What are some of your most controversial opinions?

[gore goroth]

Quote: Efs Wrote:

LOLOLOLOLOLOL facebook drama.

[Levio_Sah]

(12-19-2011 06:18 AM)jnkbortka Wrote:  

(12-10-2011 03:54 AM)Levio_Sah Wrote:  I think what you don't realize is that the vast majority of transgender people don't chose to be transgender, at least anymore than any gay people chose to be gay. It's the way they are born. They've got the brain of one gender and the body of another, and telling them to "accept their bodies" is like telling a gay person to be straight. It doesn't work.

Also, is it so hard to call someone by their preferred gender anyways? What's the big deal? You must either be really lazy or just be really really hung up on gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder

notice how its a disorder. if i say the sky is purple & green with stripes and polka dots, does that make it any more true? those trannies need some real friggin psych help, and they certainly don't need to be going around mutilating themselves

It's called a disorder because it's not in order. The brain doesn't match the body. That's what I'm saying. Some people are born with female minds and male bodies. I don't see how changing their bodies to fit their brains is bad.

[Levio_Sah]

(12-15-2011 01:15 AM)The Shadowman Wrote:  

(12-14-2011 07:34 AM)Levio_Sah Wrote:  

(12-14-2011 07:09 AM)The Shadowman Wrote:  - Anti feminisim and masculinity

Are you saying you're against feminism and against masculinity, or that you are a masculist, and are against feminism?

I'm against both feminism and masculinity, and i think that no sex is superior to the other.

Oh, well then I agree.

[cuttlefishCuller]

Ok, I'd REALLY like to think that most of you are just ignorant about these kind of things and not being intentionally malignant, but the amount of slut-shaming and transphobia and ableism is seriously upsetting! 38O

Firstly, there are many reasons to have sex, and none of them are any less than the others. Love, horniness, because you're being paid, are all good reasons! Wanting to wait for someone you're in love with is no less and no more than losing it to a stranger in a one night stand :3

ALSO, the definition of rape is pretty simple and I'm not sure why people keep getting it wrong? Rape is any sexual situation where consent is not clearly given. If s/he doesn't actually say "yes please lets exchange fluids " and you go ahead, you're a rapist. They can't consent if they're drunk, or under the influence of any drugs, or if you're harassing them into it!

Gender is nonbinary, your position of the kinsey scale does't determine how great you are, and misandry is just as real as misogyny, even though misogyny is by far the more widespread and larger problem!

I suppose that's about it? It's kind of silly for everyone to try and label everyone else and then treat them accordingly, because everyone is so complex and incredible and beautiful that we can barely grasp the reality of them beneath the labels we impose! Seriously, humans are soooooooooooooo cool! Oh gosh, I love people so much I just want to go to all the parties and be with all the people because I can't help but like the folk I meet, even if they do some stuff I don't agree with because they are really, really, good at heart!

(I think my unpopular opinion is that spiders and insects are really kind of adorable? I also like furries, they're pretty cool!)

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

If you read my posts you will see how much I am against slut shaming and the use of the word slut because it is sexist. Men and women should be able to enjoy sex frequently and safely.

As for the drunk thing, if they are both drunk then I think it is fine. If one is totally not drunk and the other is then I would call it statutory rape... not full on rape if the drunk one says yes.

[cuttlefishCuller]

It's real tricky to try to establish a "hierarchy" for rape, because it's very easy to dismiss the lower echelons of the topic! I feel that the perpetrator should have enough self-control to recognize that their partner is clearly limited in their reasoning at the time.

If they are both drunk, than neither can really make clear decisions, so they technically raped each other? But there's nowhere to place the blame, so it's another tricky case. 38/

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

Quote:I feel that the perpetrator should have enough self-control to recognize that their partner is clearly limited in their reasoning at the time.

I can agree with this. It is also the smart move for the man.

Quote:If they are both drunk, than neither can really make clear decisions, so they technically raped each other? But there's nowhere to place the blame, so it's another tricky case.

Not to me, if both are drunk then too bad. It is likely they knew they were going to be drunk. No rape charges. Unless spiking of drinks was involved.

