Posts by Sarah Wood8

The way you argue is honestly laughable. I’m going to reply to this one last time just to distance myself from these twisted views you're pinning on me, and then I'm done. Your bizarre leaps from Stalinist institutionalized violence—which is supposedly my stance—to Jesus being some defender of pornography and meaningless sex actually cross the line, even for a humorous troll thread.

So, I just totally misinterpreted your positions where you defend senseless violence under the guise of "survival of the fittest"? Oh, my bad, let me apologize for that.
No, you got it wrong because I’m not defending sex. First off, sex isn't meaningless, but if it's meaningless to you, does that mean violence is meaningful? You didn't even address the actual topic here. Why should your kid watch violence instead of porn? If you want your child to be strong in this world rather than weak and getting eaten alive by others, you could just as easily show them how sex works instead of just how people kill each other, right!?
Feel free to tell me if you think something completely different from what I think you think.

I think Jesus and Gandhi were wrong about most of their stances. Various bad beliefs persist among people who have psychological inclinations toward such ideas; I don't see what's strange about that. But that's not even the main point. What might be fun to mention is that Jesus and Gandhi had such a negative attitude toward sexuality in general, let alone any extreme version you're bringing up, that they'd probably have to deck you after reading your opening post.

Wrong about which stances? Name them! Psychological inclinations toward beliefs? Someone who believes violence shouldn't be used is what? A schizophrenic? Look, I'm not talking about religion here.
How do you even know what kind of attitudes Jesus and Gandhi had toward sexuality? Haha... please, now you're just becoming ridiculous, and we don't need to be laughing at the same time. 😁
It wasn't Jesus who criticized sexuality, it was the church, and that idiocy has persisted in the minds and subconsciousness of people to this day. In some religions and belief systems, sexuality and sex are perfectly normal things that are practiced, talked about, and not treated like something sick, unlike in our "highly moral" society where a guy beats his wife and then goes to church after paying off the local authorities just so the whole town can see him.
And what exactly is "EXTREME" sexuality? 🤣
I already said it, so I'll say it again. What is so bad about a porn movie that it's okay for violence? Why is it okay to scar a child's psyche by letting them watch, say, Tarantino movies filled with torture (which kids have actually carried out by torturing and killing a kid in England after being inspired by torture in a Tarantino film), but they aren't allowed to watch porn because it's "tooooo" scary? Look, those are double standards. You can't claim sex is extreme and meaningless when the only thing truly extreme and meaningless is taking another human life. If kids aren't allowed to watch sex, then this hypocritical society should ban violence on TV too. That is primarily my point, and my second point is that it isn't abnormal or immoral for kids developing their sexuality to watch porn, because they're going to want to watch it anyway. And why don't we let them? Because it's what? A shame? Bad for them? Yeah, right... as if.

Exactly. Nothing beats a good laugh. Compared to a genuine sense of humor, sex is just too vulgar a pleasure. That’s why I’m such a staunch opponent of any eugenicist nonsense—we shouldn't be trying to "improve" or "strengthen" humanity. We should just leave all those ridiculous little losers to hop around and provide us with some much-needed entertainment.

Honestly, it’s hilarious how some people take themselves so incredibly seriously... trust me, there is nothing funnier than that kind of ego.
Sex is obviously way too vulgar, whereas violence isn't considered vulgar at all; instead, it's supposedly wonderful and desirable for kids to watch so they can learn how the "strong" carve their way through life, right!?
Sure, there are decent movies with violence, but they aren't exactly meant for children.
For instance, you can't even compare a Sergio Leone masterpiece like *Once Upon a Time in the West* to some trash starring Michael Dudikoff or Dolph Lundgren, and frankly, there's far too much of that violent garbage out there.
I'd rather kids watch porn than that crap.

It’s just kids playing. Why stop them from having some innocent fun? Besides, getting some physical activity is definitely good for their health, and those kinds of beatings often force a person to think and actually make them smarter.

There was actually a lot of noise recently about that kid whose classmates posted a video on Facebook showing them ganging up on him, even starting a group called "everyone who wants XY out of school" or something like that. Is systematic bullying or beating someone against their will really just "innocent childhood fun"? Once people start fighting, it stops being innocent play. There are kids who wrestle, play tag, or toss stuff around while staying friends. That’s innocent play; systematic harassment isn't.
This whole "survival of the fittest" nonsense is just a fairy tale used by various lowlifes, like those who believe in racial superiority or when ten guys jump one person in an alleyway... we could go on forever regarding the definition of intelligence here.

