I think one day they will find that heterosexuality, homosexuality or as someone put liking both sexes is genetic, procreation will mark itself genetically so that if you are female your attraction will be to the male as part of procreation, for males it will be a gene that leads him to search out a female, remember, even though humans a very sex oriented it still comes down to the basis of procreation, now, with 5 billion people on the planet or more you have plenty of chance for genetic anomolies (spelling?), so that males can end up with a gene that was meant for females and vice versa or even end up with both. of course I could be wrong but that is my thought on this.
Homosexuals are a disease, but luckily they've found the cure!
- Thread starter Mystech
- Start date
I never said such a thing. In fact, I mention much chemical evidence. E.g., more E- and F- type prostaglandins are produced in male seminal vesicles than the rest of the body combined, and these prostaglandins are known to be raised in the brain during ethanol (alcohol) induced narcosis, and I cite studies in which it was suggested that such raising of these levels in the brain is related to the addiction. Certainly (as I pointed out) these chemicals are known neuromodulators. I mention that anandamide (the neurochemical the receptors for which in the brain are activated by marijuana, likely producing most of its high) is known to be present in rat testes (I couldn't find anything investigating whether its presence was tested for in human testes). What I did say is that the strongest evidence for semen being addictive is not the chemical evidence. You are misrepresenting what I said while at the same time trying to push me into a straw man argument. How pathetic. I could say more, e.g., prostaglandins are known to be degraded largely by the lungs, which would explain the connection between heavy-breathing and sex and the tendency of deviants to encourage the victim to not breathe during sex, say by strangulation or some other form of asphyxiation (this is supposedly a common type of deviancy, associated with a good many deaths, actually).
Dealing cocaine is abusive even though the buyer asks for the drug. Sodomy is worse because it is insidious--harder to tell what feeling is real sexual desire and what is the result of the addictive semen.
Drug use can be pleasurable (at least in short term) both to buyer and the dealer. The merit of something is not its pleasurableness--certainly not when the pleasurableness (the pleasure of the victim as opposed to that of the victimizer) is fake.
Yes, I am saying that by and large the snobbish wealthy don't like to think about anal sex. I refer you to the history of the moral reform movement in the nineteenth century, whose main aim was to reform the prostitutes and reclaim them from their addictions. It wasn't the prostitutes or the thugs who ultimately stopped John Robert McDowell (the founder of the movement) from publishing, it was the rich elitests who thought his bluntness (which looks totally tame today) was too harsh for ladylike ears. Here is interesting link about his trials: http://www.rca.org/images/aboutus/archives/mcdowall.pdf . Rich people typicaly can be much more insulated from common depravity, and so it is very easy for them in their gated homes to pretend that common people tend to be blunt and conversant about vulgarity just because they are lower class. It's the same let them eat cake attitude that these rich have always been famous for. In England I have been told there is even a certain accent rich people are supposed to have. Certainly upper crust diction is not as blunt about vulgarity as a more common type. Nouveau riche types (the archetypal small businessman) are a different matter, though, as I explain in my book. I am indeed more talking about old money.
Yes, well, he'd be more rich if he didn't go on vacations everywhere, perhaps seeking new "boys toys" or whatever. You just seem to be proving my point. And it's being sodomized that tends to make one poor; male homosexual sodomizers, not doing it to get real sex, are probably often like Andrew Cugnanan, sodomizing because it makes them more effectively plundering in their parasitism.
What? Where'd you pull that one from? You're pretty clueless, it seems.
Yep, that's right, that's what I said. Educated people tend to be rational and not as susceptible to addictions, so they can pretend that shame has to do not with being screwed-up but with not being knowledgeable or smart . I saw it all the time when I taught, students retreating into a shell after just one poor performance on a test, like they just got their asses screwed or something. The intellectual climate is responsible for that. Academia has a self-interest in making what they have to offer seem so important that it is a disgrace not to have it. Easy to do since being too emotional is in a way a symptom and aggrivating factor of addiction.
