Sexual Acceptance

[fallingblood]

And how is a young girl equal to an adult dog? I never mention puppies in my examples. Adults are sexually, mentally and physically mature, your young girl is not.

And harmless? Studies have proved there's a high chance of mental problems in minors, even if the sex was harmless.

Go back and read your previous post that I'm quoting from.

But lets even take it from here. Lets take someone and condition them, or teach them to perform sexual acts. Is it alright to then take advantage of that conditioning? Is it alright with me to teach someone less intelligent than I am (as we can all admit that a dog would be far less intelligent than I am), teach them, or condition them to perform sexual favors, and then take advantage of that? I'm pretty sure that would still be considered rape. Actually, incidents as I've described have gone to court and have been shown to be illegal, and equivalent with rape.

There have been many adults, who are fully functioning, that have been brainwashed into thinking that performing sexual favors for different individuals is what they are meant to do. In other words, they have been conditioned to perform sexual favors for other people. When taken out of that environment, they suffer greatly because of they realize that they have been taken advantage of, and when taken to court, it is seen that these individuals have gone through the equivalent of being raped. They consented in theory, yet only because they were taught, or conditioned to do so.

By what you are saying, there should be no problem with this at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And you just proof that you have double standards.

You have no problem with a human teaching a harmless trick to a dog, but if the harmless trick is sexual, you are against it.

Answer me, do you think is OK to discriminate against something based on double standards? Yes or NO, explain if you say YES.

I teach my dog to come on command so if certain circumstances where to arise, such as the UPS guy making a delivery she will not jump on him, or she does not chase after Amish buggies. I teach her not to beg so she doesn't grab food when I am not looking, because some human food is very bad for a dog.
Teaching a dog to have sex is not something for their own good, it's for the persons. Again, sex slaves consent, children consent, barely legal teenagers consent, but it is a forced consent and they don't know any better. An animal has only instincts, and they do not know better. They are not capable of the higher mental processes that humans are capable of. Alot of people would not think of having sex with their siblings only a few weeks after birth, but dogs do just that. Even after you properly convert the age differences, it still doesn't happen in humans. So I ask you, where is this said double standard?

It is a sexually, mentally, physically mature adult dog, she is not a puppy.
Seriously... even a child can see the difference between a puppy and an adult dog, Fact: adults dogs are not puppies or human children.

Really? Are you really going to nitpick that much? I OBVIOUSLY know the difference by technical terms. But I have such a soft spot for dogs, that almost all dogs still have a puppy cuteness to them.

And harmless? Studies have proved there's a high chance of mental problems in minors, even if the sex was harmless.

In young children, sex can be devastating. In teenagers that are just under legal age, usually younger girls with an older guy, the girl will scream and cry that they love each other and the police can't take him away when his arrest warrant is being served.

 

[Alusky]

Go back and read your previous post that I'm quoting from.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, I said "dog", next time I will say adult dogs. BTW I'm against people been sexual with immature animals, I'm against rape and abuse of animals, though I'm not against people that use animals in a humane way.

But lets even take it from here. Lets take someone and condition them, or teach them to perform sexual acts. Is it alright to then take advantage of that conditioning?

Till here you example is acceptable, assuming the person that is conditioned to perform those the sex act is mature enough and OK with them.

Like if a guy gives jewelry to her girlfriend to make her be in a good mood, and the girl (who loves jewels) will now desire to pay back the present by been nice and accept the guy suggestion to have sex. If the guy wants sex more often, but the girl is not really interested in sex (at the moment), what if each time the guys gives her a present, she gets in the mood and wants to have sex. What if the guy takes advantage of that every time he wants sex? Do you think the guy doing that is doing something wrong? YES or NO? Explain if you say YES.

Is it alright with me to teach someone less intelligent than I am (as we can all admit that a dog would be far less intelligent than I am), teach them, or condition them to perform sexual favors, and then take advantage of that?

