Argentinian Man Dies During Sex With Scarecrow

[camberiu]

Hypocrisy and false morality? I dont understand.

Two adults being willing and consenting being your only criteria is a very narrow or blinkererd way of looking at it. What about if the willing and consenting adults are emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...?

OK, let's apply your criteria to other factors besides gay sex and see how it goes:

What about if the willing and consenting adults are emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...? Should they be allowed to go fishing together? If not, who should have the power to forbid it and regulate it?

What about if the willing and consenting adults are emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...? Should they be allowed to travel together? If not, who should have the power to forbid it and regulate it?

What about if the willing and consenting adults are emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...? Should they be allowed to open a business together together? If not, who should have the power to forbid it and regulate it?

What about if the willing and consenting adults are emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...? Should they be allowed to live together? If not, who should have the power to forbid it and regulate it?

 

[TWB103]

.......What about if the willing and consenting adults are emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...? Should they be allowed to go fishing together? If not, who should have the power to forbid it and regulate it?

What about if the willing and consenting adults are emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...? Should they be allowed to travel together? If not, who should have the power to forbid it and regulate it?

What about if the willing and consenting adults are emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...? Should they be allowed to open a business together together? If not, who should have the power to forbid it and regulate it?

What about if the willing and consenting adults are emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...? Should they be allowed to live together? If not, who should have the power to forbid it and regulate it?...........




If someone was emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...? Should that person be allowed to be President? Should the/she be trusted to walk your dog? If not, who should have the power to forbid it and regulate it?

 

[camberiu]

If someone was emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills etc...? Should that person be allowed to be President? Should the/she be trusted to walk your dog? If not, who should have the power to forbid it and regulate it?

You voting for an emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills person for president would not offend me or neither would I call it a "perversion".
You allowing an emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills person to walk your dog would not offend me or neither would I call it a "perversion".
You having gay sex with an emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills person would not offend me or neither would I call it a "perversion".

Not sure what your point is.

 

[TWB103]

The point is you say that are not offended by what willing consenting adults do with each other but my question to you was would YOU trust '[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]an [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills person'[/background] to be in charge of you, your country, your dog etc. You are either unbalanced or you arent. Or can you just switch it on an off like a switch? Actions behind closed doors have consequences in the outside world in some form or other. People have a legal or moral duty of care to others and their community to various degrees etc -- so how we behave in our private lives should matter to others.

I dont have a problem with homosexuality or gay sex. I guess i have a problem with people decieving and hurting themselves and others searching for selfish cheap thrills that modern society encourages. A married family man with kids (which by all accounts seems to the main market) getting cheap sexual thrills from a ladyboy is perverse.

 

[Joe]

I dont have a problem with homosexuality or gay sex. I guess i have a problem with people decieving and hurting themselves and others searching for selfish cheap thrills that modern society encourages. A married family man with kids (which by all accounts seems to the main market) getting cheap sexual thrills from a ladyboy is perverse.

Is a lonely farmer getting cheap thrills with a ladyboy scarecrow perverse and should it be outlawed?

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Is a lonely farmer getting cheap thrills with a ladyboy scarecrow perverse and should it be outlawed?

So, that's why it's been a while since we've heard anything from the Hermit of the Pampas.

 

[nlaruccia]

The point is you say that are not offended by what willing consenting adults do with each other but my question to you was would YOU trust '[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]an [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills person'[/background] to be in charge of you, your country, your dog etc. You are either unbalanced or you arent. Or can you just switch it on an off like a switch? Actions behind closed doors have consequences in the outside world in some form or other. People have a legal or moral duty of care to others and their community to various degrees etc -- so how we behave in our private lives should matter to others.

I dont have a problem with homosexuality or gay sex. I guess i have a problem with people decieving and hurting themselves and others searching for selfish cheap thrills that modern society encourages. A married family man with kids (which by all accounts seems to the main market) getting cheap sexual thrills from a ladyboy is perverse.

I'm not trying to instigate and argument in the forum, but out of curiosity, would it be less perverse if a married family man with kids were to get cheap sexual thrills with a woman? Versus a ladyboy.

 

[Joe]

So, that's why it's been a while since we've heard anything from the Hermit of the Pampas.

A young male from Ireland named Joshua Unsworth hanged himself after frequent cyber bullying on a social network that he belonged to. He was teased about his father being a farmer and peers made fun of his dating habits. This constant barrage of bullying lead to depression and suicide.

http://nobullying.co...ide-statistics/

 

[ajoknoblauch]

If that's how the Hermit gets off, so be it. It's relatively innocuous compared to other fanboys of fantasy novelists: http://tinyurl.com/puox6ls

 

[ARbound]

The point is you say that are not offended by what willing consenting adults do with each other but my question to you was would YOU trust '[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]an [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]emotionally/mentally unbalanced, irresponsible, easily manipulated by the other, drunk or drugged, addicted to dangerous thrills person'[/background] to be in charge of you, your country, your dog etc. You are either unbalanced or you arent. Or can you just switch it on an off like a switch? Actions behind closed doors have consequences in the outside world in some form or other. People have a legal or moral duty of care to others and their community to various degrees etc -- so how we behave in our private lives should matter to others.

I dont have a problem with homosexuality or gay sex. I guess i have a problem with people decieving and hurting themselves and others searching for selfish cheap thrills that modern society encourages. A married family man with kids (which by all accounts seems to the main market) getting cheap sexual thrills from a ladyboy is perverse.

Peverse to you. Maybe you have sexual fetishes that others here consider normal but some might find disgusting, who am I to judge what gets you off.

There are still people alive today, and governments in some countries that targetpeople like me only because I happen to like other men.

Like sexuality, people don't chose what they're attracted to. Now, this doesn't mean you can rape people because you have a rape fetish, remember, it requires consent.

As for famous people and people of power there's the case of Max Mosley, News of the World did a hit piece on him because he is in to S&M/BDSM, he was President of the body that oversees Formula 1. He refused to step down because his sexual interests had absolutely nothing to do with his ability to be an effective business man.

Long story short I'd say if you want to be a prude join the church, but we know you'd be surounded by paedophiles, rapists, and clients of rentboys, so sorry about your luck.