|
Most of the non lovely parts of the world have already gotten over them, or are enjoying them in their free time. I think they even enjoy it in the lovely parts, too, just not as much. Given that, why is someone's problem with them from a long time ago passed down in some political groups and still A Big Deal™©? Either because of gays or someone's dry run, people get crazy upset over anal sex. Lord's Procedure is literally the medical application of fisting, but everyone flips out over fisting, unless a doctor does it to stop fissures. Bondage makes people get weird. Dirty talk makes people think people are bigoted. Spanking is also seen as "problematic." Why? Why is it an issue? Why isn't it just "hey have fun doing it safely" already? I've seen a lot of words written about people on either 'side' of any of these issues and the vitriol is frankly breathtaking.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2014 19:35 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:22 |
|
If you're going to kick off a discussion maybe spend like five minutes putting together an OP that says something interesting or insightful first.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2014 19:44 |
|
Can we retroactively make this about Britain's new porn law and how awful it is?
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:10 |
|
Rygar201 posted:Can we retroactively make this about Britain's new porn law and how awful it is? That's what I thought this thread was gonna be about. I think people should be free to do whatever they want in their bedrooms so long as it's consensual.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:13 |
|
Space Whale posted:Why? Why is it an issue? Why isn't it just "hey have fun doing it safely" already? I've seen a lot of words written about people on either 'side' of any of these issues and the vitriol is frankly breathtaking.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:17 |
|
Omi-Polari posted:The central anxiety of the modern age is that somewhere, someone is having a better time than you. Somewhere in the venn diagram between inspirationalness and consumerism is the idea that you ought to be infinitely happy, not 100% happy.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:29 |
|
Rygar201 posted:Can we retroactively make this about Britain's new porn law and how awful it is? It wouldn't be much of a discussion. Even D&D, land of the trolls, does not have a troll great enough to defend Britain's porn laws.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:44 |
|
What is the new porn law?
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:45 |
|
I was just wondering why some people make it a political crusade to say a given act is bad for them as a group or identity, or oppressive in some inherent way. OTOH Britain's new porn laws are stupid as hell.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:48 |
|
Space Whale posted:I was just wondering why some people make it a political crusade to say a given act is bad for them as a group or identity, or oppressive in some inherent way. OTOH Britain's new porn laws are stupid as hell. Is it similar to that Australian one where they banned performers that looked underage?
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:49 |
|
computer parts posted:Is it similar to that Australian one where they banned performers that looked underage? Well more like you can't use a dildo associated with violence, slap people, talk dirty, or face sit. Which pretty much ruins my fun!
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:56 |
|
computer parts posted:Is it similar to that Australian one where they banned performers that looked underage? Australia's law, while stupid, is way less restrictive. Get a load of this — Spanking — Caning — Aggressive whipping — Penetration by any object “associated with violence” — Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual) — Urolagnia (known as “water sports”) — Female ejaculation — Strangulation — Facesitting — Fisting The last three were apparently added because they encourage life endangering. Lie back and think of England
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:58 |
|
Bondage and anal still ok though, right?
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:59 |
|
Space Whale posted:Bondage and anal still ok though, right? Bondage could easily be called physical abuse, I'd say. I can't wait to see how this pans out
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 01:00 |
|
So we're down to vanilla and rear entry? THIS CANNOT STAND
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 01:00 |
|
Face sitting = BANNED Cover-ups of child sexual abuse = ... Rygar201 posted:Australia's law, while stupid, is way less restrictive. Get a load of this Thank god passive-agressive whipping seems to be allowed. "Hey, you're kind of getting in the way of my whip here...no, no, it's fine, I'm just going to keep cracking this whip and if you're in the way I guess I can't help it."
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 01:02 |
|
was this the law that was cooked up by the nonce who got tipped off by law enforcement to delete all his child porn?
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 01:28 |
|
Space Whale posted:Why? Why is it an issue? Why isn't it just "hey have fun doing it safely" already? I've seen a lot of words written about people on either 'side' of any of these issues and the vitriol is frankly breathtaking. quote:The modern consensus is that the sexual revolution in 1960s America was typified by a dramatic shift in traditional values related to sex, and sexuality. Sex became more socially acceptable outside the strict boundaries of heterosexual marriage. Relatedly, meet Alfred Kinsey, thought of as the father of the 60's sexual revolutions, who had the audacity to imply such things as: quote:Kinsey is widely regarded as the first major figure in American sexology; his research is cited as having paved the way for a deeper exploration into sexuality among sexologists and the general public, and as having liberated female sexuality. For example, Kinsey's work disputed the notions that women generally are not sexual and that female orgasms experienced vaginally are superior to clitoral orgasms. If you ask someone like Rick Santorum about Alfred Kinsey, you'll probably get back a response that Alfred Kinsey is literally Satan incarnate (if you don't get a wordless screaming rage instead). fade5 fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Dec 6, 2014 |
# ? Dec 6, 2014 01:36 |
|
Rygar201 posted:Can we retroactively make this about Britain's new porn law and how awful it is? Yeah, David Cameron is an imbecile who's going to let an imbecilic political party not named Labour into power.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 01:39 |
|
I can kind of see most of them from a porn-negative feminist point of view, but female ejaculation? Not that I support the porn negative view.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 03:04 |
|
fade5 posted:Are you seriously not aware of the Sexual Revolution in the 60's? This is all a big red herring that has nothing to do with fisting.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 17:51 |
|
foobardog posted:I can kind of see most of them from a porn-negative feminist point of view, but female ejaculation? I think they're trying to talk about squirting, but yeah this whole law is a mess. But if passing it is the price to get the Torries to be forced out of power to die in a gutter somewhere (and then have it be repealed) is that too bad of a price?
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 18:41 |
|
foobardog posted:I can kind of see most of them from a porn-negative feminist point of view, but female ejaculation? It's probably just an extension of the ban on pee.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 19:02 |
|
foobardog posted:I can kind of see most of them from a porn-negative feminist point of view, but female ejaculation? Interestingly, most of the criticism I've seen from performers/producers is from dominatrices who argue this is going to criminalize a big source of revenue for them.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 19:25 |
|
PT6A posted:Interestingly, most of the criticism I've seen from performers/producers is from dominatrices who argue this is going to criminalize a big source of revenue for them. Is the ban just on movies, or all kinds of sex work?
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 22:16 |
|
rkajdi posted:Is the ban just on movies, or all kinds of sex work? It's just movies, but I think the point is that dominatrices (is this seriously the plural?) could make money on the side by making S&M films and distributing them.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 22:29 |
|
rkajdi posted:Is the ban just on movies, or all kinds of sex work? As far as I can tell, it only covers video pornography. Interestingly, I've also heard that it specifically applies to the production of this material in the UK. Unlike child porn, apparently viewing or possessing this sort of material is legal provided it was not produced in the UK. So, yeah, I have no loving clue what the point of this law was/is.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 22:30 |
|
Periodiko posted:It's just movies, but I think the point is that dominatrices (is this seriously the plural?) could make money on the side by making S&M films and distributing them. That is seriously the plural. I looked it up just to make sure (apparently it's also like 'fish' where it can be its own plural!)
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 22:31 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:22 |
|
PT6A posted:As far as I can tell, it only covers video pornography. Interestingly, I've also heard that it specifically applies to the production of this material in the UK. Unlike child porn, apparently viewing or possessing this sort of material is legal provided it was not produced in the UK. To move sex work somewhere else. Sounds just like anti-homeless laws, where the goal is just to push people outside the community.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 22:55 |