I need more information as it is important when deciding if the sex is acceptable among humans:

-Would you have an 210-IQ (genius) having a relationship with a girl with an 69-IQ, slightly mentally handicapped but still capable of giving legal consent.

-Or a less intelligent (not capable of giving legal consent) girl with an IQ under 50, having sex with a normal 110-IQ?

I'm pretty sure that would still be considered rape. Actually, incidents as I've described have gone to court and have been shown to be illegal, and equivalent with rape.

I'm sure those cases the person was studied and deemed incapable of giving legal consent.

And you think humans have the same rights than animals, is wrong to train a human but is not wrong to train a dog.

I KNOW HUMANS HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN ANIMALS, animals barely have rights.

For example you can legally kill a dolphin and eat it (second smartest earth creature, estimated intelligence of a 5 year old human) but if you kill a 4 year old human and eat him (even if you killed him humanly) you are still going to jail. Intelligence has nothing to do with an act be legal or illegal, acceptable or unacceptable when it comes to animal.

That's why if people wants to call humane sex with an animals "rape" by the same logic owning pets in a humane environment should be equal to "human slavery" and killing animals in a humane way should be equal to "human murder", humane sex with animals is not rape. To have humane sex with animals you need to get consent, knows the animals language (body and verbal) and learn the mating rituals, the animal anatomy and other important stuff and respect the animals opinion, that way nobody is hurt or forced, and the two get pleasure from it.

There have been many adults, who are fully functioning, that have been brainwashed into thinking that performing sexual favors for different individuals is what they are meant to do. In other words, they have been conditioned to perform sexual favors for other people. When taken out of that environment, they suffer greatly because of they realize that they have been taken advantage of, and when taken to court, it is seen that these individuals have gone through the equivalent of being raped. They consented in theory, yet only because they were taught, or conditioned to do so. By what you are saying, there should be no problem with this at all.

I don't have a problem at all as long they weren't removed from their environment. The harm was done by taking them out from their society where what they did was NORMAL and acceptable, to another society where what they did is seen as wrong, not moral, sinful. The social stigma they learned is the one hurting that person. Not the training or the sex acts.

For example: If a couple teach his son that been seclude from people and technology is for the best (because they are selfish and want to be with his son 24/7) and he is OK with it and live happily secluded from other humans and technology for the next 20 years surrounded by nature and only his parents, but now an guy comes to "save him" and takes their son to New York and shows him how fun is to be around people and how fun technology is.

Dont you think is verry possible he may be angry and traumatized by knowing all the years he spend away from people and technology?

Should him sue their parents for the way he was raised? Or should him sue the guy for making his life miserable by taking him to a different environment?

I teach my dog to come on command so if certain circumstances where to arise, such as the UPS guy making a delivery she will not jump on him, or she does not chase after Amish buggies. I teach her not to beg so she doesn't grab food when I am not looking, because some human food is very bad for a dog.

Sure that's basic training that is good for the dog.

Teaching a dog to have sex is not something for their own good, it's for the persons.

Neither is for the dog own good to teach him to roll, play death, give the paw or to dress dogs with ridiculous cloth or to color their fur all pink or to teach him to bring the paper or the slippers or a beer from the fridge. Should people that do that to dogs be discriminated or criminalize? YES or NO, Explain if you say YES.

Do you think an adult dog will get hurt psychically or emotionally if he eats peanut butter from some one genitals or some one hand or the floor? YES or NO, Explain if you say YES. Note: Consider that the human is healthy and clean and that dogs have no morals and they pretty much put their tongues everywhere without getting sick.

Again, sex slaves consent, children consent, barely legal teenagers consent, but it is a forced consent and they don't know any better. An animal has only instincts, and they do not know better. They are not capable of the higher mental processes that humans are capable of. A lot of people would not think of having sex with their siblings only a few weeks after birth, but dogs do just that. Even after you properly convert the age differences, it still doesn't happen in humans.

