Adds from Diseno Media (spankingserver, pain4fem, etc.)

[bakerboy]

Since I have started this debate, so let me finish it... Please and then lets just keep posting interesting links. OK ?

1) Animals cannot consent to sex with humans, therefore it is an animal abuse illegal just about anywhere and shoud stay that way ! There is no difference between beating a dog or fucking it. In the eyes of the law anyway.
2) Same comes to sex with corpses. It is illegal everywhere in civilized world and should stay that way also. There is no difference between sex and mutilation in this case.

As to the rest? If somebody adult consents to eating excrement and wants to get an acute e coli infection and die... that is their choice. I have made my point above about injuries ( sometime fatal due to peritonal acute infections) from extreme anal ( gapping) insertions, yet if anyone wants to take that risk, it is no different then paragliding or diving..... it is their choice.

I thing Robot came a bit strong at me and I do appreciate Rosseau's defence. At the same time it is time to move on... and find some interesting links... here is one from me

http://www.boundheat.com/new/no_escape/movie_preview.html

[Rosseau]

Geeeeeeeeeeeezz, you really are making me work tonight!

Hey, that is what you are paid for! (Aren't you?)

...well, in this case, think what you want, but my opinion is that EBI will be actively engaged in the moral decaying of society.

The whole thing ("do I like caning movies, do I not like caning movies") comes down to a matter of personal taste, not morals. I have already pointed this out to you several times, but you apparently fail to get your head around it. As long as a video is produced by consenting adults and no permanent harm comes to any of the participants, there is no moral problem whatsoever - if you think there is, please point out to me what it is.

If you opened a grocery store, I think you'd be quite entitled to choose which products you want to sell, regardless of the many diverse customer taste out there, and if for some reason you don't like the way pumpkins smell, then you'd choose not to sell them, even during halloween. I bet a lot of people would look at you funny if you tried to explain to them.

Sure I understand the grocery store analogy. But your customers will indeed look at you funny when you have apples, but not bananas, and when you give them a very bizarre explanation as to why: "I don't like fruit." "But you already have apples!" "Well, that is different..." And maybe they will eventually stop shopping with you altogether because they think you are a bit funny in the head.

i put caning very close to the rape/fantasy rape/torture/serial-killer/snuff sites. I can see you jump from here and you will see me oppose to that stuff. always.

There is nothing wrong with fantasy rape or fantasy snuff as long as it is produced by consenting adults and no one is harmed. It's not my kind of taste, but I have no problem with it existing or with it being on EBI.

I find it hilarious how on the one hand EBI promotes a lot of sites and movies that contain some pretty vicious stuff (gagging, face-slapping, double anal penetrations, spitting, pissing, gangbang etc., even "light" spanking and BDSM), and you make money from it, but when it comes to caning or fantasy rape, you get on your high horse and lecture about "the moral decaying of society". It's why I imagine bakerboy used the adjective "hypocritical".

If you oppose all "violence", even where it is staged and consensual and not really violence at all, then why is funnybdsm.com on EBI? Or houseoftaboo.com? Or brutalcatfight.com? Girls get spanked and whipped there, and I've even seen some rape scenarios. It would seem that you are not at all consistent in applying your standards.

that's a good example of twisting right there. You just decided that zoo is problematic, and "different", and coprophagy is ok...

I've explained why zoo is different and indeed a lot more problematic than spanking / caning. The legal situation is a lot more problematic, as is the ethical one - animals are obviously not human beings, so they cannot consent to sex acts the way people can.

So I think it's a very valid and easily understood argument. Where does the "twisting" part come in?

But, anyway, as bakerboy said - I agree that it is time to move on with the debate. I respect your point of view and I appreciate you taking the time to try and clarfiy it, even though you've still failed to be consistent in your arguments in my view.

[walter54321]

At the risk of waking up tomorrow with an urge to bite off my arm, I agree with Robot on this topic.

And lets understand that moral judgement is by definition an individual judgment that is sometimes broad across a society.
See Larry Flint if you are confused on this matter.

