/b/ is making me rage. What's your position on homosexuality? Is it natural or not?

File: 26 KB, 500x300, 1316903716916.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:03:15 2011 No.3799002 [Reply] [Original]

/b/ is making me rage.
What's your position on homosexuality?
Is it natural or not?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:04:15 2011 No.3799005 Is it genetic?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:04:15 2011 No.3799006 How could it not be natural?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:05:15 2011 No.3799007 > is homosexuality natural Of course it is, stupid. It occurs, therefore is natural.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:05:15 2011 No.3799009 I Really couldn't give 2 fucks. It does no harm to anyone, people can fuck whoever the hell they want as long as its consensual. Only religous fags care about homos

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:08:15 2011 No.3799018 OP here. /b/ says it's not natural and shit. They're coming up with stupid arguments about it. So I raged. I'm glad you're on the same page as me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:08:15 2011 No.3799019 What would make it unnatural? You get the urge to pork someone of the same sex, that urge is still natural even if it's something of an evolutionary dead end.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:09:15 2011 No.3799024 It occurs... therefore it is natural. The only way I can see that it would be considered "unnatural" is if it actually doesn't occur and all the gays in the world are just lying about their attraction to the same sex to troll all the religion fags

>>	SAGE SAGE Sat Sep 24 19:09:18 2011 No.3799023 Read about SRY

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:11:15 2011 No.3799033 a cool guy i know on facebook pasted this image. i'm not sure why i replied to this thread.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:18:15 2011 No.3799066

A common glitch in the mate selection systems. Remains in the population in constant numbers because the genes that allow for such an error to occur also have a number of positive effects that we can't do without. Something like Tay-Sachs or the Sickle Cell, but since so many more genes contribute to the development of the brain and sexual stimulus, it is nothing as simple as a single cause. It should be no surprise that a common bug selects for the wrong gender, since the genome already has the blueprints for that.

In humans, orientation should have about the same level of moral weight as handedness, since though it is abnormal, it is also intrinsically harmless.

And people who do have a problem with it do so because they have difficulty separating their personal preference from some kind of moral imperative. Also, I think homophobic men may also object to being the subject of male sexual interest. This can be remedied by making sure people know that everything which is permitted does not have to be required, and everything that is undesirable does not have to be banned; and by making sure men know that their sexual interest can be intimidating and disturbing, and they should be aware of themselves in this way. Otherwise, certain ideologies may promote these bad impulses and provide justification for these prejudices.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:19:15 2011 No.3799069

I'm personally in favor of equal rights for homosexuals because I do not care what consenting adults do if they are not harming themselves or others.

But I find the arguments made by homosexual advocates just as disingenuous as their detractors. Sometimes they will claim homosexuality is a choice to create an analogy with freedom of religious choice. Other times they'll claim it's genetic to make an analogy with naturalness or provide examples of it in nature. It signals that they don't care which is actually true and they just want to create good PR for homosexuality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:21:15 2011 No.3799076 >>3799066 you don't sound like you're 14. Why are you on this website.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:22:15 2011 No.3799081

>>3799069

The fact is, they rarely claim it is a choice. I, personally, feel it is more of a choice than people let on, but it is politically foolish to make this concession at this time.

The arguments used by homosexual advocates are nowhere near as petty as those used by it's detractors.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:23:15 2011 No.3799087

Looking at it either religiously or non, it's natural.
The real question is if it's good/bad.
Nonreligious says not bad, just variance in species.
Religious say bad because God no like the gay sexy time.
That's what the argument REALLY is, just no one wants to say it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:23:15 2011 No.3799089 >>3799066 >Also, I think homophobic men may also object to being the subject of male sexual interest. replace homophobic with heterosexual. It's not homophobic to feel strange if you're straight and get hit on by a guy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:25:15 2011 No.3799097 Quite obviously it is natural. And even if it wasn't natural, who cares? That's not an argument against something.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:26:15 2011 No.3799101

>>3799089

It is not homophobic to object being hit on by a guy, agreed. But it is homophobic to translate this perfectly normal urge into a general dislike of homosexuals themselves or homosexuality itself.

Women have to deal with male sexual interest all the time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:27:15 2011 No.3799103 >>3799009 >It does no harm to anyone Homos have a vastly increased risk of hiv, hence the ban on blood donations from the sexually active. So yes it can harm people

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:28:15 2011 No.3799112 I'm gay myself and I really couldn't care less about any of the controversy. Gay parades are detrimental to the fight for equality though, they convey a completely wrong message.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:29:15 2011 No.3799119 >>3799081 That is the crux of my annoyance. The aim of the arguments is not to seek truth but political advocacy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:31:15 2011 No.3799128 Biologically speaking? No. Psychologically speaking? Yes. Generally speaking? Who gives a feel?

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:33:15 2011 No.3799132

WATER IS FOUND IN ALL TEMPERATURE RANGES
ICE IS FOUND IN ONLY ONE
WHICH ONE SEEMS UNNATURAL NOW?

COLOURS ARE FOUND IN OVER 16 MILLION VARIETIES
#FFFFFF IS FOUND IN ONLY ONE
WHICH ONE SEEMS UNNATURAL NOW?

NEURONS ARE FOUND IN ALL MAMMALS.
SENTIENCE IS FOUND IN ONLY ONE.
WHICH ONE SEEMS UNNATURAL NOW?

Not homophobic. Couldn't give a shit what the hell people want to fuck as long as it isn't under 14 or of a different species. It's just a fucking retarded argument to make.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:34:15 2011 No.3799137 >>3799128 you realize that psychology is a subset of biology right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:34:15 2011 No.3799143 >>3799089 It is, mr. homophopic.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:35:15 2011 No.3799149

>>3799132
>under 14

Interesting point you make there - a lot of people think that 14 is okay for heterosexuals even though it's illegal almost everywhere, but not for homosexuals despite the fact that the punishment should be the same. I wonder why that is?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:36:15 2011 No.3799155 Everything is natural, labelling anything as such is pointless. Homosexuality isn't the correct way to reproduce, put it that way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:38:15 2011 No.3799162 >>3799155 and since when do non religiousfags have sex solely to reproduce?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:39:15 2011 No.3799167 Put 50 homosexuals on an island, and 50 heterosexuals on another.. see who is here in 100 years. Biologically speaking; you lose.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:40:15 2011 No.3799169 >>3799167 >mfw every gay person has heterosexual parents. your logic sucks ass.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:41:15 2011 No.3799171 >>3799167 Well, if it's for pure survival and not pleasure I'm sure that they can just cum on their fingers and stick them up a vagina once every decade.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:42:15 2011 No.3799175 >>3799167 Put 50 humans on an island, and put 50 bacteria on an island. See how many of them there are in 100 years. Biologically speaking, you lose. Honestly, everyone, stop making fucking retarded arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:46:15 2011 No.3799190 you are a fagget brah ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:47:15 2011 No.3799199 >>3799169 I might suck ass, but it's a good experiment that shows you what the fuck is up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:49:15 2011 No.3799214 >>3799175 Both are here wtf man, u stop.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:50:15 2011 No.3799216 FAGGETS, FAGGETS EVERYWHERE

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:50:15 2011 No.3799218 who cares whether it's natural or not. it's not hurting anybody so what's the problem?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:50:15 2011 No.3799221 >>3799199 It's not a good experiment, because there's nothing to stop the heterosexual people from having gay babies.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:50:15 2011 No.3799222

>>3799103

Irrelevant.

>>3799119

It is unfortunate, true. But to be fair, they are forced into this position by people who just don't like them, regardless of the cause of their orientation. It is difficult to argue against people who will usually not admit their central reasons, and will instead only present justifications based around whether it's a choice or a sickness or something.

