The No Win Situation

[Doc]

I would like to state that at this point, I am Switzerland :unsure:

There is obviously no winning side in this deliciously heated debate, but I do see some tempers flairing.

I apologize if my off colour remarks were taken in the wrong way, I was attempting to lighten the mood with a little humour. I probably took it to far with the Butt Bandit remark. I thought it might get a laugh. My bad. I retract my statement and offer an apology instead.

I never once stated this was an AA bill, infact, if you go back and read, I stated this has nothing to do with the AA umbrella. Or at least, that is what I was trying to imply.

I dunno where to find them, but there are many transcripts, entire novels worth, of discusions in the house about this bill. I had mine snail mailed to me. They shed a great deal more light on the issue then the bill actually does. The bill, according to both it's defenders and it's critics, is poorly worded, lacks substance, and uses many umbrella terms, leaving many parts intentionaly vague and open to personal interpretation. This is indeed dangerous. The man who created this bill and the people who helped push it into existence, did so purely out of malice, not out of any sense of justice. Whether or not they did the right thing is open to debate, but they did it for all the WRONG reasons. I don't think that point can be argued, considering the actual confessions made by several house representitives.

Back to the point.

This is indeed a No Win Situation in the long run. In the long run, I can only see this doing more harm then good. I can see businesses losing customers, businesses taking the fine on the chin, and businesses closing their doors to avoid the issue altogether.

As for the health statistics about homosexuals having a shorter life span, I read something very similar in an AMA journal. That was about, hmm, 3 or 4 years ago. And there is a lot more to it then it seems as first. a VAST part of the homosexual population are, infact, imigrants from other countries who have came here to escape sexual persecution, and do not speak English. This study, the the fatality rates were based on a huge percent of the homosexual population not being able to speak English or Spanish, and not enough was being done to educate folks about STDs in other languages. The death rates were an overall study, with broad stretching numbers that skewed the results a bit. Also in that study, they concluded that many lesbian women were subject to higher cancer rates, due to the lack of pregnancies and having more periods. Elevated levels of estrogen caused higher rates of female cancers. Also noted in this study as an aside is that women who take birth control pills and do not have children till their 40s also suffer much of the same effect, so I don't think it's fair just to label the homosexual community with this. The numbers really were reaching, so I for one do not think it is entirely fair to use this as leverage, but that's just me.

There was however, one study that really did cast a shadow over the gay community, I tried searching for link but could not find one yet, will have to search more or perhaps a search wizard here could find it. Gay men suffered astronomically higher rates of colon cancers, rectal cancers, and cancers in that area due to over stimulation of the prostate and increased, nearly poisonous levels of testosterone. I don't remember much about it, so I am not qualified to go into the details. Testicular cancer was also rampant. Perhaps this is skewed as well due to the homosexual imigrant population not getting regular prostate exams, I do not know. If somebody could find more details on this, I for one would appreciate it :)

[Jester]

While I understand your righteous zeal in correcting the incorrect, could you maybe argue and debate a little more, and rant and rave a little less? I count no less than 29 times where you found it necessary to scream to make your point. Maybe keep it to a dull roar?

Jester

Edit: I see our esteemed moderators have already found your posts. Heed well their advice.

[Jester]

"Why are our bodies perfectly designed for (damn this manipulative term!!) heterosexual behavior, whereas homosexual behavior is every bit as nonsensical as designing a car which drives only backwards and has no brakes..."

"Human beings are SCIENTIFICALLY observable to be built excelusively for (aaargh here it comes again!!!) heterosexual behavior"

Would it not be true that, if your contention was valid, homosexual behaviour would be impossible for humans, since our perfect, exclusive heterosexual design would prevent anal sex, or any such practice?

Since this is demonstrably false, since we are all capable of the mechanics of homosexual behaviour, can we not logically conclude that this particular point is also demonstrably untrue?

Jester

[Feryar]

Although current studies conclude that homosexuality is not stemed in genetics or psychology, it doesn't explain how many individuals discover what homosexuality is AFTER they've realized their attraction to the same sex. Maybe people are indeed born homosexual, just as most of us are born heterosexual. Science has certainly been wrong before.

The freaky part is that men have one of 3 g-spots in the anus :wacko:
What a waste.

