# Anal - morally wrong?



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Sometimes guys see weird shit in porn and think 'omg, teh anal is sooo hawt.. its like.. more naughty than teh pusseh.. '
Its fucking stupid.
Unless the poon is really loose, theres nothing about anal thats rewarding beyond them acting out shit they see in porn, or some *degradation* fantasy.

Suuure, a lot of people give everything and anything the 'ol college try, but anal sex typically doesn't become an every day item on the menu, between hetero couples.

Don't worry, not every guy is going to want it, a lot think its disgusting and/or stupid.


----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee (Mar 8, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> Ok then. Let's start all over again.
> 
> I think you should find out for yourself what is right and what is wrong. All the time people need someone who tells them what to do, what to think, how to act and I think you are perfectly capable of leading your own life.
> 
> ...


I could find out for myself. And I see why you're suggesting that but I'm not sure this is something that ought not be a universal decision. I really think you should look at why I said it could be morally correct or incorrect before you tell me I ought not even ask this question. If you want me to listen to what you have to say about the question I asked, I think you ought to address the question in your answer so I know you understand it. Otherwise, you may as well be answering questions I haven't even asked which is what I feel like you're doing.

You may think that by dismissing something you said, I'm a sensor. But I had reason for doing that which you didn't even consider and I'm sorry if I can't just not be pissed when someone judges me prematurely - not really. IF we're relating judging books by their covers to sensor-behavior, if you ask me, you're more guilty of it than anyone here. With that said, I'm kind of done with you right now because what I do know is how I was treated. Have a good one.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Promethea said:


> Sometimes guys see weird shit in porn and think 'omg, teh anal is sooo hawt.. its like.. more naughty than teh pusseh.. '
> Its fucking stupid.
> Unless the poon is really loose, theres nothing about anal thats rewarding beyond them acting out shit they see in porn, or some *degradation* fantasy.
> 
> ...


Well, I think nothing of it (I have a next to nothing interest in anal sex) but I suspect that most guys want it so they can put it on their trophy list *sigh*. It is something to brag about. I suspect - based on personal observation and I am pretty sharp if I may say so -that the woman values the emotional connection a lot more than the male. If it doesn't feel right, the women is far less likely to have sex with you than when then man feels that the situation isn't right. I could be wrong but I think this still counts for the majority.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> It's a matter of preference, not morality.


^ That.

And while the question for the thread is "is it morally wrong?", all the reasons offered in the OP are purely physical things and focused on natural processes. The idea of "sperm being wasted" (which I suppose is a moral idea that some have held) was postponed for some other thread; but basically we can all see that it depends on one's ideas about what sperm are, what sex is, and whether it should always result in pregnancy if possible.

As far as my own experiences with anal sex, yes, I have had it. Yes, I have liked it. Is it my #1 preference? No. But it does feel good. I've also been rimmed, and there I did have mixed feelings because someone was putting their mouth to that part of my body, and so there while it felt very very good it also ran aground on my personal distaste at the thought of someone having their mouth there.

But I'm just not sure what "moral" has to do with it. For me, moral is whether you are harming or taking advantage of another human being without concern for them; and a consensual act between two adults who are not violating other relationships nor creating enduring harm to each other isn't a negative thing.




boughtmeawalkman said:


> So when does morality mean anything, if you believe it ever does? Because in my mind, a preference must be morally correct to be a preference in the first place.





Diligent Procrastinator said:


> Uhh... I prefer vanilla ice cream... Is that the morally correct choice?


That's my response as well. There is a lot that can be a "preference" without having anything to do with morality. In fact, isn't MBTI simply a description of one's "preferences"? There is nothing immoral about what type you are.




boughtmeawalkman said:


> I swear, some of you people are beyond agitating. You want to tell people they're wrong without explaining any reasoning behind it, think you're getting your point across while completely dismissing the fact that that person might HAVE reason for feeling the way they do. But fine - you know best, and it's easier to just live ignorantly. Good bye, and good riddens. -_-


I find this thread confusing. You asked a question and asked for opinions, and some people have provided some "good faith" answers, whereupon you have argued with them and basically slapped them around for bothering to answer your questions. I'm not sure what you really wanted in this thread. It sounds like you already had answers of your own.

Anyway, I gave you my answer and I hope it was helpful. Good luck, and I hope you figure out whatever it was you wanted to learn.


----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee (Mar 8, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> ^ That.
> 
> And while the question for the thread is "is it morally wrong?", all the reasons offered in the OP are purely physical things and focused on natural processes. The idea of "sperm being wasted" (which I suppose is a moral idea that some have held) was postponed for some other thread; but basically we can all see that it depends on one's ideas about what sperm are, what sex is, and whether it should always result in pregnancy if possible.
> 
> ...


