Go Back   Team-BHP > Around the Corner > Shifting gears


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th July 2009, 17:36   #181
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor View Post
So inspite of being the most evolved species on the planet, why is it that the teat of the human female is so un-suitable for feeding a baby ?

The homo-sapien female's teat is the odd one in the entire mammalian kingdom. AFAIK, only in the case of humans can a baby be suffocated during feeding. And that too at the hands of it's own mother. And when this happens, it is not intentional.

Just in case you have not heard about the suffocation part, it is because of the precautions the mother is taught to take. Else we too would have far more infant deaths than we have today.

Do you know why that nipple you get in the medical store for use with the baby's feeding bottle is elongated, as against the much shorter teat that the mother has ? Or the bottle is long - and not round like human female the breast is ? Well, that bottle & that nipple are better suited to feeding the baby than the mother's breast. And for that matter, go and check the structure in any other mammal - the baby will so freely be able to feed from it's mother.

And have you ever noticed that the human breast resembles the human buttock so much ? Even though an ape or similar animal has its breasts in the same place, it's breasts dont resemble it's buttocks as much as it happens in case of the human ?
i googled. keywords were breastfeeding+infant+death
every link i hit said breastfeeding reduces the incidence of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)

then i googled breastfeeding + infant + suffocation
the suffocation issues are tied to the mother co-sleeping with the child in the same bed. the hits were more on co-sleeping causing the suffocation.

just posted to let you know that i followed up on what you said, but couldn't find what you were mentioning specifically.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 17:40   #182
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hell_rider
when you say the body itself seems to evolved for this, i couldn;t agree more in fact.

are you aware that studies have established that women feel more sexual and attractive, dress better and more carefully, and lubricate better during sex during their fertile period ??? also hormonal peaks and surges are also the highest during their fertile period.

so bascially they are more receptive to sex and are less likely to say they have a headache

and all this happens subconsciously without them actually realising it.

just an interesting aspect to what you yourself said, except it kind of corroborates the other viewpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by condor View Post
Actually, such reasons & excuses the human can give only adds to the point that we use sex for pleasure - when we want it, and when we dont want it, we deny sex (to the other person). Use to our desire. If we were to have sex only for having off-spring, then we would not be using those excuses !
condor,

the fact that females are more receptive to sex or sexual advances from the opposite sexduring their fertile periods is not an excuse. it is an established fact. and that too nature's way of ensuring the best possible chances of impregnation, since she is ovulating.

in fact, in the animal kingdom, in many species, the female will not even entertain advances when she is not in heat. only when she is fertile will she allow the male to mate with her. again, to ensure best chances of reproduction.

i'm surprised at your response to this point, or the fact that you are questioning such a basic and accepted fact.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 17:57   #183
Distinguished - BHPian
 
condor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Speed-brkr City
Posts: 10,315
Thanked: 3,656 Times
Default

Quote:
hell_rider : so you are assuming that that the tongue was not intended for sexual pleasure too ? throw in the nose as well. what about the smells of your partner that turn you on ??
Well, if they were, then all animals would have used it for direct use in sex. But unlike us, they still use the nose to smell. & they dont french kiss, like humans do.

Quote:
hell_rider : why do we have pubic hair and hair under the armpits ?? its so that the smell of our pheromones get concerntrated and trapped in the hair and thereby attract and arouse the opposite sex.
& In case of animals, which part of their body traps these substances ? AFAI have seen, the animal will smell the genitals of the other. Our bodies have evolved that we can arouse each other (subconsciously) even without having to copy the animals here.


Quote:
hell_rider : i really can't speak intelligibly on the teat issue. i do know that the nipple elongates considerably during feeding. but i won't argue this point for the sake of arguing.
Not much. The breast still remains round & firm, and it is very easy for the baby's nostrils to be blocked by the breast.


Quote:
hell_rider : the human race is the most destructive species in all of god's world.
Absolutely.

