Ted Hoffman

Fuck time zones...

tronvillain

I think I'll start in the middle. Anyway jaliet, the definition does not indicate that perverted acts are those that are considered morally wrong, so it is not a contradiction:

1. deviating from what is proper: deviating greatly from what is accepted as right, normal, or proper

The act is not what I would generally consider <a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=right" target="_blank">right</a>, <a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=normal" target="_blank">normal</a>, or <a href="http://dictionary.com/find/entry.asp?search=proper" target="_blank">proper</a> under most, though not all, the definitions of those words, but none of those things are required for me to consider it "moral."

2. relating to unusual sexual activities: relating to or practicing sexual activities considered abnormal (disapproving)

I don't consider the act <a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=normal" target="_blank">normal</a>, nor do I <a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=approve" target="_blank">approve</a> of it. Again, neither of those things are requirements for me to consider it "moral."

Now, I technically consider the act "perverted" given the definitions, but the connotations of the word are such that I wouldn't use it myself. Now, as to it being "moral", I essentially only consider an act "immoral" if the act bothers me more than the actions necessary to prevent the act - there is nothing especially objective about it.

No, I do not think so. The knowledge that some consenting adults privately satisfy their sexual desires with the aid of feces does not bother me sufficiently to consider any action justified. If they should attempt to do it in public, there are already numerous laws in place which would deal with it (public defecation, public nudity, etc.)

I see no reason to put bacteria aside, the apparent reason for the difference is that I would find the taste, smell, and texture extremely unpleasant and would be concerned about potentially consuming toxins and bacteria. They on the other hand either do not find the taste, smell, and texture unpleasant and are not concerned, or the satisfaction they derive from it outweighs those factors.

Given your definition of natural, it is not "natural" for the anus to be used to be used for sexual satisfaction, but then the majority of human sexual activities are not natural under your definition. I see no reason to care whether or not something is natural. Personally, I enjoy anal sex primarily because it provides a unique sensation, and the anus itself is interesting visually and tactilely. Oh, and stimulation of the prostate can be extremely pleasurable especially when accompanied with oral sex.

Freud was an unethical pseudoscientist and as Marvin Gardner points out: Where Freud was sound he was not original, and where he was original he was mistaken. Personally, I would not presume to speculate on explanations for coprophilia, or any other unusual sexual behavior for that matter.

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Coragyps

Back to beasts: Why do hillbillies wrap squirrels with duct tape?
Howard is probably the only one around who knows....

John E.D.P. Malin

To the Group:

This discussion is starting to acquire teeth! It has occurred to some to define what is meant by the term 'moral'!

Consult a philosophical dictionary, since regular dictionaries do not always give the more precise philosophical semantic usage. The third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary should always be consulted [on-line for $500.00 per annum <a href="http://www.oed.com]!" target="_blank">www.oed.com]!</a>

I apologize last night! I drank some delicious vintage wine. It worked its way into my prose, spelling and thoughts! But my observations are generally sound.

Does the group wish to reduce moral customs of the tribe to relics of survival mechanisms? If so, then any vile, repulsive sexual act can be condoned appealing to the consent and harm issue. Modern medicine has advanced to protect us from deadly pathogens contained in feces. Many of these sexual codes are hygenic in nature and origin! We are beyond or outside of this loop now in civilization.

Is it relevant to introduce the notion of personality, identity and mental stability to justify or render illegitimate certain sexual acts? Some of you claim this is irrelevant.

I do not wish to impose wishful thinking on this matter. I have a very low level of interest in this topic; it developed gradually by my interaction with other interesting minds here on the Secular Web.

I thought Single Dad gave the most lucid and penetrating insight of the three historical standards, or, was it Mad... used to judge these acts: survival, aesthetic and hygenic.

The Science of Beauty is not properly explored as it should be in philosophical discussions. I suspect if you are irresistibly drawn erotically to a beautiful body, any act can be transfigured from debasement into divine rapture! Even Marquis de Sade is called, "The Divine Sade!"

Hopefully, I have convinced the group that I am not insane, nor am I a troll. However, with Lord of the Rings out as a movie, and my deep understanding of pagan Germanic myhtology---trolls, drawfs and elves do possess the gift of immortality; they merely lack eternity/everlastingness! A subtle notion!

I shall post later in the week! I must go to my country plantation in Cecilia. I am in Southwestern Louisiana or Acadiana [www.timesofacadiana.com], so we are under the old aristocratic French manners down here!


Lord Malin


P.S. I will continue writing to this group. I find your minds inviting and hungry for genuine learning, not its superficial displays. It is hard thought that advances the cruel condition of life! Your contribution to civilization and your fellow man's well-being. Is this truism not obvious to all of you?

Ted Hoffman

Given your definition of natural, it is
not "natural" for the anus to be used to be used for sexual satisfaction, but then the majority of human sexual activities are not natural under your definition. I see no reason to care whether or not something is natural. Personally, I enjoy anal sex primarily because it provides a unique sensation, and the anus itself is interesting visually and tactilely. Oh, and stimulation of the prostate can be extremely pleasurable especially when accompanied with oral sex.

Padeophiles enjoy having sex with children for the same reasons.

What about using our organs for the right use?

Doesnt what is "natural" matter any more?

Sexual pleasure first! yeah right.

Ted Hoffman

Anyway, why dont we take a poll. Here at secweb?
Cogito asked: Do you consider bestiality immoral?

Ted Hoffman

I do

Cogito

jaliet, please tell us your definition of "natural."

If you are referring to what is present and produced by nature, then wouldn't murder be "natural"? And if we were to adhere to your system of morality, murder be moral as it occurs in nature. First, you have to prove that whether or not something is natural and whether or not it agrees with someone's personal preferences (i.e. whether one thinks it is perverted) has any bearing on the moral value of a deed/rule.

Edited for addenum.

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Cogito ]</p>

HelenM

Yeah but I was talking about mutually consentual things. Or things where people in their right minds mutually consented.

I don't believe that there is mutual consent when people are executed so it's in a different category.

I'm more concerned about that, actually, than the 'public/private' thing. I suppose I would care about the 'public/private' because of children seeing things that might influence them, more than that adults would see.

love
Helen

tronvillain

jaliet: No, what is "natural" does not matter any more - it never mattered.

That I judge the behavior of pedophiles to be immoral has nothing to do with their actions being "natural" or "unnatural." I suspect that it doesn't in your case either, and that you simply use nature to justify your more subjective opinions.