You say that you don't see how it's an issue of morality but go on to say that you believe moral "is whether you are harming or taking advantage of another human being without concern for them." This thread was created to see if anal sex is harmful or not. And IF his dick is going somewhere it MAY NOT be intended for, who's to say that isn't harmful, and what is that person's reasoning?

It really depends on what you consider harmful and why.


----------



## webnek (Oct 20, 2013)

It's "mind over matter". If neither minds, then it doesn't matter. If one isn't on board then it should be off the table. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

boughtmeawalkman said:


> You say that you don't see how it's an issue of morality but go on to say that you believe moral "is whether you are harming or taking advantage of another human being without concern for them." This thread was created to see if anal sex is harmful or not. And you can say it isn't, but IF his dick is going somewhere it MAY NOT be intended for, who's to say that isn't harmful, and what is that person's reasoning?


Well, if you just want to talk about "physical harm," then you can Google that and find it on a website somewhere as far as any medical issues related to various types of sex. That's not an "opinion" thing, which is why when you ask people's opinion, they aren't talking about stuff you can find out from a book or a web site.

When you have sex, sure, you can end up bruise someone or causing abrasions regardless of what type of sex you have. As far as anal goes, since it's different than a vagina, sure, if you are not careful and don't lube well, you could cause abrasions. if you have rough sex, you might be able to rupture something. Then again, vaginas get dry too and a woman will have to use lube, or she can have sex with a guy with a bigger dick than she can handle and there can be issues regardless of whether it's vaginal or anal sex. The "sperm" thing is a non-issue, the body will expel it regardless or absorb it, and you can catch infections from both, although I'm not sure what the rate is for each.

IOW, I think as far as I go, various types of sex can be damaging, but why would I say that "sex is wrong" because of that? I carry that same understanding in various sexual practices. Regardless of what sex you are having, you just think about it ahead of time and do it in a way where people aren't being harmed. That's how I approach things.

Maybe you are not aware of how you're coming across, but you sound as if you've already decided anal sex is stupid and makes no sense. If so, then simply don't do it. People can explain themselves until they're blue in the face, but if you have a preference to dismiss it, no amount of talking will change that.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

All in Twilight said:


> Well, I think nothing of it (I have a next to nothing interest in anal sex) but I suspect that most guys want it so they can put it on their trophy list *sigh*. It is something to brag about. I suspect - based on personal observation and I am pretty sharp if I may say so -that *the woman values the emotional connection a lot more than the male. If it doesn't feel right, the women is far less likely to have sex with you than when then man feels that the situation isn't right*. I could be wrong but I think this still counts for the majority.


tying emotional connection solely to women is becoming a very outdated concept. watch.


----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee (Mar 8, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> Well, if you just want to talk about "physical harm," then you can Google that and find it on a website somewhere as far as any medical issues related to various types of sex. That's not an "opinion" thing, which is why when you ask people's opinion, they aren't talking about stuff you can find out from a book or a web site.
> 
> When you have sex, sure, you can end up bruise someone or causing abrasions regardless of what type of sex you have. As far as anal goes, since it's different than a vagina, sure, if you are not careful and don't lube well, you could cause abrasions. if you have rough sex, you might be able to rupture something. Then again, vaginas get dry too and a woman will have to use lube, or she can have sex with a guy with a bigger dick than she can handle and there can be issues regardless of whether it's vaginal or anal sex.
> 
> IOW, I think as far as I go, various types of sex can be damaging, but why would I say that "sex is wrong" because of that? I carry that same understanding in various sexual practices. Regardless of what sex you are having, you do it in a way where people aren't being harmed.


I could do that or I could talk to you and others who have done it who should know just as well as anyone I could research on Google. You have experience - you ought to know for yourself since you're doing or have done it. 

Just to clarify, my reasons for thinking it could be morally wrong include that a guy's dick may not have been designed to go there. Reasoning for thinking it could be morally correct? The fact that a lot of people think it feels good, anyway. If someone wants to answer my question, they need to now exactly what the question is.

I will agree that it isn't necessarily about opinions. But if that's the case, YOU tell someone they're right and someone they're wrong.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Thank Goodness Ken Cuccinellli lost, so that people won't get prosecuted in Virginia for doing anal. Morality is very subjective.


----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee (Mar 8, 2012)

Brian1 said:


> Morality is very subjective.


How so?


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

boughtmeawalkman said:


> How so?


The first sentence explains. I don't know where you live,but, down here in Virginia, our state attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli wanted to make sodomy-anal sex, a crime. Not every Virginian agreed with him, and found his views on everything, too out of the mainstream. Morality is a what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. And legislating morality, he wasted taxpayers money ,only to get the sodomy case rejected by the Supreme Court. Because most Virginians didn't like Cuccinelli's social value views, they let him know it, at the polls, this month.


