Utah can't into filters on porn searches

[POFP]

I had not thought of it that way.

That's what they mean by "This conversation just made us all dumber." When you read and toss around the things that people like PDS say, it actually causes you to lose brain cells and forget the simple shit that makes sense.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I heard somebody wants a Big Words done?

Also, at the risk of getting myself muddy and the pigs enjoying it: the easier argument is "it's bad for the animals, because they can't consent" which makes the human an aggressor and the animal a victim, but as folks here have pointed out there are flaws with this argument. The harder argument, but ultimately the correct one, is "it's bad for the humans, because the animals can't consent." Someone engaged in zoophilia has to assume they can interpret the animals' action or lack of action as some kind of meaningful consent or lack of nonconsent, they have to assume that lack of nonconsent is an okay starting point, and they have to assume that their actions have no negative consequences for the animal involved, if they're not willing to consider themselves rapists. And all of these attitudes are how you make rapists. And you can't compartmentalize that shit, sexuality is malleable and does not fit in boxes.

This.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

to exploit a rape loophole.

He totally ignored this bit.

Based on his quoting and rebuttal habits, it appears he ignores a lot. He quotes specific sections of people's posts and then fights those, instead of reading or accounting for the rest of the post.

Yep. One of many reasons I just don't bother to even look at most of his posts. Not worth the waste of time.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I heard somebody wants a Big Words done?

Also, at the risk of getting myself muddy and the pigs enjoying it: the easier argument is "it's bad for the animals, because they can't consent" which makes the human an aggressor and the animal a victim, but as folks here have pointed out there are flaws with this argument. The harder argument, but ultimately the correct one, is "it's bad for the humans, because the animals can't consent." Someone engaged in zoophilia has to assume they can interpret the animals' action or lack of action as some kind of meaningful consent or lack of nonconsent, they have to assume that lack of nonconsent is an okay starting point, and they have to assume that their actions have no negative consequences for the animal involved, if they're not willing to consider themselves rapists. And all of these attitudes are how you make rapists. And you can't compartmentalize that shit, sexuality is malleable and does not fit in boxes.

This.

That endorsement means a lot.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I heard somebody wants a Big Words done?

Also, at the risk of getting myself muddy and the pigs enjoying it: the easier argument is "it's bad for the animals, because they can't consent" which makes the human an aggressor and the animal a victim, but as folks here have pointed out there are flaws with this argument. The harder argument, but ultimately the correct one, is "it's bad for the humans, because the animals can't consent." Someone engaged in zoophilia has to assume they can interpret the animals' action or lack of action as some kind of meaningful consent or lack of nonconsent, they have to assume that lack of nonconsent is an okay starting point, and they have to assume that their actions have no negative consequences for the animal involved, if they're not willing to consider themselves rapists. And all of these attitudes are how you make rapists. And you can't compartmentalize that shit, sexuality is malleable and does not fit in boxes.

This.

That endorsement means a lot.

Thank you! You nailed a very difficult topic.

[POFP]

I heard somebody wants a Big Words done?

Also, at the risk of getting myself muddy and the pigs enjoying it: the easier argument is "it's bad for the animals, because they can't consent" which makes the human an aggressor and the animal a victim, but as folks here have pointed out there are flaws with this argument. The harder argument, but ultimately the correct one, is "it's bad for the humans, because the animals can't consent." Someone engaged in zoophilia has to assume they can interpret the animals' action or lack of action as some kind of meaningful consent or lack of nonconsent, they have to assume that lack of nonconsent is an okay starting point, and they have to assume that their actions have no negative consequences for the animal involved, if they're not willing to consider themselves rapists. And all of these attitudes are how you make rapists. And you can't compartmentalize that shit, sexuality is malleable and does not fit in boxes.

Oh, not sure how I missed this.

LMNO suggested that "Look at the world emptily and it will gladly return the favor" be big-worded, if you hadn't seen that yet. Didn't know if you were told details or just the thread name/link.


Also, you have single-handedly represented and concluded the messages we were trying to get across to Primate Dickcheese Slander, and his sidekick, Sebastard, with splendid accuracy and insight.

As always, your input is appreciated.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

I just have to say, I've been giving this a bit of thought (unfortunately) and something odd occurred to me.

My old dog used to try to hump about half the people that came over.  We kept trying to teach him not to, as both of us and everyone we knew didn't like him doing that, but he was definitely a horny fucker and always tried to get away with it anyway.

Now, if at some point I had learned that someone my dog was trying to hump actually let him, because that person enjoyed the experience and got off on it, I would of course be very grossed out and suspect trauma in the persons past.  I would believe the person needs help.  I agree wholeheartedly that such is bad.  That said, however, I would have a hard time considering my pet to have been raped, considering that would probably make his whole day, and he'd probably have completely forgot about it the next.

The point is moot, however, because such would damage the human.  The dog?  I'm not so sure.

