Pink? Must be gay!

SocraticLove

New Member
An explication of naturalness

As a student of philosophy, let me try to break this down for y'all.

Jake Genezen's charge that the Earl's comment reeks of the naturalistic fallacy is rather acceptable, given that the latter seemed to invoke the term "natural" in the sense in which natural law theorists of morality tend to use it. That is, equating that which is natural to that which is morally good (i.e. morally permissible or required), and conversely, equating that which is not natural with that which is morally bad, (i.e. morally impermissible). It is this sense of natural with which we are concerned.

We're not talking about semantic definitions of naturalness or what natural means within any given linguistic or socio-cultural context. This is to confuse and muddy the philosophical waters, as it were.

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.

I doubt this is the sense in which you invoked the term "unnatural" when describing anal sex. See below for the reason why.

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.

This is interesting. Either you are something of a natural law theorist about morality (without knowing it) or you (as seems to be the case here) are invoking some kind of relativism about normality. If the former, you certainly fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy in which case you need to provide something of a rebuttal against that charge. Or, you weaken your entire argument if you are taking the latter route, because if the charge that anal sex is wrong is correct, it would only be correct relative to an individual or society's moral sensibilities. In which case, it would be morally wrong in some societies but not in others. And this, of course, makes no sense. But then again, moral relativism makes no sense.

--------

EDIT: I would just add that, with all due respect Earl, you have not given an argument for why we should think anal sex is wrong. Calling it sodomy is rhetorically convenient but it does not the forward the discussion. If one makes such an assertion about anal sex, one must draw reference to what one finds morally questionable about the sexual practice in question and then be prepared to defend it. We've yet to see anything like this, at this point. It's a mistake for those who think anal sex is NOT wrong, to think that they somehow need to respond to the other side in a nuanced manner when the other side hasn't even advanced any arguments.

So, with that said, I'm interested in hearing about why anal sex between two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own home, is morally problematic, regardless of whether the couple in question is heterosexual or gay (although I should remind everyone of what I said earlier which is that although a higher proportion of homosexual folks engage in anal sex than is the case for heterosexuals, in absolute numbers there are actually more heterosexuals engaging in the act on any given night than is the case for their homosexual counterparts).
 
Last edited:

Earl of Ormonde

Connoisseur
Your username reveals a lot.

As for "morally problematic" I never claimed it was. And if you read what I wrote you will realise that.

My opinion stands, regardless of all your philosophical meanderings.

I simply say that it is physically wrong and unnatural, regardless of how you want to philosophise over the definition of the term. The anus is not intended for sodomy or buggery, it is a one-way channel.

Sodomy and buggery by the way are perfectly acceptable terms, however I realise you may prefer the term anal sex. Do you refer to fellatio and cunnilingus as mouth sex? Or masturbation as hand sex?

Morality is the domain of each individual, and as such each individual must live by their own morality. So I impose none of my moral or ethical rules on others.

I simply stand by my belief that anal sex is physically wrong, physically damaging to the anus, and naturally wrong.

Discuss with me on what I am claiming not on what you think I am claiming.
 
Last edited:

Earl of Ormonde

Connoisseur
I don't know I just thought it was a tad bit effeminate

I've seen this here a few times, "a tad" means the same thing as "a bit"
So it is either "a tad effeminate" or "a bit effeminate". Not both.

On the subject of pink trousers though, I agree, I think they should only be worn by women. A pink shirt or tie or pair of socks is one thing, but pink jumpers, trousers, jackets and coats (in other words the top layer of clothing) belong in a woman's wardrobe.
 