I wouldn't speak for yourself, but since you asked, I will. Perhaps you are a natural sodomizer (as opposed to a sodomizee), or perhaps you think being sodomized is fun because it makes your sodomizing behavior seem less obvious to others, or maybe it is just that you have come to believe the lies you and your sodomizing associates need to tell others. Sodomizers tend to have female ancestors who were easily addicted to sodomy (by their sodomizing male ancestors), and so tend to an unusually large degree to fall for the lame trickery people use to make sodomy seem appealing. On the other hand, of course, you could just be lying. Sodomy being IMO about deception, lying is really to be expected from sodomizers. As for not making a case for "oral sex" (a term I despise as degrading to sex) addictions, what ever gave you that idea? Oral sodomy is evil, too. I don't think vaginal sex is addictive, at least not significantly. E.g., the vagina unlike the recturm is not lined by the simple epithelial tissue typical for absorptive tissue. And the vagina not being effectively absorptive of addictive chemicals explains the evolution of the disappearance of the cloaca in mammals (see my post in the new thread I made today about some scientist thinking semen during sex is an antidepressant).
It is true that I don't know many (any that I know of) male homosexuals. So I am pure, is one way you could look at it.
People tend to evolve their emotions for reasons. Why should religious sentiment be any more irrelevant than sexual sentiment? Love of sodomy just isn't very sacred or holy to most people, to say the least.
There is no side that applies to all things. Much that is depraved is insufficiently considered so and much that is not depraved is too much considered so. The best thing to do to determine whether a behavior is right is to study each questionable behavior carefully to try to understand the effects of the behavior on the world as a whole. It's not good to be conservative or liberal. Some things one should be very conservative about, some things one should be very liberal about, and some things one should be middle-of-the-road about. There is no substitute for understanding. Sodomy in itself is the ultimate black-and-white issue, though--something so important to be black-and-white about it is the reason people are too much black-and-white about other things. Sodomy is evil--enough said.
You don't even try to hide your bias. Tell me, Step, how does one quantify uglyness and disgustingness? What are the objective qualitative factors which compose these ideas? There's nothing. It's meerly opinion, and that's all the garbage on your "book" amounts to, worthless opinion. Don't try to pass off your personal hatred as science, if you want to prove that seamen is addictive then find the chemical that is responceable. If you want to use the addictive quality of seamen as a justification for why you think seamen is evil then explain all the inconsistansies, such as how sodomy in which no seamen is exchanged is evil, or why normal heterosexual sex is then not evil. Don't come to us with your petty attempts to rationalize your madness.
You're a joke, Step, and we're all laughing very hard.
Sodomizers tend to be very stupid rationally (an emotional nature is more susceptible to addiction, and as I mentioned it is obvious that sodomy being addictive would cause there to be a correlation between being a sodomizer and being easily sodomized, which I suppose is why you didn't come up with a single rational argument as to why my opinions are incorrect). Anyone can make statements like "you're a joke" about anything--they are worthless to people interested in figuring out what is going on. Most people can see ad hominem arguments like that for what they are. I gave many reasons for why it is reasonable to believe sodomy is evil, whereas you gave no reasons whatsoever explaining the good that sodomy does in the world. It is tempting to suppose people like you are a joke, but that would be a mistake. People don't realize the appeal of lies similar to yours to those who have been victimized by abuse or circumstances. You clog up forums with your lies and errors, and expect no one to spit back at you, but then it happens and really like the filthy dog whimpering at the house cat who scratched him, you're too lame to put up any kind of logical resistance. That's always the mistake sodomizers make, isn't it, that they think from their rapacious experiences they can make people believe their lying filth merely because they be good at lying and terrorizing people, and are too full of their own lies to realize the most of their appeals and terrors only go so far as their penis goes, which like on the battlefield ain't very far on the internet (and ain't very far when dealing with the world's leading anti-sodomy theorist). I spit at and curse you. Hear the lion roar:
Sodomy is disgusting. Even to those addicted to it, it rarely seems beautiful. Hence the tendency of the forcibly sodomized to find some other explanation for the pleasure and sexuality occasioned by the victimization, be it the violent power of the sodomizer or the sheer reckless dare-deviltry of it all. That probably at least partly explains why sheer brute physical power in males is excessively glorified and why gambling and motorcycles are so popular. People can't bring themselves to believe that it was the sodomy itself that caused the pleasure in themselves or their loved ones--they fail to understand it's an addiction in the simplest sense, and good lives are needlessly/tragically wrecked/damaged in the process.
