Materbation

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
the only other definition of 'sex' found on Dictionary.com that has anything to do with sexual activitity (ie, instead of gender or whatever other meanings the word has)

"The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior." That could mean just about anything, but I will point out that it says, "as it manifests itself in *behavior* rather than 'as it manifests itself in *thoughts*.

as I said, here is the definition of sexual intercourse from the Meriam Webster medical dictionary:

Main Entry: sexual intercourse
Function: noun
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS

So, if the definition of homosexuality doesn't meet what you want the term to perform as... pick a better word (or phrase). Or justify a reinvention of the term.

Short of that, masturbation isn't, by definition, homosexual.

No moreso than someone who uses a vibrator is a fetishist for vibrators.

I would say that if someone was having sex with a transvestite and didn't know it was a man, and thought it was a woman, that the act wouldn't mean that the guy is gay. Also, that if someone were masturbating to thoughts of their own body (being aroused by the thought of, solely, themselves sexually), they might be homosexual.

this definition could easily be used to 'prove' that gay sex is not sex at all. (in which case, what the hell is wrong with it?) Or that two men, or two woman could not have intercourse.

On that, either "sexual intercourse" ought be better defined (and I believe it is in a great many places), or there is a problem with the language. But that there is a language problem doesn't prove the homosexuality in us all, unfortunately.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Ok, Joe.

I will admit. When I said, "Masterbation" I did indeed mean specifically, self masterbation with your own hand, or some other part of your own body. (which I feel confidant is the most common kind)

Garden variety "i touch myself' masterbation. I do not refer to any other kind. How shortsited of me to assume that my meaning would be clear and/or accepted.

as to 'what the hell does she mean by 'some other part of your own body' use your imagination- sitting on your foot and rubbing it into your crotch (if your a girl) or whatever other odd thing you might choose to discover you can do to yourself

 

[Lauren Hynde]

MastUrbation

 

[sweetnpetite]

PS, Joe,

I knew you would be the number one detractor to this theory.

My point was that dictionary definitions can be used and manipulated to make many arguments. You are the one who started with that, stating the homosexuality must incude an 'other' I do not agree with that definition.

You are the same sex as you. You know that. (Not like if you unknowingly have anal sex with a transvestite- I'm sure that's common )

When you fantasise that your man's hand is a woman's mouth or whatever else, the fact still remains that its a man's hand wrapped around your package.

And yes, when I touch myself, its a woman's touch that gets me off.

I do think that any man (or woman) who could relax and forget preconcieved beliefs about homosexuality could and would easily get off if touched properly by a person of the same sex. In otherwords, someone of the same sex would have the ability to turn you on, and get you off. Eventually, you probably would even start to crave it, just as you crave the pleasant touch that you've experienced from the opposite sex.

Hetrosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. There is nothing inherint in a man or woman that would make our sexual desires or functions shut down at the thought or touch of someone of the same sex. That is a learned behavior.

BTW, how is it that you could be aroused and stimulated by an inanimate object, but not by the warm human touch of someone of the same gender? Which is more twisted and unnatural?

 

[sweetnpetite]

MastUrbation

oops!

expect to see me continue to type it wrong out of habit.

I spell Micheal wrong all the time and several other words too.!

 

[sweetnpetite]

from Princeton University:

sexual intercourse

n : the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur

 

[sweetnpetite]

double post.

 

[Honey123]

Good thread...really.

I have often said - if a man likes a blow job, welllllll....

Look, don't you think we all have a bit of homosexuality in us?

Oral sex, dammit! Anal Sex, for goodness sakes!!!!

Come on, what guy doesn't like having oral sex and having his ass fingered?

It's time people lightened up.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

oops!

expect to see me continue to type it wrong out of habit.

I spell Micheal wrong all the time and several other words too.!

It's ok. It just had to be said.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Good thread...really.

I have often said - if a man likes a blow job, welllllll....

Really. What's the essential difference between a man's mouth and a womans? Nothing.

