Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

topic posted Mon, October 19, 2009 - 1:55 PM by  Hummingbird
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
www.petitiononline.com/SexBoR...on.html

Being conceived through an act of sexual expression and naturally born as sensual beings, we who inhabit this planet called Earth find immutable and unassailable:

1. the right to pursue sexual relations according to one’s own interests and beliefs without institutional or government interference;
2. the right to have sexual intercourse with the partner(s) of one’s choosing without regard to gender or race;
3. the right to enjoy sexual stimulation utilizing media, products, devices and lotions specifically made, marketed and sold for that purpose;
4. the right to teach and to learn without fear whatever sexual techniques and methods one might desire;
5. the right to express and enjoy oneself through nudity;
6. the right to employ the time and talents of others to facilitate visual, physical and emotional pleasure;
7. the right to create a family of our own definition, not one imposed by religious concerns, receiving the full benefits and consideration as a family unit;
8. the right to determine for oneself that morality by which appropriate sexual behavior is defined;
9. the right to explore and enjoy the full range of safe sexual conduct with oneself and others without social prejudice or legal prohibition;
10. the right to be safe in all sexual relations without fear of physical or emotional harm, disease, and undesired exploitation.

We, therefore, appealing to the conscience of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, solemnly publish and declare that as Free and Independent Peoples, they have full Power to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Peoples may of right do.
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

    Mon, October 19, 2009 - 3:57 PM
    • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

      Tue, October 20, 2009 - 8:05 AM
      Politically correct, postmodern hipster TRASH is the proposal above .

      Right to be free from emotional harm sounds . if it were encoded in law , could set a dangerous precedent towards censorship of those who would criticize sex positive lifestyles .

      We ought *not* to have censorship ...and one fears that the politicallly correct , hipster , sex positive crowd may seek censorship of ANTI-sex voices through legislation of they can get away with it .
      • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

        Tue, October 20, 2009 - 8:17 AM
        Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

        once again, jason, your tactics have given the lie to your "ideals."

        you wish to retain the right to scream "no you can't, you dirty so-and-so" to people who are fucking, while at the same time you wish to continue your work to keep people from fucking. it's a classic piece of hypocricy - "you can't censor me while i'm trying to censor you - that would be censorship!!!"

        Love is the law, love under will.
        • Learn the distinction

          Tue, October 20, 2009 - 9:16 AM
          Telling people that they are wrong ...making them feel guilty by words alone is NOT censorship .

          Nobody has ever been forced to do anything by mere words alone. It is high time that you MTV Generation , postmodernist types fess up to that !

          Cnsorship involves arresting people , physically confiscating books and or magazines . The key word is PHYSICAL .

          I do NOT advocate that. Not even in the case of the sex positive trash I deride .
          • Re: Learn the distinction

            Tue, October 20, 2009 - 10:41 AM
            Jason: "Nobody has ever been forced to do anything by mere words alone."

            FALSE.
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
            • Re: Learn the distinction

              Tue, October 20, 2009 - 1:45 PM
              I'm familiar with the Milgram experiment and those people were weak willed , blindly obediant to authority. They lacked integrity . However, they were NOT forced .

              When are you MTV Generation people going to acknowledge the distinction separating vehement persuasion by words and the separate matter of force .?
              • Re: Learn the distinction

                Tue, October 20, 2009 - 2:00 PM
                This obsession with the "MTV Generation" has things bassackwards. Sex positivism came before MTV and in part made some of MTV what it is. Sex positive attitudes were made possible by liberating sex from reproduction for heterosexuals (it was never an issue for gay and lesbian people) but the development of contraception that liberated sex for the general population helped kick the door open wider for the gay community.

                MTV just reflected what was already going on. What it does is contribute to a sex positive feedback loop. This does not mean that everything on MTV is my cup of tea because some of it is sexist against women and homophobic. If you don't like MTV or any other programing then simply don't watch. BTW there is a project under consideration for STV (Sex Television) that will be devoted to sex positive programing. It is not going to be porn, but will have shows and presentations about safe sex, relationships, dramas about lesbian and gay families and talk shows with people like Dr, Sue, Marty Klein, Dan Savage and Kim Cattrall. I hope this project takes off.
                • Re: Learn the distinction

                  Tue, October 20, 2009 - 3:00 PM
                  HUMM POSTED :MTV just reflected what was already going on.

