I don't know why this is up for debate either. Sex is sex, oral sex is oran sex, and anal sex is anal sex. They're different things, and we can't necessarily fit them all into each one's definition.
Oral sex does not involve penetration, therefore it is not sex.
Intercourse and anal sex do, therefore they are sex.

Umm...

Who cares? Cause I sure as hell dont care at all what this is about. If we all wanna play word games, why not go pick up a scrable?

At 4/4/05 07:40 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Oral sex does not involve penetration

Yes, it does.

At 4/4/05 07:46 PM, Maus wrote:

At 4/4/05 07:40 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Oral sex does not involve penetration

Yes, it does.

What would you know about it?

Oh, wait, you're a lesbian. You probably wrote a book on it, with diagrams to help do it properly....

Nevermind.

This whole thread is based on semantics. Who the fuck cares if you define oral sex as sex? What the main issue is is "should we be cautioning children about the negative results of oral sex along with teaching them to abstain from sexual intercourse". The answer, of course. You can get an STD in your mouth and throat as well as in your nether regions. To think that oral sex is a safe alternative to regular sex is a stupid idea if you're just having "one night orals" or "casual oral sex". And yes, in classes it should be taught that it is not a safe alternative to sex. But, personally, people are so fucking stupid today they'll "do what they want because you have to experience some things for yourself". So apparently, you have to experience getting an STD by the time you're 14 because you're in such a hurry to grow up. ANYWAY, off my little tangent. I agree, oral sex should be taught as a non-alternative to sex, however, I do not consider it sex.

At 4/4/05 07:02 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 4/4/05 04:40 PM, LadyGrace wrote: Oral sex is NOT sex.

I can't believe people even think this is up for debate, of course oral sex is sex. If you say oral/anal sex isn't sex, then someone who was sexually assaulted through sodomy can't claim rape because "It's not really sex", which is total bullshit.

So then, by your definition, using a dildo is sex too. Because sodomizing a person with a broom handle = sexual assault (i.e. rape), therefore using objects to penetrate someone is sex. Then, what's to say that female masturbation is not sex? If she penetrates herself with her fingers, then it obviously is sex.

At 4/4/05 08:14 PM, LadyGrace wrote: This whole thread is based on semantics. Who the fuck cares if you define oral sex as sex?

I like how in this forum topics like this will take off, while meaningful, thoughtful topics like bcdemon's "Iraq Protest" topic flounder.

The reason I posted the topic was because most adolescents don't see a danger in oral sex, and some abstainers don't see it as a violation of their covenant. I wasn't actually debating the issue, I'm just saying. That's how it is.

At 4/4/05 07:14 PM, Maus wrote: LOL.

Oral sex is sex. Why would it be called that if it wasn't? If it isn't sex, I haven't been laid in a decade. :\

If that's the case, than is phone sex acutally sex? or cyber sex? They have sex in the name, therefore they must be sex, no? I don't mean to be a bitch, but many things have sex in the name and are not sex at all.

At 4/4/05 08:37 PM, Rooster349 wrote: The reason I posted the topic was because most adolescents don't see a danger in oral sex, and some abstainers don't see it as a violation of their covenant. I wasn't actually debating the issue, I'm just saying. That's how it is.

Yes, that's all an issue of education. I mean, they're not taught in classes that you can get very severe and debilitating STDs via oral sex, so they think it's ok. I think it's the laxness of the sexual education system. They're so focused on making sure the kids don't have sexual intercourse that they're ignoring all other forms of sexual activity. Hell, you can even get pregnant from dry humping (though it's rare). With the whole "sexual education" system, they should focus on ALL sexual aspects, not just the intercourse one. Besides, people are having so much annonymous sex now, they might as well just masturbate. They'd find the same sexual satisfaction and there's no messy STDs or emotional baggage. But, on average now, people really don't seem to give a shit about anyone but themselves anymore. And I'm not saying people shouldn't be trusted, or if you're in a monogamous relationship (and your old and wise enough to be sexually active), oral sex is a good way to heighten the intimacy of your relationship without having sex. But in schools now, they have to teach for the lowest common denominator, so their lesson plans are targeted toward complete whores and degenerates.

It has its risks, we've established that.
As far as "penetration" goes, all dictionary.com definition use the word penetrate in them, so they clear up nothing. I meant when I said that oral does not invovle penetration that it doesn't in the sense that intercourse or anal sex does. As far as resistance and such go.

This is awkward to discuss, and it's certainly an odd topic.

