Invictus, reread my post. I said WHEN I was a child. I'm 43 now. Born in January 1966.

Pervasive - having the tendency to pervade or permeate: the pervasive odor of garlic. Now, if you had a PhD I would think you would actually know the meaning of the word you used would not have used it as it has no relationship to perversion. The word I think you wanted was perverse, but you are too uneducated to know that. Folks, there it is. Proof positive there is NO way Diplofool has a PhD.

Why does it matter at all if he has a PhD? Does that somehow prove what he says? Or make it any more legitimate?

What matters is what he says, not who he is.

Don't feed the Troll.

Idiots.....

Well for one thing he claimed to have one, so it matters if he admits he lied or not.

Also, I think he used pervasive in correct context even if it was unintentional. Pervasive can also mean near-ubiquitous, which is sort of true of oral sex.

I agree Thucydides, but he most definitely did NOT mean to use it that way. He was trying to find another way to call oral sex a perversion.

I'm of the philosophy: if it feels good, do it. Oral sex is one of god's gifts to mankind.

Not quite. Read the Bible.

From http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sex-oral.html

"Our question is in the area of oral sex. Is it scripturally wrong for married couples? No where does the Bible forbid it or discuss it. There is no biblical evidence that it is a sin against God for a husband and wife to express love for each other in this way. Even the book of Leviticus, which mentions many Old Testament sex-related prohibitions and rules for the Israelites, never mentions it. We see no reason to believe that expressing affection for one's mate in this way is forbidden or would necessarily harm one's walk with God."

after you read a dictionary

No where does the Bible forbid it or discuss it. There is no biblical evidence that it is a sin against God for a husband and wife to express love for each other in this way. Even the book of Leviticus, which mentions many Old Testament sex-related prohibitions and rules for the Israelites, never mentions it. We see no reason to believe that expressing affection for one's mate in this way is forbidden or would necessarily harm one's walk with God.

In Christian discussions concerning oral sex, the Song of Solomon is most frequently cited as an example of scriptural allusion to the act: Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. (Song of Solomon 2:3)

While the previous passage refers to fellatio, the following can be read as a metaphor for cunnilingus: Awake, O north wind, and come, wind of the south; make my garden breathe out fragrance, let its spices be wafted abroad. May my beloved come into his garden and eat its choice fruits! (Song of Solomon 4:16)

And again, the Song of Solomon urges lovers to eat and drink freely of one another’s bodies: I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved. (Song of Solomon 5:1) This reading of the scriptures portrays the act of oral sex as both natural, like eating, and a joyful expression of love, passion, and sexual sharing between a man and woman.

In the New Testament, this passage directs partners to render “benevolence” to one another, which can be extended to performing oral sex on each other as part of their duty to the Lord and one another: Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (Corinthians 7:33) Not only does this passage imply that oral sex between a man and woman is acceptable and desirable, but as we shall see, the Bible also provides more specific edicts concerning the completion of the oral sex act, namely swallowing the male emission.

The above from http://www.sexinchrist.com/oralsex.html

I doubt oral sex was a factor in Biblical times. No one was perverted like that.

Ok, so first you say that oral sex isn't God's gift, and that there's proof in the Bible. Then, when evidence is provided from the Bible referencing oral sex, you refute it by saying that no one of the time was perverted enough to come up with the idea.

Um, do I need to explain how that doesn't work? If there is a reference to oral sex in the Bible, then someone must have thought of it. So either deny that its in the Bible, or admit that it was thought of in Biblical times.

Also, don't take advice from the Old Testament, unless you plan on... doing a few things that aren't really acceptable in modern society. Like, you know, stoning and genocide.

We had a pretty logical discussion about gun control until we got sidetracked by calling the idiot an idiot.

"We had a pretty logical discussion about gun control until we got sidetracked by calling the idiot an idiot."
I agree with all of that except for the "the idiot" part.

Not to mention, there are much more direct references to oral sex in several other texts which are contemporaries, or even predate, the Bible.

Hey folks, good to be back, had some stuff to take care of (graduating in about 50 days!)

And then I heard that there was an all-out politics-religion-and-everything-else-Sicarius-raises-ire-about thread, so.......

1) Religion: 100% Conservative/Reform Judaism
(2) What is the political affiliation of your parent(s)?
(3) Parents' Politcis: Mother's Independent Father's FAR Right
(4) Race: "Caucasian/White," with strong Jewish heritage
(5) National origin: 60% Russian/Polish 40% German/Austrian
(6) % friends a different race: About 33%, 1 or 2 close friends
(7) Region: So. California, United States West Coast, USA
(8) Parent's employment/income: Father= Claims Manager w/ slightly upper-middle income, Mother= Teacher, >$50,000
(9) Sex: Male
(10) % of friends a different sex: about 90%, nearly all my close friends are (I'm in theatre so a LOT more girls than guys)
(11) # of friends: I'm one of those "school-wide famous" types, but really I have about 6-7 friends I'd call close and like family
(12) Education: Public
(13) Ratio like vs. dislike: Well, pretty much my entire graduating class of 250 or so know me (I'm told and really am a sort of David Letterman-meets-House M.D. personality) so a LOT of people think I'm hilarious and will be a success, and plenty dislike me. So with the general population, I'd say it's about 2 like me:1 dislike me:1 can't decide what to think.

