My question is about masturbation as i find is my weakest link, specially regarding the argument that masturbating thinking in women or with images of women is degrading to them by converting them into a sex object. Argument to  which i hypocritically agree. My questions are, is this argument reasonable? are there other ways to approach that action? Is there a proper rebuttal besides the slippery-slope of "If it is not with woman, guys will start looking for pictures of animals or ..."?

Tags: Argument, Christianity, Religion, Sex, question

Views: 1397

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

At this point, I think we are hijacking the conversation away from the author's original intent, which is masturbation, not bestiality. 

If you'd like to introduce a post on why you support or participate in bestiality, I'd be happy to meet you over there, Cesar Millan. 

This is a reply to Misty, replying to SH as the reply bottom is gone in her post.


After reading my post, i recognize that what it says isn't what was on my mind, very poor wording and no proof reading :P. My intent was that when i'm told "You shouldn't masturbate becuase it denigrates women" I reply with the slippery slope "If i don't wank off with women, what should i use? animals?" They are taken off hand, so the situation is either ignored, drastically change or sligthly change. NOT that i practice, endorse, or wank of to bestuality in any shape or form.

Unseen, People who use "beasts of burden" (who gets to dsesignate them such?) are people who exploit animals.  Unfortunately, that is still the norm everywhere, not just in third world countries.  Let's get back to discussing HUMAN sexuallity, or you will be responsible for unleashing  VEGAN  incursion into this thread.  The "standard" you refer to is veganism.  John Jon wants to talk about sex.

Well...ok.  Good point.  Buuuuuut, Unseen made a good point below and I think you failed to justify pet ownership :)  

 

All sex with animals is rape.  It is still rape when a man is raped, even if he gets an erection.  So, a physical, sexual response does not negate the fact that the individual did not/could not give consent. 

You people and your meaningless consent babble. How do you manage to bring up "consent" up as an issue in every discussion? Did you ask for your pets' consent before taking them home? Did that cat or fish give you a written notice of consent before you bought it from the pet shop? Because if not it's slavery. Did the cows whose milk you drink everyday give you their consents personally? Did you ask for the consent of the fetus before aborting it? Did your mother ask you for your consent before bringing you into existence? Oh let's kill, enslave and abuse all kinds of things both animal and human, but god forbid some chick wants to make a dog orgasm.

Stop with the stupid double standard, as if humans gave two shits about consent to begin with. Stuff happens without consent all the time, grow up.

The fact that, in the cases you cite, consent was not given, does NOT mean that in principle consent should not be required when using another to fulfill your own interests.  You may not give " two shits" about consent.  Stuff does happen.  So what?  Are you saying that no-one should say a word to promote fairness, or justice just because many people behave  unfairly, and unjustly?

Animal lovers will say you can't do this or that with animals because they can't give informed consent, but then they'll make sure to spay or neuter their cats and dogs. Now, imagine what a cat or dog would say if they COULD give informed consent and I suspect consent would be rare. If you shouldn't "mangle" your baby boy's johnson, then maybe you should think twice before robbing that puppy or kitten from having a natural sex life rather than one as an animated plush toy eunuch.

I'm saying

1. there is no fairness, there is only your double standard. If we want fairness humanity should first stop doing all this shit they do, before they even dare talk about any form of consent. Also what Unseen said.

2. It's not "a" word, this consent nonsense is coming up in many discussions now and people eat it up as a great argument even though it makes no sense.

It's a general standard often applied to sexual ethics where an objective moral or ethical stance is often very difficult to establish.  It's not that 'x' is harmful or wrong on the sole basis that consent does not exist; it's that certain murky issues can be resolved when informed consent can be given.  It's really not that hard to understand.

Yes, you objectify a rose.  It IS an object!  Women are people!

@Kyle Bates

Rather I was explaining that it was part of feminist theory to a guy, Kyle, whose total experience of feminism seemed to be based on feminists he met at or knew through Slutwalk.

I quite honestly don't have anything to say to you after a comment like this.  You don't know jack.

I actually know several Jacks.

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 6 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 6 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service