1y ago

This (rule)s

Yes we do

You're viewing a single thread.

171 comments

I'm surprised nobody here thinks porn adverts and fucking in public isn't bad. Anyone with kids should not want to live somewhere like this cartoon. Other than that and the statue of Clinton getting head it's fine. The right is wrong to use children as an excuse to get away with bad legislation or to stop the good. To not consider children at all and how the world will effect them is almost worse.
- What exactly is wrong with porn ads like those shown in the image? I'd have no issue if pornhub put up a billboard in my town that just said "Got Porn?", as long as the billboard itself isn't featuring explicit images, what's the harm?
  
  I guess I figured since it was a political cartoon it was implying something worse than what it can actually show but that was probably wrong.
- I'm surprised nobody here thinks porn adverts and fucking in public isn't bad.
  I'll bite, though not in a fully literal sense. Neither of those things is bad, if all involved and in the area are consenting adults. Observers are participants in exhibitionism and participation requires consent. This condition probably breaks the kink for some though, just as it does for those that jump in video chats with their dicks out (non-consent is likely a big part of that act).
  However, I don't consent to adverts that are not directly related to intentional attempts to find a product or service and find them to be a blight on both the Internet and physical world.
  
  This is much more of a theoretical argument than a practical one. If it's a city there will be children.
  
  Children cannot give informed consent to sexual activities, so, that's accounted for.
  
  What? You said fucking in public is okay as long as everyone consents, if children aren't capable of consenting, like you said, how is fucking in public okay?
  
  In general, it is not. That's what I mean. Anyone in the potential "audience" must be capable and willing to give informed consent to participate in a sexual act. If that condition cannot be met, the act is not ok.
  ETA: My intent is to apply more generalized ethical reasoning to the situation. Sex in public is not, itself, fundamentally wrong; forcing others to participate in sexual acts without their consent is. This defuses avenues for kink shaming, sex-negativity, and other similar lines of reasoning.
  
  Semantics always annoy me unless I'm the one pointing them out
  
  Haha! Fair!
  
  You are right.

171 comments