However, I'm in Drama club VERY much (it's like my family, we all are VERY close in their, close enough to offer money or a place to sleep or encouragement when someone's in real trouble out here.) And I'm am almost unanimously liked in there, and with my 6-7 close friends, it's like we're basically brothers and sisters (one of my close friends bickers with me a LOT, and we have some pretty bad fights, but the others always help us patch things up and then we're back to being close and friendly.) but in my Drama Club, I'm not the exciting, raging personality I am with the rest of the school- I'm usually at a loss for THEIR antics, and the guy who's always there to lend money or help out......... and I'm not the leader by any means,I'm on Cabinet and in the inner circle, but by no means the most important person in the group, whereas outside the Club, I'm ALWAYS the or at least one of the biggest personalies in any class or room or situation with ANYONE on campus.

So it's a more calm Yin in the Club with my family, and an exiciting and slightly controversial (but usually liked) Yang outside of it.

That was a long answer, yes, but, well, I hope it was good... :)

So- what do you guys think,and what's up with Sicarius and diplomat and all the others...........

"I doubt oral sex was a factor in Biblical times. No one was perverted like that."

Wow, now thats funny.

I guarantee you that oral sex was around in caveman times. Grunt... mmm... feel good. Without all the hangups about morality.

dingle, surely you must know as diplomat does that oral sex was discovered in the 1960s by radical draft dodging gay friendly university students;)

Maybe diplomat is under the impression that "biblical times" was this happy all American family values paradise? yup, he must've got his PhD from a Christian University, someone with such limited intellectual ability could never hack it in a real university.

Diplomat hasn't shown any signs of limited intellectual ability, just limited life experience and emotional maturity. Which is perfectly consistent with being in his early to mid teens, and is in no way a bad thing for a man that age.

If anything, it seems like he's exceptionally sharp, which only makes it more amusing that he continues to pretend to be older and better educated than he is.

And I figure if I'm going to keep posting in this thread, I might as well answer the surveys:

Abortion: It's a medical procedure. Should be covered by universal healthcare.
Gay marriage: Ought to be legal, but it isn't important.
Gun control: Age restriction for purchase. All other gun laws should be repealed.
Death penalty: Yes, and should be an option for a wider variety of offenses.
Affirmative action: No.
Iraq/Afghanistan: Stay until we've won. Opposed going to Iraq in the first place, but now we're committed.
Pork-barrel spending: President Obama should veto the Omnibus spending bill like he promised, and keep doing so until the greedy little pigs in Congress learn their lesson. He won't.
Role of government: The people are the government, and vice versa.
Armed forces: Spend less in R&D, more in benefits. Continue maintaining largest military on planet.
NASA: Best investment our government has ever made. Keep investing in it.
Health care: Universal. Can't stop people from being stupid, but you can at least patch them up so they keep paying taxes.
Taxes: Higher, steeper, and most importantly, *simpler*.
Welfare: Necessary, but should always be temporary and attached to programs designed to make people productive.

(1) What is your religious affiliation? Asatru.
(2) What is the political affiliation of your parent(s)? Mother nonpolitical, Father conservative/libertarian.
(3) What is the religious affiliation of your parent(s)? Mother New Age Christian, Father nondenominational "Christian". (More like a Deist, really.)
(4) What is your race? Mostly European.
(5) What is your national origin? American.
(6) What percentage of your friends are of a race different from yours? Around 10%. Two out of however many friends I have, which I'm estimating at around twenty.
(7) What region of the world do you live in? Rocky Mountains
(8) What is the employment status of your parent(s), respectively, and what are (is) their income(s), respectively? Mother's unemployed and Father's dead. Dad had two retirement pensions and Social Security when he died, left my sister and me property worth around $200,000 before the market crash.
(9) What is your sex? Male.
(10) What percentage of your friends are of a different sex?
(11) How many friends do you have, approxamately? 20-25%
(12) What is the nature of your education? C student, Special Ed, college dropout. Mostly self-educated.
(13) If you are currently being educated in a school format, give as a ratio the number of your classmates would say they dislike you as compared to those who would say they like you. Or, you know, I could just use the ratio of my acquaintances who like or dislike me. Probably around three or four to one, but the ones who dislike me *really* dislike me.

As far as I know, the only sexual act banned in the bible is anal...

Even that was only banned between men.

Was it?
Then again, there's the sodomy argument: "Any sexual act not for the purposes of procreation is sodomy, and therefore, sinful."

But that's just me playing the devil's advocate. Personally, I believe sodomy doesn't deserve the negative connotation it gets.

And you definition you provided... Can you give me Book, Chapter, and Verse? This is Webster's definition, but NOT the biblical definition.

I never said it was the biblical definition, nor did I say I agreed with it. Just trying to keep the argument going.

You statement was biblical in nature with references to sin, so back it up. Otherwise, it isn't a sodomy argument as it isn't an argument about sin by any respected authority, religious or secular, on God and sin.