"Joe Millionaire" finalist starred in bondage and fetish flicks

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:

Picture this:

Set a continuum from two polar opposites, one good and one bad.

Man, as a rational being will have a wider range of behavior on either side of the median, than say a dog or a cat. Reason cannot compel people to behave in a moral matter, it merely enables them to do more than they would otherwise, either for good or for bad.

In this sense, man can be worse off than a pig, as a pig would never think to do some of the things that people do. A pig has not the sense to exceed its' bounds.

Where do you believe virtues come from? Are they a construct of a society, or do they remain unchanged over time? Who decides what is a virtue, and what is not?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Agathon:

Where do you believe virtues come from? Are they a construct of a society, or do they remain unchanged over time? Who decides what is a virtue, and what is not?

The same way most useful human notions arise - from experiment and failure. People generally have a good idea of what and what not to do. Ask yourself, how many donuts a day is right for you - I'm betting you have a rough answer.

If donuts became less fattening then I think one could eat more.

Similarly, if some psychophysical treatment was available to allow people to take drugs without any consequences, our attitude towards drugs would change radically.

[Tuberski]

Those pictures are for perverts. I mean, come on, still clothed?




ACK!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
So what if others deem homosexuality to be a perversion. I can't think of any reason why it stops a person living well. On the other hand necrophilia defintely does.

Let's stop using necrophilia as an example. It is, after all, a particularly extreme fetish, and is about as unsubstantiated to actually exist as snuff films. How about foot-licking then. How does getting turned on by licking the foot of one's sexual partner stop a person from living well?

And I'd also point out that even extreme fetishes (like, say, cannibalism, which is indeed one) almost always end at the realm of fantasy or role-play rather than actually acting them out.

As for the theology - I don't need it. All I need is a notion of living well for a human being (which is something we all take for granted and only dispense with when we are trying to justify our liking of silly things). All I am really claiming is that human nature imposes certain limits on what is good for us - for example: too many donuts are bad no matter what we think. Since I don't believe we have a soul and that our minds are nothing more than physical I don't have any problem with making similar claims about "psychic health".

The problem here is that this is also subjective to a large degree. What you and I define as "living well" may be very different. And I'm certain most people who enjoy fetishes live their lives without noticeable detriment. Fetishes aren't all-consuming as you seem to be implying.

The donut example is also subjective. I know people who can eat whatever they want and never gain a pound, never suffer an adverse health effect. And then there are diabetics. And then there are those of us in the middle. Is it morally wrong for a man who can eat as many donuts as he likes and still be healthy to do so because maybe you cannot?

What you seem to be doing is taking wrong in the sense of "God would prohibit it, if he existed." I am trying to get away from this conception of ethics. Mine is simply, "It's bad for people." The benefit of my conception of ethics is that human welfare exists whereas God's existence, or the existence of reasons for accepting universal moral rules may or may not exist.

Not at all--God doesn't enter into it. I'm just pointing out that what you may deem to be bad for people isn't necessarily the case.

Certainly, some people can take their fetishes to extremes and have it become an obsession which hurts them. But this applies to all things not done in moderation. If some guy gets hammered and then goes out and stumbles into a river and drowns, I don't see that as a reason to prohibit consuming alcohol.

That's probably true. However, I think once we get to tying people up and smelling feet something has started to go awry - and when we get to sadism something has definitely flipped.

Again, I don't think these things necessarily are bad for people. I'm sure there's plenty of people who are turned on by odd things who then go out and lead successful, happy lives. I don't think their fetish should be judged as harmful because a few take it to extremes. It's a case by case basis.

Try this line of reasoning with necrophilia.

Fond of extremes, are we?

Find me an actual instance of necrophilia, first.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Let's stop using necrophilia as an example. It is, after all, a particularly extreme fetish, and is about as unsubstantiated to actually exist as snuff films. How about foot-licking then. How does getting turned on by licking the foot of one's sexual partner stop a person from living well?