The party line now is, it's not a choice. And really, it is not a choice in the same way that picking a DVD is a choice. It may be a choice in the same way that liking one kind of music more than another is a choice, not really conscious, not something you can easily influence, but not something that is set in stone from day one. Even so, admitting even this just plays to the rhetoric of the haters.

>>3799167

Well, we'd have a population composed of roughly 90-95% heterosexuals and 5-10% homosexuals. And probably a society that does not subscribe to the idea that orientation is a strict binary, and so does not consider relations with people of a gender you are not normally attracted to to be all that unusual.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:53:15 2011 No.3799239

Homos are gross and distasteful.
This is why gay jokes exist.
I know it's hypocritical for me, a semi-liberal to have this opinion. I am all for womens rights, minority rights etc.
But I just hate fags. I hate them the same way people hate hipsters, emos, niggers, and mudslimes. They just aren't people whos behavior I condone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:54:15 2011 No.3799245 File: 10 KB, 209x217, 1298837842783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3799199 >I

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:54:15 2011 No.3799246 >>3799221 Ok,so, when the heterosexual island has lasted millenia, only to be snuffed out by too many homosexuals, the gay island only lasted 100 years. gg.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:58:15 2011 No.3799264 >>3799246 also they gays could use invitro fertilization or could just suck it up and switch teams temporarily if they really wanted kids

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:58:15 2011 No.3799266 >>3799222 >Post says it harms no-one >Reply points out that it can harm people >Irrelevant 0/10

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:58:15 2011 No.3799268

>>3799246

In humans, at least, homosexuality is no obstacle to reproduction.

The normal state of affairs in times passed was for a man, at least men of means, to take a wife, and also have a lover. If he were homosexual, he would take male lovers. All while being fully aware of what was required to create an heir and remain in polite society.

Nowadays, the current vogue of mixing love, sex and marriage makes this more difficult. But no matter, since in a few years two-egg and two-sperm fertilisation will be feasible, and anybody can have a child with anybody.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 19:59:15 2011 No.3799271 >>3799162 It's only religious or spiritual people that have sex to express their "love". Once you realise it's all just your subconcious telling you to reproduce, you understand how meaningless sex is.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:02:15 2011 No.3799279

>>3799268
>homosexuality is no obstacle to reproduction
>I don't know what homosexuality is

Two members of the same sex cannot reproduce, no matter how much they have sex or "love each other".

I don't even think using science we can even take cells from two males and create an offspring. Pretty sure you can do it with an egg and a random cell.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:03:15 2011 No.3799283 >>3799002 The engineering lifestyle is perfectly natural \thread

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:04:15 2011 No.3799287

>>3799266

Okay;

Homosexuals having a higher chance of AIDS is the exact same as southpaws having a higher chance of accidental death. It is a consequence of the lifestyle that still adds no moral weight to either condition.

It is not intrinsically harmful to be homosexual.

It is more dangerous to engage in anal sex than other kinds of sex, with regards AIDS. Homosexual men have to contend with this, and homosexual women do not. Heterosexual couples have to contend with this as well. If anything is harmful here, it is anal sex.

But you are not arguing about anal sex, you are saying that since homosexuals may engage in one practice which is more likely to spread AIDS, a practice that is not exclusive to or required by homosexuals, that homosexuality, in and of itself, is harmful. It is not.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:05:15 2011 No.3799291

Well energy that would be normally used for for mating can then be used to help the offspring of the animals siblings, still helping to preserve an amount of their DNA to be passed to the next generation. So in nature it is still helpful. *The more you know*

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:05:15 2011 No.3799292 >>3799268 In the modern days.. say bye bye to Darwin.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:05:15 2011 No.3799294 >ITT: Objective sexuality

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:05:15 2011 No.3799295 >>3799287 Hate to break it to you, but if you stick your dick in any type of ass, you're gay. It's just not normal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:09:15 2011 No.3799304 Homosexuality is a legally protected perversion of nature. I maintain that while it is a choice and unnatural, its practitioners should be legally protected under any "freedom-loving" state.

>>	OP !d75etXAowg Sat Sep 24 20:10:09 2011 No.3799309 It's a thing that people do. I don't find the topic any more interesting than that.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:10:15 2011 No.3799306

>>3799279

You don't understand.

The sperm of a homosexual man, and the eggs of a homosexual woman, are still capable of forming a viable zygote with the eggs or sperm of another woman or man.

The causal link between sex and pregnancy has been long established.

And two-sperm and two-egg fertilisation is a decade away, at the most.

>>3799295

Then don't do it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:11:15 2011 No.3799317 >>3799287 If there were no homosexuals, there would be no AIDS. even if anal sex. Because the has to be a dick in anal for it to spread (eg. no male would be affected to affect females)

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:13:15 2011 No.3799329 >>3799081 I don't see how it could be a choice. I couldn't choose to stop being into chicks. Nor do I see how I could choose to be into dudes. I don't see how gays would be any different.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:14:15 2011 No.3799330 File: 13 KB, 378x301, 123543123455.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3799317

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:15:15 2011 No.3799331 >>3799317 That is so ill informed and absurd that you must be a troll. Say something reasonable next time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:15:15 2011 No.3799333 >>3799306 If a man and a woman have sex, it's not homosexual, it's heterosexual. Sexuality is not a state of mind, it's the actual act.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:15:15 2011 No.3799338 >>3799317 It be transferred with fluids. The easiest mode of transportation is male to male/female, but a male can get it from a female. Or from needles. Or from sitting on the wrong toilet seat with a hemaroid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:15:15 2011 No.3799340 homophobia found in only humans... citation needed...

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:16:15 2011 No.3799343 >>3799340 There is no evidence of any animal ever hating another animal for being homo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:16:15 2011 No.3799344 Homosexuality isn't found in animals. Two animals of the same gender having sex doesn't mean they're homosexual. They just don't have a comprehension of what genders are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:18:15 2011 No.3799349 >>3799344 1/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:18:15 2011 No.3799350 >>3799344 Animals understand genders you idiot.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:18:15 2011 No.3799351

>>3799329

It's not quite like that.

I just mean that it's something you might enjoy, if you just tried it. Many people wouldn't, some people might. Almost everyone has a strong preference, and most of them for members of the opposite sex.

Again the comparison with handedness is apt. If you think that you're supposed to be right handed, you will learn to write and throw ball and everything with your right hand. And you would be good at it. If you think that you're supposed to be straight, you will be with women, make love to women, and talk about women. And you would even enjoy it. But in both cases, you would still feel like you'd be a lot happier just going with your nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:19:15 2011 No.3799356 >>3799333 Then they would be heterosexual to reproduce, and homosexual to have fun.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:19:15 2011 No.3799357

>>3799350

Then why would it ever have sex with something the same gender?

There are about 3 species that get pleasure from it. Why do the rest have sex?
Because they think they're going to reproduce.

Are they going to reproduce with a member of the same sex? No.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:20:15 2011 No.3799361 >>3799357 Are you serious? I hope not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:20:15 2011 No.3799363 >>3799356 Then those are "bisexuals". Hopefully you now understand why homosexuals can't reproduce.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:21:15 2011 No.3799367 >>3799363 >can't They can reproduce, there's nothing wrong with their genitals or gametes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:21:15 2011 No.3799368 >>3799361 Please explain why an animal would have sex with a member of the same sex without referencing dolphins, humans, or humanlike things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:22:15 2011 No.3799371 >>3799367 They can't reproduce without having sex with somebody of the opposite sex. Once they do that, they're no longer homosexual.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:23:15 2011 No.3799372 File: 322 KB, 606x810, 1316106058509.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3799368 Because they're homosexual I suppose. Wait a minute, you're not one of these "it's a choice" people are you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:23:15 2011 No.3799373 >>3799357 >>3799368 The thought of reproduction almost never crosses my mind when im balls deep in pussy, and most humans actually try to avoid reproducing from sex so i dont really know what you're on about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:24:15 2011 No.3799377 >>3799372 >>3799373 >think animals have thought processes in the same way humans do It's embarrassing that there are people as ignorant as you on a board dedicated to science.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:24:15 2011 No.3799378
File: 93 KB, 512x750, 1295642372265.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3799295

I get so excited when people make up their own definitions for words. If you're going to arbitrarily define "gayness" as "engaging in anal sex," then yes, your tautology makes perfect sense.

