AronRa: "healthy sex should be between equals". Discuss.

[Vivre]

Dear fellow-human pookylies,

what on planet earth is your problem?

You have free internet-access, you are a guest and member on this board, you are free to speak your mind on any topic or ask for dialoge on any issue (regarding the specific theme-boundaries). You can be female or trans-sexual, vegan, ornithologist or whatnot without being accused for it.
Nobody from this side tried or tries to threaten you or your life or your believes - you can be and stay what you are.

You don't have a single quantum of reason to be unfair, pretentious or impolite in any way - but you are requested to grant all the received benefits towards anybody you meet on this platform.

Please give it a decent thought

~ Vivre

 

[pookylies]

Dear fellow-human pookylies,

what on planet earth is your problem?

You have free internet-access, you are a guest and member on this board, you are free to speak your mind on any topic or ask for dialoge on any issue (regarding the specific theme-boundaries). You can be female or trans-sexual, vegan, ornithologist or whatnot without being accused for it.
Nobody from this side tried or tries to threaten you or your life or your believes - you can be and stay what you are.

You don't have a single quantum of reason to be unfair, pretentious or impolite in any way - but you are requested to grant all the received benefits towards anybody you meet on this platform.

Please give it a decent thought

~ Vivre

Vivre, if you can rephrase your comment into a more direct question, or highlight where you think I've been unfair, I will do my best to answer.
Pooks

 

[Prolescum]

Perhaps the kids consented non-verbally. :roll:

And there we have it ladies and gentleman. A joke about child rape.

I realise that you have extreme difficulty with subtlety, so I'll just laugh at your inability to recognise the focus of that joke. Oh wait, it isn't subtle, it's entirely transparent. Which speaks volumes, I suppose.

Save your righteous indignation, it rings hollow given the source. Perhaps your delicate sensibilities aren't best served online. I assure you worse exists that a flippant remark.

You banned me for correcting grammar and asking the 'biddly biddly bong' question. But don't sweat it, if you don't ban me again, I won't make a big deal about it.

He temp-banned you for trolling this board, which you tried to circumvent several times. You then received a second temp-ban for trolling this board from me. Perhaps you're incredibly thick, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt so I'll assume your trolling is deliberate. Your peers gather here, and I would think they now miss, what I presume you believe to be, your "wit".

Well I'll certainly sleep better tonight now you've clarified that.

You're actually OK. In fact, I now officially prefer you to Prolescum (from now on known as 'the loser').

...aaand good night.

 

[ArloLab]

I agree with AronRa that in a healthy sexual relationship, the two parties involved should be roughly equal. I use the term "roughly" because exact equality is simply asking too much. There are clear physiological and possibly psychological differences between the average man and the average woman, and while they aren't at all relevant to matters of policy or law, and individual variation is far more important in determining how we treat others, the fact remains that no sexual relationship is really between equals. For example, on average, males have more libido year round (among domesticated mammals) and females have more of a rhythm to when they are receptive to sexual advances (though of course there are exceptions).

What we're looking for in a relationship isn't really equality; it's compatibility, or the ability to have a mutually beneficial relationship with another creature. The human relationship with the various domesticated species is more or less beneficial not only to people but to the animals as well, and particularly so in a good "pet/master" relationship. In terms of sexuality, I would define compatibility in the following way (although we can of course add to this definition if it's insufficient to describe what I'm talking about.

• Both parties must individually be capable of having sexual desires for each other.
• Both parties must be able to communicate such desires or the lack thereof to each other.
• Both parties must be willing, when the other is not receptive to sexual advances, to stop making sexual advances and move on to some other activity.

It is clear that human beings have all three of these, and that the absence of any one of them clearly makes it impossible for consensual sex to occur. Other species,
particularly socialized species like dogs and horses, are capable of all three among themselves. Now if both humans and other species can do this within their own species, there is no reason that they cannot do the same with each other, particularly if the human learns what signals the animal uses to indicate this and behaves similarly. Because many animals (males especially) aren't especially choosy about their mates, being sexual opportunists, and will through their actions communicate this to anyone willing to listen, humans included, unless specifically trained or physically altered to prevent this behavior. Given that this behavior occurs, which is the more beneficial reaction to both parties; to deny that the sexual urge exists in these creatures and try to suppress it for personal convenience, or to allow a mutally pleasurable relationship to develop one step further into a sexual one?

 

[Nemesiah]

About the arbitrary rules we use to say who can have sex with whom



I believe we (as a society, shall I say western society) should start coming up with better rules for this, preferably ones not based on arcaic superstition.