Why, it does happen. There are several documented cases. Dennis Nilsen, Peter Sutcliffe, Dahmer (reputedly), and others.

I didn't say that foot licking was a major big deal (unlike necrophilia), but it does seem to indicate a mild form of masochism and desire to be humiliated which I can't think of any reason for. Liking to be beaten and humiliated would seem to be a mild form of insanity. Look, if people want to eat s**t, I'm not going to say the law should stop them. I will say that they are insane. The foot lickers are a less extreme version - they're still nutty though.

The problem here is that this is also subjective to a large degree. What you and I define as "living well" may be very different.

This is an assertion rather than an argument. The donut example is most certainly not subjective - it is relative to one's constitution, but that is an objective matter of fact. Someone that thinks donuts are good for him may in fact be wrong.

Similarly, anyone who thinks that anything is good for him may be wrong. Doing well in life is simply more than thinking you are doing so - so is health - and I would argue that the two come down to roughly the same thing.

Certainly, some people can take their fetishes to extremes and have it become an obsession which hurts them. But this applies to all things not done in moderation.

Excellent, you are now an Aristotelian.

Again, I don't think these things necessarily are bad for people. I'm sure there's plenty of people who are turned on by odd things who then go out and lead successful, happy lives. I don't think their fetish should be judged as harmful because a few take it to extremes. It's a case by case basis.

What's good about licking people's stinky feet? You might say that people like it - that's fine: I don't dispute that at all. What I am claiming is that a person who likes foot licking can reflect on whether his own desires are in fact good for him. In fact we really should engage in this sort of reflection all the time if we want to make the best of things.

Masochism is simply the desire to be harmed in certain ways. These people want to be harmed and humiliated - that's insane.

Anyway, I just watched the first ten minutes of "Joe Millionaire" to see what all the fuss was about (I had never watched it before).

The whole cast and crew are a blight on humanity, in my opinion. What a pack of pathetic, disgusting losers.

[Sirotnikov]

I didn't say that foot licking was a major big deal (unlike necrophilia), but it does seem to indicate a mild form of masochism and desire to be humiliated which I can't think of any reason for. Liking to be beaten and humiliated would seem to be a mild form of insanity. Look, if people want to eat s**t, I'm not going to say the law should stop them. I will say that they are insane. The foot lickers are a less extreme version - they're still nutty though.

But that is just judgemental.

The whole point is that I don't think you or anyone else except god, can really judge things in an absolute fashion.

There is no equivalence between "eat healthy" and "don't be a kinky sexual partner". eating healthy will improve your health.

there is no proof that being kinky will somehow degrade your mental health.

you assume that there is a one good way, and all the rest are going astray.

Masochism is simply the desire to be harmed in certain ways. These people want to be harmed and humiliated - that's insane.

Not at all.

People like to be frightened to death by scary movies and roller coasters. People like to be saddenned by drama movies. People like to loose inhibitions and laugh from comedies.

It's all different types of thrills.

And you can't say that following thrills is bad for you, since if people wouldn't risk their life for thrills, many discoveries would have never happenned.

After all, what maniac would stand outside with a kite when there's a lightning storm?

[Sirotnikov]

Try this line of reasoning with necrophilia.

necrophilia can cause you to get sick.
people do 'sex' with in animate objects (ie masturbators, apple pies, watermelons, sex puppets, fake vaginas, cucumbers) all the time, and no one has yet to suffer (except if it's a sharp tool or it got stuck )

All I am really claiming is that human nature imposes certain limits on what is good for us -

And who made you the person to draw the line ?

in short there is something wrong with them.

prove that objectively.

I'd say it's bad for her. It's not terrible in the way that necrophilia or coprophilia would be, but it is less than optimal. Would you think a person who continually stabbed himself was sane? I think this is the same sort of thing - people who enjoy coprophilia or fantasize over corpses are mentally ill.

you're going to extremes since your point really doesn't apply to tickling and foot licking. there is absolutely no way you can prove your claim that it is 'bad'. you 'think' it's bad, and that's about it.

