Acceptable Perversion

[cantdog]

on the other hand, sex with giant bivalves? If we didn't get to talk about that, we maybe wouldn't feel the lack.

 

[Ravlicious]

I pretty much agree with most everyone in saying that there is a lot that I personally wouldn't do--just doesn't turn my crank, so to speak--but if others want to, more power to 'em. As long as both (or however many) parties are willing, they can go for it. It wouldn't change my view of them in any way (at least not in any meaningful way).

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The Bad Liberal Line

Aghhhh!

This is exactly the kind of thing that gives Liberalism such a bad name and makes it a laughing stock. In trying to be open-minded and not judge, we end up allowing everything, from shit-eating to beastiality to auto-amputation and vomit-licking, "as long as no one gets hurt or is coerced." The Right is right. We have no standards and anything goes. Self-mutilation. Erotic Vampirism. Urolagnia. Figging (inserting a piece of peeled ginger root in the anus prior to sex, if you must know.) No wonder they make fun of us. We’re pitiful, turning a blind eye to some truly disgusting things in our attempts to be fair.

Well, the fact is we do have feelings about these things, and morality is the collective distillation of the sum of our feelings. Our feelings against some of these behaviors are just as valid as the feelings of some people for them, and just because you like to eat shit doesn't mean I have to approve of it or even put up with it, and I don’t need any more reason to find it disgusting than you do to like it. I don't need any rationale or logical system to back up my feelings. Some things just disgust me and it's my right to be disgusted.

In an attempt to find some foothold in the slippery slope towards total license, some liberals have put forth some "rational" arguments to support prohibitions such as the one against beastiality—that it's immoral because the animals can't give consent. Fine. But by that logic, then fucking dead animals is just dandy, since they have no more consent to give. I suppose by the same logic, fucking dead people is okay too.

No. The bottom line is that what's allowable here is based on a shifting consensus of the individual tastes and opinions of everyone posting on the board, and we qall have our personal, irrational, taste-based standards whether we admit them or not. As amateur sexologists, we can talk about whatever we want, (anal necrophilia anyone? Aztec heart-fucking or the Mayan practice of penile subincision with a stingray spine? Inserting beetle grubs into the vagina?) but you can bet that if anyone shows a special interest in any of these topics, other Litsters will take notice and remember. If Royal_Flush tells us how he likes to wash his face in the toilet, I think he's going to find himself short of friends even though he's not harming anyone or coercing anyone to do anything. Same with Mr_N_M_A_4U and his colonic irrigation fetish.

We all have our standards. We shouldn't be afraid to make them known. They're the only thing that keeps us from sliding into complete anarchy.

 

[impressive]

I disagree, Zoot. It really IS all about choice to me. Maybe I'm the ultimate "liberal." *shrug* While I can stand up and shout that I find scat play disgusting, I would never condemn another for gettin' off on it.

I doubt I'd invite the scatter to dinner ... but, on a similar note, nor would I invite the person I observed picking his nose & eating it. IOW, it has nothing to do with sexual procilivities.

 

[lil_elvis]

My question, again, is what do YOU as an individual consider to be "too much?" Where is that line between acceptable perversion and unacceptable? It's okay to "play" rape, but not okay to actually do it? It's okay to rub a stuffed animal against your cock, but not dress up as one and fall into a pit of rubbing and grinding with other "furries?"

Catch my drift yet?

Indeed, we each set our own standards, but there must also be a societal concess of what is acceptable so there are laws against incest, bestiality, rape, child molestation, etc. And for the most part, I do not disagree with them. However; I do have a problem with laws forbidding gay/lesbian marriage, so I guess I'm not totally "mainstream" (for lack of a better term)

On a presonal level, the most significant guideline is my wedding vow. By swearing loyalty and faithfulness, I cannot contemplate taking on a sex partner other than my wife (and she feels the same). If a couple wants to have additional partners and it's mutally agreed upon, that's their business. It's just not for us. On the flip side, I have no respect for people who cheat on their spouses. That might a fine line of differentiation, but either you keep your word or you don't. If you can't maintain your vow, be honest about it, get divorced and then do whatever you want.

