Good News On Hiv?

[Evil Goblin]

So what about a couple where one is sterile, are you saying they should not indulge in sex because it is not for reproduction but pleasure only.

 

Jimbo - The desire for sexual gratification is built in to humans as an essential "add on" to promote reproduction. It still exists if there is no possibility of pregnancy resulting (either from natural inabilities or contraception).

[Evil Goblin]

Nothing you say changes the fact that sexual activity is designed for reproduction

 

No Evil Goblin - this clearly shows you are ignorant of biology - nothing in biology is designed for anything. That telelogy is entirely absent and only exists in your imagination.

 

That is the point I was making to you - the evolution of life involves exaptation of past processes.

 

These processes are not there so that a future purpose could develop from them, they are not designed, they are simply processes that exist in nature and are useful for life or neutral or even negative, but not so negative to be filtered out by either random chance, or natural selection.

 

If life finds a way to use those processes then it does - that is not a perversion of those purposes, unless you wish to use that word to describe every biological process you have from blood clotting to sight to conciousness all of which have emerged from prior processes which had little or nothing to do with their current ones.

 

Homosexuality is no more a perversion than using sex for pair bonding is a perversion or the fact your appendix is a good environment for pro-biotics. These are simply changes to a process which existed previoiusly which nature uses in doing what it does.

 

I say again are ants a perversion because they have abandoned sex to slave for their sister's offspring.

 

You seem to want homosexuality to be a pervesity. That has nothing to do with nature, and so I can only see it as coming from your attitude to people.

 

If you think you are not being rude saying LDV is a perversion then get real, you are being grossly offensive, and I reiterate that has nothing to do with nature and biological processes. Where else can it therefore lie - within you and your attitudes.

China- you are as guilty as others in attaching your subjective emotional meanings to words as objectively defined in the OED. Please also do not attribute to me things which are not true - I have never said that LDV (or anyone else) is a pervert - merely that homosexual sex is a perversion (whilst I am not what would be called religious Christs saying "hate the sin abut love the sinner" comes to mind.

 

I am not as ignorant of biology and evolutionary processes as it suits your purposes to assume and assert. I accept that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything (biological or otherwise) but the fact remains that bisexual activity evolved by conferring advantage in the reproduction process. Inasmuch as homosexual sex cannot lead to reproduction it is entirely appropriate to describe it as a perverion - and don't interpret the word "perversion" otherwise than in accord with its OED meaning.

 

As for your last paragraph (which seems to be an exercise in throwing your rattle out of your pram - perhaps because I challenged your self-important "erudition") - as the basis of your paddy is not founded in reality, I will ignore it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

no no no ok simple form I accept that homosexuality is a from of sexuality like hetrosexualiy, transexuality etc etc

As an aside, transexuality is not a sexuality. That word refers to the matter of people's gender and their biological sex and how they do not confirm with the societal expectations.

 

 

...and therefore to the people who each of these concerns this is normal. ie to homosexuals homosexuality is normal, to hetrosexuals hetrosexuality is normal, it is only when this turns to non acceptance or hatred that it becomes homophobia, transphobia, hetrophobia etc...

I don't agree though. What I have been saying is anything other heterosexuality is not normal. But then we should disregard any such talk of normal in respect of sexuality. I think it is mistake for instance for a gay person to refer to themselves as normal, which is very common. In fact the occurrence of so many gay people who want to be seen as normal is a reaction to the use of a language that is used to marginalise them.

Essentially, what one of my points is that ideas of normal and right and wrong in respect of sexuality are to be done away with.

 

...view of not being normal alone cannot be classed as these if acceptance is present, therefore if you view homosexuality as normal it does not make you hetrophobic but if you also includes a hatred and non acceptance of it then it becomes that.

