Are modern audiences too offended by Pussy Galore?

Tools    





I believe you, I guess I'm just surprised you don't think any of the topics that have been discussed are worth discussing, then.

The last couple of pages seem to have gotten off-track, though, for sure.



A bunch of guys hold you down, fondle you, force you to give them rim jobs and ejaculate all over you.
Sounds like a normal Saturday night to me.
__________________



You mean me? Kei's cousin?
A legitimate reaction to some of the posts in this thread:
__________________
Look, Dr. Lesh, we don't care about the disturbances, the pounding and the flashing, the screaming, the music. We just want you to find our little girl.



Anyway, I'll leave this open for now to give all involved a chance to follow-up on anything previously posted, but if it isn't a lot more thoughtful and less incendiary that it got on the previous page, I'll be closing the thread. Fair warning and all that.



Lets see if the following statements make any sense:

This was my quote:
"From saying, she agreed to it in the end, to making a great impression of an ostrich by burying your head in the sand and claiming that since you didn't see penetration nothing happened."

Originally Posted by Zotis
I understood your point. I just chose to ignore it
Originally Posted by Zotis
when I make a counter point to your point
Your "counterpoint" was:
Originally Posted by Zotis
He actually said penetration is not a requirement for rape. Someone explain to Jabs what sex is. He won't listen to me
So either:

A. You did not understand my point
B. Are not aware what counterpoint means
C. Are lying
D. Some combination of the above

I won't go into why your statement about rim jobs is utterly ignorant until we resolve this little tidbit. Because you are being dishonest trying to cover your ass. At least when I say you are an idiot, I am honest about it
I am trying not to be offended. You actually called that a counter point when in fact it was the complete opposite. It completely ignored your point AND wasn't even addressed to you. Then you have the audacity to say I'm an idiot and I don't know what a counter point is? You just demonstrated that you have no idea what a counter point is. You seriously didn't consider that I understood your point and simply chose to ignore it. The counter point you ignored was in the previous post. I'll dig it up later, but I'm on my phone and heading out. So I don't have time right now and it's very tedious on a phone.

I mean it's even more absurd considering you quoted me saying I understood your point and chose to ignore it, and then failed to consider it in your multiple choice.



I'm fine with you closing the thread Yoda. I don't think I can tolerate Jabs anymore. I might go back and quote my actual counter point which he ignored, but I think at this point it's pretty clear that it won't be met with understanding anyway.



I'm glad this thread has gotten a lot of responses. I mean what good is a discussion board if people don't discuss. Ironpony is about the only MoFo who keeps us engaged and talking these days. I for one find his threads very interesting.



Actually there was one more comment I wanted to respond to. And later tonight I may go back and break down the entire debate between myself and Jabs. But at this point I am just so frustrated with his level of denial.



In trying to be serious for a moment, people can be offended by whatever gets their goat, but if you voice it, what is your goal? Do you want censorship, or do you want other people to be offended too? The cliche usually goes that if you don't like something, then don't read, watch, listen, etc. Why is it getting past that? What I find offensive, as an adult, is people telling me what is offensive or what is right and wrong. If you want to tell your children that what James Bond does is not what you should do, then I wholeheartedly agree. There's a big problem right now in this world with people trying to push their ideals onto others. I don't give a crap about 007 but I do care about what's going on in the world and I don't like it.



I tried not to get into this debate too much, but what the heck. A rimjob is an extremely intimate sexual act. It is penetration if someone makes you lick their ass against your will. Not considering such a horrific non-consensual act rape is trivializing rape.
Yes a rim job is an extremely intimate sexual act, but on it's own it's not sex in the strictest sense. If your twelve year old says, "Dad what's sex?" You aren't going to respond with, "Sex is when you lick the anus." The anus and mouth are not sexual organs. If the scenario given happened to me I wouldn't go to the police and say I was raped. I would go and say I was sexually assaulted.



@cricket I don't think expressing what offends someone is advocating censorship. It's just expressing a sentiment. Perhaps it's in the hope that the other person will voluntarily change their behaviour.

The other day someone I was talking to accused me of saying something that very strongly goes against my principles, that I would never say, and at a time several years before I ever even met them. The more I denied it the more they said it confirmed it. Finally I said I really didn't like it when they said that, it made me angry and offended me. Then they stopped and apologized and everything was fine. They haven't brought it up again.

Asking someone to stop isn't censorship. Preventing them from being able to speak or be heard is censorship.



What "sex" means is context-dependent. If someone says "did you get that woman pregnant?" and you replied "no, we didn't have sex," in that context you're implying you didn't have actual intercourse. But if your wife asks you if you "had sex with that woman," she probably isn't asking about just intercourse, so saying "no, we didn't have sex" in that context would be misleading, and totally different than the previous example.

There is no definition of sex which will fit natural connotations of language in all scenarios. What qualifies as sex in terms of assault is broader than what you would call sex in other scenarios, since the relevant part is the intimate touching of someone without their consent.



What "sex" means is context-dependent. If someone says "did you get that woman pregnant?" and you replied "no, we didn't have sex," in that context you're implying you didn't have actual intercourse. But if your wife asks you if you "had sex with that woman," she probably isn't asking about just intercourse, so saying "no, we didn't have sex" in that context would be misleading, and totally different than the previous example.

There is no definition of sex which will fit natural connotations of language in all scenarios. What qualifies as sex in terms of assault is broader than what you would call sex in other scenarios, since the relevant part is the intimate touching of someone without their consent.
Yes, I completely agree.

One thing that really bothers me in a debate is when people keep repeating things already understood and addressed simply because the other person doesn't agree with them. Failing to make an effort to understand the other person's perspective really irks me. And there is a lot of, "You're stupid because you don't agree with me," going on. It's very hard to keep calm and focus on the argument when dealing with people like Jabs.

I'm very frustrated when he makes a point, I address it,and then he accuses me of not seeing his point, using that as an excuse to ignore my point, and then referring to a separate post where I wasn't even talking to him.

It's just bewildering. I feel like I'm being trolled. Lured in by intelligent arguments and then met with ridicule and absurd arguments. It feels like talking to two separate people.



I haven't parsed your argument with Jabs so I really have no opinion. All I can say that might be relevant is that, when you and I have discussed things in the past, I often thought you were arguing with me only for you to tell me later you weren't, even though you were replying to specific things and they sounded like contradictions. I have no idea that's what's going on here, but it's the first thing I thought of. Hopefully, it's a misunderstanding of that nature.

Anyway, when both people can't even fathom what the other's on about, it strongly suggests they're not on the same page.



@cricket Asking someone to stop isn't censorship. Preventing them from being able to speak or be heard is censorship.
Agreed, but with the way people are these days that's where it's going. There was a bill put up for vote recently in Massachusetts that would have made it a crime to use the word bitch. I believe in New York the same thing except for the phrase illegal alien or illegal immigrant or something along these lines. People are nuts right now and that's why this is even a discussion all of a sudden.