Is anal sex natural?

[Gimple]

Riiiiiiiight.

I take it you're not a big believer in science... or do you just not like being told you're wrong?

 

[( . )( . )]

I take it you're not a big believer in broscience...

Fixed. I'm all for science hence the continual "raycis/bigot/homophobe/misogynist" accusations I've received from the handful of resident sh1tlibs and chicks incognito we have here but I've never once had a chick tell when I was straying just by the taste of my c@ck. I can buy the puzzy putting off a detectable odour or taste maybe if the dude has heightened senses, and thats a big if.

 

[Gimple]

Okay ( . )( . ), I guess I'll let you weasel your way into speed dawg's and my conversation...

I've never once had a chick tell when I was straying just by the taste of my c@ck. I can buy the puzzy putting off a detectable odour or taste maybe if the dude has heightened senses, and thats a big if.

Maybe making the distinction isn't entirely conscious. Just like subliminal messages, we usually aren't aware that we're perceiving them. But that doesn't mean they don't affect us and our choices.

But I'm no expert here, nor do I claim to be. I'm simply referencing the studies done by Robin Baker. And I believed the findings in his studies were true.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

Actually, oral sex does have a purpose and serve a function outside of pleasure, which might be classed as "natural" through the lens of passing on genes.

Oral sex is a method of checking whether or not a partner has been unfaithful. Studies have proved that a person can tell if their partner has had sex with someone else within the past 3 days (or something like that) regardless of washing, by smelling and licking the genitals. The reason is that the scent and taste of the fluids change temporarily after having sex with someone.

So, from a non-pleasure perspective, oral sex is a way of getting knowledge to identify and perhaps prevent competition in passing on our genes.

If "natural" means something serves a purpose and function in the perpetuation of life, oral sex is definitely natural.

If that were the case then why not just do this?:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgWgEoaAYDY&list=RDlgWgEoaAYDY

 

[Starwolf]

If that were the case then why not just do this?:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgWg...=RDlgWgEoaAYDY

:crackup: damn these hair hatted hooligans

 

[Starwolf]

BTW BJ's are the best thing ever! better then pvssy

I'd rather get a BJ from a girl who knows how to work a d!ck with her mouth and hands!

to all the naysayers.. ya'll never got a girl with superb head game. Or you're circumcised and can't feel sh!t...... which is also unnatural

 

[( . )( . )]

Maybe making the distinction isn't entirely conscious. Just like subliminal messages, we usually aren't aware that we're perceiving them. But that doesn't mean they don't affect us and our choices.

Fair enough. I still wouldn't lose much sleep over it as long as you give it a good scrub. Maybe if she was Amish or something I'd be more worried, but between the pill, SSRI's, industrial pollution, xenoestrogens and corn syrup bombarding the average Western female plus indoctrination from birth to forego her natural instincts in favour of a cubicle and the carousel, then you've got social re-engineering on top of all that telling her it's "normal" and to "relax" around hordes of low IQ third worlders who couldn't give a fvck if she was on fire (once upon a time she was wary of threats to her tribe) I'd be surprised if most would even notice if your c@ck changed color half way through. These aren't exactly natural salt of the earth types who can pick up on all that sh1t we're dealing with any more in my opinion .

 

[user43770]

Actually, oral sex does have a purpose and serve a function outside of pleasure, which might be classed as "natural" through the lens of passing on genes.

Oral sex is a method of checking whether or not a partner has been unfaithful. Studies have proved that a person can tell if their partner has had sex with someone else within the past 3 days (or something like that) regardless of washing, by smelling and licking the genitals. The reason is that the scent and taste of the fluids change temporarily after having sex with someone.

So, from a non-pleasure perspective, oral sex is a way of getting knowledge to identify and perhaps prevent competition in passing on our genes.

If "natural" means something serves a purpose and function in the perpetuation of life, oral sex is definitely natural.

I wouldn't doubt it. There are numerous evolutionary ticks that we have yet to shed. Deja vu, for example. There are many things that are beyond our comprehension.

This stuff isn't in the bible, though, so speed dawg will try his best to refute it.

 

[user43770]

Edit - Hey, it's Wednesday night. I don't particularly like Wednesdays, but being alive is better than every other option, am I right?

 

[amoka]

Sooo....WHY DO STRAIGHT PEOPLE CHAMPION THIS SH*T? It goes against any religion, life, and nature. If you don't like any of those things, I guess you simply just want destruction.

Your problem is religion . Throw that in a garbage and you'll have a fulfilling life. Plus you won't impose your religious believes on others.

 

[( . )( . )]

Your problem is religion . Throw that in a garbage and you'll have a fulfilling life. Plus you won't impose your religious believes on others.

Yeah coz the majority of atheists are just the epitome of a happy group of people.

 

[Gimple]

Fair enough. I still wouldn't lose much sleep over it as long as you give it a good scrub. Maybe if she was Amish or something I'd be more worried, but between...

When I make a commitment to someone, and, assuming it's under my control, I honor my word. So what do I have to be worried about?

Do you think maybe you're projecting your own character and lifestyle onto me?

This stuff isn't in the bible, though, so speed dawg will try his best to refute it.

I guess that means I shouldn't even bother addressing the central thrust of Baker's studies.

Oh, what the hell. I'm curious to see how people who believe the Bible is 100% true will respond to it...

Upon investigating sperm, Baker discovered that the purpose of a certain percentage of sperm isn't to fertilize an egg -- it's to fight and kill other men's sperm and prevent them from fertilizing the egg!

The name of his book is fitting: Sperm Wars.

According to these facts, it seems evident that Nature intended women to be polygamous, otherwise there would be no reason for these "warrior sperms," which would appear to refute some of what the Bible has to say about sex and marriage.

