When it comes to sex any one who says that some thing is not “normal” is actually meaning that it is abnormal. Words have meanings by “definition” but this definition changes depending on the context for wich it is being used.

@fresero_abre_culos

Well, the definition of “normal” is “conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.” So, if pissing on someone else is “not that common” as you say, then it is indeed not “normal”, by definition.

I agree with your point, though. The hypocrisy of gay people decrying that piss porn should be censored from society simply because piss porn is “not normal” is truly shameful.

Pissing on some one else is not NORMAL? That is the most stupid thing i’ve heard (read) in a long time! Maybe it is not that common, but to say that it is not normal is pathetic, specially comming from porn watching fags! Us fags should be the last ones to play the game of getting on the high chair and telling other adults what is “normal”. If it depended on some people, gays would be burned at the stake because we are not “normal” and normal people don’t watch “porn”. Every one here is overlooking the important thing: the censorship of CCBill.

“Encephallus, I don’t see your point. … Yes i copied and pasted, and why?” -Fazz

My comment about your copy-and-pasting was in response to AshBry (you can tell by the @AshBry, you know?), regarding how he was “very impressed you pulled that research”. I was simply commenting that pulling a sentence of “research” from a wikipedia summary seems really trivial. That point was clearly addressed to AshBry, not you, and it was not part of my critique of your argument.

“Ashbury is right to point out that you are not someone who has any background in the field.” -Fazz

1) It’s spelled AshBry. >_>

2) My expertise is not relevant to the argument. Even if the argument came from the village idiot, as long as the the logic is sound and observations are true, then the argument holds water.

3) But since you are so insistent that it is important, as a matter of fact I have a degree in Molecular and Cell Biology (among others) from one of the top research universities in the U.S. I have studied general biology and human physiology for years. I am presently employed full-time as a research associate in a neuroscience research laboratory that studies novel gene therapy approaches to treating inherited retinal degeneration disorders and I have contributed to actual published, peer-reviewed biology research. But, of course, me telling you this is pointless, since you will simply choose not believe a word I say, as has been your routine throughout.

“The information stated by me is the work of scientists and not my self, people who know what they are talking about. Unlike you.” -Fazz

I am, in fact, a professional scientist. I read actual scientific research papers (not just wikipedia summaries). Again it’s pointless, since you’ll just call me a liar so that you can continue to blindly ignore the validity of my points.

“I gave you facts; you countered with criticism with absolutely no factual evidence, or any citing or quoting of scientific papers.” -Fazz

Unfortunately, the facts you provided (i.e. that expelled urine carries bacteria that it picks up from travelling through the urethra) did not prove your claim that piss porn is outrageously harmful and should therefore be banned. Once again I repeat, nowhere in any of the sources you referenced is the claim made that contact with urine is substantially harmful in general.

Now here are my factual claims: No bodily contact or fluid transfer of any kind in porn is sterile. The air you breathe is not sterile. Unsterile does not necessarily mean toxic.

Given this fact that unsterile does not imply toxic, the fact that expelled urine is unsterile does not imply that urine is toxic. Therefore, if you want to claim that piss-play is harmful you’ll need to do better than just stating the fact that expelled urine contains bacteria.

If you think some factual statement I make or have made is false, then please tell me specifically which statement of mine you disagree with and briefly explain why you disagree. If you do me this simple discussion courtesy (as I have done time and again for you), then I will gladly find the proper research to back up my statement. Doing so could bring new enlightenment to both of us (and to anyone else reading this discussion), which is the reason why proper debate is good.

“As for the jellyfish article. It clearly states that because urine contains so much water the jellyfish tendril can react to it and release more poison into the wound. Further the article states that there is no scientific proof that urine actually helps during a jellyfish sting. And that the “proof” comes from personal accounts. I don’t take much comfort in personal accounts.” -Fazz

I never claimed that urine helps treat a jellyfish sting, so I don’t know why you are even mentioning this to me.

However, this claim (from your source) that urine is composed primarily of water actually seems to support the notion that contact with urine is probably relatively innocuous in general.

