Spirituality
13 Aug 06
13 Aug 06
1 edit
If a person, female or male, experienced pleasure due to stimulation of the sphincter (AKA butthole)...
Is there any significance to this fact?
My perspective as a utilitarianist - good for the person who enjoys such pleasure. There's nothing bad or evil necessarily involved in this act.
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat about a person who has pleasurable sex with a dead chicken?
If a person, female or male, experienced pleasure due to stimulation of the sphincter (AKA butthole)...
Is there any significance to this fact?
My perspective as a utilitarianist - good for the person who enjoys such pleasure. There's nothing bad or evil necessarily involved in this act.
Does the positive enjoyment they experience by itself mean that the act should be approved of?
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYes, unless happy chickens are killed for this purpose or chickens are kepy unhappy for this purpose.
What about a person who has pleasurable sex with a dead chicken?
Does the positive enjoyment they experience by itself mean that the act should be approved of?
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat do you call the rear end of the Sphinx?
If a person, female or male, experienced pleasure due to stimulation of the sphincter (AKA butthole)...
Is there any significance to this fact?
My perspective as a utilitarianist - good for the person who enjoys such pleasure. There's nothing bad or evil necessarily involved in this act.
The sphinxter...
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo, let's get this straight: on balance, you regard pleasurable sex with dead chickens, who were not exploited for that purpose during their lifetimes, as a morally good thing?
Yes, unless happy chickens are killed for this purpose or chickens are kepy unhappy for this purpose.
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYes, nothing morally wrong with buggering a dead chicken. Maybe a bit unusual, I'd personally consider a human female to be a good deal more fun, but whatever floats your boat. If no one gets hurt (against their will - some people like that sort of thing) because of it, why is there anything wrong. If only one person or chicken is affected, and that person enjoys it and it doesn't kill them, where is the harm.
So, let's get this straight: on balance, you regard pleasurable sex with dead chickens, who were not exploited for that purpose during their lifetimes, as a morally good thing?
13 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowYou must be reading from a different moral dictionary than am I. My source says sexual relations with an animal (fighting or not) is reprehensible. I'd even go so far as to say that the physical world is in agreement with the moral dictionary I am using, relative to eventual consequences (read: AIDS).
Yes, nothing morally wrong with buggering a dead chicken. Maybe a bit unusual, I'd personally consider a human female to be a good deal more fun, but whatever floats your boat. If no one gets hurt (against their will - some people like that sort of thing) because of it, why is there anything wrong. If only one person or chicken is affected, and that person enjoys it and it doesn't kill them, where is the harm.
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo would there be a differance between, say, a guy goes to the market, buys a dead chicken, takes it home and screws it, vs buying a foam pillow, carefully shaping it into the shape of a chicken and screwing THAT. Is there a differance morally here?
You must be reading from a different moral dictionary than am I. My source says sexual relations with an animal (fighting or not) is repre[b]hensible. I'd even go so far as to say that the physical world is in agreement with the moral dictionary I am using, relative to eventual consequences (read: AIDS).[/b]
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou truly are an idiot. HIV is not thought to have crossed species due to sex with monkeys/chimps. The commonly accpeted idea is that it was transfered either through a bite by an infected animal, or by eating an infected animal. Tons of diseases have been transfered this way, so it is certainly plausible. And in addition to that, I can't imagine how one would go about trying to rape a chimp and not be killed, those things are strong.
I'd even go so far as to say that the physical world is in agreement with the moral dictionary I am using, relative to eventual consequences (read: AIDS).
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungyou should repent my friend
If a person, female or male, experienced pleasure due to stimulation of the sphincter (AKA butthole)...
Is there any significance to this fact?
My perspective as a utilitarianist - good for the person who enjoys such pleasure. There's nothing bad or evil necessarily involved in this act.
13 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowI never said the dead chicken was buggered. I left open the mode of sexual congress. However, I wouldn't personally recommend oral.
Yes, nothing morally wrong with buggering a dead chicken. Maybe a bit unusual, I'd personally consider a human female to be a good deal more fun, but whatever floats your boat. If no one gets hurt (against their will - some people like that sort of thing) because of it, why is there anything wrong. If only one person or chicken is affected, and that person enjoys it and it doesn't kill them, where is the harm.
But seriously, you can't really believe that there is NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVE SEX WITH A DEAD CHICKEN, can you? I have an ineradicable intuition that there something seriously morally and aesthetically wrong with it.
It's probably the only subject on which FreakyKBH and I agree. Indeed, our shared revulsion at sex with a dead chicken could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Suppose you had a son, or indeed a daughter, and you found out they were exhibiting necroalektorophiliac tendencies. Would you think this was a positive development? They like Coke. They like listening to Justin Timerlake. They like deriving genital pleasure from dead poultry. Which is the odd one out? (No: not James Timerlake!)
I personally think that the sex-with-a-dead-chicken example threatens to refute utilitarianism.
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowYou truly are an idiot.
You truly are an idiot. HIV is not thought to have crossed species due to sex with monkeys/chimps. The commonly accpeted idea is that it was transfered either through a bite by an infected animal, or by eating an infected animal. Tons of diseases have been transfered this way, so it is certainly plausible. And in addition to that, I can't imagine how one would go about trying to rape a chimp and not be killed, those things are strong.
So, I can assume I receive no credit for the hen pun?
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWould there be a moral difference between a human male mating with a hen or a cockerel? Would the latter be doubly a mortal sin, because it combines bestiality with homosexuality, or just a regular mortal sin?
You must be reading from a different moral dictionary than am I. My source says sexual relations with an animal (fighting or not) is repre[b]hensible. I'd even go so far as to say that the physical world is in agreement with the moral dictionary I am using, relative to eventual consequences (read: AIDS).[/b]