----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee (Mar 8, 2012)

Brian1 said:


> The first sentence explains. I don't know where you live,but, down here in Virginia, our state attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli wanted to make sodomy-anal sex, a crime. Not every Virginian agreed with him, and found his views on everything, too out of the mainstream. Morality is a what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. And legislating morality, he wasted taxpayers money ,only to get the sodomy case rejected by the Supreme Court. Because most Virginians didn't like Cuccinelli's social value views, they let him know it, at the polls, this month.


Apparently, I didn't feel it did explain it, which is why I asked you. I've explained why I DON'T think that is the case and your post does not address that.


----------



## telepariah (Jun 20, 2011)

I do not think it is immoral and I agree with others that morality has nothing to do with behaviors between consensual adults. But when you say your position is not based in religion and then go on to say that the penis was not intended to go into the anus, just whose intent are you referring to if not God's?

If it matters, I have never done it and have no desire to.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Promethea said:


> tying emotional connection solely to women is becoming a very outdated concept. watch.



You don't strike me as the woman who forgot the meaning of patriarchal and matriarchal. And we live - alas - in a patriarchal society so please let me emphasize the feminine quality instead of the female opposing the male to turn into males themselves. That is feminism 2013 for you. And as Jung stated; Fi is feminine. Did he need to watch?

On top of that, I never said that it was exclusively restricted to women, I said that it is more likely. Now that is a very vague principle of course but I am not as" bad" as you think I am. Besides, I like it when people correct me so we can come to a conclusion. I am pretty flexible and I don't mind being wrong. 

Most women like me IRL a lot and I am sure that have good reason for that. If you can't follow me here, then let me simplify for you: I didn't want to stereotype but I do seek truth and I don't give a darn thing if that truth is offensive or not. And provide me with some logic or whatever and I willing to change my opinion. Telling people to watch has never solved anything.

Have a nice evening


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

All in Twilight said:


> You don't strike me as the woman who forgot the meaning of patriarchal and matriarchal. And we live - alas - in a patriarchal society so please let me emphasize the feminine quality instead of the female opposing the male to turn into males themselves. That is feminism 2013 for you. And as Jung stated; Fi is feminine. Did he need to watch?
> 
> On top of that, I never said that it was exclusively restricted to women, I said that it is more likely. Now that is a very vague principle of course but I am not as" bad" as you think I am. Besides, I like it when people correct me so we can come to a conclusion. I am pretty flexible and I don't mind being wrong.
> 
> ...


ok.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

How did this thread get to be four pages long?


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

boughtmeawalkman said:


> I've done it a few times in the past.


Lucky men who met you :kitteh:



boughtmeawalkman said:


> I don't think I'll do it again for a long time because. I want to really be in love with the person before I physically expose myself to them that much.


Poor men who will have to put up with you now :crying:


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

If anyone isn't sure how they feel morally about anal, I would be willing to help with the determination process.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

telepariah said:


> I do not think it is immoral and I agree with others that morality has nothing to do with behaviors between consensual adults. But when you say your position is not based in religion and then go on to say that the penis was not intended to go into the anus, *just whose intent are you referring to if not God's?*
> 
> If it matters, I have never done it and have no desire to.


my guess is the laws of reality. "form follows function" and all that jazz. 

there's not really a connection in what you're saying. you throw in religion because she said she's not using it as her base for the argument, and then you use this as evidence that she's using it as her base...? 

in any case, i can kind of see what boughtmeawalkman's saying about the design, how our bodies aren't meant to handle it. is it immoral to risk harm to oneself or sexual partner simply for gratification or the pleasure of an experience? i don't see how that has anything to do with god.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

mushr00m said:


> It seems more of a moral issue when other people interfere with 2 consenting adults choosing to do what they will with their private parts.


So this goes for you and everyone else espousing the "It's moral as long as its between two consenting adults" belief:

Is it moral for two consenting adults to harm each other?


----------



## Halcyon (Jun 21, 2013)

mushr00m said:


> It seems more of a moral issue when other people interfere with 2 consenting adults choosing to do what they will with their private parts.


^ This right here.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> If for some reason someone doesn't feel sexual attraction and therefore does not participate in sex, how is that wrong, exactly? Were you made to have sex all the time? If an asexual person is deliberately avoiding marriage, then they are RIGHT to avoid sex as well.


Is not wanting to put perfectly good and healthy sperm cells to good use morally wrong in your book? We are animals, again in your book, made to procreate and to deny that is murder/manslaughter, you have spoken of this before. Marriage is an institutionalized tradition and has no bearing on biological objectivity that you can prove.


----------



## Halcyon (Jun 21, 2013)

OP, I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here. Why make a thread asking for everyone's opinions on a topic when you're just going to snap at and "doorslam" (rofl) everyone that presents an opinion different from your own? Are people not allowed to disagree with you?


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Is it moral for two consenting adults to harm each other?


Harm each other how? Be specific.


----------



## newnameything (May 30, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Is it moral for two consenting adults to harm each other?


Two consenting adults practicing anal sex are obviously enjoying it. Why pass judgement on this?