[fish20]

Beastiality should be O.K. as long as the animal is consenting. You can tell its not because it'l fucking bite your dick off/destroy you/scrtch you etc.

[Efs]

(01-15-2012 08:36 PM)Fish Wrote:  Beastiality should be O.K. as long as the animal is consenting. You can tell its not because it'l fucking bite your dick off/destroy you/scrtch you etc.

I agree with you.

[cuttlefishCuller]

(01-15-2012 08:36 PM)Fish Wrote:  Beastiality should be O.K. as long as the animal is consenting. You can tell its not because it'l fucking bite your dick off/destroy you/scrtch you etc.

Animals CAN'T consent. All this "non-verbal communication" stuff is bunk, and if you start letting people pounce on whatever they want to, what's to stop them from raping a child? "They enjoyed it, so it MUST have been ok!"

A pleasurable physical reaction to rape =/= consent.

[Crimson Symbiosis]

Oi looks like we have a mild Bulgvar on our hands.

[Efs]

(01-15-2012 10:24 PM)cuttlefishCuller Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 08:36 PM)Fish Wrote:  Beastiality should be O.K. as long as the animal is consenting. You can tell its not because it'l fucking bite your dick off/destroy you/scrtch you etc.

Animals CAN'T consent. All this "non-verbal communication" stuff is bunk, and if you start letting people pounce on whatever they want to, what's to stop them from raping a child? "They enjoyed it, so it MUST have been ok!"

A pleasurable physical reaction to rape =/= consent.

Animals can consent, just because they don't communicate with words. There is no pouncing. If you took the time to get to know the zoophile community, maybe you'd understand that there are no animal rapists part of that community.
Raping a child has nothing to do with this.

[cuttlefishCuller]

(01-15-2012 11:01 PM)Efs Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 10:24 PM)cuttlefishCuller Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 08:36 PM)Fish Wrote:  Beastiality should be O.K. as long as the animal is consenting. You can tell its not because it'l fucking bite your dick off/destroy you/scrtch you etc.

Animals CAN'T consent. All this "non-verbal communication" stuff is bunk, and if you start letting people pounce on whatever they want to, what's to stop them from raping a child? "They enjoyed it, so it MUST have been ok!"

A pleasurable physical reaction to rape =/= consent.

Animals can consent, just because they don't communicate with words. There is no pouncing. If you took the time to get to know the zoophile community, maybe you'd understand that there are no animal rapists part of that community.
Raping a child has nothing to do with this.

Animals and children both have equal grasp of human sexuality. Most of the animals zoophiles have sexual experiences with are adults, and therefore have a degree of sexual urges, but they can't understand sex the way humans do.

Non-verbal communication can be REAL easily misinterpreted, especially when there are two different species involves and the human party is affected by bias! If you had sex with a human and they didn't give verbal permission, even if they "seemed to want it", it would be rape. Why is this different with animals?

The reason raping a child is relevant is because children cannot consent, just like animals cannot consent.

[Crimson Symbiosis]

(01-15-2012 11:52 PM)cuttlefishCuller Wrote:  If you had sex with a human and they didn't give verbal permission, even if they "seemed to want it", it would be rape.

What if it's a mute person?

Also Efs, I wouldn't argue anymore. She seems to have it drilled into her head that zoophilia is wrong even if the animal consents. Like I said, it's a mild case of bulgvar syndrome.

[Sociopath]

If an animal wanted you to NOT fuck it, it would at least let you know: fight back, yelp loudly, attempt escape, etc.

If it doesn't do that, it consents.

[Miller0700]

(01-16-2012 01:18 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  If an animal wanted you to NOT fuck it, it would at least let you know: fight back, yelp loudly, attempt escape, etc.

If it doesn't do that, it consents.

Or dead.

[cuttlefishCuller]

(01-16-2012 01:18 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  If an animal wanted you to NOT fuck it, it would at least let you know: fight back, yelp loudly, attempt escape, etc.

If it doesn't do that, it consents.

By this rule, it should be OK to have sex with children and mentally retarded folk, as long as they didn't try to fight back.

I don't want to sound stubborn and irrational, but I'm really scared that someone here is actually going to try this on an animal!

