Fin Fang Foom has now seen it all.........

[Guest TruthTeller]

>And until

>someone can give me a rational, cogent reason why it's not

>deviant, I'm gonna hold firm with my opinion that it's

>twisted.

 

Other than heterosexual intercourse to ejaculation for couples with the potential to conceive -- which can, at least, result in conception -- there is no "rational, cogent reason" why any form of sexual activity between consenting adults is or is not "twisted." There is no "rational, cogent reason" possible for believing that whatever form of gay sex you like to engage in is any more or less "twisted" than his attraction to enlarged balls. All you can do is that one is more common. Sexual activities, by their nature, evade comparisions on the basis of "rational, cogent reasons."

 

You think that by repeating that you are operating on the basis of "rational, cogent reasons" that people will overlook the fact that you have none. All you have is your little personal preferences, which -- as all petty people do -- you're eager to convert into universal truths. EVERYTHING you just said to mark is what 95% (AT LEAST) of the world's population believes about men who like to suck the dicks of other men.

 

>We have tried to convince the straight world that being gay

>is perfectly normal - that it is not something sick and

>deviant.

 

You may have tried to "convince" the straight world of this. But most gay people have merely tried to make people see that one's sexual preferences - provided it entails sex with other consenting adults - is not a grounds for condemnation, ridicule, or punishment. Given your posts to mark, it's obvious that - except as it benefits you - this is a principle that you've yet to learn.

[Boston Guy]

A possible exception to what you have stated above might be sexual activities that result in physical harm to one or both parties.

 

A while back, there was another thead (I thought here; perhaps it was at Atkol) about guys who greatly increased the size of their scrotums through the injection of saline. I have no idea whether this procedure is potentially harmful or not.

 

But a reasonably strong case can be made for discouraging activities that are physically harmful. What form that discouragement can or should take is a topic for a different discussion.

[phage]

I think gay men often take the fact that it is generally not considered desirable to be a judgmental person to the extreme of not making any judgements about anything of a sexual nature. As you pointed out, this doesn’t make any sense. Would anyone deny our ability (right?) to make a judgement about necrophilia and say that it is not good for a guy to go around boinking corpses – even male corpses? Once you concede that there are certain things that obviously aren’t good (your shit eating example is right up there in my book)…it’s just a matter of degree after that.

 

I can’t quite buy TT’s argument that you can’t apply any form of rational, cogent reason to determine that one form of sexual behavior is more “twisted” than another. If that’s the case, why do people always throw in the disclaimer “between consenting adults”? Obviously, it is unacceptable to have sex with children, but why is that “attraction” any more twisted than wanting someone to shit in your mouth? If we can apply reason to that situation…why not others?

 

This doesn’t negate the point that TT and Mark are trying to make about not necessarily being able to explain ones sexual interests and attractions. (Although Mark tied that to being “open minded” and, in my mind, these are two unrelated concepts.) There are obviously certain things that float our boat and we probably can’t explain why. I’m fascinated by a particular part of a man’s body (no, not the obvious one) and I have no idea why. However, there are other things that arouse me that I could explain pretty well.

 

Whether I would explain it or not is another matter. There’s nothing wrong with intellectual curiosity. Many people are curious about why certain things turn on certain people, but it’s a difficult question to ask. If you’re going to ask it, you have to at least temporarily suspend judgement if you expect the person to give you an honest answer.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I think gay men often take the fact that it is generally not

>considered desirable to be a judgmental person to the

>extreme of not making any judgements about

>anything of a sexual nature.

 

At least for me, the issue has nothing to do with my sexual orientation. It has to do with the nature of rational judgments and sexual acts between consenting adults, and the utter incompatibility between those two things.

 

Reason is different than popularity. Things that are unpopular (such as enlarged balls today or, 20 years ago, homosexuality) will seem, by virtue of their unpopularity, to lack reason or be "twisted," but the two are not the same. My point is that nobody can offer a reason-based argument as to why one sexual act between consenting adults is any better than any other sexual act or is any less "twisted" -- with the exception of heterosexual intercourse to ejaculation among couples capable of conception (and, as BG pointed out, the possible exception of an act which results in physical harm).