People get born with all kinds of weird stuff. Even twins that have their heads grown together. That's a hell of a lot more strange than someone being born homosexual.
I'm very curious to what kind of explanation those who dismiss the "born with it" theory has. Do they think it's some kind of virus? that people do it because they are evil?

Personally I think the birth-explanation makes most sense.

[LemmingofGlory]

Common sense tells us that if human beings had no control over their sexual behaviors, actions, choices, attitudes, and whatnot, then not even rape or pedophilia could be justifiably outlawed. You cannot rightly punish people for doing that which they MUST do. Would you punish a man for eating? Noooooo.

Hogwash. Sex is a behavior. Nobody has to have sex. Behaviors can be outlawed on the basis that they victimize another person.

Freud's ramblings by comparison fail the reality test time and time again, which is no biggee really cuz ol Siggy is long dead while God is eternal so no great loss.

Actually, deities tend to fade out of popularity after a time. (See the GrecoRomand pantheon, etc.) The Judeo-Christian deity has enjoyed a long run of popularity, but that doesn't mean it'll be around forever. As for Fraud, he was a sex-obsessed looney.

-Lem

(Edit: Removed 2nd paragraph.)

[Tiffany_Scott]

Not reasonably. Because for males in particular to engage in homosexual behavior inevitably leads to physical injury, as any proctologist could tell you. The anus isn't a vagina, and trying to make it work as such is why I used the analogy of driving a car backwards with no brakes. Sooner or later there's gonna be a crash, and whether the injuries will prove to be fatal or not is the only question which then remains.


I want people to focus on the freaking BILL, anyway. Stop using fallacious arguments designed to tug at people's sympathies. The Doc and me and others are, I'm sure, alarmed by the fact that the state of California is possibly about to take the drastic step of trampling upon people's freedom of conscious in a manner which does indeed violate both the spirit and the law of which America is supposed to be about. Cross-dressing is a BEHAVIOR, a CHOICE, and I and many others find it to be a silly, indulgent, nonsensical, irrational, and unnecessary choice. To be sure, we are already at the point in many cities--both large and small--that a male cross-dresser can appear in public inside a Walmart SuperCenter (or wherever) and be subjected to only occasional quizzical glances. Is that not enough? Why must the huge, overwhelming, and oppressive power of THE!! STATE!! be granted to such sad persons to insure that they can also show up at an employer's door looking not unlike a weird caricature of that which nature, science, and the dreaded ree-lij-yun all say he is NOT: namely, a woman. The fact that said male wants to pooch out his lower lip like Bill Clinton used to do for the TV cameras, and start whining that he FEELS he is a woman trapped inside a man's body (sounds like a personal problem to me, bub; ever thought of seeking some counseling?), is immaterial.

We are a REPUBLIC. You people had better get that through your heads. We cannot afford to indulge the strange, selfish whims of every human being out there. Already there are lobbying groups advocating the repeal of statutory rape laws so that adult males can engage in consensual sex with pre-pubescent boys (NAMBLA being the most well-known of these). What arguments are you tolerant people going to use later to prevent THAT behavior from happening, especially given that two of the world's most advanced earlier civiliations--Greece and Rome--both adopted such policies, allegedly to the wild enthusiams of the majority of their respective populaces. Our Founders despised the simplest, rawest forms of democracy for this very reason among others, and chose republicanism instead. Democracy in its basest form is simply mob rule; it is two wolves and a chicken voting on what will be eaten for lunch. Besides which, there IS NO MAJORITY clamoring for this bill to be drafted, introduced, or passed into law. As is almost always the case with today's Democrat party, THEY determine what becomes law based solely on the demands of their biggest financial contributors. The homosexual lobbying groups are among one of the donkeys' most generous groups of supporters, and if enough of THEM clamored for the repeal of statutory rape laws the donkeys would no doubt quietly and predictably start attempting to reshape the minds of voters into accepting this as being the compassionate, caring, fair-minded thing to do. Keep in mind this is the same political party that regularily hosts huge fund-raisers out at the mansions of the nations' biggest porno kings, such as Huster's Larry Flynt and Playboy's Hugh Hefner. They would cheerily throw all of our kids onto the laps of pedophiles if even 1/3 or so of their registered voters could stomach it (maybe even less, provided their media allies went along), and so I am neither intimidated nor impressed by their deceitful, manipulative attempts at defending this bill as being merely yet another piece of civil rights law blah blah blah whuch will benefit THE!!!!!! AMERICAN!!!!!!! PEOPLE!!!!!!!