Many people are active participants of things they don't quite understand, so that can't quite be it. In the case of someone offering sweets to a child so they can take nudie pictures of them it is not clear that the child is even psychologically harmed.

he is harmed since his rights aren't yet known to him.

it's hard to me to argue about this explicit point, since i don't believe that there should be anything wrong with nudity.

the point is, however, that that child's picture will be used by adults to masturbate over - and he should have the right to know that, and give concent.

it's as wrong as taking candid camera pictures of people in locker rooms - they aren't aware of the full cituation and it isn't in concent.

as for phsyche harm - i meant when they are physically exploited.

It's unhealthy for a start. All I am claiming is that there are some unhealthy sexual obsessions.

that's claims.
now prove something.

Does turning someone into a sleaze count?

how would one objectively judge that?

[Agathon]

Most of this is pretty worthless as argument.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
necrophilia can cause you to get sick.

So you think that's all that's wrong with it?

And who made you the person to draw the line ?

Since when do facts about physical and mental health need anyone to "draw a line"? If you were suffering from the bubonic plague would you think it was because of something I said.

prove that objectively.

If you accept that a person who wants to stab themselves for fun is mentally ill, I can't see what is wrong with saying that someone who wants to be tortured for kicks is nuts too. What's your definition of mental illness? I think you need to give me an idea before we can get anywhere here. It seems obvious to me that people who want to pretend they are animals or babies for sexual purposes are suffering from some mild form of insanity. Indeed these sort of things come under "paraphilias" in psych textbooks.

you're going to extremes since your point really doesn't apply to tickling and foot licking. there is absolutely no way you can prove your claim that it is 'bad'. you 'think' it's bad, and that's about it.

No. I think that foot licking is a particular perversion that is insignificant compared to the desire to torture people, but it is still a perversion. It's not so much the foot licking and bondage but the psychic state of the person who enjoys being dominated and humiliated that is bad. You still haven't answered the question: if someone likes foot licking, can't he also say to himself, is this a good sort of desire to indulge?

It may be even worse - many perversions tend to get more extreme as time goes on - I take it you have heard of Ted Bundy. Look up Jerome Brudos as well.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be a sexual obsession, any kind of unhealthy obsession is bad for you.

Many people are active participants of things they don't quite understand, so that can't quite be it. In the case of someone offering sweets to a child so they can take nudie pictures of them it is not clear that the child is even psychologically harmed.

he is harmed since his rights aren't yet known to him.

Complete crap. What sort of harm are you talking about?

the point is, however, that that child's picture will be used by adults to masturbate over - and he should have the right to know that, and give concent.

What if he gives consent? Don't tell me that children can't consent to things - this is a legal fiction invented to make adults feel better. Again - many people consent to things they don't really understand - I fail to see how the child is harmed here.

it's as wrong as taking candid camera pictures of people in locker rooms - they aren't aware of the full cituation and it isn't in concent.

This is different because the child can see the camera and knows what is going on. Are you telling me that a 12 year old can't understand that someone might want to see pictures of them naked?

You still haven't managed to tell me just what is wrong with child pornography. My answer is that it is the mental state of the consumer of child pornography who is a pervert.

as for phsyche harm - i meant when they are physically exploited.

You still haven't shown just what the harm is.

It's unhealthy for a start. All I am claiming is that there are some unhealthy sexual obsessions.

that's claims.
now prove something.

Feet are often dirty, licking dirty feet is likely to cause oral infections. Don't you agree?

Eating excrement is phenomenally bad for you. Don't you agree?

Desiring to repeatedly experience something that human beings have adapted to avoid (pain and tissue damage) is rather odd, don't you think?

Don't you think there is something mad about someone who has a thing for cucumbers? (to use your example).

Don't you agree that a man who can't stop himself from stealing women's underwear is similar to a drug addict? This is the sort of thing I mean.

Does turning someone into a sleaze count?

how would one objectively judge that?