If, on the other hand, you define homosexuality as same-sex attraction, your assertion is absurd.

Quite apart from that, the person to whom you responded conflated homosexuality with promiscuity, which is similarly absurd. Promiscuous homosexuals may be at higher risk for contracting HIV, but promiscuity is a behavior, not a "homosexual lifestyle."

tldr: "the homosexual lifestyle" is Jesus-code for "all gay men are wildly promiscuous," and anyone who repeats the phrase in conversation is explicitly aiding the cause of the most homophobic elements of the religious far right. Just saying.

Pic related, since she's clearly gay.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:25:15 2011 No.3799384 >>3799377 You're saying, with your human brain, that animals fuck to reproduce when that is not their intention at all. They fuck because they are attracted to a member of the same gender, which makes them homosexual.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:25:15 2011 No.3799385 >>3799371 But they can. See >>3799378

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:25:15 2011 No.3799386

>>3799287
Buttfucking has higher risk of diseases
Faggots buttfuck
Being a faggot has a higher risk of diseases
Hiv is 1/20 compared to 1/1000 in heteros http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14986590
Faggot donates blood
Blood is used and infects person

What don't you understand?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:25:15 2011 No.3799382 >>3799378 >tautology You don't appear to understand what that word means.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:26:15 2011 No.3799388 >>3799378 Hate to break it to you, but that's not her dick she's sticking in her ass.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:26:15 2011 No.3799391

>>3799331
>>3799330
>>3799338

It's a virus transferred by fluids. Do you think it would have survived long without homosexual sex? it's not transferred by spit or common fluids, only blood and seamon.. the anal sucks up all fluids it can get.. the vagina does not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:27:22 2011 No.3799393 >>3799386 Right. Now rattle of the statistics for HIV contracted via transfusion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:28:15 2011 No.3799395 >>3799384 >when that is not their intention at all. That is the only reason animals have sex. They don't even get pleasure from it, it's just wired into their brains. There's not even a concious thought about it. They just act on instinct.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:28:15 2011 No.3799396 >>3799295 hate to break it to you but if you like things i don't like then your not normal

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:29:15 2011 No.3799398 >>3799393 >transfusion from homosexual blood Same thing, different method.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:31:15 2011 No.3799403 File: 190 KB, 724x1024, trolldad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3799167 >50 gay men on one island >50 straight men on the other Indeed, who would win?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:31:15 2011 No.3799405 >>3799395 >They don't even get pleasure from it, it's just wired into their brains. The wiring and the pleasure is the same thing dumbass lol....You're splitting hairs

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:32:15 2011 No.3799409 >>3799395 Bonobos.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:33:15 2011 No.3799419 >>3799405 It's not at all the same thing. If it were pleasurable, they would be having sex ALL THE TIME. Like humans do? But, there's this weird thing called "mating season" which is when animals get the inexplicable urge to have sex.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:33:15 2011 No.3799422 it doesn't matter. i have this amazing and wonderful belief that i've no right to do anything to anyone unless they do something to me. one day, in a couple centuries, maybe others will feel the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:35:15 2011 No.3799427 >>3799002 For whatever reasons it's a naturally-occurring phenomenom. /thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:35:15 2011 No.3799428 >>3799422 Absolutely anything you do has either a direct or indirect effect on another human. Strangely enough, humans aren't individuals but part of a society.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:35:15 2011 No.3799429 >>3799422 So if I raped your mom, you'd be fine?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:35:15 2011 No.3799430 >>3799419 Do you know why humans dont have mating seasons? Because we have houses and clothes to get a better hold on our environment. seriously you cant be that stupid

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:36:15 2011 No.3799438 >>3799430 >instinct can be overwritten in a few thousand years Seriously, you can't be that stupid.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:40:15 2011 No.3799445

>>3799386

You forgot one: HIV transmission is 1 in 1.5 million via blood transfusion. Yeah, that's pretty high on my list of concerns. If those odds bother you, I hope you don't drive a car. Hell, you're more likely to be killed by fireworks or die in an earthquake than you are to contract HIV from a transfusion.

Jesus Christ, you people are reaching now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:41:15 2011 No.3799449 >>3799429 no. but you're initiating aggression, and she'd probably be fine with me defending her. i should say, i'm against the initiation of force.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:42:15 2011 No.3799453 >>3799419 But, there's this weird thing called "mating season" which is when animals get the inexplicable urge to have sex. >conflating all animals >presumably excludes humans from that categorization >doesn't know what bonobos are, or dolphins

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:42:15 2011 No.3799459 >>3799449 I've not done anything against you. You have absolutely no right to get involved. Be it your mother or a woman whome you've never met.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:44:15 2011 No.3799463 >>3799459 i clarified what i said. i don't understand why you argued anyway after i corrected myself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:44:15 2011 No.3799466 >Natural Are you implying something being "natural" is a good thing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:44:15 2011 No.3799468 >>3799382 Nor do you, apparently. Perhaps you could look it up?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:44:15 2011 No.3799469 >>3799453 see >>3799368 You should read the thread before you involve yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:44:15 2011 No.3799470 >>3799449 So if I raped all the people in your country (except your mom), and killed your president and pariament, you'd be fine?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:45:15 2011 No.3799475 >>3799470 re-read my post and see if you can figure it out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:46:15 2011 No.3799479 Just because homophobia is not "natural" by your definition does not mean that it is not right. /thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:47:15 2011 No.3799485 >>3799475 >I can involve myself even if it has nothing to do with me That's what you're saying now, which is different from >I have no right to do anything to anyone that hasn't done anything to me

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:48:15 2011 No.3799487 >>3799479 According to evulotion it is wrong, how do you plead?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:48:15 2011 No.3799490 >>3799485 right, and what i said first is also different from: >i should say, i'm against the initiation of force. i told you to re-read, but apparently it didn't do anything for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:48:15 2011 No.3799492 >>3799445 >1 in 1.5 million No, it's 90-95% http://www.avert.org/blood-safety-hiv.htm

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:49:15 2011 No.3799493 Why is homosexuality a lifestyle but paedophilia a mental illness?

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:49:15 2011 No.3799495

>>3799459

Really, you're trying to make the argument that raping someone's mother shouldn't offend him (even though he already conceded that that's not what he meant)? Are you trying to force him to clarify his stance in precise terms that don't fly in the face of your aspie sensibilities?

Then again, this is 4chan - expecting you to figure out what he meant rather than going straight for the rape argument is probably asking a bit much.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:50:15 2011 No.3799499 >>3799495 he's trying to get me tripped up. he's going to keep up coming with exceptions in an attempt to show me that not every situation is easily solved by a simple principle. which i already know, so he's wasting his time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:50:15 2011 No.3799500 >>3799495 Of course it will offend you, but it doesn't physically affect you (unless you still live with your parents). By raping your mother, nothing about you changes. If she kept it a secret you wouldn't even know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:51:15 2011 No.3799503 >>3799495 You cannot claim what he claimed without thorough scrutinization.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:51:15 2011 No.3799507 >>3799503 after clarifying what i said, it seemed more like an attempt at domination than enlightenment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:56:15 2011 No.3799525 >>3799507 It must be stated that we are atleast 2 people scrutinizing you. But my point is that your statement is flawed and egocentric.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:57:15 2011 No.3799529

>>3799492

You're not very good with statistics, which is why I brought them up in the first place. You're absolutely correct that the risk of contracting HIV IF you're transfused with HIV-infected blood is north of 90%. The odds of actually being transfused with HIV-infected blood, assuming you live in a developed country, are astronomically low.