Quote:
hell_rider : incorrect. gay couples too want babies. ie. gay couples who are in committed relationships.
have you asked them ALL ?
Quote:
hell_rider : your statement actually kind of propagates the idea that gay couples are in it only for sex and not meaningful relationships, which is not true.
So are they so un-intelligent / stupid that they dont realise that they cant have a baby, and they are still in the relationship ?

Meaningful relationship : with a person of the same sex. With Some one who can fulfill his / her emotional physical needs. There are many - possibly the majority - gay couples who still dont have children. The desire to be a parent does not have to be exclusive of their sexual preferences.

Quote:
hell_rider : in western societies you have established laws which govern all aspects of same sex parenting as well.
So why should we also not have a civilised way of letting them be ?

Quote:
hell_rider : yes... i am aware of that study. but that is still not the same as two gays creating a life form. in the animal kingdom already examples exist where an organism of its own can fulfil the responsibilities of both the sexes when it comes to life creation. but still two sperms or two eggs cannot combine to create life.
you would be familiar with the term 'hermaphrodite'.

Quote:
hell_rider : i am sorry but i cannot agree with that. a child that is born with a genetic blood disorder that requires transfusions every fortnight is not normal. its natural, yes, not normal. its an unfortunate aberration of nature.
the 'normal' part is about the chances of having such a condition - based on the number of gene combinations that a baby can have, based on the genetic structure of both of his / her parents. W.R,T to mathematical probability.


Quote:
hell_rider : that is incorrect. the ones who are said to be born homosexuals are incapable of mating with women, as they are unable to get erect. however, they are able to get erect when having sex with a male.

basically a continuation of above point. a gay male is unable to get
stimulated by a female. but he is with another male.
That is their sexual preference. When it " physical " it means the person CANNOT IN ANY WAY, have an erection.



Quote:
hell_rider : man you are big on tongue action
OT : So is it that you totally avoid it ?

Well, I am as normal as any one else around me !

Quote:
hell_rider : like i said above, how come you assumed that the tongue was not supposed to be a sexual tool as well ?? dual purpose.
AFAIRemember, the biology books always described the tongue as an organ designed for tasting. They never said it was also designed for sex. That we use it for another pleasurable purposed is the difference.

Quote:
hell_rider : Our progress and advancement in science has undeniably altered the balance of nature and the natural world. you can't deny that.
You know what, even the stuff we do : surgery etc is not natural. It was never there in nature. We invented it.

So should we ban surgery since it is not natural ?
condor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 18:21   #184
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
Well, if they were, then all animals would have used it for direct use in sex. But unlike us, they still use the nose to smell. & they dont french kiss, like humans do.

& In case of animals, which part of their body traps these substances ? AFAI have seen, the animal will smell the genitals of the other. Our bodies have evolved that we can arouse each other (subconsciously) even without having to copy the animals here.
i don't understand the intention of this response. do you mean to say that humans and animals should have sex in the exact same way?? different species have evolved differently and therefore their approach and manner of indulging in the sex act is obviously different.

how on earth do you expect me to give you an answer as to humans are not doing it like any particular animal species ???

come on...theres got to be some basis for argument. sexual apparatus in different life forms are different and each learns to use its various organs in its own unique way. its ridiculous if you expect me to answer why animals don't french kiss.

your argument that all animals should have used their tongues or noses because humans do is not valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
Not much. The breast still remains round & firm, and it is very easy for the baby's nostrils to be blocked by the breast.
like i posted separately, i googled and told what results i found. i have nothing more to contribute on the matter because i am unaware of the phenomenon you are talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
have you asked them ALL ?
So are they so un-intelligent / stupid that they dont realise that they cant have a baby, and they are still in the relationship ?

Meaningful relationship : with a person of the same sex. With Some one who can fulfill his / her emotional physical needs. There are many - possibly the majority - gay couples who still dont have children. The desire to be a parent does not have to be exclusive of their sexual preferences.
no. but have you ???