You work so hard to write so much about this crackpot theory of yours, and present it as if it is somehow logical or scientific, yet you have absolutely no reservations about showing your hand as a complete and utter bigot. You are a stereotyper, you define people as a group, thinking that you know them, and deny them individuality. If you'd actually do the research, actually observe some gay men you'd realize that the model you have created simply does not work, that it is so riddled with holes as to be completely absurd.
Which is exactly why it is so easy to see that you are doing nothing but irrationally attacking people who engage in sexual conduct which you think of as being evil. You are nothing but a hate monger, you come up with theories which are not based on observations but on how you'd like to think things are despite the fact that anyone willing to take some time to make some observations can see are completely different from your twisted view of the world.
I didn't want to get into this, but tell me, if sexual activity is a normal and healthy part of human interaction and an individual’s relationship with a pairbond partner, then how, even if addictive, could having sex be considered evil? Is a super market selling food to people to be considered, when certainly people's desire for food is like an addiction in almost every way? You just haven't a single rational leg to stand on with any of your arguments, and it hardly even takes a basic grasp of the most basic skills essential for critical analysis of a problem to realize this.
One more question, just for arguments sake. How do you feel about sodomy in which no fluids are exchanged? Is this still evil? Is a male using a dildo evil? I'd like clarification on this.
Last edited:
"Addictive Semen" would be a great name for a metal band.
Punish them, baby.
Or by taking out a billboard:
"ATTENTION DEVIANTS! DO NOT BREATHE DURING SEX!"
(It takes a normal human about three minutes to suffocate. You must be awfully bad in bed, step, to think that one could go through a whole scene without breating.
)Do you have to wipe spittle off your monitor now?
Mystech:
Or maybe step is taking "bottom" in exactly the wrong sense.
This thread is just too much fun.
step, all I can say is wow, I would honestly like to know how you came up with this specific hate for sodomizers but before that I would like to know why you think sodomy is genetic, sodomy is an act.
Or are you equating sodomizers with homosexuals but that can't be since gay and straight people commit the act.
Then you say sodomy causes one to be poor, hehe, that was a good one, honestly, I think most people can probably be sodomized for free, so how does one get poor through the ACT of sodomy.
Keep it coming, you have a good sense of humor, unless you were serious... then um... nevermind.
Or are you equating sodomizers with homosexuals but that can't be since gay and straight people commit the act.
Then you say sodomy causes one to be poor, hehe, that was a good one, honestly, I think most people can probably be sodomized for free, so how does one get poor through the ACT of sodomy.
Keep it coming, you have a good sense of humor, unless you were serious... then um... nevermind.
Hey i think we are all taking this a bit lightly, if step is right then we better be careful or we will all become cum sucking zombies.
Step, how can you dilude yourself into thinking that you are presenting a rational argument when you use old superstisions and hate rhetoric like "Sodomizers are rationaly stupid" you claimbed that they are ugly as well, AND that they cant hold on to money.
Attacks like this based on nothing that resembles fact are the core of your argument.
If semen is addictive, what are the withdrawl symptoms? I guess they would have to be an increase in appearance, increase in IQ, and a better credit rating?
Why dont older gay couples show any signs of being burnt out like other long time users of dangerous mind altering chemicals?
P.S. You also said something about the rich not thinking about issues like these, then commenced to site sources from the victorian era. If you cant sight the logical flaw here maybe you should leave writing to the big boys ok hon?
Step, how can you dilude yourself into thinking that you are presenting a rational argument when you use old superstisions and hate rhetoric like "Sodomizers are rationaly stupid" you claimbed that they are ugly as well, AND that they cant hold on to money.
Attacks like this based on nothing that resembles fact are the core of your argument.
If semen is addictive, what are the withdrawl symptoms? I guess they would have to be an increase in appearance, increase in IQ, and a better credit rating?
Why dont older gay couples show any signs of being burnt out like other long time users of dangerous mind altering chemicals?
P.S. You also said something about the rich not thinking about issues like these, then commenced to site sources from the victorian era. If you cant sight the logical flaw here maybe you should leave writing to the big boys ok hon?