I'm an American people myself, and I know damn good and well it wouldn't benefit ME, my community, or anyone I know and love. We don't need to be ordered about like dogs to hire men dressed up like our mothers-in-law, and I've STILL not heard any intelligent reasons from anyone here or elsewhere as to why I should allow the State to forcibly co-erce me into doing so, all at the literal point of a gun lurking unsubtly behind the threatened huge fines, the handcuffs, the prisons, and most of all the .32 Colt Special neatly clipped onto Officer Friendly's Sam Browne belt... :/

[Archon_Wing]

Then why is that openly homosexual donkey-party legislator okay in formulating a bill designed to extend HIS views on homosexual behavior into the lives of every sentient being living within the confines of the nation's most populous state?

Umm, last time I heard he was not forcing anyone to be gay. Obviously his more extremnist actions like depiction of graphic gay sexual activity was ridiclous not due to homosexuality being wrong but due to common sense.

There's a diffrence between standing up for your beliefs and pushing them on other people. While his former actions indeed make him an extremenist, we are discussing this issue.

Meaning: what kind of nation do we choose to be? What ideas and principles do the majority of us espouse, embrace, and defend?

That's a great question. But I dare you to speak for the entirty of America.

You name me what sort of benefit humanity derives from homosexual behavior, and maybe I'll defend it. I see only negativity associated with and from that behavior, period. ONLY negativity.

There are a lot of things were society does not benifit from. But how would this harm anyone? Homoesexuals cannot have children. How is this a threat to society?

California skewls in particular STRIONGLY OVERWHELMINGLY present in their various K-12 social studies-health class textbooks the specious notion that homosexual behavior is morally equivalent to male-female relations in every way imaginable. They browbeat and intimidate students into being ashamed of even THINKING of daring to express any criticism of homosexual behavior. 

How odd, I haven't seen a textbook telling me to embrace homosexuality. Maybe I'm not in the right school.

You're thinking WAY too narrowly, then. I clearly stated that it is a historical fact that when human socities decline to such a point that they can no longer say 'no" to any of of the silly, nonsensical, unhealthy, and above all UNWORTHY whims which are ALWAYS being promulgated by various small groups of out-of-the-mainstream people, then wholesale societal collapse inevitably follows.

And I could say you are thinking too broadly. Something along the lines of a slippery slope.
Oh yeah, why is "tolerance" considered by you as conforming to your beliefs? Perhaps you and I have a diffrent definition for that word

[Jester]

"Because for males in particular to engage in homosexual behavior inevitably leads to physical injury, as any proctologist could tell you."

Ah. So you're confusing the concepts"dangerous" and "exclusive".

Since it is true that nearly any sexual activity can either lead or not lead to injury (as any doctor of any stripe will tell you), I find your point to be of little worth. Anal sex, while dangerous, does not "inevitably" lead to anything, except itself. Proper protection, lubrication, and attention can make it not particularly more dangerous than any other kind of sex. Your exaggeration, if it is that, confuses your point (which is also wrong, but not necessarily in a rigorously logical way).

"Stop using fallacious arguments designed to tug at people's sympathies."

I defy you to find a single fallacy in that post. The conclusions lead from the assumptions, although not all of them are stated. If you can, I would gladly withdraw it. I'm fairly certain that, while Pete might be able to, you can't. As for tugging at people's sympathies, this is simply absurd. Nothing I said had even the smallest emotional appeal. It was an excersize in pure logic, as opposed to your nonsensical rant.

"I'm an American people myself..."

I thought only God could be many people in one. :huh: Miracles abound, I suppose.

Stop ranting if you want to remain on these boards. The mods tend to prefer people who aren't empty flamers.

Jester

[Vandiablo]

*yawn*

Typical internet thread... more a platform for ranting than a desire to understand another's views... but, there's just one thing I feel compelled to respond to... I'm just an average Joe Van Smith, not an expert in these matters, but still, here goes!

I've never yet met any self-proclaimed 'tolerant' person who wasn't hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular

Maybe that's because anyone who tries to excercise tolerance, real real-world tolerance, gets whacked in the head with Bibles by people who shout ALL!! THE!! ANSWERS!!

