Welcome to getDare
Join the latest fashion of Promises.
Ever tried one of my fap roulettes?
Did you know about PM dares? A nice and gentle way to start playing here.
You can get a lot of PM dares by sending them in the PM dare bashing game.
Join the latest fashion of Promises.
Ever tried one of my fap roulettes?
Did you know about PM dares? A nice and gentle way to start playing here.
You can get a lot of PM dares by sending them in the PM dare bashing game.
Re: When are you a pervert? What is taboo?
This is a reply to Jaroface's blog entry.
Taking the second meaning, I agree with Jaroface that being a pervert is totally alright. Good news, everyone. The saying "Your kink is not my kink, but your kink is okay" is true. 
Since an example is missing, I provide one for you: In "How Green was my Valley" a young woman is banned from her village for pre-marriage sex with a man who left her alone with their unborn child. I guess a poor village cannot afford to support too many single mothers.
That should answer the questions. I agree that laws can provide a guide what is alright and what isn't, such as it is with rape, but you can never be too sure, like with gay sex, or punishment of rape victims in some countries. But laws tell you what (mis)behavior you get punished for. Funny enough, as far as I know certain vocabulary like "sodomy" has changed in it's meaning to the current kind of condemned behavior.
I think bestiality (sex with animals) is more difficult. Pets are living beings, but currently, society uses them as tools and objects. We still raise them to be killed in high numbers, just to eat meat, though we probably don't need to, at the very least not in the amounts we do. We gas male fledglings. But even our lovely personal pets at home at our sides never agreed to be raised and kept as our companions. They never had a choice and won't ever have maybe except when you open the windows for your birds. Having pets is not consensual with these beings and still, it is widely accepted.
And then there are more complicated issues like nudity, kinky or sexual acts in public. Is breastfeeding in public alright? I think yes. Making your own choice on cloth and hair style? Totally. Cross-dressing? Alright. Please note that all of these things seems to offend a lot of people, and that's the whole issue of the controversy. Complete public nudity, public masturbation, public sex? I am not so sure. Obviously it makes a difference where you do it. Is it in your garden strangers can look into, is it on a lost parking lot at night, in the bushes of the woods, or in the middle of the mall or a vital street the shortest or the only way for many people? Then add diapers, piss and shit play, clinical kink, CBT, whipping and cutting with blood, and many more. I am just not sure. For me it seems like a conflict of interests. I just don't know yet.
Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiktionary
pervert (plural perverts)
1. (dated) One who has been perverted; one who has turned to error; one who has turned to a twisted sense of values or morals.
2. A person whose sexual habits are not considered acceptable.
Those perverts were trying to spy on us while we changed clothes!
1. (dated) One who has been perverted; one who has turned to error; one who has turned to a twisted sense of values or morals.
2. A person whose sexual habits are not considered acceptable.
Those perverts were trying to spy on us while we changed clothes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiktionary
taboo (countable and uncountable, plural taboos)
1. An inhibition or ban that results from social custom or emotional aversion.
2. (in Polynesia) Something which may not be used, approached or mentioned because it is sacred.
1. An inhibition or ban that results from social custom or emotional aversion.
2. (in Polynesia) Something which may not be used, approached or mentioned because it is sacred.
That should answer the questions. I agree that laws can provide a guide what is alright and what isn't, such as it is with rape, but you can never be too sure, like with gay sex, or punishment of rape victims in some countries. But laws tell you what (mis)behavior you get punished for. Funny enough, as far as I know certain vocabulary like "sodomy" has changed in it's meaning to the current kind of condemned behavior.
I think bestiality (sex with animals) is more difficult. Pets are living beings, but currently, society uses them as tools and objects. We still raise them to be killed in high numbers, just to eat meat, though we probably don't need to, at the very least not in the amounts we do. We gas male fledglings. But even our lovely personal pets at home at our sides never agreed to be raised and kept as our companions. They never had a choice and won't ever have maybe except when you open the windows for your birds. Having pets is not consensual with these beings and still, it is widely accepted.
