Homosexual Intercourse - is it wrong?

[manker]

What's all this spam about love and relationships.

It's a simple question ffs. Is there any scientific justification for the penis being inserted into the anus. Is it a natural thing to do. Surely the simple answer is no, it's not a natural thing to do. It is therefore an un-natural act, or to put it another way, wrong.

You can use all the mumbo-jumbo you want to justify it. That changes nowt, people are performing an un-natural act for their carnal gratification..

Speaking of mumbo-jumbo, some cawk earlier in the thread said that oral sex wasn't wrong because the mouth was also an 'in door'.

I contend that in a certain circumstance, the arse functions perfectly well as an 'in door'.

Peristalsis must work both ways as turtle-heading is a time honoured practice in the art of avoiding shitting yourself.

Therefore if anal sex is wrong (as per thread title), oral sex must be too.

[Chip Monk]

Ah, the misinformed using poorly understood science in support of their specious arguments. One of my all time favourite things.

Peristalsis is involuntary muscular movement, the fact that you may assist by a bit of voluntary downward force is not peristalsis. The retreival of a turd, via the gift of the cheek clench is also not peristalsis.

The arse is not an in door, it may be occasional used (by some deviants) as a temporary holding area, however it is not a proper way in. There is no normal biological function which requres anything being inserted. I preclude medical examination or treatment, obviousement.

[manker]

Ah, the misinformed using poorly understood science in support of their specious arguments. One of my all time favourite things.

Peristalsis is involuntary muscular movement, the fact that you may assist by a bit of voluntary downward force is not peristalsis. The retreival of a turd, via the gift of the cheek clench is also not peristalsis.

The arse is not an in door, it may be occasional used (by some deviants) as a temporary holding area, however it is not a proper way in. There is no normal biological function which requres anything being inserted. I preclude medical examination or treatment, obviousement.

Two whole paragraphs about misusing a single word.

Ah, misdirection. One of my all time ... .

Anyway. If using your arse as an 'in door' while performing the turtle-head manouvre isn't wrong then your arse can be described as an 'in door' in certain circumstances, ergo - according to the logic supplied in an earlier post - anal sex isn't wrong.

Simply put, if a mouthful of cawk can be described as 'not wrong' soley because the mouth can be used as, but not exclusively as, an 'in door'. Then an arseful of cawk can also be described as 'not wrong' because the arse can be used as, but not exclusively as, an 'in door'.

[thewizeard]

What's all this spam about love and relationships.

It's a simple question ffs. Is there any scientific justification for the penis being inserted into the anus. Is it a natural thing to do. Surely the simple answer is no, it's not a natural thing to do. It is therefore an un-natural act, or to put it another way, wrong.

You can use all the mumbo-jumbo you want to justify it. That changes nowt, people are performing an un-natural act for their carnal gratification..

Could be true..but then explain why the anus is placed so close to the vagina .. That was asking for trouble.

... in the end who cares...as long as they keep it out of my anus...

[Barbarossa]

ears are almost exclusively an in-door, but only the extremely enthusiastic would contemplate inserting their cawk into one.

I'm not buying into the "in-door" "out-door" analogy.

Oral sex performs a function, especially during foreplay, because the saliva lubricates the cawk into a heightened state of arousal in preparedness for the great vaginal escapade to follow.

Deep-throating is of course not especially conducive to this function, and is entirely a matter for the participants in question.

[Chip Monk]

So, enlighten me, what would the normal, natural function be, which involved the arse as a way of getting things into the body. As stated earlier, this isn't a moral judgement we're talking about here, so try not to use those tricks again. Were talking biology.

The arse is used to get ........... into the body. This function is used in order to allow us to ........... Please fill in the blanks for me.

[Barbarossa]

Could be true..but then explain why the anus is placed so close to the vagina .. That was asking for trouble.

Intelligent Design...

[Gripper]

Feck me,shouldn't this be in the drawing room.

[Chip Monk]

What's all this spam about love and relationships.

It's a simple question ffs. Is there any scientific justification for the penis being inserted into the anus. Is it a natural thing to do. Surely the simple answer is no, it's not a natural thing to do. It is therefore an un-natural act, or to put it another way, wrong.

You can use all the mumbo-jumbo you want to justify it. That changes nowt, people are performing an un-natural act for their carnal gratification..

Could be true..but then explain why the anus is placed so close to the vagina .

Gravity.

[manker]

So, enlighten me, what would the normal, natural function be, which involved the arse as a way of getting things into the body. As stated earlier, this isn't a moral judgement we're talking about here, so try not to use those tricks again. Were talking biology.

The arse is used to get ........... into the body. This function is used in order to allow us to ........... Please fill in the blanks for me.

Oh deary me

I don't think anal nor oral sex is a normal, natural biological function to get stuff into the body. I've never said I did. A chap earlier implied disagreement with this statement in its entirety purely because of the 'in door' nature of the mouth.

I mentioned it not because I disagreed with your, Chip Monk's, post but because you mentioned mumbo-jumbo and it put me in mind of it.


I think I'll post this sentence again for no other reason than it's particularly well constructed and I'm rather fond of it; "Simply put, if a mouthful of cawk can be described as 'not wrong' soley because the mouth can be used as, but not exclusively as, an 'in door'. Then an arseful of cawk can also be described as 'not wrong' because the arse can be used as, but not exclusively as, an 'in door' ".