DrW wrote:Passing along a suggestion for improving intimacy, as described in the scientific literature, indicates that I have concern for the general well being of sexually repressed Mormons.
It in no way indicates that I am interested in the particulars of their sexual activities, or indeed whether or not they even have sex.
I trust that you can understand the distinction.
Actually I cannot. I do not look at any denomination and consider their sex lives. Clearly this was the first thing that popped into your head. That is terribly disturbing.
It would appear that you missed the following from LittleNipper directed to Jutta:
LittleNipper wrote:So do you have a monthy flow and do you intend to get pregnant? I'm not meaning to be cruel; however, unless your body possessed both genders, you are artificial in your look as a woman, and in essence you are more properly a eunuch. I suggest you seek out a good Christian Bible Church and perhaps you will see God loves us where we are and how we are. He will move believers to conform to His Son and you will find peace ---- finally.
My comment to LN was in reference to the above. Sometimes it is better to read more and write less. This applies especially to one who claims to do his research.
In answer to your question as to my interest in the sexual practices of others; I have none. And you will be hard pressed to find anywhere on this board (or anywhere else, for that matter) where I express such interest. Given your comment, I can only conclude that you are just trying to be an asshole again.
I do, however, find it extremely offensive when delusional religionists like LittleNipper ask extremely personal questions about the genital anatomy of strangers and then presume lecture them on sexual conduct and reproduction as he did in the text quoted above..
I was very directly pointing out openly to the "Jutta" that having the appearance of a female does not make that person a female. Sorry if I offended anyone, but it seems to me obvious that playing a role doesn't make one actually that character even if one wears the costume permanently. And admitting publically that one had a "sex change" operation is about as open as one can get. It seems to me that you are faining being "shocked" to garner sympathy for you own values.
DrW wrote:Passing along a suggestion for improving intimacy, as described in the scientific literature, indicates that I have concern for the general well being of sexually repressed Mormons.
It in no way indicates that I am interested in the particulars of their sexual activities, or indeed whether or not they even have sex.
I trust that you can understand the distinction.
Actually I cannot. I do not look at any denomination and consider their sex lives. Clearly this was the first thing that popped into your head. That is terribly disturbing.
If you are really unable to make any distinctions among the general beliefs of say, Protestants, Muslims, Catholics, and Mormons for example, in terms of their religions doctrines as these relate to sexual practices and reproduction, then you must not be paying attention.
If such is truly the case, then all of your bragging about your familiarity and experience with Islam must have been just that. Would you not agree?
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
DrW wrote:If you are really unable to make any distinctions among the general beliefs of say, Protestants, Muslims, Catholics, and Mormons for example, in terms of their religions doctrines as these relate to sexual practices and reproduction, then you must not be paying attention.
If such is truly the case, then all of your bragging about your familiarity and experience with Islam must have been just that. Would you not agree?
Your comments were not academic, analytical examinations of mores and culture. It was simply pervert old man commentary on "good" sex and your European experiences. This is not academic. Are you familiar with non-plagiarized academia at all?
DrW wrote:If you are really unable to make any distinctions among the general beliefs of say, Protestants, Muslims, Catholics, and Mormons for example, in terms of their religions doctrines as these relate to sexual practices and reproduction, then you must not be paying attention.
If such is truly the case, then all of your bragging about your familiarity and experience with Islam must have been just that. Would you not agree?
Your comments were not academic, analytical examinations of mores and culture. It was simply pervert old man commentary on "good" sex and your European experiences. This is not academic. Are you familiar with non-plagiarized academia at all?
Since you asked, yes I am.
I have authored or co-authored more than 100 peer reviewed scientific papers and have co-authored and or edited a number of academic books, one of which is still in print more than 20 years after it first appeared. I also hold a dozen or so patents. If you know anything about the patent examination process, you know that it pretty much precludes plagiarism.
And you?
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Bhodi is one who seeks a knot even on the rush. (Word by word translation of the Hungarian saying: "A kákán is csomót keres". Some dictionary translates it by meaning: "make two bites at a cherry")
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Bhodi is one who seeks a knot even on the rush. (Word by word translation of the Hungarian saying: "A kákán is csomót keres". Some dictionary translates it by meaning: "make two bites at a cherry")
I don't know if rush is
Juncaceae:
or Acorus calamus:
Not much of knots...
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
