Anarchy and Fuck For Forest Video by TimeWaveZero TV

1.) Scatology. Public health/safety/cleanliness issue? Would peeing on someone's face or taking a dump on them be accepted? (This is the whole "human waste issue" taken a step further. It's bad enough that people and their pets leave their urine and feces behind in public places, to add other fluids, condoms etc. to the mix, and on top of that the occasional freak who gets off on smearing shit on himself, using it for sex, and leaving THAT behind too. But under the proposed system, he's within his rights, isn't he? Or is that regulated, and who gets to do it?)

2.) BDSM. How would a random passer by be able to distinguish between a consensual session and an actual rape? What if the passer by attempts to intervene? Can he be punished for infringing on someone else's rights? What if he doesn't intervene, and it was an actual rape? Could the passer by be held liable for not having done anything? Or would he be socially justified because he assumed it was a consensual sexual practice? What about torture? What if you are into bondage, engaging in BDSM with your other in the park, and they decide to leave you tied up like that because it gets him/her off? Is he within his rights because he is freely expressing his sexuality? Would you advocate a law that says "no he can't do that"? How would you be protected from such a situation?

3.) Fetishism. There's probably a fetish out there for just about anything anyone can imagine, ranging from the harmless to the dangerous and deadly. For example, exhibitionism (an often misused term in this thread), which involves luring unsuspecting people into witnessing your act. Catheter/enema fetishes (or any kind of "prop" fetish, really), asphyxiation/hanging fetishes, urine/feces fetishes (see above) and even more strange fetishes are out there. Blood fetishes, crush fetishes (sexual arousal from crushing small animals to death), necrophilia, sexual slavery and simulated rape (VERY confusing to a random passer by), ACTUAL rape, and more. Which ones are "okay" and which are "not"? Who gets to decide and enforce? What about the rights of others? Whose holds greater legitimacy? The "gray area" widens dramatically at this point. Take this a step further to issues such as bestiality and it becomes a very messy can of worms.

4.) Role-playing. Is it okay to impersonate police officers and have sex in public? What about "baby" fetishes? Simulated rape (see above)? Again, a very diverse field with HUGELY subjective gray areas. Would it be okay to role-play a US soldier having sex with a Muslim woman in public? If someone witnessed something like this and was offended, whose opinion holds legitimacy?

It seems like the issue grows REALLY complicated, REALLY fast, and creates an issue where there are all sorts of loopholes that can be exploited in one way or another. Who gets to sort all this mess out?

Seems like it's a lot easier and more fair to everyone to stick with the "Do it in your home or a private area set aside for such things where the general public won't be disturbed by your actions" attitude most Western societies currently endorse.

The solution to this one is pretty obvious to me. You should not be able to take a dump or pee on the sidewalk or at the park or pretty much anywhere besides a toilet that flushes your stuff down the pipes. Weather sex is involved or not, it doesn't matter, it's completely irrelevant. It's about urine and scat having REAL sanitary implications if left on public spaces.

Look whatever it may be, weather it's a kiss or tourture, it has to be CONSENTUAL. You can not tie somebody and leave him if this goes against his will. And if because of the nature of BDSM it becomes impossible to tell weather somebody is truly getting raped or not then these type of sexual practices should be confined to specific designated areas that involve a greater amount of security where all the people involved in the sex game sign some paper before they enter the area. That way whoever is in that designated area, is surely just playing. Simple!

these type of sexual practices should be confined to specific designated areas that involve a greater amount of security where all the people involved in the sex game sign some paper before they enter the area. That way whoever is in that designated area, is surely just playing. Simple!

The same logic of what I said about BDSM should apply to a lot of these things. And no, you can not be luring or following people into witnessing your act, because then it's like stocking somebody which is already punished regardless of weather is sexual or not. It all has to be CONSENTUAL.

And if the fetish due to its extreme nature poses dangers to the public then it should be confined to designated areas that can provide the security and safety needed.

Quote:


4.) Role-playing. Is it okay to impersonate police officers and have sex in public? What about "baby" fetishes? Simulated rape (see above)? Again, a very diverse field with HUGELY subjective gray areas. Would it be okay to role-play a US soldier having sex with a Muslim woman in public? If someone witnessed something like this and was offended, whose opinion holds legitimacy?