“I will not be budged in my position because I don’t want people to walk around blind and think that they will be fine while engaging in this sexual practice.” -Fazz

There you go again, asserting that your claim (i.e. contact with urine is substantially harmful) requires no proof and is fundamentally irrefutable. Sorry, but I disagree.

@AshBry

“Err, the point of porn is to ejaculate and reach climax through orgasm.” -AshBry

Uh, wow. How do you explain the existence of porn in which there is no ejaculation? Have you ever heard of softcore porn?

I think more people would agree that the point of porn is to sexually entertain/arouse. For some people, piss porn does this.

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but when men are aroused and receive sexual stimulation, they are biologically (and dare I say naturally) programmed to release semen.” -AshBry

But (at least when it comes to urine) Fazz claims that displays of harmful fluid exchange should be banned in porn. Semen is not sterile. Ejaculation can spray chemicals and bacteria all over the place. Recall what Fazz said, “spraying bacteria and chemicals around and claiming that it’s ‘hot’, yeah sorry but that’s neither normal nor is it healthy.” I think you’re disagreeing with Fazz’s words, not mine.

“Pissing on a partner is something people are inventing for purposes that I cannot begin to comprehend. In fact, this type of behavior is unlikely to be present in the sexual habits of other mammals or species. But then again I’m not an expert on that area.” -AshBry

Again you resort to the same kinds of arguments that homophobes use when they seek to censor or restrict homosexuality. (Note that I am not calling you a homophobe, I’m simply pointing out that you are using the same flawed arguments that they use. Whether the behavior is “natural” or not is irrelevant. We don’t ban the wearing of glasses because it is “unnatural”.) I find it interesting and disturbing that you do this so frequently.

Also, you are dead wrong about pissing not being involved in the sexual habits of non-human animals. Males of almost all mammalian species (from mice to monkeys) sniff the pheremone- and hormone-rich urine of their mates to detect if their mate is presently fertile–and the sniffing males become sexually aroused in the process. As a volunteer zookeeper for a year, it was a common sight among the animals at the zoo. I saw firsthand as a male giraffe actually stuck it’s head into its mate’s stream of urine, and then subsequently began to initiate sex. The zookeeper I was working with explained to me what was going on. If you really can’t believe that such things happen in nature, then I can try to find some official documentation of the phenomenon.

“WOW, you’ve reached a new low! You’re comparing/ catagorizing homosexual marriage with polygamy and incest?” -AshBry

Actually, it’s your reading comprehension that has reached a new low. I clearly said that arguing using such slippery-slope comparisons is fundamentally fallacious, and I even explained why.

Here’s my actual quote, so you can try to read it correctly this time. I said, “Ooo, the classic slippery slope argument: ‘If we allow homosexual marriage, what’s next? Polygamous marriage? Incestuous marriage? Bestial marriage?’ Such an argument is simply fallacious in all iterations. The societal tolerance or prohibition of different conduct (or media, rights, etc.) can and should be justified case-by-case. If different cases involve different considerations, then it may be that tolerance is rationally justified in one case while prohibition is justified in another.”

I only brought it up because Fazz was making an argument that was perfectly analagous to this common but fallacious gay marriage argument that you so vehemently oppose. Fazz’s slippery-slope argument and the gay marriage slippery-slope argument are fallacious on the same grounds.

“Oh encephallus, grow a brain! YOU’RE calling him no better than a homophobe because he finds piss-play indecent and sets limits on what he believes are safe sex practices?” -AshBry

Try reading that one again; that’s not what I said. My conclusion was clearly premised on the condition that he approves of the censorship of piss-play. “Censorship” was a key word in my statement and you completely overlooked it. Fazz is not just expressing his opinions on what is indecent, he’s actively promoting the censorship of that which he finds to be indecent, simply because he doesn’t like it.

For at least the third time now, I’m only criticizing his approval and attempted justification of censorship. I do not decry him for expressing his personal tastes or for holding himself to whatever limits of decency that he so desires. I just reject the idea that anyone’s personal aesthetic opinions are any justification for censorship.