Quote:
So why should we also not have a civilised way of letting them be ?
you are assuming that i am anti gay-rights and a homophobe. i have made it clear in my earlier posts that this is not the case. your insinuation that i am anti-gay is frankly insulting and all it proves is how little you have understood asto what is the point i am debating about.

Quote:
you would be familiar with the term 'hermaphrodite'.
yes. that is not the same as two gays creating a baby.

Quote:
the 'normal' part is about the chances of having such a condition - based on the number of gene combinations that a baby can have, based on the genetic structure of both of his / her parents. W.R,T to mathematical probability.
that still does not offer a conclusive reason as to why a genetic blood disorder must be considered normal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
That is their sexual preference. When it " physical " it means the person CANNOT IN ANY WAY, have an erection.
we are repeating ourelves here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
OT : So is it that you totally avoid it ?

Well, I am as normal as any one else around me !
chill. i was just adding some humor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
AFAIRemember, the biology books always described the tongue as an organ designed for tasting. They never said it was also designed for sex. That we use it for another pleasurable purposed is the difference.
and what reason did the biology books give you for pubic hair, testicles, your prostrate and the clitoris ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
You know what, even the stuff we do : surgery etc is not natural. It was never there in nature. We invented it.

So should we ban surgery since it is not natural ?
now thats a really lame argument. and again you are assuming that i want to ban homosexuality and am against gay-rights.

frankly if that is the assumption under which you are carrying on this discussion, then i respectfully bow out of it.

Last edited by hell_rider : 5th July 2009 at 18:23.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 19:24   #185
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Sam Kapasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mumbai (but wat
Posts: 6,989
Thanked: 1,378 Times
Default

An excellent debate. However I'd like to point out my disagreement to some of hell riders points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hell_rider View Post
your statement actually kind of propagates the idea that gay couples are in it only for sex and not meaningful relationships, which is not true.
I do not think that the current, evolved human has relationships only to propagate.

What about relationships where couples choose not to have kids, or where one partner is unable to participate in reproduction due to a medical condition.
It is not necessary that their companionship would culminate in reproduction and they may actually share a healthy relationship that is not only based in sex.

Homosexuals too can share a relationship based on mutual understanding, love and companionship.

The purpose of relationships cannot be broken down purely to recreational sex and procreational sex. That would be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hell_rider View Post
the ones who are said to be born homosexuals are incapable of mating with women, as they are unable to get erect. however, they are able to get erect when having sex with a male.

basically a continuation of above point. a gay male is unable to get stimulated by a female. but he is with another male.
You've mentioned often that a gay man cannot mate with a woman. I think you are very wrong.

You've insinuated that male homosexual animals can in fact copulate with female members but male human homosexuals simply cannot. - I strongly disagree.

If the purpose of mating is to procreate - to ejaculate sperm which will fertilize the females egg, every man is capable of ejaculating given the circumstances.

Remember that most men are not attracted to their own hand either, but that hand does offer stimulation. Quite successfully too! lol.

Sir - I stipulate that given the right stimulus, any man (hetero or homosexual) can indeed be aroused and can successfully ejaculate with man, woman, machine or animal with or without penetration.

He may choose not to, for reasons of attraction, morality, sensibility and more but he is capable nonetheless.

Given that stipulation, your argument about a homosexual man being in fact incapable of reproduction with a female member seems incorrect.
Sam Kapasi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 19:54   #186
Distinguished - BHPian
 
condor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Speed-brkr City
Posts: 10,315
Thanked: 3,656 Times
Default

Point :
Quote:
hell_rider : your argument that all animals should have used their tongues or noses because humans do is not valid.
Counter-point :
Quote:
hell_rider : different species have evolved differently and therefore their approach and manner of indulging in the sex act is obviously different.
And so is the way homosexuals have sex ! Different from the straight folks.

Quote:
hell_rider : come on...theres got to be some basis for argument. sexual apparatus in different life forms are different and each learns to use its various organs in its own unique way.
And so do gays .., right ?