                  RESPONSE: Hogwash . It promoted and amplified postmodernist and sex positive attitudes with its Real World Propaganda series , propaganda documentaries , ad 'Respect Diversity' Ads .

                  HUMM POSTED : This does not mean that everything on MTV is my cup of tea because some of it is sexist against women and homophobic. If you don't like MTV or any other programing then simply don't watch. BTW there is a project under consideration for STV (Sex Television) that will be devoted to sex positive programing. It is not going to be porn, but will have shows and presentations about safe sex, relationships, dramas about lesbian and gay families and talk shows with people like Dr, Sue, Marty Klein, Dan Savage and Kim Cattrall. I hope this project takes off.

                  RESPONSE : I hope it is a humiliated failure that brings humiliation on all those involved in it and I hope any se xpositive organizations involved go bankrupt !
          • Re: Learn the distinction

            Tue, October 20, 2009 - 1:48 PM
            <<postmodernist types fess up to that ! >>

            If something is "postmodern", does that make "modern" old-fashioned?

            Language-fucking is fun!
            • Re: Learn the distinction

              Tue, October 20, 2009 - 3:01 PM
              Maybe old fashioned by comparison .
              • Re: Learn the distinction

                Tue, October 20, 2009 - 3:10 PM
                Okay, here is the article about one of the shows:


                " Dan Savage, the foul-mouthed, openly gay, syndicated sex columnist and Chicago native, could be getting his own HBO series if all goes well."

                www.nbcchicago.com/news/loc...0562.html
                • Re: Learn the distinction

                  Tue, October 20, 2009 - 3:19 PM
                  Oh, that'd be *awesome*! I *love* Dan Savage! :) Skipping Towards Gomorrah is one of the funniest books I've ever read in my life. I laughed out loud through the whole thing. I ended up reading it three times back-to-back, and each subsequent read was just as funny as the first.

                  www.amazon.com/Skipping-T.../ref=sr_1_1
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Learn the distinction

                    Tue, October 20, 2009 - 3:40 PM
                    I had not realized until recently that Dan Savage's book Skipping Towards Gomorrah was a mocking reference to Robert Bork's book Slouching Toward Gomorrah. Bork hates that individual freedom is always expanding and Savage celebrates individual freedom.

                    Bork as you may recall was a failed Reagan appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. I can proudly say I participated in the nation wide movement to block Bork. We helped organize forums, debates and a demonstration to stop the nomination. We won when the Senate rejected Bork 58 to 42.
                    • Re: Learn the distinction

                      Tue, October 20, 2009 - 6:03 PM
                      Humm: "Bork hates that individual freedom is always expanding and Savage celebrates individual freedom."

                      Perhaps we should call him Borg?

                      Forgive me, I'm not terribly familiar with either Savage or Bork, and by the sound of it I'm sure the joke's been made, but I had to say it.
                      • Re: Learn the distinction

                        Tue, October 20, 2009 - 6:23 PM
                        Dan Savage writes a weekly sex advice column for The Stranger newspaper out in Seattle www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove

                        He is also famous for the effort to name a something associated with sex after former U.S. Senator Richard Santorum. Santorum once compared gay marriage to a man getting married to his dog. www.spreadingsantorum.com/

                        Thanks in part to his name becoming associated with a substance Santorum lost his re election bid to a Democrat in 2006 which put a stop to his plans to run for president in 2008.

                        Bork can be found on Wikipedia
      • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

        Tue, October 20, 2009 - 8:19 AM
        In real life it is the supression of sex information that is the problem. The net has helped to make the free flow of sex positive information more difficult to control. For instance Alabama is attempting to outlaw sex toys. Leaving aside that laws against sex toys will be challenged those laws can be eaisly undermined by residents of Alabama going online and ordering sex toys from out of state. There are also some instructional videos on making sex toys at home. I have a cousin in Alabama who is going to get a sex toy kit from me for Christmas. If I am breaking the law so be it. Some laws should be scoffed at on a regular basis. Espically laws that try to limit the pursuit of pleasure.