[Sociopath]

(01-16-2012 03:42 AM)cuttlefishCuller Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 01:18 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  If an animal wanted you to NOT fuck it, it would at least let you know: fight back, yelp loudly, attempt escape, etc.

If it doesn't do that, it consents.

By this rule, it should be OK to have sex with children and mentally retarded folk, as long as they didn't try to fight back.

I don't want to sound stubborn and irrational, but I'm really scared that someone here is actually going to try this on an animal!

children are exempt because they must first understand sex. Retards are exempt because they must be in full functioning mental capacity.

[cuttlefishCuller]

(01-16-2012 03:46 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 03:42 AM)cuttlefishCuller Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 01:18 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  If an animal wanted you to NOT fuck it, it would at least let you know: fight back, yelp loudly, attempt escape, etc.

If it doesn't do that, it consents.

By this rule, it should be OK to have sex with children and mentally retarded folk, as long as they didn't try to fight back.

I don't want to sound stubborn and irrational, but I'm really scared that someone here is actually going to try this on an animal!

children are exempt because they must first understand sex. Retards are exempt because they must be in full functioning mental capacity.

Animals, if translated to human standards, are not at full mental capacity, nor do they understand human sexuality. Most animals don't receive much pleasure from sex at all. (most, not all)

Also, according to these rules, it would be okay to have sex with anyone as long as they didn't fight back, which, we can agree, is rape!

(also mute folk would consent through sign language or written language, of course 38/)

[Sociopath]

Animals are full thinking beings capable of telling what they do and don't want. If they don't want you, they'll try to get you off. If they do want you, they'll sit back and enjoy it.

And its not just fighting back, if they yelp or try and escape you should stop right there. Animals akin sex the same way humans do, they fuck and it gets pleasure; what is so "complicated" about that? I think people try to make it more complex than it is.

Animals get pleasure from sex the same way humans do too. Thats why they lick themselves, masturbate, and hump peoples' legs.

[cuttlefishCuller]

Humping legs is actually a dominance thing, but I digress.

Also, you are assuming that humans can easily read animal's emotions. Even if the animal show visible displeasure, they could be expressing displeasure in a more subtle way. Often, though, those performing sexual acts on animals cannot correctly gauge how they are feeling because they are moderately biased, and once you start trying to bring in outside observers to judge if the horse you're trying to get it on with is having some inner doubts about this whole thing, you might as well not get it on in the first place. Animals could also be too intimidated by the person dominating them, who is often their owner, to act out, or they could be trained to accept it.

A question; if you have sex with someone who never actually said they want to, but has not said no, is that rape?

[Sociopath]

(01-16-2012 04:06 AM)cuttlefishCuller Wrote:  Humping legs is actually a dominance thing, but I digress.

Also, you are assuming that humans can easily read animal's emotions. Even if the animal show visible displeasure, they could be expressing displeasure in a more subtle way. Often, though, those performing sexual acts on animals cannot correctly gauge how they are feeling because they are moderately biased, and once you start trying to bring in outside observers to judge if the horse you're trying to get it on with is having some inner doubts about this whole thing, you might as well not get it on in the first place. Animals could also be too intimidated by the person dominating them, who is often their owner, to act out, or they could be trained to accept it.

A question; if you have sex with someone who never actually said they want to, but has not said no, is that rape?

How is humping legs assuming dominance? And besides, if we want to know how animals feel, we simply look for signs, and then tell other people about those signs. For example; it is now well-established and proven to people that a dog waging its tail is a sign of happiness. If we can assert positive emotions in animals, so too can we assume negative emotions.

If an animal accepts it then there is no oppression, regardless of whether it has been "trained" because if it TRULY did not want it, it would not stand for it. I think you'll find that hitting a dog enough times will cause it to lash out against you. That has been done before.


As for your question regarding people: technically yes; if they don't want it they must show some sign of struggle. If they do want it, there really isn't a need to show consent.

There is time enough before all this however, you don't just pull down your pants and start fucking; first they must "arouse" it by rubbing its genitals, licking, etc. and whatever else type of foreplay and then you must see its reaction. If its positive go right on ahead, but if it shows any negative signs further down then you need to stop.