If you choose to group different related content sites into this site's category then that is YOUR moral judgement. So if you in the future wish to operate an adult Index Forum then you can make these judgements.

The fact that the participants in the acts depicted on this site are consenting has NOTHING to do with the resulting moral judgments. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.

This by the way is probably the first time I have ever agreed with Robot. My God what have I become?

[Rosseau]

The fact that the participants in the acts depicted on this site are consenting has NOTHING to do with the resulting moral judgments. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.

So, are you trying to argue that spanking / caning between consenting adults is the moral equivalent of an act of physical assault (i.e. a situation where there is obviously no consent)?

If so, then you are the one who is "confused on this matter" (of moral judgments), I'm afraid - even more so than Robot!

[walter54321]

I have no idea how to interpret what you wrote.
Morality does not consider whether participants in an act are consenting.
It was your assertion that morality is determined by whether the participants are consenting.
That is absolutely incorrect from any point of view.
I think you just want to argue for arguments sake if this is your point of view.

One more time - morality is an individual's judgement.
Robot has made his judgement and so have you.
They differ. End of story.

Physical assault is a crime. So why you think that was my statement is confusing.
If you read again what I wrote, and what you quoted, I wrote "moral judgements"
That means a person makes a decision whether it is right or wrong.
If a crime is committed then morality is not an issue.
That should be clear enough.

[Rosseau]

I have no idea how to interpret what you wrote.
Morality does not consider whether participants in an act are consenting.
It was your assertion that morality is determined by whether the participants are consenting.
That is absolutely incorrect from any point of view.
I think you just want to argue for arguments sake if this is your point of view.

One more time - morality is an individual's judgement.
Robot has made his judgement and so have you.
They differ. End of story.

Physical assault is a crime. So why you think that was my statement is confusing.
If you read again what I wrote, and what you quoted, I wrote "moral judgements"
That means a person makes a decision whether it is right or wrong.
If a crime is committed then morality is not an issue.
That should be clear enough.

Morality is an individual's judgment only if you subscribe to moral relativism, which I don't. I subscribe to the position commonly called moral universalism or moral objectivism: basically, in this view, morality is based on reason and on universal values. There is one standard that applies to all of us. Morality is not "in the eye of the beholder", it is universal.

For instance, based on the universal value of individual freedom, it is reasonable to say that if sex acts between adults are consensual and don't do any permanent damage, then there is nothing morally objectionable about them and these adults should be free to engage in them.

Of course it makes a difference to the moral judgment whether an act is consensual or not. Why do you think physical assault is a crime while spanking / caning between consenting people is not, hm? Don't you think that the way society and our justice system look at these things was shaped by moral judgments?

Anyway, you seem to be a moral relativist, and that is where we disagree. It's not a position I subscribe to, but I think I understand what you were trying to say now.

[robot]

Wow, I'm quite glad to see how this all turned out. Reasonable adults trying to debate/discuss each other's opinions without resorting to violence or fanatism. Apparently I also ended up with one of my (?) nemesis (?) siding along with me This is neat. I ought to censor people more often! just kidding, put away the pitchforks and the torchs.
As I said before, I will not act upon spanking/caning/etc... but just ignore it, which means, it will be up to the other EBI dudes to add it to the models' card.

I also understand better the accusation of being "hypocritical" when ignoring the other slapping/gagging/choking/DAPing stuff, and yes, if I were consistent I would also say something about it, which I rarely do, so yes, I get your point.

I subscribe to the position commonly called moral universalism or moral objectivism: basically, in this view, morality is based on reason and on universal values. There is one standard that applies to all of us. Morality is not "in the eye of the beholder", it is universal.

This is Pandora's box. I'm not questioning it, it's just so ... far from reality. I think you can just look at the practical side of it: the laws are different everywhere, and the laws reflect morality for a great part. In some countries, it is a severely punishable offence to harm a dog, in others, they just eat them

Well, have fun debating. I'm officially done with this topic!

[bakerboy]

I agree with Robot, lets be done with this subject ! Worth noting that the author of this thread ( Orso Nero) has NOT participated in this discussion, so why "promote" his sites. Lets stop posting in this thread !