Trying anal for first time

[Swa]

Tomorrow's new thread ... trying out water sports for the first time ...

Golden showers...

 

[STS]

Then you should know that labeling something consensual which is pleasurable to both parties as abuse is hardly the same and in fact a slap in the face to victims of real abuse.

Big respect to you Swa *fist pound*

 

[Azbubu]

Big respect to you Swa *fist pound*

From anal to golden showers to fisting.

 

[Arthur]

Then you should know that labeling something consensual which is pleasurable to both parties as abuse is hardly the same and in fact a slap in the face to victims of real abuse.

Oh boy. Language games again. With a moral imperative attached.

So you can only non-consensually abuse your authority? Your ears can only be abused involuntarily? An engine cannot be abused by constant over-revving because it consented?

Swa, here's a little suggestion: Before venturing grammatical corrections, consult a dictionary. Your moral imperative ("should") might carry some weight of you had a point. But you don't. Your introduction of the notion of consent has absolutely nothing to do with the word "abuse". Not semantically. Not grammatically. Not etymologically. Not in any way at all.

 

[Paul Hjul]

before correcting a man's use of language make sure you are adequately equipped to do so ...

 

[Swa]

Oh boy. Language games again. With a moral imperative attached.

So you can only non-consensually abuse your authority? Your ears can only be abused involuntarily? An engine cannot be abused by constant over-revving because it consented?

Swa, here's a little suggestion: Before venturing grammatical corrections, consult a dictionary. Your moral imperative ("should") might carry some weight of you had a point. But you don't. Your introduction of the notion of consent has absolutely nothing to do with the word "abuse". Not semantically. Not grammatically. Not etymologically. Not in any way at all.

Your use of the word abuse in a non normal sense has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. That's why I introduced consent. Of course "abuse" can be applied with consent but it's hardly the same then and any victim of real abuse would frown on such use. Consent is very much an issue here. Sexual assault without consent is called rape. Sexual assault with consent is called sex. See how the very nature of something can change by whether or not it is consensual?

Consent may not be of relevance in the act as far as you're concerned but it very much determines which words are appropriate and which ones not. If you want to term it abnormal use then by all means do so. None of us will take offense at that even though terms like normal and abnormal are rather overrated but by terming it abuse you are clearly trying to attach something inherently bad to it.

 

[Paul Hjul]

swa please don't get all anally retentive about Arthur's word choices

 

[Splinter]

Yes he has. And not just met, but worked with and cared for and supported. And prosecuted inflictors of abuse, especially those who harm women and children.

Ok, enough. You have claimed so much. I recall you saying to me in a pm that you have gone to jail for speaking your mind. And now you are a care-giver of note. And now a righteous angel who has inflicted retribution on the sinful....

A question - have you ever had children of your own?

 

[Splinter]

before correcting a man's use of language make sure you are adequately equipped to do so ...

use a capital

ps - note the....

 

[Arthur]

Ok, enough. You have claimed so much. I recall you saying to me in a pm that you have gone to jail for speaking your mind. And now you are a care-giver of note. And now a righteous angel who has inflicted retribution on the sinful....

A question - have you ever had children of your own?

I don't see how any of these personal details are relevant. Swa chose to make it personal, without warrant in my view. And now you do as well.

Why the perfect tense? Not only have I had them. I still have them. They are all alive, by the grace of God.

And you, Splinter? Do you have any children of your own? Anyone else's children?

 

[Paul Hjul]

use a capital

ps - note the....

ellipsis not a full sentence make

 

[Paul Hjul]

I don't see how any of these personal details are relevant. Swa chose to make it personal, without warrant in my view. And now you do as well.

the ad hominem is rampant in these parts

and not used for rhetorical effect but rather is a symptom of lazy thinking

 

[Swa]

I don't see how any of these personal details are relevant. Swa chose to make it personal, without warrant in my view. And now you do as well.

Why the perfect tense? Not only have I had them. I still have them. They are all alive, by the grace of God.