Don't suck 'dem "big boys"
The reason I gave for why sodomizers are rationally stupid is that addictions affect the emotions, so people unusually susceptible to addiction are likely to be more emotional types than rational types. And sodomizers are likely to have sodomizing male ancestors whence their sodomizing traits came. And if you've got sodomizing male ancestors, you've likely got a lot of sodomized dissipated bitches as female ancestors, unusually susceptible to sodomy, and thus unusually likely to be non-rational types. Therefore sodomizers, likely having irrational ancestors, are likely to be illogical twits. What is not rational about this argument?Perhaps the real problem is that it is too rational for your pathetic illogic brain to handle. As for the rest of your statement, what I said was that sodomy is ugly (not that sodomizers aren't ugly too, but that's not what I said) and that people addicted to sodomy (not sodomizers) have unusual difficulty hanging on to money. In fact, male homosexual sodomizers use sodomy to plunder others. Bother to read what I wrote you presumptuous impudent liar:
Gee, I don't know, maybe they do? Why do you think they don't? You suggest that assertions "based on nothing that resembles fact" bother you, but then unlike me you make them. Liar! Hypocrite!
No, it's you who can't see the logic, nitwit. If you are looking for evidence as to the effect of rich snobbery on something, look at the recent era where there was the most rich snobbery, viz., the Victorian era. Why do you care only about the present era? Wait, I know, it's because you're too immoral to care about the world in the long-term. Things go in cycles and 150 years or so from now when the world is more anti-sodomy again good people will mock your pathetic descendants and relatives (if there are any), unable to convince a female to be sodomized notwithstanding addictive semen is their only tool of seduction; they will justly suffer just the way prigs justly do today. Not that the rich people have not always been less vulgar (in the sense of "earthy") than common people. Right now "common" is often used interchangeably with "vulgar", and in fact the last meaning of "vulgar" to arise is "lewdly or profanely indecent"[Webster's Ninth New Collegiate]. So we see that words that first mean "common" or "typical" ("vulgar" first meant that) tend to come to mean "earthy" or "lewd", as people often believe that there is no difference; it's really a commonplace. Why would the word "vulgar" have gained the meaning "earthy" if people didn't think common people tended to be more earthy than rich people? And why would people be wrong about that? As for 'dem "big boys", don't suck and certainly don't swallow. Induce vomiting if indicated.
The reason I gave for why sodomizers are rationally stupid is that addictions affect the emotions, so people unusually susceptible to addiction are likely to be more emotional types than rational types. And sodomizers are likely to have sodomizing male ancestors whence their sodomizing traits came. And if you've got sodomizing male ancestors, you've likely got a lot of sodomized dissipated bitches as female ancestors, unusually susceptible to sodomy, and thus unusually likely to be non-rational types. Therefore sodomizers, likely having irrational ancestors, are likely to be illogical twits. What is not rational about this argument?Perhaps the real problem is that it is too rational for your pathetic illogic brain to handle. As for the rest of your statement, what I said was that sodomy is ugly (not that sodomizers aren't ugly too, but that's not what I said) and that people addicted to sodomy (not sodomizers) have unusual difficulty hanging on to money. In fact, male homosexual sodomizers use sodomy to plunder others. Bother to read what I wrote you presumptuous impudent liar:
Gee, I don't know, maybe they do? Why do you think they don't? You suggest that assertions "based on nothing that resembles fact" bother you, but then unlike me you make them. Liar! Hypocrite!
No, it's you who can't see the logic, nitwit. If you are looking for evidence as to the effect of rich snobbery on something, look at the recent era where there was the most rich snobbery, viz., the Victorian era. Why do you care only about the present era? Wait, I know, it's because you're too immoral to care about the world in the long-term. Things go in cycles and 150 years or so from now when the world is more anti-sodomy again good people will mock your pathetic descendants and relatives (if there are any), unable to convince a female to be sodomized notwithstanding addictive semen is their only tool of seduction; they will justly suffer just the way prigs justly do today. Not that the rich people have not always been less vulgar (in the sense of "earthy") than common people. Right now "common" is often used interchangeably with "vulgar", and in fact the last meaning of "vulgar" to arise is "lewdly or profanely indecent"[Webster's Ninth New Collegiate]. So we see that words that first mean "common" or "typical" ("vulgar" first meant that) tend to come to mean "earthy" or "lewd", as people often believe that there is no difference; it's really a commonplace. Why would the word "vulgar" have gained the meaning "earthy" if people didn't think common people tended to be more earthy than rich people? And why would people be wrong about that? As for 'dem "big boys", don't suck and certainly don't swallow. Induce vomiting if indicated.