 

>As you pointed out,

>this doesn’t make any sense. Would anyone deny our ability

>(right?) to make a judgement about necrophilia and say that

>it is not good for a guy to go around boinking corpses –

>even male corpses? Once you concede that there are certain

>things that obviously aren’t good (your shit eating example

>is right up there in my book)…it’s just a matter of degree

>after that.

 

If you assume that a corpse is just an object with no more value than, say, a chair, what is the reason-based argument that fucking a corpse is worse than ejaculating by rubbing your dick against a chair?

 

If you assume that a corpse has more value because it's human, then it would just mean that you see this act as entailing an element of non-consent, which makes the example irrelevant.

 

>I can’t quite buy TT’s argument that you can’t apply any

>form of rational, cogent reason to determine that one form

>of sexual behavior is more “twisted” than another. If

>that’s the case, why do people always throw in the

>disclaimer “between consenting adults”? Obviously, it is

>unacceptable to have sex with children, but why is that

>“attraction” any more twisted than wanting someone to shit

>in your mouth?

 

You misstated my argument in order to make your point. The argument is NOT that there is no ground for judgment between sexual acts of any kind. Obviously, you can condemn a sexual act which results in the deliberate death of a non-consenting adult. The argument is that there is no ground for judgment among sexual acts between consenting adults . That obviously excludes sex with children, who are too young to consent.

 

> I’m

>fascinated by a particular part of a man’s body (no, not the

>obvious one) and I have no idea why. However, there are

>other things that arouse me that I could explain pretty

>well.

 

If you want to reveal which body part, please give a "cogent, reasoned argument" why sex involving that body part is less "twisted" than Mark's attraction to enlarged balls? You can do so generically without revealing the specific body part (i.e., use foot fetishes).

 

Please give a reasoned, cogent argument why one man licking another man's asshole is something other than "twisted". Please tell me, from a reason-based perspective, why having a guy piss on you is just fine, but enlarging your balls isn't.

 

This is all utter nonsense. Sexual acts which: (a) involve consenting adults; and (b) do not result in procreation are, as a matter of REASON, completely indistinguishable. Some are more asthetically attractive to large numbers of people. Some are asthetically revolting to large numbers of people. But they can NEVER be distinguished beyond the asthetic (i.e. personal preference) realm.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>A possible exception to what you have stated above might be

>sexual activities that result in physical harm to one or

>both parties.

 

I see the argument, but I ultimately don't accept it. There are all kinds of things that people do which potentially harm themselves -- skydiving, mountain climbing, skiing, drinking alcohol, eating poorly, not exercising. Adults have the right to take risks for themselves and decide for themselves what level of risk they're willing to take in order to obtain some pleasure.

 

As a matter of REASON, I don't think the fact that a voluntary sexual act chosen by a consenting adult results in some self-inflicted harm renders the act worse than one that doesn't result in such harm. Some people even LIKE the harm, and strive for it.

 

But, as I know you already know, this was not FFF's point. He wasn't condemning the attraction to enlarged testicles because he thought it was harmful (and the person who is attracted to the enlarged balls certainly couldn't be hurt by it). He was condemning it only because it was disgusting to him.

[phage]

>At least for me, the issue has nothing to do with my sexual

>orientation. It has to do with the nature of rational

>judgments and sexual acts between consenting adults,

>and the utter incompatibility between those two things.

 

I hate to keep mentioning “between consenting adults” because it’s just a matter of time before someone pulls the “child molester” card – not you – but it’s bound to come up. However, I am not talking about the actual sex act, because we accept the child’s lack of consent as the end of the argument. I’m talking about the root attraction. As a society – straight and gay – we make the judgement that the attraction itself is a sign of sickness. It follows that we are able to make this same judgement about other attractions and sex acts.

 

>My point is that nobody can offer a

>reason-based argument as to why one sexual act

>between consenting adults is any better than any other

>sexual act or is any less "twisted" -- with the exception of

>heterosexual intercourse to ejaculation among couples

>capable of conception

 

You keep stating that the only reason-based argument for having sex is to procreate. I would argue that there are rational reasons for having sex that are related to pair bonding. Admittedly, this isn’t why many (most) of us are doing it, but it still makes room for sex acts that are rational without having anything to do with procreation.

