Can You Answer This Question?

[Robert]

I have a question that has always bothered me and I wanted to know what some others think about this. This is a very serious question so please treat it as such. I am definitely gay. I am also a Christian. I know that there are different faiths represented on this site but the question is the same regardless. If God created some men as homosexuals it would seem to me that he would provide for them the same range of sexual expression with their partner as he would for heterosexual men which would include intercourse. However, it is clear that the anus is not constructed to receive it is constructed to expel. Of course it can be forced to receive. Even if you just believe in mother nature and that the body just evolved and has no divine intent behind it the situation is the same. Why is this so ?

[andrewlittle]

I try, most times, Robert to give people the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes that's not easy.

In your first post, http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3943, you posited essentially that gay men are mostly just horny dogs with little inclination or propensity for monogamous relationships. You also, by my reckoning, made some very disturbing gender-related insinuations. In the process you insinuate you are gay, but don't outright say so. There were 29 replies - NONE of which you deigned worthy of a reply.

Your next post, http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=44862&postcount=9, again insinuates, but isn't exactly clear. "When I was there I would never have said a word about being gay", does not say "I am gay." If I went to Vandy, I wouldn't have said anything about being gay, either - but, then again, I'm not.

Your next post just ask a question about the states in which laws permitting gay marriage have been passed. It would seem that if you were a gay man who had not been living under a rock, this question would be - well, odd.

You fourth and last post is this one, in which you state openly you are gay, but in which you ask a rather pointed question about physical sexuality between gay men. You state, "However, it is clear that the anus is not constructed to receive it is constructed to expel. Of course it can be forced to receive." Forced is an interesting choice of words - incredibly wrong and judgmental, but nonetheless interesting.

Forgive me, Robert, but your writing style does not lead me to believe that you live in a backwoods somewhere, light years away from another human being. You don't live under a rock, and that seems obvious.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, Robert, but your posts so far seem to be lining up to enable you to start proselytizing about some perceived "un-naturalness" of gay men. I could just be a fat old, suspicious, curmudgeon - but, then again, Robert, if I perceive the people I love being set up for an attack, I tend to get a tad snippy.

Tell me I'm wrong, will you Robert. Please.

[Dumbledore]

I think Andrewlittle has it figured out. Maybe it is time to move Robert and AJLove to the special room.

[Robert]

I try, most times, Robert to give people the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes that's not easy.

In your first post, http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3943, you posited essentially that gay men are mostly just horny dogs with little inclination or propensity for monogamous relationships. You also, by my reckoning, made some very disturbing gender-related insinuations. In the process you insinuate you are gay, but don't outright say so. There were 29 replies - NONE of which you deigned worthy of a reply.

Your next post, http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=44862&postcount=9, again insinuates, but isn't exactly clear. "When I was there I would never have said a word about being gay", does not say "I am gay." If I went to Vandy, I wouldn't have said anything about being gay, either - but, then again, I'm not.

Your next post just ask a question about the states in which laws permitting gay marriage have been passed. It would seem that if you were a gay man who had not been living under a rock, this question would be - well, odd.

You fourth and last post is this one, in which you state openly you are gay, but in which you ask a rather pointed question about physical sexuality between gay men. You state, "However, it is clear that the anus is not constructed to receive it is constructed to expel. Of course it can be forced to receive." Forced is an interesting choice of words - incredibly wrong and judgmental, but nonetheless interesting.

Forgive me, Robert, but your writing style does not lead me to believe that you live in a backwoods somewhere, light years away from another human being. You don't live under a rock, and that seems obvious.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, Robert, but your posts so far seem to be lining up to enable you to start proselytizing about some perceived "un-naturalness" of gay men. I could just be a fat old, suspicious, curmudgeon - but, then again, Robert, if I perceive the people I love being set up for an attack, I tend to get a tad snippy.

Tell me I'm wrong, will you Robert. Please.

I have no agenda. I am a man like any other trying to naviagate his way in this sometimes proplexing world. No matter what track I am on I am never afraid to ask questions. When you stop seaching and questioning you might as well die.

