Boombats wrote:This thread needs more jokes, pictures, and LESS PISSING ON ACH OTHER

There's another thread for that.

ironyengine wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:I'd eat a room full of pussies if I could...go just from pussy to pussy like a little hummingbird

I think the recent uprising in prurience in the C/NC section has caused some distress, people fearing that theings are going downhill. I posit that mental images like this one are a shining beacon that this is not at all so.

Bravo, Marsup'.

Yes, the Marsup quote is almost poetic. That is, poetic for Marsup.

Hexpane wrote:

Hexpane wrote:Also note we are all ignoring the basic biology of men. ...

Earwicker wrote:This is bollocks

Again this isnt 'my argument', its basic animal behaviour. Are you really arguing that males in general get jealous of other males copulating w/ their females? Seriously you are arguing that point?

Ever noticed how buttoned up puritans always hurl the 'unnatural' and 'not as nature/god (take your pick) intended' spear when sex crops up?

Which 'basic animal's behavior are you referring to?
You seem to be assuming that the males of the animal kingdom are horny and roam around and the female doesn't. This doesn't apply to several animals and doesn't 'biologically' apply to humans. Several cultures have and still do share partners - that applies to females having multiple partners as well as men.

That fact alone seems to shoot your 'basic biology' out of the window. The idea behind it - if you're interested - is that in some cultures it is seen as advantageous to a child to have more than one male as a father/protector/provider.

Whether feelings of jealousy appear in those cultures I don't know but my presumption would be that - if so - they would be much less likely.

Jealousy - as far as I can see - is a cultural/social thing more than it is a biological one.

Hexpane wrote:Of course humans can and do freely break away from instinct, thats what makes us human. But to argue against it is ludicrous and ignores countless scientific studies.

As I've just pointed out it isn't ludicrous. Your (unseen) 'countless scientific studies' just sound like rhetoric to me.

And if you are purely looking at sex from it's biological/evolutionary function (which seems to be the thrust of your argument) then - as I've said before, you must think gays are 'unnatural' and condoms are perverse.

Out of curiosity how do you feel about those two things?

I won't argue for the normativity of my currently-held attitude to sex but I have never felt any strong desire to be part of a "threesome".

If people using this forum feel contempt for "sluts" and "gays" then I don't share this feeling.

As a collective, I don't like the term "gays" and I don't like the adjective "gay" being used as a noun. This isn't merely pedanticism on my part; I respect the fact that not all men who are exclusively sexually attracted by other men want to be known as "a gay" or just part of a group called "gays". A man can unapolagetically desire other men and still wish not to be defined by it.

The word "slut" has been employed for hundreds of years in disparaging sexually promiscuous women; instead of finding other work for it to do it might be an idea to give the word a rest.

I can't vote for either of the options on this poll.