I'm not really sure that the notions of those sorts of activities with a WOMAN ever occurred to Paul.
The author discusses teleology in the article. The ancients were much more accepting of the idea of teleology of things than modern folks in the west, today. It takes a real rejection of the teleology of sex for it to even enter one’s mind to engage in such practices with someone of the opposite sex. My understanding of the ancients was that homosexual acts were meant to mirror, to mimic, the heterosexual act, the difficulty being that men don't have the parts unique to women to actually obtain of the same act, and thus the use of other parts as substitutes.
But why use the substitutes when, with a woman, she's got the right set of parts for the act?
sitetest
That's a good question. From what I read on FR ... maybe I was happier when I was a lot more naïve ... there are plenty who have reasons.