sexual orientation issue

[Zenith]

[Napoléon]

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?

Who would do that? Sick fucked up individuals.
Would I do that? No.

[Epimethean]

Who cares who would do it. What if someone did: "Preserve my body and fuck it as long as you like."

Are we to judge Morticia for digging that kink, or Gomez for taking her up on the offer?

[Violet]

Did you really see an 8 year old boy sucking the dick of a 50 year old man?q

In mind's eye? Absolutely.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

[Rwandrall]

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.

---

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.

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

[Violet]

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

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.

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

[Shell B]

I'm starting to feel like this forum is full of sexual deviants. I thought I was weird.

[bbrettle]

i mean i like sex and all but....

[Violet]

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.

<Insert second NTS here>

[Shell B]

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.