Intelligence—especially in terms of Machiavellian intellect, which is a key trait of evolved primates—could be described as a more sophisticated form of psychological aggression, a type of violence where the mind achieves what the body might not be capable of.

Both Gandhi and the Dalai Lama were aggressive in their own way and they were smart, but as far as I know, they didn't solve problems through violence. Psychological and mental aggression can sometimes be desirable when a person is fighting for what they believe in, but we aren't talking about physical violence against another living being here.
Jesus also fought for his beliefs. Was he weak because his pacifist convictions have endured to this day? Whether he existed or not is irrelevant; the convictions remained. The beliefs of various egoistic and megalomaniacal tyrants did not.
It is commonly said that carnivores are smarter than herbivores because they get the necessary nutrients for the brain from meat, but it would be incredibly stupid of me to bring that up as an example in this thread.

Why would we kill him? I don't get it.

Look, I’m not the one who reduced human violence down to the basic survival instincts seen in animals. I could argue with you in this thread if I were a lion and you were, say, a tiger. That would mean we were driven by instinct, but you forgot about the brain. Kudos to the lion and the tiger, but they aren't going to hop on a forum to debate morality. Since we *are* debating it, and you consider it a construct of the "weak," it proves that morality still exists and shouldn't be ignored in a topic this specific.
If we were lions and tigers, then stories about survival of the fittest would make incredible sense, but I think you like reducing everything to some banal, orthodox view of life that only survives in some nerd's 19th-century evolution textbook.

This topic is getting ridiculous.

Ever heard that laughter is the best medicine? Honestly, just laugh more—it’ll do more for your health than sex ever could. 😉

The urge for violence is just a natural instinct. Even little kids show an interest in fighting way before they ever care about sex.
Violent impulses—that drive to conquer, to dominate enemies, to prove oneself, to impose one's will, to solve problems fast, to survive—is exactly what built civilization. Civilization itself is just violence exerted over nature. A person has to be violent enough toward their own impulses to maintain self-discipline and physical health. Throughout evolution, anyone who wasn't inclined toward violence or skilled at using it was simply wiped out by wild beasts or crushed by people who were smarter and stronger. According to some theories, those weaker individuals eventually invented concepts like "morality" and "evil" just to verbally harass the stronger ones.

So, you're saying it's perfectly normal for kids to fight, or for a kid to bully someone weaker, and we should just let it happen because it's "natural"? Does that mean if someone beat up your child, you’d just stand there and recite this philosophy to me, or would you actually do something to ensure your offspring survives by quickly solving the problem and beating up the kids who hit your son? And how did the weak invent "morality and evil"? If they were truly the weak, they would have been eaten by predators or suppressed by your so-called "smarter and stronger" humans a long time ago.
Where does this need to equate intelligence with violence even come from? Are violent bullies inherently smart? What happens when someone uses violence against the bully? Does the bully suddenly become the weak one?
Anyway, I get the point of your little story—it's fine to be Stalin, a total thug who takes his frustrations out on others. In the end, all the thugs usually win, and nobody wants to run today's world based on your "philosophy." At least modern society tries to prevent certain groups from living like we're still in the Stone Age. So what does that imply? That the weak and stupid finally triumphed over the strong and smart? Or maybe society just took a wrong turn because we stopped slaughtering each other and instead came up with nonsense like "individual freedom and the right to life"?
I mean, would you actually grant rights and freedom to a weak individual? Why not just kill them if we can, wipe out their kids, rape their wife, and force them to bear our children instead, right!?
Let's be real here!

Violence-driven movies can be incredibly high quality; they have great plots, compelling characters, and beautifully shot scenes... Cross of Iron, Full Metal Jacket, Fight Club, Elite Squad, Inglourious Basterds—they are all stellar cinematic achievements, true masterpieces. Meanwhile, porn is just about a group of guys ejaculating on a girl's face—truly profound stuff.

I'm not saying there aren't good action movies, but what one person calls a masterpiece, another might call absolute garbage.

