Ted Hoffman

In the above post:
I meant coprophagy not necrophagy - I hope no necrophiliacs out there got offended.

HelenM

I don't believe I have the right to tell other people what to do...however, I do question the wisdom and sanity of people who pursue activities that disgust a quorum of evidently right-thinking human beings.

It seems very - stupid - to me to eat someone else's waste products and my guess is that it would make most people puke even to try it.

Yes, I suppose to me it's mostly about wisdom and sanity; but I can't tell other people what to do, in the end, unless they are people who I have authority over. Which would only be my children.

love
Helen

Ted Hoffman

I am starting a new thread on this same topic but I want to avoid convoluted arguments.
Darned atheists cant just say Yes/ No!
All I want is a poll. A yes/ No vote.

Danielboy

Two consenting homosexuals have sex: all fine and good.

Two consenting heterosexuals have sex: all fine and good.

A man have sex with a hapless cow: not all fine and good. Why? Animal cruelty. Did the cow ask for it? Well, debatable at least.

But of course, what about all the slaughtered animals that didn't ask for it either. Well here we must compare the consumption of meat with that of sexual release. Simply we consider the need for us to consume meat to exceed that of the right of animals to live. Whereas, sexual release can be attained through other ways than fucking animals and thus antagonising them.

A point to note also is that when we slaughter animals we would usually use the most humane way possible to give it a quick death.

Thus slaughtering animals for food - moral. Fucking 'unconsenting' animals - immoral.

This is how it seems to me.

MrLoverLover

"Whereas, sexual release can be attained through other ways than fucking animals and thus antagonising them."

-lol.....i was waiting for someone to write "fucking", and now that you did it really made me laugh.

HelenM

Re: 'mutual consent'

Actually I do have a problem with 'mutually consenting' in some cases. I mean, excuse me but if someone said to me "I want to eat your shit" I would say "NO!!!"

There are things that people consent to that I'd try to stop them doing, quite honestly, if I had that right.

In fact I'd say that anyone who says "yes" is an inhumane monster who is just using the other human being in a very degrading demeaning way.

I would feel sorry for anyone deluded enough to want to eat what should never be eaten and I would be angry with anyone else who goes along with it/facilitates it, I suppose. If it was my business.

So I think we need to be careful with "they mutually consented so it's ok" even though I do think that in some situations mutual consent is sufficient. But not when one person is consenting to something inhuman, something that even animals don't do! (So we're back to animals again )

love
Helen

Ted Hoffman

Bottom line, saying something is right because it involves consenting adults is not enough, saying we do it because its pleasurable is not enough either for the reasons I have given before.
You simply dont use an organ of sight for drinking tea in the same way you dont use organs of excretion for sex.
If you do, you have a problem.
Some may call your problem, pervesion, some immorality, some sin, some will think its gross, abnormal, unnnatural etc, whatever they call it,
Its a problem.
Deal with it.
Case closed.

Xayide

</strong>No, actually, what you need is a better argument for condemning it.

</strong>OK, why? Why is it not enough, if it's not hurting anyone? I find the idea of eating shit absolutely disgusting, but if the people who do want to, and they're not actively hurting someone, what's the problem?

</strong>Since you chose to completely ignore his actual point, I would say it's still you.

</strong>So, what others think of us is of prime importance? How very high-school.

Did it occur to you that it's physically impossible to drink with your eye? If it were possible, some people definately would. Then you would say, "But, but, it's not the right use of that organ!" and the eye-drinkers would say, "Huh? Why do you say that? It works, doesn't it? And it's enjoyable. Who am I hurting by drinking with my eye?"

For a less-surreal counter-example, what about kissing? Is kissing just wrong simply because the main purpose of the mouth is eating? What about blowjobs? Or cunnilingus? Are those wrong, because it's "absurd" to insert a sex organ into a non-sex-organ area? Would judicious use of whipped cream or chocolate syrup help mitigate the wrongness of it, since there'd at least be a little food consumption thrown in?

It's a problem, but did you think that maybe it's the person who's spending their time condemning and projecting their own distastes as morality that actually has the problem and needs to "deal with it"?

I find it odd that you think you have the authority to declare it so.

Well, see, that's not actually "mutual", is it?

</strong>At least you acknowledge that it is not.

</strong>Are you still talking about shit-eating when you say that? Because if you are, I invite you to have a dog and a litter box in the same house, and see what happens. I'm sorry, people, but animals are just gross. They'll do every disgusting thing humans do, then top it by laying eggs on it.

Seriously, the problem I have with this whole qualification of mutual consent is that you're basically saying that when a couple mutually consents to an act, your consent is also somehow important, even though you're not involved. That doesn't make sense to me.

HelenM

I think it would make a whole lot of sense to you if you had a young daughter that a man was sexually abusing and he claimed 'mutual consent'.

I think there are times when part of being human is to help other human beings out of situations where they are being taken advantage of. Which is the case, imo, if they have somehow got into a position to consent to something very degrading and demeaning and the other person is delighted to comply...

love
Helen

Xayide

Well, I'm sorry, but since he's claiming mutual consent for something which it obviously is not, it's irrelevant.

<strong> The thing is, "degrading" and "demeaning" are very personal terms. I find S&M to be degrading, but that doesn't mean I think it's immoral, and that mutual consent doesn't matter in those cases. I'm not going say that we should try and help people out of those situations, because it's none of my business.