You are repeating BDSM again. And about impersonating officers, well hehe come on man, that's irrelevant of sex.

It's not any different from everything else we have to sort out in our society. It's about getting creative and using common sense to solve all these issues, just like we do for driving regulations and so many other things. The key element is to think beyond personal subjective values and try and focus in what makes sense for everyone regardless race, creed or personal trip. It's about creating a space for everyone that is more free and more accepting and yet functional at the same time.

Seems kind of a mediocre way to look at things and no it does not seem fair either. I think it's easier to just use our head to solve these issues like we do for everything else. We can not get stuck in outdated oppressive environments just because it’s a pain to change things. Counscious change is what moves things forward.

I just don't understand how in a world where so many basic human rights of mere survival (access to food, water, shelter, clothing, health, education, and more) are dysfunctional, hindered, infringed upon, or even outright exploited, people can be more or less blithely passive towards, and focus instead on greater allowance of what is essentially a form of RECREATION which is already allowed within the privacy of your own space. In the face of so many greater human problems which ALREADY EXIST, how can anyone in their right mind not view this sex issue as anything other than a complete waste of time and energy?

Sure, we all have times where we fantasize about "Wouldn't it be cool if the world would just be the way we wanted it?" but wouldn't it be better to get off of our spoiled asses and focus on the REAL issues which would TRULY bring benefit to people and give them REAL rights?

Some people should just get off their high and mighty horses of "enlightenment", take a good, hard look at the world around them, and sit back and count their lucky stars (and thank the societies that built up to and currently support their spoiled lifestyles) that they are in a position and have time to fantasize about decadent sexual idealistic dream worlds when MILLIONS are too busy scratching at the earth just for a couple of grains of rice and sips of brackish, muddy water for themselves and their families.

And again, who makes the moral call? Can you think of ANYONE qualified enough to do it? I can't. It's better for everyone to follow the same standard regardless of their personal taste.

Seems fair to me to expect everyone regardless of how they choose to perform sex to follow the same standard. Does it seem fair to you if woman-on-top sex were allowed in public but man-on-top sex would not be?

I am referencing pedophilia and genital mutilation as support of my arguments?????

You've also mentioned the Greeks (known pedophiles) in support of your hedonistic ideals.

I'd strongly suggest if you really cared about your position at this point you should just keep quiet and let people like Aluxe do most of the talking

My argument is that society in general cannot be trusted to rely on common sense, as every freedom granted and every restriction imposed almost immediately gets exploited by one group or another.

This is because humans by nature are greedy, selfish, and inconsiderate of their neighbors, and almost always are willing to capitalize on themselves and each other for personal gain.

That is exactly my point about sex in public in general. It creates real health and sanitary conditions.

Besides, this (even though it's an extreme example perhaps) is exercising government control over a person's rights which the opposing argument here seems to be largely against.

And again, who determines the standard of what is okay and not okay to do in public? Opening up the door for sex in public but only in certain ways (no doggy style in public but missionary is okay, for example) is allowing SOME people to have rights and others not.

Fuck For Forest does this already by doing things like what they did on stage at a festival, and fucking out in the open in the middle of where people are trying to dance or mind their own business at their camp sites.

And who knows where else. The need to do it in a public neutral ground space is to satisfy a certain sexual appetite that any old sex cannot satisfy, and it shows no respect for whomever might happen to walk around the corner.

If you cannot show other people respect simply by going somewhere where nobody will be bothered, you can't expect society to pander to your sexual appetite, either.

Quote:
________________________________________

And if the fetish due to its extreme nature poses dangers to the public then it should be confined to designated areas that can provide the security and safety needed.
________________________________________


Again, more government control. Who gets to be on the committee that makes the moral decision on that?

The "policeman" scenario is quite common in the role-playing fantasy department so it makes a good example. Even the "soldier on muslim woman" thing is not BDSM in and of itself. That's role-playing too and just one of many possible scenarios that could offend someone if seen in on public grounds.

It's creating a huge bureaucracy specifically focused on this issue alone that would crowd a country's already crowded legal system in a huge ambiguous moral gray area. It would be expensive to the taxpayer to support all the legal man-hours and legislation required to sort the whole mess out and again who is qualified to make the moral call on what should be allowed or not? When a government begins to discriminate within the gray area of okay and not okay itself, there will always be a group of people who feel slighted and will fight for their rights and freedoms. It's a lot easier to just expect everyone to follow the same regulations.

