Is straight sex unnatural?

[B_Stronzo]

As the reverse of this thread has implied and outright stated by several heterosexual male (funniest thing huh?) posters. It's apparent that some in our ranks think gay sex (since it has no other purpose to them than procreation) is 'unnatural'.

Since I find procreation (especially in light of the present state of world affairs) largely an "iffy" premise on which to base the legitimacy of heterosexuality I'd ask this;

Why isn't the ultimate purpose in sexuality per se enjoyment because that's what's really behind why all of us fuck who we fuck. Some idiot pronounced on the other thread that we were simply "passing on our DNA"... Oh yeah. You've got that cock shoved up that vagina all the while thinking "Promote our species", "give me descendants!!" ....


Get a grip.

Sex is about liking to have sex.


And as for its procreative result I say who cares if we die off? As things stand we're doing the planet such as service by our inclusion in the biosphere........... not.

 

[dongalong]

Simple answer:
if the natural body orifices can accomodate the natural penis then it is natural.

 

[B_Stronzo]

awwwwwwwwwww.

J'aime bien cette réponse.

Je t'adore mon ami Français! Tu es un gentilhomme et tu as raison comme toujours!

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

well... from a biological standpoint, sex is for procreation. This is probably why it feels good. That's not why I have sex... but if we're talking about what the purpose is in nature, and therefore what's "natural"... would you even concede Stronzo that homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality in nature, and if you believe in evolution, clearly presents no advantage to the survival of the species and, if there is a genetic component to it (I believe there is), it would be a genetic aberration?
I know these words (unnatural, abherrent, normal) are pretty loaded in today's political climate, so it might be difficult to make such a concession. I also know that there are people on these boards who assert that homosexuality is more natural than heterosexuality.... personally I find this idea a bit... zany.. but whatever. Anyway, just wondering if this is Stronzo in typical fashion being a little hyperreactive, or if you actually disagree with all of those assertions I made above, which I'm sure seem like common sense to most.

Hesitant to post this just because I know how some people will take it. But any of you who really know me at all know I believe in the philosophy of "live and let live"... that I'm quite the sexually deviant pervert myself... and that there are few I bear any real animosity or ill-will toward.


[edit] wow, that first paragraph is one of the ugliest run-on sentences I've ever constrcuted. Apologies for that.

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

Sexual behaviors, like most others, have transcended biological origins long ago. Don't most of us define "natural" in this context as whatever makes us feel good sexually? Procreation is never my motivation for sex, but I acknowledge that if it didn't feel so good, the species would die out. Considering the world's burgeoning population, however, I hope fewer people take the biblical admonition to be fruitful and multiply literally. Our original physical forms also included functional adenoids and tonsils. Things change.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Sexual behaviors, like most others, have transcended biological origins long ago. Don't most of us define "natural" in this context as whatever makes us feel good sexually? Procreation is never my motivation for sex, but I acknowledge that if it didn't feel so good, the species would die out. Considering the world's burgeoning population, however, I hope fewer people take the biblical admonition to be fruitful and multiply literally. Our original physical forms also included functional adenoids and tonsils. Things change.

I agree, though that's not how I was using the word "natural" above. Like I said, it's a loaded word, and a large component of this argument is semantic.

 

[Dr Rock]

people who voluntarily reproduce should be shot

 

[bijo]

whatever feels good is good

why all this terms and labels for people

homosexual, hetrosexual, metrosexual, bisexual
too much thinking about it

whatever feels good is natural:smile:

 

[naughty]

LOL!

Well, thank you ,NIN. You have removed all doubts for us as to your purpose and intent. ( about being a sexual pervert) By the way, that was a most intelligent discourse.
To tell the truth, when my mother first explained THE REAL DEAL to me in terms of heterosexual intercourse , I did think it was unnatural! LOL! Imagine, for most small children the most they know about their genitalia, private parts , pee pee , etc is that they are used for elimination. Now, imagine the shock of hearing that one would even deign or (God forbid) enjoy having someone's organ of elimination inside the most secret of places...Talk about Kinky! LOL! In fact prior to my mother telling me the facts of life I was treated to a less than orthodox explanation in first grade by a young man who upon first sight looked like nothing more than an angel of light. Who would think that inside that tow colored head and behind those cornflower blue eyes resided the mind of a future sex offender? After proclaiming his undying love and offer for marriage, he proceeded to describe a most heinous act involving urination, penetration, defecation and masturbation... I couldnt talk for a week! But as I aged and the hormones kick in ,the rest was history. JW , if you are on this board, I want you to know how you traumatized me for life! LOL!

well... from a biological standpoint, sex is for procreation. This is probably why it feels good. That's not why I have sex... but if we're talking about what the purpose is in nature, and therefore what's "natural"... would you even concede Stronzo that homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality in nature, and if you believe in evolution, clearly presents no advantage to the survival of the species and, if there is a genetic component to it (I believe there is), it would be a genetic aberration?
I know these words (unnatural, abherrent, normal) are pretty loaded in today's political climate, so it might be difficult to make such a concession. I also know that there are people on these boards who assert that homosexuality is more natural than heterosexuality.... personally I find this idea a bit... zany.. but whatever. Anyway, just wondering if this is Stronzo in typical fashion being a little hyperreactive, or if you actually disagree with all of those assertions I made above, which I'm sure seem like common sense to most.

