Somnophilia definition

[ArtWilliams]

Originally Posted by Trixie

I don't agree with blacklisting or shutting down the sleep site (I'll personally promote it myself), or other controversial porn, but to act as though there are no potential negative consequences, and to not discuss these rationally or try to find ways to limit them, is STUPID.

It is easy to cast dispersions on others. So Trixie, I ask you in what ways do we "limit them"?

--art

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by artwilliams

It is easy to cast dispersions on others. So Trixie, I ask you in what ways do we "limit them"?

--art

Dispersions??????? WTF?

I am talking about limiting NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. And how to do so was discussed in the other thread which I posted a link to earlier; perhaps you did not read it or you wouldn't be jumping to the conclusions.

[ArtWilliams]

Originally Posted by Trixie

Dispersions??????? WTF?

I am talking about limiting NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. And how to do so was discussed in the other thread which I posted a link to earlier; perhaps you did not read it or you wouldn't be jumping to the conclusions.

Hi Trixie,

No, I didn't read your posts on the other thread. Now having read it, I must still disagree.

Government mandated warning on packages of cigarettes don't stop people from smoking. [Yes, smoking is an addiction but sex can be too.] Anyhow, who decides which sites require a warning and what the warning should entail? A warning message on the site in question would not change someone's behavior anyway ["--- and BTW, don't do this at home ... or anywhere else!"]. If a individual webmaster wishes to provide warning on his/her sites than more power to him/her but that is not "us" limiting "them". That is a voluntary control put on by an private individual. Putting limits on individual behavior, via the use of force, is the right of government.

And yes, I would defend the right to create a "site where gangs of women descended on sleeping men's asses and anally raped them with giant dildos" if, as I have stated previously, those involved are adults and they give informed consent. Sexually fantasy is never "politcally correct".

Finally, I have a question for you. If you find the lack of a disclaimer so improper and it enrages you so, why would you consider promoting RageCash? Surely, you would stand on principle and not allow Ragecash to profit from a site for which you are so vehemently opposed?

Regards,

---art

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by artwilliams

Hi Trixie,

No, I didn't read your posts on the other thread. Now having read it, I must still disagree.

Government mandated warning on packages of cigarettes don't stop people from smoking. [Yes, smoking is an addiction but sex can be too.] Anyhow, who decides which sites require a warning and what the warning should entail? A warning message on the site in question would not change someone's behavior anyway ["--- and BTW, don't do this at home ... or anywhere else!"]. If a individual webmaster wishes to provide warning on his/her sites than more power to him/her but that is not "us" limiting "them". That is a voluntary control put on by an private individual. Putting limits on individual behavior, via the use of force, is the right of government.

Where did I say these warnings should be mandated? I never said that, nor did anyone else. Nor did I say there should be some higher power determining how they should be written.

And yes, I would defend the right to create a "site where gangs of women descended on sleeping men's asses and anally raped them with giant dildos" if, as I have stated previously, those involved are adults and they give informed consent. Sexually fantasy is never "politcally correct".

So we agree . . . I never said porn should be politically correct, or that people's fantasies should be sanitized. I myself confessed to enjoying a good incest fantasy along with high fiber and brushing my teeth after every meal. However, I do think posing "what ifs" to the crowd of mostly-men who are unwilling to acknowledge even the slightest danger of a site that depicts sleeping women being violated IS important to do. You may not have a double standard, but many people do.

Finally, I have a question for you. If you find the lack of a disclaimer so improper and it enrages you so, why would you consider promoting RageCash? Surely, you would stand on principle and not allow Ragecash to profit from a site for which you are so vehemently opposed? Regards,

---art

Again, you have plastered my statements with your own preconceptions and assumptions. If you truly want the answer to this, reread what I have said before and subtract all of the layers of personal bullshit blurring your comprehension. I am all for taboo fantasies, I am all for people running their sites the way they want to, I am all for free speech.

Controversial sites are not going to go away if I boycott them, nor do I necessarily want them to even if I am critical of certain aspects of them. I have no problem making money recommending the latest degrading unimaginative ignorant thing on the scene; hell -- I will even masturbate to it. Promoting other people's sites is not the mainstay of my income as I have my own paysites, otherwise maybe it would get to me.

I am not "enraged" by the sleep site or meatholes or little april or really any of the individual sites that have sparked so much discussion over the years. I am frustrated by people's unwillingness or inability to think critically about them, looking at the issues from all perspectives.