I quoted a figure of 1 in 1.5 million, but your link actually puts the odds at 1 in 5 million (at least in the UK). Nice supporting material.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 20:57:15 2011 No.3799530 >>3799500 >mfw my mother could have been raped when she was younger and I don't even know about it

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:00:15 2011 No.3799535 >>3799529 And that number would be 0.00001 without homosexual buttsex.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:00:15 2011 No.3799537 >>3799525 >But my point is that your statement is flawed my statement changed. >and egocentric nope. i don't understand why it's hard for you to admit you were trying to dominate. i even changed my statement and went on about me being wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:01:15 2011 No.3799539 >>3799535 You mean zero. (The number you used is actually higher than 1 in 5mil)

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:02:15 2011 No.3799546 >>3799539 Ok zero.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:03:15 2011 No.3799547

>>3799469 You should read the thread before you involve yourself.

I'm sorry that I didn't read all 200 posts worth of aspie rage before responding to a comment that referenced another comment (without linking to it) that arbitrarily excluded dolphins and "human-like" animals (which presumably includes bonobos) from the discussion.

You're absolutely right: if you define your group of animals to exclude all of the ones that engage in behaviors you disapprove of, it's fairly easy to assert that "animals" don't engage in those particular behaviors.

You clearly have a razor-sharp intellect, and I've been privileged to catch a glimpse of it in this thread. Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:03:15 2011 No.3799551 are furries natural?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:05:15 2011 No.3799552 If homosexuals are so natural why haven't any been observed in outer space?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:07:15 2011 No.3799558 >>3799537 You are still wrong, don't you see? Did we have to use the most insane hypothesies, and you still don't get it? If something, may or may it not be "force" affects the people around you, won't you be mad? You will, and should.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:08:15 2011 No.3799563

>>3799493
>>3799493
the only real objection people have about gays is that they find the sex they have disgusting while people find the concept of pedophilia disgusting that is not why it is immoral it is immoral because children are to young to consent. Its not because i find something gross that makes it immoral. Show me why gays are morally wrong having sex with consenting adults other than lolz aidz

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:10:15 2011 No.3799567 >>3799563 Show me a 15 year old girl sound of mind that does not understand what sex is and why me having sex with her makes me a paedophile.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:10:15 2011 No.3799571

>>3799535 And that number would be 0.00001 without homosexual buttsex.

You should stay away from numbers. They don't do your arguments any favors.

>>3799539 You mean zero.

Of course not. You might have been able to make that argument several decades ago, but that ship has sailed. The odds of contracting HIV via transfusion are now astronomically higher in countries where the bulk of HIV transmission occurs between heterosexuals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:11:15 2011 No.3799572 Well, yeah, homophodia is unnatural, assuming humans are naturally disposed to become all loving-of-their-fellow-man, but homosexuality itself is a sort of deviation from the norm. It is arguably a mutation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:11:15 2011 No.3799573 >>3799551 >>3799551 no but they should be free to practice there sexual activities with out persecution regardless of how weird it might be.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:12:15 2011 No.3799579 >>3799567 You're arguing about age of consent legislation and ephebophilia, not morality and pedophilia (not that it matters).

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:15:15 2011 No.3799583

>>3799571

>You should stay away from numbers. They don't do your arguments any favors.

Sorry, I just took a number that I figured astronomically low. Oops didn't help your case.

>The odds of contracting HIV via transfusion are now astronomically higher in countries where the bulk of HIV transmission occurs between heterosexuals.
>astronomically higher

Looks like you did the same!

Anyways; because of buttsex.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:15:15 2011 No.3799586 >>3799002 Why are you taking /b/ seriously?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:15:15 2011 No.3799588 >>3799579 The law is pretty clear that under 16 makes you paedophile. Do you think science is above the law?

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:18:15 2011 No.3799594

>>3799567
>>3799567
I cant help that society has defined an arbitrary age where sex is okay and where it isn't I will admit there is a grey area but when you say pedophile i assume you meant actual children not jail bait although I still think its wrong to use someone still quite young but it probaley shouldn't be a criminal offense by 15-16

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:18:15 2011 No.3799598 >>3799588 Which law?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:19:15 2011 No.3799600 >>3799588 Our law is maybe.. 100 years old.. Historically, people have been mating with 13 yo for millenias.. so.. which law is just?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:20:15 2011 No.3799604 >>3799573 why shouldn't they be persecuted, why can't people have an opinion on other people

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:21:15 2011 No.3799609 Assuming homosexuality is genetic what happens when we can select the genes we want to give to our children? I'll laugh my head off at all fags then. Nice knowing you, enjoy becoming extinct.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:22:15 2011 No.3799619 >>3799583 What?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:23:15 2011 No.3799621 >>3799609 Nice thought, but homosexuality is not genetic. More about how much hormones you got in the uturis.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:26:15 2011 No.3799635 >>3799264 >implying gay men could get a hard on with a woman Do you even know what a homosexual is?

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:27:15 2011 No.3799638

>>3799604
>>3799604
i never said you can't criticize them if your an insecure manchild who cant accept that people are different from you go ahead. I mean you can't have laws put in place to restrict there rights and neither can you harass or assault them just because you think their weird.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:28:15 2011 No.3799643 File: 32 KB, 312x475, redqueen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Read this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:29:15 2011 No.3799644 >>3799638 Yeah we should totally let them abuse animals if they want to. Who cares?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:30:15 2011 No.3799647 >>3799619 The more buttsex had, the more HIV. The more HIV from buttsex, the less HIV is got from transfusion per centa. So, in countries with less buttsex between homosexuals, the chance of getting HIV through transfusions are ofcourse higher.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:32:15 2011 No.3799656

>>3799635

I guarantee you that most gay guys would get a hard on if some chick started sucking their dick. I'm not gay but if some guy started sucking my dick and my eyes were closed I dont think I could stop myself from getting a boner.

You don't have to enjoy it for your body to get aroused. Rape victims become aroused all the time.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:34:15 2011 No.3799664

>>3799635

>implying that gay men have not, throughout history, married women and fathered children for any number of reasons
>implying that it's impossible for a gay man to become aroused in the presence of a woman

>>this whole thread, and our entire cultural discussion of homosexuality

>implying that sexual preference is binary and dichotomous
>implying that sexual preference is fixed

We'll get there eventually. For now, it's everyone's best interests to pretend that people are born gay or straight (or bi) and stay that way for their whole lives.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:36:15 2011 No.3799673 >>3799647 Errm, that didn't even make sense to me, and I posted it. But the point is, that statistics can screw you over if you don't have the whole picture.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:36:15 2011 No.3799676

>>3799644
>>3799644
furries from my limited understanding of them are people who dress in funny costumes and have sex (i.e with people) not animals bestiality is a completely different story. With bestiality the other party can't consent but at the same time odds are you can legally kill and eat many of these animals so i'm not going to judge since I eat meat and i have nothing against people who hunt for fun so having a separate stance on sex seems hypocritical to me just because I find the concept personally disgusting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:36:15 2011 No.3799677 >>3799664 Computers are entirely binary you fuckwit, it doesn't mean they can't display only two things.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:37:15 2011 No.3799681
File: 67 KB, 864x569, 1283830604599.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Homophobia is largely a product of allowing the common man to read the bible and interpret it on their own.