With the humans I agree slavery is bad, murder is bad and using humans can be bad.

Sadly is legal and acceptable to slave animals, is legal and acceptable to use animals, is legal and acceptable to kill animals, is legal and acceptable to eat animals, and if all that is legal, why do you believe non-abusive sex with animals should be illegal?

So I ask you, where is this said double standard?

You don't mind some one teaching an adult dog a harmless useless trick like giving the paw, but if the harmless useless trick involves and adult dog licking humans genitalia you are against it.

All this time you hide behind "they children" "it is rape" "they can't consent" to be against it, but now I can see that is not the real reason you are against it, the Question is, WHY are you against it?

Are You disgusted by it?
Or you have a God who says is a sin?

Now is you are only disgusted by it, then learn to respect and let live, and if the reason is a God... then nobody have the same Gods or believes in them.

In teenagers that are just under legal age, usually younger girls with an older guy, the girl will scream and cry that they love each other and the police can't take him away when his arrest warrant is being served.

It is then a problem of legality and not a problem of consent, in some places 13 is old enough to have sex, while in other places the age is 18, in one place a relationship is RAPE, in another place is not.

If those teen you mention where in love and capable of giving consent, then the law should leave them alone or be modified to make exceptions in cases where the minor can give legal consent but is not in legal age yet.

 

[.lava]

Alusky, i don't mean to disturb you. i have a few personal questions. i would like to ask if you don't mind. can i? you really can say "no", it is OK

.

 

[Black_Shuck]

Wow. Just wow. Alusky, your awesome, I wish I had the debating skills you do so that I can formulate my points as well as you but regardless you have my support.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Neither is for the dog own good to teach him to roll, play death, give the paw or to dress dogs with ridiculous cloth or to color their fur all pink or to teach him to bring the paper or the slippers or a beer from the fridge. Should people that do that to dogs be discriminated or criminalize? YES or NO, Explain if you say YES.

As far as the ridiculous clothes and hair style and coloring, I do believe it is abuse. Fetching the paper and beer, the dog isn't your slave. Teaching tricks (depending on the trick) can exercise your dog's mind.

You don't mind some one teaching an adult dog a harmless useless trick like giving the paw, but if the harmless useless trick involves and adult dog licking humans genitalia you are against it.

Because having your dog lick your junk is using your dog as a sex toy.

All this time you hide behind "they children" "it is rape" "they can't consent" to be against it, but now I can see that is not the real reason you are against it, the Question is, WHY are you against it?

Because it is taking advantage of the animal. They are doing it out of the most basic instincts, while the human is doing it for pleasure.

Do you think an adult dog will get hurt psychically or emotionally if he eats peanut butter from some one genitals or some one hand or the floor? YES or NO, Explain if you say YES.

No. But my issue with this scenario is again is that it is taking advantage of the dog. I give my dog the Kong peanut butter all the time, usually from my hand. It's bonding time, and all the while I am not taking advantage of her desires for the peanut butter (which tastes pretty sweet BTW) to fulfill my own sexual desires. Rather we fulfill each others desire for companionship.

Are You disgusted by it?
Or you have a God who says is a sin?

I live by my own morals, and I put myself on the same level as any Gods that be. But yes, it is disgusting because it is taking advantage of a creature that cannot think things through like people can. If a woman put whip cream on her genitals, a man could eat it, or he could refuse for a number of reasons. A dog will eat it simply because it thinks it is being given a treat.

It is then a problem of legality and not a problem of consent, in some places 13 is old enough to have sex, while in other places the age is 18, in one place a relationship is RAPE, in another place is not.

If those teen you mention where in love and capable of giving consent, then the law should leave them alone or be modified to make exceptions in cases where the minor can give legal consent but is not in legal age yet.

