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 (11588)	5/1/2002 8:08:01 PM
From: Poet	Respond to of 21057

Others have supplied those fascinating details at your request, JC. Only in the interest of science, right? Perhaps it's merely senior moment, but you seem to have supplied some of those details all by your wrinkled lonesome: To:Steven Rogers who wrote (10229) From: J. C. Dithers Monday, Apr 22, 2002 10:08 AM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11594 Even though it's a society where lots of people enjoy anal sex without the slightest shred of shame? Yes, and even if there are people (apparently) who enjoy urinating and defecating upon each other, or torturing one another. BTW, how do you know that it is "lots" of people? Is there research available on this?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (11588)	5/1/2002 8:18:23 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Here are more examples of your most scientific questions: To:E who wrote (10444) From: J. C. Dithers Tuesday, Apr 23, 2002 9:48 PM View Replies (3) \| Respond to of 11595 You completely sidestepped my example of beastiality. Do you have any position on men or women who engage in sex with sheep or dogs? Do you feel it wrong of society to display opprobrium of such acts? And here you journey into a rectum: To:E who wrote (10502) From: J. C. Dithers Wednesday, Apr 24, 2002 11:29 AM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11595 No, I don't think I will respond. I'm tired of rectums. (rectophobia, probably). Actually, my mind has been wandering off the topic. I've been thinking of a sequel to "Fantastic Voyage," with Raquel Welch (1970s ?) Highly imaginative tale of miniaturizing humans for a voyage of exploration into the rectum. The intrepid adventurers in their miniature craft pass through the rectal orifice -- into a world of utter darkness, but one storied as the site of love, divine pleasure, and orgasm. A world bereft of clitoris, but with countless tingling nerve-endings and access to prostate gland. Our ship's powerful searchlight beam illuminates the way ahead. We come upon a milky white substance that momentarily envelops our craft. As we pass through it, the crew will use external probes to take samples for later analysis. Our adventure is far from without hazard. Following the twists and turns of the large intestine, our crew hears an ominous whooshing sound. It grows louder. The dreaded fart! Our ship is wildly buffeted by winds of up to a 100 mph! The crew holds on desperately, seatbelts straining. It passes as quickly as it came on. At least if wasn't the even worse tsunami of diarrhea, which might have violently swept our crew back whence they came. Navigating around a sharp bend, our skillful captain avoids a an ominously protruding polyp. Our crew is ever alert to an even greater danger, becoming bound, like Arctic explorers, in a mass of feces from which there can be no escape. No one wants to think of the worst danger of all -- that of a male sexual organ suddenly and without warning crushing our ship and its crew from behind. No, no, I decline to think about rectums any more. It is getting too much for me. Sorry. Where are my dogs? And here you are saying you'll stop: To:E who wrote (10572) From: J. C. Dithers Wednesday, Apr 24, 2002 6:15 PM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11595 E, I'm sorry to hear of the sad and lonely life of your aunt. Some day I will tell you the sad story of my uncle who was gay, but this is not the time. I don't wish to play the game with you any further concerning sex acts. A lot of graphic information has been posted by now, including anatomical details, and I feel we have gone far enough. Homosexuality is a divisive issue in our culture of considerable importance, and I don't think this particular line of inquiry has any further potential for illuminating the debate. I am dropping it. You can proceed as you see fit. Bestiality! Coprolalia! Pussy-licking! Oh, the details! Frankly, I can see why you're saying you've heard enough details. You must be exhausted by all that 'research". To:E who wrote (10610) From: J. C. Dithers Wednesday, Apr 24, 2002 8:40 PM View Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11595 Maybe after you've thought about it, you can spell it out. E- (Groan) -- This more or less started with me identifying rectal sex as a practice I abhor. What don't you find clear about that? Other practices were mentioned. Coprophilia (abhor!) Beastiality (abhor!) oral sex to ejaculation (somewhat disdainful!). (Oral sex as foreplay (Okay!). Hand jobs as foreplay (Okay!) Licking p---y as foreplay (Okay!) What am I not making clear here? Where am I confusing you? Do you see something vague here? Do we have to get together and go through your list, trying each thing out, for you to get it straight? (Not that I am necessarily ruling out that idea). Question for you: Do you think you are helping out the gay cause here? (Cause I don't think so).

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (11588)	5/1/2002 10:47:31 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I think I was coming to your defense. Either you, or someone resembling you strongly. The dismissal I referred to had to do with ruling out any right to judge others in their sexual practices, even if such judgment has no practical effect. How we form such judgments and whether they are merely arbitrary is a matter of some interest. Ruling them out of bounds from the beginning begs the question raised, which is, granted some things are wrong (for example, seduction of the very young), and that some things appear to be demeaning (for example, the darker forms of bondage)even if somehow consensual, how do we discriminate between the utterly harmless and the questionable? The lack of philosophic interest in the question by the thread appalled me, frankly. I think you should have been taken more seriously, rather than taken to task for raising the issue. My wife and son went to bed a little early, and I had to do some research, so I checked in tonight for awhile. I am glad you liked my earlier contributions. I hope the Sox did not disappoint.....