For us, within the constraint of monogamy, what happens between us is our own business. We have kept our minds open to what others might consider unacceptable behavior and over the years have added some kinks to our lives- bondage, anal sex, our pic thread being some examples. Oh my god, what will the neighbors think?! Yeah, but they're not mind readers, so why not?

OTOH, there are some areas where you test the boundaries. Neither of us wants much in the way of pain aside from some mild biting, hair pulling or light spanking. Again, it's something that you find yourself discovering the limits and a simple "not so hard" defines them.

And finally, there are just some things neither of us have any interest in. Scat, golden showers and the like hold no interest. But if others find those activities mutually enjoyable, knock yourselves out.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that, for us anyway, what is or isn't acceptable is somewhat of an evolution. We're doing things today that we could not have envisioned when we got married 20+ years ago, but there are some lines we will never cross.

Rambling complete.

 

[TheEarl]

I'm with Imp. Yes, there are certain things that we personally may find abhorrent, but I'm sure there are things in my head which people would find disgusting. Drawing a line, wherever you do it, is always going to be an artificial process and you can't really ridicule one group for drawing it at "anything if it doesn't hurt someone" (and I include necrophilia as hurtful, as it desecrates the body of a loved one), when you'd draw it at your own personal standards.

And, I'd just like to point out that liberal is not synonymous with left. When you say "the Right is right," you're pushing all liberals to one side of the political spectrum. I'm right wing, and I'm a liberal.

Vella asked me, while I was in Tx, how I could be a Wiccan and right wing, since one's groovy and tolerant and the other isn't. Was amazed to see how much right wing has become the side of intolerance, whilst the left is the watchword of the liberals.

The Earl

 

[Recidiva]

I think acceptable perversion includes anything where you can get informed consent from your partner.

Bestiality doesn't count because for me, animals can't consent.

I don't care if you roll yourself in guava paste and cockroach bits first, if your partner thinks that's hot (or you can get someone to say so long enough for you to get off, consensually or with a credit card) that's fine.

Underage, animals, unwilling, that can't or won't consent, that defines perversion for me. Because you're not dealing with what pleasure your own body and mind can give you, you're co-opting someone or something else's.

Fantasy's fine, you want to get off with a robot dog? Okay. Leave the living things alone.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

If Royal_Flush tells us how he likes to wash his face in the toilet, I think he's going to find himself short of friends even though he's not harming anyone or coercing anyone to do anything. Same with Mr_N_M_A_4U and his colonic irrigation fetish.

so the "punishment" for whatever "unacceptable perversion/fetish" is to ostracize the person who practices that fetish? And then, what's the next step... when an entire group of people find it unacceptable, we make it into law? Which is all well and good... but what if it's *your* kink? and what if it's a gradient slope, gradually chipping away at sexual freedoms, so that eventually even the more mainstream kinks like bondage and power games are unacceptable? (I mean, if our goal is for an "equal" society, then don't these games demean those not in power? Just for the sake of argument...)

My acceptance for "kink" is pretty broad. There may be things I won't do myself (and now, at the risk of being ostracized, I won't name them or the things I *will* do either... see, your plan works, Doc!) but my acceptance of those things in a consenting relationship and in the absence of harm to another person goes far past most of the general population and, after reading this thread, far past most people here, too.

Guess I'm not the person you'd want on your committee deciding what is and isn't a perversion.

 

[rgraham666]

My turn to ramble.

For me, it's stuff that makes me wonder about the mental health and maturity of the person that sets my limits.

So stuff like scat, golden showers, bestiality, necrophilia, the more extreme forms of BDSM like knife play make me wonder. "What," I wonder, "is the makeup of the person that requires this sort of thing to get off? Why are they so disconnected from the human experience?"