You can also eat crap during sex. It's called coprophilia. A movie dealing with that theme is, of course, Girls 1 Cup, a massive achievement in modern Brazilian cinema.

You missed the point entirely. I wasn't comparing eating crap to a sexual act or a violent act; I was pointing out how people are trained from childhood to accept any kind of stupidity, no matter how idiotic, and then they spend the rest of their lives sucking up to it.

Killing isn't always a crime: think about combat in war, political assassinations, suicide, or self-defense. Sometimes, a person can actually be honored for taking a life, with monuments erected in their name to serve as icons for future generations. On the flip side, there are certain sexual behaviors that are strictly illegal, often involving children as young as twelve. This whole thread is just ridiculous.

So now you're lecturing me on the law—essentially what’s permitted versus what isn't. Honestly, human stupidity is the most enduring force in history, and that same idiocy is what writes and rewrites our legal codes. I think there's a massive distinction between what the law allows today compared to what was acceptable a thousand years ago, back when "law" functioned much more like the concepts you're pushing. As for those monuments, I'm not seeing many built for violent tyrants. Neither Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Hussein have statues standing anywhere, despite how effectively they crushed anyone they deemed weak or "stupid."

Nathan Perez5 said:Now, look, federal law prohibits selling or showing pornographic content to anyone under 18, and I’m assuming the people drafting these regulations in D.C. have a bit more expertise than we do, so maybe that age limit actually makes sense and serves a purpose. Once you find yourself standing there looking at your own 12-year-old child—assuming you haven't completely forgotten what it was like to be that age—you'll probably realize that at that stage of life, dreaming about a simple kiss or a hug from a crush is much more appropriate given how emotionally immature kids are back then...

It’s the exact same story when it comes to violence; it’s easy to play philosopher and talk about it in the abstract, but trying to manage that influence within your own four walls is a whole different beast, though I suppose you could reduce how much of that stuff gets consumed by simply setting a good example through your own actions rather than just barking orders...

I was masturbating ten times a day when I was twelve. So why isn't watching violence a punishable offense?
Yeah, because laws are just perfect. We all know that. Just like priests are supposedly flawless moral role models... right.
Look, sorry, but idiots can write laws too. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's okay or even right.

blueeagle25 said:But then again, maybe people wouldn't be so obsessed with having sex if they hadn't seen porn or all that stuff showing how much pleasure there is. Maybe a girl might feel too much pain and just decide it's not worth it—mostly because she doesn't realize how great it can actually feel afterward.😍

Oh, and one more thing... parents can keep hoping that a little bit of discomfort will act as a deterrent. 😁
Honestly, I think even 12-year-olds today are so plugged into everything regarding sex that they're probably smarter about it than we were—they likely already know how to use condoms. Back in the day, twenty years ago before the internet changed everything, it wasn't like this. But nowadays, between the influence of porn and all the talk surrounding unplanned pregnancies and abortions, kids are exposed to so much information that they probably know more than most adults.

Nicole Miller5 said:Why all the fighting? Why not just embrace the darker side of desire? There’s something raw and honest about intense, aggressive themes—it feels more authentic. I honestly don't get why people feel this constant urge to tear apart things that actually work together seamlessly.
Even Marquis de Sade understood this three centuries ago.
Has humanity really learned absolutely nothing in all this time?

Violent porn? Please... you're talking about necro stuff and all that. Sure, anything goes out there and it's all just wonderful, but this specific discussion is strictly about violence and pure sex without any of that extra stuff.😁

blueeagle25 said:You were probably calling me one of those "moral crusaders." Well, fine then.
I actually agree with everything you said, and I was just thinking the other day about how we tolerate violence but get so worked up over people openly showing sexual stuff.

...