The commonly cited verse, something about it being an abomination, leads regular person interpret certain things about homosexuality; that it's bad or immoral in some way.
Which isn't close to the truth. The meaning of the word "abomination" in the times of the people writing the bible wasn't something that was inherently wrong or immoral, it meant that something was simply against the teachings of the church. For example, eating pork to a Jewish person is not something that is inherently immoral but is something that is against the teachings of a particular religion. Thus eating pork is an abomination to the Jews.

iranus Sat Sep 24 21:38:15 2011 No.3799685

It might be natural TO BE GAY but that doesn't mean it confers a survival advantage on an individual basis.
Rather, in a population where females are plentiful, selection pressures cause females with the most feminine traits to have the greatest reproductive advantage when it comes to attracting male suitors.
This means their offspring will tend to have more feminine traits, including the males, and while overall it might convey some mean reproductive advantage to the family, the extra feminine males that happen to be born my themselves might not receive any benefit from extra feminine traits at all.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:39:15 2011 No.3799692
File: 438 KB, 411x593, 1308533941130.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Homosexuality is found in over 450 species
>over 450 species
I'm not saying it's not human nature, but I seriously hope you guys don't believe it's rampant in over 450 different species, and if you do gtfo out of /sci/ dumbass

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:40:15 2011 No.3799697 >>3799635 Just have the male-male and female-female couples have sex nearby. As soon as one of the males is about to finish have him jump over onto a chick. Bam, gay pregnancy via sort of orgy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:40:15 2011 No.3799698 >>3799306 A decade away, at most? Are you fucking serious? From what? Evolution? Scientific modifications? What are you even 10/10 raging hard right now

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:40:15 2011 No.3799699 >>3799685 /thread

iranus Sat Sep 24 21:42:15 2011 No.3799706

>>3799681
>Homophobia is largely a product of allowing the common man to read the bible and interpret it on their own.

The bible isn't something totally detached from the human condition and arbitrary in its teachings.
Holy texts and their interpretation and cherry picking which verses to fallow are all also a manifestation of human nature.

Humans tend to categorize things, everything, even if it may not neatly fit into any category we are familiar with, and be suspicious of differences of others.

I think this would be the case even prior to the bible.

Not to mention, in our past the name of the game was to have as many children as possible to hedge bets against war, revolution, disease, malnutrition, etc.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:43:15 2011 No.3799711
File: 4 KB, 231x251, 1292656852135.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If homosexual was natural there would be no reproductive organs that means no penis or vaginas, they are there for a reason people, and the only purpose the ass serves is to excrete waste

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:45:15 2011 No.3799726 Homosexuality is your own thing, but do you faggots really have to fag up the board?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:48:15 2011 No.3799745 >>3799726 u mad

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:49:15 2011 No.3799749

>>3799647 The more HIV from buttsex, the less HIV is got from transfusion per centa.

It took me a minute to figure out what you were doing. I'm interpreting the 1 in 5 million statistic as 1 in 5 million people who actually receive transfusions, whereas you seem to be interpreting it as a percentage of all people who become infected with HIV by any method.

Your conclusion does follow from your interpretation of the numbers provided, but I think you've misinterpreted them again. If not, I have.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:53:15 2011 No.3799765 >>3799677 Computers are entirely binary you fuckwit, it doesn't mean they can't display only two things. >implying that this means anything, or relates to what was said

>>	SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 21:53:15 2011 No.3799769 >>3799711 THEN WHY IS THE ANUS AN EROGENOUS ZONE?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:57:15 2011 No.3799789 >>3799769 why do some people actively look for excuses to be gay

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:58:15 2011 No.3799792 >>3799711 the only purpose the ass serves is to excrete waste Which is also why oral sex is "unnatural," since the mouth isn't a sex organ either. In b4 someone feels compelled to point out that the archaic definition of sodomy included oral sex.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 21:58:15 2011 No.3799795 >>3799769 It's not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:01:15 2011 No.3799809 File: 81 KB, 367x500, 1315708407133.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Cannibalism is found in up to 1500 species. Anti-cannabilism is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:06:15 2011 No.3799827 >>3799795 You'd be surprised! (no homo)

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:07:15 2011 No.3799833 >>3799827 It's because you're putting pressure on the prostate from within the colon. There's no pleasure derived from the anus or colon themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:08:15 2011 No.3799840 File: 28 KB, 400x405, mfw10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3799833 Spoken like someone that has never used a vibrating egg on the outside of their anus. In other words, this is patently untrue and you're an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:09:15 2011 No.3799844 File: 73 KB, 500x413, 1315475605078.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw gayfags

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:09:15 2011 No.3799845 >>3799833 Wow, you're stupid. I derive pleasure from the penetration, before my dildo/guy's dick is anywhere near the prostate gland. Don't fucking comment on something you know nothing about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:11:15 2011 No.3799859 >>3799840 >>3799845 You're wrong. There's no sense in arguing against fact with anecdotal evidence. The anus is not an erogenous zone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:15:15 2011 No.3799875 File: 47 KB, 490x678, 1300318763804.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3799809 >mfw PETA and Stormfront make strangely appropriate bedfellows

SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 22:15:15 2011 No.3799877

>>3799859
So even if the anus in itself is not an erogenous zone?
Doesn't the fact that something shove inside of the rectum, creating a pressure, then stimulating other erogenous zones for sexual relief is not secondary erogenous at least?
If they like it that way, how can we say not to do it?

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:15:15 2011 No.3799878
File: 46 KB, 604x501, 1316483636697.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3799859

This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "can't hear you" over and over again.

The anus is an erogenous zone. Any knowledge of human sexuality would have taught you that.

pic sort of related

>confirmed for aspie virgin

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:16:15 2011 No.3799881 >>3799859 0/10

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:17:15 2011 No.3799886

>>3799877
Basically, it's just the placement of the anus.
If it were in the middle of your chest, for example, it would not even be thought of as a sexual organ.

>>3799878
>can't back up argument with any actual evidence
>resorts to name calling and reaction images

This is what happens when emotions get the better of a homosexual in a debate that relies on logic. They just can't handle it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:19:15 2011 No.3799889 >>3799809 If the point your making is that whether something is natural or not is irrelevant to whether we consider it moral or not, then sure. Homosexuality being totally natural has nothing to do with why it is morally neutral.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:19:15 2011 No.3799894 Homosexuality is wholly genetic. Creationists can't accept that we could be slaves to our genes and biology. Doesn't fit in with the God's favorite faggots mantra

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:20:15 2011 No.3799895 >>3799886 I'm actually straight. The reason I didn't bother to provide a citation is that you didn't either. That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:21:15 2011 No.3799897 >>3799895 >prove me wrong Wasn't it initially you or another pro-homosexual poster that stated the anus was an organ to be used sexually with no proof?

SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 22:23:15 2011 No.3799902

>>3799886
So what does it matter if it's just the placement of the anus? It works and it can be exploited. We're feel good junkies as a human being. If getting shit up your shitter is how you like it being done, I'd say go for it, it's just a matter of sexual preference.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:24:15 2011 No.3799909

>>3799897

Nope. Well, at least it wasn't me. Can't speak for the other anons here. But if it's really proof you want, I assume that since this is an unimportant internet discussion, a wiki article will suffice.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erogenous_zone

You're welcome.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:24:15 2011 No.3799910 >>3799902 >We're feel good junkies >if it makes you feel good, go for it That's not an argument you can make. >taking drugs because it makes you feel good >killing people because it makes you feel good

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:25:15 2011 No.3799913

>>3799886

If the anus were on the chest, and provided the exact same sensations as it does now, people would fuck it, and people would enjoy it.

Perhaps what you mean to say is 'if the anus were not an erogenous zone, then the anus would not be an erogenous zone'. Which is obviously correct.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:25:15 2011 No.3799914 Well, I don't want a dick up my ass, but it's ok if others want it

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:26:15 2011 No.3799917

>>3799909
>Specific zones are associated with sexual response, and include areas of the genitals, notably the foreskin and corona of the glans penis, clitoris, vulva and perianal skin, and lips.