My gut responce for your (in this context irrelevant) question was initially 'yes', but it's too vague to merit a real answer.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

mushr00m said:


> Is not wanting to put perfectly good and healthy sperm cells to good use morally wrong in your book? We are animals, again in your book, made to procreate and to deny that is murder/manslaughter, you have spoken of this before. Marriage is an institutionalized tradition and has no bearing on biological objectivity that you can prove.


Btw, I don't personally believe that wasted sperm cells is murder/manslaughter like some do but this kind of logic works both ways, which is why La Li Lu Le Lo's perspectives arn't morally consistent. It's like twisting/cherry picking the facts to support a specific moral bias. Just an observation.


----------



## Flaming Bassoon (Feb 15, 2013)

C'mon guys, don't get butt hurt.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Flaming Bassoon said:


> C'mon guys, don't get butt hurt.


Your such a pain in the ass...

:tongue:


----------



## IncoherentBabbler (Oct 21, 2013)

A woman's hymen has to be broken (ie she must be harmed) before she can become pregnant. Doesn't that mean that, biologically, if one can lubricate the anus enough to prevent harm, it actually *IS* more "moral" from the perspective of lesser harm?


----------



## Napoleptic (Oct 29, 2010)

If sex without the possibility of procreation is not moral, then should a couple who finds out they are unable to conceive stop having sex? Should a couple who is fertile but are finished having children stop having sex?

Edited to add: What about couples who don't want children?


----------



## Ligerman30 (Oct 23, 2013)

To say a certain kind of sex is morally wrong because it doesn't make babies is foolish imo. There is more to sex then reproduction in the same way there is more to eating then nourishment. Sometimes people have sex for enjoyment, and there is nothing morally wrong about that. Gamete cells aren't living organisms.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

mushr00m said:


> Is not wanting to put perfectly good and healthy sperm cells to good use morally wrong in your book? We are animals, again in your book, made to procreate and to deny that is murder/manslaughter, you have spoken of this before. Marriage is an institutionalized tradition and has no bearing on biological objectivity that you can prove.


I already stated the difference between not using something and misusing it, and it's not going to change.



mushr00m said:


> Harm each other how? Be specific.


It doesn't need to be specific; the question is whether something is automatically moral if it is between two consenting adults. So is it okay for two consenting adults to harm each other?


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> I already stated the difference between not using something and misusing it, and it's not going to change.


So even conversing with you on this topic is futile, in fact you're only conversing back to try n win my view over to yours when that's not always how these discussions work. Ahem*



> It doesn't need to be specific; the question is whether something is automatically moral if it is between two consenting adults. So is it okay for two consenting adults to harm each other?


Well with regards to anal sex, any harm caused is self inflicted so both parties take full responsibility for any injury caused. Consent means taking responsibility for oneself, they knew the risks just as someone knows the risks having unprotected sex. I do think in many instances, a blanket rule cannot be realistically imposed.


----------



## newnameything (May 30, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> It doesn't need to be specific; the question is whether something is automatically moral if it is between two consenting adults. So is it okay for two consenting adults to harm each other?


By what logic would two consenting adults doing something that pleasures them both be morally wrong?

And even if you did manage to prove that two consenting adults harming each other was morally wrong, how would that prove that two consenting adults pleasuring each other is immoral?

There's a difference between pleasuring and harming. You're just twisting it to make a false comparison.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> It doesn't need to be specific; the question is whether something is automatically moral if it is between two consenting adults. So is it okay for two consenting adults to harm each other?


Your whole argument has been a strawman. 

Enlighten me on how anal sex is intrinsically harmful to the consenting parties. Even consensual physical mutilation (knife or needle play, in BDSM for e.g.) is not "immoral". Morality is not contingent upon consensual erotic pain or rough sex or less commonly penetrated/rimmed orifices. Informed consent is "moral". At any point, a person feels more pain than they can handle or any kind of injury occurs no matter how minor, consensual sex requires the act be paused or terminated altogether at once. Both partners are in control, and no pain is inflicted/roughness implemented against another's volition. Play stops anytime one or both partners wish for it to stop.

Evidently then, there is nothing immoral about a consensual act where the parties negotiate to ensure neither party experiences anything, no matter how rough or edgy or painful, without the other's willingness. You can't conflate erotic pain or rough sex with nonconsensual (and/ or malicious) bodily harm, which would be "immoral" as it violates another's agency and physical person.

Geez, all this time I thought this shit was common sense.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Cosmic Orgasm said:


> Your whole argument has been a strawman.
> 
> Enlighten me on how anal sex is intrinsically harmful to the consenting parties. Even consensual physical mutilation (knife or needle play, in BDSM for e.g.) is not "immoral". Morality is not contingent upon consensual erotic pain or rough sex or less commonly penetrated/rimmed orifices. Informed consent is "moral". At any point, a person feels more pain than they can handle or any kind of injury occurs no matter how minor, consensual sex requires the act be paused or terminated altogether at once. Both partners are in control, and no pain is inflicted/roughness implemented against another's volition. Play stops anytime one or both partners wish for it to stop.
> 
> ...


