About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well I couldn't figure out a decent thread title for this inquiry, but I think it's actually quite important. Basically, what I've always been concerned about with regard to people is the constant confluence of sexual predilections into fetishes aka paraphilias. I guess this comes from my experiences among the Furry/anthro community that I use to be party to [I still am, but mostly as a coder and designer of Furry multiuser games]. I guess consider it a problem because often I went to such multiuser games for friendship rather than a quick thrill. Granted, we humans are indeed sexual creatures, but I felt that such obsessions can be damaging to one's own life in that it takes too much time away from other things that require the time to be completed; a job, family, cleaning the house, cleaning your own damn body, and etc.

All in all, I don't think a particular liking toward an activity sexual or otherwise is inherently bad, but I do think the obsession is. What's your own takes on it?

-- Bridget

Post 1

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 11:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interesting topic. I assume furries are those people who dress up in mascot-like animal costumes? I always loved that as a pre-pubescent kid, and when I saw on TV that it was a fetish, I was not surprised. But as an adult I find that most fetishism are either unmoving or are a hamper to intimate activity. Natural furriness as a genetic mutation in humans is rare, but in Mexico, normal women find the furry boys quite attractive. More later.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 3/03, 3:11pm)


Post 2

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, furries are folks that tend to play anthropomorphic characters. It's almost like a spectrum [but a bit more complex] that can vary from cartoon characters to quasi-human animal-like creatures [like the werewolves of mythologies]. The mascot part is called fursuiting, which was too strange to me. O_O

-- Bridget

Post 3

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 2:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have encountered furries in Second Life and elsewhere -- interesting fetish though not my cup of tea.

I see fantasy role playing as basically harmless and even healthy provided it remains voluntary and respects the lives and wellness of the participants.  I include bondage and "snuffs" as part of this harmlessness within the boundaries I just named.  I do not include the psychotic desires some have literally to be killed and eaten, cases of which occasionally appear in the news.

There are dangerous borderline cases such as erotic asphyxiation that put lives in too much danger for me to label as moral.

I agree with Bridget that obsessing with a fetish leads to a lopsided life that robs its practitioner of actualizing his full potential for flourishing.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 3/03, 3:01pm)


Post 4

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 5:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     THIS is a 'sick' subject...to discuss 'publicly.' Why? The laws that presently exist; and the societal bias about the subject combined with 'anonymous' reporting to authorities. Think about it.

     Anyone who's read the news over the last decade should have some idea about the worth of publicly 'defending' ANYthing worth putting under the category of "...'X'...philia."

     If you're single, and independently (or, politically influentially) wealthy, and need a 'crusade', go for it. Else...

(So call me paranoid)
"Think Twice"
LLAP
J:D


Post 5

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 5:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     You can have a (decade ago) an 'innocent' conversation with your own kids about 'sex' (presume that I and my family are nudist-club sun-worshippers), a-n-d, nowadays, given a nosy 'neighbor's overhearing the conversation, find the police at your door in an hour.
     The subject(s) aren't sick; it's the public discussion nowadays which is...because...it's clearly dumb to do such. Unfortunately, such includes this thread.
 (So call me paranoid)
"Think Twice"
LLAP
J:D


Post 6

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Finally, re this legally-risky subject-territory...

     EVERYTHING put into all forums is accessible by authorities (we all know that, r-i-g-h-t?), ergo, whatever 'pro-con' views one has re the morality of whatever, is easily accessible by a court (we all know...etc), ergo, if you argue against-the-grain of established societally-accepted emotionally-biased established penalizing-laws, you're asking for a need for a lottery to afford the lawyers when a neighbor dislikes what you...say (ie: 'advocate').
      (So call me paranoid)
"Think Twice"
LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 3/03, 7:37pm)


Post 7

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     I do hope that I 'hijacked' this thread...to the problems of what 'laws' are already on-the-books, both Fed and State re not only supposed 'fetish' concerns, but ALL concerns about 'anonymous' reports-to-authorities.

LLAP
J:D

P.S: Don't spank your 3-yr old tantrum-thrower if you're in Toys-R-Us!


Post 8

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 6:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Dailey wrote:

So call me paranoid.

John, you're paranoid.


Post 9

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 6:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, I call thee paranoid.

After all, all the porno's I watch start with a disclaimer about how the movie is for educational purposes. This site certainly falls under that penumbrum, and we are not posting prurient images, other than, perhaps, as avatars.

If the staff of RoR objects, I am sure that all will cease and desist.

And just to make this a bit risqué, my only real fetish, until I tried it, was some minor bondage. It turned out that the cuffs just got in the way. I have had partners express an interest (Usually after they find the cuffs in bottom drawer.) I have said fine, and after the first attempt we have given up due to the lack of spontaneity and mobility. They're almost as bad as condoms.

I suppose costume fetishes may not be quite so hampering, but I don't find them at all interesting. I like my fun fervent but without verbal comments or physical props. Some of Rand's stuff is even kinky for me. Heated platinum undergarments indeed!