Just try looking at it from a parent's perspective for a second. You've got a ten-year-old. They're surrounded by porn, and they pretty much know everything about sex already. They see how their aunts and uncles enjoy it—they see that passion, hear the sounds of happiness—and as a kid, you just want to experience that too because you see the adults having such a good time. So, the kid finds someone of the opposite sex and decides to go for it. And I'm just asking you nicely: would you really let God allow a child to end up pregnant or forced into an abortion? That would pretty much seal their fate forever, wouldn't it? I doubt it. And yeah, sure, it doesn't even have to be another kid; there could be some predator out there who goes out of his way to convince a child that sex is the greatest thing ever, especially at that age.☕

Personally, I think kids know how to do it even without seeing it happen; if we all had to watch someone else do it before we could figure it out ourselves, the human race would have gone extinct a long time ago. It’s purely instinctual. It's like being hungry—you don't need to watch someone else eat to know how to put a spoonful of soup in your mouth. You just know. Just like you know what to do with a spoon, you know what to do with a penis.
In my opinion, we could actually prevent unwanted pregnancies by focusing more on actual sexual education and properly preparing kids for puberty.

hiddenmarlin14 said:Sure, because nothing says "moral high ground" quite like the Inquisition and burning witches. 🤷

It’s true... wars and killings have always been driven by moral crusades, but so far, nobody has ever gotten laid for a moral cause—except for James Bond, of course, because sex is inherently immoral.

electrichound94 said:God help us...🙄
Another group of people advocating for nudism and total immorality.🤦

Who exactly is calling this immoral? I guess watching people get slaughtered and killed is perfectly fine by your standards? Of course, everything is "moral" in that little world they conditioned you to live in. ☕

Lisa Lopez6 said:hahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahaah 😁

They say laughter is the best medicine, 😁but I think they're wrong.

Can someone please explain the massive paradox at the heart of our society? We’ve collectively decided that violence and crime—things that are actually illegal—are perfectly fine entertainment for TV, where kids and adults alike sit around watching them together. Yet, when it comes to sex, which is not only natural but beautiful and essential for continuing the species, it's treated like something taboo. It basically boils down to this:
taking a life = good
creating life = bad

I see all these moral crusaders acting outraged because ten-year-olds are joining Facebook groups or communities centered around "loving sex." Of course they are! They have those urges, even if they haven't actually acted on them yet. It's a natural instinct, yet we stare at them like they're some kind of freak. What would be better, though? Should we let them develop a murderous instinct instead of a sexual one? Would that be acceptable? In a society where you can watch dozens, even hundreds, of lives being violently snatched away through murder and torture on TV every single day, I don't see why kids wouldn't just start an online group called "I love killing"
. Sure, obviously that wouldn't be okay, but if killing isn't normal, then why is watching violence considered fine? Humanity treats violence as the ultimate mass entertainment. Go ahead, let the kids watch Ram mow down hundreds of people with a machine gun; heaven forbid they catch a glimpse of a man or woman's anatomy, let alone anything intimate. If they do, suddenly everyone starts shouting about morality. The busybodies run to the police or the courts, and religious types start rambling on about hell, damnation, and eternal punishment.

Just imagine a different scenario. Suppose we grew up in a society that didn't view the human body as shameful—where people weren't embarrassed to swim naked in the ocean or walk to the corner store without clothes when it gets hot, simply because they live in a culture that doesn't treat genitals as something sinister. Imagine a world where you might watch a movie with intimacy at 8 PM, or see people being affectionate in soap operas during the day, because sex isn't a taboo. In such a world, sex is seen as what it actually is: a way to create life, something beautiful, fun, healthy, and universally enjoyed.
Then, out of nowhere, some idiot decides to make a movie about brutal murder. That's a fundamentally stupid idea because killing is wrong; it's evil; it involves someone stripping a human being of their life in the most disgusting way possible.
In that hypothetical world, a society raised on intimacy would suddenly be faced with graphic violence for the first time. How do you think they'd react? People would be traumatized, psychiatric wards would overflow, and children wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Of course they would react that way, because witnessing something that is inherently evil and traumatic would be a normal response. But in our current world, we've been conditioned to accept violence as if we were told from birth that eating garbage every day is perfectly fine.
On the flip side, what is actually wrong with sex?

Where did this mindless, idiotic invention come from—this idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies, or that sex should be portrayed in a way that children hitting puberty at eleven or twelve shouldn't see? So, it's "NORMAL" for kids to watch slaughter, but "NOT NORMAL" for them to see a completely natural and acceptable act like basic intercourse that every person on this planet has the right to experience? That makes no sense.