 Two adults consenting to have sex is not necessarily moral because they might be harming each other physically and are certainly harming each other emotionally and spiritually. If consent makes the act moral, then it would be permissible to have sex with as many partners that consent. However, that would make it that much more likely that STDs would be transmitted. Thus, there would be reckless physical harm being inflicted. There would also be emotional harm because the sexual act is reserved for married couples. We know this based off of the natural law because sex leads to children, and all children naturally have the right to a mother and father. Thus, the commitment to be together forever must be made prior to having sexual intercourse. Moreover, there is spiritual harm because any immoral act causes spiritual harm. Therefore, mere consent to engage in sexual intercourse between two consenting adults is not sufficient to constitute a moral act. In fact, not even consensual sex between a married couple is not necessarily moral if one is using the other for their own selfish sexual gratification. Sex is only morally permissible when it is a complete self giving of one person to the other and the couple is married.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Who cares?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Mouths weren't exactly designed for kissing (or other sexual acts). I wouldn't conclude that kissing is immoral. OP is over-complicating things. Do you want anal sex? Yes or no? If both people want it, great. If not, then don't.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

You can like or not like it. You can also make it about morality or ethics if you wish, because a moral code is linked to your _personal_ standards of right or wrong (or those of your religion etc). So if you personally think it's immoral, knock yourself out.

Just don't expect everyone who doesn't adhere to the same moral code to agree. It's your personal truth, not a universal one. That's all there is to say really. 

8 pages and counting, wow...


----------



## WillyT (Jul 22, 2013)

AustenT09 said:


> Your name is Willy. You better be willing and able to deliver anal to @_Ligerman30_.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T999N using Tapatalk


I'm afraid not. I got nothing against gays, but I'm only "into" women. Sorry.


----------



## AustenT09 (Jul 8, 2013)

WillyT said:


> I'm afraid not. I got nothing against gays, but I'm only "into" women. Sorry.


Rude and selfish bye

Sent from my SGH-T999N using Tapatalk


----------



## WillyT (Jul 22, 2013)

AustenT09 said:


> Rude and selfish bye


That's funny!!


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Two adults consenting to have sex is not necessarily moral because they might be harming each other physically and are certainly harming each other emotionally and spiritually. If consent makes the act moral, then it would be permissible to have sex with as many partners that consent. However, that would make it that much more likely that STDs would be transmitted. Thus, there would be reckless physical harm being inflicted. There would also be emotional harm because the sexual act is reserved for married couples. We know this based off of the natural law because sex leads to children, and all children naturally have the right to a mother and father. Thus, the commitment to be together forever must be made prior to having sexual intercourse. Moreover, there is spiritual harm because any immoral act causes spiritual harm. Therefore, mere consent to engage in sexual intercourse between two consenting adults is not sufficient to constitute a moral act. In fact, not even consensual sex between a married couple is not necessarily moral if one is using the other for their own selfish sexual gratification. Sex is only morally permissible when it is a complete self giving of one person to the other and the couple is married.


First of all,
Sex in many species is used as a way to release energy and negate the risk of fights,
As described in Bonobos and Chimpanzees,
Therefore you already have your point that "Sex leads to children" or "Sex must lead to children" rendered rather redundant in regards to the argument you're trying construct.
Unless you'd like to tell me that these two species are anomalies or the devils work?

Monogamy is not natural either as its only describe in certain species,
And therefore acts as a rule that runs concurrent with polygamous animal cultures.

Lastly,
You're not basing your notions on the collecting of information,
But rather selectively choosing information that fits your doctrine or belief,
Therefore I can deem it safe to say that your posts are at best informative of people holding a opinion similar to yours,
Rather than some universal rule we can apply to the sexually ambiguous nature of **** Sapiens 

Oh,
Marriage was never a institution for 'love' or any sort of 'Christian' values,
Its a system created to bond families and those of similar beliefs into one cohesive group,
The use of marriage in the name of love is relatively new and the notion that its a institution that's 'religious',
Amd 'moral' would be blind and forgetful of the horrid past it has had in binding innocent people to others they do not care for.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

WillyT said:


> How many people really want a dick in their ass?


...Lots of people I'd imagine...
:laughing:
But I think it's grown in popularity due to porn in the last decade at least.


----------



## WillyT (Jul 22, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> ...Lots of people I'd imagine...
> :laughing:
> But I think it's grown in popularity due to porn in the last decade at least.


I've had my share of women. I've never had any even mention anal sex. I was once drunk and mistakenly engaged in anal. It ruined our relationship. She acted like I'd raped her. 

If a couple like it, I have no issue with it. I just can't imagine even talking about it with a potential partner. My wife of 18 years would NEVER ever entertain such a notion. 

