Sphincter

If a person, female or male, experienced pleasure due to stimulation of the sphincter (AKA butthole)...

Is there any significance to this fact?

My perspective as a utilitarianist - good for the person who enjoys such pleasure. There's nothing bad or evil necessarily involved in this act.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If a person, female or male, experienced pleasure due to stimulation of the sphincter (AKA butthole)...

Is there any significance to this fact?

My perspective as a utilitarianist - good for the person who enjoys such pleasure. There's nothing bad or evil necessarily involved in this act.

What about a person who has pleasurable sex with a dead chicken?

Does the positive enjoyment they experience by itself mean that the act should be approved of?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
What about a person who has pleasurable sex with a dead chicken?

Does the positive enjoyment they experience by itself mean that the act should be approved of?

Yes, unless happy chickens are killed for this purpose or chickens are kepy unhappy for this purpose.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If a person, female or male, experienced pleasure due to stimulation of the sphincter (AKA butthole)...

Is there any significance to this fact?

My perspective as a utilitarianist - good for the person who enjoys such pleasure. There's nothing bad or evil necessarily involved in this act.

What do you call the rear end of the Sphinx?

The sphinxter...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yes, unless happy chickens are killed for this purpose or chickens are kepy unhappy for this purpose.

So, let's get this straight: on balance, you regard pleasurable sex with dead chickens, who were not exploited for that purpose during their lifetimes, as a morally good thing?

If you were blind and deaf, how would you know a male spincter from a female one? No reach arounds allowed!

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
So, let's get this straight: on balance, you regard pleasurable sex with dead chickens, who were not exploited for that purpose during their lifetimes, as a morally good thing?

Yes, nothing morally wrong with buggering a dead chicken. Maybe a bit unusual, I'd personally consider a human female to be a good deal more fun, but whatever floats your boat. If no one gets hurt (against their will - some people like that sort of thing) because of it, why is there anything wrong. If only one person or chicken is affected, and that person enjoys it and it doesn't kill them, where is the harm.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Yes, nothing morally wrong with buggering a dead chicken. Maybe a bit unusual, I'd personally consider a human female to be a good deal more fun, but whatever floats your boat. If no one gets hurt (against their will - some people like that sort of thing) because of it, why is there anything wrong. If only one person or chicken is affected, and that person enjoys it and it doesn't kill them, where is the harm.

You must be reading from a different moral dictionary than am I. My source says sexual relations with an animal (fighting or not) is reprehensible. I'd even go so far as to say that the physical world is in agreement with the moral dictionary I am using, relative to eventual consequences (read: AIDS).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You must be reading from a different moral dictionary than am I. My source says sexual relations with an animal (fighting or not) is repre[b]hensible. I'd even go so far as to say that the physical world is in agreement with the moral dictionary I am using, relative to eventual consequences (read: AIDS).[/b]

So would there be a differance between, say, a guy goes to the market, buys a dead chicken, takes it home and screws it, vs buying a foam pillow, carefully shaping it into the shape of a chicken and screwing THAT. Is there a differance morally here?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'd even go so far as to say that the physical world is in agreement with the moral dictionary I am using, relative to eventual consequences (read: AIDS).

You truly are an idiot. HIV is not thought to have crossed species due to sex with monkeys/chimps. The commonly accpeted idea is that it was transfered either through a bite by an infected animal, or by eating an infected animal. Tons of diseases have been transfered this way, so it is certainly plausible. And in addition to that, I can't imagine how one would go about trying to rape a chimp and not be killed, those things are strong.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If a person, female or male, experienced pleasure due to stimulation of the sphincter (AKA butthole)...

Is there any significance to this fact?

My perspective as a utilitarianist - good for the person who enjoys such pleasure. There's nothing bad or evil necessarily involved in this act.

you should repent my friend

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
you should repent my friend

Why does your friend need repenting and how can ATY go about doing it?

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Yes, nothing morally wrong with buggering a dead chicken. Maybe a bit unusual, I'd personally consider a human female to be a good deal more fun, but whatever floats your boat. If no one gets hurt (against their will - some people like that sort of thing) because of it, why is there anything wrong. If only one person or chicken is affected, and that person enjoys it and it doesn't kill them, where is the harm.

I never said the dead chicken was buggered. I left open the mode of sexual congress. However, I wouldn't personally recommend oral.

But seriously, you can't really believe that there is NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVE SEX WITH A DEAD CHICKEN, can you? I have an ineradicable intuition that there something seriously morally and aesthetically wrong with it.

It's probably the only subject on which FreakyKBH and I agree. Indeed, our shared revulsion at sex with a dead chicken could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Suppose you had a son, or indeed a daughter, and you found out they were exhibiting necroalektorophiliac tendencies. Would you think this was a positive development? They like Coke. They like listening to Justin Timerlake. They like deriving genital pleasure from dead poultry. Which is the odd one out? (No: not James Timerlake!)

I personally think that the sex-with-a-dead-chicken example threatens to refute utilitarianism.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
You truly are an idiot. HIV is not thought to have crossed species due to sex with monkeys/chimps. The commonly accpeted idea is that it was transfered either through a bite by an infected animal, or by eating an infected animal. Tons of diseases have been transfered this way, so it is certainly plausible. And in addition to that, I can't imagine how one would go about trying to rape a chimp and not be killed, those things are strong.

You truly are an idiot.
So, I can assume I receive no credit for the hen pun?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You must be reading from a different moral dictionary than am I. My source says sexual relations with an animal (fighting or not) is repre[b]hensible. I'd even go so far as to say that the physical world is in agreement with the moral dictionary I am using, relative to eventual consequences (read: AIDS).[/b]

Would there be a moral difference between a human male mating with a hen or a cockerel? Would the latter be doubly a mortal sin, because it combines bestiality with homosexuality, or just a regular mortal sin?