Tuesday, 16 May 2017

HETEROSEXUAL "SODOMY"


Image result for heterosexual sodomy

I HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING MY OWN LITTLE SURVEY OF THE INCIDENCE OF ANAL SEX BETWEEN HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS.

I embarked on this very informal survey for a few reasons:

1. I was tired of people thinking that ALL male gay couples engage in anal sex.

2. I was tired of ignorant and homophobic people calling gay men "sodomites".

3. I had often come across the topic of heterosexual anal sex both in the Confessional and in my work in spiritual direction / counselling.


So for 5 years now, in a very sensitive way, and only when it was acceptable and appropriate, I have been asking heterosexual men and women about their experience in this area;

This is what I found:

1. A surprising number of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex - more than 50% have experimented with it at least once.

2. Anal sex is more appealing to heterosexual men than it is to heterosexual women.

3. Many heterosexual women accept it under pressure from their male partners.

4. Many men ask for this from their women partners complaining that after instances of childbirth and its effects on the vagina they do feel the same pleasure as before.

5. The incidence of heterosexual anal sex is increasing due to men watching these practices on pornographic movies.  


So, the next time someone gives off to you about "sodomites" - ask them do they mean heterosexual sodomites or homosexual sodomites?




Anal Sex More Popular Than Possibly Expected Among Heterosexual Couples: 

Huffington Post.

Though its practice is frequently assumed to be confined to the gay male population, anal intercourse appears to be more popular than possibly expected among heterosexual couples under 45, according to a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report.
The report, titled “Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction and Sexual Identity in the United States,” which reportedly polled thousands of people between the ages of 15 and 44 from 2006 through 2008, found that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex at least once in their lives.
When it came to experimenting with same-sex love, however, women were considerably more fluid: 12 percent said they’d had sex with another woman, compared to a mere 5.8 percent of men. Of course, as The New Civil Rights Movement notes, it’s possible that the rates for heterosexual men and women experiencing anal sex as well as those experimenting with same-sex partners may actually be slightly higher in 2012.
There have been several published theories as to the reason for a rise in popularity (and we can hopefully assume it’s not an increase in the number of people Googling Rick Santorum). A Dec. 22, 2011 piece by Hugo Schwyzer, a professor of gender studies and history at Pasadena City College, implied that anal sex (which he calls “the most selfless of common sexual acts” given the amount of pain the “bottoming” partner endures in its practice) could be on the rise due to its frequent appearance in both heterosexual porn and mainstream media as well as an increased pressure from heterosexual male partners. He also cited several sources who seemed to cast doubt on how pleasurable the act was for women.

Though there’s no telling what he’d say about the implications of the practice between heterosexual partners, Paul Angelo, a Miami-based “gay matchmaker,” reportedly called for a 60-day moratorium on anal sex among gay couples last month, saying the act diminishes self-confidence and self-esteem while causing relationship confusion among partners. “The worse part about this destruction of self-esteem is that it’s on the subconscious level. A person will not feel anything during the act,” he writes. “And the pleasure derived from the act will override the logic necessary to correct the behavior. In addition, there is a delay between the act of anal intercourse and the reduction of self-esteem of the person.”

56 comments:

  1. Is this the best the founder of a new church can produce? Buckley you're a detestable vile creature who will be punished, and punished severely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you challenged by my honesty?

      Delete
    2. "will be punished, and punished severely" ...

      a sado-masochistic fantasy of Anonymous at 00:11 methinks ...

      Delete
    3. Wow! Such hatred and vengefulness coming from your comment.

      I wonder which of you 'will be punished, and punished severely'?

      Delete
    4. @ZeroTime
      Of course you're right but I imagine 00:11 lacks the psychodynamic understanding to see this!

      Delete
  2. You are a reprehensible and vile creature. and far from being challenged by your 'honesty'. I am revolted by your depravity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm speaking the truth.

      Can you not cope with the truth?

      Are you one of those hetero guys?

      Delete
    2. Bishop Pat calls a spade a spade and tells it as it is.

      Would that his fellow clerics would have 10% of his honesty.

