Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Well How The Hell Are Ya?

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum » The Monkey Hole » Well How The Hell Are Ya? « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through June 24, 2003Pastor of Muppets (E25 6-24-03  9:57 pm
Archive through June 22, 2003Mrs. Head (Admin)25 6-22-03  6:59 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1073
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 5:51 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Virtually everything is less unpleasant than being slaughtered (even if slaughter is carried out as humanely as possible).



Well, there isn't a good objective way of measuring that, but I think prolonged painful injury is probably more unpleasant from the perspective of something with no rational understanding of its mortality. Therefor, I will grant that raping animals whose anatomy is such that such contact would lead to prolonged injury would be worse than killing them for meat. So no Chihuahuas or bunnies. But for an animal of comperable or greater size, an unwanted sexual encounter with a human is not going to be any more "traumatic" than an unwanted sexual encounter with a member of its own species, which happens enough on its own. The sort of psychological harm we associate with rape in humans is not going to happen in animals.

Incidentally, a great many everyday farm chores, such as getting semen from a bull, cleaning a stallion's genital canal, docking a sheep, or even milking a cow, would be considered sexual violations if they were done on a human. At worst, the animals are no more annoyed than they are when their teeth are checked, and they often seem to enjoy it.

PS: have you ever rubbed a dog's belly until its leg started to shake? Guess what? You were whacking off a dog.


quote:

I can see we're going to go round in circles on this one if we continue.




Shaaaall we dance? (One-two-three-and...)
ENORMUS DICK (Louched_liver)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Louched_liver

Post Number: 2062
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 6:30 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

You guys REALLY need your own corner of the Forum to joust in. Ya feel me, Admin couple of the year?
Hi, what're ya havin'?
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 798
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 4:37 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Virtually everything is less unpleasant than being slaughtered (even if slaughter is carried out as humanely as possible). So on the basis of this argument if you believe it is OK to eat meat it is OK to treat animals any way you please. Why bother with animal welfare regulations then?

I can see we're going to go round in circles on this one if we continue.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1068
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 4:19 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

So by your argument the fact that we kill animals for food etc. means that it is ok for us to treat animals any way we like.




No, it means that the way that we treat animals intended for food defines the outside limit of how we may treat animals; basically, if it is as or less unpleasant than being slaughtered, it is OK.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 797
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 12:32 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

So by your argument the fact that we kill animals for food etc. means that it is ok for us to treat animals any way we like. No animal welfare regulations, just do whatever the fuck we like to them. If you see someone viciously beating or torturing an animal then big deal, he's doing nothing wrong.

There is a difference between killing an animal for food and abusing it for fun.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1063
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 1:12 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Paedophile use the same argument to justify there own abuses.




But children are human, animals aren't. We don't consider it acceptable to kill children for food, hides, or just because it's fun or convenient.


quote:

Beastiality is abusive.




So is eating animals. You're too stuck in your ideals again. How we SHOULD treat animals is irrelevent to my point. My point is that fucking a sheep is in no way WORSE than slaughtering and eating a sheep. If our society regards the well-being of sheep little enough to allow eating them, then it is illogical for our society to condemn fucking them.

You can condmen it all you want, since you don't eat them either (if I recall correctly), but I'm talking about our culture as a whole.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 795
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 11:04 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Indeed, slaughtering animals is not pleasant but if people will eat meat then animals will have to be killed. The unpleasantness of slaughter does not however give us a moral justification for inflicting any act we like on animals just because the act is not as unpleasant as slaughter.

"And many animals will engage in sex with humans quite willingly. Should we "respect" that desire?"

Paedophile use the same argument to justify there own abuses. We are in a position of power over animals and they have the disadvantage of not being able to converse with us. Beastiality is abusive.

Its about time we realised that the world and all the living things in it are not simply a resource for our own desires that we can treat any way we wish. We cannot treat everything in the world as objects to be used for our own gratification. All living things should be treated with respect and not simply as a resources for our own pleasure. Mankind is not the only thing that matters.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1059
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 9:26 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Just because you kill an animal for food doesn't mean you view it as an inanimate object worthy of no respect.



It's a question of degrees. Anybody who has seen a slaughterhouse knows that what we do to meat animals is at least as unpleasant for them as raping them.

And many animals will engage in sex with humans quite willingly. Should we "respect" that desire?
Foamy D Psycho (Mr_rabid)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Mr_rabid

Post Number: 465
Registered: 10-2001
Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 1:45 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I'm sure the fact that you will respect her in the morning is some comfort to the cow, Hobby.
Marc Chevalier (Chevalier)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Chevalier

Post Number: 1283
Registered: 11-2001


Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 1:50 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Loving an animal is one thing. Screwing it is quite another.

Being screwed by it voluntarily is acceptable, I guess.