Doesn't matter what the dog wants, just like it doesn't matter if a drunk person at a party wants sex. If a drunk girl comes onto you at a party, you swat that shit away like a horsefly (Not an actual physical swat, mind you. A gentle "You're drunk. We can talk, but that's as far as we're going tonight" will do).

And that's bullshit too. It's the law, but it's still bullshit. If you're somewhere that does not have a no-true-scotsman definition of consent there's no reason whatsoever for this course of action (at least no reason that isn't a strawman that automatically assumes out of hand that you automatically won't use any sort of protection in this situation, or that everybody will automatically hear about it (and that they'll care, and judge one or both partners, which is a moral failing on their end, not on the end of the people having the sex), when neither of these things might happen otherwise or that some kind of strong sexual imprinting is likely to inappropriately take place despite the negative correlation between drunkenness and memory-formation)

EDIT:
Not that it's a good idea, mind you. There's the usual, perhaps even a more than usual (but still very far from definite) chance of doing something that could result in a chronic disease or an unplanned pregnancy (unless it's homosexual sex, which can never result in an unplanned pregnancy). I just take exception to the idea that this would be much worse than (or indeed, even close to as bad as), for example, letting this person have their car keys, which could cause a car accident. The worst case scenario for a car accident is people, perhaps even many people, being crippled or killed - very few people get killed outright by sex, HIV has been reduced to a chronic illness and to my knowledge there aren't yet any superbug strains of syphilis (gonorrhea yes, but that doesn't kill you and should clear up in under a year even without treatment) - and even an accident where nobody's hurt could mean expensive car damage, expensive damage to anything they drive into, and/or hundreds of people inconvenienced by accident-related traffic. (And yes, they could also cause an accident while sober, but so too they could also get an std, unplanned pregnancy, or reputation for sluttiness while sober)

[trix]

I just have to say, I've been giving this a bit of thought (unfortunately) and something odd occurred to me.

My old dog used to try to hump about half the people that came over.  We kept trying to teach him not to, as both of us and everyone we knew didn't like him doing that, but he was definitely a horny fucker and always tried to get away with it anyway.

Now, if at some point I had learned that someone my dog was trying to hump actually let him, because that person enjoyed the experience and got off on it, I would of course be very grossed out and suspect trauma in the persons past.  I would believe the person needs help.  I agree wholeheartedly that such is bad.  That said, however, I would have a hard time considering my pet to have been raped, considering that would probably make his whole day, and he'd probably have completely forgot about it the next.

The point is moot, however, because such would damage the human.  The dog?  I'm not so sure.

Doesn't matter what the dog wants, just like it doesn't matter if a drunk person at a party wants sex. If a drunk girl comes onto you at a party, you swat that shit away like a horsefly (Not an actual physical swat, mind you. A gentle "You're drunk. We can talk, but that's as far as we're going tonight" will do).

And that's bullshit too. It's the law, but it's still bullshit. If you're somewhere that does not have a no-true-scotsman definition of consent there's no reason whatsoever for this course of action (at least no reason that isn't a strawman that automatically assumes out of hand that you automatically won't use any sort of protection in this situation, or that everybody will automatically hear about it (and that they'll care, and judge one or both partners, which is a moral failing on their end, not on the end of the people having the sex), when neither of these things might happen otherwise or that some kind of strong sexual imprinting is likely to inappropriately take place despite the negative correlation between drunkenness and memory-formation)

You seriously don't understand what is wrong with having sex with a drunk person at a party who you are not intimately familiar with?

Have you never regretted drunken sex before?

[trix]

I mean I love playing Devil's Advocate dude but, drunken consent is not consent for a lot of very good reasons that have nothing to do with legality...

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

It's a bad idea to be sure, but I take exception to the fact that people treat it as if it were a worse idea than driving a car or lighting off fireworks (or indulging someone else's desire to do so) in the same state of inebriation

[Pergamos]

Driving a car or lighting off fireworks drunk can get you maimed or killed.  Pretty sure most people consider that a worse idea than drunk sex with a stranger.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Whoa. Is he seriously condoning rape?

[Pergamos]

Nope,  And I'm not saying sex with drunk people isn't rape either, just that having sex while drunk is a bad idea that is not as bad an idea as driving a car or lighting off fireworks while drunk.  Sober people shouldn't let drunk people do any of those things.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nope,  And I'm not saying sex with drunk people isn't rape either, just that having sex while drunk is a bad idea that is not as bad an idea as driving a car or lighting off fireworks while drunk.  Sober people shouldn't let drunk people do any of those things.

He is responding to the question of inebriation and its implications for consent, though. Those of us who agree with the law that a inebriated person cannot give consent, generally consider sex between a sober person and a drunk person rape.

When both people are drunk, those waters are muddy, but given the already fucked-up context of the conversation (whether children and animals can give consent) it seems that he is talking about one drunk person and one sober (or less-drunk) person. Which is rape.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Am I the only one? I can't be the only one.