Pornography poll

[Drolefille]

a strawman is to misrepresent to give weight to your argument and you did just that

No I didn't.

In my perfect world I want one person to love and grow old with
No evidence needed.

That's your perfect world for YOU. You didn't describe A perfect world as only inclusive of certain people.

you perfect world is?

One where people can be in whatever form of consensual adult relationship they want to., also one where a comparison can be made between polyamory and GSM and not get accused of making things up.

 

[kashmir]

No I didn't.

yes you did, he said monogamous.
that is not a homophobic statement, no gender is attached.
You are misrepresenting what he said.

That's your perfect world for YOU. You didn't describe A perfect world as only inclusive of certain people.

certain people?
again with the gender references that no one is discussing.

One where people can be in whatever form of consensual adult relationship they want to., also one where a comparison can be made between polyamory and GSM and not get accused of making things up.

[/quote]
I don't even understand, what is GSM?
as far as polygamy, I have seen many gays and fundies criticize that.
It's called having an opinion, I see no reason to get so offensive over it.

You seem intelligent, I hope you have protected sex with your many partners because believe it or not, the spreading of STD's affects the rest of the world.
Even in the high class porn world, people get aids.
they get tested and sometimes even wear protection, none are 100% safe.
So, others have a right to say that in a "perfect world", monogamous relationships seem better, SEEM.
In all reality, "perfect world" is abstract, it's like saying the perfect storm, perfect relationship, perfect house to raise my kids in.

Innocent people get STD's all the time.
perhaps its on the down low or raising, idk, I do know that a huge chuck of people in the usa view sex in a very irresponsibility fashions, specially high school kids.

In my view, I am simply stating the obvious.
If in the future, it gets to the point that everyone knows someone with aids, its not looking so perfect anymore.
Oh wait

I know you will take this personally, but that is on you, not me.
I don't care about what you do behind closed doors and would never try to stop you through lawmaking.

 

[Drolefille]

yes you did, he said monogamous.
that is not a homophobic statement, no gender is attached.
You are misrepresenting what he said.

NO I AM NOT.
I am comparing his statement to one that is exclusionary of gays or lesbians. His statement was exclusionary to non-monogamous people.

again with the gender references that no one is discussing.

IT WAS A COMPARISON.

I don't even understand, what is GSM?
as far as polygamy, I have seen many gays and fundies criticize that.
It's called having an opinion, I see no reason to get so offensive over it.

Gender and Sexual Minority.
Polyamory is not Polygamy.
And if I speak up to people who "criticize" it regardless of whether they're "gay or fundie" which is the weirdest dichotomy you could come up with.

You seem intelligent, I hope you have protected sex with your many partners because believe it or not, the spreading of STD's affects the rest of the world.

You call me intelligent and then you insult my intelligence? WTF?

Even in the high class porn world, people get aids.
they get tested and sometimes even wear protection, none are 100% safe.

In fact in American porn, rarely are condoms used.

So, others have a right to say that in a "perfect world", monogamous relationships seem better, SEEM.

And if someone said straight relationships SEEM better I'd object to that too.

In all reality, "perfect world" is abstract, it's like saying the perfect storm, perfect relationship, perfect house to raise my kids in.

Yep, and as long as your perfect world doesn't infringe on mine we're cool.

Innocent people get STD's all the time.

I don't even know how this is related.

perhaps its on the down low or raising, idk, I do know that a huge chuck of people in the usa view sex in a very irresponsibility fashions, specially high school kids.

Teenage pregnancy is actually down. Which means more teens are using protection.

In my view, I am simply stating the obvious.
If in the future, it gets to the point that everyone knows someone with aids, its not looking so perfect anymore.
Oh wait

You're rambling on about something completely unrelated to what you and I were discussing.

I know you will take this personally, but that is on you, not me.

I don't as I don't have an STD and am not at any sort of increased risk of them. You're the one who brought STDs up and then decided to insinuate that I'm smart but possibly not smart enough to use condoms.

Are you familiar with the concept of fluid bonding? With the prevalence of STD testing in polyamorous communities? In how showing your papers - your test results - is a standard among responsible poly people?

No? Then stop making rambling assumptions. If you want to know how I or poly people in general handle these matters, you could ask. But this isn't even remotely close to on-topic and you're the one who dragged us here.

I don't care about what you do behind closed doors and would never try to stop you through lawmaking.

Good. I still object to Gehennaite's description of a perfect world and that's not changed in the slightest. If this isn't relevant to you I don't know why you're responding about makeup and STDs.