And then there are more complicated issues like nudity, kinky or sexual acts in public. Is breastfeeding in public alright? I think yes. Making your own choice on cloth and hair style? Totally. Cross-dressing? Alright. Please note that all of these things seems to offend a lot of people, and that's the whole issue of the controversy. Complete public nudity, public masturbation, public sex? I am not so sure. Obviously it makes a difference where you do it. Is it in your garden strangers can look into, is it on a lost parking lot at night, in the bushes of the woods, or in the middle of the mall or a vital street the shortest or the only way for many people? Then add diapers, piss and shit play, clinical kink, CBT, whipping and cutting with blood, and many more. I am just not sure. For me it seems like a conflict of interests. I just don't know yet.
Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Total Comments 2
Comments
-
Thank you very much for your in-depth response. I like how you always really think things through.
I agree with you that we shouldn't actually keep pets as there is no consent here either. As for eating them. Well. I am a meat eater and I do believe meat is an important source of food for humans. It contains nutrients that are to be found nowhere else. But I do also agree with you that we don't need to eat as much of it as we do and I also think we should treat animals a lot better then we currently do, even if they are kept as livestock.
As for what can and can you not do in pubic? Yes, almost everything will offend some people. I think we should use common sense here and draw the line where the least number of people are offended. But yes, it is very difficult to find a sure answer here as to what generally would be deemed acceptable and what not. In my post I just listed a few examples which I think are not and I agree with the things you mention as being acceptable.Posted 12-15-2016 at 08:22 AM by Jaro 
-
I really did enjoy reading this blog! Quite a few keen insights as it relates to taboo.
I feel like the examples you gave were really good ones. As a race of emotionally intellectual animals, I feel like it's very important for us to remember that the things we consider "okay" are only considered okay because that's how we are raised (by our families, social exposures, and personal experiences) to regard it. The less we look at things as a matter of sanctions and taboos, the more rationally and critically we can assess them. In your example about pets and livestock, we see a situation where "consent" means nothing to most humans (even some of your most die hard animal rights activists) because we do not consider most animals to be our evolutionary equals: all the world is our prey. And we are but animals, so why wouldn't we see things that way? It's in our biological code. At that point it's not a question of consent, a right which we do not extend to animals, nor do they seem to understand at any level deeper than sheer symbiosis, but a question of consequences. For many of us, the only prospect standing between an omnivore and a vegetarian is whether or not health risks are involved with consuming meat. We simply lack the compassion and regard for animals needed to persuade us into a meatless or even an ethically-driven omnivorous diet. Most of us don't give a shit if our meat comes from a utopian local farm or a dismal factory slaughterhouse.
And, on the universal and humanistic level, that's fine, because those are the parameters that we, ourselves, have set for our moral compass. Is it right by the animals? Probably not, but then, you'd probably have to ask an animal. Either way, we've no obligation to care. Unless some religious or ideological doctrine has you believing essentialist ideas of "good" and "evil."
And speaking of religion, that is where we get a great many of our sexual taboos. Sodomy, public nudity, masturbation, fetishism, mutually-consenting adultery, prostitution, polyamory, and even public breastfeeding all have one thing in common: they are religious taboos. All of them are banned in some country or another based on laws of a purely religious nature, while there is scant medical, psychological, or sociological evidence suggesting that these things are actually bad. Any evidence that does exist is questionable at best and are often the result of cherry-picked data and unscientific methods of study. In societies where public nudity, polygamy, and public breastfeeding are the norm, such as that which is examined in some African tribes, there has been no evidence to support any negative impact of these actions being exposed to children. They simply don't ask, and/or don't care. So what does that say about what we consider "taboo" in first-world judeo-christian society?
With that all being said, I feel like the best (and perhaps only) methods we have to tune our moral compasses relates to acts of compassion and the respect of consent. That's why, even if I don't agree with the current social climate that takes its taboos from religious doctrines that I, myself, don't subscribe to, I will still do my best to avoid public sexual acts because the public does not consent to witnessing those acts. But that is my choice and, at least to me, it has no bearing on the "rightness" of someone who chooses not to regard my, or the public's, consent to witness their sexual behaviors (passively speaking, of course - flashers, for instance, fall under the category of deliberate sexual harassment as far as I'm concerned). The world is a big place and I can't really fault someone's inability or unwillingness to not only take everyone's sensibilities into account, but to also hold them higher than one's own victim-less pleasure. Either way, I still think it's important to talk about these things and appropriately combat the social structures that allow these taboos to exist in the first place.Posted 12-15-2016 at 01:42 PM by iSpuds