      Delete
    3. I am a middle aged Catholic Mass goer. My husband raped me vaginaly and analy for years.I have never been able to say this publicly before.My PP told me in confession to stay with my husband and give him his sexual rights. Thankfully through counselling and a women's group I was able to assert my rights. I threw the b****** out 5 years ago and took my life back.

      Delete
    4. Even at this stage you should report him to the police.

      Delete
    5. Yes. Rape within marriage is a criminal offence.

      Delete
    6. Completely agree with Bishop Pat on this and with Anonymous 00.45 - rape is wrong in all circumstances and the passage of time does nothing to lessen the crime. Your ex-husband should definitely be reported to the Police. Well done on claiming back your life.

      Delete
    7. 00:39, very sorry indeed that you suffered so much from that excuse for a man.

      I'd love to throttle that utterly useless (and spiritually dangerous) PP who gave you such sickening advice.

      From now on, listen to, and trust, the presence of God within you.

      Delete
    8. @00:39
      Good for you.
      Maybe he should move in with the parish priest so he can get his own medicine.

      Delete
  3. Pat as long as you're being called a detestable vile creature you can be sure you're annoying the right people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. People in any relationship including marriage are called to treat each other with respect. Anything else is unacceptable. Going down the road of definitions of sexual activity could in a forum like this tye everyone in nots as it has the R C Church for centuries. That said we should not be afraid to discuss topics in a mature and objective fashion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pat, you ask that '...the next time someone gives off to you about "sodomites" - ask them do they mean heterosexual sodomites or homosexual sodomites?'.

    But it is worth pointing out that sodomy is gang rape, not anal intercourse, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

    There seems to be a great misconception in the minds of many that sodomy means consensual male homosexual intercourse. Thus when we hear the denizens of the wilder shores of homophobia fulminate about sodomite marriage, we must presume that they are referring to a polygamous marriage between humans and angels, with gang rape as a defining feature of the marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make very good points.

      This is what wikipedia says ???

      Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is generally anal or oral sex between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but it may also mean any non-procreative sexual activity.[1][2][3] Originally, the term sodomy, which is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible,[4] was commonly restricted to anal sex.[5][6] Sodomy laws in many countries criminalized these behaviors, and other disfavored sexual activities as well.[6][7] In the Western world, many of these laws have been overturned or are not routinely enforced.

      Delete
    2. I was looking at it more from the perspective of the biblical exegesis (since the blog has a religious focus).

      The contention that Genesis 19 condemns all homosexual acts is insupportable. To argue, as Homosexualitatis Problema does, that the text involves a condemnation of all homosexual acts, does violence to the text. Genesis 19 does condemn all acts of homosexual rape, but a condemnation of homosexual rape is no more a condemnation of homosexuality than a condemnation of heterosexual rape is a condemnation of heterosexual sex.

      Delete
    3. Actually, that point about 'non-creative sexual activity' is interesting. The reduction of sexual activity to a procreative impulse popularised in Thomist thought has had a profoundly damaging effect on the thinking of Catholics on sexual matters. It is this rather bizarre system of thought that has led to the teaching that masturbation is a mortal sin (one goes to hell if one dies not having confessed the sin), that all forms of contraception are wrong and forms, in part, a key component of certain virulent strains of Catholic thinking condemning homosexuality.

      Delete
    4. There is the further problem that the King James bible has created confusion by using the word sodomite (the Hebrew word it translates actually means consecrated one) to refer to the ritual cultists of Asherah.
      But I have a feeling that people who go around calling others vile despicable creatures, won't be interested in nuances.

      Delete
    5. MourneManMichael17 May 2017 at 23:26

      Anon @ 10:46. If I may quote and add to your sentence above, for I think it goes to the heart of many of the problems of the RC church concerning sexuality.
      You say: "the reduction of sexual activity to a procreative impulse popularised in Thomist thought has had a profoundly damaging effect on the thinking of catholics on sexual matters". You then describe this as "a bizarre system of thought."