efdll

Senior Member
I found this thread by chance and was surprised at the enthusiastic participation. Since I read it all rather fast, I apologize for anything I missed and therefore got wrong, but I do have some comments.
Though I found some posts disturbing and distasteful I'm a fool for freedom of speech. Too many countries, including the one where I was born, don't have it. So, go at it!
I may have missed this, but though many men said they were straight, married, etc. I didn't see anyone come out and say they were gay. I would have liked to read some insight on this issue from inside gay culture and experience. I conclude that either homosexuality is still problematic to admit or, and this is what I'm inclined to believe, that only straight guys are fascinated by this and gay men reading the thread -- if they even bother to -- find the topic and the posts naive.
A number of posts went off point to discuss sexuality, including its mechanics. However, the topic itself is on point. As the semioticians in the forum know, clothing is language and language is predicated on convention. Therefore, to wear this or that is saying something, sometimes following convention, other times defying or ignoring it. The recently deceased Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes pointed out how bullfighters wear tight pink pants and wear a pony tail, both signifiers of femininity, because they were, in a way, men enough to do so. That is, they represented manhood in the bullring, pitted against animal masculinity, and they were risking their life to do so. In such an extreme display of the masculine they could afford to wear what in any other context would be considered effeminate. Take into account that this in no way is saying that pink or pony tails or tight clothing are intrinsically feminine, but that such a display is made in the context of a culture of machismo -- after all, we use a Spanish word in English for it.
In our own American culture of bull wrangling, I recently saw an ad for a brand of clothing at a Western gear store that showed a famous burly bull rider in a pink shirt and the copy read, man enough to wear pink. Just because these color associations are conventions, it doesn't mean they don't carry powerful meanings.
That said, there are some color associations that are outside convention. People with different hues and shades of skin and hair and eyes look different wearing different colors. Art directors for fashion shoots and shows know this. Just like everyone who's done TV knows that a blue shirt works better than a white one.
Pink and yellow OCBDs, introduced by BB I believe, are bolder statements -- within the narrow confines of Trad style -- than white or blue. Thus, they are attention getters and I believe anyone who wears them is flirting with dandyism (a rich topic itself). Many here have observed that a pink shirt says "preppy", and that certainly is a statement, one that says preppy (or Trad) and proud.
A final comment on the convergence of clothes color as language and as pure aesthetics. Coming from the tropics, I am naturally drawn to the pastels of the preppy/Trad palette. But I realized that they look inappropriate in a different climate/context. For one, what looks terrific under a blazing sun may look lurid and stupid under a gray cloud cover or constant fog. For another, one doesn't always want to stand out like a sore thumb. New Yorkers wear black, have done so even before "downtown black." And since for many of us who live or have lived there the subway is the fastest and only affordable form of transportation, one learns to survive that underground (in every sense of the word) experience. A friend who was far from a bad-ass, a gentle filmmaker, in fact, explained to me once that everyday he wore black sneakers, black jeans, black t-shirt, black zip jacket and black wool cap because that way he looked like everyone else and there was less chance of being singled out by anyone wanting to rip him off or simply rip him up. Thus, the New York subway is full of people who look like hoodlums but are, in fact, decent working folk trying to stay our of harm's way. That too is clothing color as language.
 

Mox

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
I simply say that it is physically wrong and unnatural, regardless of how you want to philosophise over the definition of the term. The anus is not intended for sodomy or buggery, it is a one-way channel.
But intended by whom? How is something "physically wrong"? In my own mind, if it can happen, it is supported by nature: there are no laws of physics being broken. Anal intercourse happens "in nature" with other species, not just humans. If someone uses a wrench to hammer in a nail, is that physically wrong? It is not the intended use by the designer or maker, but are they the arbitrator of what is right or wrong for the person purchasing the tool? How about a rock?

I believe this is why there appears to be a layer of morality associated with your use of the term unnatural. Perhaps "correctness" might be a more appropriate word than morality; but I think the fallacy then still applies. It assumes that there is still something right and wrong in nature, just of a different sort.

If you support the basis of Intelligent Design, then I can see where there will be conflict with the view that random chance and evolution resulted in the design and use of the digestive tract. The former allows for a designer/maker of this tool used at cross-purposes of the (supposed) intent. It also allows for an arbitrator as to the morality of said usage.
 
Last edited:

CuffDaddy

Connoisseur
I may have missed this, but though many men said they were straight, married, etc. I didn't see anyone come out and say they were gay. I would have liked to read some insight on this issue from inside gay culture and experience. I conclude that either homosexuality is still problematic to admit or, and this is what I'm inclined to believe, that only straight guys are fascinated by this and gay men reading the thread -- if they even bother to -- find the topic and the posts naive.