 

>If you assume that a corpse is just an object with no more

>value than, say, a chair, what is the reason-based

>argument that fucking a corpse is worse than ejaculating

>by rubbing your dick against a chair?

>

>If you assume that a corpse has more value because it's

>human, then it would just mean that you see this act as

>entailing an element of non-consent, which makes the example

>irrelevant.

 

I never thought I’d have to explain why having sex with a corpse is depraved. (You certainly are committed to the principal that almost anything goes.) I think this is another case where it is clearly a sign of a sickness. Even if the deceased left a will clearly giving so-and-so permission to roll him over and bang him until he decomposed…it would take a sick individual to find this appealing.

 

>You misstated my argument in order to make your point. The

>argument is NOT that there is no ground for judgment between

>sexual acts of any kind. Obviously, you can condemn a

>sexual act which results in the deliberate death of a

>non-consenting adult. The argument is that there is no

>ground for judgment among sexual acts between consenting

>adults . That obviously excludes sex with children, who

>are too young to consent.

 

So does this only apply to the actual act? What about the people who find it arousing, but don’t act on it? We were, after all, talking about the nature of attraction and desire.

 

>> I’m

>>fascinated by a particular part of a man’s body (no, not the

>>obvious one) and I have no idea why. However, there are

>>other things that arouse me that I could explain pretty

>>well.

>

>If you want to reveal which body part, please give a

>"cogent, reasoned argument" why sex involving that body part

>is less "twisted" than Mark's attraction to enlarged balls?

>You can do so generically without revealing the specific

>body part (i.e., use foot fetishes).

 

I said I don’t know why, but I can still explain what I like about it – not that it would be “cogent and reasoned”. It’s not a big deal. It’s the small of the back. I love the way it comes together at the hips. How it is the narrowest part of a well shaped man. I love the curve just as it goes from back to ass. I love the small tuft of hair that is often there.

 

Okay, nothing cogent, but those are the things I like. Mark seemed unable, or more likely, unwilling, to explain that much. I actually don’t have a problem with that. I accept that the whole issue is mostly aesthetic and certainly respect his right not to justify his desires. However, I don’t agree that we can’t make judgements about the relative “twisted” nature of certain attractions and behaviors.

[Guest TruthTeller]

> However, I am not talking about the actual sex act, because

>we accept the child’s lack of consent as the end of the

>argument. I’m talking about the root attraction. As a

>society – straight and gay – we make the judgement that the

>attraction itself is a sign of sickness.

 

I don't think there's any reason-based way for saying that a desire to lick a guy's asshole or be chained up and be his slave or wallow in his piss or fuck his mouth is less "sick" or less "twisted" than a desire to have sex with a child or the sexual desire to beat somoene. If someone acts on the child attraction, then it certainly can be justifiably condemned, but mere sexual desire cannot possibly be subject to this sort of "better-worse" or "healthy-sick" assessment. If it can be, what's the criteria to be used?

 

>You keep stating that the only reason-based argument for

>having sex is to procreate. I would argue that there are

>rational reasons for having sex that are related to pair

>bonding.

 

Yes - there are lots of reasons to have sex: procreation, bonding, pleasure, relaxation, distraction. But, once you move beyond procreation, there's no reasoned way of distinguishing between the various kinds of sexual acts or the sexual desires in terms of "sick" or "twisted".

 

>I never thought I’d have to explain why having sex with a

>corpse is depraved. (You certainly are committed to the

>principal that almost anything goes.) I think this is

>another case where it is clearly a sign of a sickness.

 

Listen to how you're speaking. You say "I never thought I'd have to explain" and "this is another case where it is clearly a sign of sickness." All you're doing is decreeing it to be so, without giving any reasons why it is. This whole discussion began when FFF demanded a "cogent, reasoned argument" why attraction to large balls isn't sick, and I said there were no such arguments possible for why a sexual desire is or is not sick.

 

Your "it-just-is-so" proclamation for why attraction to corpses is sick illustrates what I was saying. What's the reason why it is "sick"?