On the other-hand, I went to a "wellness" check a month or so ago. The good Doctor checked my prostate. That's all the "anal" I could ever tolerate.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

WillyT said:


> I've had my share of women. I've never had any even mention anal sex. *I was once drunk and mistakenly engaged in anal. It ruined our relationship. She acted like I'd raped her. *
> 
> If a couple like it, I have no issue with it. I just can't imagine even talking about it with a potential partner. My wife of 18 years would NEVER ever entertain such a notion.
> 
> On the other-hand, I went to a "wellness" check a month or so ago. The good Doctor checked my prostate. That's all the "anal" I could ever tolerate.


Drunkness isn't an excuse for penetrating someone in an area and they didn't give you permission for it, sorry.

Some women like it but men need to *ask* first before doing that. Never presume it's okay to do it automatically.


----------



## GinningPuma4011 (Aug 22, 2013)

WillyT said:


> I've had my share of women. I've never had any even mention anal sex. I was once drunk and mistakenly engaged in anal. It ruined our relationship. She acted like I'd raped her.


You were drunk and it was a mistake, but it still doesn't excuse the fact. If she didn't want it, then it is rape, asshole. So, fuck you.


----------



## WillyT (Jul 22, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Drunkness isn't an excuse for penetrating someone in an area and they didn't give you permission for it, sorry.


Oh, I understand. I didn't do it on purpose. It was a mistake. I felt so bad about it that it caused us to separate.


----------



## WillyT (Jul 22, 2013)

GinningPuma4011 said:


> You were drunk and it was a mistake, but it still doesn't excuse the fact. If she didn't want it, then it is rape, asshole. So, fuck you.


It was a terrible ordeal. She didn't mention anything until afterwards. I didn't even know until the next day. It was pretty fucked up. I've always been a very gentle person. I've never forgiven myself for that. Yes, I'm an asshole.


----------



## Ravenetta (Oct 23, 2013)

I don't see it as a moral issue. When two people are connected, then why shouldn't every part of one touch every part of the other? I think the only issue with it is that it can hurt quite a bit. I think the moral assumptions about it are connected to rejecting homosexuality? That is what I understand about it, but I don't think that is wrong either.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

People, hold your horses.

It can happen that someone enters the -ehm- wrong orifice in the heat of the moment, even if they're _not_ drunk. Without wanting to go into details, just believe me 
The only thing is that _you need to communicate if it does_, and if you do, and the guy still keeps on going, then it is of course an issue.

I personally cannot imagine that a woman enjoys it without proper "precautions", which most certainly leads to some type of "making a noise". And not a joyful one. I can assure you that as well. So I'm a bit at a loss why the woman didn't communicate it in any way, because it's really not pleasant...


----------



## GinningPuma4011 (Aug 22, 2013)

FallingSlowly said:


> People, hold your horses.
> 
> It can happen that someone enters the -ehm- wrong orifice in the heat of the moment, even if they're _not_ drunk. Without wanting to go into details, just believe me
> The only thing is that _you need to communicate if it does_, and if you do, and the guy still keeps on going, then it is of course an issue.
> ...


Believe me, I know all about being in the heat of the moment. 

Drunk or not, what's fact is fact. It was a mistake, but she felt violated enough that it put a strain on their relationship. 

Maybe she didn't say anything, but there a lot of reasons for a woman in that position to not speak up about it. She's already in a vulnerable position with a drunk, horny man. Maybe she felt that if she protested, there would've been more trouble; when some people are drunk, they are susceptible to engaging in violence. Or maybe she felt pressured at the time to keep going because he had already entered her and she didn't want to upset him, even though she was very uncomfortable. 

On the other hand, maybe she did say something. But the guy was drunk at the time. He didn't even know he was making the mistake. So, maybe she did say something but it didn't register and he didn't hear because he was drunk and in the heat of the moment. And maybe she couldn't get him off because he's so much bigger and stronger than her. 

In either of these cases, he still penetrated her where she didn't want it. Yes, he owned up to his mistake, but it doesn't change what happened. I feel like you're discounting the fact that it actually happened and are victim blaming.


----------



## Ligerman30 (Oct 23, 2013)

AustenT09 said:


> Your name is Willy. You better be willing and able to deliver anal to @_Ligerman30_.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T999N using Tapatalk


Oh boy, you're gettin' me all riled up heh heh XD


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

StElmosDream said:


> Stop the Aspergers hate, in this case it is neither justified nor relevant to this conversation


They asked for it.

In the most indirect way possible

Nobody likes folks with aspergers. It's called aspergers, for chrissakes! Not even the guy that identified the thing liked the poor awkward bastards.


----------



## SuperNova85 (Feb 21, 2011)

It's wrong in a lot of ways, but I don't think morally is one of them...