More precisely, homophobia and homophobic are terms used to refer to language, practices, beliefs, behaviours that serve the marginalise or oppress. That's a specific definition and covers very particular matters, but it covers a lot.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

LDV - I do not consider myself homophobic in that I do not hate or fear homosexuals, neither to I advocate discrimination against them. I simply come to the conclusion that homosexuality is, using the dictionary definitions of the words and not loading them with any emotional attachment, perverted and deviant i.e. the assessment is impersonal. Words carry meaning all right, and unless we adopt common meanings for words we will not communicate effectively. Those meanings are properly those contained in acknowledged authorities e.g. the OED and should not carry subjective undertones.

 

As for your waffle about discourses, what are you on about?

But your conclusions are inherently homophobic because they are formed from a heterosexual perspective THAT uses a particular language.

I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to emotional baggage. What's this emotional thing you mean? Your language, however, carries a lot of baggage. In explanation of what I mean by discourse, the discourse (i.e. the particular language used: the words, meaning, and purpose behind such words) is one that has developed to shape a societal understanding of sexuality.

The concepts of normality and deviance as are used to refer to homosexuality are new. But these concepts could only have been formed by using a language in a particular manner to serve a purpose. That purpose has been one where the dominant (recent) grouping of people who identify as heterosexual seek to marginalise others (i.e. people, not the practices themselves). It is something that can be traced back to the development of the Homosexual and Heterosexual persons. It is also seen in respect of gender, where the discourse of gender does not allow meaningful reference to those who neither see themselves as male or female.

 

What you think is a simple matter of picking up a dictionary and looking up the meaning of words is actually a process of you trying to bolster a (heterosexual) concept that you have and then a specific form of language to reproduce it and thus reinforce that view.

It's a method of marginalisation and means little more than saying "I am this, BUT you are that and you're not good, right, proper, decent, normal, etc." It's not hard to see that it all has little substance.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am not as ignorant of biology and evolutionary processes as it suits your purposes to assume and assert. I accept that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything (biological or otherwise) but the fact remains that bisexual activity evolved by conferring advantage in the reproduction process. Inasmuch as homosexual sex cannot lead to reproduction it is entirely appropriate to describe it as a perverion - and don't interpret the word "perversion" otherwise than in accord with its OED meaning.

 

Chinahand has explained this. The very fact that COITUS is a sexual activity that can lead to reproduction simply means that. To say that any other uses of the sexual organs is perverted is quite bizarre, as we put those organs to use as we please. We determine what such things will do, not our biology. Yes, they CAN serve the purpose of reproduction and have developed to function in that matter. But using the term perversion is doing nothing other than according a vast array of behaviours a value that YOU want to afford.

What about cunnilingus and fellatio, are these perversions and all other sex acts except coitus?

 

Also there is no proof, not little evidence that I have found that bisexual activity evolved to confer advantage, certainly not in the case of humans.

[jimbms]

LDV I will cease now because sometimes yoou are such a pedantic shit you will argue what you have said is wrong just to be awkward, I will leave yourself and naughtypixie to wallow in your own indiviual opinions.

[Terse]

China- you are as guilty as others in attaching your subjective emotional meanings to words as objectively defined in the OED.

In case you hadn't noticed, Chinahand, this is Wicked Gobbling's way of saying 'how dare you not agree with what I've said?'

Had he read The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary by Simon Wichester (the definitive history of the OED) he would realise that the definitions are sometimes far from objective. However, that said, it is certainly a better work of reference than the one Spook clings to!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV I will cease now because sometimes yoou are such a pedantic shit you will argue what you have said is wrong just to be awkward, I will leave yourself and naughtypixie to wallow in your own indiviual opinions.

I haven't contradicted myself.

[Evil Goblin]

China- you are as guilty as others in attaching your subjective emotional meanings to words as objectively defined in the OED.

In case you hadn't noticed, Chinahand, this is Wicked Gobbling's way of saying 'how dare you not agree with what I've said?'

Had he read The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary by Simon Wichester (the definitive history of the OED) he would realise that the definitions are sometimes far from objective. However, that said, it is certainly a better work of reference than the one Spook clings to!

If you could spell properly then perhaps your silly witterings would carry some weight.

 

As you are such an expert on language perhaps you will enlighten me on how we reach common agreement on what words mean other than via the likes of the OED?