 

>Even

>if the deceased left a will clearly giving so-and-so

>permission to roll him over and bang him until he

>decomposed…it would take a sick individual to find this

>appealing.

 

Why? Why is it sicker to want to have sex with a corpse than it is to rub your dick against a piece of furniture and ejaculate or to want to lick a guy's asshole?

 

>I said I don’t know why, but I can still explain what

>I like about it – not that it would be “cogent and

>reasoned”. It’s not a big deal. It’s the small of the

>back. I love the way it comes together at the hips. How it

>is the narrowest part of a well shaped man. I love the

>curve just as it goes from back to ass. I love the small

>tuft of hair that is often there.

 

I'm sure Mark could give totally equivalent explantaions about why he finds enlarged balls attractive - maybe it's the pronounced sense of masculinity, maybe it's the feel of it in his hands, maybe it's akin to straight men who find it attractive when a woman's breast swells during pregnancy. Whatever the reason, while you can perhaps explain attraction in terms of root causes, it is impossible to find a reasoned way of arguing that your attraction to the back is less sick or twisted than Mark's attraction to enlarged balls.

 

>However, I

>don’t agree that we can’t make judgements about the relative

>“twisted” nature of certain attractions and behaviors.

 

Please - tell me what the basis for such a judgment is.

[Boston Guy]

It seems like there are three different sides to this: (a) why someone feels a particular sexual attraction or compulsion; (b) whether that attraction is healthy or not; and © whether other people (or even society in general) should condemn it or not.

 

I think I agree that it would be pretty much impossible for most of us to say why we feel a particular sexual attraction. Sometimes there's something we can point to as the beginning of an attraction, but most of the time we just feel what we feel. Consequently, to address © above, I think we should try very hard to not condemn other people for what they feel.

 

However, I'm not persuaded that there is never a time when we can provide a reason-based argument for judging whether or not a sexual attraction is healthy. I know that this is a slippery slope but I'm uncomfortable sliding all the way down the slope and saying that it's just not possible to make judgments.

 

Both as individuals and collectively as a society we make judgments about the "goodness" of all kinds of things and we're comfortable doing so. We could start analyzing different situations where judgment comes into play and make arguments why those judgments shouldn't be valid, but in the end I believe that the ability to make these kinds of judgments is a good thing and something that is necessary if society is going to be able to function at all. In fact, one of the reasons we make distinctions between adults and children is that we (correctly, I think) judge that children are not yet capable of making solid judgments for themselves.

 

Having considered this, I cannot think of a persuasive reason why sexual practices should be any different than any other kind of human behavior or should enjoy a special exemption from judgment. But since we don't really understand the nature of sexual compulsion or the source of it and we don't seem to be able to control it much, we should lean in the direction of being as liberal as possible.

 

So on what basis can or should we judge a particular sexual desire? You have made a distinction between feeling the desire and acting on it. I think that's a fine start.

 

But, having considered this for a while, I think there are other criteria that could be used as well. For example, as a society, we enact laws to that are designed to allow us to live together peacefully. There's a tension between individual freedom and the need of society to have some kind of peace and order. The criminal code is created for this purpose.

 

If we concentrate only on acts, as opposed to desires, I think there are good reasons why certain sexual acts should be judged as less good than others. For example, sexual acts that cause harm to one or both partners are not good, in my book. That's my judgment and it's not necessarily the same as anyone else's or even society's. But it's based on reason: I view the trade-off between the enjoyment of a particular sexual act and personal harm, especially grave personal harm, to be a poor one. It's exactly the basis on which I believe that gay men shouldn't bareback -- I've seen what HIV can do to a person, I don't think we should encourage practices that can easily result in lives being foreshortened by decades, there's often a great cost to society to support and care for a new HIV case, etc. So I don't think the decision made by an individual to bareback because he wants that additional pleasure is a good one. The potential return is way too small compared to the potential harm or cost.

 

Criteria that I think can and probably should come into creating a reason-based case why certain sexual acts are not as healthy as others include: harm to oneself; harm to one's partner or another person; and harm to society.

