Forcible sodomy

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not asking you to be sensitive to my issues. I'm talking about Anal Intercourse which I do not partake of. I just disagree with the usage of "Sodomy".

Ahnimus wrote:

Problem is, Sodomy refers to a biblical reference to sexual deviance from the doctrine of religion. To me, it implies a religious perspective on anal and oral intercourse. It ultimately implies that the acts are morally wrong. If you feel that the acts are not morally wrong and "Sodomy" is just a word. Then why not use "Intercourse" or "Copulation"? I'm not a big word Nazi, but it's not acceptable for me to use offensive language.

Operative words: "To me"
It's clear you have taken on this issue in this thread, from your first post on the subject. You have tied it into your personal opinions on the implication of a religious/moral perspective.

oops

trappedinmyradio wrote:

i agree with the first part...totally - inter=across/between/in conjunction...whatever...

but, when you are stating a personal opinion, such as what coital connotes...you shouldn't use words like "distinctly" because there would be no "argument" as to what the word connotes if it distinctly connotes a certain thing...but, that, again, is my personal belief on stating something.

as i said, earlier, you can further qualify sodomy to express what it is...i don't know what these "nuances" may be. are there nuances to sodomy?

i think the problem with sodomy is that it sounds crude and violent.
whereas anal sex when consensual isn't that way. unless you want it that way of course

angelica wrote:

Operative words: "To me"
It's clear you have taken on this issue in this thread, from your first post on the subject. You have tied it into your personal opinions on the implication of a religious/moral perspective.

Yea, that too.

Well, maybe I think "cunt" doesn't describe the same kind of woman as a "bitch" so I might have to use that word to describe some women and "bitch" to describe others. Fair enough?

No offense intended, but I think that illustrates my point.

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I haven't read any of this thread but I will say that I have no clue what the hell you just responded to.

Sunshine! Well, your inanities could take real root in this thread!

angelica wrote:

Sunshine! Well, your inanities could take real root in this thread!

Ohhh yeah. This is where I thrive. Like a cage fighter fighting in a cage.

catefrances wrote:

if it fits

that's always where problems arise...

catefrances wrote:

if it fits i'm sure you could get into it.

Ouch! You beat me to it.

Ok, what is everyone bitching about here?

trappedinmyradio wrote:

that's always where problems arise...

oh please :rolleyes:


lots of lube might help. and patience.

trappedinmyradio wrote:

it's funny that the first definition on dictionary.com (which you referenced as an information source) does not agree with you. you went seeking the definition that you agree with and used that one. so, anyway...i don't disagree with your right to an opinion. just be honest about how you go about gathering support for how you came to your opinion. but, again, there would be no argument about the word's connotation if the word distinctly connoted a certain thing.

If you want to look at my words through your own filters, rather than attempt to understand them as I said and intended them, I can see how you would say this. I'm not really interested in your judgments of me, because they are independent of my intents and purposes. They are about you.

I quoted the word: intercourse. And dictionary.com says: "sexual relations or a sexual coupling, esp. coitus." I referred to coitus relating to penis/vagina sex. Which it is shown to mean in more than one dictionary definition.