It is mostly consent, but also (pardon my sounding like a broken record) the whole taking advantage thing. And as far as cultural issues go, you have to look at each culture exclusively. In some cultures a 40 year old man living with his mother is the norm, but here it is a potential indicator of a dependably issue. In one culture the unmarried women are whipped to show the support of a male in their family who is about to go through his right-of-passage trail. Here the acceptance of the whipping and the taunting to provoke it would have someone labeled a masochist.
As for the teens and older people, we do indeed need laws to protect the teens. An average teenager is capable of anything but well thought out, good, and intelligent decisions. Teenagers are prone to their own set of mental issues, such as believing they are invincible, and thus many reckless decisions abound (there is even a movement to up the legal driving age to 18 because of this). When you take this, and throw an older person who is experienced in life and knows how to manipulate someone who doesn't comprehend danger or consequences, then all I can say is that lawmakers have done one thing correctly.

 

[Alusky]

As far as the ridiculous clothes and hair style and coloring, I do believe it is abuse. Fetching the paper and beer, the dog isn't your slave.

Then, should people be discriminated or criminalize for doing that abuse to dogs? YES or NO.

Teaching tricks (depending on the trick) can exercise your dog's mind.

All trick exercise a dog mind. Or prove me wrong and name one that doesn't.

Because having your dog lick your junk is using your dog as a sex toy.

Not if the person is zoosexual, attracted to the dog and sees him as a husband/lover/boyfriend. Only you think in the dog as an object, they are a living creature. Sex doesn't make a living creature an object.

Because it is taking advantage of the animal.

I agree is taking advantage of the animal, but every single human in the world has taken advantage of animals, even you, if you eat meat you have taken advantage of them, humans can't live without taking advantage of animals. That is why is accepted by almost everyone that thanking advantage of animals is acceptable if the animal is treated humanly, in all my examples, sex was done in a humane way. Giving pleasure to an animals should be accepted just as murdering animals to eat them is acceptable.

They are doing it out of the most basic instincts.

Humans also acts on instincts, I was sexually active by 9 (not with humans of course) without nobody teaching me about sex, same as nobody teach my dog how to hump. Should I never have sex because is one of my basic animal instincts?

while the human is doing it for pleasure.

Not always... Dogs can do it for pleasure too, like I said before not all dogs need training, some dogs justs as some humans enjoy the smell and taste of male human reproductive cells, or the taste and smell of female humans juices, in those cases there's no need of training or food. They do it because they enjoy it, both human and animal are getting pleasure from it.

No. But my issue with this scenario is again is that it is taking advantage of the dog. I give my dog the Kong peanut butter all the time, usually from my hand. It's bonding time, and all the while I am not taking advantage of her desires for the peanut butter (which tastes pretty sweet BTW) to fulfill my own sexual desires. Rather we fulfill each others desire for companionship.

You are admitting that you take advantage of your dog to fulfill your emotional desire of companionship probably you also fulfill happiness, feeling of caring for some one you love, and other desires... you are equally taking advantage of your dog as much as person that lets his dog mount him. We both taking advantage of the dog, We both not hurting the dog, both (the human and the dog) are getting pleasure, happiness, companionship.

Even under the same circumstance you think your way is OK, but other people way are WRONG... >>>>DOUBLE STANDARDS<<< (again)

PS: you never answer: Do you think is OK to discriminate against something based on double standards? Yes or NO, explain if you say YES. >>>>(STOP DODGING THIS QUESTION)<<<<

I live by my own morals

Are your morals flexible? Or just written on stone?

 

[Black_Shuck]

I live by my own morals, and I put myself on the same level as any Gods that be. But yes, it is disgusting because it is taking advantage of a creature that cannot think things through like people can. If a woman put whip cream on her genitals, a man could eat it, or he could refuse for a number of reasons. A dog will eat it simply because it thinks it is being given a treat.

By that standards we would be allowed to live our own way, in many countries zoophilia is not illegal so thus if a woman or man wanted to live an intimate way with his or her animal would you still want to stop them? Even if it was legal?