      Sir, or madam, you are "bang on the money, and I entirely agree.
      I learned a lot about other cultures' attitudes to sexuality through extensive travels in SE Asia and East Africa. To generalise and sum those up.
      Those 'non Christian' cultures have much less 'hang-ups' about sexuality than western Christiandom. In those cultures, and probably elsewhere, sex is viewed as a a perfectly normal human appetite, to be enjoyed together with all its preferential varieties, similar to another prevalent appetite concerning foodstuffs and taste. And in that respect, the very same precautionary measures apply, in that some foodstuffs may taste good, but can cause harm, and similarly some sexual preferences can cause harm both to self, and to others.
      So I think you're entirely right in pointing out the way Thomas Aquinas's dogmatic views have 'screwed up' Christian attitudes to sexuality. Moreover I think it goes back further to St Paul's misplaced misogyny, and is also linked to the patriarchical aspirations of the developing RC hierarchy for power and control over clerics, ordinary church followers and property and possessions in particular.
      MMM

      Delete
    6. Thanks MMM. The point you make about patriarchy is interesting, because when we look at the story about Sodom in Genesis 19, we see that Lot is prepared to offer his daughter rather than see his angelic visitors raped. This raises 2 points: (1) it implies that Lot knew that the men of Sodom were not exclusively homosexual in their taste, but (2) that he treated his daughters as his property rather than independent agents. That patriarchy feeds right the way through the scriptures, so that when we are reading Scripture - assuming, as I do at least, that it is inspired by God - we need to separate out what is cultural commentary and what is divine instruction. St. Paul says explicitly that women must cover their heads in Church - why do we feel free today to ignore this, but accept other cultural habits?

      We see the negative effects of this Thomistic thinking in Church documents. For example, Homosexualitatis Problema boldly declares that homosexual activity prevents one's fulfilment and happiness (not spiritual, just regular happiness). Now, that is demonstrably false, unless one is claiming that ALL homosexuals are deeply unhappy - anyone who knows any such people will know that that is not the case. So this whole way of thinking about the alleged 'indispensable finality' of acts, and acts having an intrinsic purpose independent of the intentions of the person doing the act, etc etc etc is really at the heart of the problem of our damaged concept of human sexuality. And while most Catholics in the pews will have no real knowledge of the philosophical underpinnings of these doctrines, it is clear to see that they have a profound impact at the practical level since the system of thought has become embedded in Catholic psychology.

      But things change. How many Catholics, if they are being honest, REALLY believe that someone who masturbates and who dies without having confessed that sin, will go to hell? This is the logic of official doctrine, but only a minuscule number of people believe it. And so it will be with homosexuality in a decade or two from now - experience and a deeper doctrinal development in issues of human sexuality will, I hope, lead to a profound shift in on the ground Catholic thinking on these matters.

      TRS





      Delete
  6. Pat why do preach openness and practice the opposite?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 11:36
      Why do you support hypocrites - the ones Pat is busy exposing?

      Delete
  7. I'm sorry Pat, I'm fast becoming disillusioned with this blog. This subject may very well need airing but on this blog I'm not so sure. Why has the blog become sort of obsessed with sex, particularly homosexuality and the sexual lives of Seminarians and Priests? I also think this "new Church" is a bad idea Pat, I think you have got carried away with yourself and been encouraged by others for all the wrong reasons. It also saddens me that you are pushing yourself even further away from being reconciled back to the Church. I know they have treated you appallingly but deep down Pat, I feel you would reconcile back if the conditions were right and agreeable to both sides.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here! Here! The vulgarity of the blog makes any reasoned debate impossible. As for your new church, that will be a stillborn idea. 11:49 is right don't completely alienate yourself from the church, the possibility of reconciliation is still there.

      Delete
    2. What do you mean - "the vulgarity of the blog"

      As well as being a social, anthropological, medical and human interest issue sodomy / anal sex is a moral issue.

      Why can it not be discussed here ?

      Delete
    3. Why don't you answer questions pat?

      Delete
    4. What makes you think that I am obliged to answer all questions - especially from anonymous contributors?

      I will answer questions I wish to answer - and not questions thatare none of your business!