I expect that reading this thread caused the brains of any gay men to explode, rendering them incapable of participation. ;)
 

efdll

Senior Member
BTW, anyone wanting to look elegant in pink should check out the AAAC Trad Thrift Exchange, where TweedyDon has two great pink blazers at a discounted price and open to offers. I'd grab them myself if they were my size. Go pink in style!
 

VictorRomeo

Super Member
I expect that reading this thread caused the brains of any gay men to explode, rendering them incapable of participation. ;)

Actually, I would imagine it's quite the opposite. I reckon gay folks are so used to the the same old homophobic rhetoric and accusations of the 'sin of Sodom, it's of no consequence what a few fusty old conservatives think of them.

It's those same fusty old conservatives that usually whip themselves up into an apopaleptic fit when this topic arises.
 

CuffDaddy

Connoisseur
Actually, I would imagine it's quite the opposite. I reckon gay folks are so used to the the same old homophobic rhetoric and accusations of the 'sin of Sodom, it's of no consequence what a few fusty old conservatives think of them.

It's those same fusty old conservatives that usually whip themselves up into an apopaleptic fit when this topic arises.

True enough. I am often impressed by the equanimity with which many of my gay friends can bear the rhetoric and animosity directed towards them. I know I would not do as well.
 

SocraticLove

New Member
Your username reveals a lot.

As for "morally problematic" I never claimed it was. And if you read what I wrote you will realise that.

My opinion stands, regardless of all your philosophical meanderings.

I simply say that it is physically wrong and unnatural, regardless of how you want to philosophise over the definition of the term. The anus is not intended for sodomy or buggery, it is a one-way channel.

Sodomy and buggery by the way are perfectly acceptable terms, however I realise you may prefer the term anal sex. Do you refer to fellatio and cunnilingus as mouth sex? Or masturbation as hand sex?

Morality is the domain of each individual, and as such each individual must live by their own morality. So I impose none of my moral or ethical rules on others.

I simply stand by my belief that anal sex is physically wrong, physically damaging to the anus, and naturally wrong.

Discuss with me on what I am claiming not on what you think I am claiming.

OK, so are you just claiming that you personally have some affective/emotional distaste or aversion towards anal sex but don't think it's objectively wrong, morally speaking?

Because if that's it, there's not much for us to discuss. That is your affective stance towards the act in question and it's not going to be of much use trying to convince you otherwise. It's like trying to convince a chocolate lover that chocolate does not taste good.

The relevant difference, of course, is that your affective stance or attitudinal orientation is potentially morally pernicious, whereas the chocolate lover's is not.

I'm still just a bit perplexed though, because I don't think you are merely offering up an opinion, even though you claim to be doing just that and only that - for example, as shown below in one of your earlier posts:

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.

That's my bolding, of course. How can statements about the unnaturalness or goodness or badness of anal sex be relativised to individual sentiments? Either something is natural or unnatural. Similarly, something is either good or bad, morally speaking or however you want to construe those two value-laden terms.

I think this is part of the confusion. I understand what you are saying (at least, as of now) but am still perplexed as to whether it's what you really mean. That is, are you sure you're not offering up something like a moral condemnation of anal sex? It sure sounds like that and so I tend to agree with Mox's earlier statement that there is something of a moral character to your usage of terms like "unnatural" and "bad".

At any rate, perhaps I ought not to take this discussion about anal sex as seriously as I have been doing. For me personally, the connection between anal sex and my sexual orientation are not so tight so as to cause me to lose sleep over a debate about the naturalness or unnaturalness of the sexual act in question. Anal sex is potentially one dimension of a fulfilling relationship between two gay men but it need not be, and to the extent that it is, there are other (more important) factors at play in defining that love that exists there.
 

cdavant

Elite Member
Now we are totally off track, not that there's anything wrong with that.

How is oral sex like eggs Benedict?
You seldom get either one at home.

Not even if you're wearing a pink shirt.

I think we've covered everything here. Anyone have strong feelings about hair shirts?
 
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.