THIS IS A COMPARISON COMING UP. THIS IS ONLY A COMPARISON​

It's AS insulting as erasure of other minorities.

THIS HAS BEEN A COMPARISON.​

 

[Gehennaite]

Not satisfactory. Sorry. :rainbow1:

Don't be surprised if your suppositions are negated in the next world. None of us will be wearing rose-tinted glasses in the hereafter... :beach:

 

[kashmir]

Obviously I struck a nerve with you for having an opinion on what happens when we have sex.
If you have multiple sex partners, you are at tons more risk then those in a monogamous relationship.
It just offends you to hear it, I cant change that, I can only add my opinions to the topics.

I am noticing a trend in the board, as long as we are discussing religious doctrine to show how dangerous parts of it can affect the rest of the world, that's fine.
But discussing sex, multiple sex partners, STD's, all the unwanted babies put in foster care, is not ok, because its offense.
Odd.

Huge example, Polyamory is not Polygamy.
Its the same thing, only difference is the marriage part.
I am sure you can figure out the double standard.

You seem to think I am saying this to offend you, I am just using science and what we know about multiple sex partners and STD's to make a point on the negativity that can and does affect those who are in monogamous relationships.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Obviously I struck a nerve with you for having an opinion on what happens when we have sex.
If you have multiple sex partners, you are at tons more risk then those in a monogamous relationship.
It just offends you to hear it, I cant change that, I can only add my opinions to the topics.

I am noticing a trend in the board, as long as we are discussing religious doctrine to show how dangerous parts of it can affect the rest of the world, that's fine.
But discussing sex, multiple sex partners, STD's, all the unwanted babies put in foster care, is not ok, because its offense.
Odd.

Huge example, Polyamory is not Polygamy.
Its the same thing, only difference is the marriage part.
I am sure you can figure out the double standard.

You seem to think I am saying this to offend you, I am just using science and what we know about multiple sex partners and STD's to make a point on the negativity that can and does affect those who are in monogamous relationships.

I saw no offense there. However, statistics show that it isn't so much monogamy that reduces rates of unwanted pregnancies and STD's, but comprehensive sex education as well as easy access to contraception and family planning services.

My husband and I are not monogamous either. We've been married 11 years, and have been practicing polyamory since 2006 or so. There's truth in what Drolefille is saying, and I can corroborate.

 

[dust1n]

"It's the only way to view morality..."

That's called a belief, and few are buying it. Most people subscribe to moral absolutes, especially on the subjects of violence & sexuality. In fact, the vast majority of humankind historically & presently exercise absolutes.

Bad news, bub.

"In two national surveys conducted by Barna Research, one among adults and one among teenagers, people were asked if they believe that there are moral absolutes that are unchanging or that moral truth is relative to the circumstances. By a 3-to-1 margin (64% vs. 22%) adults said truth is always relative to the person and their situation. The perspective was even more lopsided among teenagers, 83% of whom said moral truth depends on the circumstances, and only 6% of whom said moral truth is absolute.

The gap between teen and adult views was not surprising, however, when the adult views are considered by generation. While six out of ten people 36 and older embraced moral relativism, 75% of the adults 18 to 35 did so. Thus, it appears that relativism is gaining ground, largely because relativism appears to have taken root with the generation that preceded today's teens.

The Barna study also showed that there is a racial component to this issue, as well. Among whites, 60% endorse relativism, compared to 26% who adopt absolutism.

Among non-whites, however, 74% support relativism and just 15% believe in absolute morality. (Fifteen percent of Hispanic adults and only 10% of African-American adults contended that moral truth is absolute.)

Not surprisingly, born again Christians were more likely than non-born again individuals to accept moral absolutes. Among adults, 32% of those who were born again said they believe in moral absolutes, compared to just half as many (15%) among the non-born again contingent. Among teenagers, there was still a 2-to-1 ratio evident, but the numbers were much less impressive: only 9% of born again teens believe in moral absolutes versus 4% of the non-born again teens."


https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...ans-are-most-likely-to-base-truth-on-feelings

Do you actually believe that in a utopian society we'd tolerate something like voyeurism?

Voyeuricide?

 

[Gehennaite]

Bad news, bub.

"In two national surveys conducted by Barna Research, one among adults and one among teenagers, people were asked if they believe that there are moral absolutes that are unchanging or that moral truth is relative to the circumstances. By a 3-to-1 margin (64% vs. 22%) adults said truth is always relative to the person and their situation. The perspective was even more lopsided among teenagers, 83% of whom said moral truth depends on the circumstances, and only 6% of whom said moral truth is absolute.

