Earl of Ormonde

Connoisseur
The word natural is similar to the words normal and truth in that they can only ever be subjective and each person will have their own definition. That what people consider natural or not can be called a fallacy is in itself incorrect simply because of the subjective nature or our relationship to the world around us.

As Morrissey correctly sang "There is no such thing as normal" Correct because normal is defined by each individual for themselves based on many factors. There is no benchmark for normal, just as there is no benchmark for natural or truth, and as such anyone using the word natural uses it from their own perspective applying their own definition.

That said, the word "natural" usually implies what is common in any given setting i.e. it is not natural to see snakes on the streets of London. However, in some Indian towns it is.
 

Earl of Ormonde

Connoisseur
+1 to Mox's comment. I was a heterosexual before I actually had sex, so one's sexual identity as either ****- or heterosexual is obviously not contingent on any particular sexual act.
Exactly, which is what I said ealrier. There was a 13 year old boy in our gang in London who was openly homosexual, and sex was still a long way off in the future, he made no secret of the fact that he was attracted to other boys, usually much older than we were.
 

Brio1

Super Member
wearing pink doesn't make you gay I see a lot of guys today wearing pink shirts and or pink ties but wearing pink pants or pink shoes that's a different story.
And what is the story of my wearing *pink pants*, Howard? The ladies really appear to be fond of them. :icon_smile_kisses:
 

Jake Genezen

Senior Member
The word natural is similar to the words normal and truth in that they can only ever be subjective and each person will have their own definition. That what people consider natural or not can be called a fallacy is in itself incorrect simply because of the subjective nature or our relationship to the world around us.

As Morrissey correctly sang "There is no such thing as normal" Correct because normal is defined by each individual for themselves based on many factors. There is no benchmark for normal, just as there is no benchmark for natural or truth, and as such anyone using the word natural uses it from their own perspective applying their own definition.

That said, the word "natural" usually implies what is common in any given setting i.e. it is not natural to see snakes on the streets of London. However, in some Indian towns it is.
You are missing the point about the fallacy, which is about the spurious 'logic' employed.
 

Earl of Ormonde

Connoisseur
You are missing the point about the fallacy, which is about the spurious 'logic' employed.
No, I am not missing the point at all nor do I think there is any spurious logical employed, because I'm not saying that that which is "found in nature" is necessarily always good, but I am saying that I think anal sex is bad and wrong in my opinion, regardless of how good and right it is for others.

As I said, natural has many definitions as does normal; what is normal or natural for me may not be normal or natural for the next man and vice versa.
 
Last edited:

VictorRomeo

Super Member
And defining homosexuals by anal sex is not homophobic at all, it is a fact. What else differentiates a homosexual from a heterosexual apart from the form of sex act?
As a logical argument, yes, assuming all homosexuals partake in anal sex. Therein lies the fallacy. They don't. For the sake of argument, I'm excluding female homosexual relations for obvious reasons.

But you see, the problem I have with that argument is it condenses a persons sexual persuasion to a single sexual activity. Whereas it's an awful lot more complex than that. It isolates all other aspects of a same sex (I'll use this instead of homosexual from now on) relationship and when that happens bias and biased attitudes are formed. That leads to stigmatism, prejudice and all the other injustices that follow.

You asked why some people are really uncomfortable and or offended about the direction this thread took.

It is simply because of this notion. Pink shirts = gay = anal sex = perverted and wrong. That's all.
 
Last edited:

Tilton

Elite Member
I stay away from that sort of thing. Nellie's is a mostly-gay sports bar between Shaw and Columbia Heights. I'm far from the only straight male in there, but I would guess I'm one of very few conservative straight males, though there is a Log Cabin presence.
 

VictorRomeo

Super Member
Both disgusting of course, but you can never win an argument with a paedophile.
Yes, Yes you can. But why even bring up the topic of paedophila in a conversation on homosexuality? It's an age old, and frankly offensive mechanism constantly thrown out to somehow equate some sort of relationship.

Homosexual relations are are always between consenting adults. If not and just like hetrosexuals, it's rape. Even when two consenting minors are involved. The State usually defines that.

Paedophilia is not - obviously - between two consenting adults. That's the difference. Hence the illegality.