[Alecto]

I have a more important question: why is everyone so hung up on anal sex?
1)Newsflash: it's NOT the only act of sexual expression two men can perform.
2)There's more and more straight men who are discovering their nerve endings and enjoying recieving anal sex with their female partners. Not to mention the heterosexual women who enjoy it.
3)Not all gay men like anal sex.


4)Really, what point could an answer to your question, as asked, possibly serve?
5)Mu. Your question is based on false premises. One thing that seems obvious to me is that, if the physical bit is going to be different, then the physical bit is going to be different. Why should two men have sexual activities that are just analogues to heterosexual sex acts? That makes no sense. Furthermore, I think you'll need to back up just why you think it's so clear that the anus isn't "constructed to recieve" (as compared to a vagina, which is also very obviously constructed to expel).

[Daniel]

Which is- of course- a play on words on the British line: No sex please...we're British. The Brits also gave us this one: The love that dares not speak its name.

Well....Let's talk about it. Love between two men.

Robert- I've made a fair number of posts about sex between men on this forum, and I also recall Dash having some illustrative things to say as well. If you use the search feature I'm sure you'll find some helpful information.

That said, even straight men are curious about anal intercourse. Why? Because men have something called a prostate. It can experience orgasm and pleasure. A finger or a phallus....both will do. One could say that God created men with this feature. And so what?

I ask you: would a straight man buy the argument that a woman's breasts were only made by God to give milk, and therefore, shouldn't be touched? I rather doubt it.

If anything, God made men and women for more things than procreation, and to figure out what that means, one only has to use a little imagination.

And lubricant.

Really hot sex involves love, not moral judgements about which parts go where.

[Robert]

I have a more important question: why is everyone so hung up on anal sex?
1)Newsflash: it's NOT the only act of sexual expression two men can perform.
2)There's more and more straight men who are discovering their nerve endings and enjoying recieving anal sex with their female partners. Not to mention the heterosexual women who enjoy it.
3)Not all gay men like anal sex.


4)Really, what point could an answer to your question, as asked, possibly serve?
5)Mu. Your question is based on false premises. One thing that seems obvious to me is that, if the physical bit is going to be different, then the physical bit is going to be different. Why should two men have sexual activities that are just analogues to heterosexual sex acts? That makes no sense. Furthermore, I think you'll need to back up just why you think it's so clear that the anus isn't "constructed to recieve" (as compared to a vagina, which is also very obviously constructed to expel).
One thing that seems obvious to me is that, if the physical bit is going to be different, then the physical bit is going to be different. Why should two men have sexual activities that are just analogues to heterosexual sex acts? That makes no sense.

Okay, that makes sense to me. Thank you for the insight.

why you think it's so clear that the anus isn't "constructed to recieve"

Well for one thing it hurts.

PS I'm new to replys so forgive me if this doesn,t come out right.

[Robert]

I have a more important question: why is everyone so hung up on anal sex?
1)Newsflash: it's NOT the only act of sexual expression two men can perform.
2)There's more and more straight men who are discovering their nerve endings and enjoying recieving anal sex with their female partners. Not to mention the heterosexual women who enjoy it.
3)Not all gay men like anal sex.


4)Really, what point could an answer to your question, as asked, possibly serve?
5)Mu. Your question is based on false premises. One thing that seems obvious to me is that, if the physical bit is going to be different, then the physical bit is going to be different. Why should two men have sexual activities that are just analogues to heterosexual sex acts? That makes no sense. Furthermore, I think you'll need to back up just why you think it's so clear that the anus isn't "constructed to recieve" (as compared to a vagina, which is also very obviously constructed to expel).

One thing that seems obvious to me is that, if the physical bit is going to be different, then the physical bit is going to be different. Why should two men have sexual activities that are just analogues to heterosexual sex acts? That makes no sense.

Okay, that makes sense to me. Thank you for the insight.

why you think it's so clear that the anus isn't "constructed to recieve"

Well for one thing it hurts.

