Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
June 21, 2011 at 12:40 pm (This post was last modified: June 21, 2011 at 1:23 pm by Zenith.)
(June 17, 2011 at 10:00 pm)Anymouse Wrote:
[7] To quote George Carlin: Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why is selling fucking illegal? Two of my best friends are prostitutes. (Really.) The argument that "poverty drives women (and men) into prostitution" does not wash. (Neither of them is poor.) So we will solve the problem of poverty by taking away one of the few things that such a person can sell and making it illegal, rather than solve poverty?
I submit paid athletes, or ditch diggers, or garbage men, or anyone who works in physical labour, by the definition of 'selling your body,' (rather than proper usage: selling a service) is thus a prostitute. What does that make the organ donor industry (to which you must donate, then they turn around and sell your freely donated blood or organs for fantastic amounts of money)? Pimps? or businesses?
I do find it somewhat two-faced that a rising caste of prostitutes in the USA are women trying to pay for college. We will take away their ability to earn tuition money, rather than addressing the problem of tuition being too high?
If I take her flowers and chocolates, then to dinner and a show, and go home and boff her, that's a "date." If I give her $100 (the cost of all that stuff, which she can then use on anything she wants), that's illegal. If I spend that $100 on anything she wants, give it to her, then boff her, that's still a date. Nonsensical.
James
I agree with you on this as some points... you know, giving a street prostitute a fine for prostitution won't change the situation, it would only make her earn less money. If prostitution is legal, then the government gets from her less money (some tax or something), or perhaps she needs to be registered somewhere as "prostitute" for that to happen. But the idea with paid sex itself is not nice (at least in my opinion). You know, if you don't 'pay' the girl, you don't have sex - I don't know, perhaps an idea that "sex" should be free (i.e. not payable) or something.
We also have the following situation: we have a poor man, who earns little money and can barely live his life with it - no hot chick is interested in him. And we have a rich guy who didn't do anything to be like that (he inherited from his rich parents) and no matter his age, all hot chicks have sex with him. It is clear that sex is always paid (or yeah, 99% of times). But... it seems that I'm the kind of old-fashioned guy who believes sex should rather be between people that love each other, than gaining a higher salary from your boss (by having sex with him), gaining some more money, a bigger house or stuff like that.
And selling sex is different than selling books or cookies - and I don't like the idea of selling your organs either, and I believe that a normal man, who can live happily with the money he has, wouldn't do that. It's because I believe that it has emotional implications - in other words, if we imagine a guy who would marry a woman because of love and not for money or other interests, then jealousy might be a problem (considering that the woman has been a prostitute all the days of her life). I don't know, if a man is to marry the person he loves, could he enjoy the relationship knowing that she is still a prostitute (and thus, she's still having sex with other guys)? If no, then why does jealousy interfere?
(June 19, 2011 at 1:29 am)Stue Denim Wrote: 4# hell no, Consent! 18+ or gtfo.
I really don't understand why it's illegal to have sex with a 16 or 17 years old girl. Come on, what girl is still virgin at that age?? And if a 16 years old girl is having sex with 16 years old guys, then why is it illegal to have sex with 20 years old guys?
(June 20, 2011 at 12:37 pm)Napoleon Wrote:
(June 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm)Rwandrall Wrote: For dead people, it would be considered as desecrating the body (same law that goes against grave-robbing), which is also illegal.
What if they wrote in their will that they would give consent for people to fuck their corpse?
Who would do that? Would you do that? If yes, then why would you do that?
(June 20, 2011 at 11:30 am)Shell B Wrote:
Quote:1. What do you think about incest?
Should we consider it "good", "normal", etc.? How do you regard (i.e. what do you feel about that person, what attitudes you have towards him/her):
a) a man who slept with his sister?
b) a woman who slept with her brother?
I don't think we should consider it "good" or "normal," but I don't think we should interfere, so long as it is consensual and does not produce children. Even when the latter occurs, I am pissed off about it, but loathe to suggest legal interference.
Quote:How would you feel if you saw them doing those things and you knew that they are brother and sister? (see live/porn - TV, computer) Should our society consider it "ok"? Why? Would you feel ok if these persons you have seen are part of your family? (mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, etc.)
The first scenario would gross me out a bit. A saw a lesbian porn once that had twins in it. My curiosity was strong, then I was mortified. As for the latter scenario, I would be completely fucking disgusted by it. I wouldn't treat my family poorly, but I would try to avoid seeing that action as much as possible.
Quote:2. What do you think about sex with animals?
Should we consider it "good", "normal", etc.? How do you regard (i.e. what do you feel about that person, what attitudes you have towards him/her):
a) a man that fucked a goat?
b) a man that was fucked in the ass by a dog?
c) a man that sucked that dick of a horse?
d) a woman that has been fucked by her dog?
e) a woman that sucked the dick of a horse?
