| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3558 Joined: 25 Jan 2008     | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1292 Joined: 5 May 2008    | Good rant as usual Khell. I agree with pretty much everything you said and that quote about sex without feelings being nothing but exercise is brilliant. I agree that incest isn't bad in a legal sense, or shouldn't be. It shouldn't be a crime, not that I would do it, I could never have sex with anyone related to me...it would just be too...odd. *Shudders at the thought* Anyway...nice rant. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3002 Joined: 8 May 2008     | We as a planet? Just look at german videogame censorship. Sex? Great! Violence? Bad! |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2986 Joined: 22 Aug 2008   |
Before I post further, I'd like to say that Butters is possibly my favourite South Park character. Interesting points Khell. Most certainly food for thought. I'd always viewed incest as a bit...weird. I probably will continue to view it as such and will do until the day I die, but you may be correct and future generations may change their views, but I doubt I will. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1719 Joined: 13 Sep 2007   | I agree with you, I was one of the few willing to give that thread a chance at the time. You articulated my feelings over it being locked quite well. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1393 Joined: 29 Mar 2008  | Being the one that posted first and reported in said topic, and to repeat what i said there, this is not the place to be discussing fetishes and sexual "quirks" for lack of a better word. I honestly feel people have the right to sleep with whatever they want, but Incest topics, like homosexuality topics and most topics based around sex, are invitations to flames and trolls, and I would rather live without them. lately we've been getting a lot of posters who are deliberately starting flame wars. This is a worrying trend and needs to be stopped. I cannot see a way for incest as a topic not to develop into a flame war. im sorry, i just can't. You can feel free to call me immature and that i dont think highly of the patronage here if you like, but I stand by that in the same way if i posted question about beastiality or scat, it would not be tolerated here |
Muckraker  Posts: 265 Joined: 6 Feb 2008   | Well-said. I completely agree. Forgive the toadying tone, but I really don't have anything to add. I just want to express my approval. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1100 Joined: 21 May 2008   |
You sure about that? |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1719 Joined: 13 Sep 2007 |
Well, not being hurt in a way they weren't willing to be, or it wouldn't be willing at all. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 499 Joined: 31 Jul 2008  | Church doctrines are generally created to preserve their institution. You can lambaste them for making stupid doctrines, but it's mostly for their self-preservation. Anyway... I think that sex as taboo is largely due to the fact that it's a private act. War and violence exist in both public and personal spheres, but sex is generally an intimate act not meant for exhibition. Of course all sorts of barriers are being shattered, but perhaps it's just too much too fast. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 902 Joined: 14 May 2008  | Khell, are you some sort of undercover writer hired by the Escapist to post well written rants on these forums to make them more interesting? |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 92 Joined: 31 Aug 2008    | The world has too much love and not enough respect, just because it's not wrong doesn't mean it's right. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1011 Joined: 1 Dec 2007  |
You're Canadian? Then no. Usually I prefer to avoid saying its all America's problem and no one elses, but in this instance it is.
Also the instinctual predisposition toward avoiding sexual relations with one's siblings.
It does NOT want to go quietly
So you would support the legalization of sexual activity for all ages with all ages, assuming all involved are willing? |
Muckraker  Posts: 294 Joined: 4 Aug 2008 | Good post, Khell; you say you're conservative but I'm very liberal and agree with you on a lot of topics.. I was disappointed that the thread regarding incest was closed too; I am confident that we could refrain from flaming each other. I felt that our intelligence was insulted and the thread should have been given a while longer before a decision was made to lock it. PS. Imitation, there is no easy answer to your question but perhaps the age of consent should be set at the time in a child/young adult's life when they are deemed to be educated enough to make their own decisions regarding the matter. The age of consent is 16 here, this is also the age that school attendance is no longer compulsory. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 4207 Joined: 2 Dec 2007   | Good rant once again Khell. Though incest is dangerous grounds. Sure, without the effect of the baby, is still would destroy the family in the long run. Animals (well, mamals anyway) aren't supposed to be attracted to their own family. They descrete different smells and what not to diswade the act from occuring. While sex is good, some forms are not. Beastiality is unnatural regardless of relgion backing that statement up or not, so is necro and pedophilia. Strange fetishes, yes, but they are also harmful to different groups involved. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 441 Joined: 19 Jun 2008 | Despite how well thought out your argument is, I'm afraid I cannot agree that incest ok as long as children aren't produced. Without even going into any kind of religious nonsense, family is supposed to be a collective support unit, not somewhere to look for a roll in the hay. A brother/sister is supposed to protect their siblings, to turn around and seduce one is a major form of betrayal. |
Muckraker  Posts: 310 Joined: 3 Apr 2008 |
agreed its just wayy to weird for me...even thinking about it is just ..... nasty |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 615 Joined: 23 Jul 2008 | Good job! All I can say is Purps took the words from my mouth, he did this in a way that is respectable and reasonable(so did Khell by the way)fashion. It held no hate, just logic. I dohave a feeling though that if we are afraid of a thread that is taboo, and that someone would attack,on the Escapist of all places, that we may need further action and proper action...whatever it may be we can only hope it's what the mods choose to block the illogical populous. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3558 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 |
All I can say, is maybe...