I once brought this up with a pastor friend of mine. It was interesting.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

I agree but that is what fascinates me about the whole thing. Technically, living in cities isn't exactly natural either. Sitting on toilets, etc. But aren't cities technically where perversions are fostered? Apparently you expel more poo if you squat rather than sit on a toilet. Always seems that when you get back to pure nature, things work better. At least physically. There has to be a mental balance though, that's what makes humans different from animals.

Well, when you consider the very SLOW process of evolution, nothing is really "natural" as changes are always based on more effective mutations, which are by definition, NOT natural.

Sharks are natural, but they haven't changed much in millions of years. I'm not sure if that's such a good thing.

 

[speed dawg]

Well, when you consider the very SLOW process of evolution, nothing is really "natural" as changes are always based on more effective mutations, which are by definition, NOT natural.

I'm not a fan of evolution at all. I think when things 'evolve', it's really human beings continuously learning lessons and teaching those lessons to the next generations. Animals too, although that's a different level of evolution. Think about it, how does ones' genetics change over a lifetime? I don't believe they can. I also think that anyone who believes humans evolved from an animal are nuts, it's just not possible.

I wouldn't doubt it. There are numerous evolutionary ticks that we have yet to shed. Deja vu, for example. There are many things that are beyond our comprehension.

This stuff isn't in the bible, though, so speed dawg will try his best to refute it.

So I have a book filled with full-filled prophecies, makes sense and is basically the only book that has withstood the test of time, as my proof of things. What do you have? A couple of dude's opinions, and your own ego?

Then you have the gall to say there are things beyond our comprehension. Nice.

 

[user43770]

I'm not a fan of evolution at all. I think when things 'evolve', it's really human beings continuously learning lessons and teaching those lessons to the next generations. Animals too, although that's a different level of evolution. Think about it, how does ones' genetics change over a lifetime? I don't believe they can. I also think that anyone who believes humans evolved from an animal are nuts, it's just not possible.


So I have a book filled with full-filled prophecies, makes sense and is basically the only book that has withstood the test of time, as my proof of things. What do you have? A couple of dude's opinions, and your own ego?

Then you have the gall to say there are things beyond our comprehension. Nice.

You neg-repping pvssy.

You write a smug post criticizing others and then get your feelings hurt when someone disagrees with you. Talk about ego.

Funny that you would get butt hurt in this thread.

 

[speed dawg]

You neg-repping pvssy.

You write a smug post criticizing others and then get your feelings hurt when someone disagrees with you. Talk about ego.

Funny that you would get butt hurt in this thread.

Care to show me exactly where this happened?

And you're damn right I neg-repped you, for this "smug" comment:

This stuff isn't in the bible, though, so speed dawg will try his best to refute it.

The rest of your post is fine.

From my reputation:

Is anal sex natural? 02-19-2015 10:54 AM TyTe`EyEz fvck you

It's not me who is butt hurt here, pal.

 

[user43770]

This stuff isn't in the bible, though, so speed dawg will try his best to refute it.

I'm not a fan of evolution at all. I think when things 'evolve', it's really human beings continuously learning lessons and teaching those lessons to the next generations. Animals too, although that's a different level of evolution. Think about it, how does ones' genetics change over a lifetime? I don't believe they can. I also think that anyone who believes humans evolved from an animal are nuts, it's just not possible.

You pretty much went on to do just what I predicted.

 

[Vulpine]

Technically, living in cities isn't exactly natural either. Sitting on toilets, etc. But aren't cities technically where perversions are fostered? Apparently you expel more poo if you squat rather than sit on a toilet. Always seems that when you get back to pure nature, things work better. At least physically. There has to be a mental balance though, that's what makes humans different from animals.

Ask a hedonist like myself about the "naturalness" of butseks and the question becomes "does it feel good?" I've become quite proficient at having azz-orgasm inducing anal sex without use of toys or lube. So, I would say it's just as unnatural for us monkeys to not throw poo.

But I like where you went with the city reference. Is buying package of lunchables at Super Wal-Mart natural? How about sitting on a freeway parking lot waiting to get to work on a lunchables packaging line, to earn monetary units to exchange for said lunchables, while huffing exhaust fumes and listening to behavior-altering sounds emitting from speakers after decoding radio waves?

Is it enjoyable? Where exactly do you connect our motivations with pure pleasure, and where do you knowingly segregate them? What's really important? Societal pressures? Or personal happiness?

( . )( . ), I noticed that your list of that dude's STDs didn't include "pregnancy".


I wonder how a religious chick, who has anal sex to preserve her "virginity", would answer this question.

 

[( . )( . )]

( . )( . ), I noticed that your list of that dude's STDs didn't include "pregnancy".

I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

I wonder how a religious chick, who has anal sex to preserve her "virginity", would answer this question.

If she's copping it up the ass to preserve her "virginity" then she's not genuinely a woman true to her faith is she? Hence she's not religious so it's a moot point. She's kind of like the post turtle.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Well, when you consider the very SLOW process of evolution, nothing is really "natural" as changes are always based on more effective mutations, which are by definition, NOT natural.

Sharks are natural, but they haven't changed much in millions of years. I'm not sure if that's such a good thing.

It seems to me that nature and evolution favors and selects for by reproduction animals that focus on the opposite sex organs when mating. Nature could never select for those that do not over those that do. Anal sex is the most risky. Natural selection may select against those who take higher risks with low reproductive reward.

That would explain why homosexuals are much rarer than heterosexuals and vaginas are usually considered more visually arousing than anuses.

If any animal is unchanged for millions of years, that would mean it already optimized for its environment over any of its offspring that mutate much.