Trying anal for first time

Arthur said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pot calling the kettle black. Language is fluid not set in stone. Dictionaries don't give words meaning, they describe the generally accepted meaning. They describe the usage of words, they don't dictate it. So anal sex doesn't adhere to a definition of sex that only means coitus, so what? Sex is generally taken to mean activities between individuals for the purpose of sexual pleasure. As, for your use of abuse, the word carries connotations of mistreatment and harm which aren't applicable to the consensual and careful activity of inserting a penis into an anus for the pleasure of the participants.

Language games indeed.

If I'm not much mistaken the OP was asking for advice about how to preform anal sex on a willing participant not asking for general advice on the nature of anal sex.
 
Arthur said:
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(if) 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.
Click to expand...

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


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.


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.


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.
Click to expand...
Sigh, Swa.

You are just plain wrong about the term "abuse". And you are also plain wrong about what an ad hominem argument is. In both cases your attempt to confine these terms to your own narrow application is arbitrary and manifestly at odds with entire corpus of human literature. You can verify this for yourself if and when you get round to consulting a dictionary.

I'm not gonna argue it out any further in public - our poor fellow forumites shouldn't have to put up with this silliness.
 
Paul Hjul said:
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 :p
Click to expand...
Thanks. Saw the thread but never opened. Going there now to take a squizz.

My expectations were low for any grasp of the distinctions between insult, personal attack, argumentae ad hominemv and mockery. :p
 
Last edited:
Colin62 said:
I suspect that even a hand job is abuse according to Arthur's definition. In fact, I'll put my cock on a block. Oh, wait, that's probably not allowed either...
Click to expand...
:D

Merely resting your member on a block for a while is morally neutral though perhaps kinky. Just make sure it's not a chopping block.

The difference between erotic and kinky: Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.
 
Last edited:
I am just going to leave this here.

[video=youtube;xIfDLGzFBKY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIfDLGzFBKY[/video]
 
MickeyD said:
I know... will track him down later.
Click to expand...

I've often wondered why MyBB allows obvious clone accounts. Don't the T&C forbid them? Yet time after time we see people who openly admit to registering a clone account to start contentious threads being left to do their thing unfettered.
 
Am I alone in picking up that people have not actually read Arthur's argument and are ignoring in its entirely the common thread of ejaculation and masturbation complete (so called "spilling seed")

I fundamentally disagree with Arthur's position on this subject but it does strike me that people are quicker to take to the hills than to actually read and comprehend his argument - and provide sound rebuttal.
 
Paul Hjul said:
Am I alone in picking up that people have not actually read Arthur's argument and are ignoring in its entirely the common thread of ejaculation and masturbation complete (so called "spilling seed")

I fundamentally disagree with Arthur's position on this subject but it does strike me that people are quicker to take to the hills than to actually read and comprehend his argument - and provide sound rebuttal.
Click to expand...
I haven't been following this thread and I haven't even seen Arthur's argument but I imagine it comes down to "don't have anal sex, anal sex isn't really sex, if it doesn't involve putting your sperm into a vagina without protection in order to have a baby then it isn't sex"... or some similarly idiotic staunch Roman-Catholicish response. (I'll be really shocked if I'm wrong on this)

His argument will stem from an extremely subjective idea that that, in his opinion, is the only thing that sex organs were meant for. Of course the natural response to that is "but Arthur, there are parts of the body that don't have to be involved at all in penis-vagina sex that still bring us sexual gratification... according to your stance these things shouldn't even exist as apparently they are both evolutionarily and theologically pointless."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X