Topic: Why I really hate SomethingAwful - page 2. (Read 17024 times)

Whether you think it's rational or not, our society and many other have a thing about treating dead bodies with "respect" and necrophilia is a transgression of that taboo.  Many people are disturbed by anything they perceive as disrespectful being done to a corpse and it's going to cause them mental anguish if they find out that the corpse of a loved one has been "mistreated" in any way. 

Hell, many people refuse to allow autopsies to be conducted on corpses and won't donate organs - even when the decided clearly indicated that they wanted to be a donor - because they regard even dead human bodies as being somehow "sacred".  People generally regard murdering someone and mutilating their corpse as somehow being "worse" than simply killing them.  Society has a thing about how dead bodies should be treated.

There's clearly no harm being done to the corpse itself, but I don't think that the average person is going to react well to learning that someone fucked the corpse of their loved one - whether you believe that's rational or not is irrelevant, it's internally consistent if people hold the viewpoint that dead bodies should be treated with respect.

haha

but...

A dead body is an object not a "party".  If you want to condemn the behavior you'll have to find a better justification than rape.

I think you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that someone who had sex with their pet was endangering their mental health and in that relationship the power dynamics are not an issue.  Obviously if the sex physically harmed the animal then there might be a case for criminality.  Then again I also think it's highly illogical that a meat eating society throws people in jail for physically abusing an animal.  I can facilitate the deaths of hundreds or thousands of animals by eating meat regularly (and I do), but kick a dog once and I can go to jail, what a joke.

As for sexual assault and pedophilia I completely agree.

What he said.

Sexual assault, bestiality and necrophilia are all examples of sexual behaviour with non-consenting parties.  "Consent" isn't always a bright line, either, and I think that's one of the things which disturbs people about some paraphilias - there can be enormous risk of harm if the parties involved aren't all mentally healthy or if the power dynamics are distorted.  In fact, DSM-V is trying to address this essential difference between people whose non-normative sexual behaviour is psychopathological (ie causes harm, impairment or distress) and those in which it's just a "quirk".

A lot of paraphilias have "communities" and those communities attract extremely disturbed as well as well-balanced individuals.  It's the extremely disturbed ones that you tend to hear about.  Some are predators right from the outset and some seem to progressively become more and more immersed in satisfying their particular kink until whatever has previously kept them grounded breaks down.  It's those individuals who operate at the extreme that you tend to hear about.

At an intellectual level, I think many people are aware that "if you can imagine it, someone is masturbating to it".  There are certainly some people who think "if it doesn't turn me on then it shouldn't turn anyone on", but I think that many people's reactions to the paraphilia's of others are a bit more complex than that.  

Is having sex with the cushion on your couch rape?  It can't consent.  As far as animals, I'd think you'd be able to tell if they were receptive or not.  I could have sex with a girl that spoke no English and tell whether I was raping her or not.

You're right, I was just correcting an informational error. There's morally no difference between homosexuality and being a furry. Anything done between consenting adults (including dressing up as racoons) is fine by me. On the other hand, having sex with animals or corpses... if it can't consent, it's rape.

My main point was that it shouldn't matter.  Whether it's sex with animals or sex with cartoon animals or whatever else.  Being intolerant of anything you don't personally understand is logical to a certain point.  You hate what you don't understand, it's ignorant and I don't agree with the standpoint but it makes some kind of sense.  From my perspective furries not wanting to have sex with animals but rather being turned on by cartoon animals is sort of the same difference.  Both motivations seem odd to me, but if I'm willing to accept one I'd have to being willing to accept the other, otherwise risk being a hypocrite.

In their defense, most people who consider themselves "furries" don't want to actually have sex with animals. Rather, anthropomorphic animals (like the one in the picture above) get them hot.

Personally, I blame Disney.

Why differentiate between flavors of sexual deviations from the heterosexual "norm"?  Either you are committed to tolerance and accept all sexual preferences of others (barring rape, pedophilia etc.) or you're a hypocrite that just moves the goal posts on tolerance to match societal acceptance.

Logically I understand there is nothing cosmically wrong with being gay (or wanting to have sex with animals or dead bodies or whatever).  I don't oppose their existence or rights.