At 4/4/05 08:59 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: This is awkward to discuss, and it's certainly an odd topic.

Just imagine how your parents felt when they told you about the "birds and the bees".

At 4/4/05 04:01 PM, Rooster349 wrote: Kids should be taught that oral sex is sex in high school; a point that's not getting across by the so called abstinence programs.

But...if kids are abstaining from intercourse...wouldn't that mean it's working? I mean, to a certain extent?
Ted showed that abstinence and oral sex can coexist, with his definitions.

At 4/4/05 04:48 PM, Elfer wrote: On the other hand, it's a bad idea to assume that one isn't as bad as the other, or that you can only participate in one and still preserve your "virginity"

If someone has not had intercourse, they are a virgin. It doesn't matter how many times they went down...intercourse is what counts, when it comes to 'virginity' (or the lack there of).

At 4/4/05 08:49 PM, LadyGrace wrote: If that's the case, than is phone sex acutally sex? or cyber sex? They have sex in the name, therefore they must be sex, no? I don't mean to be a bitch, but many things have sex in the name and are not sex at all.

Phone sex and cyber sex are virtual sex. Which means it isn't real. So no, it isn't REALLY sex per se. It's mildly offensive that on one hand, I am called a sexual deviant, and on the other I am told I don't have sex. I can't win with anyone, it seems.

/cranky

At 4/4/05 10:03 PM, Maus wrote: Phone sex and cyber sex are virtual sex. Which means it isn't real. So no, it isn't REALLY sex per se. It's mildly offensive that on one hand, I am called a sexual deviant, and on the other I am told I don't have sex. I can't win with anyone, it seems.

/cranky

Well... being a "sexual deviant" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong". I mean, I'm a sexual deviant because I'm still a virgin! I'm WAY against the norm! Does that mean what I do is wrong? No. Does that mean that if someone else has sex they're wrong? No. I mean, technically, we're all social deviants because we spend so much time on the computer. Does that mean that we cannot socially interact (not just with one another but with people in the real world)? No! I mean, saying something is "abnormal" is, in my opinion, a good thing. I'd hate to be normal. Then I'd just be boring.

At 4/4/05 10:01 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: But...if kids are abstaining from intercourse...wouldn't that mean it's working? I mean, to a certain extent?

Hm. Damien has a point. Kids have to get satisfy their hormones somehow. What's wrong with oral sex, if it means kids are abstaining from intercourse?

(This really should have been posted with my last post. I apologize.)

I feel children should be warned about the dangers of ALL sexual activity, for the record. That includes actual intercourse, and everything else.
But I'm against abstinence.
If I can say this without being derogatory...I think people who practice abstinence, and preach it, are a little foolish. And this is coming from a conservative.
I don't know what these people, these abstinence pushers, want. I guess they want everyone to remain a virgin, until they get married. And, you know, to be honest...that's real sweet. Almost romantic, even.

But I think it's a terrible idea. People fail to realize that, for the majority, the sexual relationship, with a signifigant other, is very important. Relationships have different spectrums, and levels...and they are all vital to the sustaining of that relationship.
I wouldn't dream of marrying someone, before experiencing the sexual side of a relationship with them. That's irresponsible. Marrying someone without having a sexual relationship is willingly entering a life-long commitment, with a blind spot.

I'm not saying it to be derogatory, or offensive. I'm not looking to make anyone else change the way they live, because of my personal opinion. If abstinence fills some part of you, that you feel nothing else can...more power to you.
But for the sake of your long-term relationship, with that person you claim to love...consider getting to know them (FULLY know them, on each and every single level), before you marry them.

And, my point, of explaining my stance on abstinence, is this: I don't give a good goddamn that abstinence education isn't working. Good. I'm glad it's not, on certain levels.
It's the information on things like STDS (that can be recieved from ALL sexual activitey...be it intercourse, or not) that I'm worried about. I get the impression (considering, apparently, some teenagers figure they'll be much safer giving/recieving oral sex than participating in intercourse) that the information aspect of it isn't being taught properly, either. And I think that should be the priority: equipping the youth of this country, not with someone else's opinions on the morality of pre-marrital sex, but with the neccessary and basic knowledge that everyone should have.

At 4/4/05 10:40 PM, Tal-con wrote: No, rape is when a woman is forced to have sex against her will, and you can't tell me that broom handle forced her into anything.

No, but a man can force a broom handle into various orafices of another individual. It's happened before and it is the most violent type of rape. But technically it is not "sex".