 

I do think there's merit to your argument about consenting adults. But that's another slippery slope and I'm not comfortable saying that two consenting adults should be free to engage in any sexual practice, especially since one partner is often considerably less consenting than the other. To create a bizarre example, suppose two consenting adults had a desire to experience having sex in a fire and ended up burning themselves to death. I would argue that we could properly judge that to be an unhealthy desire and an unhealthy act, using the same criteria we use to judge suicide.

 

I'm not sure where I would draw the lines and perhaps that is part of your argument. I'm not even sure who should draw the lines. I don't think that sexual desires should be dismissed simply because they are different. But sexual desires or acts that are harmful are a different story.

 

Which leads me to the question of someone who is undergoing psychological treatment. Suppose the caregiver finds out that the person has a sexual desire that is somehow preventing the person from functioning or simply being happy. Should the caregiver try to help the person channel the desire into a "healthier" path?

 

BG

 

ps: I hope the above makes some kind of sense. I'm still trying to wake up. :-)

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

OK. My intial question has been lost in the, surprisingly, relatively-adult dicussion here. Also, my question seems to have been misunderstood. My "why" question wasn't so much about why are you attracted to freak-a-zoid balls but rather why would you actually DO that to yourself. I understand that the mechanics of attraction are often vague but to take the next step and actually DO something like that to oneself is another matter entirely. THAT'S the real "why" question.

 

It's been asked why do guys like having their assholes licked? DUH! It feels good! However, at some point, you want someone to get their tongue out of your ass so you can move on to other things in your life. If you were to have your balls enlarged to Pamela Anderson tits proportions you're stuck with them like that. If you're sitting in a meeting you've got a grain sack in your lap. If you're running to get out of the rain, you're carrying groceries in your pants. WHY would you want something like that hanging off of you CONSTANTLY!?!?!?! THAT'S what I don't get! If someone were to say "it's erotic and I like the feeling of them down there all the time" I would say you're sick because no one should be focused on their genitals every waking moment. Sex is great but there are OTHER things in life.

 

So, let me rephrase the question and see if I can get an answer and let others be the judge as to if it's cogent and rational......

 

Why would you enlarge your scrotum to the size of a basketball, knowing, that in at least the short term, it would be permanent?

 

Patiently yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Mark]

I'm only unwilling or unable to explain my attraction to this because 1) It's very complicated and I don't feel like taking the time, and 2) I've explained it to hundreds, if not thousands of people, and I've grown terribly weary of feeling like I have to justify and rationalize my interests over and over again.

 

Many people do "get it," however. I've learned that if a person doesn't find it at least slightly interesting on first sight, they'll probably never understand.

 

I do go out nude in public from time to time in San Francisco, when it's acceptable. (street fairs, nude beaches, etc.) I get attention from at least 90% of the people who pass me by--and I love it! Some of them come right up to me and want to talk, feel it, talk about it, others stand back for a few minutes and stare...and yes, some people see it, and immediately are repulsed and have to walk away. That's actually great--again, I enjoy all of the reactions.

 

Berating a person for their sexual interests is childish, in my opinion. I've given out the Yahoo Group address above for FFF and others to learn a little about it. He's welcome to join anytime, but I have a feeling he'll never find it normal, or acceptable, and that's okay.

 

TruthTeller: I'm with you 100%!

 

Mark :+

[Boston Guy]

FFF:

 

I cannot remember if the original thread that I saw on this subject was here or at Atkol. But it showed guys with remarkably distended scrotums, who had injected sterile saline to achieve this effect.

 

The effect was temporary, since the body would absorb the saline over the course of a couple of days.

 

I've been assuming that's what we have been looking at here as well, but I will admit that I didn't bother chasing down the details this time.

 

BG

[Guest TruthTeller]

>My "why" question wasn't so much

>about why are you attracted to freak-a-zoid balls but rather

>why would you actually DO that to yourself. I understand

>that the mechanics of attraction are often vague but to take

>the next step and actually DO something like that to oneself

>is another matter entirely. THAT'S the real "why" question.

 

I don't see the confusion here, honestly. Personally I would not want to enlarge my balls to that size (or at all), and suspect that it does get uncomfortable and difficult to manage. But I also would not want to pierce my dick, tongue or eyebrows; get a tattoo; have my hair cut into a mohawk; or develop unusually huge, bulging muscles -- all of those things would also be disruptive and uncomfortable in one way or another.

