Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sexual expression: your opinion
custard
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 134 (263132)
11-25-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Silent H
11-25-2005 6:28 PM


Re: None of our business
Killing is NEVER a sexual act, even if it may occur within a sexual act.
I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I think some people need violence or at least use violence to heighten their sex - e.g. BDSM.
How can we say killing, which is the ultimate violence, is divorced from any sexual feelings? If it heightens sexual arousal, it's sexual to that person.
Otherwise we could make the statements:
Pissing is never a sexual act. (urolagnia)
Bouncing on balloons is never a sexual act. (poppers, non-poppers, and semi-poppers).
Shoe fetishism is never a sexual act.
I think if it turns someone on, it can be a sexual act. If people are buying videos of it, watching it, or participating in it to help achieve or enhance their climax, then it's sexual. I think that include violence, even killing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2005 6:28 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 11-26-2005 7:35 AM custard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1660 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 134 (263137)
11-25-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
11-25-2005 10:19 AM


Re: Astonishing
I learned a new word yesterday: "cisgendered"
and what about "disgendered" ...?
(get those black nikes?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2005 10:19 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by DorfMan, posted 11-25-2005 7:34 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2005 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1660 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 134 (263138)
11-25-2005 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by custard
11-25-2005 5:55 PM


Re: None of our business
An interesting point of view. ... what about ...
asphyxia fetish? {{oops shoulda read holmes first ...}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*25*2005 07:28 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by custard, posted 11-25-2005 5:55 PM custard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by DorfMan, posted 11-25-2005 7:32 PM RAZD has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6336 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 49 of 134 (263141)
11-25-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
11-25-2005 7:26 PM


Re: None of our business
quote:
An interesting point of view. ... what about ...
asphyxia fetish? {{oops shoulda read holmes first ...}}
is that what 'kids' do these days to get high?
Wonder why the greatest feeling of them all must be enhanced, except for the sick mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2005 7:26 PM RAZD has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6336 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 50 of 134 (263142)
11-25-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
11-25-2005 7:20 PM


Re: Astonishing
quote:
and what about "disgendered" ...?
that's just a fancy word for castration.
hehehe!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2005 7:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2005 7:51 PM DorfMan has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1660 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 134 (263143)
11-25-2005 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by DorfMan
11-25-2005 7:34 PM


Re: Astonishing
or swimming in very cold water ...
like tommorrow.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by DorfMan, posted 11-25-2005 7:34 PM DorfMan has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 134 (263153)
11-25-2005 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
11-25-2005 7:20 PM


Re: Astonishing
and what about "disgendered" ...?
I'm not certain that a human being can be considered genderless or ungendered, I don't think we'd have the mindset to approach someone in that way, so "disgendered" describes a situation that couldn't occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2005 7:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 10:00 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 53 of 134 (263197)
11-26-2005 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by custard
11-25-2005 6:39 PM


Re: nothing?
How's tricks in tulipville?
Tricky. Still tricky.
This statement is clearly not true as performers in all sorts of exhibitions hurt themselves. Athletes injure themselves. Stuntmen die performing dangerous stunts.
By exhibitor I meant someone showing something, not acting something out. Since the main subject was porn, I was trying to get at the fact that showing and viewing anything cannot cause damage.
Assuming we restrict your statement to sex acts, sex performers can injure themselves physcially, and can contract include STDs or other diseases (hep B & C) which can harm them or even kill them(your namesake John Holmes for example).
Okay in this I will address engaging in sexual acts, for porn or not. I assume we can agree that sex in front of a camera does not add risk.
Sex does not inherently cause anything. Mistakes can cause injuries. Extreme sex acts which involve violence may increase the damage done. But these are mistakes that can happen anywhere, in any endeavour.
As far as STDs go, sex does not cause disease, and one cannot hold sex responsible for the spread of disease. It is simply a vector like any other. We do not blame breathing for the flu and all the other fatal conditions for which breathing is a vector.
Cooking/Eating is also a major vector for fatal conditions. But unlike sex, we do not blame it as an activity, but carelessness on the part of those that infect or are infected.
I should note that it is pretty solid that John Holmes contracted HIV from drug use and not sex. This is not to suggest that people have not gotten HIV within the porn industry. Although it should be observed that when it did occur the spread was caught and ended because of testing, which does not occur OUTSIDE the porn industry. Hence it is pretty much safer having sex for porn than out in the real world.
The exhibitor is killed. In BDSM the exibitor is physically beaten or tortured in a manner that causes pain, leaves bruises, burns, etc. I think that constitutes physical harm.
Well now that you see what I meant by exhibitor, I hope you can see that exhbitors of even snuff are not killed. Indeed I hope you are in agreement that no one can be hurt or killed showing or watching even snuff films.
As far as creating, or acting out such scenarios, yes people are hurt or killed.
You say tomato. Surely we can both agree that one person's 'violence' is another persons sex fantasy?
Yes and no. There is sex and there is violence. One can be used to support the other. If the excitement is mainly in the beating and killing, and the sex is a side issue, then it is about violence and power and not sex.
You find food erotic, and use food within sex, but I am sure you can determine whether someone is mainly interested in the eating or the sex.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by custard, posted 11-25-2005 6:39 PM custard has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 54 of 134 (263201)
11-26-2005 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by custard
11-25-2005 6:49 PM


Re: None of our business
How can we say killing, which is the ultimate violence, is divorced from any sexual feelings?
I didn't say divorced from sexual feelings. People can combine all sorts of feelings as you point out.
Killing is not a sexual act. It is an act of violence.
Pissing is never a sexual act.
That is correct, the same for the rest, except for perhaps shoe fetishism.
If people are buying videos of it, watching it, or participating in it to help achieve or enhance their climax, then it's sexual. I think that include violence, even killing.
I'm sorry, but if I get hot while watching someone fly a plane, that does not make flying planes a sexual act. It is simply a matter of definitions.
And no matter how you look at it, the use of violence to enhance a sexual feeling (or act) is to use violence, and be excited by violence, it does not convert the act into sex.
I'm not saying someone cannot derive sexual satisfaction from violence. Quite the contrary. I am just saying that the act and the enjoyment is of violence and power.
Since you have mentioned snuff, as far as I understand that is pretty much an urban myth. There has never been any snuff producers caught nor prosecuted, or snuff material seized. Supposedly Larry Flynt, to disabuse this myth, offered lots of money for anyone to come up with some, and no one has.
So that is a theoretical entity, beyond killers having killed on tape for their own amusement.
Except perhaps recently, as soldiers from current conflicts have been trading and selling tapes and pix of their killing and torturing Iraqis (and perhaps afghanis). I think that does cross the line into a snuff industry. Intriguingly this is not being prosecuted by military officials, but any soldier trading imagery of themselves in a sexual manner ARE being prosecuted.
Goes to show where modern US priorities are... snuff is allowed but sex is not.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by custard, posted 11-25-2005 6:49 PM custard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1660 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 134 (263227)
11-26-2005 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
11-25-2005 10:05 PM


Re: Astonishing
I don't think we'd have the mindset to approach someone in that way
what is the gender of all the posters on this forum?
is it important?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2005 10:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 11-26-2005 10:09 AM RAZD has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 56 of 134 (263229)
11-26-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Silent H
11-25-2005 6:07 PM


iano writes:
"He who lusts commits adultery" said Jesus.
holmes writes:
Even for one's own partner? Some porn is made by married people of themselves. And a growing percentage of porn is watched by couples, specifically to spice up their own sex lives.
Yes people lust when watching porn. But if you are interested in the spirit of laws, is using lust to make life with one's partner better really adultery?
Lust after another woman was Jesus context. One can twist and turn it to make ones own case appear noble. But sure anything can appear noble. "I'm watching porn on my own so that I won't submit to temptation to screw my neighbours wife. Or "I molested the teenager so as to offset the desire I have to molest babies" Jesus wasn't being subjective. Simple command: lusting after another woman is sin. And one can't watch porn of another woman without lusting after her I submit.
holmes writes:
Indeed are you trying to say that Jesus was suggesting that ALL lust is adultery? Don't people lust for their partners during sex?
See clarification above. Jesus was expanding in the context of OT adultery.
holmes writes:
I didn't say he sanctioned her actions. That was not my point at all. I was pointing out that Jesus, no matter what he thought of what people ought to do personally, specifically stated and set examples that people should not PUNISH or RESTRICT what others do.
Not punish due to the punishers being also guilty of sin. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" and "Judge not lest you be judged" And I agree. It is not for me to judge anothers actions. But there is nothing in what Jesus said that implied not restricting the behaviour. The NT way of dealing with such things was to deny a person community within the church so long as the behaviour continued. This was not punishing the behaviour but was stating that such behaviour would not be tolerated within the context of the church until the person repented of it. A mother throwing heroid addicted son out of the house is not punishment - it is protecting the rest of the household from the behaviour of the son.
iano writes:
Religious fanatics? Kettle/pot/black Holmes, kettle/pot/black
holmes writes:
I'm sorry, when did I say you could not have sex the way you want to, or express your sexuality the way you want to?
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. Fanatics tend to have a twisted view of the way things are, nested within their fanaticism. Your exposition of the meaning behind what Jesus was talking about was a prime example of it I felt. You used 'Religion' to make your point in a way that has the hallmarks of fanaticism. That kind of makes you a quasi-Religious fanatic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2005 6:07 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 11-26-2005 5:27 PM iano has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 134 (263230)
11-26-2005 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
11-26-2005 10:00 AM


Re: Astonishing
what is the gender of all the posters on this forum?
In my mind? I'll be honest - male until proven otherwise. I challenge the honesty of anyone who answers differently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 10:00 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 10:30 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1660 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 134 (263243)
11-26-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
11-26-2005 10:09 AM


Re: Astonishing
cultural bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 11-26-2005 10:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-27-2005 7:25 AM RAZD has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 59 of 134 (263379)
11-26-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by iano
11-26-2005 10:05 AM


Simple command: lusting after another woman is sin. And one can't watch porn of another woman without lusting after her I submit.
I'm not saying that is not the case ever. But I presented two different cases involving porn which clearly do not involve lusting after another woman.
You can blame all the rest, but what about the cases I outlined. Especially in the case where couples make their own it just seems absurd to suggest a person watching his own video is lusting after someone other than his partner.
By the way, where do people like King David fit into all of this?
But there is nothing in what Jesus said that implied not restricting the behaviour.
Second chance to get this right. I did not say he wasn't for implementing some social sanctions (ostracism, lecturing, etc...), but he was clearly refuting punishing others in a corporal way.
Can you admit this rather obvious point or not?
You used 'Religion' to make your point in a way that has the hallmarks of fanaticism. That kind of makes you a quasi-Religious fanatic.
What hallmarks of fanaticism? And how does it make me quasi-religious? It reads like you didn't like what I said and so are throwing names at me.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by iano, posted 11-26-2005 10:05 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by iano, posted 11-28-2005 7:08 AM Silent H has replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 134 (263462)
11-27-2005 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
11-26-2005 10:30 AM


Re: Astonishing
Find somebody without cultural bias, and then we'll see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2005 10:30 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2005 2:33 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024