"We're here, we're queer, we've come to tell you your gay- and that's ok!"

 

[sweetnpetite]

The lines of gay and straight are all artificial.

The main perpose isn't who your sleeping with- it's too keep the majority of people behaving in socially acceptable ways. The fear of homosexuality is fostered in order to apeal to (so called) *straight* people's fear of being *percieved* as gay- and therefore acting in accordance with sexual stereotyping. Dress, move, or behave too much like a man (if you are a woman) and people might think your gay! Better to err on the side of caution and be ultrafeminine- be passive, and soft, and 'feminine' (as culterally defined) Better to be a man who is unquestionably 'masculine' who makes the decisions who hides his emotions, who embraces sports and competition ect.

this is how we keep the social order from changing, and the ballance of power from shifting.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
PS, Joe,

I knew you would be the number one detractor to this theory.

I am, regrettably, rational... making me, regrettably, predictable.

My point was that dictionary definitions can be used and manipulated to make many arguments. You are the one who started with that, stating the homosexuality must incude an 'other' I do not agree with that definition.

Point taken, however... that doesn't prove anything about whether masturbation is homosexual in nature. No moreso than "definitions can be manipulated" proves that Homosexuals are crazy. You said "masturbation was homosexual", I appealed to the only definition for homosexual I had... the dictionary definition--which, using it strictly (not manipulating anything, just taking the literal entry), does not support your position.

Unless you're using some other definition for homosexual. And if you are, then that should be well established. If you mean homosexual to be "anything sexual at all involving someone, including yourself, of the same gender", that's fine. But, I don't know how acceptable that definition is. Again, it brings us around to "where do we get an objective definition, then?"... dictionaries.

That's not manipulation at all.

You are the same sex as you. You know that. (Not like if you unknowingly have anal sex with a transvestite- I'm sure that's common )

Whether its common or not, feel free to roll your eyes, it dealt with the hypothetical situation that was brought up independantly of me... and dealt with it appropriately. Possibility negates absolutes.

When you fantasise that your man's hand is a woman's mouth or whatever else, the fact still remains that its a man's hand wrapped around your package.

That raises more questions about your shoddy definitions:

1) Is a guy, who gets blown by women, and fantasizes about them being male, straight?
2) Is a guy, who looks for women for strictly handjobs and anal sex--and looks for the most masculine looking woman possible--who fantasizes about men while doing it, straight?
3) Is a guy who uses his hand to come to climax, while thinking of women, gay?
4) Is a guy who uses a device (they make them, I own one) to come to climax, while thinking of women, somehow neither straight nor gay?

I do think that any man (or woman) who could relax and forget preconcieved beliefs about homosexuality could and would easily get off if touched properly by a person of the same sex. In otherwords, someone of the same sex would have the ability to turn you on, and get you off. Eventually, you probably would even start to crave it, just as you crave the pleasant touch that you've experienced from the opposite sex.

That's a nice thought, sort of... but it starts bordering on other arguments like "Gay people can be straight, if they just wanted to be" and "Gay people are in denial" (because, if people /are/ omni-sexual--men, women, animals, plastic toys, etc.--then gay people who believe they are simply homosexual are ignorant).

Hetrosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. There is nothing inherint in a man or woman that would make our sexual desires or functions shut down at the thought or touch of someone of the same sex. That is a learned behavior.

"Social Construct" is a bit of a buzzword, really. Lots of things are "Social Constructs". Social constructs are neither bad, evil, wrong, misleading, nor inaccurate by necessity. Language is a social construct. Family in any respect is a social construct. Love, as a concept, may be a social construct. Romance, literature, poetry, art, charity, being dominant, being unintelligent, etc... all can be "social constructs". The kicker isn't "X is a social construct", its "X should or shouldn't be one".

And on the notion that there isn't anything inherant... I don't think we can prove that without knowing, with certainty, what is and isn't inherant in men and women. 3000 years of philosophy, 300 years of science, and the best minds in the world don't know yet... I'm inclined to say "it isn't likely that we know".