There we go, nothing about the anus mentioned other than the aforementioned stimulation of the prostate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:27:15 2011 No.3799920 >>3799913 It wouldn't provide the same sensation because it wouldn't be pushing against the prostate. It's not hard to understand this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:27:15 2011 No.3799922 >>3799681 Riddle me this: WHY does the church see it as an abomination? Herp to the fucking derp, dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:28:15 2011 No.3799927 >>3799922 The bible was written during a time when toilet paper and enemas were non-existant. The bible sets out rules and regulations for people to live healthy lives by. Figure it out from there.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:30:15 2011 No.3799937

The extent of homosexuality in humans, due or aggravated by our social acceptance, is not 'natural', rather an artificial means of supporting a practice which does not support further human life or evolution - and homophobia does not rationally exist in the way it is used.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:30:15 2011 No.3799940

>>3799917

>Males can also be aroused by stimulation to the sides of the glans and penis, upper side of the glans, the foreskin, the front side of the scrotum, the skin between the scrotum and anus perineum, and around the anus.
>and around the anus

There we go. Specific mention of the anus without reference to penetration or the prostate.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:30:15 2011 No.3799943

>>3799910

Taking drugs is okay because it doesn't hurt anyone. Abusing drugs is bad, but then it's only bad because it does, it's only considered abuse when it does, hurt you or others.

Killing people is bad because it does hurt at least one person.

Having sex is okay because it doesn't hurt anyone. Rape is bad because it does hurt someone.

This stuff isn't complicated. Until you decide that since you don't like the sound of something, nobody should like it, and people who like it are sick or evil. Most people do grow out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally%E2%80%93Anne_test but some, it seems, do not.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:31:15 2011 No.3799945

>>3799917 There we go, nothing about the anus mentioned other than the aforementioned stimulation of the prostate.

"Males can also be aroused by stimulation to ... the skin between the scrotum and anus perineum, and around the anus."

You can take a horse to water...

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:32:15 2011 No.3799947 >>3799920 So what you are saying is, if it wasn't an erogenous zone, it wouldn't be an erogenous zone?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:32:15 2011 No.3799948 >>3799940 >source for that >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19245445 >questionnaire Real credible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:32:15 2011 No.3799951 >>3799927 The bible does not only refer to anal sex but same-sex love in general.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:33:15 2011 No.3799957 >>3799947 It's not an erogoneous zone to begin with. It's the equivalent of me saying my hand is an erogenous zone because when I rub it against my dick it feels good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:33:15 2011 No.3799959 >>3799951 Exactly. All it states is that anal and oral sex is bad (because it spread disease extremely easily).

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:35:15 2011 No.3799964 >>3799940 I can confirm this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:35:15 2011 No.3799965 >>3799002 Homosexuality is natural, but the faggotry they call "gay culture" is completely man made and unnatural.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:35:15 2011 No.3799966 >>3799943 Rape doesn't hurt anyone if it's not violent. It's a silly psychological breakdown that women have because they have a misplaced concept of sex being a sacred act.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:35:15 2011 No.3799968 >>3799957 But you do say that stimulation of the prostate is pleasurable, and that it can be accessed via the anus? Do you really think people just other people fuck those things if they didn't enjoy it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:36:15 2011 No.3799974 >>3799968 Have you ever seen someone orgasm simply from having the outer anus stimulated? The answer is no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:36:15 2011 No.3799971 >>3799894 I'm gay, and even I know that the current body of research suggests that it's either genetic only in part or not genetic at all.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:37:15 2011 No.3799977

>>3799927

no i think its more than just health reasons..if not then its extremely patronising.

its like trying to play of the whole creator thing as a safety handbook... which it is, but not in the way you have portrayed it.

give some credit to the guy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:37:15 2011 No.3799978 >>3799957 The dick is an erogenous zone, and your hand is what stimulates it. The prostate is an erogenous zone, and whatever you jam up your ass is what stimulates it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:37:15 2011 No.3799979 >>3799948 Much more credible than some random guy on 4chan saying it doesn't count. You can thank your own ad hominem attack for that ad hominem attack.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:37:15 2011 No.3799982 >>3799978 Now we're getting somewhere. So you understand that both the hand and the anus are not erogenous zones?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:38:15 2011 No.3799984 >>3799974 So nobody enjoys anal sex? And I have heard that people enjoy analingus quite a bit, men and women. I really don't know what you are arguing here. That people don't enjoy anal sex?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:38:15 2011 No.3799985 >>3799974 Have you ever seen a woman orgasm just from having her nipples sucked? The answer is no.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:38:15 2011 No.3799987

>>3799959

No, what I meant was that it not only prohibits anal sex but prohibits 2 men from loving each other in general.

" 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:38:15 2011 No.3799990 >>3799979 >implying you know what ad hominem means Poor evidence is just as good as no evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:39:15 2011 No.3799993 >>3799985 >female orgasm Nipples aren't erogenous zones.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:39:15 2011 No.3799994 >>3799985 >actually yes

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:40:15 2011 No.3799996 >>3799974 Irrelevant. The point (and fact) is that stimulating the outer anus IS arousing. Honestly, try it yourself. Even while you're in the shower, have some soap handy. I don't even have to be thinking about sex for it to arouse me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:41:15 2011 No.3799998 This thread is so unbelievably gay; this is why no one wants to tolerate faggots. All they bring is...well. This.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:41:15 2011 No.3800000 >>3799996 If this is the case, then for you and many people like you it is likely just psychological that you associate any touching of the outer anus with the stimulation of the prostate, and so become aroused.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:41:15 2011 No.3800001 File: 8 KB, 218x231, 1313649917496.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3799993 By your definition, neither are lips. >>3799990 >Implying you know anything about me, and that I can't possibly know something that is common knowledge

>>	SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 22:42:15 2011 No.3800008 >>3799974 What the FUCK? A woman doesn't get an orgasm by touching her on the inside of her thigh, yet it makes her sexual experience more pleasurable. You're just being silly at the moment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:42:15 2011 No.3800009 >>3800001 Lips aren't. Having a high nerve density doesn't make something erogenous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:43:15 2011 No.3800015 fart >orgasm?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:44:15 2011 No.3800018 >>3800009 What does make a zone erogenous, then?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:44:15 2011 No.3800020 >>3800000 >likely just psychological That's quite the bold diagnosis, Dr. Phd in Psychology. Stop grasping for straws.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:44:15 2011 No.3800021

>>3800009
>Specific zones are associated with sexual response, and include areas of the genitals, notably the foreskin and corona of the glans penis, clitoris, vulva and perianal skin, and lips. [Winkelmann RK (1959). "The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and significance". Mayo Clin Proc 34 (2): 39–47.]

Argue with the Mayo Clinic guys, not me.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:45:15 2011 No.3800025

Natural? No.

Men and Women complete each other as a species. If Men were only to have sex with other Men, likewise for Women, we would inevitably die out.

Accepted? Sure.

Even though it goes against the procreation for which our species is based upon, when consciousness and freewill come into play the rules change. One can be emotionally and physically attracted to anyone they deem is compatible with their persona.

Final thoughts.

Since homosexuality only counts for a smaller portion of our species, I see nothing wrong with it, though again, it still does go against our baser genetics for procreation. However, it's also helping keep population numbers in check; homosexuals will have to adopt rather than--and impossibly so without medical assistance--create their own children.