That last sentence made me think. On reflection it is the feeling involved in the act that makes an act understandable to me. In the acts that don't make me wonder, there is a mutuality involved. The other person, or persons, are people. They interact, regard one another as important.

In the acts that make me wonder, there is no other person involved, even in acts like scat. Such acts have more to do with fetish than sex. They are to me, quite selfish.

I guess it's the difference between giving and taking. In acts that don't make me wonder, the people are giving. In acts that make me wonder, there is only taking.

Maybe I'll try this again when I'm properly awake.

 

[Recidiva]

so the "punishment" for whatever "unacceptable perversion/fetish" is to ostracize the person who practices that fetish? And then, what's the next step... when an entire group of people find it unacceptable, we make it into law? Which is all well and good... but what if it's *your* kink? and what if it's a gradient slope, gradually chipping away at sexual freedoms, so that eventually even the more mainstream kinks like bondage and power games are unacceptable? (I mean, if our goal is for an "equal" society, then don't these games demean those not in power? Just for the sake of argument...)

My acceptance for "kink" is pretty broad. There may be things I won't do myself (and now, at the risk of being ostracized, I won't name them or the things I *will* do either... see, your plan works, Doc!) but my acceptance of those things in a consenting relationship and in the absence of harm to another person goes far past most of the general population and, after reading this thread, far past most people here, too.

Guess I'm not the person you'd want on your committee deciding what is and isn't a perversion.

You get a catch 22 here when you start talking about ostracizing. Do you choose to ostracize those who have strong opinions about practices in order to spare those who have those practices?

Allowing people to say "ew" is also free speech.

 

[oggbashan]

Thinking and Doing

I can think and imagine a perversion as enjoyable when I would never do it in real life.

I try hard to put myself in the mind of someone who enjoys some deviant practice that I would find abhorrent and then write about it so that the reader enjoys my story. Incest is the obvious example. I have/had no desire to have intercourse with my mother/sister or any close relation yet in the abstract I can understand the attraction of incest AS A FANTASY.

Many of my stories are written for specific and limited audiences, normally of fetishists, and whether I share that fantasy or not is irrelevant. I try to tailor the story for that fetish. Bagged at the Opera is a suitable example. If you like that fetish, the story works well. If you don't it's probably boring and unsexy.

If someone confessed to me that they enjoyed and practised a sexual scenario that does not appeal to me, I don't think I would recoil in horror. I just wouldn't leap in and say 'I've never tried that. Can you show me...'. However many stories here seem to suggest that reaction is the usual one. Like many stories here, that is a fantasy.

I can imagine writing about golden showers and scat. I might. I would not want to try them for myself. I hope that I can write about almost anything without the need to try first. How would detective/thriller novels get written if the authors had to commit multiple murders before they could write?

Fantasy can be enjoyable. In real life some of them are uncomfortable, unpleasant, messy and occasionally impossible. Keep the two separate and keep your sanity (and health).

Og

 

[Recidiva]

Fantasy can be enjoyable. In real life some of them are uncomfortable, unpleasant, messy and occasionally impossible. Keep the two separate and keep your sanity (and health).

Og

There really are people who don't categorize fantasy as separate from reality. You think it, you've done it. Rather like you break it, you buy it.

Having had this discussion with enough people who don't draw this line at all (video games turn children into killers, heavy metal music promotes satanism) I can gather that these guys believe this. It's not just a political tool, it's also a lack of imagination using this particular variety of the human mind. They know fantasy = reality because they don't have the same stratification of fantasy. Or have an electric fence around it and they're "reasonable, practical" people who "don't go in for all that."

Fortunately here we have a large bunch of people with imagination. But being blessed with an imagination doesn't mean everyone else has one. If someone's lacking that sense, it's rather like telling a blind person to open their eyes. They're still not going to see anything.

 

[cantdog]

I disagree, Zoot. It really IS all about choice to me. Maybe I'm the ultimate "liberal." *shrug* While I can stand up and shout that I find scat play disgusting, I would never condemn another for gettin' off on it.