The ick factor knows no bounds. I cannot stomach it. No, it is not "good" or "normal." My biggest gripe is that we cannot typically ascertain whether the animals enjoys it. Therefore, it may not be consensual and may actually be animal abuse. I saw one case where a man was convicted because he seriously hurt a female dog while raping her. Ugh, I feel nauseous.
Quote:How would you feel if you saw these persons doing those things? (see live/porn - TV, computer) Should our society consider it "ok"? Why? Would you feel ok if these persons you have seen are part of your family? (mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, etc.)
Gross, sick, fucking disgusted. It is not ok, it is potentially rape. If it were a family member, I may turn them in like anyone else. I may feel more compassion and hope they get help, but I like animals. I don't think we should fuck them.
Regarding "My biggest gripe is that we cannot typically ascertain whether the animals enjoys it": if the animal is fucking (doing the action) and the man/woman is standing still being fucked, then you can say that it was the animal's consent (it was not raped).
Anyway, a curiosity: why do you consider sex with animals as abnormal and incest as normal (or "not abnormal")?
And, a question for everybody: Some of us agree with incest, others don't. some of you agree with sex with animals, others don't. So the question is: HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT IS NORMAL AND WHAT IS ABNORMAL?
Or, by what exact rules or principles should we judge this? And how do we know that these rules or principles are the correct ones (that by them and by them only should we judge these things)? If one says "by the laws of the state", that is quite wrong because each country/state has its own different laws, and you can't trust the state/country to see things the right way every time. Or also... what makes us disagree on these things?
An obvious answer would be "if my stomach doesn't agree with it, it is abnormal" but unfortunately, this isn't an argument given by reason.
(June 21, 2011 at 1:30 am)Girlysprite Wrote: As for your dildo, it is an inanimate object, no emotions, no life, so it doesn't matter.
As for consent, it is more difficult with children en people with mental disabilities, because for a proper consent a person has to be able to forsee the concquences of their actions to a good degree.
What the hell are the consequences of children starting to fuck at 8 or 10 years old? Everybody says that "they don't understand the consequences" but what exactly are they?? Don't you know anybody who has started his/her sexual life when he/she was a child? If you did, did you notice some very bad consequences they live now?
June 21, 2011 at 2:15 pm (This post was last modified: June 21, 2011 at 2:18 pm by Violet.)
(June 21, 2011 at 11:35 am)Zenith Wrote: Did you really see an 8 year old boy sucking the dick of a 50 year old man?q
In mind's eye? Absolutely.
Quote:I ask you another question, namely, why should the number of people who practice incest grow?
Because it's something sexual that doesn't hurt me in any way at all. Same reason I would give for heterosexuality of females and homosexuality of males.
Quote:
Quote:If it was 'very disgusting' then I imagine you saw either an ugly woman or an ugly dog or both.
No, it was a young lady and a big dog (quite beautiful). I didn't watch too much back then so I can't give you too many details now.
Ugliness has naught to do with youth. If they were both sexy: I cannot imagine their sex not being at least as sexy as their bodies in the first place.
Quote:When I said "if it's about people" I meant "if it's about human beings", sorry if that was misleading.
Anyway, why would one desire to fuck a dead dog? For some reason it sounds very 'abnormal' to us. Would it be because such things do not happen to often in our societies and we are not taught since children to accept it as normal and natural?
Why would one not have a desire to fuck a dead dog? Only reason I can see is germophobia.
It sounds abnormal to you, not to me. I taught myself largely, since few others were doing it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:4. minor sex (e.g. 8 years old)
I totally disagree with minor sex, ESPECIALLY an adult having sex with a minor (the laws are currently pretty crappy, as it seems, because they make illegal the sex between an 18 years old guy and a 17 years old girl), but the fact is that an 8 years old boy should never have sex with an adult!
Never? I can see plenty of reasons for it. So much for a fact.
Name them, then.
1: Offered money for it.
2: Curiosity.
3: Interested in it and wants to try it out.
4: His parents arrange a marriage that must be consummated.
5: Trading sex for a nonmilitary gain.
6: Fascination with the feelings of genital arousal.
9: Thinks something tastes good.
10: Understands how sex works and is doing it for fun.
etc.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:I believe the society must punish (usually, it does) such a thing.
Why must society punish this?
Because it has bad psychological effects to children. That's what I've heard at least.
And i've heard eating McDonalds can lead to obesity in children and adults alike. Shall society punish anything that is remotely negative?
Quote:I've also heard people having sex since ~10 years old (with children of their age) and they don't seem to have suffered some psychological things. I sincerely don't know for sure why sex between minors is really bad.
It isn't really bad. It isn't bad a lot. It isn't a little bad. Congratulate them on their curiosity and sense of adventure I say.
Quote:
Quote:Sounds to me like you've seen only part of *one* gay flick (incredible if you've spent much time on the internet at all)... I don't consider your distaste of it to be particularly secure.
Secure... for whom? for me? why?
For you. I didn't like water with cereal the first time I tried it. Month later I can't even stand to eat it with milk.