Animals are going to be taken advantage of in worse ways the loving intimate relationships. Dairy cows and Pigs are a good example, Minks and foxes for fur are another example, yet the moral revulsion people feel to the people that honestly love animals and aren't hurting them is kinda sad. I don't see people weeping for the sake of the cow that went into a burger or the baby pig that went in to your veal or the fox that was tortured for days to makes your coats.

Just to put it in perspective : If I kill it for food, Its ok. If I skin it, Its ok. If I get its balls and vagina mutilated, its ok. If I use it to sniff for bombs or be bombs(I.e donkey bombs), its ok. If I experiment on it, its ok. But heaven forbid I want to have a deep loving relationship with it. (I use it simply because "It" is how most people like to refer to animals when they don't care.)

What is the problem?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not if the person is zoosexual, attracted to the dog and sees him as a husband/lover/boyfriend. Only you think in the dog as an object, they are a living creature. Sex doesn't make a living creature an object.

The dog is not getting any mutual sexual pleasure. It is using something the dog wants to take advantage of it to get sexual gratification. The dog does not comprehend what it is doing. Using the peanut butter scenario is the human using its higher intelligence to get the dog to do something it doesn't understand. This is taking advantage.

Humans also acts on instincts, I was sexually active by 9 (not with humans of course) without nobody teaching me about sex, same as nobody teach my dog how to hump. Should I never have sex because is one of my basic animal instincts?

Humans are capable of a much higher mental processing than animals. We are built to have morals, a conscious, reasoning, logic, and other features that have allowed us to develop much further technologically and socially than any other species. We do also have basic primary motivators, but there is the time to give in to them, and the time to refrain.

All trick exercise a dog mind. Or prove me wrong and name one that doesn't.

If I taught my dog to be a viscous attack dog, then it is using the animal in a negative manner, and such actions have given breeds such as rottweilers (the biggest babies in the world) and pit bulls a very bad name.

I agree is taking advantage of the animal, but every single human in the world has taken advantage of animals, even you, if you eat meat you have taken advantage of them, humans can't live without taking advantage of animals. That is why is accepted by almost everyone that thanking advantage of animals is acceptable if the animal is treated humanly, in all my examples, sex was done in a humane way. Giving pleasure to an animals should be accepted just as murdering animals to eat them is acceptable.

Actually, the guilt I feel from eating meat has had me considering not eating it.

You are admitting that you take advantage of your dog to fulfill your emotional desire of companionship probably you also fulfill happiness, feeling of caring for some one you love, and other desires... you are equally taking advantage of your dog as much as person that lets his dog mount him.

How exactly am I taking advantage of her? She jumps on my lap, lays down, and I pet and hug her.

Then, should people be discriminated or criminalize for doing that abuse to dogs? YES or NO.

Yes.

PS: you never answer: Do you think is OK to discriminate against something based on double standards? Yes or NO, explain if you say YES. >>>>(STOP DODGING THIS QUESTION)<<<<

No. But it is you who are finding an alleged double standard. Cuddling with your dog when she climbs into bed with you and performing sexual acts are two different things.

Are your morals flexible? Or just written on stone?

By that standards we would be allowed to live our own way, in many countries zoophilia is not illegal so thus if a woman or man wanted to live an intimate way with his or her animal would you still want to stop them? Even if it was legal?

My morals do not include taking advantage of someone or something who is mentally or intellectually below me. I could get alot of things out of life if I did, but there is no honor to it.
Also I believing hurting others to be wrong. I do not believe in the use of animals for clothing, law enforcement, or any other mentioned reason.

 

[Alusky]

The dog is not getting any mutual sexual pleasure. It is using something the dog wants to take advantage of it to get sexual gratification. The dog does not comprehend what it is doing. Using the peanut butter scenario is the human using its higher intelligence to get the dog to do something it doesn't understand. This is taking advantage.