I doubt I'd invite the scatter to dinner ... but, on a similar note, nor would I invite the person I observed picking his nose & eating it. IOW, it has nothing to do with sexual procilivities.

Imp, these folks are not very pleasant, in person. At the bookstore, a guy came in over and over scouring the shelves for books or magazine articles about fasting. He drank his urine on a regular basis, and the smell never left him. As he went through his life, everyone around him wrinkled the nose and shied off. He had been this way long enough to walk kinda apologetically, ducking. Ape submission signals-- sorry sorry sorry don't hit me body language.

I ran into a short-film site on the web. There were some scat films, b & w, but every one were Asian girls. I suspect the whole exercise was power, and not in a good way. They were likely forced to make the films.

Not inviting to dinner is putting it mildly. I generally am reluctant to call a cop about anything whatsoever, as I've mentioned. There is no justice to be had from that quarter. But I am going to distance myself from these folks. The girls at Border's had real difficulty helping the urine guy, but there were two managers and two of us older guys who could muster the aplomb. Ten years on an ambulance will remove most squeamishness, and fasting may well be a fascinating topic. I didn't join him on my break for a coffee, though.

 

[AngeloMichael]

The line is in constant flux, dependent on the morallity of those in the era in which we live. (Well that sounded good anyway.) It truly depends on the individual. Case in point: Living in Ontario, Canada, many years ago, one fantasy I had while at a public swimming pool was to see all the ladies topless. Well low and behold many years later it is now legal for any woman whom so desires to be in any public place without a top just as men can. Go figure!
Who knows what the future holds...perhap I should have more "perverse" fantasies!!

That's a good point about the line being in constant flux. I never thought I would EVER read a story about necrophila, however I was surprised to find one in a collection of short stories by a "mainstream" author I enjoy to read.

The story was about a society that uses essentially brain dead bodies as manual labor and other tasks. The bodies were kept alive physically, but they all had completely no brain function. With the use of technology people could manipulate these bodies to do tasks, other than labor they were also used for entertainment purposes like making them fight each other in gladitorial combat. They were also used for sexual gratifcation, there were places where people went called "Meat Houses" to have sex with them.

While very disturbed and umcomfortable with this story, I was surprised at how the author made it believable that society as a whole accepted this because it had become such a mundane and useful part of it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Aghhhh!

This is exactly the kind of thing that gives Liberalism such a bad name and makes it a laughing stock. In trying to be open-minded and not judge, we end up allowing everything, from shit-eating to beastiality to auto-amputation and vomit-licking, "as long as no one gets hurt or is coerced." The Right is right. We have no standards and anything goes. Self-mutilation. Erotic Vampirism. Urolagnia. Figging (inserting a piece of peeled ginger root in the anus prior to sex, if you must know.) No wonder they make fun of us. We’re pitiful, turning a blind eye to some truly disgusting things in our attempts to be fair.

Well, the fact is we do have feelings about these things, and morality is the collective distillation of the sum of our feelings. Our feelings against some of these behaviors are just as valid as the feelings of some people for them, and just because you like to eat shit doesn't mean I have to approve of it or even put up with it, and I don’t need any more reason to find it disgusting than you do to like it. I don't need any rationale or logical system to back up my feelings. Some things just disgust me and it's my right to be disgusted.

In an attempt to find some foothold in the slippery slope towards total license, some liberals have put forth some "rational" arguments to support prohibitions such as the one against beastiality—that it's immoral because the animals can't give consent. Fine. But by that logic, then fucking dead animals is just dandy, since they have no more consent to give. I suppose by the same logic, fucking dead people is okay too.