Quote:
hell_rider : .. i am unaware of the phenomenon you are talking about.
OT, but Hope I did help you be aware of this point. When ever you are in the situation of having a new born in your house, pls do remember this. A new mother is told to keep an eye on the baby's breathing. And the reason is that.


Quote:
hell_rider : no. but have you ???
As much as you did


Quote:
hell_rider : that still does not offer a conclusive reason as to why a genetic blood disorder must be considered normal.
because we, our build, our traits, our health are all a result of our genetic make up. Somewhere, a gene has got damaged, and it has propagated. It will show up some where. The odds are what is normal : and hence the occurance. A damaged gene in some person is not due to a deliberate act, but is a result of the pairing of the genetic structure during the time the egg is fertilized. And a significant reason for this is in-breeding. It's happened somewhere in the family tree, and it will surface somewhere down the line.

Quote:
hell_rider : chill. i was just adding some humor.
np. I got what you said ..

Quote:
hell_rider : and what reason did the biology books give you for pubic hair, testicles, your prostrate and the clitoris ???
not pleasure again .. it's the structure of the body & the reprodcutive organs.

Quote:
hell_rider : now thats a really lame argument. and again you are assuming that i want to ban homosexuality and am against gay-rights.
hell_rider : you are assuming that i am anti gay-rights and a homophobe.
hell_rider : frankly if that is the assumption under which you are carrying on this discussion, then i respectfully bow out of it.
No. I was only responding to the points you had raised.

If you still havent got it, well let me quote your point again :
Quote:
hell_rider : different species have evolved differently and therefore their approach and manner of indulging in the sex act is obviously different.
This is how we have evolved. It's part of mankind. It will be there. We cant supress it. But we can be civilized about it, and let the people who chose to be gay, be happy about it. Just like no one forces us to be straight, let them be the way they want to be.


Different strokes for different folks.

Last edited by condor : 5th July 2009 at 19:58.
condor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 19:55   #187
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi View Post
An excellent debate. However I'd like to point out my disagreement to some of hell riders points.
I do not think that the current, evolved human has relationships only to propagate.

What about relationships where couples choose not to have kids, or where one partner is unable to participate in reproduction due to a medical condition.
It is not necessary that their companionship would culminate in reproduction and they may actually share a healthy relationship that is not only based in sex.

Homosexuals too can share a relationship based on mutual understanding, love and companionship.

The purpose of relationships cannot be broken down purely to recreational sex and procreational sex. That would be wrong.
yes currently for humans its not the sole criterion. which is why i accepted that humans may well be on the way to the next evolutionary goal. but when i say the purpose of sex is to reproduce, i am not talking restrictively within the realm of the human species. i am talking on the larger scheme of things as nature has programmed our body parts and mechanisms.

as humans have evolved physically over the eons, over the past century, our thought processes too have evolved and there now exists a broader view on other important things in life such as quality of life itself.

when i spoke about gay couple wanting to adopt or go for surrogate helped parenting, i was talking about the large number of gays who want to and can live just as normally as a hetero couple can. this however is far more prevalent in the west. it will take a while for the concept to be accepted in india.

i was infact, building on the point we had yesterday that not all gay sex is about promiscuity. there exists monogamous gay couples as well, and many of them if offered the chance, would love to adopt as well. however, its next to impossible for a gay couple to do so in india.

i also accept the fact that i don't consider it mandatory for a baby to be a part of the equation in a marriage. i do believe that a couple can live a meaningful and fulfiling life without a baby.

i should add here that i too am married but see no real hurry to get to become a father. i keep fending off questions and hints from family but am in no mood to become a father just yet.

but that does not deter from my belief, that reproduction is still the goal of sex in the more primal scheme of things. its just that we have learnt to get at the other benefits of sex while avoiding the natural result of it - evolving - so to speak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sam kapasi
You've mentioned often that a gay man cannot mate with a woman. I think you are very wrong.

You've insinuated that male homosexual animals can in fact copulate with female members but male human homosexuals simply cannot. - I strongly disagree.