Sorry but that thing you quoted and what you answer makes no sense, I was talking about "making the dog a sex toy" you are wrong about that.

PS: I also believe is kinda wrong to trick dogs like that, I don't do that for the same reason, but I don't have a problem if other people do that to their dogs as long as they don't hurt the dog, is world wide accepted that animals can be used by humans in a humane way. What I don't understand is that you use your dog you eat animals, you are using them thanking advantage of them but you are against using animals. You say one thing and do the opposite.

Humans are capable of a much higher mental processing than animals. We are built to have morals, a conscious, reasoning, logic, and other features that have allowed us to develop much further technologically and socially than any other species. We do also have basic primary motivators, but there is the time to give in to them, and the time to refrain.

Smarter brain, consciousness, reasoning and logic is what makes interspecies relationship possible and ethically with no party getting hurt. You on the other hand, have double standards, with makes you illogical which makes you unhable to understand that something like this is possible to be done.

If I taught my dog to be a viscous attack dog, then it is using the animal in a negative manner, and such actions have given breeds such as rottweilers (the biggest babies in the world) and pit bulls a very bad name.

You said "some tricks don't exercise a dog mind" and I asked for one example, why don't you accept you made a mistake? Instead you are trying to prove me wrong, when everyone knows any trick teach to a dog exercises his mind.

Actually, the guilt I feel from eating meat has had me considering not eating it.

Well if you do that and get rid of your pets, you indeed would be better than me in the sense you don't use animals or take advantage of them, still 99% of the world is not vegan. Best you can do is be tolerant of others that are different than you.

How exactly am I taking advantage of her? She jumps on my lap, lays down, and I pet and hug her.

How exactly I'm taking advantage of him? He jumps on my back does his business 20 minute later hes done and we rest, giving to each other kisses and hugs and the rest of the day is a normal pet owner relationship. Like I have said, you and I are the same, we give them something they like and we get something from them that we like. Can't you see that? Thats why I say you have double standards, you are OK with thaking advantage of dog, but not OK with some one like me taking advantage of dog.

Yes.

Wow, I don't think you are a nice person, hope other people will reach this and learn something to be the opposite of you.

No. But it is you who are finding an alleged double standard. Cuddling with your dog when she climbs into bed with you and performing sexual acts are two different things.

Other people reading our post can see you do have a double standards, and how awesome they are to discriminate people and hurt them.

My morals do not include taking advantage of someone or something who is mentally or intellectually below me. I could get alot of things out of life if I did, but there is no honor to it. Also I believing hurting others to be wrong. I do not believe in the use of animals for clothing, law enforcement, or any other mentioned reason.

Errr I think I stated clear how you do take advantage of animals, just that your morals think is OK as long is not sexual, and you got nothing to support your morals other than "ewwwww disgusting"

Anyways I will stop here our little debate, as there's nothing more I can do to make you understand.

-You take advantage o animals but is wrong if other people do the same uder the same basic circumstances.
-You think is OK to have double standards and discriminate people based on them.
-You think is OK to discriminate people for teaching useless harmless tricks on dog.

How can I go against all that if you are so close minded, your morals are written in stone, and you live your live without using logic (just morals)

Anyways, thanks for keeping talking to me, will probably reed ya around but won't debate as much with you, if some one else have more things to say I will debate with them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Anyways I will stop here our little debate, as there's nothing more I can do to make you understand.

-You take advantage o animals but is wrong if other people do the same uder the same basic circumstances.
-You think is OK to have double standards and discriminate people based on them.
-You think is OK to discriminate people for teaching useless harmless tricks on dog.

How can I go against all that if you are so close minded, your morals are written in stone, and you live your live without using logic (just morals)

Anyways, thanks for keeping talking to me, will probably reed ya around but won't debate as much with you, if some one else have more things to say I will debate with them.