 

But a lot of people do these things, and the answer as to why is, I think, obvious: because they feel pleasure or arousal from doing them - probably substantial pleasure and arousal - and that pleasure outweighs the cost, pain or inconvenience of doing it. That's the same reason, I presume, for people who enlarge their balls (which I'm certain is temporary, not permanent) or, for that matter, for people who lick assholes.

 

I just don't see how enlarging your balls for sexual pleasure is any different than piercings, tattoos, unusual haircuts, etc. I also don't see how it's different than licking a guy's asshole. You said the reason that you do that is because it feels good and is arousing. That's why they enlarge their balls. How could one be perfectly fine and normal and the other be twisted, sick and wrong? They're motivated by the exact same desires and calculations, and have no material differences.

[Guest Mark]

FFF:

 

Here's my reason for permanently (yes, permanently) enlarging my scrotum with silicone (yes, silicone):

 

"it's erotic and I like the feeling of them down there all the time"

 

Mark :+

[phage]

I will acknowledge that this thread is way off track and this has nothing to do with FFF’s actual inquiry, but that’s the nature of the beast. I also apologize to Mark for dragging him into this and talking about him in a previous post like he wasn’t in the room. To be perfectly honest, I’m neither concerned or even particularly interested in enlarged scrotums. As Mark said, you either get it or you don’t.

 

>I don't think there's any reason-based way for saying that a

>desire to lick a guy's asshole or be chained up and be his

>slave or wallow in his piss or fuck his mouth is less "sick"

>or less "twisted" than a desire to have sex with a

>child or the sexual desire to beat somoene. If

>someone acts on the child attraction, then it certainly can

>be justifiably condemned, but mere sexual desire cannot

>possibly be subject to this sort of "better-worse" or

>"healthy-sick" assessment. If it can be, what's the

>criteria to be used?

 

I will concede that I would not be a good candidate for coming up with reasonable, generally accepted criteria (isn’t that the basis for most values and norms?) My tastes are extremely vanilla. My own mother has accused me of being the “straightest” gay person she’s ever known, but that’s another story.

 

I know that your opinions have nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Based on past conversations, you seem like a staunch libertarian and this is a consistent viewpoint for you. However, I believe that many gay men are hypersensitive to being judged by straight society. That is why we frequently hear guys at the message center say they are “shocked” that other gay men are being so judgmental. Rather than expressing a libertarian view of life, I believe they are expressing a fear of being judged themselves. I can’t agree that just because I have sex with men, every conceivable sex act must be accepted as beyond judgement.

 

Taking this to an extreme…what about a person who fantasizes about torturing someone? Never mind that they don’t act on the impulse. Wouldn’t you agree that this is a sign of a sick and deviant mind? Someone who has been damaged in some way?

 

>Your "it-just-is-so" proclamation for why attraction to

>corpses is sick illustrates what I was saying. What's the

>reason why it is "sick"?

 

>Why? Why is it sicker to want to have sex with a corpse

>than it is to rub your dick against a piece of furniture and

>ejaculate or to want to lick a guy's asshole?

 

It’s an indication of a disturbed and broken mind. Either the person is stimulated by cold, dead, rotting objects; they loathe themselves so much they can’t be intimate with an actual person; or possibly a dozen other “issues” that all indicate a damaged mind. Can you think of a good or healthy reason for this type of attraction?

 

I understand what you are saying, but it seems similar to the way that some people take political correctness too far. As BG said…why should sexual activity be exempted from judgement?

 

>Whatever the reason, while you can perhaps explain

>attraction in terms of root causes, it is impossible to find

>a reasoned way of arguing that your attraction to the back

>is less sick or twisted than Mark's attraction to enlarged

>balls.

 

Are values and judgements about worth always based on reason? I’m still thinking this through and don’t have an answer myself.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>It seems like there are three different sides to this: (a)

>why someone feels a particular sexual attraction or

>compulsion; (b) whether that attraction is healthy or not;

>and © whether other people (or even society in general)

>should condemn it or not.