“You’re resorting to name-calling because he doesn’t adhere to your view and wants to express how he sees abnormality in accepting piss-play as erotic or healthy?” -AshBry

Nowhere did I call Fazz any names. Maybe you are imagining that I called him a homophobe? I didn’t. I only indicated how his position on censorship has the same basis as a homophobe’s position on censorship. That is not name-calling.

Also, you think that my view is that “accepting piss-play as erotic or healthy is normal”? If so, you are wrong. I dare you to point out (with a direct quote) where I expressed such a position in your eyes. I have simply said (1) that his personal opinions on the eroticness or normalcy of piss-play are no justification for censoring piss-porn and (2) that he has failed to evince that piss-play is terribly unhealthy compared to other acts that are widely permitted in porn.

Encephallus, I don’t see your point. You’re trying to dissect my argument piece by piece quite ineffectively.

Yes i copied and pasted, and why? Because that’s what you do. One finds something that strengthens ones argument and that happens to be true and then copies that and pastes it into the argument as a quote. The information stated by me is the work of scientists and not my self, people who know what they are talking about. Unlike you.

I will not engage in something I know nothing about and look like a fool like you are doing over and over.

The fact is that every quote I used is completely factually correct. Ashbury is right to point out that you are not someone who has any background in the field. And indeed neither do I; however i took the time to look up the information I took the time to inform you of the dangers. I gave you facts; you countered with criticism with absolutely no factual evidence, or any citing or quoting of scientific papers.

The semen comment was used to answer Tyler. And indeed semen contains trace amount of urine and if you are going to be thorough then you might as well look for a greater connection, as I have done.

I have over and over strengthened my argument and I have over and over given you facts that prove what I have been talking about. You refuse to accept it and you are very hostile in your standpoint.

As for the jellyfish article. It clearly states that because urine contains so much water the jellyfish tendril can react to it and release more poison into the wound. Further the article states that there is no scientific proof that urine actually helps during a jellyfish sting. And that the “proof” comes from personal accounts. I don’t take much comfort in personal accounts.

This argument was about urine, and it was sidetracked into one about semen. If we are to argue about that and about sweat we will indeed be here for quite some time. I choose only to tackle this particular issue at this point, and we can come back to the others at another time. Or even better, we wont.

I will not be budged in my position because I don’t want people to walk around blind and think that they will be fine while engaging in this sexual practice. If you refuse to consider the facts and refuse to accept them, that is an issue that YOU have to tackle with. I’m not going to try to convince you further, simply because it would be futile. I would indeed compare you to a bigot on an internet forum that refuses to accept any truth and refuses to take in anyone elses information, instead choosing to remain close minded, ignorant and hostile.

Therefore I will no longer answer to any further statements from you on this issue. There is no point to repeating my self when you have eyes to read with.

I would however kindly suggest that you inform your self about more than your peripheral view.

@AshBry
“If yourself or others do ‘not care’ about another persons perception or feelings towards piss-play, then why take personal offense and express intolerance of those that hold a differing opinion to your own?” -AshBry

I can’t speak for others, but I never took personal offense or expressed intolerance of those holding a differing aesthetic opinion from my own. I dare you to point (with a direct quote) to where I did.

I have been critical of Fazz for his open praise for arbitrary censorship and I have contradicted him on a factual basis regarding his claims about the harmfulness or toxicity of expelled urine. If he would actually provide some real science to support his claim, then he might actually have a point. None of the (unprofessional) sources he has referenced for us in this discussion (wikipedia.org and about.com) have even said that contact with urine is especially harmful or toxic.

My criticism of you, AshBry, is your “naivity [sic]”. It is a trying ordeal attempting to have any discussion with someone like yourself who displays such logical inconsistency, poor reading comprehension, language deficiencies and lack of critical thinking. Of course, I’m just expressing my own opinion based on my own perceptions, so I mean no offense.