      Delete
    5. I think Pat that by pointing out the sexual idiosyncrasies of heterosexuals, you are weakening the moral arguments of those champing at the bit to indulge their homophobia by luxuriating in the detail of alleged homosexual 'perversion' and salivating at the juicy detail. Perhaps they thought that all straight people had sex in the missionary position and solely for the purposes of procreation. That might account for some of the comments.

      It was for this reason that I was opposed to some of the more lurid and fanciful accounts in relation to the more unusual proclivities alleged in respect of Rory Coyle - first, because they lacked the ring of truth, secondly because the only 'verification' was an anonymous user on the blog and thirdly, and this is my point, because the unbridled joy exhibited by those claiming the moral high ground while delighting and glorying in the gory details (always believed 100% regardless of whether there is any semblance of truth or not) was a bit hard to stomach.

      Similarly, as regards the Maynooth story, many are rightly upset at events and inaction. But a high percentage of commentators are thrilled to have more scandal because, after all, it is another chance to say "Gaynooth" and bash the gays.

      Such are the issues one faces when opening up any topic which touches on the issue of homosexuality.

      Delete
  8. Hi Pat- regarding something you said in a reply the other day concerning someone who wanted to retain contact with Catholic groups he is involved with... Sean says joining up with another group incurs excommunication. If your new Church is not recognised by mainstream institutions ( R.C. C. Of E. Etc) what is the position. Can one minister in ICC ( say a former cleric) and continue to be a reader in the main Church, or a choir member etc. In other words, can ICC be a fellowship for the return to ministry on a selective limited basis, while membership continues in say an R.C. Parish? Many men I know are ex seminarians or clerics who left, got married and are now grandparents. Time to volunteer, clerical formation and expertise coupled with life's lessons from marriage and rearing children are a huge reservoir of waiting to be explored. There is, in my opinion no vocation crisis, just a tyranny of canon law and prejudice . Love to read responses to this one!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ICC is open to anyone in whatever circumstance.

      People in all circumstances wekcome.

      People from other churches can be ICC members / clergy also.

      Delete
    2. 16.10 You can't have your cake and eat it I'm afraid. Anyone ministering or otherwise in this so called "ICC" will imagine, be shunned by the RC Church and rightly so. It's not an a la Cartey menu to pick and choose from. That's the reality, sad though you may find it.

      Delete
  9. So I can be an active RC and also a member of your church?
    TBH I wd have preferred if you had challenged pope Frankie when he comes here...so that he wd have takenuback into the fold

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People like me will not get near Francis.

      I used to hope / think the RC church would change and reform.

      I have lost hope of that.

      Delete
    2. King Henry V111 expected the Church to bend and twist to suit his demands too. But it didn't happen, not even for someone like him who thought people would jump when he cracked the whip. Nothing the Church hasn't come across before..

      Delete
    3. Don't I recall accounts of missals found with the Sovereign Pontiff's name/title crossed out and with King Harry's name inserted in its place?

      If it weren't for the Holy Roman emperor breathing down the pope's neck England might have remained Catholic.

      Delete
    4. Yes, and if it weren't for Henry V111 feeling that it was absolutely fine for him as the King to murder, abuse the women in his life and expect to get away with completing disregarding the marriage laws of the Church, then yes, of course history might have turned out differently. The Pope behaved with bravery and integrity.

      Delete
  10. Its a position I have never tried nor have I ever experienced a blowjob, but who am I to condemn what satisfying for a sexual wanting brain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hank, you are a sad little man.

      Delete
    2. Sad? Really? But with some morals...

      Delete
  11. when are we hearing about the church in Ireland please - Maynooth update, update on the seminiarians in rome and Kerry? also on the irish diocese? come on Pat

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think many on here should try working for a living
    Bringing up a family would put all these sexual positions out of ones mind
    This include you pat... feeling sorry for you

    ReplyDelete
  13. There's nothing sad about my comment I've never had analsex or a blow job, neither have I forced the woman I LOVE to do, to conform, to obey, to facilitate anything she was uncomfortable with. In any relationship it must be about respect. Basically all of us are different and if anal, missionary or other is offerred given and recieved in love then why condemn, BUT I whole heartedly agree it is RAPE of the first degree by any other means.