The gap between teen and adult views was not surprising, however, when the adult views are considered by generation. While six out of ten people 36 and older embraced moral relativism, 75% of the adults 18 to 35 did so. Thus, it appears that relativism is gaining ground, largely because relativism appears to have taken root with the generation that preceded today's teens.

The Barna study also showed that there is a racial component to this issue, as well. Among whites, 60% endorse relativism, compared to 26% who adopt absolutism.

Among non-whites, however, 74% support relativism and just 15% believe in absolute morality. (Fifteen percent of Hispanic adults and only 10% of African-American adults contended that moral truth is absolute.)

Not surprisingly, born again Christians were more likely than non-born again individuals to accept moral absolutes. Among adults, 32% of those who were born again said they believe in moral absolutes, compared to just half as many (15%) among the non-born again contingent. Among teenagers, there was still a 2-to-1 ratio evident, but the numbers were much less impressive: only 9% of born again teens believe in moral absolutes versus 4% of the non-born again teens."

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...ans-are-most-likely-to-base-truth-on-feelings

Voyeuricide?

So, a random sample of ~1,600 Americans can account for every civilization, and every person, ever to exist? I don't think we're on the same page with the word majority. I'm thinking every civilization (past & presently: probably somewhere in the thousands) and every person (past & presently: probably somewhere in the tens of billions).

Besides, the questions asked aren't really strong enough. And, I rarely take surveys of any type very seriously.

I like the word voyeuricide, though. I'll give you that.

 

[kashmir]

I saw no offense there. However, statistics show that it isn't so much monogamy that reduces rates of unwanted pregnancies and STD's, but comprehensive sex education as well as easy access to contraception and family planning services.

My husband and I are not monogamous either. We've been married 11 years, and have been practicing polyamory since 2006 or so. There's truth in what Drolefille is saying, and I can corroborate.

I wasn't trying to offend anyone, thanks for saying that.
I think you have the quoting part wrong though, all good.
All I was doing was raising a hypothetical.(if that is the right word)
To me, if someone takes offence to the subject, that is on them.
We are adults here, not children.

I agree 100% that sex education is very helpful.
But, never the less, the abortion rate is out of hand, if people in this world are really protecting themselves, why are all the abortions happening?
Yes I know women are raped, and sometimes the health risks come into play,too.

 

[freethinker44]

So, a random sample of ~1,600 Americans can account for every civilization, and every person, ever to exist? I don't think we're on the same page with the word majority. I'm thinking every civilization (past & presently: probably somewhere in the thousands) and every person (past & presently: probably somewhere in the tens of billions).

Besides, the questions asked aren't really strong enough. And, I rarely take surveys of any type very seriously.

I like the word voyeuricide, though. I'll give you that.

So is your opinion about this based on the assumption of what the majority of humans in the world, past & presently, thought or did, or are there facts to back it up. Keep in mind, since you estimate the entire historical population of the human species to be in the tens of billions, any facts that don't cover at least 10 billion people are irrelevant.

 

[Drolefille]

Don't be surprised if your suppositions are negated in the next world. None of us will be wearing rose-tinted glasses in the hereafter... :beach:

What next life? I mean there's easily a dozen options off the top of my head, I'll take reincarnation if I can, either that or a huge library I can read everything ever for all of eternity. I'm torn between the two. Are you Christian and thinking of a Judgment Day?

Anyway, my suppositions have nothing to do with the fact that a mono relationship would not be satisfactory to me anymore than a hetero relationship would be satisfactory to a lesbian.

Obviously I struck a nerve with you for having an opinion on what happens when we have sex.

You screwed up the quote.
And no, you struck a nerve because you didn't understand what a comparison was.

If you have multiple sex partners, you are at tons more risk then those in a monogamous relationship.

Nope, I'm not.

It just offends you to hear it, I cant change that, I can only add my opinions to the topics.

Then stop stating them as facts rather than opinions.

I am noticing a trend in the board, as long as we are discussing religious doctrine to show how dangerous parts of it can affect the rest of the world, that's fine.

And yet, some people still get upset.

But discussing sex, multiple sex partners, STD's, all the unwanted babies put in foster care, is not ok, because its offense.
Odd.

Or, perhaps, the people who are insulted in the process take offense?

Its the same thing, only difference is the marriage part.
I am sure you can figure out the double standard.

No it isn't. Polygamy is almost ALWAYS polygyny particularly in the US and in the Muslim world where it is the most prominent. Polygamous relationships are almost universally one person married to multiple people who have no sexual or romantic relationship with each other.