That is a very loaded question. If I agree, I appear to be a pedophile, if I disagree, it shoots down the validity of my thread. But I am an honest man, and as I am asked, I will answer. No, I do not have an issue with age. My belief, based on observation, light research into the subject, and personal feelings, is that we all have an age range for what turns us on. The assumption that any man is a risk for sex with a minor is false, like homosexuality you don't have a choice, you either are or are not attracted by a particular age. But I am no expert, don't take my word as gospel. Either way, my stance is that if you could prove that the minor is consenting to sex, not coerced, forced into it, or otherwise deceived into it, then I don't see it as my place to judge. But today, we cannot prove consent, and so we have this nice handy law that suits all our consciences with a nice arbitrary age limit. It's not perfect, but it works better than not having anything. You can't take this kind of thing on a case-for-case basis, we'd tie up the legal system with 15 years of court battles for each year that passes. Someone who has sex with a minor non-consentually, that's rape and child abuse. That's not in debate, that's just wrong. You are taking advantage of a child against their will, you need to be neutered and incarcerated, or shot and buried. This part is not open to debate, there is no good side to child abuse, sexual or not. So, Saccharin, to answer your question in a much shorter manner... *Said tweaking needed to fix the bullshittery of incidents of sexual relations between close-aged minors. A case I once read, an 18-year-old was arrested for fucking his 17-year-old girlfriend. They'd been intimate since he was 16 and she was 15, and it was all fine and legal, but the minute he crossed the 18-line and she wasn't 18, it became a felony. That don't make no f'ing sense.
For clarity's sake, I should say that my stance on anything not-harmful is none of anyone's business and not my place to judge... Well, that only applies to human on human intercourse... |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1011 Joined: 1 Dec 2007 |
I do not know if we will debate again, but I assure you, I will judge you only on how you defend your positions, not on the positions themselves.
Do you believe knowledge of sexual consequences is required to give consent? If so, why?
On the topic of idle gossip, I had a cousin undergo just such a situation. He was an asshole for unrelated reasons so we didn't care, but it was a bizarre situation none-the-less. |
Muckraker  Posts: 240 Joined: 20 Mar 2008 |
It's a stupid question that shouldn't have been answered. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 54 Joined: 23 Sep 2008 |
Consent does not mean mature understanding over one's actions. For example, a thirteen year old enganging in sexual activity may have an understanding over the process, but not the responsibility or maturity needed to make such a choice. I once read an article where a couple wrote in asking for advice about their 12-yo daughters SECOND child, and asking whether or not to put her on birth control. In short: Consent does not mean necessary mature understanding. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1011 Joined: 1 Dec 2007 |
So you support arbitrary restrictions on freedom? |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1011 Joined: 1 Dec 2007 |
This would only be a valid counter arguement if children only operated under the influence of adults. |
Press Junketeer Posts: 499 Joined: 31 Jul 2008 | I know I'm not an active member of this debate, but here's my two cents anyway: In some circumstances (indeed this circumstance) arbitrary restriction is better than no restriction. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 54 Joined: 23 Sep 2008 |
Wow, I was just expecting my post to go unnoticed or people to BAWW at the thought of a 12-yo mother of two. Gimme a sec. And I do hope I don't sound rude, but next time you want to ask me something, please don't make it sound like an attack, interrogation, or trying to start a fight. Thanks. |
Paperboy  Posts: 27 Joined: 13 Oct 2008 | Incest is abhorrent because it will be emotionally destructive to the people involved, especially if it were to involve parents, and their children. Children, even those that are able to think for themselves, and are mature, crave love from their parents; putting sex into that equation will leave the child confused, and associating parental love with sex; that in and of itself will lead to severe complications in the child's life. Plus, what happens when a parent gets choosy with one sibling over another? Another thing is, parents exert a massive amount of power over their children, so even if the sex was consensual, just how much power does the child have to say 'No?' If your dad wanted to make love to you, and he's the guy paying your tuition, providing your food, and keeping the roof over your head, are you going to refuse his demand of hot man-love? |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3558 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 |
To answer your question, yes, but let's be clear on what is meant. Sexual consequences, I would consider to be things like the chance of getting pregnant, the knowledge that virginity is a one-shot deal and right or wrong, may impact future relationships as some consider virginity a requirement to a relationship or marriage, and that STDs are a very real possibility with sex. Age be damned, anyone entering into a sexual relationship should understand those consequences, but in the case of someone young, there is often a gap between what they think they understand, and what they really understand. Sexual misinformation is more prevalent than true information, and in my eyes, consent to sexual activity is worth nothing if the person doesn't really understand what they are consenting to. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1011 Joined: 1 Dec 2007 |
Your arguement carries over to adults as well. Hence, any human can be denied anything based on the principle they are insufficiently mature to handle it, although they consent to possessing it.