----------



## WillyT (Jul 22, 2013)

GinningPuma4011 said:


> In either of these cases, he still penetrated her where she didn't want it. Yes, he owned up to his mistake, but it doesn't change what happened. I feel like you're discounting the fact that it actually happened and are victim blaming.


I never blamed her. I blamed myself. I was drunk, but not to the point of not knowing what was going on. I truly wish she would've said something. I would've stopped for sure. Her and I had been in a relationship for 6 months or so. I never thought that I was intimidating to her in or out of bed. Maybe she thought that. I don't know. This happened 20+ years ago. Damn, I need to go to reconciliation.


----------



## GinningPuma4011 (Aug 22, 2013)

WillyT said:


> I never blamed her. I blamed myself. I was drunk, but not to the point of not knowing what was going on. I truly wish she would've said something. I would've stopped for sure. Her and I had been in a relationship for 6 months or so. I never thought that I was intimidating to her in or out of bed. Maybe she thought that. I don't know. This happened 20+ years ago. Damn, I need to go to reconciliation.


Oh, I didn't mean you were victim blaming, I meant Falling Slowly was. Sorry that had to happen to you.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Mzansi said:


> First of all,
> Sex in many species is used as a way to release energy and negate the risk of fights,
> As described in Bonobos and Chimpanzees,
> Therefore you already have your point that "Sex leads to children" or "Sex must lead to children" rendered rather redundant in regards to the argument you're trying construct.
> ...


This is only true if we are to determine the worth or morality of something based on whether animals do it. We don't. Philosophies that treat humans like animals have always lead to the degradation of society, as you could expect.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

GinningPuma4011 said:


> In either of these cases, he still penetrated her where she didn't want it. Yes, he owned up to his mistake, but it doesn't change what happened. I feel like you're discounting the fact that it actually happened and are victim blaming.


I'm certainly not. I neither discount the fact it happened, nor do I blame her (or him, for that matter). 

The question I was asking was why there was no communication of any sorts, or why there was such horrible miscommunication. Maybe she did say something, and he didn't get it because he was drunk. Maybe she didn't say anything (and all the reasons you mentioned why she might not have said anything are valid of course, albeit tragic if people have been in a relationship for a while). We cannot know for sure I guess, we only know one side of the story.

If it happened as described, I think it's a horrible situation to be in, for both. For the woman, for obvious reasons (I sympathise for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post). But I also tried to put myself in the position of the guy. After what he said, you would assume they had consensual sex to start with, and they were already in a relationship for some time. No means no, we all know that, even during something that started out consensual, I don't think we need to argue about that. So at some point, it accidentally goes wrong, but he wasn't aware it did. He penetrated her where she didn't want it, that's undoubtedly true.

So I'm not blaming the woman, but I'm also not blaming him at this point. I feel sorry for him as much as I feel sorry for her. I know my then partner was really quite upset about the fact he'd hurt me, and he stopped immediately. And no, he didn't notice either until I quite literally yelped. It was no massive issue afterwards because we talked about it, and we both knew it was accidental. I guess that's what I really feel sorry about in his case, and that's also what made me wonder why that level of trust isn't there, because it shouldn't be an issue in a good relationship. But we'd be speculating about the why in this case...

@_WillyT_ is still quite clearly upset that he didn't know, and he says he would have stopped had he been aware. It doesn't change what happened, I just found the first reactions rather harsh, but I guess that's been rectified by now.

Off topic, just wanted to clarify...


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

Ligerman30 said:


> If it exists in nature, it is by definition natural.


Riiiiight...


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

Is it morally wrong that I brush my teeth every morning even though my mouth wasn't intended to be brushed by a piece of plastic?


----------



## Ligerman30 (Oct 23, 2013)

Slider said:


> Riiiiight...


Natural (nat·u·ral)

Mirriam Webster:
existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
Cambridge Dictionary:
as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people
Dictionary.com:
existing in or formed by nature
Oxford Dictionary:
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

Ligerman30 said:


> Natural (nat·u·ral)
> 
> Mirriam Webster:
> existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
> ...


Suuuuuuure....


----------



## Ligerman30 (Oct 23, 2013)

Slider said:


> Suuuuuuure....


Quite the counter-argument you got there. Completely discounting nearly every reputable dictionary with no point to be made as to why. Oh, please tell me mr. emperor of the universe, why do you disagree with nearly every dictionary definition?


----------



## Halcyon (Jun 21, 2013)

Slider said:


> Riiiiight...





Slider said:


> Suuuuuuure....












Great argument you have there. Just brilliant.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Slider said:


> Morally? I don't think so.
> 
> Naturally? Probably, yes.


So how do we determine morals then may I ask?
By you standards?
Western standards?
Judaeo-Christian standards?


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Ligerman30 said:


> Quite the counter-argument you got there. Completely discounting nearly every reputable dictionary with no point to be made as to why. Oh, please tell me mr. emperor of the universe, why do you disagree with nearly every dictionary definition?


