Indeceny

[Circle_One]

The thread regarding David Carradine's death sparked a debate between a few of us regarding indecency and what exactly makes an act, or a person indecent. So as to not bring that thread further off topic, I thought I'd start a thread in the debates section to continue the discussion we were having, and to allow others to chime in on the subject.

Before I continue what I was saying to Enoch, I'd like to open the forum up to the rest of you. With regards to the three things brought up in the Carridine thread, which do you think are indecent, if any? Auto-erotic asphyxiation, incest, domectic violence.

Now, before you start, I'll explain a little further. David died hanging in a closet, naked, with his gentils bound. This is what has led everyone to believe he died in the midst of auto-erotic asphyxiation. Is this indecent?

The incest was whole-heartedly admitted by David and was between him and another member of his family who was of age and a willing participant. Is this indecent? Why, if both members are willing and are well aware of the consequences? What makes it indecent.

And the third, Domestic violence, was an accusation on the part of his ex wife, and was an unfounded and exaggerated accusation.

Even aside from these three things, what is indecency? What makes someone indecent?

 

[Dunemeister]

I'd call auto-erotic asphyxiation indecent, but incest and domectic violence immoral, which I take to be more serious than indecent. I'm not sure what the exact rationale for this distinction is, it's mostly intuitive.

 

[Enoch07]

I'll wait a bit see what others have to say as well before we continue.

 

[Willamena]

With regards to the three things brought up in the Carridine thread, which do you think are indecent, if any? Auto-erotic asphyxiation, incest, domectic violence.

Decency, like truth, is a personal preference. That groups may agree on a particular preference lends the group support (as it would truth).

 

[Circle_One]

Not that indecent in itself, except when you die because you made a mistake and hung yourself or if the other person strangling you goes overboard and accidentally kills you, then yes it becomes an indecent act.

So because something may, at one time or another, accidentally kill you, that makes it indecent? But by that logic then, people with heart conditions should never have sex because the over-exertion may cause them to have a fatal heart attack.

He obviously didn't mean to kill himself, and something went wrong, but I don't see how this would make it indecent. If you're having sex with someone and you ask them to choke you and they accidentally push to hard and kill you, who would that make indecent? You for asking, or the other person for accidentally kill you?

I'm just having a hard time understanding how a sexual kink could be indecent, if it's performed on/with consenting, willing adults.

Never thought I would see anyone defending incest though, no disrespect to people who support it. But I have never heard anyone say incest was ok. It really blows my mind incest is socially acceptable now. Guess I am just old fashioned...oh wait....new age..oh wait...old fashioned.....man its just hard to tell anymore in this crazy world.

You misunderstand though, what I'm defending is someone's right to be incestuous, if they are so inclined, as long as it is with someone who is a willing participant, of adult age.

It's not something I'd be inclined to do, however, what others do is none of my business and if that's what they're into, who are we to say anything? If something makes someone happy and it's not hurting anyone, who are we to ostricize them and call them names? Happiness is unto each of us, what we will it to be. What makes you happy might not make me happy and vice versa, but does that make either of us a bad person?

Homosexuals are fine by me, I have gay friends, and I support them much as I can. You are misunderstanding the comment about the t.v. though, I was not saying that the media makes it immoral. I was saying the majority of people who make fun of incest consider it immoral, or at least that is what I was trying to say.

I understand that, and that is fine by me. People are completely entitled to their own opinions, as I am to my own, and as you are to your own, but simply because the majority considers something immoral, does not mean it is. And it definitely does not mean I, you, or anyone else has to follow the majority. I was brought up to judge things for myself and make my own opinions. What others say or think or believe has no effect on me whatsoever.

I shed my wool a long, long time ago.

Again that is why I stipulated "IF IT (it = allegations of incest etc etc) IS TRUE" I never said for sure it was true or not. Whether any of it is true or not does not matter to me in the long run. Its no skin off my back. I did not know the guy, but I liked his work. Too bad he apparently had some deep rooted issues though.