Here's my thoughts for you:

Christianity is about love. Love thy neighbor. Love thine enemy. Love your boss. Love that guy who wears Sheer Energy under his Poodle Skirt. Love Ellen.

(And don't forget, let the person who is without sin cast the first stone.)

Guess what else? In all the depictions I've seen, JESUS DIDN'T WEAR PANTS!!

Neither does God for that matter. But God's not male, right? The Bible says "He". So is "He" male? Does He wear pants? What kind of pants does God wear? Not blue jeans, I suppose, since many of us find it disrespectful to wear jeans to church. Lessee, he rested on the Seventh Day, after many Labours. Maybe he wears sweat pants. Hmm, maybe I should start up a denomination, where the Truly Faithful only wear sweatclothes. "Old Navy" is good, referring to Noah and his "Navy of One", but "The Gap" is not sanctioned, as it refers to, well we're not sure exactly, but it sounds dirty....

Okay, enough speculation about God's laundry ... push in the clutch ... shifting back to "real" mode...

Jesus went among the sinners and loved them. From what I read, Jesus seems to like their company better than the SELF!! RIGHTEOUS!! BLOWHARDS!! that led the local religious groups (those who seeked to use J's own arguments against him) or those that profit financially from religion (the money-changers). Of course, Mr. J was working to bring them to God, but had to actually associate with them first. You can't show them love and respect by snubbing them.

So, theoretically, or should I say "theologically", true Christians should be more tolerant and forgiving than just about anybody. And I've known many who are; these people are amazing. Then there are those who see everything in a "good vs. evil" light, telling everyone else that they must STOP!! THE!! SINNING!! else God is gonna come kill everybody, these people IMO are, um, harder to love.

-V
"All You Need Is Love! ... and this marvelous Armageddon Amulet, our gift to those who give a $29.95 contribution..."

[BigGrim]

I haven't posted in quite a while here at the Lurker Lounge, wonder if anyone still remembers me...

Anyhow, I'd just like to make a few additional comments:

Our concept of dress is a cultural distinction.

In the land of America, where multiple cultures interact, I would think there would be a greater understanding of this concept. Cross-dressers are a minority culture and I've not seen many laws that prohibit how a person should dress unless they express messages that are a clear and present danger. If a man chooses to dress in a skirt, why should it be any different than if a woman decides to wear a tie? There are the kimono's of Japan and the grass skirts of Hawaii, both useable by men and women, no one seems to flinch at the sight of men wearing those. I'm sure others could bring up examples, but the acceptance of those things were cultural and perhaps gradual.

Cultures evolve. Ours is supposed to be evolving into one where men and women are equal, but there are several statistics that can point this to still be far from the truth. I understand that there are certain things that men and women cannot do that the other gender can based on biology, but since when has how one dresses been restricted by biology? Are there still people clamoring about women wearing skirts down to their ankles? Why the big deal about feminizing men when we've been masculinizing women? Why is it logical to discriminate against men because men's clothes have been deemed "uni-sex" but not women's clothes? Have you ever tried a skirt in the summer? It's really comfortable!

Homosexuality occurs in nature and not just with humans.

I learned this in Physical Anthropology. Look up Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl, St Martin's Press, New York (1999). It's got wonderful studies on homosexual behavior when it comes to animals in general, and more relevantly on our closest relatives according to DNA markers: the great apes. Bonobos, in particular, are prone to homosexual and bisexual behavior.

Sex feels good. Physical stimulation of the body is pleasureable, so why is it that sexual interaction should only be restricted to unions that can bring about children? Homosexuals can still have sex with someone for the purposes of having a child, but they might just out and out enjoy sex with their same gender more. It has been noted that species with higher brain functions (dolphins, apes, and man) are the creatures that are most likely to engage in sex simply for pleasure and not the need to procreate. Limiting our social interactions simply because of a falsely perceived biological limitation like it's supposed to be there for the act of procreation isn't right. The male penis isn't a limited organ. It allows for waste disposal and procreation, but it also allows for simple pleasure.

Anyhow, I'm certain there are other points other people can make, I'm just going to go back to lurking.

-Grim-

[Haider]

Great post!