And you, Splinter? Do you have any children of your own? Anyone else's children?

Mate I am still discussing the subject and the use of words. I didn't make it personal. It seems you have a problem grasping the meaning of more than just one word. <-- That is making it personal to give an example.

 

[Arthur]

Mate I am still discussing the subject and the use of words. I didn't make it personal. It seems you have a problem grasping the meaning of more than just one word. <-- That is making it personal to give an example.

You certainly felt it necessary to wonder whether I am personally qualified to use the word "abuse" in the exclusively narrow sense in which you choose to understand it. Here's your quote:

Oh my, so if it's not for the intended purpose it's abuse. Has Arthur ever met a victim of real abuse?

Pray, how does my personal experience of meeting people with "real" abuse advance the argument other than to introduce a needless ad hominem?

The tactic is obvious. Question whether I have ever met a "really abused" person, with the obvious implication that if I had I would not use the term "abuse" as I had. Or more precisely, if I hadn't met such persons then of course my use of the term is wrong. That is a pretty standard example of the tiresomely common ad hominem fallacy. Instead of addressing the issue, it deflects the argument into my personal credibility. That's pathetic.

Both you and Splinter repeatedly want to drag irrelevant personal biographical details into what should be a detached and rational discourse. Who I am is irrelevant to the argument. After all, you both choose to remain anonymous.

 

[Grant]

From anal to golden showers to fisting.

yea, that escalated rather swiftly

 

[Paul Hjul]

You certainly felt it necessary to wonder whether I am personally qualified to use the word "abuse" in the exclusively narrow sense in which you choose to understand it. Here's your quote:
Pray, how does my personal experience of meeting people with "real" abuse advance the argument other than to introduce a needless ad hominem?

The tactic is obvious. Question whether I have ever met a "really abused" person, with the obvious implication that if I had I would not use the term "abuse" as I had. Or more precisely, if I hadn't met such persons then of course my use of the term is wrong. That is a pretty standard example of the tiresomely common ad hominem fallacy. Instead of addressing the issue, it deflects the argument into my personal credibility. That's pathetic.

Both you and Splinter repeatedly want to drag irrelevant personal biographical details into what should be a detached and rational discourse. Who I am is irrelevant to the argument. After all, you both choose to remain anonymous.

Speaking of the ad hominem crisis on this forum:
I trust you don't object to having been the "dummy in the demonstration" (well an avatar as a dummy) - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...em-attacks?p=15347914&viewfull=1#post15347914
took a glance over the thread again and didn't spot a contribution from you

despite the presence of Latin

 

[Swa]

You certainly felt it necessary to wonder whether I am personally qualified to use the word "abuse" in the exclusively narrow sense in which you choose to understand it. Here's your quote:

Not qualified. Qualified would imply it could be validly used in such a manner which it can't.

Pray, how does my personal experience of meeting people with "real" abuse advance the argument other than to introduce a needless ad hominem?

Not an ad hominem. That would be if I were to try discredit you in order to discredit an argument. Which isn't needed as your argument so far isn't very strong.

The tactic is obvious. Question whether I have ever met a "really abused" person, with the obvious implication that if I had I would not use the term "abuse" as I had. Or more precisely, if I hadn't met such persons then of course my use of the term is wrong. That is a pretty standard example of the tiresomely common ad hominem fallacy. Instead of addressing the issue, it deflects the argument into my personal credibility. That's pathetic.

Not a fallacy. A fallacy would be if I were to discredit you in order to discredit the argument. Here I am relating real abuse to your use of the word for consensual sex. Yes sex has a much broader meaning in common use than your ironically narrow focused use of it in light of your overly broad use of the word abuse. The implication is that if you've ever met with real abuse you would know the obvious difference between the two.

Both you and Splinter repeatedly want to drag irrelevant personal biographical details into what should be a detached and rational discourse. Who I am is irrelevant to the argument. After all, you both choose to remain anonymous.