That specific brand of social hypocrisy is honestly what I find most disgusting about everything.
We have murder, which is a crime, and we're allowed to watch it. We have sex, which isn't a crime, and we aren't allowed to watch it.
And really, if a twelve-year-old isn't allowed to see intimacy, why on earth are they allowed to watch a massacre?
Isn't our society just a little bit... retarded!?

gentlefox18 said:Well, what exactly is the implication of that?...

that people are basically just monkeys

gentlefox18 said:Since the dawn of humanity, even back when we lived in small, primitive tribes, there was always a clear distinction between women with striking, well-developed figures and those who were considered less physically endowed or attractive. It was widely believed that the most beautiful women were reserved exclusively for the wealthiest, strongest, and most influential men in the group. These high-status individuals often kept such women hidden away, viewing everyone else as unworthy of their attention.

This historical dynamic is precisely where the tendency to conceal female attributes originates. In more undeveloped regions of the world, such as parts of sub-Saharan Africa, there is no sense of shame regarding the body because social structures are much flatter; people live more equitably, and no single individual is viewed as superior or more beautiful than another. In those societies, true equality prevails.

What you've just described is nothing more than the social structure of baboons living in a lush green meadow.

Aaron Anderson72 said:Why do they always blur or pixelate women's breasts on TV or in photos?

Or even worse, when you see a breast but the nipple is blurred out! 😕
It’s funny because men can show their nipples just fine, but women can't, even though it's basically the same thing!

Why is a breast treated like a "sexual organ"? It makes it seem like they're directly tied to sex and arousal, as if showing a breast is the same as showing genitals!

Besides, if breasts weren't considered taboo, they probably wouldn't be such a huge focus of male fantasy. (Some studies suggest that in parts of Africa where women walk around bare-chested, men aren't obsessed with them; they just see it as a symbol of femininity).
Plus, it feels like no other culture views breasts as sexual to the extreme extent that Western culture does!

I've seen how my girlfriends react when they see a woman breastfeeding! Women actually get shocked by it themselves. It's like people think it's something that should only happen in a bathroom, like using the toilet! Honestly, most women won't even try nursing a baby in public just to avoid being judged!

In many tribes, it's totally normal for women to show their breasts, and nobody thinks, "Oh my god, she's naked!"
[LINK TO IMAGE REMOVED]

It’s also super interesting that a woman who doesn't have much of a chest—basically flat like a guy—still can't show her chest, while a man with gynecomastia can show his! So, it tells me it isn't about the breast itself, but rather the idea of a woman being "naked" or exposed!

I feel like we've gone WAY too far with hiding breasts. We turn them into this mysterious, exciting, hidden thing, when at the end of the day—it's just a breast. 🤔
I'm curious what you all think about this...
Why is it considered shameful for someone to see a breast (other than a partner)?
How did we even get to this point?
And why is breastfeeding in front of others supposed to be embarrassing?

I have my own theory that society hides breasts just to make them more sexually attractive, but I'd love to hear your thoughts...

They probably blur it all just to make sure I don't get turned on. They're intentionally sabotaging my sex drive because they've already decided it's something inherently bad. And why wouldn't I get turned on? What am I, some kind of war criminal? Am I not allowed to have a biological reaction anymore? ☕

Austin Alvarez62 said:Why? Are you gay too? Just like Ricky Martin. 😉

Some people just completely miss obvious sarcasm 😉

placidwolf27 said:And what Brenda Cooper3 is saying is absolutely true

For a huge chunk of the population in this country, a cat is just some creature that happens to wander around the yard—something that can be dealt with quite easily if it becomes a nuisance, assuming it isn't someone's pet specifically

Cats kill chickens, they snatch up chicks... and so on
They tend to breed like crazy all at once

A lot of people simply don't like them
Getting rid of kittens is seen by many as a perfectly normal thing

I actually came close to having to drown an entire bag of kittens myself once—we had a stray cat in the garden that managed to have two litters in about six months, I don't even know how, but the situation had to be handled...
Thank God I didn't have to do it; I don't think I could have... I might manage a dog, but a cat? Simply wouldn't be able to

But for a vast number of people, it’s as routine as slaughtering a chicken—logical, really; an animal is just an animal

There is an 80% chance that the man in question hasn't actually done anything particularly malicious toward the cat; to him, the cat is a worthless thing that potentially just gets in the way... and if you were to tell him he's a scumbag who deserves to have his teeth pulled while he's awake, he probably wouldn't even understand what value system you're using to judge him or claim he might be a psychopath

Keep in mind, it's entirely possible the man is completely fine—a good friend, a good son, a reliable employee, a jokester, a great lover, someone with interesting hobbies who knows his way around a motorcycle and tries his hand at poetry

In other words, just a man

People like that have wiped out entire villages before...