Might I see that proof?
I simply ask questions. It is not my job to handle-hold you. |
You know, I get a laugh at just what things are taboo here on these forums. We've had epic debates on topics such as Abortion, Homosexuality (including Adoption, Marriage), Politics. We've argued over Muslims and their faith, why people hate Christians, and even things like the value of a human life. These are all touchy subjects, prone to trolling and flamewars, but being a better breed of Internet socialite, we actually get through them in an intellectual and mature manner (mostly), and can debate these topics without falling into petty arguments and personal attacks (again, mostly).
But today, a single topic has been posted, read, replied to, and locked in what I would call record time. I've seen SpamBots and advertisers last longer than this thread, and knowing how fast those lock, that's really saying something.
What was the thread? Incest.
With the speed at which this topic got locked, I'd have expected it be a thread arguing 9/11 as a deserved event, or a plea for the genocide of a race, not something so bland as relative-on-relative intercourse.
Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying this as a plea to re-open the thread, or a criticism on the mods for locking it. But what does strike me as odd about this whole thing is that we perceive something such as incest as an off-limits topic... Taboo, if you will. In light of all the other debates that were allowed to continue. It reinforces my current belief that people will overlook murder, mass murder even, or torture, warcrimes, hate, racism, or prejudice, in the face of things they see as sexually "wrong". We hold sexual matters to be such heinous things to discuss.
Look at South Park's "Good Times With Weapons" episode... Trey Parker and Matt Stone are very perceptive, and are well known for pointing out our own idiocies, and this episode was one such time. We have Eric Cartman sneaking across a stage, totally nude, thinking he's "invisible", meanwhile a horribly gored Leopold Stotch (Butters) also makes his way onto the stage, a shiruken sticking out of his eye. Nobody cares about the fact that a child has been grossly injured, because Cartman's nudity was more offensive.
Made as a joke for the show, but true in real life. People are more offended by the sight of Janet Jackson's nipple slip-up at the Superbowl than they are of the slaughter in Iraq. It doesn't make sense. We as a nation, we as a planet, hold sexual things to be so abhorrent, but without sex we wouldn't be here. The worst thing Religion ever did for the world was to convince people anything sexual could be a sin. Sex is the only reason we are here today, the reason our children are going to be around tomorrow. If sex is sinful, then it is a sin to be alive. If sex is not sinful, then nothing sexual that does not hurt another person can be sinful either.
To quote my favorite author, Robert A Heinlein... Sex without love is merely healthy exercise.
Back to the topic of the locked topic, incest... Is it wrong. No. In a world with condoms and birth control pills, sex can coexist separate from procreation, as recreation. If you take out the chance of a defective baby resulting from incest, there is nothing left in the act itself that is "bad", just the ever present conditioning the church beat into us won't let most people see beyond that. Is homosexual intercourse "bad"? No. Is sex before marriage "bad"? No. But we as a society have been indoctrinated into beliefs with no reasoning behind them, save the personal preference of the one doing the indoctrinating.
My point behind all that's been said above... We are in a time of change. The current generation is once again throwing off some of the superstitions of their predecessors. Religion is on a downslide and we are beginning to think for ourselves. Homosexuality and bisexuality are becoming socially accepted life choices. Racism is becoming less prevalent with each new year. In the end, we are all outgrowing the morals or beliefs that have no grounding, but some of these old relics remain. Where will we be next generation? What things that us, the X and Y generations, hold onto as immoral or taboo, will be gone when Generation Z becomes adults? That's my question.
As a sidenote for clarity's sake, I do not mean to endorse the idea that nothing sexual can be "wrong", there are things that are... Rape, child abuse, these things hurt people. Incest does not, homosexuality does not. Willing participants in a sexual act are not being hurt by the act, and thus it is not something that can be considered "wrong" or "sinful/evil". But when someone is being hurt by the act, such as rape, then it is wrong. These are things that are taboo and/or illegal for a real reason, not superstition or dated morality. If we have anything good in humanity as a race, these beliefs, we will never grow out of.
Hope the mods have a good sense of humor today, picture related...