[Evil Goblin]

What about cunnilingus and fellatio, are these perversions and all other sex acts except coitus?

 

Also there is no proof, not little evidence that I have found that bisexual activity evolved to confer advantage, certainly not in the case of humans.

Strictly speaking it is possible that these activities can be seen as perversions (albeit highly enjoyable ones) but they can also be seen as addenda to an end result making coitus more likely.

 

The evolution of bisexuality conferred an advantage on such species by more rapidly changing the genotypes of offspring and thus thwarting some of the changes in viruses which occur in the continuing "war" between the viruses and animals.

[Evil Goblin]

 

LDV - I do not consider myself homophobic in that I do not hate or fear homosexuals, neither to I advocate discrimination against them. I simply come to the conclusion that homosexuality is, using the dictionary definitions of the words and not loading them with any emotional attachment, perverted and deviant i.e. the assessment is impersonal. Words carry meaning all right, and unless we adopt common meanings for words we will not communicate effectively. Those meanings are properly those contained in acknowledged authorities e.g. the OED and should not carry subjective undertones.

 

As for your waffle about discourses, what are you on about?

But your conclusions are inherently homophobic because they are formed from a heterosexual perspective THAT uses a particular language.

I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to emotional baggage. What's this emotional thing you mean? Your language, however, carries a lot of baggage. In explanation of what I mean by discourse, the discourse (i.e. the particular language used: the words, meaning, and purpose behind such words) is one that has developed to shape a societal understanding of sexuality.

The concepts of normality and deviance as are used to refer to homosexuality are new. But these concepts could only have been formed by using a language in a particular manner to serve a purpose. That purpose has been one where the dominant (recent) grouping of people who identify as heterosexual seek to marginalise others (i.e. people, not the practices themselves). It is something that can be traced back to the development of the Homosexual and Heterosexual persons. It is also seen in respect of gender, where the discourse of gender does not allow meaningful reference to those who neither see themselves as male or female.

 

What you think is a simple matter of picking up a dictionary and looking up the meaning of words is actually a process of you trying to bolster a (heterosexual) concept that you have and then a specific form of language to reproduce it and thus reinforce that view.

It's a method of marginalisation and means little more than saying "I am this, BUT you are that and you're not good, right, proper, decent, normal, etc." It's not hard to see that it all has little substance.

Sorry, LDV, but like Jimbo I despair of having a reasonable debate with you without all the social science textbook bullshit you always fall back on to confuse matters. I sometimes wonder if you actually understand yourself some of the rubbish you come out with!

[jimbms]

Sorry, LDV, but like Jimbo I despair of having a reasonable debate with you without all the social science textbook bullshit you always fall back on to confuse matters. I sometimes wonder if you actually understand yourself some of the rubbish you come out with!

 

oi I don't give you social science text book crap I just hurl abuse and my love of perversions at you

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

Strictly speaking it is possible that these activities can be seen as perversions (albeit highly enjoyable ones) but they can also be seen as addenda to an end result making coitus more likely.

I don't know what you mean by referring to the matter as a possibility. You either believe it is or you don't. Do you mean to say that all sexual activity that is not or does not lead to coitus is a perversion?

 

The evolution of bisexuality conferred an advantage on such species by more rapidly changing the genotypes of offspring and thus thwarting some of the changes in viruses which occur in the continuing "war" between the viruses and animals.

Where's is your evidence for this? Never come across any study on this. Not saying it is not the case. I'm curious about it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sorry, LDV, but like Jimbo I despair of having a reasonable debate with you without all the social science textbook bullshit you always fall back on to confuse matters. I sometimes wonder if you actually understand yourself some of the rubbish you come out with!

Social science bullshit and 'emotional baggage'. Have you heard of post-structuralism? Hardly social science textbook bullshit!

[Fulltide]

Helooo

 

It is a blood disorder simple as, DO NOT TOUCH THE WET PAINT, THIS ROAD IS CLOSED and FINALLY DO NOT ENTER.

 

FANKS

 

Fulltide