Polyamory could look like that, but in reality it looks more like a web. I'm dating two men, one of those men (we'll call him OBF) is dating another woman who is dating at least another guy. OBF is also getting permission from another woman's husband and boyfriend to date her (not because they're male but because their relationship rules have an "ask first" rule included.) Primary BF is monogamous and only dates me. We look nothing like the Sister Wives family that is representative of consensual polygamy - to say nothing of the non-consensual child marriages and such that correlate with abusive polygamy.

You seem to think I am saying this to offend you, I am just using science and what we know about multiple sex partners and STD's to make a point on the negativity that can and does affect those who are in monogamous relationships.

No, I think you're projecting what you think is right onto the situation when ti doesn't match the statistics. See Mystic's post for evidence.

I saw no offense there. However, statistics show that it isn't so much monogamy that reduces rates of unwanted pregnancies and STD's, but comprehensive sex education as well as easy access to contraception and family planning services.

My husband and I are not monogamous either. We've been married 11 years, and have been practicing polyamory since 2006 or so. There's truth in what Drolefille is saying, and I can corroborate.

:yes: :rainbow1:

I wasn't trying to offend anyone, thanks for saying that.
I think you have the quoting part wrong though, all good.
All I was doing was raising a hypothetical.(if that is the right word)
To me, if someone takes offence to the subject, that is on them.
We are adults here, not children.

And yet, the only thing I took offense to from you was your insisting that I was putting words in someone else's mouth while also claiming to know my risk for STDs.

I agree 100% that sex education is very helpful.
But, never the less, the abortion rate is out of hand, if people in this world are really protecting themselves, why are all the abortions happening?
Yes I know women are raped, and sometimes the health risks come into play,too.

Primarily due to an inability to financially take care of a child, lack of access to birth control or other family planning matters and a lack of sex ed. Did you know there are adult males who think that if the woman is on top she can't get pregnant? SEXUALLY ACTIVE ADULT MALES WITH KIDS. That is sex education in the US.

 

[freethinker44]

Primarily due to an inability to financially take care of a child, lack of access to birth control or other family planning matters and a lack of sex ed. Did you know there are adult males who think that if the woman is on top she can't get pregnant? SEXUALLY ACTIVE ADULT MALES WITH KIDS. That is sex education in the US.

Why would you specifically address adult males? Are you implying NO women believe this? If not, then why not use people instead of adult male?

 

[kashmir]

@Drolefille
Wow, my opinions about this are not directed at you personally, why are you taking this to the extent you are taking it?

You almost always keep adding to what me and the other person(which started my interest in this) and playing victim.
Mystic understood me completely and took zero offense.
So I know this is not me, its you who are offended and it's really not even about just you, its about the whole world.

"claiming to know your risks"
someone has issues here, to play victim in a discussion on a topic of the whole world.

Its also almost as if your saying that because you are very protective in the subject, everyone else is too.

 

[Drolefille]

Why would you specifically address adult males? Are you implying NO women believe this? If not, then why not use people instead of adult male?

Because the words came out of my adult male clients' mouths. I did not hear the words out of my adult female clients' mouths. It was a specific example.

@Drolefille
Wow, my opinions about this are not directed at you personally, why are you taking this to the extent you are taking it?

Because you decided to interject on behalf of someone else so now I'm responding to you.

You almost always keep adding to what me and the other person(which started my interest in this) and playing victim.

Ah no. You repeatedly ignored my explanation that the use of sexuality was a comparison, not a quote. You also decided to tell ME individually that I was at risk for STDs. Essentially you displayed your ignorance on the subject while pretending knowledge and in the place of asking questions.

So I know this is not me, its you who are offended and it's really not even about just you, its about the whole world.

I don't know who decided to make this about "the whole world." You're the one who interjected children wearing makeup and STDs in my response strictly to one individual who wasn't you.

"claiming to know your risks"
someone has issues here, to play victim in a discussion on a topic of the whole world.

Then I don't know why you would have mentioned me specifically.

Its also almost as if your saying that because you are very protective in the subject, everyone else is too.

Or perhaps I responded to these comments:

If you have multiple sex partners, you are at tons more risk then those in a monogamous relationship.

You seem intelligent, I hope you have protected sex with your many partners because believe it or not, the spreading of STD's affects the rest of the world.

And the repeated accusation of "Strawmanning" that is untrue. And now "playing the victim." This entire subthread started because I said -and all I said- was that monogamy was not satisfactory. Everything else is fabrication instigated by your responses.

