McReal, "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"

Sounds more like creative storytelling.

BTW, was her partner recently released from gaol? Because ex-prisoners feature strongly as the mongrels who force anal sex on their partners, and are also implicated in high HIV infection and transmission to their partners - plural because typically they aren't so moral and principled either.

Any follow-up on her anal fissures, tests for anal cancer and those inevitable other nasties?

It is a serious problem both for health authorities and the women themselves that women are being made to feel like they are letting their partner down if they don't give in to anal sex.

Parents should be very concerned that the pervasive and systemic political correctness being pushed by media outlets like the ABC that should know better, is putting pressure on girls and young women to service men in ways that are opposed to their own preferences and comfort and WILL, not might, put them and their future children at serious risk.

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.

As a community and especially as parents, we should all be standing up defending the rights of girls and young women and for the children they may want to have one day.

extremist Muslim - blow up as many as possible
extremist Christian - point out the dangers of anal sex
extremist lefist- to dumb to equate any difference

Stezza, Rhrosty,

Just to be Devil's Advocate or advocate:

Just because chatterati-opinion-leaders rate the marriage equality issue highly doesn't mean people should be obliged to worry about it or go vote on in Parliament or by Referendum.

I remeber when AIDS was a worry inflicted through a hugely expensive advertising campaign in the 1980s to SCARE heterosexual families about it. See the Grim Reaper ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U219eUIZ7Qo .

Turns out that in the 1980s AIDS was a tiny threat to heterosexuals but a major threat to male homosexuals.

The fact that media producers, directors, especially Actors and Advertising execs were disproportionaley homosexual mean't Everyone had to be made SCARED.
_______________________________________________________

I agree onthebeach

The late Farra Fawcett most probably specified that she had "anal cancer" (not just "stomach cancer") because men inflicted an unhealthy frequency of anal intercourse on her http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sns-health-farrah-fawcett-anal-cancer-story.html

A J Philips:

“There is such a thing as the implicit and the explicit. You may not have explicitly made and argument one way or the other, but you certainly have done so implicitly.”

Why do you feel the need to tell me that since it would make absolutely no difference to the validity of the questions I asked? Perhaps you are just trying to impress us with your learning.

“Or do you expect others to believe that your question may actually be leading to an argument in support of same-sex marriage?”

You cannot deduce one way or the other what position I have on same-sex marriage from the posts in this thread. Perhaps if Tony Lavis gave me a good method for determining the best way to act in general then I could be persuaded to take up a position different from the one I hold without even mentioning the issue of same-sex marriage. Maybe you are dragging in other threads that you still have a grievance about.

Why not just wait until I present an argument and then respond to what I say rather than what you presume I will say. If you are confident in your arguments you will not need to jump the gun.

Is Mise,

Thank you for that one last demonstration of the Appeal to Nature fallacy involving chickens before you ask what it is.

<<Care to explain why the alleged fallacies are fallacies?>>

Toni just provided us all with a link to an explanation of what the Appeal to Nature is (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature). I also explained it recently to Phanto at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17607#311457.

As for the argumentum ad antiquitatem (otherwise known as the Appeal to Tradition fallacy), that’s the assertion that something is good or right just because that’s the way it’s always been (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition).

Phanto,

Since you are asking the question as a lead-in to an argument against same-sex marriage, it makes all the difference to the validity of your question.

<<Why do you feel the need to tell me that since it would make absolutely no difference to the validity of the questions I asked?>>

Unless you are actually just curious as to where Toni think one puts their food when they eat (in which case, you’re off topic and your question needs to be deleted), then the validity of your question hinges entirely on its relevance with regards to the same-sex argument debate.

<<You cannot deduce one way or the other what position I have on same-sex marriage from the posts in this thread.>>

Actually, I can from experience with many opponents of same-sex marriage. Including yourself when you made the same error in reasoning.

<<Perhaps if Tony Lavis gave me a good method for determining the best way to act in general then I could be persuaded to take up a position different from the one I hold...>>

This is a silly argument. You eat with your mouth out of habit and because that’s what you know will work. You don’t sit there and ask yourself what is natural.

<<Why not just wait until I present an argument and then respond to what I say rather than what you presume I will say?>>

Because you used exactly the same mouth/eating argument at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17607#311551, so I know where you're going with it.

But hey, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Well here it is for the day....rainbow hour...this site isn't sponsored by the ABC by any chance?
It's just not going to happen....it is already defeated...

Tony Abbott will be re-elected because nobody would be stupid enough to vote for the Labor Party...

There will be a plebiscite; on the strength of that vote, the reality will dawn on homosexuals that they are only two percent of the population, and nobody gives a tinkers damn what they want!

There...God has spoken!