If the purpose of mating is to procreate - to ejaculate sperm which will fertilize the females egg, every man is capable of ejaculating given the circumstances.

Remember that most men are not attracted to their own hand either, but that hand does offer stimulation. Quite successfully too! lol.

Sir - I stipulate that given the right stimulus, any man (hetero or homosexual) can indeed be aroused and can successfully ejaculate with man, woman, machine or animal with or without penetration.

He may choose not to, for reasons of attraction, morality, sensibility and more but he is capable nonetheless.

Given that stipulation, your argument about a homosexual man being in fact incapable of reproduction with a female member seems incorrect.
my premise for my statement has two reasons:

1.the "naturally born homosexuals" as have been referred to in this thread often accept the same fact themselves. and most of them use this very point to justify their homosexual lifestyles - that just because they are unable to have sex with women, it is not fair to deny them the right to experience the joys of sex, albeit, with their own sex. so i dunno which way to lean now. do i take the word of practising homosexuals, or the word of heterosexuals who are defending the homosexuals.
2. i have witnessed at close quarters an instance where a gay guy got married to this female due to family pressure and has been unable to consummate the marriage. consultations have been made with sex therapists, psychiatrists et al, but to no avail. of course, it couldn't bother him in the least, because he continues to fully enjoy his gay lifestyle. its the woman who is stuck.

apparently, according to the law, this constitutes cruelty and will rule in favour of the woman. i really am not legally qualified to know how the amendment to 377 changes that. incidentally this was the example i was referring to last night.

i have also had gay friends when abroad, who were very comfortable with stating that they were unable to perform with women. some of these people had even experimented with hererosexual relationships or in really unfortunate cases, marriage even, before they realised their true orientation.

mind you, i am not stating that everyone who lives a gay lifestyle is incapable of performing with a female. but i do know that there exists a large number, predominanatly those, who are the born homosexual kind. the ones who switched teams midway might still well be able to perform.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 19:58   #188
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor View Post
This is how we have evolved. It's part of mankind. It will be there. We cant supress it. But we can be civilized about it, and let the people who chose to be gay, be happy about it. Just like no one forces us to be straight, let them be the way they want to be.

Different strokes for different folks.
i see that your arguments are still being made under the assumption that i am anti-gay. frankly, after having clarified that i am not anti-gay, this insinuation is insulting.

your advising me to be civilized about it is really uncalled for and really patronising.

and thats the end of it from me as far as our debate on this is concerned.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 21:12   #189
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Sam Kapasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mumbai (but wat
Posts: 6,989
Thanked: 1,378 Times
Default

Hell rider, I know you are not anti-gay or a homophobe. I'll state it clearly for the record.

Coming back to our discussion:

I specifically discuss your comparison of animals to humans where you state that Homosexual animals are capable of also fertilizing females while homosexual humans are not.
I too have opinions from gay people about the same.

I insist that a homosexual man could indeed be stimulated enough to ejaculate by man, woman, machine or animal.

Peter (assumed name) was born heterosexual. Frank (assumed name) was born homosexual. Both young single adult human males.

We're not discussing laws of attraction or choices here, OK. I'll continue.

It is clear that Peter chooses to be with women because he likes it. It is clear that Frank chooses to be with men because he likes it.

I stipulate that Frank could have sex for reproductory purposes with a woman if it was required. I state that Frank could have sex with anything if it was required. He may not find it attractive, he may not even enjoy it mentally, hell he may not even enjoy it physically, but if required, he could be stimulated enough to ejaculate.

Peter may find only women attractive and may never even be slightly attracted to a man. No man would arouse him. However, if Peter was in fact in a situation where he had to have sex with a man, he could easily be aroused and eventually lead to an orgasm, whether he likes it or not.

For example sex in prisons, where otherwise heterosexual men do have homosexual sex for pleasure and out of the need to copulate. Yes, not all of them enjoy it. But they do ejaculate when offered penile stimulation.