No. The bottom line is that what's allowable here is based on a shifting consensus of the individual tastes and opinions of everyone posting on the board, and we qall have our personal, irrational, taste-based standards whether we admit them or not. As amateur sexologists, we can talk about whatever we want, (anal necrophilia anyone? Aztec heart-fucking or the Mayan practice of penile subincision with a stingray spine? Inserting beetle grubs into the vagina?) but you can bet that if anyone shows a special interest in any of these topics, other Litsters will take notice and remember. If Royal_Flush tells us how he likes to wash his face in the toilet, I think he's going to find himself short of friends even though he's not harming anyone or coercing anyone to do anything. Same with Mr_N_M_A_4U and his colonic irrigation fetish.

We all have our standards. We shouldn't be afraid to make them known. They're the only thing that keeps us from sliding into complete anarchy.

You've been reading your "Talmud for Dummies" again!

I think you're on to something, though. The question is, does doing these things contribute to "the good life," and eudaimonia, or lifelong flourishing, or are they destructive of that end? Two different definitions of that last:

‘Flourishing, however, means something like the successful pursuit of a vast array of physical, mental, and spiritual goods in the context of a life-long plan of values.’

‘ . . . to live in accordance with the best in human nature . . .”

Alright, this immediately imports a large array of subjective judgements, but perhaps not an infinite array.

You opened with a challenge to "liberals." I'll add to it. No doubt the eyeballs of some "liberals" are rolling in overdrive at the last few paragraphs, and they may be muttering things like, "Who are you to 'impose' your values and imply that one way of living might be superior to any other?" But guess what - "liberals" do this all the time, in all kinds of ways. They often mask this behind a concern for "the environment" or an individual's health, but most will admit that there are many pure subjective value judgements involved, often involving mystical concepts like "Gaia" and such that are on the same epitemological level as traditional religions, and which even generate rigorous puritanism on occasion! (Picture hippie communes.)

Here's a trivial example: "Eat lots of organic vegetables to get nutrient x or y." Why not just take a pill? "It's not natural!" Uh-huh. ("It's not as good." OK - it's 98 percent as good, and I get to eat fries with my steak instead of brussel sprouts. Any questions? )

I hope this doesn't get us off topic; I don't mean to start a debate about whether "liberals" have a few of their own subjective values they want to "impose" - if necessary maybe we can start a separate thread. My point is that people do have a conception of "the good life." When they state the "anything that does not hurt another" formula there is often an unspoken second clause: "But you wouldn't catch me dead doing that, and Gaia forbid that my children ever do - that's not the kind of life I want them to live!"

 

[cantdog]

There really are people who don't categorize fantasy as separate from reality. You think it, you've done it. Rather like you break it, you buy it.

Having had this discussion with enough people who don't draw this line at all (video games turn children into killers, heavy metal music promotes satanism) I can gather that these guys believe this. It's not just a political tool, it's also a lack of imagination using this particular variety of the human mind. They know fantasy = reality because they don't have the same stratification of fantasy. Or have an electric fence around it and they're "reasonable, practical" people who "don't go in for all that."

Fortunately here we have a large bunch of people with imagination. But being blessed with an imagination doesn't mean everyone else has one. If someone's lacking that sense, it's rather like telling a blind person to open their eyes. They're still not going to see anything.

Some of the problem is Christian literalism, here, 'Diva. Paul was a repressed dude and he wrote in his letters that to imagine adultery was equivalent to committing it. Christian Bible-idolaters conclude that fantasy equals reality, insofar as the afterlife is concerned. That's why the outcry against porn writing and obscene books is so persistent. I don't think it's so much an issue of imagination or lack of it, but of religion or freedom from it.

 

[Recidiva]

Some of the problem is Christian literalism, here, 'Diva. Paul was a repressed dude and he wrote in his letters that to imagine adultery was equivalent to committing it. Christian Bible-idolaters conclude that fantasy equals reality, insofar as the afterlife is concerned. That's why the outcry against porn writing and obscene books is so persistent. I don't think it's so much an issue of imagination or lack of it, but of religion or freedom from it.

It's the same in Buddhism as well, Ahimsa is a doctrine interpreted to mean nonviolence, but it also means not harboring any negative thoughts. Very much "you think it, you bought it" karmically, literally. To think it is to do it.