        Both sides have free speech on this issue. This includes the right of young people to obtain sex positive information that contradicts what their parents and church tell them. They need validation that it is normal and healthy to act on their sexual impulses.
        • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

          Tue, October 20, 2009 - 9:18 AM
          HUMM POSTED :Both sides have free speech on this issue. This includes the right of young people to obtain sex positive information that contradicts what their parents and church tell them. They need validation that it is normal and healthy to act on their sexual impulses.


          RESPONSE: No they should NOT . And I hope that their parents will be successful in guilting and shaming away any sex positive impulses !
          • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

            Tue, October 20, 2009 - 10:07 AM
            Meanwhile in Canada:


            "Canada's Supreme Court has exonerated a man convicted of committing an indecent act in 2000, after he was spotted masturbating in his living room near a window. Actually, "spotted" doesn't quite describe it. A neighboring couple reported Daryl Clark to the police after secretly observing him through binoculars for almost 15 minutes......."

            rest of the story here on this sex positive website below (Jason, are you the one with the binoculars?





            www.sexualintelligence.org/news....html
            • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

              Tue, October 20, 2009 - 12:58 PM
              HUMM POSTED :Canada's Supreme Court has exonerated a man convicted of committing an indecent act in 2000, after he was spotted masturbating in his living room near a window. Actually, "spotted" doesn't quite describe it. A neighboring couple reported Daryl Clark to the police after secretly observing him through binoculars for almost 15 minutes......."

              rest of the story here on this sex positive website below (Jason, are you the one with the binoculars?

              RESPONSE: Since I do NOT like looking at ugliness --the answer is NO .
          • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

            Tue, October 20, 2009 - 10:43 AM
            Jason: "No they should NOT ."

            That's right Jason. Only the people who agree with you should have the right to free speech. People who have different opinions should be censored. Right?
            • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

              Tue, October 20, 2009 - 1:00 PM
              Jason: "No they should NOT ."

              PINKY POSTED :That's right Jason. Only the people who agree with you should have the right to free speech. People who have different opinions should be censored. Right?

              RESPONSE : I was NOT advocating censoring those web sites. As a social libertarian I would not advocate that . What I was hoping is that such people will be caused to feel so much guilt that they choose freely not to post it .

              Incidentally, the notions I espouse are NOT mere opinion .
          • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

            Tue, October 20, 2009 - 11:44 AM
            Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

            guilt and shame and shame and guilt

            don't you get tired of it?

            there is no grace!
            there is no guilt!
            this is the law:
            Do what thou wilt!

            Love is the law, love under will.
            • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

              Tue, October 20, 2009 - 1:01 PM
              That is NOT the law, according to Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Yeshua ben Yoseph of Nazareth .
              • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

                Tue, October 20, 2009 - 1:06 PM
                Jason "Incidentally, the notions I espouse are NOT mere opinion . "

                It does not matter if it is opinion or law. In fact I freely admit I view some laws as mere opinion. I freely admit I had gay sex in a state where it was against the law. If my state were to pass a law against masturbation I would not obey it. (You might say I would not miss a beat)
                • Re: Proposed Sexual Bill of Rights

                  Tue, October 20, 2009 - 1:17 PM
                  Pffft!

                  I've done all kinds of things that's illegal sexually in the military, but who's going to enforce it, really?

                  Like jaywalking! No one enforces it because even if a pedestrian IS jaywalking, and a car hits him, the pedestrian is still granted the legal "right of way" and the driver is considered legally at fault. Laws against things like jaywalking and particular kinds of "liberated" sex aren't there because there's actually an issue with doing it necessarily, it's to remind you to keep your mind on safety and be SMART about. Like, look both ways before crossing, and use a condom.

Recent topics in "Heated Debate"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
When I Say "I Am A Christian" onlinePinky 49 Yesterday, 11:15 PM
Jason claims Woodie Guthrie was not political Josh 8 Yesterday, 10:59 PM
christmas alone Reggie 12 Yesterday, 10:55 PM
jason leary queer Hector 26 Yesterday, 12:07 PM