Would anyone else not want their gf to give them a bj?

All I can say is that I believe a sizeable chunk of society does believe it to be degrading.

which is why my point was better 220

I agree...and have already said this...



sexual organs are those that are involved in process of reproduction. If you want to argue the case for other organs other than the vagina and penis (ie mouth) being sexual organs, than you have to differentiate between the types of oral sex, whether it is used as stimulation, or as end.

Yes, only the egg and sperm are involved in fertilisation. But Profesh said that the penis is no more relevant to fertilisation than the mouth. I disagreed; the penis is much more relevant as without it, fertilisation wouldn't happen (whereas the mouth doesn't play a part).

What about post 221?

I was going to reply to that actually. Again, the penis just facilitates the grand entrance of the sperm into the woman's body. The sperm is stored in the testes, the seminal fluid made by various glands in the general area.

Why else did you think you had balls?

But I don't ever plan on having children.

So any form of sex would be purely for stimulation for me.



So it doesn't really matter if the act I or my partner might be perorming is biologically designed for baby making. So no consenting sex act is any less legitimate or worthy for me.


Unless it's fumbly bad sex.

The contrivance of 'sexual organs' seems to stem from an arbitrary decision to construe as such those organs possessed of attributes which facilitate both erotic stimulus and (ultimately) reproduction: after all, many appendages are deemed subjectively 'erogenous' even so far as to induce orgasm whilst nevertheless playing but an abstract or tertiary role (if any) in reproduction; likewise, the uterus as an organ begets no stimulus but is arguably more fundamental to pro-creation than any other. Thus, the two are by no means concomitant; ergo my argument: that no organ is necessarily involved in the process of reproduction save for whatever lends itself ad hoc to facilitating the union of an egg and a sperm; to wit, there are no definitive 'pro-creatory' organs. There are merely organs which, by evolutionary co-incidence, combine susceptibility to sexual stimulus with utility in a reproductive context.

A pretty bizarre premise for a moral postulate, wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't want them knowing, but that's because it's private - to do with me and my partner - not because I find it degrading, or think that they'd feel I'd degraded myself.

So they can give oral sex and spit? Or not until ejaculation?

All I can say is that I believe a sizeable chunk of society does believe it to be degrading.

right, which is basically agreeing with me that you do have to think differently about the two types of blow jobs if you want to consider the mouth a sexual organ. and when you look at the retrospectivly, too all intents and purposes, its illogical, which is why i have gotten over thinking thats its to do with it not involving sexual organs which is why i subtley said a while back "my definition at the time"..

I was speaking biologically. Biologically, the penis plays a much more important part than the mouth (in reproduction). That's the point I was making.

Many girls would feel degraded if everyone knew the details of how they had given oral sex.

And, quid pro quo, the uterus plays a more important 'part' than any of the 'sexual' organs; likewise, speaking in terms of mere biology, hands play a more important part than feet in the process of writing. So what? I should hope that morality might stem from more than mere (bio)logic.