Ted

Pictured is the Loverboy Teddybear from Vermont Teddybears. It matches my style, with the only difference that I only wear black T-shirts, and my tattoo is a snake.

Post 10

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 7:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Ok, I accept that (disagree, but...):

     So, tell me what *you* 'think', morally, (nm 'legally') about a legal-minor 6-ft male 'seducing' a legal-adult 5-ft female into bed? Is it 'rape', or is it not? Can one be un-biased in deciding such? Is seduction itself 'rape'? The 'law's allow little (other than the  'judge's arbitrariness) discretion here, as you may know.

     Now,  add in the reverse of genders (same sizes!) as a prob-consideration for an additional follow-up 100 legal-point question.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 3/03, 7:10pm)


Post 11

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 7:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Add in, as an additional question (for 200 legal-points), should such make a worthwhile (morally OR legally) difference if one of their birthdays was last week AND the other's was next week? (Actually, if you find a difference, this is 2 questions.)

     Finally, for the Bonus kicker: if both were 14 (both 'legal'-minors), should either (or, more legally apropos: their parents/guardians [unless they're DCYS, of course]) be legally held accountable for...anything (other than 'she' becomes pregnant)?

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 3/03, 7:13pm)


Post 12

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 7:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     I do hope that we're all keeping in mind here that what we, here,  publicly  'advocate' as morally allowable re legal-minors (most prefer to use the terms 'children' or 'kids'), we are advocating that *we* would DO/ALLOW such, re our own...legal-minors. --- See my, paranoid moi, 1st posts here.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 3/03, 7:33pm)


Post 13

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 7:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John...

Where did anyone talk about these activities concerning children?
 
As far as I can tell, the discussion is about what some adults may or may not be into, and as far as I know...none of it is illegal. Weird, sure, but not illegal.

Did I miss something?

Erica


Post 14

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 7:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not to mention the fact, John, that for every fetish in the universe, there are several websites dedicated to its fans/adherents/followers, whatever. (Including the obviously illegal activities.)

I have to believe that the Feds would have their hands full "cracking down" on the sites of actual people involved in these activities (if they were advocating anything illegal). 
A site such as this one, obviously dedicated to intellectual philosophical discourse, and merely featuring one thread where people happen to be discussing the phenomenon of fetishes, and their effect on people's lives, would have to be at the bottom of the list of "scary" sites that need to be shut down.

Why are you so worried, John?

Erica


Post 15

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, where did the age of consent come in? My personal view is that minors under 18 may consent to have sex with minors and others within a certain range (it was two years in NJ when I was growing up, something I looked up, because a girlfriend of mine was 17 while I was 19) and that seems a reasonable legal structure to me. I will not argue ages here, I'd rather pay prurient legislators to engage in such arcane matters, subject to the public will. Mary-Kaye is still married, is she not?

Ted Keer

Erica, did you mean "Why are you so worried, John?"

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 3/03, 7:47pm)


Post 16

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 7:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

To put aside any worries, my reference to liking animal costumes as a kid meant only that. I did not have sex until, well, later... and no costumes or unconsenting minors have ever been involved.

Ted

Post 17

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erica:
     I only used the term 'children' as an example of how others viewed what I was specifying -> Legally-Defined 'Minors.' I don't consider most 17-yr olds as 'children', contra the 'Law'. My point therein was how such a legal term can be so (as you show) mis-interpretable to be regarded as speaking ONLY about...eh-h-h...'youngsters' (or, whatever easily Rorschached extreme; can we say infants?) I clarified this prob, I thought, sticking to the only legally apropos term: Legal Minor.---I stressed this aspect because the whole thread was started on 'fetish.' Like, there's no OTHER 'illegal' fetishes which one should be concerned with...talking about?

LLAP
J:D


Post 18

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the only person creating a problem here is John Dailey as he is the one dragging children into this discussion.

As an aside, this would not be the first time we have discussed on this site the moral and legal implications, philosophically, of sex between minors and minors or between minors and adults.  We had quite a heated exchange about this in the discussion of Adam Reed's autobiographical article "When I First Became a Criminal" with me questioning the wisdom of minors having sex with anyone.  I caught quite a bit of flak from others for even asking the question.

The bottom line:

A philosophical forum needs to be able to address all possible questions, including sexual ethics, without necessarily advocating a particularly activist stance in favor of illegal activities.  A philosophy can say what the law ought to be without necessarily saying that people ought to violate the current law.


Post 19

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Ok: apparently I 'mis'-hijacked.

     No more about...uh, umm...children/kids/infants/rugrats/teen-agers/'legal-minors'...and/or any 'legal' concerns about what *we* would/should 'allow' behaviourally/discussionarally therein.

     Let's talk about the really good stuff.  REAL 'fetishes.' -> Anyone seen Cronenberg's '97 car-crumpling orgasmic CRASH ( Spader, Winona and Arquette) or Lynch's '93 foreplay-filled amputee-fantasy BOXING HELENA (Sands and Fenn)?

LLAP
J:D


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.