[Nystul]

So, theoretically, or should I say "theologically", true Christians should be more tolerant and forgiving than just about anybody. And I've known many who are; these people are amazing. Then there are those who see everything in a "good vs. evil" light, telling everyone else that they must STOP!! THE!! SINNING!! else God is gonna come kill everybody, these people IMO are, um, harder to love.

A good Christian must be both of these types at once. While Jesus liked to hang out with sinners, he was also the ultimate evangelist and pretty big on the issue of repentence. When he returned to cities where he had performed miracles and found that the people did not repent, he had some pretty grim warnings about their future.

You cannot love someone if you choose to snub them and hold yourself on a higher plane. But if you love someone, will you let them live a life of sin without trying to teach them the path to salvation? Should I shake someone's hand and share a meal with him, and then quietly condemn him to eternal hell? I'll grant you that sometimes the most direct approach to evangelism is not the most effective, but I'm also saddened to see how many mistake the gift of the gospel for some sort of personal insult.

Working back away from the tangent: What a person wears is not so much a matter of importance as why a person chooses to wear it. A homeless man who comes into a church wearing jeans should be welcomed with open arms, but a wealthy church member who decides service is not important enough to dress up for deserves a little ribbing about his priorities. What a person wears to work also sends a message. Wearing a nose ring and a spiked collar is not a sin (as far as I can remember, anyway ;), but it sends a message of rebellion. "Rebellious" isn't generally the trait employers are looking for. Flagrant crossdressing kind of fits the same category.

As for Jesus's choice of dress, I don't recall it being particularly controversial. But perhaps people were so distracted by him working on the Sabbath, not washing his hands to eat, and overturning tables in the temple, that they never noticed the mohawk and body art! More seriously, one of his parables uses a man who doesn't wear wedding clothes to a wedding as a metaphor for a person who isn't prepared for heaven, so the social importance of wearing the proper clothing is certainly nothing new.

[Doc]

I am no Trouser Tyrant, I assure you. There is a BIG difference between dressing up like a lady and wearing kimonos, sarongs, kilts, hoopais, robes, sarapes, and grass skirts. To further drive that point home, my wife is a Scottish Lass. She is going to have one of those great big Scottish reunions. And I am being fitted for a kilt of all things pretty soon. I have even been informed of the proper reply for when somebody asks, "What is worn under a kilt?" "Why nothing Laddie, it's all in good working order down there!"

Jesus openly condemned men acting efeminate. Please, for the love of God, don't bring him into this, trying to twist 2000 year old religious views. Jesus spoke of proper dress, social grace, simple manners, and of common kindness. Yes, he did tell us to love one another. But he also said to give up all we have, and follow him. People use that love one another bit like some sort of weapon, and end up as fools. Jesus loved people enough it seems to use a cat o nine tails right in his Father's own house, lashing out, flipping over tables, and cursing and spitting. Jesus, most importantly, was HUMAN and he was prone to human bouts of emotion.

I do not burn witches, or gay folks for that matter, having friends who are infact, in those camps. There has been many occasions where I have broke bread with my Wiccan friends, and we have lovely dinner parties and chat about all manner of things, and one of my wife's friends is a gay black man of all things, two things all rolled into one that you do not want to be here in the South. We have become close, to some degree, and we have talked at great length about many things. I condemn his choice of lifestyle, but I admire his philosophies and his courage to "dare to be different."

Heck, if you want to get down to brass tacks, we all have something that will condemn us. I know for my self, I experimented a great deal with drugs back in the 60s and 70s. I am still prone to binge drinking on occasion. I can't make excuses.

Inspite of that, there are some things that I feel are just "wrong" and would be a lot more comfortable having those things kept at home. If there are laws about public intoxication and making a jackass out of your self, perhaps anybody wearing a skirt in public should be obligated to undergo a breathilizer test, to at least make sure they are sober in their endevours.

[Occhidiangela]

I set my own dress code. If the employee will not comply, he is free not to take the job. He is also free to seek employment elsewhere.

Why do I use HE?

Women already dress like men a great deal in many environments. It is the man dressing as a women that is the non sequiter.

For the woman, it is seen, in some cases, as wearing the uniform of a social advancement. It has never been seen in a social context that a man dressing as a woman is empowering.

For the state to micromanage the dress code of a business, be it large or small, smacks of fascism: yes, the fusion of the industry and the state.