Sex is defined as:

"A painful activity in which a man, using the stiffest and pointiest part of his pelvic region, repeatedly stabs a female in her crotch until he feels satisfied. Can also take place between two men, in which one male stabs the other in the bum. Lesbian "sex" may be fun and all, but it aint real sex unless there is some sort of stabbling going on, perhaps with a cleverly shaped hand or steel dildo."

Urban Dictionary is never wrong.

This question has been raised, but I haven't seen anyone give a straight answer as yet; if oral sex is not considered sex, why does it have the term "sex" in the title? If it's not sex, how is it that you can contract STD's from doing it? (keeping in mind that the key terms in STD are sexually transmitted disease)

It's not thought of as sex because you only penatrate the mouth by the bible. It is a sin, but no one cares. Why do many people throw the bible at everything?

Oral sex - oral = sex

end of disscussion.

(but do go on)

At 4/4/05 05:23 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: We need to teach kids that oral sex is not sex, because it isn't, but also teach them that it is risky to engage in. There is no point in altering definitions to frighten them, we should be properly educating them.

It may stop some kids that are concerned about the health risk of oral sex, the rest of the kids that want to do it are not going to think twice about it.

At 4/4/05 11:04 PM, Proteas wrote: This question has been raised, but I haven't seen anyone give a straight answer as yet; if oral sex is not considered sex, why does it have the term "sex" in the title?

How about 'cyber sex'? That's got 'sex' in the title...is that the same as intercourse?
How about 'phone sex'? That's got 'sex' in the title...is it also the same?
Is using a sex toy on someone 'sex'?

Someone else raised these points...I feel like I have to point that out. I give crazy amounts of credit, to whoever first pointed that out.

If it's not sex, how is it that you can contract STD's from doing it? (keeping in mind that the key terms in STD are sexually transmitted disease)

Look...All I'm saying is that intercourse, and oral sex, cannot be held to the same spectrum. They're far from the same thing...one is sex (as in, the socially accepted definition of sex...as in intercourse), and one is a sexual act. If someone goes down, and gives oral sex...they're still a virgin. If someone likes giving oral sex, on a regular basis...I don't feel that conflicts with abstinence.

Is masturbating a conflict, with absitnence? Because oral sex isn't a far cry from masturbation.

At 4/4/05 11:08 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 4/4/05 10:49 PM, LadyGrace wrote: No, but a man can force a broom handle into various orafices of another individual. It's happened before and it is the most violent type of rape. But technically it is not "sex".

You could still classify it under sexual assault.

And now, you're starting to understand. Something can be a 'sexual act', and still not be 'sex', as society commonly looks upon it. Forcefully sodomizing someone with a broom handle...that's not sex...but it's sexual assault...right?
The same mentality applies to oral sex. It's a sexual act...but it's not sex.

At 4/4/05 11:56 PM, Iscrulz wrote: It may stop some kids that are concerned about the health risk of oral sex, the rest of the kids that want to do it are not going to think twice about it.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? We educate the youth of America about the dangers of smoking cigarettes...yet millions, every year, pick up that habit.

Maybe it's not 'our education system isn't teaching teenagers the dangers of sex'. Maybe it's just 'teenagers, and humans in general, are going to do what feels good.'

I think the youth of America understands the risk...and they don't care. And I'm included, in that statement. I know the risks of drugs, and excessive drinking, and STDs...yet I live a life that puts me in the path of danger, from all the above.

It comes down to choice.

At 4/5/05 12:17 AM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Maybe it's not 'our education system isn't teaching teenagers the dangers of sex'. Maybe it's just 'teenagers, and humans in general, are going to do what feels good.'

I think the youth of America understands the risk...and they don't care. And I'm included, in that statement.
It comes down to choice.

Though I do agree teens will do what they think feels good (i.e. knowing the risk of AIDS, etc, but still having casual sex), however, I don't think they're fully educated about the risks of oral sex. Many people don't know that you can get STDs via oral sex. True, I think that parents are really relinquishing their responsibility of educating their children about this to the school system when they shouldn't, but that's not the issue here. If the kids think that oral sex is completely safe, they need to know the facts. If someone decides to have oral sex after knowing the facts, that's fine. It's just like choosing to smoke after learning about all the health risks. At that point, it's all up to you. At least you know the risks of the situation before running blindly into it.

At 4/5/05 12:49 AM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 4/5/05 12:17 AM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

Though I do agree teens will do what they think feels good (i.e. knowing the risk of AIDS, etc, but still having casual sex), however, I don't think they're fully educated about the risks of oral sex.