Think about some of the chronic womanisers you know.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't tell me that children can't consent to things - this is a legal fiction invented to make adults feel better. Again - many people consent to things they don't really understand - I fail to see how the child is harmed here.

Agathon, you're off base here. Children cannot legally give consent for sexual acts in Canada before age 14.

The whole basis for consent is that the person can understand what is being asked. Legal consent can be taken away if it can be shown that the person was unable to comprehend the question. This has significance in cases with mentally handicapped people who are taken advantage, as well as for children.

People may 'consent' to actions they don't understand, but their consent will have no force.

Agathon, do you believe kiddy porn is wrong?
The child is harmed because adults are exploiting him for their sexual desires. It also encourages others to exploit children if they can make a profit off kiddy porn.

[Sirotnikov]

So you think that's all that's wrong with it?

one of them.

but that is an arguement against it.

licking feet, has no arguments against it, except that you should be careful not to catch fungi, which you can get through usual sex as well.

Since when do facts about physical and mental health need anyone to "draw a line"? If you were suffering from the bubonic plague would you think it was because of something I said.

No.... but you can definitly and objectively say if a person is ill with the plague or not.

you can not however objectively say, when too much sex is too much. that is your interpertation.

If you accept that a person who wants to stab themselves for fun is mentally ill, I can't see what is wrong with saying that someone who wants to be tortured for kicks is nuts too. What's your definition of mental illness? I think you need to give me an idea before we can get anywhere here. It seems obvious to me that people who want to pretend they are animals or babies for sexual purposes are suffering from some mild form of insanity. Indeed these sort of things come under "paraphilias" in psych textbooks.

If someone does not actually believe he is a baby, or an animal, then he's not nuts.

What's the difference between pretending to be a latino lover, a horse or a chunck of foam? It's fantasy.

And people, as I said, like to be tortured, just like they like to be scared.

Ever went to the *forgot it's name* machine, which is basically a closed shape with plasma inside which has visible electric currents going on in the inside.

when you touch it and touch someone else, you and him get shocked.

did you ever did it repeatedly? me and my friends were in a physics museum lately, and we did.

are we mentally ill?

No. I think that foot licking is a particular perversion that is insignificant compared to the desire to torture people, but it is still a perversion. It's not so much the foot licking and bondage but the psychic state of the person who enjoys being dominated and humiliated that is bad. You still haven't answered the question: if someone likes foot licking, can't he also say to himself, is this a good sort of desire to indulge?

there is no such thing "a good" sort of desire.
there could be "harmful" or "useful", or for instance "pleasurable" or "unpleasant".

good or bad have no meaning in regards to that. it's a moral judgement which I don't accept.

It may be even worse - many perversions tend to get more extreme as time goes on - I take it you have heard of Ted Bundy. Look up Jerome Brudos as well.

Is there any research to prove that?

I would assume that it wasn't small perversions which grew strong, but rather insanity that began only by showing early signs.

how do we differentiate small perversions from early signs of insanity? by judging purely the symptoms - we can't.

by todays standards, almost everyone are insane in a way.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be a sexual obsession, any kind of unhealthy obsession is bad for you.

Aha. why did you add unhealthy?
who said licking feet is less healthy than sucking d*ck?

What if he gives consent? Don't tell me that children can't consent to things - this is a legal fiction invented to make adults feel better. Again - many people consent to things they don't really understand - I fail to see how the child is harmed here.

Experiments proved that children have at first simpler grasp of logic, morality and so forth.

younger people don't think through as much, and can envision less potencial outcomes.

that's why early teen sex is to be avoided - they are generally aren't emotionally ready to deal with the responsability and aren't aware of the consequences and so forth.

This is different because the child can see the camera and knows what is going on. Are you telling me that a 12 year old can't understand that someone might want to see pictures of them naked?

A 12 may or may not. Depends on what is his sorrounding society.

In any case, a 12 y/o is less equipped to make judgements - which is why 12 y/o people don't vote, for instance.

