//"intended", "designed"... By whom?//

Who do you think, Stezza? They're referring to the non-existent sky fairy that their religion venerates.

Tony Lavis:

Where do you put your food when you are hungry - in your ear or in your mouth. If you put it in your mouth then are you following the dictates of nature or those of the non-existent sky fairy that your religion venerates?

//Where do you put your food when you are hungry//

I put it in my oven, phanto. It's a decidedly unnatural thing to do: my oven was manufactured in factory somewhere and it runs on electricity sourced from vast, industrial coal-burning power stations. Clearly if nature intended for us to eat cooked meat, animals would come cooked instead of raw. Maybe I should eat my chicken raw, the way nature intended. And die of salmonella poisoning the way nature intended.

But my chicken dinner will be a lot nicer and lot less likely to kill me if I engage in unnatural practices. Even if that does upset the sky fairy.

It is physics and medical science that advise women against permitting men to insert a penis or other object in their back passage. They are also advised against relationships men who indulge in risky sex.

If only the law would catch up to require men who engages in anal sex or other sex with men to formally advise women before attempting to initiate sex with them.

Science and risk assessment should advise girls and young women that where the consequence could be very serious harm to themselves or possible offspring, just one risk-taking experience even with a condom (that may fail) is sufficient to win a lottery they would bitterly resent ever taking part in.

Women should be very cynical about any claims of low risk, which are spruiked to assuage the claimed hurt feelings of thuggish Gay activists - the political correctness of Gay activism. There would likely be less than a 1:1,000 risk of being shot if standing in front of the 500yd target on a rifle range with an untrained person shooting one shot. But would you take that risk? What about if he shot again and again?

We should all be standing up for girls and young women and for the children they may want to have one day.

" Women, young women and girls need to be supported in refusing ... actions that are stupidly risky and damned offensive to them."

Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 4 September 2015 10:40:00 AM

I agree.
.

There are appeals to nature.

Many married couples engage in oral sex.

"It's not natural as the orificia have different uses, as intended by nature, therefore any practice, in this regard, that is not intended by nature is therefore not natural. The fact that some heterosexual couples engage in unnatural practices doesn't make such practices intended by nature."
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 4 September 2015 11:13:52 AM

"It is physics and medical science that advise women against permitting men to insert a penis or other object in their back passage."
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 4 September 2015 12:39:52 PM

'physics' and 'medical science' do not 'advise' per se.

Though they are often cited in advice.

I was reading an account recently of a woman who never orgasmed until she tried anal sex; thereafter she was fine orgasming with conventional sex. Go figure.

.