First and foremost, I want to say that I find human's aversion to sex to be rather perplexing as well as outright fucking retarded. It really bugs me that humans not only hate or are embarrassed of their own sexuality, but that they have the audacity to hate other people for their sexuality. Basically if you aren't a uniform racial, heterosexual, who is attracted to living, human, adults you are labeled a pariah, hated, despised. Never mind whether you actually act on your urges, or even whether your urges actually harm anything even if you did act on them. You are hated. Take me for example. I am straight, as far as I know, I am attracted to various types of women, but I also have an attraction to little girls. People are willing to judge based upon just that fact alone. They are willing to ignore all other factors about a person, any good they do, their intelligence, everything and just hate them for that one thing. I am labeled a monster, a sicko, a danger to society, etc. Why? I have an unorthodox attraction. But of course, it isn't as unorthodox as people would have you believe.
It should come as no surprise that I have decided to fight for full sexual liberation. Nothing sexual should be illegal, unless it is non-consensual or it does physical harm to a child. Of course, there is an obvious difference between ethics and law, because some things, as nice as it would be to legislate them, can't be enforced. What follows is my code of sexual ethics, ethics I think everyone should follow.
Adult-adult sex: as long as what you are doing is consensual, anything goes. But there are some things that should be considered: Is everyone enjoying themselves? Is one side getting pleasured while the other side gets nothing? Sex is meant to be fun, not just for one person, but for both sides. Both sides should be enjoying themselves and trying to pleasure one another. There is nothing worse as a guy than to lick a girl's pussy only to find out that she refuses to give blowjobs. I'm sure the reverse is also horrible for women. So, if you are having sex with someone, give to them what they give you, at the very least. If they give you head, do it back, and try to do a good job. If they bring you to orgasm, bring them to orgasm. It's like the golden rule of sex.
Adult-child sex: If it occurs, it must, of course, be consensual. But with children every effort must be made to avoid causing any pain. Sex must not hurt. Otherwise it will be a painful memory rather than a joyous one. It is for this reason that I do not think that children should be penetrated, anally or vaginally. Either way can cause physical harm, and as such must be avoided. This does not stop children from penetrating an adult, if they are willing. So, what we are left with is mostly oral sex and other non-penetrative acts. With kids the golden rule should be even more important. Taking advantage of a child would be a terrible thing. A child should not just suck cock or eat pussy. They do not exist for that. If they pleasure you, you must, if you are ethical, do the same back. To be honest, if I were to engage in sex with a child (which I do not admit to doing, nor have I done), I would go the extra mile to make them feel good. It is a shameful thing that an adult would dare to have a child suck or lick them and not please them back. It's not cool between adults and even worse to do to a child.
While I am on the subject, I found this excellent post online. The person who wrote it is truly a genius, in my view, not a direct quote.
Suppose that you are a man (for now), and you have a preteen daughter. You also have a beautiful wife who works late. You stay home to take care of your child. Now, sometimes when your wife comes home from work you are asleep. You try to stay awake so you can spend time with her, but the child is tiring to take care of. Sometimes, while you are asleep, your wife crawls into bed and surprises you. She pulls your cock out of your shorts, or if you sleep nude, she just grabs it and starts sucking it. She wakes you up this way and you spend time together, having sex or otherwise enjoying each other.
Now it is late, and you have drifted off to sleep. You wake up to feel that familiar feeling of getting blown. She's doing a decent job, as if she's seen how a porn star does it and is imitating her. It feels good, so you don't complain or say anything, you just keep your hand in her hair and keep her going, encouraging her along. Now you are close to ejaculating. Your wife lets you choose normally. You can take the blanket off and give her a cumshot to the face/breasts or in the mouth. or you can just let her suck you until you cum directly in her mouth. Either way this goes, it doesn't matter, but the cumshot case is a bit different here. Suppose you let yourself cum in her mouth. She's finished, and she pokes her head out of the covers. You are shocked. It isn't your wife. It's your own preteen daughter. She's looking into your eyes, and she swallows it. What do you do? Are you a monster now?
What would you feel afterward? Would you feel guilt? What about sexual attraction? You would. Every time you see her from then on you will imagine her little lips on your cock or your semen on her lips. It is unavoidable. Have you become a monster as a result?
Let's revisit the cunmshot case. Either way, face or mouth, you run into an interesting question. You've taken off the covers, you know who it is but you are a fraction of an inch from shooting cum all over her or in her mouth. Could you stop yourself? Or would you want to stop yourself? What if she said she wanted you to? Suppose you found out before this, but you were already about 90% there. Would you stop her? Or would you encourage her to finish? What would you do? How do you know that you wouldn't let her finish in that hyper aroused state?
Now, you obviously can't tell your wife in any case, even if you did stop yourself or stop her. If you did there is no way she'd believe you. She'd think you made your daughter suck it. So now you are alone with her on the day after. Won't it be hard not to imagine it happening again? Now, what if she came to you that day and put her hand on your crotch, or began to pull your cock out again, asking if she could do it again? What would you do? Would you be a monster if you let her? Would you be wrong for wanting to let her?
Now I add to this. What if your wife were to walk in just as she was finishing sucking your cock, and instead of getting pissed, she smiled, and walked over to the bed, and gave your daughter encouragement, maybe even joined in next to her? In fact, let's rewind this whole thing back to the start and ask another question.
What if the self same wife and daughter came into the room late at night and both went down on you, with the daughter being encouraged and taught by the mother. You wake up to this. What do you do?
What if instead of you getting blown, you walked in and your daughter was eating your wife out, and both of them invited you in for a threesome?
My answers: I'd let her keep going no matter how early I found out, and if she wanted it the next day it would happen. If I woke up to my wife and daughter (which I don't have either of yet), I'd be happy and encourage it.
For women, reverse all of the genders, or as many as makes sense. What would you do in all these situations?
Back on the rails now:
Sex is a delicate subject. It should be treated even more so between adults and kids. Kids should know what it is first before doing it, and they should be as emotionally comfortable with it as you can make them. They should first be taught about sex, and introduced to both their partner's body and theirs. They should understand how all of it works, and have knowledge of it. If it is to occur, above all else, make it fun and make it a matter of consent.
Bestiality: as long as the animal is willingly doing whatever (licking,etc), I see no reason to care.
You can return the favor if you want. I don't know that I would.
Necrophilia:
They're dead. How do we know they give a shit? If they don't I see no reason why not.
Orgies: Don't leave people out. Especially don't tell someone who you know to be sexually desperate: "You can sit in the corner and fap". That is insulting, like a slap in the face. Bring them into it. Besides, more fun that way.
BDSM: Just don't kill anyone.
That's all for now.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Social ethics
When discussing the law that we, as citizens, should subjugate ourselves to it must be important to decide what it is that we care about most as a society. If you think about it, this is what every society does. In a theocracy, the society had decided for itself that it's religion is the most important thing, in a democracy it may be freedom, prosperity, and/or the rule of the people. In a communist nation, it may be conformity, efficiency, egalitarianism, and/ or some other such motive. So what is it that we, as citizens most desire to enshrine into our law?
Is it an unchanging moral code? But if so, what moral code should we follow? The bible? The Koran? The Satanic Bible? The problem with a single moral code is that not everyone agrees with it. For example, at least half the country thinks homosexuality is fine, but a great many would have it banned once more. Many think that porn is immoral, but many think that it is not. How will we ever come to choose a proper moral code by which to run our system of governance? What can we agree on?
Is it merely the tyrannical rule of the majority? But what if you are a minority? Suppose you are a homosexual and people believe that homosexuals deserve to be burned alive in your country. Is the rule of the majority really the best principle in that respect? Surely the minority will not want the majority always ruling, will they? Of course, then again, criminals are a type of minority, are they not? Who should we count as a minority for the purpose of this discussion? That is indeed a brain teaser. After all, if we say non-criminals, we must first define a criminal. If we say a criminal is a law breaker, we come to the question of what is the law? And if we come to the question of what the law is, then we have merely gone in a circle yet again. It seems that this has come to an impasse. Even supposing we could define a minority, surely they will find some reason to disagree with the majority ruling.
What, then, are we to do? Surely there must be one thing that everyone can agree on, even if they don't agree to apply it universally, they must agree to it on an individual level. AHA! We may have just unlocked it. What is the one thing that everyone wants? No, not love, though that's a nice try. Everyone wants freedom. No one really wants to be completely owned and controlled, even the majority. Is there anyone in the wide world that really desires to be enslaved?
It seems unlikely. So, let us proceed with this principle we have discovered and see where it takes us.
We start our society off with freedom as it's prime goal, it's Modus operandi. But now we are presented with an interesting scenario: Anarchy. We have not defined the parameters of what freedoms we wish to protect, and which ones we must, for the best of our personal freedoms, strip from everyone, including ourselves. But should freedom have parameters? Is it free then? The answer must invariably be yes. Suppose we hold that all are absolutely free, they can do anything they wish. Now suppose that two individuals have engaged in discussion on a relatively spicy topic. Suppose that these two have begun to debate over sex, which, for reasons I do not fully understand, has been a spicy topic for humans. One says to his comrade: "But what is wrong with letting a dog lick in between your legs?" and his comrade responds, rather angrily, "Much is wrong with it! Man was not meant to have dogs between their legs licking, that is the job of women!" And the other man says: "No, that is not true! You must die for your statement!" and plunges a knife deep into the heart of the man he was just debating. The moral of the story is clear. Is one truly free to speak one's mind, engage in sexual activity that one enjoys, or any other freedom for that matter, when others have the freedom to respond violently? It would seem not. If, after all, a group of angry people could get together and publicly burn, beat to death, or otherwise kill a person for their speech, sexual desires, or other relatively minor things, then there seems to be no freedom.
What are we to do then? It seems we have found our first freedom to take away from the entirety of the populous; the freedom to behave violently or to inflict undesired physical harm upon another. But then, what about mental harm? It would seem to be impossible to prevent mental harm from occurring. If we allow speech to be unregulated, then mental harm must occur somewhere, but if we restrict speech to only those things which do not cause mental harm, speech may very well vanish. Not just speech, but action to, the choice of romantic partners (rejection is mentally painful), and various others. It seems mental harm is something we must allow to persist.
But now we have another question. If inflicting physical harm that is undesired is not allowed, then what of a condition wherein a person is attempting to inflict physical harm on another that is undesired, and the only way to prevent this harm from occurring is for that individual that is being harmed or a third party to behave violently and inflict undesired harm upon the original actor of harm? It seems that we are forced to compromise. If such a condition were to arise, as it often does, it would seem that the use of force must be authorized here. It shall be a self-defense exemption. Still, we are left with another bugaboo. Suppose that we have finished our ethical code. Now suppose that there is an individual A such that A has broken one of the tenants of this moral code. What shall we do? Punishment must be in order, but what type must depend on the severity of the breach. Still, what if A refuses to accept punishment and attempts to flee? Is not the use of force allowable in the event that punishment must be administered for a crime? It would seem to be necessary, as A will not cooperate with the law. We have a law-enforcement exemption. Now suppose that A has escaped beyond the borders of our land. Do we pursue and use force to apprehend this individual? This becomes a difficult question. If the land they now reside in does not have an agreement with us, what right do we have to go and abduct someone who has defected? After all, violence on a grander scale could ensue. It seems as though we must instead allow this person to escape until they are foolish enough to enter into our territory, and then they will be apprehended and their punishment administered. That is, of course, unless we have made an agreement with the society to which they have fled that any we pursue will be returned to us from their nation.We have an extradition exemption now. But what of a mutually agreed upon physical confrontation? One in which both sides are willing to accept harm to their person in exchange for being allowed to inflict harm on the other. Does the state have the right to prosecute such a thing? Both have agreed, and so long as there is witnesses to prove this, it would seem we must allow such a confrontation. We now have a mutual confrontation exemption. Now an even newer question arises, one that is quite controversial. Suppose there is a person B such that this person wishes to die or to have some sort of physical harm done to them for whatever reason. Should they have this right? If freedom is our greatest value, then the greatest freedom should be the ability to decide what one wishes to do to their own body. In this case, it seems necessary to allow. But this could be used as a ploy to avoid punishment for a violent act, so it seems we must restrict this freedom to the point of needing witnesses, law enforcement, medical staff, and a legal contract involved to eliminate this risk. It seems we have a new exemption; the consent exemption. So violence is banned with five exceptions: Self defense, law enforcement, extradition, mutually agreed upon confrontation, and consent of those that will be harmed.
If one can do with one's own body what one wants, with the exception of harming others, unless it falls into one of those five exemptions, then it would seem the freedom to use drugs and engage in non-reproductive sex, provided that it is with the consent of any that are involved, are also protected. However, with drugs or alcohol one must make an exemption for children, because of the long term injury and damage that can be done to the child's body, with child to be defined later. A minor's parents can decide whether to allow drugs or alcohol, with the term Minor also explained later.
On the subject of sex, it must be pointed out that there will be a separate blog entry for this subject, so it's treatment here will be brief, and lack a great deal of depth. The issue of sexuality grows complex. On the one hand, it is perhaps life's greatest physical pleasure, but on the other it has the potential to be used harmfully. It should be no surprise, with all the talk of bodily rights, that one has the freedom to engage in any form of sexuality that one wishes, provided the other parties involved in the activity are involved willingly. We must make an exception to sexual freedom in a few places if we are to accommodate consent and bodily freedom for all. The first is known as the rape exemption. It's meaning should be clear. The second must be one of physical growth based protectionism. The meaning being that for those who are still physically developing (Children) all precautions to avoid ANY lasting harm must be taken. Children do have body rights, including sexual ones, but there must be some restrictions in place to prevent long term consequences from short term enjoyment. In other words, it should be illegal, and not for purely sexual reasons, but also for care of children in general, to inflict any wound on a child (even with the child agreeing to it). This means that if one were to, say, penetrate a child's vagina or anus and cause tearing, or internal damage that this would be punishable. Penalties must be decided later. Sexuality that is both consensual and does not lead to physical injury (which shall include the passing of STD's) with children, regardless of age, must be protected. The term Child, used here, shall mean one who has not reached thirteen years of age. One is still considered a minor at thirteen until one is able to support oneself free of one's parents, or until age eighteen. A third exemption to sexual freedom must be made as it relates to STD's. For those who are unfortunate enough to have contracted an STD, it seems necessary to restrict sexuality. The reason being to prevent harm from coming to those who do not know that the STD infected individual is infected. Therefore, it must be considered a crime for one to, knowing they have an STD of any type,
A. Engage in any sort of sexual activity with children that has the potential or is likely to cause the child to become infected.
B. Engage in any sort of sexual activity with a minor or adult that has the potential or is likely to cause the partner or partners to become infected without first informing them of the infection and the risk of passing it on.
A fourth exemption to Sexual freedom can be found when one considers consent. For those who are unable to give, in any demonstrable way (verbally in any language understandable to both parties, sign language, bodily gestures commonly understood to mean "yes", or in writing, regardless of age), their consent it shall be illegal to engage in sexual activity with that person. So, to have sex with an animal (unless the animal initiates the sex), a person who is sleeping (unless they give consent before falling asleep), a person who is unconscious (unless permission was given before they entered this state), or a person who is tied up or otherwise unable to respond (and did not give prior consent before this state occurred) should be considered illegal.
But now the question of necrophilia comes to mind. Of course, if one gave consent to sex with their corpse before death, then it should be allowable under that circumstance, but what of those who did not give their consent before death? Is a dead body considered to have the same rights as a living body? This question becomes difficult to answer. The answer should be yes, for the person is the ultimate owner of their body, and their wishes should be respected even in death, but this does create a bit of confusion, seeing as there is no way to know whether consciousness lives on after death except to die.
So far we have created four exemptions to sexual freedom: Rape, Growth protection, STD, and inability to give consent (with clear guidelines above.)
Now we continue in bodily freedom. Let's rewind back to the example wherein two individuals argued over sex, and one killed the other for his disagreement. Let's replace the murder with the following: "You dare disagree! Fine, but I'm taking your car!"
Should one have the right to take the property of others? No. One should not be able to infringe on another's freedom to own property or with what they do with that property (provided harm is not being inflicted using that property). So theft is now banned. But suppose that there is a person such that if they do not steal they or someone else will come to greater harm? In this instance we must make a decision as to which freedom is more important: the freedom to avoid harm or the freedom to own property. We cannot say that the freedom to live fully outweighs the right to property ownership, if we do, then someone who is caught stealing cannot be stopped with force in order to protect the owner's right to property, but if we say that property rights outweigh the right to avoid harm in all circumstances we end up allowing the individual mentioned to come to greater harm unnecessarily. The answer seems to be that an exemption is made when one needs to steal to avoid greater personal harm or greater harm to another, but, full reparations must be made by the state when the thief proves their dire need for the item or items in question, for it may very well be the failing of the state that led to the theft in the first place.
The next topic seems to involve things that will have to do with activities that have a high propensity to result in the harm of those that are not willingly involved. A prime example being the driving of a car. It is not in the best interests of the freedom of all for individuals who are incompetent and dangerous activities such as driving to be allowed to engage in potentially dangerous activities. So if there is a situation where something that someone is doing, whether with their property or without, has the possibility to strip someone of their own freedom to avoid harm and to own and protect property, that action shall be considered to be illegal. However, this harm must be direct, not indirect. So it should not be considered a crime to say certain things about a person that may cause them to come to undesired harm or lose property, for the results were indirect. An example of direct harm would be the incompetent driving of a motor vehicle for any reason that results in harm being done to someone without their permission.
Now comes intellectual freedoms such as speech, religion, and expression. It is hard to see how one can find a fitting reason to inhibit any of these freedoms. Speech cannot and never does cause direct physical harm to a person. It may inspire others to cause harm, but it, in and of itself, does not cause harm. Expression seems to be much the same, where expression is not physically violent. This is not to say that it cannot be violent in description, or depict violence, nor is it to say that it cannot depict a crime being carried out. The only forms of expression that can be banned are those that involve actual, real world, acts of crime being committed directly by the individual. Punching someone is not free expression, raping someone is not free expression, but videotaping, depicting, or talking about these actions is a form of expression and speech, and should be protected. It is with this attitude in mind that things such as Child Porn should be made legal, even if the acts depicted in it are not legal in nature. Free expression and free speech should never, under any circumstances, be taken away. Obscenity is not a valid excuse, in fact, there is no valid excuse for censorship. The same can be said of religion, provided that the religion is not harming anyone who has not given their permission to be harmed, or is actively taking away the freedoms of others that are given under the law, or is in some way breaking any other law that is not put in place for the express purpose of stiffling a particular religion.
Speaking of religion, we now come to marriage. Marriage at the religious level is up to the religion, but civil marriage is up to the state. Now the state is to treat everyone equally, as all have equal freedoms, and so just about any type of marriage to a being that is capable of expressing consent and is not in any way forced into the arrangement should be honored by the state. However, there are two marriages that should not be allowed. The marriage of an adult and a child, with child as it was defined above, should not be allowed. The reason is simple; to marry an adult to a child would impact the child's future finances, legal name, and many other long term aspects of their life. It is a commitment that is very much a "rest of your life" type decision. That is not to say a child and adult cannot engage in romantic behavior, or even have a religious ceremony, but the state must simply avoid the potential to harm a child's future. The second form of marriage that should not be allowed is between a person and any being that cannot give it's consent in a way understandable to humans. The reasons are obvious. Now, in the case of a minor and an adult or a minor and another minor, it shall be up to the parents of the minor whether they are allowed to be married.
More to come later. I am tired now.
Go back to root blog
Is it an unchanging moral code? But if so, what moral code should we follow? The bible? The Koran? The Satanic Bible? The problem with a single moral code is that not everyone agrees with it. For example, at least half the country thinks homosexuality is fine, but a great many would have it banned once more. Many think that porn is immoral, but many think that it is not. How will we ever come to choose a proper moral code by which to run our system of governance? What can we agree on?
Is it merely the tyrannical rule of the majority? But what if you are a minority? Suppose you are a homosexual and people believe that homosexuals deserve to be burned alive in your country. Is the rule of the majority really the best principle in that respect? Surely the minority will not want the majority always ruling, will they? Of course, then again, criminals are a type of minority, are they not? Who should we count as a minority for the purpose of this discussion? That is indeed a brain teaser. After all, if we say non-criminals, we must first define a criminal. If we say a criminal is a law breaker, we come to the question of what is the law? And if we come to the question of what the law is, then we have merely gone in a circle yet again. It seems that this has come to an impasse. Even supposing we could define a minority, surely they will find some reason to disagree with the majority ruling.
What, then, are we to do? Surely there must be one thing that everyone can agree on, even if they don't agree to apply it universally, they must agree to it on an individual level. AHA! We may have just unlocked it. What is the one thing that everyone wants? No, not love, though that's a nice try. Everyone wants freedom. No one really wants to be completely owned and controlled, even the majority. Is there anyone in the wide world that really desires to be enslaved?
It seems unlikely. So, let us proceed with this principle we have discovered and see where it takes us.
We start our society off with freedom as it's prime goal, it's Modus operandi. But now we are presented with an interesting scenario: Anarchy. We have not defined the parameters of what freedoms we wish to protect, and which ones we must, for the best of our personal freedoms, strip from everyone, including ourselves. But should freedom have parameters? Is it free then? The answer must invariably be yes. Suppose we hold that all are absolutely free, they can do anything they wish. Now suppose that two individuals have engaged in discussion on a relatively spicy topic. Suppose that these two have begun to debate over sex, which, for reasons I do not fully understand, has been a spicy topic for humans. One says to his comrade: "But what is wrong with letting a dog lick in between your legs?" and his comrade responds, rather angrily, "Much is wrong with it! Man was not meant to have dogs between their legs licking, that is the job of women!" And the other man says: "No, that is not true! You must die for your statement!" and plunges a knife deep into the heart of the man he was just debating. The moral of the story is clear. Is one truly free to speak one's mind, engage in sexual activity that one enjoys, or any other freedom for that matter, when others have the freedom to respond violently? It would seem not. If, after all, a group of angry people could get together and publicly burn, beat to death, or otherwise kill a person for their speech, sexual desires, or other relatively minor things, then there seems to be no freedom.
What are we to do then? It seems we have found our first freedom to take away from the entirety of the populous; the freedom to behave violently or to inflict undesired physical harm upon another. But then, what about mental harm? It would seem to be impossible to prevent mental harm from occurring. If we allow speech to be unregulated, then mental harm must occur somewhere, but if we restrict speech to only those things which do not cause mental harm, speech may very well vanish. Not just speech, but action to, the choice of romantic partners (rejection is mentally painful), and various others. It seems mental harm is something we must allow to persist.
But now we have another question. If inflicting physical harm that is undesired is not allowed, then what of a condition wherein a person is attempting to inflict physical harm on another that is undesired, and the only way to prevent this harm from occurring is for that individual that is being harmed or a third party to behave violently and inflict undesired harm upon the original actor of harm? It seems that we are forced to compromise. If such a condition were to arise, as it often does, it would seem that the use of force must be authorized here. It shall be a self-defense exemption. Still, we are left with another bugaboo. Suppose that we have finished our ethical code. Now suppose that there is an individual A such that A has broken one of the tenants of this moral code. What shall we do? Punishment must be in order, but what type must depend on the severity of the breach. Still, what if A refuses to accept punishment and attempts to flee? Is not the use of force allowable in the event that punishment must be administered for a crime? It would seem to be necessary, as A will not cooperate with the law. We have a law-enforcement exemption. Now suppose that A has escaped beyond the borders of our land. Do we pursue and use force to apprehend this individual? This becomes a difficult question. If the land they now reside in does not have an agreement with us, what right do we have to go and abduct someone who has defected? After all, violence on a grander scale could ensue. It seems as though we must instead allow this person to escape until they are foolish enough to enter into our territory, and then they will be apprehended and their punishment administered. That is, of course, unless we have made an agreement with the society to which they have fled that any we pursue will be returned to us from their nation.We have an extradition exemption now. But what of a mutually agreed upon physical confrontation? One in which both sides are willing to accept harm to their person in exchange for being allowed to inflict harm on the other. Does the state have the right to prosecute such a thing? Both have agreed, and so long as there is witnesses to prove this, it would seem we must allow such a confrontation. We now have a mutual confrontation exemption. Now an even newer question arises, one that is quite controversial. Suppose there is a person B such that this person wishes to die or to have some sort of physical harm done to them for whatever reason. Should they have this right? If freedom is our greatest value, then the greatest freedom should be the ability to decide what one wishes to do to their own body. In this case, it seems necessary to allow. But this could be used as a ploy to avoid punishment for a violent act, so it seems we must restrict this freedom to the point of needing witnesses, law enforcement, medical staff, and a legal contract involved to eliminate this risk. It seems we have a new exemption; the consent exemption. So violence is banned with five exceptions: Self defense, law enforcement, extradition, mutually agreed upon confrontation, and consent of those that will be harmed.
If one can do with one's own body what one wants, with the exception of harming others, unless it falls into one of those five exemptions, then it would seem the freedom to use drugs and engage in non-reproductive sex, provided that it is with the consent of any that are involved, are also protected. However, with drugs or alcohol one must make an exemption for children, because of the long term injury and damage that can be done to the child's body, with child to be defined later. A minor's parents can decide whether to allow drugs or alcohol, with the term Minor also explained later.
On the subject of sex, it must be pointed out that there will be a separate blog entry for this subject, so it's treatment here will be brief, and lack a great deal of depth. The issue of sexuality grows complex. On the one hand, it is perhaps life's greatest physical pleasure, but on the other it has the potential to be used harmfully. It should be no surprise, with all the talk of bodily rights, that one has the freedom to engage in any form of sexuality that one wishes, provided the other parties involved in the activity are involved willingly. We must make an exception to sexual freedom in a few places if we are to accommodate consent and bodily freedom for all. The first is known as the rape exemption. It's meaning should be clear. The second must be one of physical growth based protectionism. The meaning being that for those who are still physically developing (Children) all precautions to avoid ANY lasting harm must be taken. Children do have body rights, including sexual ones, but there must be some restrictions in place to prevent long term consequences from short term enjoyment. In other words, it should be illegal, and not for purely sexual reasons, but also for care of children in general, to inflict any wound on a child (even with the child agreeing to it). This means that if one were to, say, penetrate a child's vagina or anus and cause tearing, or internal damage that this would be punishable. Penalties must be decided later. Sexuality that is both consensual and does not lead to physical injury (which shall include the passing of STD's) with children, regardless of age, must be protected. The term Child, used here, shall mean one who has not reached thirteen years of age. One is still considered a minor at thirteen until one is able to support oneself free of one's parents, or until age eighteen. A third exemption to sexual freedom must be made as it relates to STD's. For those who are unfortunate enough to have contracted an STD, it seems necessary to restrict sexuality. The reason being to prevent harm from coming to those who do not know that the STD infected individual is infected. Therefore, it must be considered a crime for one to, knowing they have an STD of any type,
A. Engage in any sort of sexual activity with children that has the potential or is likely to cause the child to become infected.
B. Engage in any sort of sexual activity with a minor or adult that has the potential or is likely to cause the partner or partners to become infected without first informing them of the infection and the risk of passing it on.
A fourth exemption to Sexual freedom can be found when one considers consent. For those who are unable to give, in any demonstrable way (verbally in any language understandable to both parties, sign language, bodily gestures commonly understood to mean "yes", or in writing, regardless of age), their consent it shall be illegal to engage in sexual activity with that person. So, to have sex with an animal (unless the animal initiates the sex), a person who is sleeping (unless they give consent before falling asleep), a person who is unconscious (unless permission was given before they entered this state), or a person who is tied up or otherwise unable to respond (and did not give prior consent before this state occurred) should be considered illegal.
But now the question of necrophilia comes to mind. Of course, if one gave consent to sex with their corpse before death, then it should be allowable under that circumstance, but what of those who did not give their consent before death? Is a dead body considered to have the same rights as a living body? This question becomes difficult to answer. The answer should be yes, for the person is the ultimate owner of their body, and their wishes should be respected even in death, but this does create a bit of confusion, seeing as there is no way to know whether consciousness lives on after death except to die.
So far we have created four exemptions to sexual freedom: Rape, Growth protection, STD, and inability to give consent (with clear guidelines above.)
Now we continue in bodily freedom. Let's rewind back to the example wherein two individuals argued over sex, and one killed the other for his disagreement. Let's replace the murder with the following: "You dare disagree! Fine, but I'm taking your car!"
Should one have the right to take the property of others? No. One should not be able to infringe on another's freedom to own property or with what they do with that property (provided harm is not being inflicted using that property). So theft is now banned. But suppose that there is a person such that if they do not steal they or someone else will come to greater harm? In this instance we must make a decision as to which freedom is more important: the freedom to avoid harm or the freedom to own property. We cannot say that the freedom to live fully outweighs the right to property ownership, if we do, then someone who is caught stealing cannot be stopped with force in order to protect the owner's right to property, but if we say that property rights outweigh the right to avoid harm in all circumstances we end up allowing the individual mentioned to come to greater harm unnecessarily. The answer seems to be that an exemption is made when one needs to steal to avoid greater personal harm or greater harm to another, but, full reparations must be made by the state when the thief proves their dire need for the item or items in question, for it may very well be the failing of the state that led to the theft in the first place.
The next topic seems to involve things that will have to do with activities that have a high propensity to result in the harm of those that are not willingly involved. A prime example being the driving of a car. It is not in the best interests of the freedom of all for individuals who are incompetent and dangerous activities such as driving to be allowed to engage in potentially dangerous activities. So if there is a situation where something that someone is doing, whether with their property or without, has the possibility to strip someone of their own freedom to avoid harm and to own and protect property, that action shall be considered to be illegal. However, this harm must be direct, not indirect. So it should not be considered a crime to say certain things about a person that may cause them to come to undesired harm or lose property, for the results were indirect. An example of direct harm would be the incompetent driving of a motor vehicle for any reason that results in harm being done to someone without their permission.
Now comes intellectual freedoms such as speech, religion, and expression. It is hard to see how one can find a fitting reason to inhibit any of these freedoms. Speech cannot and never does cause direct physical harm to a person. It may inspire others to cause harm, but it, in and of itself, does not cause harm. Expression seems to be much the same, where expression is not physically violent. This is not to say that it cannot be violent in description, or depict violence, nor is it to say that it cannot depict a crime being carried out. The only forms of expression that can be banned are those that involve actual, real world, acts of crime being committed directly by the individual. Punching someone is not free expression, raping someone is not free expression, but videotaping, depicting, or talking about these actions is a form of expression and speech, and should be protected. It is with this attitude in mind that things such as Child Porn should be made legal, even if the acts depicted in it are not legal in nature. Free expression and free speech should never, under any circumstances, be taken away. Obscenity is not a valid excuse, in fact, there is no valid excuse for censorship. The same can be said of religion, provided that the religion is not harming anyone who has not given their permission to be harmed, or is actively taking away the freedoms of others that are given under the law, or is in some way breaking any other law that is not put in place for the express purpose of stiffling a particular religion.
Speaking of religion, we now come to marriage. Marriage at the religious level is up to the religion, but civil marriage is up to the state. Now the state is to treat everyone equally, as all have equal freedoms, and so just about any type of marriage to a being that is capable of expressing consent and is not in any way forced into the arrangement should be honored by the state. However, there are two marriages that should not be allowed. The marriage of an adult and a child, with child as it was defined above, should not be allowed. The reason is simple; to marry an adult to a child would impact the child's future finances, legal name, and many other long term aspects of their life. It is a commitment that is very much a "rest of your life" type decision. That is not to say a child and adult cannot engage in romantic behavior, or even have a religious ceremony, but the state must simply avoid the potential to harm a child's future. The second form of marriage that should not be allowed is between a person and any being that cannot give it's consent in a way understandable to humans. The reasons are obvious. Now, in the case of a minor and an adult or a minor and another minor, it shall be up to the parents of the minor whether they are allowed to be married.
More to come later. I am tired now.
Go back to root blog
Monday, January 23, 2012
Venting
Sigh. . . . There are a lot of assholes out there to deal with. I just lost my youtube channel because an asshole decided that my opinions were inappropriate and flagged my channel to death.
I tell you, I am so tired of being labeled based on my weight. I'm a heavy guy, ok. So when people see me walking around they assume I'm weak, unable to go very far. They also assume that I never get laid (which is sort of true, but still, it's annoying), that I overeat (I eat just like everyone else.). It's so ANNOYING! I want to snap some of these fucking twigs in half when I see their looks.
Feel free to vent in the comments section.
Return to root blog
I tell you, I am so tired of being labeled based on my weight. I'm a heavy guy, ok. So when people see me walking around they assume I'm weak, unable to go very far. They also assume that I never get laid (which is sort of true, but still, it's annoying), that I overeat (I eat just like everyone else.). It's so ANNOYING! I want to snap some of these fucking twigs in half when I see their looks.
Feel free to vent in the comments section.
Return to root blog
Questions
Feel free to ask below. I will answer as quickly as I can, unless it is a question that asks for things that would compromise my anonymity.
Back to root blog
Back to root blog
How to go about all of this.
Since I wish for this to be a fairly intellectual venture, I will begin posting my thoughts on various topics. Read them if you wish, and feel free to respond, I will not delete any comment unless it is clear spam. No one comes to get advertised at, so spammers should go the fuck away. I already chose a few topics to start off, but feel free to propose any on this post (please keep your comments on topic on other posts.)
Here are my topics, broken up by category (red, bold and large), subcategory (green) and a description in white.
Morality
Social ethics
I will discuss basic principles of law that should be followed in this country, as well as principles we claim to hold currently, but that we really ignore in many circumstances.
The ethics of money and resource management as it pertains to governance
A discussion of the current societal economic structure and how it can be reformed to best serve the people.
Sexual ethics
In this segment I will discuss my views on the topic of sexual morality. In it I will cover a vast array of topics. Among the topics will be bestiality, pedophilia (and yes, I do have a relatively unique view of it. Say that it stems from my own desires if you will, but make sure you read before you post), necrophilia, and homosexuality, as well as any subsequent sexualities that I have neglected to mention as they are commented on (if anyone even bothers to read this blog)
Politics
This year's election
Discussing the candidates and their policies.
SOPA, PIPA, and what is wrong with these bills and the industry that spawned them. self explanatory.
Congressional cuntbags, a brief, non-exhaustive, list.
Assholes in congress. Feel free to tell them off on here.
Ranting and raving
Venting
This should be self explanatory.
The Hall of Shame
Bigots
I know that bigots are a type of idiot, but they are the worst type, don't you think? Give an example of why they are bigots.
Idiots
People making complete fools of themselves. Particularly creatards and fundies. Give an example, please.
Assholes
People who are just outright pricks. Please, if you comment on here, leave a reason. Don't just say it and leave it at that.
Religion
Go to Religion
Talk about religion. I will also include a description of my religion, or more precisely, my spiritual philosophy.
Questions
Go to Questions
The place for questions. Please, feel free to ask me any question. I will answer truthfully, provided that it doesn't compromise my anonymity.
That's it for now. I will hyperlink to these blog pages once I have fully constructed them. Just click on the topic or subtopic and it will take you where you want to go.
Here are my topics, broken up by category (red, bold and large), subcategory (green) and a description in white.
Morality
Social ethics
I will discuss basic principles of law that should be followed in this country, as well as principles we claim to hold currently, but that we really ignore in many circumstances.
The ethics of money and resource management as it pertains to governance
A discussion of the current societal economic structure and how it can be reformed to best serve the people.
Sexual ethics
In this segment I will discuss my views on the topic of sexual morality. In it I will cover a vast array of topics. Among the topics will be bestiality, pedophilia (and yes, I do have a relatively unique view of it. Say that it stems from my own desires if you will, but make sure you read before you post), necrophilia, and homosexuality, as well as any subsequent sexualities that I have neglected to mention as they are commented on (if anyone even bothers to read this blog)
Politics
This year's election
Discussing the candidates and their policies.
SOPA, PIPA, and what is wrong with these bills and the industry that spawned them. self explanatory.
Congressional cuntbags, a brief, non-exhaustive, list.
Assholes in congress. Feel free to tell them off on here.
Ranting and raving
Venting
This should be self explanatory.
The Hall of Shame
Bigots
I know that bigots are a type of idiot, but they are the worst type, don't you think? Give an example of why they are bigots.
Idiots
People making complete fools of themselves. Particularly creatards and fundies. Give an example, please.
Assholes
People who are just outright pricks. Please, if you comment on here, leave a reason. Don't just say it and leave it at that.
Religion
Go to Religion
Talk about religion. I will also include a description of my religion, or more precisely, my spiritual philosophy.
Questions
Go to Questions
The place for questions. Please, feel free to ask me any question. I will answer truthfully, provided that it doesn't compromise my anonymity.
That's it for now. I will hyperlink to these blog pages once I have fully constructed them. Just click on the topic or subtopic and it will take you where you want to go.
I believe an introduction is in order
I am often a misunderstood person. I appear in many places, under many faces. Originally I did show my face, but for now I have decided that to do so can cause some trouble for myself and my family. Rest assured, if you read my blog I guarantee, absolutely guarantee, that you will be angered. I will not refrain from speaking my mind, and what is on my mind is out there, suffice to say. Some have come to agree with me, but others have gone as far as to threaten my life simply for holding my positions. But I will not waver. Let me tell you, the few readers that are actually reading this, a few things about myself.
Let's start with the basic labels we have these days.
Race: white, Scottish.
Religion: Satanist.
Sexuality: complicated. Attracted to adult female women as well as little girls. I have had strange urges before. Lately I have wondered what it would be like to give a blowjob.
Politics: socially: near anarchical. Economically: socialist.
Gender: male.
Age:19
Of course, to merely call me a Socialistic, social anarchist, satanic pedophile would be indeed a mislabeling. In fact, all that would be is a mere series of labels. Who am I really? I am not the sum of my age, religion, race, sexuality, political beliefs, and gender. No one is. So who, or what, am I at heart?
We all have glasses that we wear when looking upon others and ourselves. What glasses do you wear? Is it your religion? Your age? Your race? Politics? Sexual identity, or opposition to a sexual identity? Your gender? Maybe your own arrogance?
I shall do my best to remove the glasses that I wear, despite the fact that most are unaware of theirs. Let's ignore my labels for a moment.
It seems almost impossible to describe myself without a label being used. I have typed out at least six or seven sentences only to erase them before writing this one. Very well, then. What am I, objectively?
A human, a soul, a son, an uncle, a friend, a brother, a future father and grandfather and great grandfather, etc., likely a future husband, an activist, a writer, a philosopher, a student, a learner, and a teacher, and the list goes on to infinity.
I am lazy, passionate, strange, lonely, angry, and some would even say evil. But of course I am to those whose sacred cows I come to slaughter and make into delicious chesseburgers, liver and onions, and other beef based foods.
Before I cease this endless book of an introduction, let me say this: do not judge me for what I am, judge me for who I am. Sure, I may be a pedophile, but I have harmed no one. I may be a Satanist, but that doesn't prevent me from being a sweet person. I may be a liberal, but I am not anti-american. I am young, but not stupid. I am male, but not sexist. I am white, but not a racist.
Stick with me and judge me for what I present to you, not by my labels.
Let's start with the basic labels we have these days.
Race: white, Scottish.
Religion: Satanist.
Sexuality: complicated. Attracted to adult female women as well as little girls. I have had strange urges before. Lately I have wondered what it would be like to give a blowjob.
Politics: socially: near anarchical. Economically: socialist.
Gender: male.
Age:19
Of course, to merely call me a Socialistic, social anarchist, satanic pedophile would be indeed a mislabeling. In fact, all that would be is a mere series of labels. Who am I really? I am not the sum of my age, religion, race, sexuality, political beliefs, and gender. No one is. So who, or what, am I at heart?
We all have glasses that we wear when looking upon others and ourselves. What glasses do you wear? Is it your religion? Your age? Your race? Politics? Sexual identity, or opposition to a sexual identity? Your gender? Maybe your own arrogance?
I shall do my best to remove the glasses that I wear, despite the fact that most are unaware of theirs. Let's ignore my labels for a moment.
It seems almost impossible to describe myself without a label being used. I have typed out at least six or seven sentences only to erase them before writing this one. Very well, then. What am I, objectively?
A human, a soul, a son, an uncle, a friend, a brother, a future father and grandfather and great grandfather, etc., likely a future husband, an activist, a writer, a philosopher, a student, a learner, and a teacher, and the list goes on to infinity.
I am lazy, passionate, strange, lonely, angry, and some would even say evil. But of course I am to those whose sacred cows I come to slaughter and make into delicious chesseburgers, liver and onions, and other beef based foods.
Before I cease this endless book of an introduction, let me say this: do not judge me for what I am, judge me for who I am. Sure, I may be a pedophile, but I have harmed no one. I may be a Satanist, but that doesn't prevent me from being a sweet person. I may be a liberal, but I am not anti-american. I am young, but not stupid. I am male, but not sexist. I am white, but not a racist.
Stick with me and judge me for what I present to you, not by my labels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)