You still haven't managed to tell me just what is wrong with child pornography. My answer is that it is the mental state of the consumer of child pornography who is a pervert.

that is nonsense.

are you going to arrest people for having a mental state now?

maybe you should try and arrest anyone who ever imagined naked children?

this is silly. you can't arrest people for crime thought. there's freedom of speech, but not freedom of mental state?

tell me then, what's the difference between wanting to kill someone and killing him? in both cases the person is bad - he was in a mental state in which he was amok and wanted someone dead. let's assume that it were only enviromental coincidences that lead one to kill, and the other not to.

You still haven't shown just what the harm is.

are you seriously claiming that the sole harm in child porn is to the "morals" or "mental state" of the grownup who participated in it????

Feet are often dirty, licking dirty feet is likely to cause oral infections. Don't you agree?

so would licking genitalia.

feet btw, have lots and lots nerve endings. they are (unless you have blisters) among the most sensual parts of your body, and can be just as erogenous (especially for some people ) as, say, the chest and lower abdomen, and even breasts and nipples.

Eating excrement is phenomenally bad for you. Don't you agree?

yes, because it contains bodily waste and poisons.

Desiring to repeatedly experience something that human beings have adapted to avoid (pain and tissue damage) is rather odd, don't you think?

so you are now basing your morality on the human norm?

100 years ago, people tried to avoid walking near black cats or under ladders.

800 years ago, people tried to avoid cleaning themselves more than twice per year.

Don't you think there is something mad about someone who has a thing for cucumbers? (to use your example).

no.

Don't you agree that a man who can't stop himself from stealing women's underwear is similar to a drug addict? This is the sort of thing I mean.

wait. if he can't stop himself - then it's a problem. he hasn't control of his urges. obviously a problem since delaying satisfaction is a key strategy needed for survival in general, and esp. in a civilised organized society.

but i'm talking about those who can stop themselves - those who like collecting underwears. or stamps for that matter. or post cards.

assuming no women are hurt, and he does other usual life activities, no i don't thing there's anything wrong with it.

sure, it's odd, and wierd to collect and sniff female panties. but no one can say it's wrong.


isn't apolyton an addiction? isn't posting texts and lecturing about morals to people from other places on the globe wierd? isn't desiring to repeatedly argue about ethics rather odd?

Think about some of the chronic womanisers you know.

since when am i an objective device for measuring the amount of sleaze in chronic womanisers?

that's my point. my outlook on life is completely based on my conceptions of normality and pleasantness in society.

therefore, except for several norms which I think are important as rules, to avoid chaos and allow a structured society, I'm all for being liberal and pluralist.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Agathon, you're off base here. Children cannot legally give consent for sexual acts in Canada before age 14.

The whole basis for consent is that the person can understand what is being asked. Legal consent can be taken away if it can be shown that the person was unable to comprehend the question. This has significance in cases with mentally handicapped people who are taken advantage, as well as for children.

People may 'consent' to actions they don't understand, but their consent will have no force.

Agathon, do you believe kiddy porn is wrong?
The child is harmed because adults are exploiting him for their sexual desires. It also encourages others to exploit children if they can make a profit off kiddy porn.

My point is that it is just wrong to think that children under 14 don't know what they are doing. Where is the evidence to support this claim.

In short, it is a legal fiction.

Of course I think kiddy porn is wrong, but for different reasons.

[Ozz]

She didn't break any laws.
She was working making an honest buck and pulling her weight in society.

Anything else is illrelivant.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:

The actual age of consent is somewhat arbitrary, since different people will mature at different ages. For this reason it is impossible to set an age at which all people will be able to consent.

I don't think we have statistics on the percentage of children at age 14 who are of the age of reason. The main purpose of the legislation is to protect children. Setting the age at 14 is a reflection of society's belief that this is the age at which children should be protected, nothing more and nothing less.

But as for informed consent- this is not legal fiction. For children, it is treated on a case-by-case basis whether or not the child can understand the complications of the procedure. There is some difference between locales concerning how to determine informed consent, anywhere from read, and repeat in one's own words to some form of analysis and original contribution.