“The main issue is NOT that peeing on the body is significantly harmful (to some extent it is i.e. broken skin coming in contact with urine from a less than healthy individual), the main issue and point that triggered this debate is WHERE to draw the line. If everybody was to express tolerance of whatever porn deems as sexy and deliciously FUN, labelling it open-mindedness, then I wouldn’t be surprised if someday in the future we all are pissing and shitting on each others face and calling it love.” -AshBry

I’ve already expressed in my posts where to draw the line: if it is well-supported that tolerance of something would cause substantial harm then it is reasonable that for society to censor/prohibit that something. Further, the same censoring/prohibition policy should be applied consistently, so if X qualifies as substantial harm in one case, then X should qualify as substantial harm in all cases.

(Also, I’ve already made my case against your slippery slope argument in response to Fazz in reply to comment #24.)

@elmtree

I agree with your point (in fact I haven’t found any of your arguments here to be invalid). I too think that Jared and others are being overly sensitive to other people’s expression of their personal aesthetic sentiments.

However, I do concur with Jared’s original comment (taken with the specific scope of referring to those gay people who support the piss porn censorship):

“It’s so funny how some gay people can be so close-minded, judgmental and get on their high horse when something doesn’t fit their specific sexual interest. It’s kinda hypocritical imo. A lot of the comments being made are the same that homophobes say about gay sex in general.” -Jared

I don’t know where to start with this, but it’s the last I’m looking at since its astonishingly laughable…

–Spraying bacteria and chemicals around and claiming that it’s ‘hot’, yeah sorry but that’s neither normal nor is it healthy.” -Fazz
“Then surely (logically) you must agree that all ejaculation should also be censored from porn.” – E

Err, the point of porn is to ejaculate and reach climax through orgasm. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when men are aroused and receive sexual stimulation, they are biologically (and dare I say naturally) programmed to release semen. Pissing on a partner is something people are inventing for purposes that I cannot begin to comprehend. In fact, this type of behavior is unlikely to be present in the sexual habits of other mammals or species. But then again I’m not an expert on that area.

–Seriously where will this stop? Fisting, Double Penetration, Whipping, Electro-stimulation, extreme bondage, feigned torture etc …- Fazz
“Ooo, the classic slippery slope argument: “If we allow homosexual marriage, what’s next? Polygamous marriage? Incestuous marriage? Bestial marriage?” – E

WOW, you’ve reached a new low! You’re comparing/ catagorizing homosexual marriage with polygamy and incest? Were ypu born yesterday or something and can therefore justify your complete cluelessness on the dangers of incest breeding, or the promiscuity of polygamous relationships inc. the emotional/ psychological hurdles people struggle with when sharing husbands or wives? I can’t believe I’m even arguing this….

The fact that you have nerve to say something so poorly constructed and stupendous such as “If you are denouncing piss porn and supporting its censorship on the basis that it is “indecent”, because (in your personal opinion) you find it to be disgusting, then you are no better than a homophobe disgusted by and seeking to outlaw all homosexual conduct.”

– Oh encephallus, grow a brain! YOU’RE calling him no better than a homophobe because he finds piss-play indecent and sets limits on what he believes are safe sex practices? You’re resorting to name-calling because he doesn’t adhere to your view and wants to express how he sees abnormality in accepting piss-play as erotic or
healthy? You know, there’s no point… it’s obvious your purpose here is to act like a smart-ass and justify comment after comment with excuses as to how we’re all homophobes if we dare speak in disapproval of piss-play becoming normative in our porn.

I am happy to agree to disagree with you, because there’s noway you or I will see eye-to-eye or be conclusive in anything we say.

I take no ones word as expert testimony, I said I was impressed with Fazz on grounds that he pulled research AND for being informative in his responses throughout this debate. He was the first to speak of urine content and be puzzled by how anyone can be turned-on by pissing or being pissed on. Was it unacceptible or wrong for him to show a negative reaction, I mean are we all to just post in praise of the porn gods for giving us a new taste for human excretions? Oh that’s right, we’re just another bunch or intolerant homophobes, prudes and bigots if something like piss turns us off. I forgot that homosexual people are meant to accept and engage in a wide plephora of human waste products.