Also, sex and driving are two completely different things. Driving is essential nowadays to keep society and the economy functioning, whereas sex in public is purely for recreation and enjoyment.

What makes sense for everyone regardless race, creed or personal trip is just to expect everyone to abide by the same regulations instead of creating a discriminatory gray area where group A gets to have public sex the way they want to and group B does not.

Seems fair to me to expect everyone regardless of how they choose to perform sex to follow the same standard. Does it seem fair to you if woman-on-top sex were allowed in public but man-on-top sex would not be?

And again, who makes the moral call? Can you think of ANYONE qualified enough to do it? I can't. It's better for everyone to follow the same standard regardless of their personal taste.

you should feel fortunate to live where you do where you can go to a place like a swinger club or a fetish party if you so choose without an angry mob or police busting in and imprisoning or beheading you.

I think you have good intentions, Aluxe, but your stance doesn't hold much water.

I just don't understand how in a world where so many basic human rights of mere survival (access to food, water, shelter, clothing, health, education, and more) are dysfunctional, hindered, infringed upon, or even outright exploited, people can be more or less blithely passive towards, and focus instead on greater allowance of what is essentially a form of RECREATION which is already allowed within the privacy of your own space. In the face of so many greater human problems which ALREADY EXIST, how can anyone in their right mind not view this sex issue as anything other than a complete waste of time and energy?

Sure, we all have times where we fantasize about "Wouldn't it be cool if the world would just be the way we wanted it?" but wouldn't it be better to get off of our spoiled asses and focus on the REAL issues which would TRULY bring benefit to people and give them REAL rights?

Yeah then why not bann everything else we do in our society for that matter? Like keep everyone in a prison so nobody will exploit anybody. Axis I think you have to be careful of such philosophy because there is also a positive side to humanity and that is where we should put our faith in. If you put your faith on our negative aspects you might as well give up with humanity.

I believe we have a choice. It’s up to us to decide what we want in this world.

Not if done properly and responsibly. Or be specific about what you mean.

Hehe. What? Are you kidding? Dude make no mistake, the government is ALREADY exercising control right now and giving you no choice. And if sex in public would be allowed it does not mean that sex in private would be banned, you would keep all the choices you have at the moment and just get more choices.

Axis I think you are getting confused. Regulations should ONLY come in place for safety, sanitary and health aspects. They should NOT be based on merely personal taste or subjective moral or religious values otherwise it would be discrimination. Instead they should be determined from a health and safety point of view, like using standards of hygene that are applied elsewhere in similar ways and that have nothing to do with morals. And for that we have science to help us. So from a safety and sanitary perspective doggy style and missionary are really no different from eachother. But if taking a dump is involved then it is VERY DIFFERENT from a SANITARY perspective. It is not based on the group or person practicing these sexual things but on the sanitary immplications of the piece of turd left on the ground.

Were they following people around forcing them to witness what they were doing? If they are allowed on the stage or not is for the organizers to decide. Maybe the other people should mind their own busiess instead of focusing on FFF fucking on the open.

Were they following people around forcing them to witness what they were doing? If they are allowed on the stage or not is for the organizers to decide. Maybe the other people should mind their own busiess instead of focusing on FFF fucking on the open.

Yeah people have said the same things about gay people kissing, it’s exactly the same line of thinking. Hey if somebody wants to be a fully covered nun and abstain from sex and another wants to show only their legs and another wants to kiss and another wants to walk nude and yet another wants to have sex in the open. To each their own! Mind your own business. If they are forcing you to stare at them then you have a right to complain, otherwise look elsewhere or deal with the fact that you share the world with others that may think very differently than you.

Oh so just because gay people bother those around you they should also just go find a private space to kiss or hold hands? Axis you are falling again into the subjective moral way of looking at things. If you have safety issues explain them and be specific. Otherwise what people believe is their business.

And so if people were to have sex in public it would be fair to expect they use a sex matt/cloth under so any fluids that escape don’t pollute. And that would be a regulation based on.. (lets see if you can answer that one)

I think you REALLY undermine the importance that sexuality has in our lives.

Quote:


What makes sense for everyone regardless race, creed or personal trip is just to expect everyone to abide by the same regulations instead of creating a discriminatory gray area where group A gets to have public sex the way they want to and group B does not.