I think we shall just have to agree to disagree.
Although I will part this thread by saying that saying someone is not using logic is not a very wise thing. I haven't maintained a 4.0 GPA majoring in Psychology by being closed minded or illogical or non-logical.

 

[Black_Shuck]

I think we shall just have to agree to disagree.
Although I will part this thread by saying that saying someone is not using logic is not a very wise thing. I haven't maintained a 4.0 GPA majoring in Psychology by being closed minded or illogical or non-logical.

I find it sad that this topic ended this way, I hope someone got some benefit out of it. If anyone is curious to learn more on the subject I offer a good bit of reading material. Just PM if you want to open your mind a little.

 

[KatNotKathy]

Tell ya what. You guys find a dog with an adult human's brain, and I will defend your right to **** that abomination.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

In the course of my life time I have seen may people of differing orientation struggle and fight to even get a foot hold in the door. My own orientation is despised, That got me to thinking, what is it that makes people so opposed to what people do in their own bed room?

I can understand if it is harmful like Pedophilia but sexuality like homosexuality and my own orientation involve no hurt parties yet in some counties the government would prefer to jail or kill the participants. (Thought I find it Ironic that people would send a gay man to jail where he is only going to be surrounded by angry sexually repressed prisoners that are going to sodomize him any way.)

So as people of higher religious understanding how would you approach the table of sexual acceptance? Do you think alternate religions should be outlawed or should people grow up and accept that not everyone's bedroom behavior is like theirs?

Let me here your opinions.

I just saw a documentary called "Because the Bible says so". I think this documentary has a lot of answers about homosexuality with respect to christianity. Informed people make informed decisions. Religious people are often very poorly informed and indeed misled by the very people they trust the most, their pastors.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Daaaamn! I read only the OP and the first few replies and assumed this thread was about homosexuality. Please ignore my last post. Or actually see the documentary. It is pretty good.

 

[Erebus]

Tell ya what. You guys find a dog with an adult human's brain, and I will defend your right to **** that abomination.

Providing it gives consent of course

 

[EnvisionsFutura]

Sorry That made me laugh a lot when I read it, Mr. Pinyan died of his own fault, he could of survived. I think he should have went to the doctor and just said he got that injury and didn't want to explain how. The part that makes me sad about his death is the backlash from it, The fact that they had to create a law to even say that he did a crime and the fact they were upset that they couldn't charge the two people with him with nothing more than trespassing. Kenneth's actions lead to a law being created where there was previously none for that state. I believe its best for people to save sexual expression for the bed room but I don't think harmless sexuality should be discriminated against, If I see two men groping each other in public, that is hot but I still think they should save that for an appropriate time in place, same for two women, man and woman, etc etc etc, All hot but at the wrong place. Overly erotic PDA's are annoying.

He he...why? Because it gets you hot and excited and you feel uncomfortable experience any erotic feelings yourself in public? That's normal. I'd like to see more confident exchanges occurring in public myself, the public environment is very sterile, cold, and uninviting oft times and I think it'd make quite a remarkable difference seeing people truly intimately and joyously express feelings together, it sets a satisfactory shameless example for full self expression leading to a very felt transaction.

 

[EnvisionsFutura]

Note that this is not a license to boink dolphins and chimps.

There is no need for this "license" free will= power of choice making for anything and anyone and any being. All the dos and don'ts and perceptions of unacceptable and acceptable have more to do with cultural norms and socially pressed rules than anything else. Other than that what on earth makes anything as bad as people say they are? I don't think any thing becomes "evil" "wrong" "disgusting" or whatever subjective adjective you want to put on it, until such subjective thought is exercised to make it so. In theory, if I met "evil doers" of any kind, as long as they weren't intending to harm me, I would love and accept them as equally in behavior and perception as I would any other "citizen" or better yet human being. I'm tired of all the judgment, it retards a person's full use of mind and more, imagination.

 

[gerobbins]

What goes on between 2 consenting adults in the bedroom is no ones business but their own