I don't have an example where Frank would be surrounded by women and be forced to have heterosexual sex with them. (Stop dreaming about it guys! This is a sensible discussion, lol)
But if it did happen and Frank was offered penile stimulation, he would eventually ejaculate, no matter how much he detested the women.

This makes both of them capable of having a reproductory relationship with a woman.

The case of your friend. If I understand you - He is not attracted to his wife and chooses not to copulate with her. He enjoys gay sex for pleasure and does not associate pleasure with his wife.

He cannot offer satisfaction to her, this is understood well enough as he is simply not attracted to her and chooses to make no effort.

However if the situation (for whatever reason) required sex for reproductive purposes only (and not for pleasure) he would be capable with a little assistance. There stands my stipulation.

He may not be capable of pleasurable "sex" as we define it with his wife (because of his mental block against women), but he could easily get her pregnant if he wanted to with a little help from her end. Or even on his own!

You of course know that all you need to get the job done is semen. Not sex.

It is my singular stipulation that any man, woman or animal - regardless of sexual orientation, can be stimulated and brought to orgasm by anyone. A very heterosexual man can in fact be brought to arousal and ejaculation by another man and vice versa if the situation was such.
He may never want it to happen. It may offend his sensibilities and values and go against his choices. But it can happen.

Given this stipulation I believe that a homosexual man is capable of reproducing with a female. He may simply not want to do it.

Last edited by Sam Kapasi : 5th July 2009 at 21:23.
Sam Kapasi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 21:49   #190
Senior - BHPian
 
vivekiny2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: cincinnati, jabalpur,chennai
Posts: 1,241
Thanked: 163 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor View Post
We are already way ahead, when you compare with other species.

In our case, the body itself seems to have evolved for this !

& Case in point : is the human tongue meant to be used for tasting food, or for use during sex ? Doesnt the human being derieve pleasure with the tongue - both giving & taking the pleasure, with an organ like the tongue- when the organ was never intended for that ?



So inspite of being the most evolved species on the planet, why is it that the teat of the human female is so un-suitable for feeding a baby ?

The homo-sapien female's teat is the odd one in the entire mammalian kingdom. AFAIK, only in the case of humans can a baby be suffocated during feeding. And that too at the hands of it's own mother. And when this happens, it is not intentional.

Just in case you have not heard about the suffocation part, it is because of the precautions the mother is taught to take. Else we too would have far more infant deaths than we have today.

Do you know why that nipple you get in the medical store for use with the baby's feeding bottle is elongated, as against the much shorter teat that the mother has ? Or the bottle is long - and not round like human female the breast is ? Well, that bottle & that nipple are better suited to feeding the baby than the mother's breast. And for that matter, go and check the structure in any other mammal - the baby will so freely be able to feed from it's mother.

And have you ever noticed that the human breast resembles the human buttock so much ? Even though an ape or similar animal has its breasts in the same place, it's breasts dont resemble it's buttocks as much as it happens in case of the human ?
while you are right in saying we have evolved against order of nature, the example you gave is rubbishly wrong. the bottles are shaped that way just because:
1. ease of use.
2. breast shaped bottle will attract a lot of negative attention LOL.

correct examples:
1. evolution of vocal cord positioned our air tract and food/water tract such that we are ridiculously susceptible to choking.
2. human babies can not survive in wild without adult care for first 5 (or more) years. even the birth has to be assisted nowadays.

Last edited by vivekiny2k : 5th July 2009 at 21:54.
vivekiny2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 21:55   #191
Senior - BHPian
 
greenhorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: TN-14
Posts: 6,709
Thanked: 1,074 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vivekiny2k View Post
correct examples:
1. evolution of vocal cord positioned our air tract and food/water tract such that we are ridiculously susceptible to choking.
2. human babies can not survive in wild without adult care for first 5 (or more) years. even the birth has to be assisted nowadays.