Yes it would make sense IF these regulations were based on something logical like safety or health. BUT THEY ARE NOT! That’s the whole fucking point. Like hello!!! It’s exactlty what I have been arguing for all this time.

Yes group A wants to have public sex and group B does not. Now tell me who is been discriminated here if we force sex to be private just because of the personal subjective views of Group B?

Now if you want to force sex to be private based on safety or sanitary issues then I am all for it. But prove it! That’s why we have the scientific method to help us. Then truth talks and assumptions and BS walks out the door.


Quote:


Seems fair to me to expect everyone regardless of how they choose to perform sex to follow the same standard. Does it seem fair to you if woman-on-top sex were allowed in public but man-on-top sex would not be?



And that is not what is happening. We are been forced to follow the personal subjective standards of “group B” who considers sex a private thing just because of their own personal subjective values that have religious roots. Sorry but you really don’t seem to get it.

Quote:


And again, who makes the moral call? Can you think of ANYONE qualified enough to do it? I can't. It's better for everyone to follow the same standard regardless of their personal taste.



You mean the standards of “group b”. Gee I feel like we are at the beginning of the discussion again.

I am very greatful! But it’s not enough. I do not belive we should stand for 50% of our rights or be partly free. I think that if the universe really intended for us to be truly free we should not take any less. If they are our rights then nobody should keep us from them regardless of how insignificant they may seem to you.

I think Login hit the nail brilliantly on the head

"Dude our sexuality is like our most basic energy. It’s from where we come from, the very magic that brought us to this world. It is beyond just superficial recreation! It’s highly spiritual and a gift from the universe to make us wholesome, happy and discover the wonders of life. It is beyond what we do with our partner at the bed. Our sexuality is with us in everything we are, in every cell of our being, in our emotions and our feelings and it’s a doorway to higher connections. Maybe that’s exactly why our sexuality has been reppresed, because it is such a powerful force! And think of who is behind it? The church, and our religions which in many ways have proven to be instruments of control that have nothing to do with true spirituality.

I think Login hit the nail brilliantly on the head when he said that if we had a healthy sexuality we would feel less compelled to cover our lack of happiness by other means like money and greed which is what is pushing the world over the cliff. Sex has HUGE immplications in how we live our lives. And if our society does not have a healthy relationship with sex then we are never going to be a healthy society. You simply can not deprive the very feelings and the very energies that nature has given you to be wholesome and happy and expect to be healthy.

And it is very sad to realize HOW MUCH our religions have polluted and transformed sex with all the negative associations they attached to it. So now people look for things that are dirty, naughty and prohibited to get turned on, YES!, because that’s what they have been taught sex is. They need the filth to get turned on because that’s what we have been calling sex so people go to the gutter to look for an edge and get turned on more. So it’s our very own negative attitudes hitting us back, and I don’t know why this all started but we are now caught in a trap where it’s even harder to accept sex. Because we fail to see that the ugly face that we see in sex today and which we want to repress is PRECISELY what sexual repression created in the first place. But it is a result of all the negative shit we were taught, and now the monster looks back at us and we want to repress it even more thus reinforcing all the negative associations. If you can understand this point then you will drop all arguments against sex. You will finally understand that it is a dead end road which is just going to take us further into the mess we are trying to escape from. Yeah, of course people are scared of all these weird fetishes, they do not want their children to see these, some of them are so clearly dark and disfunctional but you have to understand that they only work against the backdrop of a sexualy reppressed society.

So really its not sex that you want to cover up, it’s our own negative associations that we can’t stare at, which makes perfect sense because they are quite ugly sometimes. But for sure the filth is not in our sexuality but in our minds from all we have been taught about sex since we were children by our society. And that in turn is the ugly face of sex we feel ashamed of and which we want to keep from our children, and so we pass on the same associations to them. It’s a fucking trap and a vicious cycle because we feel compelled to repress more but we only feed the ugly obssesed starved monster who we are trying to run from. So repressing it is never going to work. It can’t because that is what created the disfucntion in the first place.

I think If we really had more free and positive attitudes towards sex we would be more prone to look for the more beautiful and wholesome aspects of sexuality. But we have a fucking mess right now and it’s going to be a process to get out of it smoothly. Hehe"