Weird Subcultures

[FER]

Portlandia does a really solid mocking if Steampunk if you're ever bored on YouTube some day.

I saw that and yeah, it was pretty funny. Then some guy at work told me he watched Portlandia and I thought, "that show is so over"

 

[realitybites]

"Blah, blah, blah. I like to pretend I'm into Sub/Dom because I masturbated to Fifty Shades of Grey twice so it's my duty to defend subversive sex genres I have zero clue about. Blah, blah, blah."

That is the conclusion you came to because of your FBE.

The real reason I defend and support diverse sexual variation and expression between consenting adults is because what people want to do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business. And it is not the Church's or government's business either.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

That is the conclusion you came to because of your FBE.

Please take a moment to explain how my opinion is a demonstration of your FBE without typing an F, a B and an E. Are you saying I concluded you defend subverse sexual habits because I have an epistemology of believing you masturbated to a stupid mysogynistic novel? Are all opinions from now on "faith based?"

 

[Mozza220559]

It has nothing to do with pedophilia. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children which results in non-consensual sexual acts with CHILDREN. Biological, chronological children. Why is pedophilia illegal? Because society has decided children are not intellectually, emotionally, or legally capable of being able to offer consent to having sexual relations. Each country, providence, state has an age of consent. I am pretty certain the age of consent in ancient Greece was 10 or 11 for those young boys. In some Muslim cultures today, the age of consent for young girls is 12 or 13.

Being attracted to men wearing diapers and bonnets is NOT being attracted to children. It is role playing. A costume. They are adult men, biologically and chronologically. And are thus capable of offering consent. That is HOW AND WHY IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Look, I know what Peadophilia is. And this sinister subculture is borderline I don't care what you say. You mean to tell me a creepy fat 17 stone man likes dressing as a baby and shitting himself is purely innocent. Bullshit. These guys get women to push them around in prams in public. Some of them go online and webcam each other dressed as babies. There's actually a place where these sickos can stay like a hotel. It's in Florida.

 

[Jah]

It has nothing to do with pedophilia. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children which results in non-consensual sexual acts with CHILDREN.

No, it's just sexual attraction to children, obviously. Whether it results in a crime is irrelevant to the definition.

Biological, chronological children.

"Chronological children"? LOL

Why is pedophilia illegal? Because society has decided children are not intellectually, emotionally, or legally capable of being able to offer consent to having sexual relations.

The issue is that children are the property of their parents, and people do not like having their property damaged. You've given a Miss America answer, as usual.

Each country, providence, state has an age of consent.

Providence? Maybe you mean "province," hmmmm?

Either way, you don't really know if this is true. You're simply assuming. It's a reasonable assumption, but why on earth do you make it to us in your educator's tone?

I am pretty certain the age of consent in ancient Greece was 10 or 11 for those young boys.

I am pretty certain you have no idea what you're talking about, and are simply betting that no one else here will be able to call you on it. This is a tedious game.

 

[nothappynotsad]

This thread is full of pure gold, all of which has been duly noted.

 

[realitybites]

Look, I know what Peadophilia is. And this sinister subculture is borderline I don't care what you say. You mean to tell me a creepy fat 17 stone man likes dressing as a baby and shitting himself is purely innocent. Bullshit. These guys get women to push them around in prams in public. Some of them go online and webcam each other dressed as babies. There's actually a place where these sickos can stay like a hotel. It's in Florida.

If you know what pedophilia is then why do you think men wearing diapers and acting like babies is anything remotely close to being pedophilia? He is wearing a costume. He is acting like a baby. He is not a child. Who in that scenario is the pedophile? The man? He has no sexual attraction to children. He is not engaging in sexual acts with minors. The woman who pushes the pram is a pedophile? Is she attracted to or engaging in sexual acts with children? If the man was wearing a dog costume and barking--acting like a dog, is that bestiality? Is the woman practicing bestiality?

Call it strange. Call it immoral if you like. But don't call it pedophilia.

 

[realitybites]

Please take a moment to explain how my opinion is a demonstration of your FBE without typing an F, a B and an E. Are you saying I concluded you defend subverse sexual habits because I have an epistemology of believing you masturbated to a stupid mysogynistic novel? Are all opinions from now on "faith based?"

You didn't state an opinion. You made a claim. A claim of truth with no evidence to back it up. Therefore your 'knowledge' was derived from a faith based epistemology. Not a reason based one:

I like to pretend I'm into Sub/Dom because I masturbated to Fifty Shades of Grey twice so it's my duty to defend subversive sex genres I have zero clue about.

You claimed, as fact, that:

I. I like to pretend I am Dom/sub.

2. I like to pretend I am Dom/sub because I masturbated to Fifty Shades of Grey.

3. Because I masturbated to Fifty Shades of Grey and pretend I am dom/sub, I defend subversive subcultures.

1. Is a false claim without evidence to back it up.
2.Two is a false claim without evidence to back it up.

Therefore your conclusion (#3) is one which is derived without evidence and was formulated based on faith. Therefore your epistemology is faith-based. FBE.

If you want to offer opinions don't state them as facts. Perhaps ask, "Could it be that you support diverse subcultures because you learned about them after you read Fifty Shades of Grey?"

To which I'd reply, "I have had this opinion long before the book came out. I took a class in college called Human Sexual Behavior where I learned about these paraphilias (and subcultures). I learned they were variations of sexual expression but not disorders. I learned to be tolerant.

So you see, you can offer an opinion which may stimulate a discussion where two people can interact like normal people. Or you can make blanket statements attacking someone's motives and character with accusations you derived at from a FBE.

It is your choice.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

You didn't state an opinion. You made a claim. A claim of truth with no evidence to back it up. Therefore your 'knowledge' was derived from a faith based epistemology. Not a reason based one.

You claimed, as fact, that:

I. I like to pretend I am dom/sub.

2. I like to pretend I am dom/sub because I masturbated to Fifty Shades of Grey.

3. Because I masturbated to Fifty Shades of Grey and pretend I am dom/sub, I defend subversive subcultures.

1. Is a false claim without evidence to back it up.
2.Two is a false claim without evidence to back it up.

Therefore your conclusion (#3) is one which is derived without evidence and was formulated based on faith. Therefore your epistemology is faith-based. FBE.

If you want to offer opinions don't state them as facts. Perhaps ask, "Could it be that you support diverse subcultures because you learned about them after you read Fifty Shades of Grey?"

To which I'd reply, "I have had this opinion long before the book came out. I took a class in college called Human Sexual Behavior where I learned about these paraphilias (and subcultures). I learned they were variations of sexual expression but not disorders. I learned to be tolerant.

So you see, you can offer an opinion which may stimulate a discussion where two people can interact like normal people. Or you can make blanket statements attacking someone's motives and character with accusations you derived at from a FBE.

It is your choice.

Okay. So in the same respect you have a faith based epistemology that I don't like my body?

 

[Deleted member 1074]

Okay. So in the same respect you have a faith based epistemology that I don't like my body?

Apparently, if you can't see the outline of the sandwich you just ate through your own skin, you are not comfortable with your body.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Apparently, if you can't see the outline of the sandwich you just ate through your own skin, you are not comfortable with your body.

omglol

 

[realitybites]

Providence? Maybe you mean "province," hmmmm?

Oops!

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Oops!

Who is that?

 

[Deleted member 1074]

Oops!

Who is that?

The husband she turned gay?