    In saying that I've always wanted to be a little man but never was able to achieve that ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good on you, Hank! That's them told!

      Delete
  14. Now if you wanna talk anout RAPE then I'm well acquainted with this Demon being raped by a builder at the age of 5 or 6 whilst his so called matesl looked on.

    I've hoped everyday since that his death ws full off loneliness. My justice will never be done and I always cry out for those who need protecting as I have done even on this blog site a few days ago. Thats another reason why I believe if your LBGT then get out and say so, for there are those who hide behind the LBGT people as evil deviants. Its bad enough that they hide in the hetrosexual world aswell.

    Battery failing on this so gotta finish the rant and post
    Bye

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hank xx
    Talking about your experiences is helping you heal.
    Your wife must be very proud of you.


    ReplyDelete
  16. Yip she's my soul mate, who understands me more than I do myself. Talking the experience only helps me if I know others can be aware. There's no point in playing a victim for me but to grow, understand and lead.
    But understand too my wife like most would love to kill me at times for the silly things I do. lolololololololololol

    ReplyDelete
  17. To the big, big man, Big Hank ((HUGS)) xx How a child even starts to put their spirit back together again and survive, let alone thrive after such a terrible assault is beyond the understanding of those who have not been similarly assaulted, but not beyond their being moved to compassion, if they've any heart at all. If survivors then turn their pain to love and demands for justice for all victims and searches for the best possible future safeguarding of children and all the vulnerable as you have done, this just further demonstrates the breadth and depth of your being. xx

    ReplyDelete
  18. AIDS was passed on primarily by anal sex and is pretty well exclusive to the homosexual community. I demand a recount!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to every single reputable study on the issue, the primary worldwide method for the transmission of HIV is heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse and the majority of those infected are heterosexual.

      Are you saying, then, that the incidence of anal sex among the heterosexual population is in fact massively higher than reported, given that you assert that HIV was passed on primarily by anal sex? [You say AIDS but I assume you mean HIV since AIDS is a syndrome of symptoms, not a virus.]

      Delete
    2. @10:03
      Nice try, and you obviously know your stuff, but there's no point trying to explain empirical facts to people like that.

      Delete
    3. MourneManMichael18 May 2017 at 12:02

      Nevertheless Anon @ 11:03 it's very welcome to see intelligent informed thoughtful responses to some of the more obtuse off the cuff ill informed remarks sometimes appearing on Pat's blog.
      MMM
      Thank you Anon @ 10:03
      MMM

      Delete
    4. HIV is common among HETEROSEXUALS in Africa and is passed on by VAGINAL intercourse according to all sources I have read. This skews the stats. it is common at all in Europe/the Americas among heterosexuals but it was/is very common among homosexuals. True this is not merely a difference in sexual practice (though it must have a significant effect) but the major difference is in the rampantly promiscuous behaviour that many homosexuals display.
      DS

      Delete
    5. DS, your comment lacks any semblance of coherence. The epidemiology of a virus cannot "skew' statistics in terms of how it is transmitted. It simply is what it is. Therefore, while sociological factors are at play in terms of sexual practices likely to lead to transmission and preventative measures, they are irrelevant when assessing how a virus is transmitted scientifically.

      Your assertion that heterosexual transmission of HIV is not at all common in Europe is demonstrably false. According to the WHO's Report (2015), in eastern Europe 65% of transmissions of HIV were either heterosexually transmitted or though intravenous drug use; only 4% were homosexual in transmission. In western Europe, 32% of all cases of HIV transmission were among heterosexuals. It is absurd to say it is not common.

      To take your argument logically, you seem to be saying that promiscuity is the reason for transmission (true to an extent). But your argument falls apart when you imply that homosexuals in Europe are massively promiscuous compared to heterosexuals in Europe, meanwhile we find in Africa that the vast majority of heterosexuals must be very promiscuous given the high rate of heterosexual transmission there. Are you saying that racial origin is the key factor in all of this?

      Using statistics when you don't understand how they work is very dangerous when you are misusing them to bolster your pre-existing prejudice.

      TRS

      Delete