There are many faiths and philosophies that do espouse "think no evil" as part of the way they think. Telling someone not to feel this way is encroaching on religious beliefs in many traditions.

Many people don't want to be free from their religion. It's a valid path to choose.

Of course articles of my faith are freedom to choose and live and let live, but not everyone agrees with me. I think expressing that you disagree is fine. Telling someone else they shouldn't think what they do or do not think, isn't.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

When they state the "anything that does not hurt another" formula there is often an unspoken second clause: "But you wouldn't catch me dead doing that, and Gaia forbid that my children ever do - that's not the kind of life I want them to live!"

I think that's been explicitly stated here by several people... it might not be something that *they* would do... but they wouldn't have objections to someone else doing it. As for kids... *shrug*... a parent's influence can only go so far... I wouldn't disown a child for being gay, why would I disown them for deciding to become someone's slave?

I believe you're right, that everyone *does* have personal limits, and an agenda... it's when those limits and agendas become politicized that I get worried. There are certain things we accept as a matter of course (making illegal things like bestiality or sex with children) but every freedom taken comes with a price and a shadow. I worry about what lurks in the shadows.

 

[cantdog]

Aghhhh!

This is exactly the kind of thing that gives Liberalism such a bad name and makes it a laughing stock. In trying to be open-minded and not judge, we end up allowing everything, from shit-eating to beastiality to auto-amputation and vomit-licking, "as long as no one gets hurt or is coerced." The Right is right. We have no standards and anything goes. Self-mutilation. Erotic Vampirism. Urolagnia. Figging (inserting a piece of peeled ginger root in the anus prior to sex, if you must know.) No wonder they make fun of us. We’re pitiful, turning a blind eye to some truly disgusting things in our attempts to be fair.

Well, the fact is we do have feelings about these things, and morality is the collective distillation of the sum of our feelings. Our feelings against some of these behaviors are just as valid as the feelings of some people for them, and just because you like to eat shit doesn't mean I have to approve of it or even put up with it, and I don’t need any more reason to find it disgusting than you do to like it. I don't need any rationale or logical system to back up my feelings. Some things just disgust me and it's my right to be disgusted.

In an attempt to find some foothold in the slippery slope towards total license, some liberals have put forth some "rational" arguments to support prohibitions such as the one against beastiality—that it's immoral because the animals can't give consent. Fine. But by that logic, then fucking dead animals is just dandy, since they have no more consent to give. I suppose by the same logic, fucking dead people is okay too.

No. The bottom line is that what's allowable here is based on a shifting consensus of the individual tastes and opinions of everyone posting on the board, and we qall have our personal, irrational, taste-based standards whether we admit them or not. As amateur sexologists, we can talk about whatever we want, (anal necrophilia anyone? Aztec heart-fucking or the Mayan practice of penile subincision with a stingray spine? Inserting beetle grubs into the vagina?) but you can bet that if anyone shows a special interest in any of these topics, other Litsters will take notice and remember. If Royal_Flush tells us how he likes to wash his face in the toilet, I think he's going to find himself short of friends even though he's not harming anyone or coercing anyone to do anything. Same with Mr_N_M_A_4U and his colonic irrigation fetish.

We all have our standards. We shouldn't be afraid to make them known. They're the only thing that keeps us from sliding into complete anarchy.

My objection to power games is a perversion in itself, doc. Clearly, dominance is built into the ape social system we all share. It's as basic as sex or death. I just had some rotten experiences with authority and I refuse it, now. Games about power don't intrigue me, and I'm sure I miss a lot. The kink is on my side of this line, in my view.

But then, I'm probably not a liberal. I don't draw the line where these other posters draw it, and I kinda like anarchy, since it makes all authority illegitimate.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Back to McK's original question, with Pure's clarification: "'What do you feel an urge for, but would never* do it?"

Mine would be light bondage and submission. I know - I am so white bread!