There are lots of instances where nature has messed up. if you think the positioning of the vocal chords in humans is bad, think of the poor giant squid. Its tract passes through the center of its brain, If it tries to eat a piece of food that's too big, it could suffer brain damage!
greenhorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 22:39   #192
Distinguished - BHPian
 
condor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Speed-brkr City
Posts: 10,315
Thanked: 3,656 Times
Default

Quote:
vivekiny2k .. the example you gave is rubbishly wrong. the bottles are shaped that way just because:
1. ease of use.
2. breast shaped bottle will attract a lot of negative attention LOL.
@Vivek, keeping aside the lighter comment about lot of negative attention ... while the bottle may be easier to hold, you need to see the two points together - a shorter nipple arising from a round, ball shaped breast. This combination is far riskier than the breats-teats combination / structure as seen on other mammals like the monkeys / chimps ..

Apart from the various reading I have done over the years, there was a more recent incident in the family when we lost a month old baby when he suffocated & ended up with the milk in his lungs.
condor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 23:17   #193
Senior - BHPian
 
Gansan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chennai
Posts: 3,417
Thanked: 860 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astleviz View Post
Whose natural order of things? Who has defined this natural order? It's like saying-
men like cars, women like diamonds = natural order of things
men like diamonds, women like cars = not in the natural order of things
The analogy you offer appears wise, but it is actually otherwise! I meant nature's order of things. If it was not so, we could as well have been created bisexual, as some organisms are. I don't believe gays are genetically programmed to be like that, rather it is a glitch/bug in their program. But I think all the same they are individuals just like me and have all the rights to be their natural selves. It is just the idea of making a virtue out of it, flaunting it, a voluble section making a hue and cry about it that makes me uneasy.

Last edited by Rehaan : 6th July 2009 at 03:04. Reason: Fixed quote & bold text.
Gansan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 23:29   #194
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi View Post
Hell rider, I know you are not anti-gay or a homophobe. I'll state it clearly for the record.

Coming back to our discussion:

I specifically discuss your comparison of animals to humans where you state that Homosexual animals are capable of also fertilizing females while homosexual humans are not.
I too have opinions from gay people about the same.

I insist that a homosexual man could indeed be stimulated enough to ejaculate by man, woman, machine or animal.

Peter (assumed name) was born heterosexual. Frank (assumed name) was born homosexual. Both young single adult human males.

We're not discussing laws of attraction or choices here, OK. I'll continue.

It is clear that Peter chooses to be with women because he likes it. It is clear that Frank chooses to be with men because he likes it.

I stipulate that Frank could have sex for reproductory purposes with a woman if it was required. I state that Frank could have sex with anything if it was required. He may not find it attractive, he may not even enjoy it mentally, hell he may not even enjoy it physically, but if required, he could be stimulated enough to ejaculate.

Peter may find only women attractive and may never even be slightly attracted to a man. No man would arouse him. However, if Peter was in fact in a situation where he had to have sex with a man, he could easily be aroused and eventually lead to an orgasm, whether he likes it or not.

For example sex in prisons, where otherwise heterosexual men do have homosexual sex for pleasure and out of the need to copulate. Yes, not all of them enjoy it. But they do ejaculate when offered penile stimulation.

I don't have an example where Frank would be surrounded by women and be forced to have heterosexual sex with them. (Stop dreaming about it guys! This is a sensible discussion, lol)
But if it did happen and Frank was offered penile stimulation, he would eventually ejaculate, no matter how much he detested the women.

This makes both of them capable of having a reproductory relationship with a woman.

The case of your friend. If I understand you - He is not attracted to his wife and chooses not to copulate with her. He enjoys gay sex for pleasure and does not associate pleasure with his wife.

He cannot offer satisfaction to her, this is understood well enough as he is simply not attracted to her and chooses to make no effort.

However if the situation (for whatever reason) required sex for reproductive purposes only (and not for pleasure) he would be capable with a little assistance. There stands my stipulation.

He may not be capable of pleasurable "sex" as we define it with his wife (because of his mental block against women), but he could easily get her pregnant if he wanted to with a little help from her end. Or even on his own!

You of course know that all you need to get the job done is semen. Not sex.