BTW, how is it that you could be aroused and stimulated by an inanimate object, but not by the warm human touch of someone of the same gender? Which is more twisted and unnatural?

How? Um... it can happen. Entirely. Ever seen a dog hump someone's leg? My girl can climax just by being on a motorcycle or having a really intense dream. Its possible. I can't say anything intelligent about twistedness or unnaturality... I didn't know anyone had brought up value judgements yet.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
The lines of gay and straight are all artificial.

The main perpose isn't who your sleeping with- it's too keep the majority of people behaving in socially acceptable ways. The fear of homosexuality is fostered in order to apeal to (so called) *straight* people's fear of being *percieved* as gay- and therefore acting in accordance with sexual stereotyping. Dress, move, or behave too much like a man (if you are a woman) and people might think your gay! Better to err on the side of caution and be ultrafeminine- be passive, and soft, and 'feminine' (as culterally defined) Better to be a man who is unquestionably 'masculine' who makes the decisions who hides his emotions, who embraces sports and competition ect.

this is how we keep the social order from changing, and the ballance of power from shifting.

Or (and you're not going to like it, but it is the moderate and rational argument)... it could not be that way at all. It could be that homosexuality and heterosexuality are distinct natural traits... either biologically or environmentally--but both natural.

Possibility.

 

[Liar]

MastUrbation

Yep. Could be one of the world's most commonly misspelled words.

Anyway, the biggest sexual organ is the brain, and to me, what the brain does while spanking monkey outweighs what the hand and the cock are doing. I guess it comes down to how y'all masturbate. Is it yanking for the sake of yanking alone, or is it physical stimuli to enhance a (gay or straight, whatever) day-dream of sex with this or that man/woman?

...erm...

'scuse me, I'm off to urbate my mast.

#L

 

[poohlive]

Take a fun little threat about masturbation and turn it into a political argument that tests the boundaries of what a homosexual is supposed to, or not supposed to be. Did we really get all the way here?

Come on people. Most animals don't even think about sex... they just do it. The male of the species doesn't even mount the woman until she's in heat, and calls him out. Before that, he's just wandering around, looking for food, having a good time in his own life.

We've turned an instinctive part of our self preservation into a kinky way to get each other off. And, why? Cause Nature had this ingenious plan that if you made sex enjoyable, people would do it more often, and get pregnant, and have more kids, who'll have sex and start the process all over again. That's the point of sex.

You can argue whatever the hell you want about homosexual or heterosexual lines or social constructs, but the bottom line is that the point of sex originally was to produce offspring. So, yes, of course, why wouldn't sex be described in old science books as penetration... That's the best way to put it.

Why? Cause, monkeys don't have anal sex, porcupines don't go off and rent porn in order to bust a couple of nuts during the weekend, sea slugs do not have threesomes. There are cases of sexual behavior in different animals, some that seems kinky... some snakes have huge orgies inside the jungle, but even so, that is still done in order to produce offspring. They don't have swinger parties cause they want to swap wives and try something new. It's instinctual, it's chemical.

But, somehow, during self preservation, during self awareness, we realized that apart from wanting to stay alive, we also want the good things in life. Good food, good drink, nice shelter... not just any shelter. A cave is nice and good, but our own little hut, with shelves, and a fireplace, and windows... well, that's better, isn't it?

And, sex! It felt good to have sex, but the babies became a problem. Cause, they wanted to have the good feeling, without the consequences. They wanted the pleasure without the pain. So, condoms, birth control, safe, sex, abstinence...
What? No, abstinence? That doesn't solve the problem, you still need to get off, you still want to feel that pleasure. Your body, instinctively still wants to produce offspring, and you need to trick your body into thinking that's what your doing, in order to get the pleasure.

Masturbation became the cheapest solution. It's safe, no disease, no baby, no money, hell, you don't even have to buy your hand dinner, just a little lube (or spit, saliva works just as well) and your on your way.

