|
CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/22/2012 11:56:24 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ClassAct2006
Of course we have had evolution. Some women get wet when penetrated. That does not justify rape but it shows how the body works in aiding natural processes. In fact if you orgasm too you are more likely to be impregnated as that draw more sperm gets drawn up. It all makes sense.
However we need to be careful about justifying things on the basis of nature of the past. Huge numbers of women in Pakistan, Saudi etc are subjected to lives they do not want to lead on the basis of rules set out in the dark ages including that little girl shot in the face because she goes to school and blogs about it. Yes, and what you are discussing there is related to Hume's "is-ought problem." The argument that something is justified because it occurs in nature or is a natural tendency is called the "naturalistic fallacy." If you read through A Treatise of Human Nature, he discusses this idea at some length.
"Mean while it may not be amiss to observe from these definitions of natural and unnatural, that nothing can be more unphilosophical than those systems, which assert, that virtue is the same with what is natural, and vice with what is unnatural. For in the first sense of the word, Nature, as opposed to miracles, both vice and virtue are equally natural; and in the second sense, as opposed to what is unusual, perhaps virtue will be found to be the most unnatural. At least it must be owned, that heroic virtue, being as unusual, is as little natural as the most brutal barbarity. As to the third sense of the word, it is certain, that both vice and virtue are equally artificial, and out of nature. For however it may be disputed, whether the notion of a merit or demerit in certain actions be natural or artificial, it is evident, that the actions themselves are artificial, and are performed with a certain design and intention; otherwise they coued never be ranked under any of these denominations. It is impossible, therefore, that the character of natural and unnatural can ever, in any sense, mark the boundaries of vice and virtue."
~Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III, Part I, Sect. II.
If you haven't read this, by the way, it is part of the humanist Pentateuch and is therefore required reading.
quote:
What always turns me totally off a man is if he is sexist who thinks feminism is wrong and that all women whatever their inherent sexuality should submit to all men. I might be submissive but I do not submit to every man on the planet and amazingly not even to all men who happen to say they are dom. I'm a submissive male, and I would never be submissive toward the stereotypical "dominant male." Like any lady, I want no truck with an unclean or wanton brute. I see those sorts of men as gnats, and I think they ought to be castrated, personally. I see feminism as nothing more than the rejection of unjustified or unwanted male dominance. Any worthwhile man ought to champion that, I would think.
I'm drawn more toward the stuffy, cultured, humanistic type. To have the right to dominate me, a man must have the ability to prove to me, very eloquently, that my ideas about something are naive, obtuse, rash and ill-informed and then give me a robust lecture on the actual background behind the issue, citing sources. That turns my legs to butter, let me tell you. And he can't be shy about using four-letter expletives in the same breathe that he uses four-syllable words. That is the only grounds on which a man can gain my respect.
A girl has to have his standards, you know.
|
|
|
|