Again you make judgements though.

Why would you automatically assume he had some deep rooted issues?

I like being choked when I'm having sex. Does that mean I have deep rooted issues too? Or could it simply mean that I have a personal kink that is against the norm?

 

[Circle_One]

I'd call auto-erotic asphyxiation indecent, but incest and domectic violence immoral, which I take to be more serious than indecent. I'm not sure what the exact rationale for this distinction is, it's mostly intuitive.

You don't have a specific personal reason as to why you would consider auto-erotic asphyxiation indecent?

I'm just curious

 

[Willamena]

So because something may, at one time or another, accidentally kill you, that makes it indecent? But by that logic then, people with heart conditions should never have sex because the over-exertion may cause them to have a fatal heart attack.

That's your image of what he said; not necessarily his image of what he said (and certainly not mine). More to the point, I hope your question is rhetorical.

 

[gzusfrk]

The thread regarding David Carradine's death sparked a debate between a few of us regarding indecency and what exactly makes an act, or a person indecent. So as to not bring that thread further off topic, I thought I'd start a thread in the debates section to continue the discussion we were having, and to allow others to chime in on the subject.

Before I continue what I was saying to Enoch, I'd like to open the forum up to the rest of you. With regards to the three things brought up in the Carridine thread, which do you think are indecent, if any? Auto-erotic asphyxiation, incest, domectic violence.

Now, before you start, I'll explain a little further. David died hanging in a closet, naked, with his gentils bound. This is what has led everyone to believe he died in the midst of auto-erotic asphyxiation. Is this indecent?
From my view, the marrage bed is undefiled, dont know if he was alone, dont really know what happen,leading to his death.
The incest was whole-heartedly admitted by David and was between him and another member of his family who was of age and a willing participant. Is this indecent? Why, if both members are willing and are well aware of the consequences? What makes it indecent. Having sex with your daughter, sound like both have fallen in the pit.

And the third, Domestic violence, was an accusation on the part of his ex wife, and was an unfounded and exaggerated accusation.
Domestic violence is at least indecent.
Even aside from these three things, what is indecency? What makes someone indecent?

For me .. any thing contrary to the Word.

 

[Dunemeister]

You don't have a specific personal reason as to why you would consider auto-erotic asphyxiation indecent?

I'm just curious

I guess I haven't thought about it at any length. I hold fairly conservative sexual ethical views, so I view anything out of the mainstream as somewhat indecent. Thus I would hold that a range of sexual acts that many people on this forum would find exciting and playful -- anal sex, masochism, "aggressive" sex, auto-erotic asphyxiation and whatnot -- as indecent. I can't articulate a reason for my classification of these acts as indecent other than to say that, although objectionable, they are not necessarily immoral. So I guess my intuition is that the objectionableness of actions is not an all or nothing affair (this act is fully objectionable versus fully endorseable -- if you'll permit me to reinvent English as I go). Rather, there's a continuum. Calling something indecent is a way of expressing that an action is objectionable but hasn't got to the point of immorality, which would be more serious.

Not sure if that clarifies it, but that's the best I can do given that this is the first time I've actually ever thought about it.

 

[gzusfrk]

For me .. any thing contrary to the Word.

man I got to redo this thing I really messed it up.

 

[Willamena]

For me .. any thing contrary to the Word.

As there is nothing not described in word, what could possibly be contrary to the word?

 

[Dunemeister]

As there is nothing not described in word, what could possibly be contrary to the word?

You know what gzusfrk means, Willamena.

 

[Willamena]

You know what gzusfrk means, Willamena.

Actually, I know what he doesn't mean... but I'll wait for him to re-post as he seems to think it needs re-Wording.

 

[gzusfrk]

As there is nothing not described in word, what could possibly be contrary to the word?

I messed the whole thing up< that was my last statment to what is indecent, for me anything contrary to the Word. man I need to learn how to post.