PS I'm new to replys so forgive me if this doesn,t come out right.

Which is- of course- a play on words on the British line: No sex please...we're British. The Brits also gave us this one: The love that dares not speak its name.

Well....Let's talk about it. Love between two men.

Robert- I've made a fair number of posts about sex between men on this forum, and I also recall Dash having some illustrative things to say as well. If you use the search feature I'm sure you'll find some helpful information.

That said, even straight men are curious about anal intercourse. Why? Because men have something called a prostate. It can experience orgasm and pleasure. A finger or a phallus....both will do. One could say that God created men with this feature. And so what?

I ask you: would a straight man buy the argument that a woman's breasts were only made by God to give milk, and therefore, shouldn't be touched? I rather doubt it.

If anything, God made men and women for more things than procreation, and to figure out what that means, one only has to use a little imagination.

And lubricant.

Really hot sex involves love, not moral judgements about which parts go where.

Thank you for your intelligent reply as opposed to Andrew Little who seems to just want to tear me apart !

[Zerbie]

why you think it's so clear that the anus isn't "constructed to recieve"

Well for one thing it hurts.



That's why they sell lubricants.

As someone aleady mentioned, there is no rule stating that anal intercourse is obligatory for anyone. There are other ways of experiencing sexual pleasure, and some folks will never enjoy anal sex. If you don't enjoy it, don't do it.

[scott snedeker]

If anything, God made men and women for more things than procreation, and to figure out what that means, one only has to use a little imagination.

And lubricant.

Really hot sex involves love, not moral judgements about which parts go where.

But a little Douche makes it alot more fun!

And Sweeite, Daniel's right. There are buttons inside the rectum that were put there for a reason. All you need is someone to push them the right way and BA-BING! WHOA! BOY! you realise without a doubt that they were MEANT to be pushed! Once you figure this out. Obstacles to great sex are momentary delays with no real signficance.;)

[Alecto]

I agree with Scott...sometimes. I do think that there are some people who are just kind of designed so that the discomfort of getting to said buttons outweighs the benefit. And the answer is simple, and already stated: if you don't like it, don't do it.

But, Robert, you're doing what I try (and sometimes fail) very hard to NOT do, and it's the biggest fallacy surrounding all gay issues really: you're assuming something about the experience of ALL gay men (or, really in this case, ALL people). In your experience, it was painful. That sucks. If you're doing it right, though, it really shouldn't be (unless of course you want it to be which is really a whole other topic). THe point is "because it hurts" doesn't prove anything, because it doesn't always hurt for everyone.

[tpdncr4christ]

Robert, I can understand your confusion. I for one was always confused at how two outies can work together, seeing as though nature dictates that it is meant to be an outy and an inny. I mean, the bible does say, lay not with an outy as you would with an inny, that's just down right abominable! (like a snowman!) ANYways, it got me to thinking, is it all ways about the parts? Is sex really defined by some sadistic outy inny relationship? Are we doomed only to touch only outies to innies? Just imagine how awkward that would be! I mean, why the hell do we kiss when having sex? What the hell do lips have with making babies? Why do we long to touch? The touching is really unnecessary if you think about it. All you really need is the inny and the outy. That's really all you need. The kissing, the touching, the caressing, the groaning all that is just superfluous. Now, why can't the gay outies enjoy a little superfluous fun like the rest of the world? It's only fair.

[u-dog]

Robert, I can understand your confusion. I for one was always confused at how two outies can work together, seeing as though nature dictates that it is meant to be an outy and an inny. I mean, the bible does say, lay not with an outy as you would with an inny, that's just down right abominable! (like a snowman!) ANYways, it got me to thinking, is it all ways about the parts? Is sex really defined by some sadistic outy inny relationship? Are we doomed only to touch only outies to innies? Just imagine how awkward that would be! I mean, why the hell do we kiss when having sex? What the hell do lips have with making babies? Why do we long to touch? The touching is really unnecessary if you think about it. All you really need is the inny and the outy. That's really all you need. The kissing, the touching, the caressing, the groaning all that is just superfluous. Now, why can't the gay outies enjoy a little superfluous fun like the rest of the world? It's only fair.


