LOL WUTJust when you thought that progressives had scraped the bottom of the degeneracy barrel, they lean in just a bit further - Men should be able to pay women to be drugged for sex to satisfy their “Cosby” kink.

submitted by ClassroomPast6178 from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]slavdude0 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (18 children)

Honestly? IDGAF. If it's between two consenting adults and it's done in private? Go ham. Pay her to chop your dick off, or pay him to shit on your face. Go to town. Why should I care?

[–]Femaleisnthateful 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

It's hard to consent to things when you're unconscious, which is largely the point. Also, commodifying this adds more ethical layers. The only women who will be signing up are those with either severe mental issues, and/or ones desperate for money.

Plus, the men who get their thrills from this aren't likely to restrain their deviancy in the long run.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Plus, the men who get their thrills from this aren't likely to restrain their deviancy in the long run.

That’s the reason why I think banning child sex dolls is justified. I’m super liberal about stuff between consenting adults, but some shit just shouldn’t be normalised because the risks are too high.

Another reason to not allow this is that sedation of the kind that is being suggested is really only safe in the presence of medical personnel with access to advanced life support. Just ask Prince…

[–]IMissPorn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That’s the reason why I think banning child sex dolls is justified. I’m super liberal about stuff between consenting adults, but some shit just shouldn’t be normalised because the risks are too high.

I never got that line of thinking. To me it looks like the same BS as Jack Thompson's "murder simulator" argument against video games, or radical feminists saying "pornography is the theory--rape is the practice". I admit it sounds kind of plausible, but people have tried many times to prove cause and effect here, and they consistently fail. Often they even find an inverse correlation, suggesting that the alternative theory may have more truth it it; that providing a harmless outlet for dangerous impulses could be a good thing,

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I actually agree with everything you say about the links between media and offending etc and I upvoted you too.

But, I just think child sex dolls and drugging people for sex are okay to keep illegal/ban.

[–]IMissPorn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, drugging people for sex (even with their permission) does sound awful risky. I can think of good arguments against that one aside from—what shall we call it?—"escalation theory". But I would put a sex toy in the same category as media, no real people are harmed. So...yeah this is a tangent, I'm really only objecting to your analogy rather than your conclusion on to the topic at hand.

I'm still curious if you'd like to share your reasoning though. How about lolicon (erotic drawings of children)? While obviously disturbing, I would still apply the same standard unless there's evidence it increases the chance of people getting hurt in real life. But I haven't really thought about the doll issue a lot. A doll is different from a cartoon in some ways, but I can't really think of a reason why that difference would be significant.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

With the child doll, I think that there is no real upside to allowing it and that the potential risk great enough that we should probably just keep that one illegal.

It’s purely a risk/reward calculation from where I stand. It may be entirely harmless, but the harm that would be done if it isn’t, means that we should just keep that door closed.

I’m also opposed to AI generated CSA images/videos, even though no child would be harmed in their creation, I just see no upside to having those be allowed.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"We should no more be encouraging rapists to find a supposedly safe outlet for it than we should facilitate murderers by giving them realistic, blood-spurting dummies to stab...to make such a solution available is to risk normalizing rape by giving it a publicly acceptable face."

-- New York Times

[–]slavdude0 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Try reading about instagram models/models who were not desperate for money, yet they went to rich Arab countries to get degraded for money. Not a rare occurrence.

You can find deviants and people willing to act as freaks for money with both genders. And again. As long as you're both adults and agreed to it IDGAF.

[–]LyingSpirit472 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And honestly, this is related to the same issue for just how disgusting this is.

One of the core rules that led to this rise of social justice and equality is based on "consent is necessary in love and sex at all times, and anyone who doesn't agree is a monster." That's how people live and one of the core tenets of Wokeism as a whole.

To turn that on its head and say "Will someone PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE think of the rapists?" because "rapists are different, so they MUST be good!" is not only reprehensible thinking, it basically comes right out and says "these people don't care about social justice and equality, they care about getting revenge on Mommy and Daddy for not buying them a pony when they were 8."

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Ah yes consensual rape. Hmmm. Just like non-fatal murder it's nothing to worry about.

[–]slavdude0 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I mean if you paid someone to murder you, why the fuck should I care? Go on, end it.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

slavdude0 totally paid me to kill him, and I have video and audio proof of it.

That’s why you should care.

[–]slavdude0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Umm... You can make such fake claims already. Everyone can. Some already does.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Except in most normal countries killing someone, even with their consent, is a crime (albeit a crime with some mitigating factors and legal defences). Legalising suicide-by-hitman, in the age of deepfake, is a licence to kill people with or without their consent.

[–]slavdude0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Deepfakes are an issue. But omitting that? Freaks killing each other is not a bad thing.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Canada is having great success with their "murder the unfit" program. Suddenly there are tons of young, healthy organs on the market. Just like China!

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Murder for hire is still murder.

If I pay Mr. Murder to kill me and he does. What's stopping him from accepting payment from someone else to kill you?