 

You set forth possible bases for judging sexual acts to be potentially unhealthy or discouarged - e.g.. they harm the participants or the society. But do you think that sexual desires, absent act, can or should be described as "sick" or otherwise discouraged?

 

>In fact,

>one of the reasons we make distinctions between adults and

>children is that we (correctly, I think) judge that children

>are not yet capable of making solid judgments for

>themselves.

 

Right - the only reason-based argument against child molestation is that it inherently involves coercion, because children can't exercise meaningful consent. But all adults (absent severe retardation or some other physical incapacity) are capable of consent. The reason why this distinction is so crucial is because there's a realm of conduct - where adults act consensually and do not harm others without their consent - that should be for adults to do whatever they want. That's one of the defining perogatives of being adult - you can make whatever decisions you want for your own life as long as it doesn't directly harm others.

 

>Having considered this, I cannot think of a persuasive

>reason why sexual practices should be any different than any

>other kind of human behavior or should enjoy a special

>exemption from judgment. But since we don't really

>understand the nature of sexual compulsion or the source of

>it and we don't seem to be able to control it much, we

>should lean in the direction of being as liberal as

>possible.

 

I agree that sexual acts aren't different - they're just like any other act engaged in by a consenting adult which doesn't directly harm others against their will. Such acts are none of our business, and there is no legitimate ground for interfering with them or prohibiting them.

 

>But, having considered this for a while, I think there are

>other criteria that could be used as well. For example, as

>a society, we enact laws to that are designed to allow us to

>live together peacefully. There's a tension between

>individual freedom and the need of society to have some kind

>of peace and order. The criminal code is created for this

>purpose.

 

But legitimately, the criminal code can only proscribe conduct that directly harms others. That's why laws criminalizing homosexuality, gambling, prostitution, etc. are so indefensible.

 

>If we concentrate only on acts, as opposed to desires, I

>think there are good reasons why certain sexual acts should

>be judged as less good than others. For example, sexual

>acts that cause harm to one or both partners are not good,

>in my book.

 

Why do you say this? A huge variety of activities that we don't normally consider "bad" - skiing, skydiving, mountain climbing, etc. - entail risk of bodily harm. Are those bad? If not, why are sexual acts that entail risk of bodily harm any different?

 

>That's my judgment and it's not necessarily the

>same as anyone else's or even society's. But it's based on

>reason: I view the trade-off between the enjoyment of a

>particular sexual act and personal harm, especially grave

>personal harm, to be a poor one.

 

Exactly - so this means you shouldn't engage in the activities that you consider bad. But, as you point out, ultimately it's just a risk-benefit analysis: are the risks of the harm worth taking in light of the benefits? Why, just because you come out with one answer, should that translate into the same outcome for others?

 

If the pleasure or fulfilment factor is high enough for someone, then they will decide that the risk is worth taking. How can that analysis ever be "bad"?

 

>The potential return is way too small compared to the

>potential harm or cost.

 

Mabye the potential return for you is too small, but not for them. Maybe they see it as the only way to achieve intimiacy and so the risk is worth it.

 

>Criteria that I think can and probably should come into

>creating a reason-based case why certain sexual acts are not

>as healthy as others include: harm to oneself; harm to

>one's partner or another person; and harm to society.

 

Do you mean inevitable, certain harm to oneself or any risk of harm? Do you mean small injuries or severe, life-threatening ones? I think that all sex acts - like crossing the street - entails risk of harm. Each of us judges for ourselves how to weigh risks versus benefits, and I can't think of anyway to translate my own analysis into a universal one.

[Guest cp8036]

<...that in at least the short term, it would be permanent?...>

 

Is it me, or does that statement contradict itself?

[Guest DCescortBOY]

you are VILE! it was fabulous! keep it coming!

[Donnie]

>Here's my reason for permanently (yes, permanently)

>enlarging my scrotum with silicone (yes, silicone)

 

Did you ever see the Lifetime biography of Jenny Jones? She got silicone breast implants to please her father (yeah) which later leaked and it was life threatening since they were toxic. Is this the same type of silicone, I wonder? I worry for Mark's balls, in that case. But I of course agree 100% with him and with TruthTeller. I just hope they don't leak. But if they do, Mark can go on Jenny Jones and commiserate.