From my personal and subjective perspective I find it all disgusting to imagine and don't want to be involved with it or watch it or anything else.  This is most likely at least partially due to the environment I grew up in.  Maybe they can't change their desires, much as I can't help being repulsed by it.

I see no logical standing to arbitrarily be accepting of one variation in sexual desires and not another.  The only difference being in cases where one partner is non-consenting.

So if you're not personally inclined to suck a dick or hump a dog why treat one as acceptable and the other as "needing psychological help"?  How do you know that each of those impulses as well as your own aren't derived from the same sources?  We don't fully understand how much of what people feel is nature vs nurture (to the best of my knowledge, links to studies and articles on this matter are welcome), and even if we did, should it really make a difference?

haters gon hate lol. just chill and move to WA or CO

That actually describes what I see a lot of this hate as

At which point the thread turned into a massive flamewar and got locked, yeah. Still, SA has improved a lot over the years. Notice all the (:regd04:) people complaining about how they can't even mock furries anymore and how the forum's gone downhill? From what I can remember they're not kidding about how things used to be.

In fact, as best as I can tell this new community divide is the reason they don't have furry threads anymore. The last one I saw on there imploded after some people called gay furries "faggots" and one of the gay forum members objected. He got piled on and someone paid to change his forum title to "I am a faggot" in massive red text. Things went downhill pretty quickly from there. (Interestingly, title changes have to be approved by the admins and the other moderators seemed scared to change it back.) Some people in the first Bitcoin thread seemed to be worried about that turning into a furry thread and getting locked too.

Yeaaaaah... bit more to it than that. A lot (all?) of the anti-furry stuff out there uses language that'd be obviously homophobic in any other context, aims it at a group that is famously largely gay, and justifies this by arguing that they're not really gay, they're just a bunch of fat weirdo freaks who just turn to other guys because no women would sleep with them and who are appropriating gay rights to stop people giving their freaky fetish stuff a well-deserved mocking. (I honestly cannot grasp why anyone would think that argument's a good idea, but people apparently do.) A lot of the supposed examples of furries equating their fetish to being gay actually have more to do with them objecting to that.

In fact, you know the well-known example of furries equating their fetish with being gay, that drawing of a fox crying in front of a rainbow flag? The one that SA has an emoticon of which they use to mock furries? I literally only found this out by accident a few months ago, but it's actually nothing of the sort. It's part of a statement by an actual gay guy who also happens to be a furry about the dire state of gay rights in the US in 2004 and how this affects him; "fursecution" didn't even enter into it until SA went herpderp, furries can't possibly care about gay rights, let's mock him for it.

I haven't fallen for scams so I think I do know better than these professionals   yes, Bitcoin exchanges fail, yes, there are ponzi and investment schemes, however that isn't to do with Bitcoin, that's just humanity at work, you think you don't have to deal with scam artists in other currencies? Of course you do in fact some of these people you lot seem to blindly put your faith in have been involved in some scams bigger than anything people in the Bitcoin community have come up with so far and they've been at it for longer.

The problem here is not that you're criticizing Bitcoin but its the way that the problems you're all describing have nothing to do with the currency itself but the people and that's a fact, you lot need to learn how to take criticism yourself really, if scams are all that Bitcoin critics can come up with as a problem with the currency then it's probably going to do pretty damn well compared to all the other fiat currencies.

Well, that's about what I expected when I read "coffee table," but yeah. Good artwork, but I'd say either it needs to be displayed in a more appropriate place, or he should not be so "proud."  Pants would be nice. I wouldn't call it "creepy," but as I said before, not my style. That said, not my house, not my say. Enjoy, Rassah... at least you always remember where you put the remote.

Because you just *know* he's masturbated to it. I imagine that table would glow like New York City at night if you hit it with a black light.

-Zoey

Maybe something about it's dimensions, and if the same thing would be something hanging on the wall I'd be less concerned.
I mean there is enough space on it for a person to lay down on it...
Then when you say coffee table I expected something small, maybe round with maybe enough space for two or thee persons to sit at.

I'm curious about why you find the image "creepy".  I don't find the image appealing at all, but I don't find it intrinsically creepy either.  There's a fair bit of more conventional art around which is disturbing but which doesn't ping people's "creepy" meter either (in fact there's quite a few disturbing images that I'd regard as good art and be happy to display).