I believe you mentioned something earlyer about ad hominem attacks?
your rebuttle to my question about older gay couples is splendid as well, "Oh yeah... well maybe they are burned out like old drug addicts!" it seems you have seen many times the ravages of this addiction.
also, im still waiting for a description of the withdral symptoms. Does a sodomy addict get the shakes when he hasnt had any for a wile? You have been compairing semen addiction to hard drugs, when you start coming down from a long string of highs the shock can be fatal, does anything like that to sodomy addicts?
Im standing by my dissaproval of your victorian era examples, you clearly havnt got much concept of how sex was treated then vs. now. Our idle rich can be and often are randy uninhibited bastards, just like us common folk. Your whole classism argument is a little silly have you noticed a seething hotbed of class tention here in the United States? maybe im just not looking hard enough.
I guess i cant argue with the idea that a pention for sodomy is hereditary. Why, i can type fast, does that mean my line of ancestors includes many many fast typers? Do people who play basketball come from long lines of basketball players instead of doing it because they find it gratifying? or perhaps can behavior be learned? No, probably its best to chalk everything up to DNA.
One last point, do be careful how many times you assert that sodomizers are stupid, you run the risk of somone pointing out that it is possible you are frustrated that no one will give you head so you have to come up with grand explainations characterizing anyone who would do it with you as too stupid to concider
Again you are dong nothing but assigning arbitrary stereotypes. Tell me, what information do you have to back any of this up? What observations have you made and documented? Let me guess: none at all. Your supposed scientific theory is based entirely upon your own wishful thinking and how you, completely removed from the subject you are writing about, and anyone involved in it, would like to think the world is. Take it from someone who's actually there and in the trenches: Everything you have said is completely false and incongruous with reality!
Read this closer. Regardless of the fact that your premises are false, the information just doesn't add up at all! The argument you have made does not explain why sodomizers would be emotional or illogical. Even if the points you made were true, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that you've drawn. My suggestion to you would be to pick up a book on the topic of syllogistic logic.
What was that you said earlier about an argumentum ad homonym? Your bias is clear, your conclusions are not. We can see that you’ve made no real observations, and haven’t actually got any evidence to back up your claims, nothing at all but a hypothetical model of the world based on the premise that your theory is correct, and a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Why should anyone take you seriously? My assertion that you are a joke still stands.
Again, what evidence is this based on? Tell me, how is it that I have engaged in sodomy, yet somehow since I started doing this, my financial situation has not taken any hits? What exactly is your explanation for why sodomizers would lose money, there is no direct correlation that I can see, how does this happen? Also, what do you mean that sodomy is used to "plunder" others? That's a strange word choice and I can't quite understand your meaning.
Gee maybe they do?! Is that the best evidence you have to support this aspect of your theory? This is all that you can use to patch up a hole in your argument? Why not try to make observations, take serveys, find other people's research and verify it, anything that could possably resemble acctual research, for gods sake. "Maybe they do" is not a premise that you can build an argument off of. I'll tell you why spymoose doesn't think so, it's because there is no evidence to support it!
What does the Victorian era even have to do with any topic you have bought up? I found this to be a rather stupid inconsistency, but then I didn't really expect better from you. If you want to claim that your theory is correct then it must work in the modern day! Evidence from the Victorian era simply does not hold up, because if it were a unique factor of that long gone period upon witch your argument was built, then you certainly can not claim that anything you have said is true today. If you can't see that then it's really time to calm yourself down, throw away your prejudices and sit down and try to honestly and impartially think about this little theory of yours. If you do this I'm sure you'll blush with embarrassment at ever having even considered the idea.