Yes, exactly. That's the problem. Forget the morality/lack of morality that abstinence has, compared to permiscuity. Having sex isn't the problem...having the sex with no knowlege of the dangers, is the problem.

Many people don't know that you can get STDs via oral sex.

Like, seriously? Have you known people in your life that didn't know they could get STDs from oral sex? I remember in fifth grade, and again in ninth grade...the dangers of STDs (both oral, vaginal, and anal) were taught to us, in public school. And this is in the very conservative state of Virginia, too.

If the kids think that oral sex is completely safe, they need to know the facts.

I agree, completely. Maybe that's why I feel all of America should shift away from teaching abstinence...and focus more on teaching the hard, simple facts.

If someone decides to have oral sex after knowing the facts, that's fine. It's just like choosing to smoke after learning about all the health risks. At that point, it's all up to you. At least you know the risks of the situation before running blindly into it.

I feel the same way. I honestly don't care what people do. What the fuck ever. I've got too much on my plate, currently, in all aspects of life. I work, and pay bills; I'm in a steady relationship (two years, or so, now); I drink on a daily basis, and smoke pot like it's going out of style tomorrow. That's on top of all my dorky hobbies and habits. I've got my own agenda, and I've certainly no time to waste my feelings on someone else's pleasure....as long as they know the full extent of what their choices can/will bring, down the road.

Wouldn't phone sex be in effect, aural sex?

Anyway it would be better to label them "Sex acts" as I suppose anything bringing sexual gratification could be a sex act. Here you can also lump in the fetishes and masturbation.

But the far right don't want sex ed taught, which is obviously going to leave many people without the knowledge that they need to have before having sex, oral sex, anal sex, hot lesbian sex, or whatnot.

Also with the abstinance only program, many teens are doing anal sex instead of vaginal so that technically they are still virgins, which is also leading to STDs <study from a link I posted a few weeks ago>.

At 4/4/05 09:05 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 4/4/05 08:59 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: This is awkward to discuss, and it's certainly an odd topic.

Just imagine how your parents felt when they told you about the "birds and the bees".

they didn't.. my bad : (

At 4/4/05 05:12 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Well there is no hyman in your ass, so I wonder if it counts, since you still have the hymen in tact?

At 4/4/05 10:01 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: If someone has not had intercourse, they are a virgin.

yup. virginity certainly has nothing to do with hyman intact or not. some hymen break naturally. also we can hear that some women take opperation to restore their hymen (born-again virgins?)

At 4/4/05 10:07 PM, LadyGrace wrote: Well... being a "sexual deviant" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong". I mean, I'm a sexual deviant because I'm still a virgin! I mean, saying something is "abnormal" is, in my opinion, a good thing. I'd hate to be normal. Then I'd just be boring.

*feels more turned on by LGs alterny thinking than her aledged virginity*

In my case i say oral sex=sex (..if not done to oneself - eek!)
Why? kuz my "first time" encounter was such. I remember it more fondly than any later physical encounter.. not that's there's been many.. :*(

At 4/5/05 07:14 AM, ReiperX wrote: But the far right don't want sex ed taught, which is obviously going to leave many people without the knowledge that they need to have before having sex, oral sex, anal sex, hot lesbian sex, or whatnot.

What far right are you talking about? Bush is spending millions on abstinence sex education, and he's one of the most conservative politicians this nation has had.

Also with the abstinance only program, many teens are doing anal sex instead of vaginal so that technically they are still virgins, which is also leading to STDs <study from a link I posted a few weeks ago>.

I read that study and have to believe it's bullshit, slanted, and biased. The whole premise is ridiculous to begin with, and the contestants had to be hand-picked.

I don't know any self respecting woman who would do anal sex because it's disgusting. That said, the study just goes to further prove my point that the term "abstinence" should be taught as avoiding all exchanges of bodily fluid. Including poopy anal fluids.

At 4/5/05 10:06 AM, Rooster349 wrote: who would do anal sex because it's disgusting.

In your opinion yes. There are a lot of people however who don't think taking it up the arse is disgusting at all.

At 4/5/05 10:34 AM, SkyCube wrote:

At 4/5/05 10:06 AM, Rooster349 wrote: who would do anal sex because it's disgusting.

In your opinion yes. There are a lot of people however who don't think taking it up the arse is disgusting at all.

Then you get poop on your penis. :( That's sick.