It's a very complicated subject, likely with no right and wrong answer. The only thing that can be certain is that it does go against the Male to Female coupling. Now, if that's for better or worse, again, it could be construed multiple ways.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:45:15 2011 No.3800026 >>3800018 Something used for sexual stimulation, ie continued stimulation results in orgasm.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:46:15 2011 No.3800029 File: 24 KB, 300x225, five_stars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3799664 >>3799664 >>3799664 >>3799664 >>3799664 Fucking five star post.

>>	SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 22:47:15 2011 No.3800036 >>3800026 Ah, babby doesn't feel like he needs to be able to get the woman al naturally lubed up before penetration.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:47:15 2011 No.3800037 >>3800020 If you've got a better diagnosis I'd be intrigued to hear it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:48:15 2011 No.3800038 File: 44 KB, 351x440, 5star.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3800021 Lawl, owned. This is the very definition of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:48:15 2011 No.3800040 >>3800026 >Sexual stimulation Okay >Continued stimulation Now that sounds like you're moving goalposts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:48:15 2011 No.3800041 >>3800025 sigh A newcomer to this thread appears!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:51:15 2011 No.3800047 >>3800036 If a woman is aroused she'll be wet, if you have to force her to become wet then you probably shouldn't be having sex with her. Either way, so long as the guy orgasms the state of the woman is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:51:15 2011 No.3800049 >>3800021 >>3800021 >>3800021 >>3800021 >>3800021 /thread

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:52:15 2011 No.3800053

>>3800037

That stimulating the anus provides a degree of sexual sensation? More than just touching any old patch of skin, less than touching the genitals, breasts or prostate.

I don't know why this is a big deal.

I have to ask again; do you really think people don't enjoy anal sex?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:52:15 2011 No.3800054 >>3800037 So because you can't come up with or don't know of an actual reason you think your shit-dribble will suffice in the mean time?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:52:15 2011 No.3800060 >>3800026 But contact with both the anus and nipples and lips can be sexually stimulating. Orgasm has nothing to do with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:53:15 2011 No.3800063 homophobia is natural, like repulsion to ugly people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:53:15 2011 No.3800065 >>3800008 >touching the inside of her thigh I've watched many hours of porn and have never seen this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:54:15 2011 No.3800067 >>3800047 >foreplay is a myth Are you serious?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:55:15 2011 No.3800071 >>3800021 >>3800038 >>3800049 Erogenous zones have a high nerve density but not all areas with high nerve density are erogenous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:55:15 2011 No.3800073 File: 5 KB, 259x194, mfw16.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3800065 >watches porn like a nature documentary >mfw

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:55:15 2011 No.3800076 >>3800000

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:56:15 2011 No.3800079 >>3800054 >come up with a plausible explanation for anomalous sexual stimulation >childish retorts and upset

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:57:15 2011 No.3800085 >>3800067 Of course it's not a myth. It's just not as necessary as everyone makes out. There's absolutely no concept of foreplay in anything other than humans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:57:15 2011 No.3800086 >>3800063 there is a high correlation between homophobia and gender confusion

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:58:15 2011 No.3800088 >>3800071 Strawman. nobody says all areas with high nerve density are erogenous. I am just saying that what the actual experts and professionals in the field call erogenous zones are in fact erogenous zones. Please read >>3800021

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 22:59:15 2011 No.3800092 >>3800041 A newcomer to this thread appears! >someone interrupts a 50-post argument about the anus as an erogenous zone by responding to the OP's question >you're disappointed >oh 4chan

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:00:15 2011 No.3800094 >>3800088 No, the study relates to the significance of nerves in the erogenous zones, it does not state that something with sufficiently high nerve density becomes erogenous. Reading comprehension is important.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:00:15 2011 No.3800098 >>3800029 Glad to be of service.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:02:15 2011 No.3800103 File: 230 KB, 647x368, 1313714462453.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3800079 Look here, you chinky- .... oh wait. 2/10

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:03:15 2011 No.3800107
File: 50 KB, 420x420, ftt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Well, the fuckwits arguing that the anus is not an erogenous zone have been soundly defeated, and the only ones still arguing are essentially the same sort of people as the creationists that want people to "teach the controversy," as though there is still a controversy over evolution to teach. Later all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:03:15 2011 No.3800110 >>3800107 >I have the last word so I win. This is the level of maturity in the thread, nay, on 4chan.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:05:15 2011 No.3800114

>>3800094
But the quote from the Mayo Clinic was in response to someone arguing that the erogenous zones were restricted to the sex organs, whereas they actually include the lips, among other non-sex organ areas, since they "turn a person on" when stimulated correctly. I don't think anyone was arguing that the hands were erogenous.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:05:15 2011 No.3800117

>>3800094

Indeed it is, like for those times that the author of a scientific paper specifically include something in their definition, like the anus is included here. Now get some rest. Mommy is going to make you pretend to believe in a sky wizard very early tomorrow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:06:15 2011 No.3800122 >>3800107 Teach the Controversy Before you go, take one of these > http://controversy.wearscience.com

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:06:15 2011 No.3800123 >>3800117 >God isn't real because I don't believe in Him

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:07:15 2011 No.3800129 >>3800123 >capitalising the 'h' in 'him' >inferring actuality >nobody believes you

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:07:15 2011 No.3800130 File: 45 KB, 200x197, 1312574964571.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3800110 Art though aggrieved, brother?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:08:15 2011 No.3800132 File: 118 KB, 337x300, Will-WTF-face.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw the number of made-up and unsourced facts and statistics posted by both sides of the argument in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:08:15 2011 No.3800137 >>3800114 Lip stimulation has more to do with the exchange in hormones in the saliva than the stimulation of the nerves. Simply put, if it doesn't result in an orgasm it ain't erogenous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:09:15 2011 No.3800141 >>3800123 homo thread turns into a proper god thread, 250 posts in. Way to keep it alive, faggots.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:10:15 2011 No.3800142 >>3800129 Can't prove it, can't disprove it. Better to play it safe and not spend eternity in Hell.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:10:15 2011 No.3800143 >>3800137 Simply put, that's fucking bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:10:15 2011 No.3800144 >>3800137 Does kissing result in an orgasm?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:10:15 2011 No.3800145 >>3800137 [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:10:15 2011 No.3800146 >>3800137 So even one person who orgasms from anal sex would show...? People enjoy anal sex. That should be the end of this argument, but instead we have semantic wanking.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:10:15 2011 No.3800147

Something I learned in my psychology minor was that there seems to be genetic dispositions for homosexuality, especially in males. While there also seems to be strong evidence of psychological abuse or childhood trauma that causes the behavior, especially in females.

Furthermore anthropologists suggest the genetic aspect in males seems to be tied to tribes, and nations that waged war several times over several years, decades or centuries where the males would spend more time around other males. For example Rome.

My own personal hypothesis is that this genetic alteration may be the onset of a human gender mutation, similar to the mutation in other animals that allows them to switch sexes. It could also be a contributing to hermaphrodites.

Give me a few minutes. Maybe I can find the sources and citations along with my report for that

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:11:15 2011 No.3800148 >>3800144 no, which is why the lips are erogenous zones sheesh

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:11:15 2011 No.3800150 >>3800144 Can do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:11:15 2011 No.3800151 >>3800146 It would only prove that you're able to stimulate the prostate through the colon which we've been over about half the thread up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:12:15 2011 No.3800157 >>3800151 What would the point even be if the anus were not erogenous? Would it show that people are wrong for enjoying anal sex? That they are lying about enjoying it? Come on now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:13:15 2011 No.3800160 >>3800150 I can tell you that I've been using my lips to eat ice creams and other various foods for my entire life and nothing has caused an orgasm, nor have I ever heard of an orgasm in anyone else through stimulation of the lips.