You're right, your idea is notwithstanding. Honestly, though if the addictive quality of semen were the only thing that would lead someone to sodomy, then how is it that a person even gets involved in it in the first place? How is it that after engaging in it people will still seek to engage in sodomy even when they don't swallow, in the case of oral sex, or don't have any semen squirted into them in the case of anal sex? How does your theory account for these factors. And to reiterate previous questions, how does it account for wealthy homosexuals, how dose it account for homosexual acadamians, how does it account for the lack of any sort of withdrawal symptoms?
nymphetal philokalia and nymphetal tachykalogeny
"Young and well-loved females are holy, and the emotion
of holiness is significant because it discourages genetic
crossover during spermatogenesis." -Stephen A. Meigs
Excerpts from Exact Morality for Today Part 2 by Stephen A. Meigs:
"Admittedly, the notion that girls should be able to have mistress sex more easily with adult men than with similarly aged men is rather alien to present-day society. I am somewhat hesitant to suggest that immediately girls should be discouraged from having mistress-sex relationships with young males, since in our present society, those relationships are probably the most special mistress-sex relationships that exist with any frequency. Indeed, it is much more important that young teen girls be allowed to have sex than that they be allowed to have sex with older males more easily than with younger males. And it would take time for society to adapt. Indeed, to allow men to have sufficient contact with young teens, there would have to be much more adult-child contact occurring outside the family than occurs now.[53]"
"The PTA should be about as important to kids as the school itself. And more than just parents should be involved—the whole neighborhood should be integrated into helping to edify and amuse its children and young teens. Indeed, how exactly society should change to encourage much (safe) interaction between adult and child would entail a revolution in social structures much too complex for me to even understand or describe.[54]"
Footnotes:
[53] Such a policy would be reasonable on a commonplace level as well. Put those who need most to learn among those with the most to teach and people as a whole will become more wise and less ignorant, even in matters not having anything to do with sex."
[54] I don’t even have a good general theory of how in our present society to meet interesting females (beyond that of writing a good book on moral philosophy that will hopefully be so awe-inspiring and well known that scads of females will want to communicate with me). People tend to think me shy, impractical, and—believe it or not—not quite the genius when it comes to practical social skills.
"Young and well-loved females are holy, and the emotion
of holiness is significant because it discourages genetic
crossover during spermatogenesis." -Stephen A. Meigs
Excerpts from Exact Morality for Today Part 2 by Stephen A. Meigs:
"Admittedly, the notion that girls should be able to have mistress sex more easily with adult men than with similarly aged men is rather alien to present-day society. I am somewhat hesitant to suggest that immediately girls should be discouraged from having mistress-sex relationships with young males, since in our present society, those relationships are probably the most special mistress-sex relationships that exist with any frequency. Indeed, it is much more important that young teen girls be allowed to have sex than that they be allowed to have sex with older males more easily than with younger males. And it would take time for society to adapt. Indeed, to allow men to have sufficient contact with young teens, there would have to be much more adult-child contact occurring outside the family than occurs now.[53]"
"The PTA should be about as important to kids as the school itself. And more than just parents should be involved—the whole neighborhood should be integrated into helping to edify and amuse its children and young teens. Indeed, how exactly society should change to encourage much (safe) interaction between adult and child would entail a revolution in social structures much too complex for me to even understand or describe.[54]"
Footnotes:
[53] Such a policy would be reasonable on a commonplace level as well. Put those who need most to learn among those with the most to teach and people as a whole will become more wise and less ignorant, even in matters not having anything to do with sex."
[54] I don’t even have a good general theory of how in our present society to meet interesting females (beyond that of writing a good book on moral philosophy that will hopefully be so awe-inspiring and well known that scads of females will want to communicate with me). People tend to think me shy, impractical, and—believe it or not—not quite the genius when it comes to practical social skills.
Does this help explain it?
"Basically, I am interested in almost everything of intellectual or artistic merit. Especial interests are mathematics, moral philosophy, and the history of the mid-nineteenth-century abolitionist movement in Massachusetts (the latter a recent interest arising partly from my having learned that I am descended from the abolitionist Maria Weston Chapman's brother). I have decided that moral philosophy is where my talent lies the strongest. That is why I decided to write my book, Exact Morality for Today, and offer it to the world. I like to hike in beautiful places, and I like to write poems." -Stephen A. Meigs
I’m sorry, I skipped half this post. But I thought I’d add a couple of things. I was in A’dam when some of the reports about the genetic linkage to homosexuality came out, and it was strange to see how the US and Holland reacted differently. It would seem that giving homosexuality a genetic link removed the ‘responsibly’, ‘choice’ and ‘blame’ which stigmatises it in certain countries. But in others it had negative connotations of disease and indicated that there was a need to find a cure.