Well for one thing you're using the wrong definition of "natural." The "natural" being discussed here is whether something is being used for its intended purpose. The sex organs are not being used for their intended purpose, so anal sex is unnatural.


----------



## Ligerman30 (Oct 23, 2013)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Well for one thing you're using the wrong definition of "natural." The "natural" being discussed here is whether something is being used for its intended purpose. The sex organs are not being used for their intended purpose, so anal sex is unnatural.


And you are getting that definition from where exactly? Even if I am to buy into the idea that anal sex is "unnatural" by your definition, which I'm not, that doesn't mean it's morally wrong.


----------



## Halcyon (Jun 21, 2013)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Well for one thing you're using the wrong definition of "natural." The "natural" being discussed here is whether something is being used for its intended purpose. The sex organs are not being used for their intended purpose, so anal sex is unnatural.


Intended by whom? How can you possibly define what's "intended" and what's not?


----------



## WillyT (Jul 22, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> @_WillyT_, man you really need to forgive yourself. Yes, what you did was horrible but you didn't INTEND to do that horrible thing and you've owned up to it. I'm sure that you will never do it again. Stop hating on yourself.


Thanks. That really helps.


----------



## ficsci (May 4, 2011)

You gotta wonder how humans evolved so that anal sex is pleasurable (to many people, even if not to all) and why guys can feel stimulation of the prostate gland from their butt holes.

I don't think that sex organs are "meant" to do just 1 thing, especially since humans are capable of experiencing complex sexual pleasure. If sexual pleasure is an incentive for people to do something (not just to reproduce, honestly, even animals masturbate you know), then maybe whatever that thing is should be seriously considered.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Well for one thing you're using the wrong definition of "natural." The "natural" being discussed here is whether something is being used for its intended purpose. The sex organs are not being used for their intended purpose, so anal sex is unnatural.


Really it's better to stop arguing based on what is natural. And please stop trying to be rational, you know it only serves to support your belief, and not the other way round. 

I mean, how do you know the 'intended purpose'. Did you get a manual? No, I don't believe anyone got a manual. That's not how nature operates. So how could we survive and procreate without a manual? Well, when we look under the hood, we can see that nature has a brain reward system, to aim what is (survived as) purposeful and optimal and to avoid danger through fear conditioning. But hey don't worry, it's not just about 'lust' or 'selfish gratification', or even merely fertilization. That is, the sexual act is also about bonding. We have chemicals, like oxytocin, for the purpose of social bonding, love, altruism, infatuation, ecstasy, euphoria. 



Oxytocin said:


> *Some Facts About Oxytocin:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sensitization of erogenous zones releases oxytocin, which basically does the job _naturally_ what appears to be the intended purpose of your moral beliefs, and human nature has survived and will survive without those beliefs and moral absolutism. 

But here's the thing, the anal area is an erogenous zone, and penetration or stimulation of the rectum (prostate, g-spot), with either penis, finger, tongue, fist, buttplug or dildo, may very well serve the purpose of releasing oxytocin, just like when we cuddle, hug and kiss.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

Mzansi said:


> So how do we determine morals then may I ask?
> By you standards?
> Western standards?
> Judaeo-Christian standards?


Hmm, well, I think there are universal standards that are determined by an overwhelming majority.

Is it morally wrong to steal? 

Is it morally wrong to commit adultery?

Most people are against these things, therefore they are morally wrong.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

Jesus, folks. It's just butt sex.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Slider said:


> Hmm, well, I think there are universal standards that are determined by an overwhelming majority.
> 
> Is it morally wrong to steal?
> 
> ...


Most people I've known have practiced Anal sex,
Or are of the opinion it's a acceptable part of sexual life 
So now by your own definition,
It's morally correct to have anal now!

Or are we only going off of what little experience you might've had with the sexual act?
And the even smaller pool of opinions of your peers?


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

Mzansi said:


> Most people I've known have practiced Anal sex,
> Or are of the opinion it's a acceptable part of sexual life
> So now by your own definition,
> It's morally correct to have anal now!
> ...


Huh? 

What?

I engaged in anal sex before I had vaginal sex.

If you look at my post I said something like, "Morally wrong? Probably not."


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Slider said:


> Huh?
> 
> What?
> 
> ...


I might've read wrong then -.-'
I need more sleep


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

Mzansi said:


> I might've read wrong then -.-'
> I need more sleep


I'll give you some of mine.

I got more than enough last night.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Slider said:


> I'll give you some of mine.
> 
> I got more than enough last night.


Ill need it,
I am completely knackered -.-'


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

What if it's an oopsie? An accidental switcharoo... do you just lol?


----------



## Sava Saevus (Feb 14, 2015)

BlackDog said:


> Anal is mean to an end. Close enough?


Down and through the 'rabbit hole', of course.


----------



## Millie (Nov 22, 2014)

Only an asshole would think anal is wrong.


----------

