The Forum > Article Comments > “Conscience vote” is no way to win equal marriage rights > Comments
“Conscience vote” is no way to win equal marriage rights : Comments
By Catherine Rose, published 30/9/2011Equal marriage rights are civil rights - and therefore should be upheld regardless - whether or not certain individuals approve.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Page 12
- 13
-
- All
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 12:26:03 PM
| |
Squeers,
There's all sorts of psychological aspects to anal sex. It's still slightly taboo, and that's always a turn-on, and there's a trust element and a real intimacy element. Domination is not necesarilty part of the equation at all. Though of course it can be. It can hurt if not done right and it can be great, so a lot of trust is necessary and being penetrated there is even more intimate as you wouldn't trust just anyone to go there. Allowing oneself to be vulnerable also doesn't necessarily translate to being dominated, and being vulnerable with someone you trust is a fair definition of intimacy. There are women who can orgasm from anal sex alone and most say it is a different type of orgasm to clitoral or vaginal penetration. Then there's enjoying all three at once of course. 'As far as I know the sphincter is not an erogenous zone'. Maybe you should try it out, it is for many people. Ever been licked down there:-)lol. Hygiene is essential of course. Oh, speaking of the psychological aspects, yet another is the trust that a partner will not think less of you for experimenting, in terms of being a 'dirty slut' for women and being 'gay' for men. The mind games in sex are the best part. Of course the idea that anal sex is 'gay' is as ridiculous as the idea that cunnilingus is 'lesbian', but the notion holds enough weight to be a source of threat in our society. A little known or acknowledged fact is that not all gays even indulge in anal sex at all. So then accepting fellatio might 'mean you're gay' too. The whole idea is preposterous, and fuelled by homophobia. Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 2:12:56 PM
| |
Houellebecq,
Thanks for the thoughts and I agree. My whole object in starting down this (dirt)track was to encourage free thought and open debate over an age-old taboo that so many people continue to be precious about. So thanks for being unselfconscious. And how do you know I haven't tried it (I meant above mainly that I hadn't tried it passively)? I've had a couple of girlfriends who were pretty adventurous! I've often noted that a primary objection to homosexuality is anal sex, so thought it should be canvassed that it's actually extremely common, and for sure the "sinfulness" of it is what makes it exciting! Human beings are fascinating creatures who live in two worlds, I reckon, the dreary material/organic world, and the psychological world of sheer confabulation. We're not really comfortable in own skins and our bodies are a source of endless fascination and consternation and energy and misery. We seem utterly Cartesian in our dualism of body and mind, treating the former completely naturally as other. So I doubt that anus is an erogenous zone, but to trippy human psychology the whole body is! Sex would just be CDF without fantasy, and whether we care to admit it or not, our fantasies thrive on taboos. Wish I had time to muse more on the subject. My first wife was a nurse and regaled me with lots of stories about men turning up in emergency with all manner of objects lodged immovable in the anus. For anyone who hasn't heard this hilarious story: http://videosift.com/video/Newsreader-Corpses-on-Radio-When-Reporting-Felchers enjoy : ) Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 5:21:00 PM
| |
My wife worked as a gynecological nurse in Cornell University Hospital. The gynecologist stated most problems came from excreta entering the sterile area of the vagina. A good reason to stay away from the anus during intercourse to preserve good health in women, beside causing rupture of the bowel.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 12 October 2011 6:35:25 PM
| |
Next someone will post a link to youtube for the Tony Ferrino (Steve Coogan) song Valley of Our Souls.
For this discussion Squeers and Houellebecq have - given the thrust of their main points - come upon a fitting end. Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 13 October 2011 5:55:07 AM
| |
'My whole object in starting down this (dirt)track was to encourage free thought and open debate over an age-old taboo'
Oh, mine was to upset homophobes. There's nothing more fun that discussing anal sex in front of a squeamish religious audience. I'm so dissapointed though the expression 'they're rubbin' it in our faces' hasn't been used. I always get a huge LOL out of that one. Philo, Perhaps that's from women wiping the wrong way when they go to the toilet. 'rupture of the bowel'? Wow, cant say I've ever heard of that happening during anal sex. You must be rough! You have to warm her up first! Maybe in the dark someone reached for a dildo and didn't realise it was a carving knife? Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 13 October 2011 8:56:19 AM
|
Thanks for that link. I knew the theory that Paul's letters may have been altered.
It then begs the question how many other bits of the Bible have been tampered with over time? Doesn't it make the claim of Bible inerrancy false? And if so, what does that say about honesty and religious teachings?
Paul's teachings have some glaring problems.
1. Paul was a Pharisee and you know what Jesus says about Pharisees in Matthew 23....Was this a prophetic warning about Paul?...Should a Christian follow a warning from Jesus?
2. In 1 Timothy 2:1-15...Even if someone else wrote it, it has outrageously oppressed women's spiritual journeys for 1000's of years.
3. Paul also said this:
1 Corinthians 14:37 “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
This becomes a slippery slope for biblical study. Can a man make a commandment? This is a massive statement by Paul.
Why would he say that everything he writes is a commandment?
Giving Paul the benefit of the doubt on his misogynistic ways is one thing but this is serious self aggrandisement.
Jesus, (the Son of GOD), gave two commandments, (not including the 10 commandments), in the gospels although the first is re-stating Commandment 1 of the 10 commandments. (As distinct from rulings ie…Turn the other cheek.)
Mark 12:30-31...http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Mark+12%3A30-31&version1=9
"....love the Lord thy God with all thy heart etc..."
"....Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
Seeing we have the 4 gospels of what Jesus was alleged to have said, and Jesus is the Christian’s saviour, why do religions spend so much time in Paul's writings? Paul was a man!
Do a little test if so so wish. Over coming weeks mark down the time your Preacher spends quoting men and women from the Bible, and how much time he spends quoting Jesus (not including the Lord's prayer). I think you will be amazed!
Philo,
Are you intelligent enough to question my discernment?...Lie down time