Any volunteers?
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 793
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 12:12 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Just because you kill an animal for food doesn't mean you view it as an inanimate object worthy of no respect.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1055
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 12:02 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I will never understand a society where killing an animal for food is acceptable but loving an animal is a crime...
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 791
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 11:55 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"I cannot outright condemn incestuous relatationships between consenting adults on a moral level. In my mind, they fall into the same category as things like beastiality, or wanking off to pictures of a TV star to the exclusion of real interaction."

Beastiality is very wrong. Unless of course you take the view that mankind has the right to treat any non-human living creature exactly as he pleases. No animal welfare regulations, treat animals as you please, treat them with no respect, just so long as you enjoy it. Animals are part of our natural world, we do not have the right to treat them like inanimate objects. Human beings are not the only things that matter on this planet.
Marc Chevalier (Chevalier)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Chevalier

Post Number: 1277
Registered: 11-2001


Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 9:19 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

What would I do, if I woke up to discover exact duplicates of those pretentious, insectoid surrealists sharing my bed?

Undoubtedly, the answer would be:

"Kill them."
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 603
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 8:41 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

from RECHERCHES SUR LA SEXUALITE 1928-1932

ANDRE BRETON Valentin, what do you think of the idea of masturbat-
ing and coming in a woman's ear?
ALBERT VALENTIN I wouldn't dream of it.
ANDRE BRETON A purely surrealist question.
PAUL ELUARD I've already done it. It's very good ... No, not very
good, it depends.
GEORGES SADOUL I've never done it, but it appeals to me.
ANDRE BRETON It would only satisfy one side of the woman. The
world is badly made.
PIERRE UNIK The ear is made for the tongue, not for the cock.
ANDRE BRETON See Moliere.
GEORGES SADOUL And in the nose?
PAUL ELUARD I wouldn't like that. I hate noses. A complex. I'm
against.
PIERRE UNIK See Courteline.
PAUL ELUARD Does Breton enjoy licking a woman's eyeball?
ANDRE BRETON I would very much like to be a vampire, an incubus,
etc. But life doesn't leave me enough time to lick eyeballs, etc.
PAUL ELUARD It's not a matter of having time, but it's something I've
always done and which is remarkably enjoyable.
GEORGES SADOUL It's absolutely disgusting.
PAUL ELUARD It's absolutely admirable.

ANDRE BRETON Would Tanguy enjoy being sodomised by a
woman using a dildo?
YVES TANGUY Very much. Rather a new question for me. No connec-
tion with homosexuality!
PAUL ELUARD I've never been buggered, and I could only permit such
a thing if I thought it was necessary to the woman I love from an
erotic point of view.
PIERRE UNIK The question seems to me to be completely mad.
ANDRE BRETON It's a question which I would absolutely uphold on
theoretical grounds, since the woman could not derive any physical
pleasure from it and nor, I imagine, could the man.
PIERRE UNIK What, then? An intellectual pleasure?
ANDRE BRETON An intellectual 'pleasure'.
PIERRE UNIK (Gesture of incomprehension.)
PAUL ELUARD (To Breton.) Could you, if you loved a woman who was
very perverse, give yourself to a man if she desired it?
ANDRE BRETON The question would not come up because I would
not love such a woman, my taste for perversity in women doesn't go
that far.
PAUL ELUARD (Protests.) I don't know how you can say that you would
not love such a woman, for this desire might well have been born
during your love.
ANDRE BRETON Love in such a case would have ended long before.

JACQUES BARON Noll, what do you think of homosexuality?
MARCEL NOLL I can only talk about homosexuals. I feel nothing but a
deep, visceral antipathy to such people. There is no similarity
whatsoever between their values and mine.
JACQUES BARON Man Ray?
MAN RAY I don't see any great physical distinction between the love of
a man for a woman and homosexuality. It is the emotional ideas of
homosexuals which have always separated me from them: emotional
relations between men have always seemed to me worse than
between men and women.
RAYMOND QUENEAU I find these emotional relations equally accep-
table in both cases.
ANDRE BRETON Are you a homosexual, Queneau?
RAYMOND QUENEAU No. Can we hear Aragon's view of homo-
sexuality?
LOUIS ARAGON Homosexuality seems to me to be a sexual inclination
like any other. I don't see it as a matter for any kind of moral
condemnation, and, although I might criticise particular homosex-
uals for the same reasons I'd criticise 'ladies' men', I don't think this
is the place to do so.
JACQUES BARON I share that opinion.
MARCEL DUHAMEL I do not believe that moral viewpoints have any
place in this question. I'm generally annoyed by the external
affectations and feminine mannerisms of homosexuals. Nonetheless
I've been able to imagine without revulsion - for a short space of
time - going to bed with some young man whom I found particularly
beautiful.
JACQUES A. BOIFFARD Not all homosexuals indulge in such affec-
tations. The mannerisms of some women are more ridiculous, more
annoying, than those of some homosexuals. I absolutely do not
condemn homosexuality from a moral point of view. I too have
imagined going to bed with a man without any revulsion. Though I
haven't done it.
ANDRE BRETON I am absolutely opposed to continuing the discussion
of this subject. If this promotion of homosexuality carries on, I will
leave this meeting forthwith.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1046
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 7:28 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sodomy
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 602
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 5:25 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