>>	The Other Arab. Sat Sep 24 23:14:15 2011 No.3800161 It's nothing but a fetish, simple as that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:14:15 2011 No.3800164 >>3800157 The point is that dicks are not meant to go up there. Nothing is. It's only a pipe that drops things out the body you don't need. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:15:15 2011 No.3800167 >>3800160 Women orgasm from all kinds of weird things. I have heard of a woman having an orgasm from kissing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:15:15 2011 No.3800169 >>3800151 For what it's worth, people occasionally enjoy getting a rimjob, which implies certain things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:16:15 2011 No.3800170 >>3800169 People enjoy getting their toes sucked too. Some people even enjoy cutting themselves when they're horny.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:16:15 2011 No.3800173 >>3800164 So then YOU don't do it.

SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 23:17:15 2011 No.3800174

>>3800164
That's personal preference you fascist.
People are free to do whateverthefuck they want.
It's not hurting them, it's not inflicting any problem whatsoever.
If you dislike it, or if it annoys you, simply turn away or ignore it. Don't say they can't do it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:17:15 2011 No.3800176 >>3800173 Neither should anyone else because that's not what it's intended for! There needs to be RULES.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:17:15 2011 No.3800177 We don't really know how other species feel about it, since we don't communicate with them like we do other humans. Just putting that out there.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:17:15 2011 No.3800178
File: 696 KB, 647x430, 1313253108955.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Dunning-Krueger in full effect in this motherfucker. Seriously guys, at least offer some sort of proof like >>3800021

If you can't, and can only offer your own rantings and assertions... Well, who the fuck am Ii kidding? You're going to keep going, obviously. Maybe you'll even have a future in the Republican party.

Pic related. It's this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:18:15 2011 No.3800179 >>3800170 All that shows is that the idea of a strict set of erogenous zones is naive, that human sexuality is fluid. I don't think that's the point you're trying to make.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:19:15 2011 No.3800184

>>3800174
>fascist
political term, this has nothing to do with politics

>People are free to do whateverthefuck they want.
no they're not

>It's not hurting them, it's not inflicting any problem whatsoever.
only AIDS

>simply turn away or ignore it.
gay pride marches shove this stuff in your face and whenever else they get the chance

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:19:15 2011 No.3800185 >>3800164 [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:19:15 2011 No.3800187 >>3800176 And a rule against an act that affects nobody but those involved, that they consider to be more pleasurable than it is painful, is a silly rule. You don't like it, you don't do it. When someone tries to offer you anal sex, you tell them no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:20:15 2011 No.3800189 >>3800187 >When someone tries to offer you anal sex, you tell them no. And wind up looking like a homophobe?

SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 23:20:15 2011 No.3800190

>>3800178
You're a moron.
As my anatomical professor once said;
>Don't worry when you've forgotten all about it on the exam, you've got your biggest cheating opportunity right with you: yourself

One can correctly decide on oneself what is erogenous and not.

>>	The Other Arab. Sat Sep 24 23:21:15 2011 No.3800194 Also why is everyone forgetting that there are nerve endings at the lips? Just like scratching certain parts of your body feels good, or getting a massage.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:21:15 2011 No.3800196

Homosexuality is perfectly natural

The taboo only appeared in cultures that lived in regions that had high mortality rates, where homosexuality is seen as counterproductive to the survival of the group as it produces no children. In cultures that never had that problem and had high birth rates such as Egypt, Rome, and Mesopotamia the taboo against homosexuality never appeared

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:21:15 2011 No.3800197

>>3800184 gay pride marches shove this stuff in your face and whenever else they get the chance

Not the person to whom you were responding, but why do you attend gay pride parades if you find them offensive? I'm wildly in favor of homosexuals being treated as equals under the law, and have yet to find myself anywhere near a gay pride parade. Just saiyan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:22:15 2011 No.3800199 >>3800189 I meant if a woman offers to have anal sex with you. Why would you assume otherwise?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:22:15 2011 No.3800205 >>3800197 You can't get away from them where I live and study at university. It's like fag central in SanFran.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:23:15 2011 No.3800209 >>3800190 Hey guys! People can decide for themselves what is anatomical fact and what is not! It's liberating. My shoulder blades just became wings. Of course, I am still not as much of a glorious winged faggot as the guy that posted >>3800190

SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 23:25:15 2011 No.3800215

>>3800184
So do the extremist religions and political parties.
I mean, look at what Rick Perry is doing for crying out loud!
If they shove it in your face, do something about it so that won't happen again. But you have to remember, it's not like they're having anal sex on their floats on these gay pride parades.
I agree with you on this one though; the gay parade in your face stuff is annoying as hell; I'm glad I haven't had one of those in my country :D

Anonymous Prime Sat Sep 24 23:25:15 2011 No.3800217

I think it might be instinctively triggered when there's overpopulation.
Ergo, homosexuals are doing an overpopulated species a favor by not reproducing.
Of course, there's other ways to get kids. Nature simply hasn't found a way around that yet. Maybe give orphans cancer or something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:26:15 2011 No.3800220 >>3800215 Yeah and I've got just as much a problem with them as anyone else that does the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:28:15 2011 No.3800232 >>3800220 It's interesting. You don't want people to shove their viewpoints and lifestyles in your face, but have no problem shoving your own viewpoint in other people's faces.

SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 23:29:15 2011 No.3800237

>>3800209
Yes, because rubbing your penis when you get lonely at night doesn't give you too much pleasure anymore, am I right?
Why do you think people masturbate all the time without having taken anatomy? Why don't people touch a hot stove, even when they're just a kid?
Why do you not run into a closed door at full speed? Because you know what happens when you'd defy your common sense.
It's not like everything, from the most basic knowledge has to be given on a golden platter of references.

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:29:15 2011 No.3800238

>>3800189
>>3800189
no you look like a hetrosexual no one is forcing you to be gay if you refuse gay sex nobody and i mean nobody would look down upon you.
Also the talk about gay pride marches being forced down you throatt. Im from Sydney so our Mardi Gra actually brings in tourism and stimulates the economy not only that but its a well publicized event which you would know about long before and be able to aviod if you need to.

"The parade and dance party attracts many international and domestic tourists. Mardi Gras is one of Australia's biggest tourist drawcards,[2] generating an annual income of about $30 million for the state of New South Wales. It is New South Wales’ second-largest event in terms of economic impact" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Gay_and_Lesbian_Mardi_Gras

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:29:15 2011 No.3800241 >>3800232 I totally go around letting everyone know everything like this when it's not the topic of conversation.

>>	SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 23:33:15 2011 No.3800270 Thread seems dead? Cool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:36:15 2011 No.3800283 >>3800137 http://www.metro.co.uk/news/855253-junk-food-makes-woman-have-orgasms fuck you yes, I know >metro, but still you're just plain incorrect

Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:36:15 2011 No.3800284

>>3800237

But when scientists that research a field have spoken, it's not the place of a plebeian with no proof behind him to contradict them. If you want to redefine what is an erogenous zone and what is not, do the research and prove your case. Otherwise, you're just an empty can rattling over your own hollowness.

>>3800241

I believe you, despite you meaning this in a sarcastic fashion. the real problem is you can't even see it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:38:15 2011 No.3800288 >>3800283 >35st woman has orgasms from eating Typical American.

SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Sat Sep 24 23:46:15 2011 No.3800329

>>3800284
I think we're on different pages here. I never said anything about redefining anything. I said, what is common logic, should be viewed as such. You can easily feel around your own body to see what (for you at least) is an erogenous zone.
Mostly, and this has been no different for this thread, evidence is presented as a confirmation of what is already known.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 24 23:48:15 2011 No.3800344 >>3800199 I meant if a woman offers to have anal sex with you. Oh god, I love pegging. Can we talk about pegging now?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 25 00:47:15 2011 No.3800645 >>3800344 guess not. PS: I ejaculated forcefully after successfully killing this thread.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math