RE: Smut for Smut
March 12, 2010 at 10:45 am
(This post was last modified: March 12, 2010 at 11:03 am by tavarish.)
(March 12, 2010 at 9:00 am)Dotard Wrote: Everytime sex/porn is brought up and Pippy announces he does not care for some aspect of it, he gets accused of not or never having fulfilling relationships.
Not fair to the Pip.
Personally (this may come as a shock to some of you) I dislike/find disgusting/have no intrest in anal sex.
Poking my wanker into a sewage drain doesn't appeal to me in the least. Does that indicate I may never have had a fulfilling relationship? No.
I would agree I really never have had a fufilling relationship but I would maintain it had nothing to do with me not wanting to stick my pecker in their asshole.
Porn does not equal anal sex.
I don't enjoy administering anal sex either. Too many horror stories for it to be a preference. It's not that he doesn't like some aspect of it, it's that he doesn't like it AT ALL, which just led me to ask if he'd had any sexually fulfilling relationships, because it can be a very effective tool in a long-lasting and healthy experience between two people. That's all I meant. Plus, if anything, it can be an eye-opener to new things you haven't tried or would like to try. I know I've gotten lots of good ideas by watching videos, studying how those positions are done, and acting them out with a significant other.
It doesn't mean you have to enjoy watching beastiality or people pee on each other.
(March 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm)Pippy Wrote:Quote:It is sensationalist and rude, that was the fucking point. Good job, YOU GOT IT!Do i get a fish treat?
Quote:I'm sure it gets under your skin, but that was the POINT.No I am laughing at them. They are not under my skin. If they want to help associate atheism with pornography they can.
Quote:Cry me a river, cupcake. I told you that this was a result of religious proselytizers, and somehow you don't get it. It wasn't meant to pussyfoot around a subject.
[quote='Pippy' pid='59485' dateline='1268361220']
See you being disingenuous, holding a mean double standard. religious proselytizers have been mean to you yourself for over 2000 years, so that justifies that you (theoretically) be rude. If the thing that the proselytizers did was wrong, then the thing the atheists did was wrong as well. You can't justify being rude because someone was rude to you. If you do you are a hypocrite.
I didn't say it was the best way to go about it, nor did I support it. I simply told you what it was about and said I found it funny. I explained to you that rudeness does not impose on others' rights, but Christianity in the U.S. does. Passing out porn isn't a breach of freedom of assembly or speech. I also told you that other groups can protest them just as readily.
I honestly do not care if others consider my actions rude. Personally, I try to act as morally as possible. This isn't about me though - it's about the group that handed out porn and were apparently doing it completely wrong, even though they got their desired result.
(March 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm)Pippy Wrote: Are we going in circles? Not sink to their level. Act with more self respect than that. Belittle me for being self righteous for not supporting 'sinking to their level'.
Specifically, what would you do?
(March 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm)Pippy Wrote: Yes. Most. I consider most straight normal sex sick. But yes. I like how it is a lifestyle choice now. I am not a pederast, it's a lifestyle.
I don't understand. Are you gay?
(March 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm)Pippy Wrote: Then what is the point?
It was all about attention and sensationalism, which apparently you miscontrue as a bunch of atheists just being rude to christians. I'll make it clear that I wouldn't do so myself, and I don't support them. I'm telling you what the desired effect was.
(March 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm)Pippy Wrote: Not to me. I think atheism is the same as every other belief, an attempt to define reality. You should want more for atheism than publicity stunts. But it's up to you.
Yes, as a non-belief in something defines reality. Atheism doesn't presuppose a damn thing.
I don't want anything for atheism, it isn't a school of thought or internal dogma. It's a disbelief of the claim that a God exists.
(March 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm)Pippy Wrote: Of course.
Evidence for the contrary?
(March 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm)Pippy Wrote: Ummmm. No. Never. Because I hate porn, and all girls like to watch porn all the time, and love porn in the bedroom, I have never been with a girl. I hate porn because it dehumanizes both the actress and the viewer. If I could ask, why does my aversion to porn mean I have never had a relationship? Is an aversion to porn an emotional disorder these days? Does my aversion to porn mean an aversion to sex? Because porn and sex are not the same thing. Porn is a toxic mimic of sex, and falsity.
Thanks.
Porn can be an important tool in the bedroom. It can broaden the horizons of sexual explorations, and also outline what you mutually like and dislike. In any long lasting relationship, it's important to be sexually open and communicative with each other. I don't understand why you say it dehumanizes the person when they're willing to do so. It's a service for money, and a very human action to be portraying, as we are hard-wired to do it and want it. Porn and sex are not the same thing. Porn is a reproduction of sexual fantasy and fetish. Sex is the act. If you contend that it's immoral, then so be it. I just hope you won't be so prudish with someone that is sexually honest and open with you.