You want to know what masturbation really is? In Nature? Naturally? You are tricking yourself into thinking that you're having sex. You're tricking your body into thinking you're going to produce a baby, so it's heterosexual. Heterosexual in nature, heterosexual in design, and heterosexual in conception.

This isn't to say that homosexuality is wrong. Some people could use this argument to say, well, "homosexuality is wrong, it's not in nature's design, see?" But, that's not true. Lots of animals live in homosexual relationships, but without the sex... why? Cause, animals only have sex to reproduce (except dolphins. Us, some apes, and dolphins... ha ha, we really are the superior species).

To be gay, is to be in a relationship you feel comfortable in. You can be comfortable with a guy, or a girl, or in some cases, a guy and a girl, or a couple of girls, or a couple of guys, or a couple of couples, either way, if you feel comfortable, that's what works for you. But, don't mix relationships up with sex. They aren't the same thing.

If nature had made sex ugly, if it wasn't enjoyable at all. If it were some sort of painful horrible disasterous thing, people would still do it. (some spiders, females eat the males... but still, it's enjoyable. Nature designed it so that male spider got the best 20 minutes of his life, and he doesn't even have to stick around to take care of the kids!!! HA HA, who comes out a winner in that relationship). They wouldn't like doing it, but they would, because of self preservation. But, I doubt all of this sex shit would be a problem anymore.

And Joe, don't even start. There's no real evidence to back what I'm saying up... I know. No need to tell everyone the obvious. Just a few observations of my own that I've come up with from the time I started really thinking about sex and its design. I'm sure there are people who agree with me, and people who uproaringly disagree, but it doesn't matter. Humble opinion, I'm allowed to have it...

Way to go, take a nice fun thread like masturbation and ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I am, regrettably, rational... making me, regrettably, predictable.



Point taken, however... that doesn't prove anything about whether masturbation is homosexual in nature. No moreso than "definitions can be manipulated" proves that Homosexuals are crazy. You said "masturbation was homosexual", I appealed to the only definition for homosexual I had... the dictionary definition--which, using it strictly (not manipulating anything, just taking the literal entry), does not support your position.

Unless you're using some other definition for homosexual. And if you are, then that should be well established. If you mean homosexual to be "anything sexual at all involving someone, including yourself, of the same gender", that's fine. But, I don't know how acceptable that definition is. Again, it brings us around to "where do we get an objective definition, then?"... dictionaries.

That's not manipulation at all.



Whether its common or not, feel free to roll your eyes, it dealt with the hypothetical situation that was brought up independantly of me... and dealt with it appropriately. Possibility negates absolutes.



That raises more questions about your shoddy definitions:

1) Is a guy, who gets blown by women, and fantasizes about them being male, straight?
2) Is a guy, who looks for women for strictly handjobs and anal sex--and looks for the most masculine looking woman possible--who fantasizes about men while doing it, straight?
3) Is a guy who uses his hand to come to climax, while thinking of women, gay?
4) Is a guy who uses a device (they make them, I own one) to come to climax, while thinking of women, somehow neither straight nor gay?



That's a nice thought, sort of... but it starts bordering on other arguments like "Gay people can be straight, if they just wanted to be" and "Gay people are in denial" (because, if people /are/ omni-sexual--men, women, animals, plastic toys, etc.--then gay people who believe they are simply homosexual are ignorant).



"Social Construct" is a bit of a buzzword, really. Lots of things are "Social Constructs". Social constructs are neither bad, evil, wrong, misleading, nor inaccurate by necessity. Language is a social construct. Family in any respect is a social construct. Love, as a concept, may be a social construct. Romance, literature, poetry, art, charity, being dominant, being unintelligent, etc... all can be "social constructs". The kicker isn't "X is a social construct", its "X should or shouldn't be one".

And on the notion that there isn't anything inherant... I don't think we can prove that without knowing, with certainty, what is and isn't inherant in men and women. 3000 years of philosophy, 300 years of science, and the best minds in the world don't know yet... I'm inclined to say "it isn't likely that we know".



