Amen-Moses

Nope, I've had many different types of animal in my household and by far the the most gross were human children. At least dogs and cats don't draw pictures on the wall with their shit.

Amen-Moses

HelenM

Well, I don't know how you can be so sure.

I think part of the reason adults find it hard to recover from childhood sexual abuse is that it's not always 100% unpleasant. Trying to sort out all their feelings about it is very very hard - that's the impression I get.

I could be wrong, of course.

If you think it's ok for one adult to do whatever they can get away with another agreeing to, and it's not our business to try to rescue the one they are doing it to, then I suppose we are not going to agree.

"None of my business" is sometimes an appropriate response - I know that. But I'm a Christian and I agree with Jesus (assuming he really told this story ) that the person who did the right thing for the wounded man on the road to Jericho was the Samaritan who felt sorry for him and went over to help - even though it really was 'none of his business' - was it?

love
Helen

Xayide

If you insist on portraying every act that you find distasteful as some form of coercion rather than actual consent, then, no, I don't think we will agree, since we won't even be talking about the same thing. If two (or more) adults enjoy some act together that's not hurting anyone else, I don't think we have an obligation to interfere just because we don't like it.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Xayide ]</p>

HelenM

I think you're missing my point, Xayide, with all due respect.

I am not saying at all, that all acts I find distasteful are therefore coercion, as if everyone has the same likes and dislikes as me.

What I am saying is that sometimes people 'like' what is not good for them and at those times, my desire would be to step in and stop them going ahead if I could - try to redirect them, whatever. And I would think anyone who facilitates people doing what is not good for them, under the excuse of 'mutual consent', rather selfish.

Ted Hoffman

Ok, Ok, Ok.
So if two consenting adults decide to shit on each others mouth its all fine and dandy because they are hurting no one in the process?
Ok, I get your basis for justifying actions.

HelenM

My guess is that if this happened in a residence for mentally ill people the staff would intervene and prevent it.

I wonder why, since it's by mutual consent...

Actually in the psychiatric unit they have a 'no touching' rule so that rules a lot of stuff out anyway

love
Helen

Danielboy

Let me use my analogy again.

I find body piercing repugnant. People who like piercing every part of their body (other than ear-piercing)to me are rather perverse. But do I think it is immoral? I know they can certainly hurt themselves if they do it improperly, but does my inhibitions justify my denying them of their pleasures derived from impaling themselves?

The answer is no. (Footnote: If we go by the principle of digusting=immoral, we will end up with a lot of immoral people in one episode of "Ripley's believe or not".)

The very reason why America is a free country is that the fore-fathers had in mind that an adult rational individual can make the best decisions for himself. To say shit-eaters don't know what is good for them is as meddlesome as someone decrying your dress sense. Simply put, what you like might not be what i like. If you don't affect me, I won't give a shit(or maybe i might... if you like that sort of thing )

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Danielboy ]

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Danielboy ]</p>

Morat

If you really want to stir this up, what about the S&M crowd? One person consents to be dommed, or beaten, or flogged...

Is that immoral? Is it immoral to cause pain to one who wants it? Agrees to it?

I rather doubt it, but then "immoral" to me falls solidly on lack of consent.

Talon

Beastality? Man, have we sunk so low? .... I wish I'd never clicked!


Cy9

hedonologist

Blast! I thought I had you with that doggie love charge.
Me too. If you were a horny boy doggie sitt'n in a pound, would you rather meet the needle or go home with someone who wanted to pleasure you in every way they could? (You seem to have an open mind, so I think you could pretend for a moment to be one of those vile beasts who can't help but express your own erect state, no matter who is rubbing your belly.)
Is that the only thing stopping you? I don't imagine an animal would like anal sex from something as large as an average penis, but if you notice the way many horny male dogs will try to hump anything, it seems obvious that they would like any kind of slippery orifice that were passively put in a place they were tying to hump.

Dogs have many anti-bodies in their saliva, and they can't contract many (if not all) of the viruses humans can. On the other hand they can't tell you were they have been, and one could contract things which the dog can not contract, from other people the dog has been with recently.
Naww, it is just those frightening feces bacteria that keep me from it. No matter how much Ren whimpers and pouts, when he gets his bath, I will not rub soap on his little dirty hole so it is clean and not itchy. hehe
It may be needed enough to be a priority, to know any pleasure traps, but that is a refreshing idea to hear from someone of your persuasion, for a change. My guess is the pleasures which enhance health (thus lead to more future pleasure) lead to greater pleasure over the course of a lifetime than things like sexual stimulation ("Jesus" and "Paul" seemed to agree there) or pleasure drugs, were it not for chemicals released during sex which supposedly enhance health. But I would think that someday we could have the technology to allow people the freedom of having those brain chemicals without sexual stimulation.

Until then, some people seem to get the most pleasurable orgasms for their effort, from doing the same for their pet. A machine would be the ultimate in: convenience, safety, low maintenance, and least stress on the muscular skeletal system, aside from a person who gives more sex, money, chores, etc, than they receive, to you and only you (as if you could be sure they would be monogamous), but for many, the machine just can't get the ole' brain to give them as much "medicine" (ie orgasm and stimulation chemicals and wave patterns or whatever), with a machine. But who really knows what the effect of those orgasm chemicals are, anyway?

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>