What you're reading as "taking it personal" is frustration at your inability or unwillingness to actually read what is written without adding your own suppositions onto it.

 

[Gehennaite]

So is your opinion about this based on the assumption of what the majority of humans in the world, past & presently, thought or did, or are there facts to back it up. Keep in mind, since you estimate the entire historical population of the human species to be in the tens of billions, any facts that don't cover at least 10 billion people are irrelevant.

My assumptions are based off of criminology.

It seems that in modern societies, where we are fairly detached from fellow humans and mother nature, there is much more leniency with what is considered criminal - even more so how we punish said criminal. This has not been the case in many other societies. We simply feel we have the "moral high-ground" because we are more forgiving.

I honestly don't give a damn what other humans consider moral. I want to know God's perspective and no other. Since I don't know, I appeal to stricter definitions of morality... which do agree with my sensibilities.

What next life? I mean there's easily a dozen options off the top of my head, I'll take reincarnation if I can, either that or a huge library I can read everything ever for all of eternity. I'm torn between the two. Are you Christian and thinking of a Judgment Day?

I'm not a Christian.

My point was that if there is an afterlife, you should, at the very least, expect the possibility that you may have to forfeit some aspects of your lifestyle; especially if there is any kind of theocratic order in the next world.

 

[Drolefille]

I'm not a Christian.

My point was that is that if there is an afterlife, you should, at the very least, expect the possibility that you may have to forfeit some aspects of your lifestyle; especially if there is any kind of theocratic order in the next world.

Eh, or not. Basing my life and my goals or worrying about the possibility of a world unlike this one is pretty much like worrying about aliens abducting me and keeping my tinfoil at on at all times. If I BELIEVED it, that'd be one thing, but I don't.

 

[kashmir]

Then I don't know why you would have mentioned me specifically.

I didn't, we were discussing world views on the subject.
All I did was discuss the negativity of having multiple sex partners.
You are taking it personal and considering you have not once showed
acknowledgement that tons and tons of people in this world have careless and casual sex and all the negativity that happens and keep playing victim, I wish to just stop this back and forth and just let the convo die.
Its way out of hand and did not have to be from the beginning.

 

[Drolefille]

I didn't, we were discussing world views on the subject.
All I did was discuss the negativity of having multiple sex partners.
You are taking it personal and considering you have not once showed
acknowledgement that tons and tons of people in this world have careless and casual sex and all the negativity that happens and keep playing victim, I wish to just stop this back and forth and just let the convo die.
Its way out of hand and did not have to be from the beginning.

No, I quoted where you addressed me directly, you were not just speaking in general. And you decided to discuss "world views" not me. You don't just get to say "no I didn't" when your words specifically discussed MY safe sex practices.

 

[Gehennaite]

Eh, or not. Basing my life and my goals or worrying about the possibility of a world unlike this one is pretty much like worrying about aliens abducting me and keeping my tinfoil at on at all times. If I BELIEVED it, that'd be one thing, but I don't.

You're not a theist, so your explanation suffices.

I wouldn't say I anticipate the possibility of change with any type of worry or fear. I, too, subscribe to a fairly uncommon archetype of sexuality. I wouldn't be surprised if I had to change it, for perhaps my mind is not properly aligned with nature... and I'm missing out on something transcendent.

I'm not going to lie to you. I find heterosexual polyamory disturbing & offensive. Homosexual polyamory, not so: you can entertain all the same-gendered partners you want, but to entertain more than one opposite-gendered partner is what I cannot comprehend.

A world with homo & hetero monogamy, as well as homo polyamory, is the most "open" moral system of sexuality I am willing to accept. Hetero polyamory, especially those practicing sessions of group "activity", is where I draw the line.

Current law systems make it impossible for me to protest such behaviors the way I'd like to. Hopefully vigilantism makes a return in the next world. I'm waiting with bated breath... :beach:

 

[Drolefille]

I'm not going to lie to you. I find heterosexual polyamory disturbing & offensive. Homosexual polyamory, not so: you can entertain all the same-gendered partners you want, but to entertain more than one opposite-gendered partner is what I cannot comprehend.

I don't understand the difference. Also as a pansexual it isn't an either/or thing.

A world with homo & hetero monogamy, as well as homo polyamory, is the most "open" moral system of sexuality I am willing to accept. Hetero polyamory, especially those practicing sessions of group "activity", is where I draw the line.

Why?

Current law systems make it impossible for me to protest such behaviors the way I'd like to. Hopefully vigilantism makes a return in the next world. I'm waiting with bated breath... :beach:

Um, even as a joke that's pretty crappy.