I don’t think it’s all that well said Elmtree, since Encephallus is being hypocritical in the last paragraph.

‘I don’t care if people decry that piss porn is gross/disgusting/vile/nasty (I fact I may generally agree with them).’
That’s exactly what many of us have done encephallus; it is not a crime or vicious decry of intolerance if we choose to speak against piss-play or make questionable the perceived erotic vs disgusting nature of it.
If yourself or others do ‘not care’ about another persons perception or feelings towards piss-play, then why take personal offense and express intolerance of those that hold a differing opinion to your own? People turn it around to sound like an attack on their identity or sexual preference, and that’s beyond the scope of the issue. The main issue is NOT that peeing on the body is significantly harmful (to some extent it is i.e. broken skin coming in contact with urine from a less than healthy individual), the main issue and point that triggered this debate is WHERE to draw the line. If everybody was to express tolerance of whatever porn deems as sexy and deliciously FUN, labelling it open-mindedness, then I wouldn’t be surprised if someday in the future we all are pissing and shitting on each others face and calling it love.

Well said Encephallus and I fully agree, especially what you said in your last paragraph. I think a healthy, adult debate is a positive thing for all participants. And I certainly have NO desire to censor any type of porn whether I liker the content or think its disgusting. Those who like piss play should have an outlet for this and have every right to shout their support loud and clear. My main point in debating Jared was those who dislike piss play have the equal right to let their dislike, or even disgust, be heard without worrying about offending those who like it. And both sides of the debate should be able to freely express their opinions, no matter how strong, without either side resorting to name calling.

Again, well said Encephallus.

@Fazz

“The studies i cited are quite clear.” -Fazz

Except, you did not even cite any studies.

You linked to an about.com article that questioned the potency of urine at neutralizing jellyfish stings. It never claims that bodily contact with urine is harmful in itself. In fact, the about.com article you referred to actually claims that the chemistry of urine is similar enough to fresh water that treating a sting with urine would likely have the similar results as treating the sting with fresh water.

You quoted a few sentences from wikipedia.org stating that expelled urine can carry bacteria cleared from the urethra. I already granted the fact that expelled urine is not sterile. My point is that semen, sweat and saliva can and do also carry bacteria (and probably even much more than urine does). So, if piss porn deserves to be censored on the grounds that expelled urine is not sterile, then logically any porn that includes transfer of semen, sweat or saliva should similarly be censored. It is logically impossible to argue the premise that you are arguing without implying that all porn containing the transfer of semen, sweat or saliva should be banned.

@AshBry

“Fazz your wisdom precedes the goals of human desire, and that sets you apart from the spectrum of people whose naivity blinds them.” -AshBry

Irony at its finest!

“The above is a single study that fazz was quoting without going into significant detail. Unless you are an academic or qualified researcher in a medical field, you hold little credibility to say with certainty what percentage of people, with or without a sperm allergy, will show any adverse reaction.” -AshBry

Hahaha.

1) Fazz wasn’t quoting a study. He simply copied and pasted a sentence from wikipedia. He didn’t even look at the actual study–I did. I quoted the study.

2) Fazz quotes wikipedia and you immediately receive his word as expert testimony. Then when I counter his point with a quote from the actual scientific research paper you become a hardened skeptic and demand to see a Ph.D. before granting any credence to any research that I so much as point to. So, which of us is blinded by our “naivity [sic]” again?

3) Fazz’s semen comment never had anything to do with the harmfulness of urine in the first place. It’s a non sequitur. Even if contact with sperm was somehow harmful to a vast proportion of humanity, it doesn’t matter, since the controversy and censorship here is because of the urine, not the semen. If you wanted to justify censoring piss porn while tolerating any porn in which there contact with semen, then you’d actually need to argue that urine is somehow more harmful than semen. Yet here Fazz is condoning CCBill’s censorship of piss porn but not semen porn.