[Agathon]

As I was saying before I was called away...

We aren't talking about the law Ozz - we are talking about morality.

Anyway...

Let's see - I think we should stop getting involved in a quote war, it doesn't lend itself to clarity.

If you want to say that the law should generally avoid locking people up because they like licking feet and bondage, then I agree. There are limits on what should be illegal, since making all immoral acts illegal would have worse consequences than not doing so.

My theory is roughly this: morality is about doing well in life. Every normal person has an interest in this (it's a natural fact). Any other attempt to find grounds for morality or some sense of value in the world fails (God, the nature of reason, etc.).

Moreover, what counts as doing well in life is not whatever you think it is - our organic nature imposes certain constraints upon us.

This is the case with certan things such as bodily health - a state of an organism in which everything works as it should. This has very little to do with a person's subjective take on things and everything to do with the constitution of their body.

People like to say that this is not the case with mental health. I disagree since I think that mental events just are physical events. There is, however, a certain vagueness in the language we use about mental events which you are exploiting in this debate. In short, psychological theories do not have the same degree of precision as physics or chemistry. I think this is due in part to historical accident and our feeble understanding of the relationship between brain states and mental states. I could go on, but that's the general point.

If we had a better understanding of the mind then we would have a better understanding of mental health. We don't, but we can see that a better understanding of the mind would comprise a physical theory, because mental states are physical states. This being so, there is no problem with treating mental problems on par with physical problems. Anyone who says otherwise probably believes in souls or some other metaphysical hangover from the age of religion.

From this it behooves us to take a high degree of interest in our mental health since we are more intimately involved with our mental states (since "mind" is strongly identified with the self); much more so than what we call our "physical" health (although this is misleading since mental states just are physical states).

A normal person has no desire to be degraded or humiliated. These are "bad" desires to have since being degraded or humiliated makes us worse off. Sexualising degradation or humiliation or violence or dominance replaces normal sexual desire with something else. These are not normal or healthy - they result from traumatic experiences in youth or some other trauma or misdirection of the sexual impulse.

What I am talking about, and why I object to this sort of thing is that it deprives a person of a great good by replacing a sexual and emotional relationship based on equality with one based on subordination or domination. A similar phenomenon is evident in women who choose abusive partners. By definition, one simply cannot engage in a relationship of equals when subordination or domination is equated with sexual desire. To be sure, there are many relationships like this - they are simply bad relationships. People who manage to sustain loving sexual relationships as equals are simply happier than those who don't. Look around at the people who are happiest - these are the people in long term relationships based on equality in which there are no elements of sadism or masochism. For some reason such relationships have been selected for, which is why people are happier when they are in them. Other sorts of relationships are called "dysfunctional" precisely because they don't serve the interests of the related parties.

A man who views his wife as a sexual chattel is incapable of seeing her as a subject, rather he sees her as an object of his will. Similarly a masochistic person seeks to make themselves a chattel of another. You simply cannot have a relationship of equals in such a situation.

A for child pornography, all the things you have mentioned are contingent. The child may be harmed socially, psychologically or physically, or did not consent, but whenever this is not the case you have no reason for being against it (the "age of consent" is a legal fiction - there will always be exceptions - however I oppose child pornography for the first three reasons as well). The reason I gave prohibits child pornography simply because the psychology of the child abuser is perverted. This holds in all cases of people enjoying child pornography, bestiality, etc.

And as for the unhealthy actions of those licking genitalia, etc. I suggest that people wash before they do these things. The case described is one in which people lick dirty feet - not because they didn't bother to wash, but because they enjoy the degradation.


And obiwan - that is the stated reason for the law, but I could never imagine a case in which a child pornographer was let off because it was determined that the child gave informed consent.

Having said that even if the law prohibits it (which is a good idea) a case in which a child is not harmed and gives informed consent poses a problem for non-virtue ethicists since it doesn't appear to be immoral.

[NeOmega]

mmmmm.... boondage..... achhhlllllll.......

Eeew! Foot fetish!