And hey, guess which group have been the largest perpetrators of acts of paedophilia on minors in my country? Of course, I didn't need to bring that up but seeing as we're dealing with stigma.....
 

Earl of Ormonde

Connoisseur
Yes, Yes you can. But why even bring up the topic of paedophila in a conversation on homosexuality? It's an age old, and frankly offensive mechanism constantly thrown out to somehow equate some sort of relationship.
Actually, I brought that up to defend homosexuality, not attack it. I was defending it against the dangeorus idea that homosexuality is simply a case of sexual attraction of the moment rather than the fact that homosexuals are born homosexual. Honestly, I wasn't making that cynical connection.

And to say that Catholic priests are the greatest paedos in Ireland is simply not true. There have been organised rings of criminal paedos in Ireland as long as there have been in the UK, Belgium, Sweden, the US and elsewhere.

What I meant by not being able to win the argument is that paedos seem to have an answer for everything to always justify in some way what they do.
 

Earl of Ormonde

Connoisseur
But you see, the problem I have with that argument is it condenses a persons sexual persuasion to a single sexual activity. Whereas it's an awful lot more complex than that. It isolates all other aspects of a same sex (I'll use this instead of homosexual from now on) relationship.
Of course it does, and so it should because all those other aspects are the same for heterosexuals, loving,caring,eating,sleeping,drinking,working,playing and so on.

It is homosexuals themselves that always bring the
one major difference to everone's attention ever year when they have Pride parades all over the world.

Admittedly, and this supports your argument, I know some homosexual find the Pride parades distasteful because they are always extremely camp, leather and latex affairs, which only seem to focus on that one major difference i.e. sex.

And as you say a relationship is about so much more than that, but as I said, so are all relationships, so surely there is no difference other than sex i.e. between 2 people of the same sex, whether it includes anal sex or not.
 

Mox

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
As I said, natural has many definitions as does normal; what is normal or natural for me may not be normal or natural for the next man and vice versa.
I believe there is a difference between the two: what is normal to you may be different than for someone else, but there is a danger in being lax with the definition of normal itself. I can start using the term "balmoral" in the same manner that Oxford is used here in the States—to mean any lace-up shoe with a formal leaning—but that then dilutes my communication and makes conversation difficult.

I personally find that the "normal distribution" definition from probability theory works rather well when speaking of what a person considers "normal". If we look at a set of days and tally the methods I use to hold up my pants, we find that using a belt is normal for me, while suspenders are not. For another person, suspenders will be normal, and for another, drawstrings. The meaning of normal is the same in all cases, while what is normal is not.

Then there is the issue of equating normal with natural. Belts are normal for me, but does that make suspenders unnatural? "Natural" itself is a tricky one. It is a word that is so diluted that it has almost no meaning. If we must explain the definition we intend after we use the word, then my stance is that a more useful word can be found to express our thoughts.
 
Last edited:

Haffman

Super Member
As has been said, "sodomy" is fairly prevalent in the heterosexual population.

On the other hand, there are many heterosexuals who think the use of condoms is "unnatural" and anything other than the missionary position is "deviant"

I guess it takes all sorts...
 

Haffman

Super Member
I've often wondered why that is. Either I'm naive or stupid but I've never understood why men want to have anal sex with women. Are there any medical or psychological explanations available anywhere?
I dont think it means you are naive or stupid, just reinforces the point that there are no universal "right" answers for sexual orientation and preferences, although there are some fairly universal "wrong" answers that usually have to do with lack of consent

I suppose the best medical explanation would be that the areas involved are well innervated with nerves that can give rise to pleasurable sensations, whatever their disparate evolutionary origins

As to psychological explanations, although I can imagine some for both the people who like it and people who dont, I am sure they are myraid without hard and fast,( if you dont mind the expression),rules...
 

dba

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
wearing pink doesn't make you gay I see a lot of guys today wearing pink shirts and or pink ties but wearing pink pants or pink shoes that's a different story.
Are you and the OP really that ignorant?
Jesper_Parnevik_with_pink_pants.jpg
Pro Golfer Jesper Parnevik
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.

Deals/Steals

Trad Store Exchange