[cuttlefishCuller]

(01-16-2012 04:13 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 04:06 AM)cuttlefishCuller Wrote:  Humping legs is actually a dominance thing, but I digress.

Also, you are assuming that humans can easily read animal's emotions. Even if the animal show visible displeasure, they could be expressing displeasure in a more subtle way. Often, though, those performing sexual acts on animals cannot correctly gauge how they are feeling because they are moderately biased, and once you start trying to bring in outside observers to judge if the horse you're trying to get it on with is having some inner doubts about this whole thing, you might as well not get it on in the first place. Animals could also be too intimidated by the person dominating them, who is often their owner, to act out, or they could be trained to accept it.

A question; if you have sex with someone who never actually said they want to, but has not said no, is that rape?

How is humping legs assuming dominance? And besides, if we want to know how animals feel, we simply look for signs, and then tell other people about those signs. For example; it is now well-established and proven to people that a dog waging its tail is a sign of happiness. If we can assert positive emotions in animals, so too can we assume negative emotions.

If an animal accepts it then there is no oppression, regardless of whether it has been "trained" because if it TRULY did not want it, it would not stand for it. I think you'll find that hitting a dog enough times will cause it to lash out against you. That has been done before.


As for your question regarding people: technically yes; if they don't want it they must show some sign of struggle. If they do want it, there really isn't a need to show consent.

There is time enough before all this however, you don't just pull down your pants and start fucking; first they must "arouse" it by rubbing its genitals, licking, etc. and whatever else type of foreplay and then you must see its reaction. If its positive go right on ahead, but if it shows any negative signs further down then you need to stop.

Before you do anything else, read this : http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2...e-101.html

"If they want it, there really isn't a need to show consent" is the most dangerous idea when it comes to rape. It is made even worse by the fact that since animal emotions cannot be as easily read, subtle cues that they are uncomfortable go unheard.

[Aya]

(01-16-2012 01:18 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  If an animal wanted you to NOT fuck it, it would at least let you know: fight back, yelp loudly, attempt escape, etc.
If it doesn't do that, it consents.

[cuttlefishCuller]

(Ayliana, whatever you posted doesn't seem to be showing up; is it working for you?)

[Sociopath]

Oh please, as if sex with animals is anything near aggressive

Animals can show emotions obviously, its NOT hard to look at it. If a cat yelps loudly when you step on its tail, are you just going to assume a person is ignorant enough to claim that the cat is only doing that because maybe thats the sound it makes when it wants to go outside? Obviously, no. Its doing it because it is in pain.


Ayliana, unless you have something to actually contribute, please kindly get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. ooh, and one for my dog, too. Thanks.

[cuttlefishCuller]

(01-16-2012 04:37 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  Oh please, as if sex with animals is anything near aggressive

Animals can show emotions obviously, its NOT hard to look at it. If a cat yelps loudly when you step on its tail, are you just going to assume a person is ignorant enough to claim that the cat is only doing that because maybe thats the sound it makes when it wants to go outside? Obviously, no. Its doing it because it is in pain.


Ayliana, unless you have something to actually contribute, please kindly get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. ooh, and one for my dog, too. Thanks.

Are you suggesting that animals can't express subtle emotions? What?!

All of my posts in this thread will now be supplemented by the lyrics to Starstrukk 38/

[Sociopath]

That's exactly what I'm saying, they would be vocal about it.


starstrukk? You mean like that Lady Gaga song?

[SaintVicious]

(01-16-2012 04:37 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  Oh please, as if sex with animals is anything near aggressive

Animals can show emotions obviously, its NOT hard to look at it. If a cat yelps loudly when you step on its tail, are you just going to assume a person is ignorant enough to claim that the cat is only doing that because maybe thats the sound it makes when it wants to go outside? Obviously, no. Its doing it because it is in pain.


Ayliana, unless you have something to actually contribute, please kindly get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. ooh, and one for my dog, too. Thanks.

Pain isn't an emotion.

[cuttlefishCuller]

Subtle emotions don't have any less weight than vocal ones.

Nice legs, Daisy Dukes,
Makes a man go (whistles),
That's the way they all come through like (whistles),
Low-cut, see-through shirts that make ya (whistles),
That's the way she come through like (whistles)