Austins reply is eloquent and charming and doesn't need anything added from me... but I'm going to amplify what he said anyway. :rolleyes: There are only two sexual organs. THE BRAIN and THE SKIN Two people who love each other get together and employ those two organs in whatever way gives them both pleasure. That is sex. God created both the organs and sex and they are GOOD! It really is just as simple as that!!

[BruceChris]

First, I would like to ask, purely rhetorically, if something is difficult, uncomfortable, and/or painful, why is it that there are millions of "Bottoms" out there? (A bottom is someone who enjoys the submissive, or receptive role)

As Scott, and many others have expressed, it is because they enjoy it.

I remember, it seems eons ago, when I was just beginning to experiment with homosexuality, that I had a boyfriend who felt embarrassed and inadequate because he was unable to be a bottom, for the reasons that you gave. (We were both in our teens)

I suggested to him that he try a little physical therapy, in a place where he felt safe. First, try a warm enema or two, just to help relax and clean up a little. Then perhaps, get in a warm bathtub, and use his fingers to gently stretch himself out.

This worked very well for him, and soon he was no longer a virgin. As far as I know, he went on to a long and satisfying gay life.

I, on the other hand, having learned what I needed to learn about my own sexuality, went back to dating women, although I still have many wonderful roots in the gay community. Some might call this going through a phase, but I did spend some time at it.

Now, if any of the moderators out there feel that I have been too graphic here, please contact myself or Robert, and he can receive the above by private message. (Personally, I cannot see this as being in poor taste)

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[paul]

Hi Robert,

I may have missed it, I have pretty much read everyone's reply to your queery (spelling on purpose) :D.

I will state the obvious, and forgive me if someone already has. The penis is also used for elimination of waste, but that certainly doesn't disqualify it for sex. It has dual function, eh?

[dsdrane]

Thank you for your intelligent reply as opposed to Andrew Little who seems to just want to tear me apart !

Anyone who knows anything about Andrew Little knows that he's not in the tearing-apart business...unless, of course, someone really, really deserves it.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's just say he is trying to tear you apart.

Tell us why he is wrong.

'Cause, frankly Robert, he's not the only one wondering about the motivation behind some of your posts.

:whistleblower:

[Daniel]

Anyone who knows anything about Andrew Little knows that he's not in the tearing-apart business...unless someone really, really deserves it.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's just say he is trying to tear you apart.

Tell us why he is wrong.

'Cause, frankly Robert, he's not the only one wondering about the motivation behind some of your posts.

:whistleblower:


Tis true....tis true. Andy doesn't usually eat people alive. In fact, if you've been around here awhile, you'd know that I consider that my job. ;):D::lol:

[u-dog]

Tis true....tis true. Andy doesn't usually eat people alive. In fact, if you've been around here awhile, you'd know that I consider that my job. ;):D::lol:


Andrew, (how I hate to admit it) is my good friend! I admire him HUGELY. but WHEN HE PERCIEVES THAT HIS FRIENDS MAY BE BEING JERKED AROUND... He gets just a tad "junkyard doggish" Robert may be experiencing that and interpreting it as "tearing him a new one"

Robert! he wasn't. You would have bled to death by now if he had been. He has a rapier wit.

[ladyinred]

I personally find that there are women who need lubricants when they have intercourse to make things a "little easier for them." I guess do what works.The comments that the vagina is made to expel, it certainly does.... I won't be graphic here.

[tdogg]

Hey Robert,

Love will always find a way....

Oh and like the others said, a little lube don't hurt a bit!

God gave us body parts that serve purposes, aften more than one purpose. We are also blessed with enjoyment of various body parts. Were we blessed with backs for the sole purpose of enjoying massages? No, but I certainly enjoy them!

By the way, women's parts excrete things too...doesn't mean that's their sole purpose....

Open your mind Robert, the possibilities are quite broad.