If he's good in bed, everything else is forgiven.

crimsontinker7 said:Honestly, I don't even take this stuff seriously anymore. It’s become completely routine for me...😁
Maybe it's just a tiny bit weird, though..

Go watch that Sherlock Holmes series😁

mistyseal11 said:

Honestly, I feel like I’m just hyper-sensitive about everything lately, you know? It’s like my skin is too thin or something. Everything hits me way harder than it probably should. kaže:
Look, I'll just be real with you—I’m definitely that kind of guy who once kicked a cat and then proceeded to smash it over the head with a brick.😁

Man, this brick is doing some straight-up magic!😍It’s just total darkness—a lethal combination.😈

...so yeah, that's the lowdown on those absolute monsters.

think about that!

Look, my first comment about roasting them on a spit was pure sarcasm, but that second part about them being nothing more than bottom-feeders? That’s actually what people like that deserve... at least, they should be hit with fines so massive they won't be able to recover for the next decade.

Brenda Cooper3 said:Usually, it’s the male cats that go after my hands... I can't even get near them. 😕 wtf
Cats just don't seem to take a liking to me in general.
There’s this one neighbor's cat—a massive, chubby gray beast... sometimes it squeezes through the fence to visit us. I’ll be sitting there calling out "psst psst psst," and the thing just plays games; it'll approach, then bolt away, then creep back closer, then wander off again. I couldn't even tell if it was a boy or a girl...
Honestly, what can I say? I'm just not their type. If I actually had a piece of deli meat in my hand, it would come flying at me like crazy... but otherwise, nothing.
They are cunning creatures. I actually have a theory that cats are smarter than dogs. 🤷

For instance, one summer down in Key West there was a huge colony of cats, and we used to feed one of them almost every single day... a big black one. By the following summer, there were hardly any cats left in Key West, and we found that black one dead and already smelling bad in our backyard before autumn even hit, so I assume someone poisoned them. Still, I guess that's somehow more humane than letting the population explode or having people go out and hunt them.
Of course, it isn't exactly "humane," but I get why people lose their minds when there are hundreds of cats around, especially with how many stray dogs you see in small towns.

Every cat has its own distinct personality... they aren't mindless followers like dogs, and you can't train them like idiots to perform whatever stupid trick you want. They are incredibly cunning, wild, and independent, but you can still have a great time with them depending on the specific cat. Personally, as I've gotten older, I've developed a bit of an aversion to all animals and I don't like touching them—not cats, not dogs—but if a cat ever shows up at my door, I'll always give them something to eat if I have some.

Brenda Cooper3 said:I heard a story back in my hometown about two guys—who actually went to elementary school with me—about how they caught a cat, tied it up like you’d tie a rabbit before slaughtering it against a tree, and then just beat it until its eyes literally fell out.
🤮
Even now, seeing those two walking around town makes my stomach turn.
People talk to them like they're perfectly normal, and honestly, I don't even know if they realize the weight of what they did. But knowing how twisted those two are, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually bragged about it to anyone who would listen.
Those guys are absolutely repulsive. 🤮

Some people really can only be helped by a heavy dose of karma. I have never once understood how anyone could find pleasure in torturing another living thing, whether it's a person, an animal, or even just a bug.

Personally, I've always been a huge cat person. I wanted one so bad when I was a kid, but my parents wouldn't budge. I used to play with cats at my grandpa's place, especially this one little male cat that was incredibly sweet; we kids would wrestle with him all the time, and he was so gentle, you could just see in his eyes that he’d never scratch you no matter how much you annoyed him.
But then there was this one time, right after I fed her, she curled up and while I was petting her, she suddenly swiped at me across the arm. I must have been about ten... and man, I lost my cool instantly and almost kicked her (thankfully I didn't) 😁 ... she was a female, so of course she scratched me... just like any other woman!