It is my singular stipulation that any man, woman or animal - regardless of sexual orientation, can be stimulated and brought to orgasm by anyone. A very heterosexual man can in fact be brought to arousal and ejaculation by another man and vice versa if the situation was such.
He may never want it to happen. It may offend his sensibilities and values and go against his choices. But it can happen.

Given this stipulation I believe that a homosexual man is capable of reproducing with a female. He may simply not want to do it.
sam,

this is a point i am not willing to push very hard on. simply for the fact that :
1. i am not a homosexual and cannot authoritatively back up my point with first hand experience.
2. i have not been forced into a situation where i have had to have sex with men (no prison experiences for me thankfully, as i am sure for you too )

however, i will say this.
the points i made in my earlier post were from first hand narratives from people i know well, as also from shared experiences by my gay friends. while i would like to agree with you, i would not like to fully disregard their personal experiences as well. i would attach some weight to their testimony, in all fairness.

i hope you will also appreciate the fact that i did not categorically state that gay people CANNOT have successful sex with women. i said a fair number of them cannot.

however, with respect to the points you have made:
i understand what you mean when you say, that given sufficient penile stimulation any man irrespective of his sexuality and the sex of his partner can orgasm. i definitely agree with that.

but then when a gay man has to stimulate himself to the point of orgasm and then penetrate just in time for orgasm, for e.g. is not very far removed from artifical insemination, as far as the actual process of insemination is concerned. while penetration would have occured in this case technically, it can hardly be qualified as sex in the true sense of the term.

which brings us to the original point i made, which was, (some) gay men would be incapable of having sex with women unlike gay or bi sexual animals. the point still holds true, as the animals seem to be equally at ease penetrating members of both sexes. they do not seem to require special stimulation for the act. this would however not be the case as per the situations and methods that you state for a gay man to have sex with a female ; namely extra stimulation or fantasizing or appropriate stimuli, all of which would not be available as a solution to the animal.

the other major difference between male gay animals and gay human males in this regard, is that, all of the situations in which a human male would have sex with a member of the sex opposite to his sexual orientation, would be forced situations which he has not been able to back out of, for whatever the reasons may be (such as forced sex in prison). however, in case of animals, both the homosexual and heterosexual acts are willing acts, which the animals are comfortable with. this is another reason why i mention that gay males are not as capable of intercourse with females as gay male animals are.

i hope you understand the point i am trying to make, and the difference i am trying to highlight.

and thanks for the vote of confidence. much appreciated.

Last edited by hell_rider : 5th July 2009 at 23:41.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2009, 00:33   #195
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,850
Thanked: 15,406 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansan View Post

The analogy you offer appears wise, but it is actually otherwise! I meant nature's order of things. If it was not so, we could as well have been created bisexual, as some organisms are. I don't believe gays are genetically programmed to be like that, rather it is a glitch/bug in their program. But I think all the same they are individuals just like me and have all the rights to be their natural selves. It is just the idea of making a virtue out of it, flaunting it, a voluble section making a hue and cry about it that makes me uneasy.
Animals follow natural order of things, the only law is law of nature and instinct. Human society does a lot of things against the natural order of things. None of that is criminalized, therefore criminalizing people just because they are not like the majority is not right too.,

Last edited by Rehaan : 6th July 2009 at 03:04. Reason: Bold formatting removed from quoted post & original.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pathetic service experience at Landmark Honda, Ahmedabad rockporiom Indian Car Dealerships 4 16th June 2015 00:58
Hyderabad-Salem:Diversion Landmark? ranjitp1 Route / Travel Queries 32 21st June 2012 16:02
Game Changers - Landmark events in the Indian Automotive Scene amit_2025 The Indian Car Scene 71 12th February 2012 06:38
Panel for landmark changes in Motor Vehicle Act vbraju Street Experiences 2 2nd January 2011 13:04
A Landmark Shift in Bajaj's Advertising??? vasudeva Motorbikes 12 31st July 2009 07:05


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 08:57.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks