Sexual expression: your opinion

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.

and what about "disgendered" ...?(get those black nikes?)

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.

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.

quote:

---

and what about "disgendered" ...?

---

that's just a fancy word for castration.
hehehe!

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.

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.

Tricky. Still tricky. 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. 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. 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. 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)

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. That is correct, the same for the rest, except for perhaps shoe fetishism. 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)

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.

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. See clarification above. Jesus was expanding in the context of OT adultery. 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. 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.

In my mind? I'll be honest - male until proven otherwise. I challenge the honesty of anyone who answers differently.

cultural bias.

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? 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? 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)

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