No, they were ahead of their time. Plus, we are soooo surreal.
The Red Pigeon (Icarus)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Icarus

Post Number: 429
Registered: 4-2003


Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 10:39 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

We're sooooo retro!
Escapee from the drunk tank
Pataphysician (Pataphysician)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Pataphysician

Post Number: 601
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 7:49 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Uncanny. Right now I'm reading the texts of the Surrealists' "Inquiry into Sexuality" from 1928 and it's like this whole thread is torn from it's pages.
Mrs. Head (Admin)
Madame Guillotine
Username: Admin

Post Number: 1109
Registered: 1-1998


Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 6:55 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

as usual, I agree with you sir.

I'm glad you're here so I don't have to type all that.


A lady who has a secure seat is never prettier than when in the saddle, and she who cannot make her conquest there, may despair of the power of her charms elsewhere. - THE MANNERS THAT WIN, 1880

http://www.feeverte.net
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1045
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 6:54 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

There was a discussion among my friends some time ago regarding what one would do if one woke up to discover an exact duplicate of oneself sharing the bed.

Inevitably, the answer was either:

"Kill them."

or

"Fuck them."
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1044
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 6:51 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

LH and I have done this dance before. He is absolutely right that sexual preference is an artificial creation that doesn't reflect the biological realitites of human sexuality. But race, culture, nationality, religion, even government are also artificial creations, but it is foolish to pretend they don't have very real effects on the way people percieve things. While he is right on an ideal level, I am dubious that pretending that the majority perception doesn't have real effects will do anything to change those perceptions.

Back on the subject of incest, as disquieting as most people find the idea, I cannot outright condemn incestuous relationships between consenting adults on a moral level. In my mind, they fall into the same category as things like beastiality, or wanking off to pictures of a TV star to the exclusion of real interaction. These sexual practices are probably not indicative of a healthy ability to interact with other human beings, but they are not immoral, in that no people are harmed against their will.

From a structuralist perspective, the incest taboo's near-universality is explained by the fact that out-mariage was one of the most basic structures in human society, and that the alliences between families forged by exchange of children were vital to survival for much of human history. This, indeed, also explains the strength of taboos against sex outside of a mariage. However, these structures are no longer as important to the function of society as they once were, and while I doubt most people are going to start fucking their sisters, as long as both parties are willing and capable of consent, I can't say that it is wrong.

There is also some evidence of a biological foundation for the incest taboo. Some species will not mate with individuals with whom they were raised. Some will do so readily and with vigor. Where humans fall in this spectrum is unclear, but some studies, such as those of children raise communally on kibbutzim, show an innate aversion to sexual relations with those with whom we shared close quarters in childhood.

It bears mentioning that, while mainstream American values would consider sex with a cousin to be incestuous, marriage to cousins was considered acceptable, and often preferable, for most of human history.

The Red Pigeon (Icarus)
Elitist Bastard
Username: Icarus

Post Number: 428
Registered: 4-2003


Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 5:30 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I'll buy that when they are allowed to marry, adopt children, and are protected under federal civil rights laws...

Have you been to Vermont recently?
Escapee from the drunk tank
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1043
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 5:04 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

If gay sex is legal, and it is certainly legal in places like California, then nobody is imposing their sexual morality on homosexuals.



I'll buy that when they are allowed to marry, adopt children, and are protected under federal civil rights laws...
Mr. Kallisti (Head_prosthesis)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Head_prosthesis

Post Number: 3552
Registered: 1-2001


Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 12:00 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Is an organized group a result
of its individuals weaknesses?

Is it better to stand alone and
wave your flag and shake your fist?



GO LIVE !!!
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 789
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 11:31 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"It would be lovely if that were possible, if fucking could be a totally non-political activity, but as long as those in power insist upon imposing their sexual morality upon the people through political means, then sex is going to be politicized."

If gay sex is legal, and it is certainly legal in places like California, then nobody is imposing their sexual morality on homosexuals. In a free society those that believe gay sex is morally wrong are entitled to say so. If gay sex is legal and a person still feels sexual morality is being imposed on them then he/she is choosing to feel that way.

Do you really think that in somewhere like San Francisco for example that Gay Politics exist because those in power are forcibly imposing their sexual morality on gay people? Bollocks! I don't buy into all the oppressed minority stuff as a justification for the facistic positions held by certain minority groups.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page