
>
>
> It used to cost me $250 an hour to feel dirty and used, and some of you
> were getting it for free?
>
> Damn.
>
Oh, suck it up, Thomas. Don't be such a whiny-ass baby.
That'll be $250. Thanks!
Serene
Tom Allen
Oooh, Serene, you certainly know how to make me feel all tingly
inside!
--
Tom Allen