How? Um... it can happen. Entirely. Ever seen a dog hump someone's leg? My girl can climax just by being on a motorcycle or having a really intense dream. Its possible. I can't say anything intelligent about twistedness or unnaturality... I didn't know anyone had brought up value judgements yet.

Its not that type of discussion.

 

[sweetnpetite]

You want to know what masturbation really is? In Nature? Naturally? You are tricking yourself into thinking that you're having sex. You're tricking your body into thinking you're going to produce a baby, so it's heterosexual. Heterosexual in nature, heterosexual in design, and heterosexual in conception.

This is the best argument so far that masterbation is heterosexual. But I'm not really convinced that masterbation was conceived to avoid the complications of sex. I think it was concieved because it feels good. (I sure know that's why I started)

I suppose you could also say that homosexual sex is tricking your body into thinking your going to produce a baby (man ejaculationg into a man for instance) and is therefore heterosexual in nature.

Thanks for 'getting' the discussion, and hopping in on equal terms to state your point of view.

I still think, at the very least, there is a 'gay element' to masterbation that only the most uptight will deny. I say face and embrace your entire sexuality- the whole range of human sexual response is within us all.

 

[RebeccaLeah]

Ok, had to peek in before going to sleep.

Sweet, very cool idea to toss around in my head, but I think it's more the person imagined to be doing the touching that matters. Either that or it is just pleasure for pleasure's sake, which of course is fully worthwhile.

I honestly don't think everyone is bi, though it's a neat theory, some people are truly straight and some people gay. Though you could argue that any lesbian that likes plastic imitations is actually bi or straight (which I sooooo don't agree with) I can't find the same argument for gay guys. *shrug* We are what we are.

 

[sweetnpetite]

We are what we are.

Yep. But isn't it fun to watch people squirm at the idea that they might be gay or have homosexual tendencies? To see how fast they want to disprove my unconfortable theory. If you were secure and comfortable in your sexuality/humanity, would it really matter? Or would you go- 'oh maybe so, that's an interesting idea' and then go wank yourself anyway?!

Like "I am what I am, so what does it matter if I'm gay or straight? I just *am*

 

[Guest]

 

[Honey123]

AAAIIIIIEEEEE!

Get away from me, You Fag HANDS!!!


They keep touching me on my privates!!!!



(silly rabbits)

PMSL!!!!!!!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by poohlive
And Joe, don't even start. There's no real evidence to back what I'm saying up...

Way to go, take a nice fun thread like masturbation and ruin it for the rest of us.

What? I'm inclined to agree with you. And, incidentally, I'm looking at how we got here and while I take some blame for continuing to stand by my point--it takes two people to argue, and two people were doing just that. Ain't all my fault.

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Its not that type of discussion.

Then, you shouldn't have started arguments about it. All I did was respond with "in this case of homosexuality (the definition), it doesn't appear that masturbation is homosexual". I can quote your responses if you like.

I didn't start nothin'.

If you were secure and comfortable in your sexuality/humanity, would it really matter?

Choosing to disagree with someone because they call you homosexual doesn't mean that one is uncomfortable with their sexuality. No moreso than responding with clear reasons why you aren't a democrat makes one "uncomfortable with their political alignment". While you "take joy" in accusing people of being gay or whatever it is you're now saying you're up to, keep in mind that its a touchy subject--has a lot of background--and to some great extent (for homosexual and heterosexual people alike) its a bit offensive to just muck around about it.

I knew a gay guy who took great offense whenever someone would say "You could be straight it you wanted to, that's my theory". That they take a strange joy in watching him explain why their "theory" isn't necessarily true didn't make him less confidant about his sexuality and was a bit prickish.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Honey123]

I have heard that there are some people who are Tri-sexual...

They'll try anything sexual - ba da bump! (I tried to type the drum sound...oh well )


So, if I use my left hand and then I use my right hand would you say I was cheating on my hands? And if I use my right hand to masturbate and my left hand to caresss any other part of my body ~ does that mean I am having a 3some?