That said, my brother has worked for IBM for years. I spent some years in the military. My brother wears a uniform to work in the form os his jacket and tie, a uniform defined as much by informal norms as by IBM's dress code.

What color is your tie?

[Occhidiangela]

Homosexual pairs cannot breed, in the human species, but they can adopt. :o And lately, the lesbian couples can get David Crosby, or some other suitable semen factory, to donate the seed. This of course is blatant discrimination against gay male couples, the ADam and Steve's of the world, who don't have that uteral advantage: they have to adopt due to society's biological tyrrany! :P

[Occhidiangela]

Reply to Jester, but all are invited into this side bar discussion.

A year or so ago, I presented the mechanical argument in a similar discussion. I was hoping to elicit a few laughs. Is it time to take a closer look at the mechanical argument and some logical grounding of the sodomy laws? Given that the Supreme Court has, after some 35 years, finally ruled that "between consenting adults, the state has no place" we might consider on what basis the sodomy laws could have been defended: the "conclusion" might surprise you.

If sex is aimed at function by design, then the sexual organs can be looked at from a very simple mechanical perspective: tab d goes into slot c, just like on a cereal box top. For regular male female intercourse, the variety of tab d slot c geometries can be defended as appropriate to optimizing function based in imperfect fit or state of skeletal or muscular health, and as such many positions once defined as "illegal" are shown to be acceptable on a valid functional basis. Hooray so far! :D (Woof Woof)

Even assuming that functional relationship as valid, the sodomy laws approach other tab-slot relationships.

Alternate tabs first:

As to tabs: fingers, tongues, carrots, noses, zucchinis, vibrators, the list is long and distinguished. None of these tabs can induce procreation, unless previously filled with reproductive matter and having suitable plumbing/piping provided. We won't open Pandora's technology box, and will limit the scope to base equipment levels, sort of a "come as you are" approach. (Sorry, a bad pun.) If sex is aimed at both function and pleasure, then it matters not, but if sex is by design functional, then the pleasure sensation is an inducement to promote reproductive behaviour and so ensure the survival of the species. Surrogate tabs, then, might be considered a valid path to practice for the "real event?" Hard to say. (bad pun) ONe could also consider the "pleasure is irrelevant" argument of those Muslims who Circumcise/mutilate females. (BOOO HISSSSSSSSS!!!) I reject that on four grounds. It takes intervention to make it happen, violating the "come as you are" premise (in more ways than one), so By Design, no way. Damnit, it's just plain mean! If the pleasure was not functionally necessary, it would not be a feature. (The Buzzard argument.) It completely ignores the condition of pleasure of the other tab/slot participant! I think I am right, but have proved nothing. I have not answered the exam question yet:

Biologically, was sex designed as a solely functional reproductive tool? Put a completely different way, does a cow ever have an orgasm? We can be pretty certain the bull does. But does he enjoy it on a spiritual level, or is it just "release" in the same way that a person gets a release after having had to hold one's coffee/beer for too long before finally getting to rebalance fluid levels in the loo?

Since we don't know the answer to that, not the orgasmic cow, but the "is it a dual purpose functional design" we have to explore a bit more. I lean for dual purpose, but I admit to a bias in that regard, and really want to keep this a bit more objective, since I can't prove it. :)

Slots: Functionally, this boils down to three. The original, which both functionally and sensorily appears to fit all bills, and the two most popular options: the mouth and the rectum. But slots are not designed equally! That much we do know. :)

(As to non bodily surrogate slots, such as apple pies, we will leave that to an equivalent of the practice via zucchini.)

Slot functionality can be described in terms of the check valve. Is it a one way check valve, or a two way check valve?

The mouth is a two way check valve, by design. Food in, puke up the poisons by reverse parastalsis out, as well as spitting for out. That is allows "oh baby oh baby" utterances as well as the "oh God, I'm--" well, you get the picture. (This thought strengthens our "multipurpose" overall design principle, by the way, so hurrah for zucchinis! No jokes about "as American as apple pie" please. Oops, just made one!)

The original orifice, is a two way check valve: tab and seed in, baby out.

