Do you expect your wife to submit to you?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

And you don't have to go anywhere NEAR that extreme to come up with ways that sex could be made better, safer, longer, more consensual, ect ect.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] are there any naturally occurring, designed things that you use for purposes they were not designed for? [quote]

So now we get busy to search for at least one exception.
This thinking I don't think is that important.

"As long as we can locate ONE exception, we discard the general principle" kind of rationale, seems often the next step for ...[text shortened]... h our problems from the Lord and Savior. And He happens to be the Creator as well, become a man.

interesting that you removed the section regarding using things for unnatural purposes. did it dawn on you that you are surrounded by things being used unnaturally? can you explain why its okay to use somethings unnaturally and not others?

what do you think people are 'play acting'. [/quote]

Why do they call the difference "Gay" and [b]"Straight" ?
Why didn't they speak of Homosexual as "Straight" ? [/b]

im baffled by sentences like these. are you trying to say that when a man has anal sex with a woman he his pretending that he is gay?

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes, Mr. Carrobie, but the question is whether or not you feel the urge to engage in any kind of sexual activity. I find other men to be sexually unappealing, but if I was attracted sexually to men, and not women, who the hell are you to tell me that this would be a simple matter of choice for me? Also, I'll never understand this obsession with other p ...[text shortened]... if I was a hunk.

(Come to think of it, I seem to have unconsciously gone for boobs.)

This is what I hate most about some atheists in this forum.

They tend to lump all theists together in one big pile, all having the same beliefs, same preferences, same knowledge, same everything.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is what I hate most about some atheists in this forum.

They tend to lump all theists together in one big pile, all having the same beliefs, same preferences, same knowledge, same everything.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

havent you just dumped all atheist into 'one big pile'?

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is what I hate most about some atheists in this forum.

They tend to lump all theists together in one big pile, all having the same beliefs, same preferences, same knowledge, same everything.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

You need to read more carefully.

He didn't say theists.

He said Abrahamic faiths...

Or are you about to claim that non-abrahamic faiths don't exist?

Or that their god believing members are not theists?


Or did you just read what you want to see rather than what was actually there?

Originally posted by C Hess
The confusing part is that the bible doesn't deal with these issues, and it's supposedly the word of the most wise. Also, if a homosexual man is trapped in a woman's body, does that mean that this man is sinful having sex with another man? Shouldn't he in fact lay with a woman, be she in a female or male body?

Common sense tells me that this is significan ...[text shortened]... should have included a word or two about it, if he's going to inflict this situation on people.

Atheists seem to always blame God for things they do not understand, even though they claim not to believe in God. 😏

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I suspect that Sonship's overidealization of heterosexual intercourse comes from an exclusively male-oriented perspective, which I don't share.

I am not "overidealizing" heterosexual intercourse. I am applying some common sense about the way were were made. And I am saying male on male sex and female on female sex is a form of pretending.

No, I am not advocating "living happily ever after" just because men and women marry one another. There's much more to marriage than just the bedroom.

And why should a male not have a male -oriented perspective and a female a female oriented perspective anyway?

If I were a woman I would still submit that the physiology of our bodies are designed for coupling sexually.

When Sonship claimed there could be no improvement upon normal sexual
intercourse (in the 'missionary position'?), he showed his ignorance

By your inserted question mark it appears that you are admitting your ignorance. I am not talking about position but something more fundamental in the complimentary nature of the male and female sex organs.

of the common experiences of young women when they lose their virginity to men. For most young women, it's not like a wonderful romantic scene from the films.

Um, your movies there are usually the products of the wishful thinking of men.

Single women are fools to trust single men for whom producing a child is not as big a life change to them as it is to the woman. Don't tell me about it. I know so many irresponsible males grumbling about paying child support here and there for their noncommittal exploitations of young girls.

Single women - don't trust single men. Marriage is needed to domesticate men. It cost him little. Having the child will cost the woman everything.

Young women tend to find their 'first times' to be disappointing at best (after all the advance publicity), sometimes painful, and occasionally traumatic.
(Was *this*--when the man quickly 'got off'--what all the fuss was supposedly about?)
Yet most young women eventually can find more enjoyment in sexual
intercourse with more time, patience, and the right partner(s) in bed.
But achieving such sexual satisfaction tends not be instantly 'natural'.

I don't know what this has to do with anything I wrote about complimentary physiology and nature's design. It is not a matter pious sanctimony here.

All you're saying is that we are not in a sexual utopia.
That I already conceded as not to give the impression that heterosexual complimentary physiology was the answer to everything.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

So are you admitting that you are homosexual?

Originally posted by sonship

I suspect that Sonship's overidealization of heterosexual intercourse comes from an exclusively male-oriented perspective, which I don't share.

I am not "overidealizing" heterosexual intercourse. I am applying some common sense about the way were were made. And I am saying male on male sex and female on female sex is a form of pretending ...[text shortened]... to give the impression that heterosexual complimentary physiology was the answer to everything.

I am not "overidealizing" heterosexual intercourse. I am applying some common sense about the way were were made. And I am saying male on male sex and female on female sex is a form of pretending.

what is a heterosexual man having anal sex with a women 'pretending'?

what is a homosexual man having anal sex with a man 'pretending'?

Originally posted by sonship
Does anyone think seriously on the physiology of the male body and the female body to ascertain what nature seems to equip each for.

It is the physical design, the [b]plumbing of the way the male and female body is that hints to the complementary functions they have. [/b]

Finger fits nose. Snot excellent protein source. Yummy.

Those of us who don't feel like picking our noses, why we're just clearly making a choice to defy the purpose of our own design. Aren't we the weird ones?

Originally posted by C Hess
Finger fits nose. Snot excellent protein source. Yummy.

Those of us who don't feel like picking our noses, why we're just clearly making a choice to defy the purpose of our own design. Aren't we the weird ones?

Some people seem to enjoy eating their boogers. Others, not so much. It may be an acquired taste. Who knows?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
havent you just dumped all atheist into 'one big pile'?

No, just 'some'.

Learn to read.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Then this is an abuse of the headship principal. Every captain of a ship consults with his officers before making any decision.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, just 'some'.

Learn to read.

nope 'most' (which admittedly is not 'all', but still a huge exaggeration).

so i guess i'll see you in class.