Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (10446)	4/23/2002 10:14:38 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

"Do you have any position on men or women who engage in sex with sheep" They say the best position is to get the sheep into chin deep water so they are forced to shove back. That and a muddy bottom are bout the only good advice I could give you, Suh.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (10446)	4/23/2002 10:55:50 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I know you have a very high opinion of your setters, but I'm not willing to place them in the category of reasoning, consenting adults. I;'m getting confused. Are you really saying that a loving, caring physical relationship between two men or two women is comparable to some wacko getting off with a dog (which I would classify as abusive, I think)? ANd that any sexual act that isn't consummated by vaginal intercourse is, in your opinion, unnatural? Since the only thing I can see that sets male/female intercourse apart from other sexual acts, is that it's designed for procreation, then wouldn't your logic lead you to have sex only to procreate? Otherwise, you are just doing it for the same reasons anyone does who wants to be close to someone they love- to touch and be touched and to be gratified emotionally (and physically). Why then, should sexual acts be confined only to male-female, in one specific manner, if they are not intended for procreation? This has nothing to do with my personal opinions on any of these topics. I don't know that anyone should care what my or your personal feelings are about our sexual preferences. They are meaningless to any but ourselves if they occur between consenting adults and I don't believe that you or I or Po or E or Solon or.... have any particular market on morality here, except as it applies to our own behavior. I can certainly decide that I'd rather not spend my time socializing with a person who insists on regaling me with tales of his sexual conquests- be it with his wife in the missionary position or with his canary, but I hardly feel so morally superior that I will tell him what is Right and Wrong according to Rambi's Code of Sexual Behavior. Which, by the way, involves a lot of sticky gummi bears and an uzi. If you are referring to things outside the realm of a caring relationship, I probably would agree with some of what you say, but I also would feel the same aversion toward your "normal" act, if it is done outside a mutually caring and consensual relationship.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (10446)	4/24/2002 9:56:23 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I assumed you knew the difference between a human-using-dog and a human/human relationship, so that the question wasn't serious. But i'll be happy to answer it, though it seems that Rambi has done so. I have more to add, if you are really interested. Will you agree to respond to the substantive questions and issues in this post to you, which you ignored? These are the questions that must be answered by those who suggest the torment and misery of social opprobrium be administered to those whose love and sex drives differ from theres. You: <<The problem is that there does not exist a "natural" way for two men to have sex.>> Me: I find it genuinely amazing that you actually claim, with some pride, that you are somehow a better person, one less deserving of social opprobrium, because your drive and passion is to put your penis into your [female] beloved's vaginal orifice, than is a gay male whose lover's orifice features no clitoris, but a prostate gland and various nerve ends which, when stimulated, yield a natural orgasm. Question Number One: The male body was, by nature, given the capacity to have anal orgasm. (It wasn't, by nature, given Viagra; do you hold Dole in opprobrium because he uses the unnatural Viagra to achieve orgasm, and give it?) Question Number Two: I take it that you think gays should restrict themselves to oral sex? ... But wait: since that won't eventuate in ejaculation in a vagina, don't you "have problems" with that, too? You: <<Why can't two gay men enjoy their affection, love, companionship, without rectal sex? Just because it "feels good" will not do it for me.>> *Question Number Three, consisting of two parts*: Well, what will "do it" for you, in the lovemaking of those others? (a)Cuddling followed by mutual masturbation? Does that "do it" for you sufficiently that you will cease heaping opprobrium on your fellow citizens who are gay, and advocating that others do the same? (b)Or would you require the masturbation to take place in separate rooms, facilitated only by fantasies of kissing, of oral sex, of anal sex, or of mutual masturbation? Question Number Four: Would kissing be okay done together with the cuddling (cuddling is okay, right?), to be followed by repairing to separate rooms during masturbation? If the above reads as ridiculous, it's because it's ridiculous, imo. If you advocate or defend inflicting social opprobrium on others for engaging in their sexual acts of choice instead of in yours, then you really do have an obligation to make clear exactly what those acts are and aren't. And look how absurd it is when you project yourself into their bedroom and begin directing traffic.