I can't remember ever dragging personal biographical details into the discussion. Have never read your biography nor have I referred to who you are. You on the other hand have made it rather personal by equating someone's consensual sexual actions to abuse and watering down the meaning of the term for people subject to real abuse.

 

[Wasabee!]

I think we are dealing with the less academic inclined in this thread that completely missed what Arthur was saying. I'll sum it up for you simpletons:

Biologically speaking, the vagina is the only intended place to insert a penis for sex/pleasure. But he doesn't care where you put it. He was kinda stating the obvious.

What if bae wants it up the stinker?

 

[Drifter]

OP, I am going to express a dissenting view calmly and without ill-will or personal attack. It is an opinion you will seldom hear today because most people don't have the courage to say what they really think. It is an opinion that is not new or novel - rather, the view I am expressing has been the standard view for centuries.

I hope you and others have the maturity to deal with this calmly and reasonably. Here goes:

Sticking your dick up an anus is not sex. Sure it might make you dick feel good. But it's not sex.

It's abuse. Literally ab-use - misusing the rectum and the penis for purposes for which they were not intended by nature.

The rectum did not evolve to have body parts stuck up into it; it's designed to be a passage for expelling faeces. Waste matter. Crap.

There is not a biologist on earth who would dare to venture the idea that, scientifically considered, it's normal for a penis or anything else to be stuck up into the rectal cavity and abraded against the rectum wall.

Sure it can be done. It's quite possible to stick any suitably-sized body part or instrument into any bodily cavity you wish. You can choose to do it. And it's a free choice, like any other choice you make - whether to lie or tell the truth; whether to love or hate; whether to do good or to do evil. It's your choice.

And I rejoice that's it's a free choice.

To be precise: sticking a dick into an anus is a masturbatory abuse of someone else's rectum for your sexual pleasure.

You can stick your dick into a pipe and rub until you ejaculate. That's abuse, not sex.
You can stick you dick into a donkey's anus and rub until you ejaculate. It's abuse, not sex.
You can stick your dick into a hole in the wall and rub until you ejaculate. It's abuse, not sex.
You can stick your dick into a hole in a watermelon and rub until you ejaculate. It's abuse, not sex.
You can stick your dick into a mud pie and rub until you ejaculate. It's abuse, not sex.
You can stick you dick into a mouth and have the mouth suck until you ejaculate. It's abuse, not sex.

You can stick you dick into any one of ten thousand places other than a vagina, and it still doesn't rise to the noble and glorious status of sex.

Now before you go off pop, let me affirm that you are of course quite free to do what you wish with your body and with the body/bodies of consenting partner/partners. Neither the cops not the bishops will interfere, I promise.

Of course I respect your freedom to do as you wish. You are free to do right or to do wrong.

But you are only fooling yourself and playing word games when you call those actions "sex" or "sexual intercourse" or "making love" or "mating" or any such term. In all the above actions, the normal, natural, biologically-purposed, function and use of the sexual organs - the only reason why they exist as sexual organs - is not possible.

Anything other than vaginal intercourse with a real live penis is not sex. It is a misuse of the sexual organs.

It is an abuse.

Think about it carefully and ask yourself whether you want to live a life and a lifestyle that is fundamentally and intrinsically abusive. There's no getting away from that choice. It's yours to make. And it has real consequences in your life and also in society. After all, society has its origins in sex, so get sex wrong and it affects society deeply, not just you.

---

Can you hear a different viewpoint without going into an apoplectic fit and spewing vitriol? I have stated the above calmly and without bile or malice or ill-will towards you or anyone else.

I hope we can keep the discussion calm and free from personal attacks and insults.

But a good BJ still rocks!! You have been missing out.

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

Scared of anal me ............. OP had set himself for this event and then went missing.

/Wonders what happened to OP

Gay Martian Ninjas from Venus - the ones who wear the strpey socks got the sucker, or the girls dad