Hesitant to post this just because I know how some people will take it. But any of you who really know me at all know I believe in the philosophy of "live and let live"... that I'm quite the sexually deviant pervert myself... and that there are few I bear any real animosity or ill-will toward.


[edit] wow, that first paragraph is one of the ugliest run-on sentences I've ever constrcuted. Apologies for that.

 

[dong20]

As the reverse of this thread has implied and outright stated by several heterosexual male (funniest thing huh?) posters. It's apparent that some in our ranks think gay sex (since it has no other purpose to them than procreation) is 'unnatural'....

Well, as you know I already replied to that thread and the exact same thing applies here: Is Gay sex Unnatural?

I know there are many angles to come at this from, but in the final analysis, if it exists in nature, it's natural.:smile:

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

people who voluntarily reproduce should be shot

I love how these shackled niggas hold on tightly to the vast vestiges of their single life. They probably pleasure themselves to memories of their high school romps while their wife snores loudly alongside them. Niggas it's over. It's over.

Wait...

I couldnt talk for a week! But as I aged and the hormones kick in ,the rest was history. JW , if you are on this board, I want you to know how you traumatized me for life! LOL!

Naughty is a bona fide freak, y'all. Don't believe the hype. You got a near-perfect score on that Bulletin you posted on MySpace. Don't think I didn't notice.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I know these words (unnatural, abherrent, normal) are pretty loaded in today's political climate, so it might be difficult to make such a concession.

They'd be 'loaded' NIC in any enlightened climate.

I also know that there are people on these boards who assert that homosexuality is more natural than heterosexuality....

I've never seen that asserted by a homosexual on this board other than to imply it's "more natural" given their innate orientation.

Anyway, just wondering if this is Stronzo in typical fashion being a little hyperreactive, or if you actually disagree with all of those assertions I made above, which I'm sure seem like common sense to most.

Sweetie? I'm no more 'hyperactive' than you are 'pouty' And yes I think the human species (at least those with whom I care to associate) see sexuality as sexuality not assigning one "kind" more normalcy than any other.

Hesitant to post this just because I know how some people will take it. But any of you who really know me at all know I believe in the philosophy of "live and let live"... that I'm quite the sexually deviant pervert myself...

I'll only grant your so-called 'deviant pervert' status once you've sucked your first cock and admit to it.:wink:

[edit] wow, that first paragraph is one of the ugliest run-on sentences I've ever constrcuted. Apologies for that.

No need. At least you're articulate.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Sexual behaviors, like most others, have transcended biological origins long ago. Don't most of us define "natural" in this context as whatever makes us feel good sexually? Procreation is never my motivation for sex, but I acknowledge that if it didn't feel so good, the species would die out. Considering the world's burgeoning population, however, I hope fewer people take the biblical admonition to be fruitful and multiply literally. Our original physical forms also included functional adenoids and tonsils. Things change.

And there you have it folks.

My truth and John's. Works for me.

 

[B_back.sliden]

Simple answer:
if the natural body orifices can accomodate the natural penis then it is natural.

Then let me stick my dick head in your right nostril. Can you feel the naturalness, baby?!

 

[dongalong]

Then let me stick my dick head in your right nostril. Can you feel the naturalness, baby?!

Sorry your head is too big, try it up your arse!

 

[B_Stronzo]

Then let me stick my dick head in your right nostril. Can you feel the naturalness, baby?!

Given your girth I didn't notice a thing. :33:

 

[Ethyl]

Then let me stick my dick head in your right nostril. Can you feel the naturalness, baby?!

No, but i'll bet many are thinking their foot up your ass might feel natural.

 

[dongalong]

Given your girth I didn't notice a thing. :33:

I was talking about the dick head on his shoulders

 

[Wonderboy]

Procreation isn't what I think about when having sex.

Procreation is what sex is meant for, it is the purpose, the 'end'. We are born and then we die. Before we die though, our genes should be passed on, its a basic instinct. I know a lot of people that go out and have sex with as many women as possible, to get them pregnant. They ask the girl to get an abortion if she's ugly. We are only animals after all.

Being gay is not what nature intended. The purpose of life is to pass on your genes. Not to be gay and for your bloodline to end when you do. But being gay is okay.

Heterosexual sex is natural.

This is also a very touchy, semantic argument. People are getting quite worked up when there is no need to.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I've never seen that asserted by a homosexual on this board

I have. I don't think I could find the specific thread. But I have. Probably one of the several discussing the validity of being 100% straight.