Tastes are to be developed... and often what we like most eventually is hard to take at first. I'm amazed that you've only come across one instance of such sex... you have the internet ffs
Quote:Then why do some people claim that it is gays' nature to be gay? It's only "sex" after all.
Because some people prefer sex with their own sex to sex with another sex?
Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point correctly. Do you agree the fact that being harder for men to understand women and being harder for women to understand men should not be a reason for turning homosexual (whether male of female)?
Turning homosexual due to reason? Not possible. Engaging in homosexual activities can be due to reason... not being homosexual oneself. I can't be black by reason.
I agree that one's own gender is easier to understand than another gender. Gender being a distinction of personality, of course.
Quote:It is true that I cannot eliminate paid sex. It would be the same as attempting to change this world into a perfect world (which is likewise an idealistic thing, a utopia). As about the skyrocket... the fact is that the senses are only being 'turned on' by porn (and they are not the only things that turn on). And humanity could not suffer due to a lack of it. Anyway, on the other side, you can find real persons on the streets.
Perfect worlds are not even idealistic... they are tautology and naught more.
There's always "real" people on the streets... why remove porn?
Quote:And if I would be to chose between enriching a porn star and helping the poor children that are starving and have no future, I'd use that money to help those children have a future.
You just said that these children have no future. Why give something to something that cannot make use of it?
Helping poor and starving people I can understand. Helping people with no future is moronic.
June 21, 2011 at 6:23 pm (This post was last modified: June 21, 2011 at 6:34 pm by Rwandrall.)
(June 21, 2011 at 2:40 am)Anymouse Wrote:
Rwandrall Wrote:People with mental disabilities, . . . , none of those is legally allowed to give consent, . . .
I have a documented mental disability (besides my epilepsy), which was part of what forced me out of the military after seventeen years. Spent some fun times in places where they lock the doors from the inside.
I assure you (at least in this country) persons with such "disabilities" can and do give legal consent to all kinds of things, including sex and marriage. We can even get drivers' licences. And vote.
(Owning a gun is tricky, but we can run for office too. And if enough of us do the latter, perhaps we can reverse the designation "mentally ill" to the Tea Partiers. There are more of us.)
Concerning people naturally not wanting adult incestuous relationships (where "incest" is still a matter of opinion, not biology), if that were truly the case, governments and churches would not write laws against it. They have plenty other things to worry about, like churches telling you who you can associate with and legislators voting themselves pay raises.
James
yeah sorry i oversimplified the issue...By "mental disabilities", what i meant to say was terrible ones that makes allowing the person to consent unreasonable because they have partial or no awareness of the world around them. Of course the range and extent of mental disabilities is very wide and no general rule can be made.
(June 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: People with mental disabilities can still consent. As can children. As can animals (observe that humans are animals).
No they legally can't. Not "consent" as it is understood in legal terms. "Consent" implies a full understanding of the situation and its implication, which none of those groups have (again, having "mental disabilities" defined as above), which is why they cannot give consent.
For the dildo, i'm pretty sure consent isn't an issue, since it's, you know, not alive A dead body, however, even though its not alive, still has limited rights.
(June 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: Try to remember that legality is intensely subjective and ultimately tells us nothing philosophically as to why a thing should or shouldn't be allowed
As for "legality is subjective", in my eyes this law aspect is a really accurate and apt explanation of why consent for sex should not be available for animals or children: they do not know all the implications of it, as such they cannot consent to it. To me it just makes a lot of sense, which is why i use it
Rwandral Wrote:No they legally can't. Not "consent" as it is understood in legal terms. "Consent" implies a full understanding of the situation and its implication, which none of those groups have (again, having "mental disabilities" defined as above), which is why they cannot give consent.
Weren't you listening? Legality is entirely subjective, and I reject your understanding of consent as you define it. Because switching what country i am in changes not my capacity for agreement
Quote:For the dildo, i'm pretty sure consent isn't an issue, since it's, you know, not alive A dead body, however, even though its not alive, still has limited rights.
Has as many rights as a dildo. That is: none.
Quote:As for "legality is subjective", in my eyes this law aspect is a really accurate and apt explanation of why consent for sex should not be available for animals or children: they do not know all the implications of it, as such they cannot consent to it. To me it just makes a lot of sense, which is why i use it
WHich law?
Oh, obviously not Silicoid law. Much too brutal for little humans.
You don't know all the implications of sex either. Surest way to know you are logically unsound: it just makes sense. State why, or know that the basis is probably flawed
"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss." -Cypher (the matrix)
(June 21, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Shell B Wrote: I'm starting to feel like this forum is full of sexual deviants. I thought I was weird.
Until your porn collection is filled with pokemon sex and anime tentacle rape and contains as many men as it does women: you cannot call yourself weird.
(June 21, 2011 at 6:59 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: Until your porn collection is filled with pokemon sex and anime tentacle rape and contains as many men as it does women: you cannot call yourself weird.
<Insert second NTS here>
Definitely no toony sex. However, I have more women than men and am straight, does that count as weird. Well, there are some other interesting things, but I don't want to give away too much.