* "Never" is too strong a word for me here. I think my only real "nevers" are things I would never feel an urge to do in the first place, so don't fit the category.

 

[Recidiva]

Back to McK's original question, with Pure's clarification: "'What do you feel an urge for, but would never* do it?"

Mine would be light bondage and submission. I know - I am so white bread!



* "Never" is too strong a word for me here. I think my only real "nevers" are things I would never feel an urge to do in the first place, so don't fit the category.

I have learned that my "never" usually applies to how persuasive my partner is.

But there are a few hard lines I won't cross, which can't be pushed. Incest, kids, animals, stuff that has a high percentage of resulting in being dead or mutilated, that sorta thing.

 

[Pure]

well, roxanne*, i set up a thread on objective values, ones possibly rooted in human beings, nature, and human nature, "flourishing," etc.
drop in some time!

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=456641

-----

*and anyone else

 

[cantdog]

It's the same in Buddhism as well, Ahimsa is a doctrine interpreted to mean nonviolence, but it also means not harboring any negative thoughts. Very much "you think it, you bought it" karmically, literally. To think it is to do it.

There are many faiths and philosophies that do espouse "think no evil" as part of the way they think. Telling someone not to feel this way is encroaching on religious beliefs in many traditions.

Many people don't want to be free from their religion. It's a valid path to choose.

Of course articles of my faith are freedom to choose and live and let live, but not everyone agrees with me. I think expressing that you disagree is fine. Telling someone else they shouldn't think what they do or do not think, isn't.

I love to encroach on any religious belief that fucks with people. I have no trouble encroaching on suttee, thuggee, or female genital mutilation, and similarly with banning books. It is socially not just valuable but crucial to tolerate religions, but the second they go around fucking with people they will meet my opposition, and with no qualms on my part. I'm not sure religion is such a damn valid path, either. I have looked into a whole lot of them and I don't choose that path, for reasons that seem sufficient to me.

Gods and nonsense of the kind are like any other nonsense. The line is power. Do what you like, but impose it on the rest of us, and you've stopped being religious and started being coercive. Your God has just become a tool serving your power drives. And that goes on an individual basis every bit as much as on a societal, legal one. Thuggee just had people strangling whoever went by on the road.

 

[Recidiva]

I love to encroach on any religious belief that fucks with people. I have no trouble encroaching on suttee, thuggee, or female genital mutilation, and similarly with banning books. It is socially not just valuable but crucial to tolerate religions, but the second they go around fucking with people they will meet my opposition, and with no qualms on my part. I'm not sure religion is such a damn valid path, either. I have looked into a whole lot of them and I don't choose that path, for reasons that seem sufficient to me.

Gods and nonsense of the kind are like any other nonsense. The line is power. Do what you like, but impose it on the rest of us, and you've stopped being religious and started being coercive. Your God has just become a tool serving your power drives. And that goes on an individual basis every bit as much as on a societal, legal one. Thuggee just had people strangling whoever went by on the road.

Good, I think that's your belief system. Doesn't mean your right. Nor am I right about mine. But everyone has one, and they think they're right. And they tend to group with people that think like they do.

Author's Hangout = Tabernacle.

At least if you're going to use the same tactics, "I don't like you, so I'll stop you and take glee in it" you have embraced your innate faith

 

[cantdog]

Good, I think that's your belief system. Doesn't mean your right. Nor am I right about mine. But everyone has one, and they think they're right. And they tend to group with people that think like they do.

Author's Hangout = Tabernacle.

At least if you're going to use the same tactics, "I don't like you, so I'll stop you and take glee in it" you have embraced your innate faith

I've already told Zoot I don't think I'm right about this. People seem to be designed to attack and dominate one another constantly. I am consequently standing in opposition to human nature. Wars and rapes and domestic violence, enslavement of children, coercive and repressive employment practices, financial rapine, graft, the squeeze, torture, empire, all that stuff results from a completely natural drive for power. So I must be wrong. That stuff is everywhere.