The rectum is by functional design a one way check valve: waste out, no basic function for in. (Note: proctologists are all violators of nature, blast them, even if they are trying to save your life!) The motive muscle tissues are not designed to pull anything up and in, though the check valve part does allow deliberate "stoppage" of the process now and again. (Else we'd all still wear diapers.) On the other hand, how did Papillon save his money? The supository depository, old school European banking on Devil's Isle . . . but back to our subject at hand.

One could conclude from a functional basis that the only illogical form of tab/slot is anal intercourse, but that does rely on the check valve model being the correct analogy. All others can, at least from the input output design frame of reference, be argued as being at least functionally appropriate, even if it is an alternative function.

This takes us back to what the genitals were designed for. They were, of course, dual purpose from the beginning, being both the path for the exchange of reproductive materials AND the path for liquid waste products leaving the body. No functional tool is equipped for ingesting solid or liquid waste (technically, poison) and indeed, a whole array of sensors are provided for preventing the accidental ingestion of solid or liquid waste:

Eyes Hands(touch) Ears Nose Brain (decisions on whether or not to eat the buffalo chip) -- The risk that the mouth or nose can be used as a waste ingestion orifice requires the higher sensory functions, the brain, to use those sensory pathways to prevent that self destructive act. (Hmmm, where does Guinness fit into this? Ah, yes, Guinness is a surrogate for Mother's Milk, all is well! :D Lte's have another, each of us, before we proceed.

*Drinks* *Sighs with sensory pleasure* *Belches* *wipes lips* Where were we? Right, back we to go science and sex.

My conclusion? Wait, this is hardly science! :D My punch line? The Lesbian is on far stronger "functionally moral" ground than the gay male, since the typical pleasure pathways fit into pre existing functional roles, and the only sodomy functionally illegal is the term as applied narrowly. (Yeah, I am talking to the proctologists too!) Once again, biology is completely unfair, only this time, it is against rather than for the (gay) male. (The old "uterine unfairness" of the fem libbers being what I am lampooning here.)

But any functional discussion of the validity of sodomy statures is moot until we re examine the root cause (bad pun, again!) of this discussion:

Is sex designed for function, for pleasure, or for both? If both, then is it by definition aimed at pleasure for one or the other partner, or both? How multi purpose is multi purpose?

While my view is that "it" is designed as a two way physical and emotional pathway/interaction (you make love with some one, not TO someone) that point of view is hardly universal.

But luckily, even the zucchini is dual purpose, as it can be sauteed, grilled, steamed, or curried, so one need not toss them into the dust bin even if one takes the "functional only" approach! A recent teen angst film showed me that apple pies were, little had I known, also multipurpose. Arent you all glad that "Portnoy's Complaint" was never a mainstream movie?

We live and learn, but sometime, it all seems to be Too Much Information. :o Sort of like this post.

Apologies for any bad visuals induced by this post. I blame the caffeine.

*No Guinness was actually consumed during the creation of this post, which is not to say that Guinness consumption over a period of years did not have an influence on the brainwaves that made it all possible. Thanks, Arthur.*

[TaMeOlta]

:o All I can say is "wow" to all of this :o

But , a special thank you to Occhi ;) : I will never look at salad the same way ever again , nor listen to those cows from the secret cow level without out a knowing smirk :P !

[Occhidiangela]

"Guinness and Zucchini." :lol: The subject, of course, would be send ups of social issues.

Having just read, at last, Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" I am of course influenced by recency of experience.

Note: the best part of that book is that it came out pre 9-11. It presents Osama Bin Laden far more objectively than anything written since, and I must say that I think Friedman got that bit, one of his later chapters, right on: he basically predicted 9-11 without knowing he was doing so, I think.

"Super Empowered Angry Men" is Friedman's term for what defense and security specialists have been calling "extranational threats" since the Endless September of 1993, and the subsequent internet proliferation.

[Tal]

Hi. This is the "Scott" half speaking, so don't get all over Tiffy's case next time she posts some innocuous comment about Raven Frost rings absorbing Duriel's cold damage attacks, or whatever. :/

Either crap or get off the pot.

In other words either take the time to create your own username to post under or stop posting. It shows a definite lack of interest in and respect for the community for you to come here and use your wife's name to post your arguments.

[Occhidiangela]

I will never look at salad the same way ever again , nor listen to those cows from the secret cow level without out a knowing smirk

Now you know why they charge your Staff Wielding Barbarian! :lol: