ChaosMen: Taylor & Vander (RAW PISS)

encephallus says:

@Fazz

“If Brian wants to this type of porn, FINE; but he shouldn’t expect perfectly sensible people to find it ‘decent’. It’s not!” -Fazz

Masses and masses of heterosexuals would say the exact same thing about all homosexual porn. If this is your defence of CCBill’s action, then you, Fazz, should be advocating for all homosexual porn to be censored.

“Spraying bacteria and chemicals around and claiming that it’s ‘hot’, yeah sorry but that’s neither normal nor is it healthy.” -Fazz

Then surely (logically) you must agree that all ejaculation should also be censored from porn. Semen travels through the same urethra as urine, you know? Any bacteria that the urine washes out can also be washed out in semen. So displays of the ejaculation of semen is at least as unhealthy as displays of the the expulsion of urine.

“Seriously where will this stop? Fisting, Double Penetration, Whipping, Electro-stimulation, extreme bondage, feigned torture etc. when does it pass the line between porn and torture, when will it cross the line from legal to illegal? Should the next step be legalization of Snuff porn, simply because there is an audience for it, because there is money to be made or because there is consent between the parties.” -Fazz

Ooo, the classic slippery slope argument: “If we allow homosexual marriage, what’s next? Polygamous marriage? Incestuous marriage? Bestial marriage?”

Such an argument is simply fallacious in all iterations.

The societal tolerance or prohibition of different conduct (or media, rights, etc.) can and should be justified case-by-case. If different cases involve different considerations, then they it may be that tolerance is rationally justified in one case while prohibition is justified in another.

“I don’t mean to sound ‘vanilla’, I just think that if you’re intent is to harm your own body or another human being you should not be considered a completely, mentally healthy person.” -Fazz

I doubt you have the evidence to claim that anyone in piss porn is *intentionally* trying to harm any body, their own included. It would be irrelevant anyways though, since you have not yet evinced that contact with urine is in fact substantially more harmful than contact with semen, saliva, sweat, or even skin (all of which have “bacteria and chemicals,” just as urine does).

If you are denouncing piss porn and supporting its censorship on the basis that it is “indecent”, because (in your expert opinion) urine is too toxic, then you should actually be denouncing and censoring all porn.

If you are denouncing piss porn and supporting its censorship on the basis that it is “indecent”, because (in your personal opinion) you find it to be disgusting, then you are no better than a homophobe disgusted by and seeking to outlaw all homosexual conduct.

Really, Fazz, I think you ought to check yo’self before you wreck yo’self.

encephallus says:

@AshBry

“Err, the point of porn is to ejaculate and reach climax through orgasm.” -AshBry

Uh, wow. How do you explain the existence of porn in which there is no ejaculation? Have you ever heard of softcore porn?

I think more people would agree that the point of porn is to sexually entertain/arouse. For some people, piss porn does this.

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but when men are aroused and receive sexual stimulation, they are biologically (and dare I say naturally) programmed to release semen.” -AshBry

But (at least when it comes to urine) Fazz claims that displays of harmful fluid exchange should be banned in porn. Semen is not sterile. Ejaculation can spray chemicals and bacteria all over the place. Recall what Fazz said, “spraying bacteria and chemicals around and claiming that it’s ‘hot’, yeah sorry but that’s neither normal nor is it healthy.” I think you’re disagreeing with Fazz’s words, not mine.

“Pissing on a partner is something people are inventing for purposes that I cannot begin to comprehend. In fact, this type of behavior is unlikely to be present in the sexual habits of other mammals or species. But then again I’m not an expert on that area.” -AshBry

Again you resort to the same kinds of arguments that homophobes use when they seek to censor or restrict homosexuality. (Note that I am not calling you a homophobe, I’m simply pointing out that you are using the same flawed arguments that they use. Whether the behavior is “natural” or not is irrelevant. We don’t ban the wearing of glasses because it is “unnatural”.) I find it interesting and disturbing that you do this so frequently.

Also, you are dead wrong about pissing not being involved in the sexual habits of non-human animals. Males of almost all mammalian species (from mice to monkeys) sniff the pheremone- and hormone-rich urine of their mates to detect if their mate is presently fertile–and the sniffing males become sexually aroused in the process. As a volunteer zookeeper for a year, it was a common sight among the animals at the zoo. I saw firsthand as a male giraffe actually stuck it’s head into its mate’s stream of urine, and then subsequently began to initiate sex. The zookeeper I was working with explained to me what was going on. If you really can’t believe that such things happen in nature, then I can try to find some official documentation of the phenomenon.

“WOW, you’ve reached a new low! You’re comparing/ catagorizing homosexual marriage with polygamy and incest?” -AshBry

Actually, it’s your reading comprehension that has reached a new low. I clearly said that arguing using such slippery-slope comparisons is fundamentally fallacious, and I even explained why.

Here’s my actual quote, so you can try to read it correctly this time. I said, “Ooo, the classic slippery slope argument: ‘If we allow homosexual marriage, what’s next? Polygamous marriage? Incestuous marriage? Bestial marriage?’ Such an argument is simply fallacious in all iterations. The societal tolerance or prohibition of different conduct (or media, rights, etc.) can and should be justified case-by-case. If different cases involve different considerations, then it may be that tolerance is rationally justified in one case while prohibition is justified in another.”

I only brought it up because Fazz was making an argument that was perfectly analagous to this common but fallacious gay marriage argument that you so vehemently oppose. Fazz’s slippery-slope argument and the gay marriage slippery-slope argument are fallacious on the same grounds.

“Oh encephallus, grow a brain! YOU’RE calling him no better than a homophobe because he finds piss-play indecent and sets limits on what he believes are safe sex practices?” -AshBry

Try reading that one again; that’s not what I said. My conclusion was clearly premised on the condition that he approves of the censorship of piss-play. “Censorship” was a key word in my statement and you completely overlooked it. Fazz is not just expressing his opinions on what is indecent, he’s actively promoting the censorship of that which he finds to be indecent, simply because he doesn’t like it.

For at least the third time now, I’m only criticizing his approval and attempted justification of censorship. I do not decry him for expressing his personal tastes or for holding himself to whatever limits of decency that he so desires. I just reject the idea that anyone’s personal aesthetic opinions are any justification for censorship.

“You’re resorting to name-calling because he doesn’t adhere to your view and wants to express how he sees abnormality in accepting piss-play as erotic or healthy?” -AshBry

Nowhere did I call Fazz any names. Maybe you are imagining that I called him a homophobe? I didn’t. I only indicated how his position on censorship has the same basis as a homophobe’s position on censorship. That is not name-calling.

Also, you think that my view is that “accepting piss-play as erotic or healthy is normal”? If so, you are wrong. I dare you to point out (with a direct quote) where I expressed such a position in your eyes. I have simply said (1) that his personal opinions on the eroticness or normalcy of piss-play are no justification for censoring piss-porn and (2) that he has failed to evince that piss-play is terribly unhealthy compared to other acts that are widely permitted in porn.

encephallus says:

@fresero_abre_culos

Well, the definition of “normal” is “conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.” So, if pissing on someone else is “not that common” as you say, then it is indeed not “normal”, by definition.

I agree with your point, though. The hypocrisy of gay people decrying that piss porn should be censored from society simply because piss porn is “not normal” is truly shameful.