I believe someone at the start of this is right. Paedophile and homosexuality are both ‘deviant’ behaviours (there is still ‘clinical homosexuality’ in psychology)). But the main difference is that the paedophile/and bestialphile is in most cases projecting enjoyment on to there subject. He/she is living in his own world quite unconnected with the rest of us. Now homosexuality has none of that. As with most consensual sex enjoyment of both partners is paramount.
But yous are all wrong, humans are naturally bisexual, and seek sexual enjoyment mentally and physically in wonderfully diverse ways.
I believe someone at the start of this is right. Paedophile and homosexuality are both ‘deviant’ behaviours (there is still ‘clinical homosexuality’ in psychology)). But the main difference is that the paedophile/and bestialphile is in most cases projecting enjoyment on to there subject. He/she is living in his own world quite unconnected with the rest of us. Now homosexuality has none of that. As with most consensual sex enjoyment of both partners is paramount.
But yous are all wrong, humans are naturally bisexual, and seek sexual enjoyment mentally and physically in wonderfully diverse ways.
If you are interested in my theory of nymphetal philokalia, EvilPoet, I've already talked about that in another thread in this forum:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16294&perpage=20&pagenumber=3 To stay on topic, you probably should discuss it there if you want.
Some people may be surprised that I could have extremely liberal ideas about some things and extremely conservative ideas about other things, but really it is only natural that once you have a clear idea about what depravity is, you realize with greater clarity what it isn't. There's no easy answer like "people are too sexually liberated" or "people are too sexually inhibited," each behavior should be examined individually. As for my theory about holiness and genetic crossover, I have discussed that in another forum,
http://pub16.ezboard.com/frealismfreeforall.showMessage?topicID=769.topic
Some people may be surprised that I could have extremely liberal ideas about some things and extremely conservative ideas about other things, but really it is only natural that once you have a clear idea about what depravity is, you realize with greater clarity what it isn't. There's no easy answer like "people are too sexually liberated" or "people are too sexually inhibited," each behavior should be examined individually. As for my theory about holiness and genetic crossover, I have discussed that in another forum,
http://pub16.ezboard.com/frealismfreeforall.showMessage?topicID=769.topic
Thanks but no thanks. To be perfectly honest with you, I think you made up the word nymphetal. You know - to make it sound more scientific or some such. The reason I say this is because when I looked it up in all the dictionaries I own I couldn't find it, when I looked it up at dictionary.com it said "No entry found for nymphetal" and gave suggestions, and when I looked it up at onelook it said: "Perhaps you meant: nymphales." As far as philokalia goes: this philokalia interests me yours does not.
I have a book entitled Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. On the front flap it says: "...Homosexuality has been scientifically documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and other animals worldwide." Why would we be excluded? That doesn't make sense to me. I mean afterall - we are Homo sapiens.
You're right, evilpoet, I did (knowingly) make up the word "nymphetal". "nymphetal" is a pretty word that rhymes with "petal", while "nymphetic" sounds like a word coined by one who beliieve girls have fish disease--I refused and refuse to use it. (When I had an aquarium, I had some fish that caught "ich" disease, the plague of aquarium owners.) Neither word is in my Webster's dictionary (though the word nymphetic is on the net various places.) I guess you think I'm a real radical for adding an adjectival suffix to a noun too obscure to have an official take in Webster's what the best adjectival suffix should be. It strikes me there are better things (like right here in this thread) a person with any bravery and decency should be taking exception about. Philokalia means in Greek "love of goodness" (for which there is no term in English), which precisely explains what girls have an unusual amount of. Another -al word I'd like to see become official is "sensical", which anyone who has read Sense and Sensibility must feel English badly needs (the word is all over the net). Sense is to sensibility as sensical is to sensible. According to Webster's, though, only "nonsensical" is a word, not "sensical"-- but that won't stop me from using it.