 

[3.14]

wel he was decent enough to do the auto ..... alone/ but it was indecent of him to die during it
he was decent enough to admit his moral flaws/ but indecent enough to not consider them flaws

 

[Circle_One]

I guess I haven't thought about it at any length. I hold fairly conservative sexual ethical views, so I view anything out of the mainstream as somewhat indecent. Thus I would hold that a range of sexual acts that many people on this forum would find exciting and playful -- anal sex, masochism, "aggressive" sex, auto-erotic asphyxiation and whatnot -- as indecent. I can't articulate a reason for my classification of these acts as indecent other than to say that, although objectionable, they are not necessarily immoral. So I guess my intuition is that the objectionableness of actions is not an all or nothing affair (this act is fully objectionable versus fully endorseable -- if you'll permit me to reinvent English as I go). Rather, there's a continuum. Calling something indecent is a way of expressing that an action is objectionable but hasn't got to the point of immorality, which would be more serious.

Not sure if that clarifies it, but that's the best I can do given that this is the first time I've actually ever thought about it.

No, I get what you're saying (and for the record, I reinvent the English language on a daily basis, so have at it ), but if indecency is directly related to ones own personal opinion on a certain subject (as has been brought up), wouldn't then, immorality be as well. What is immoral for you, would not necessarily be immoral for me.

But back to the topic at hand. I get that many people hold conservative sexual views, but simply because someone wouldn't engage in a specific sex act, does that really make the sex act indecent, or merely "meh, not for me"?

 

[Circle_One]

wel he was decent enough to do the auto ..... alone/ but it was indecent of him to die during it
he was decent enough to admit his moral flaws/ but indecent enough to not consider them flaws

But considering he didn't die on purpose, how then could it be considered indecent?

"Man, you hear Carradine died while hanging himself? If he wouldn't have died, it would have been cool, but since he died.. what a freak!" Come on!

 

[Nepenthe]

For me .. any thing contrary to the Word.

And what does the "Word" say about incest, autoeroticasphyxia, or domestic abuse?

 

[Enoch07]

So because something may, at one time or another, accidentally kill you, that makes it indecent? But by that logic then, people with heart conditions should never have sex because the over-exertion may cause them to have a fatal heart attack.

He obviously didn't mean to kill himself, and something went wrong, but I don't see how this would make it indecent. If you're having sex with someone and you ask them to choke you and they accidentally push to hard and kill you, who would that make indecent? You for asking, or the other person for accidentally kill you?
Nope, but you have to admit, killing yourself/someone while pleasuring yourself is indecent.

I'm just having a hard time understanding how a sexual kink could be indecent, if it's performed on/with consenting, willing adults.

Because in itself it is not that indecent, especially between a loving couple. But when someone kills themselves/someone else during the act (of sexual asphyxiation) , it definitely becomes an indecent act.

You misunderstand though, what I'm defending is someone's right to be incestuous, if they are so inclined, as long as it is with someone who is a willing participant, of adult age.

It's not something I'd be inclined to do, however, what others do is none of my business and if that's what they're into, who are we to say anything? If something makes someone happy and it's not hurting anyone, who are we to ostricize them and call them names? Happiness is unto each of us, what we will it to be. What makes you happy might not make me happy and vice versa, but does that make either of us a bad person?

So I guess we should allow bestiality, necrophilia, Frotteurism, and other paraphilia. Because we would not want to invade on their rights......right? I have no interest in stopping any two consenting adults from doing this type of stuff to each other in the privacy of their own home. But at what point is enough...enough!?!

I like being choked when I'm having sex. Does that mean I have deep rooted issues too? Or could it simply mean that I have a personal kink that is against the norm?

Just my personal opinion but I would dare guess there is some psychological trauma somewhere in your life that is associated with this behavior. I could be wrong, but there is no way to prove it one way or another here so its a moot point.

 

[gzusfrk]

If you read ALL of post 8 what I have written is there mixed with circle ones statment... like I said need to learn to post