Romanophile

You know I was having a pretty rough day so far today and your message just made things a little better. I really appreciate it and knowing that there are people (even if just on revleft) who like me for who I am, makes things a bit better. Its still tough, cause I'm so isolated from them, but its better then nothing. I'm not sure what causes my depression and you're definitely right thinking that I don't believe most nice things people say about me; but I thank you anyways. I haven't been posting as much lately, but I've still been lurking. I'll start posting more again in the future I am sure.

My reading skills seem to have gone to hell; disregard that, then.

As for reproduction, specifically; no, in most cases. Perhaps in cases where there is an extreme shortage of resources, something like the "one child policy" could be instituted, but political methods of persuasion and democratic discussion should take precedence over purely administrative methods, as in all things. It is always better to explain to the parents why having another child would be cruel (in conditions of overpopulation etc.), than it would be to tax, fine and coerce.

I think, though, that an increase in female autonomy under the DoP would probably solve overpopulation without any overt political or administrative decisions to that effect.

Sex with teenagers is another tricky question; I suppose it should depend on the mental maturity of the teenager. If the teenager is mature enough to fully understand the consequences of sex then, in an ideal social situation, it might be moral for them to have sex with older individuals. But in an ideal one; enacting these laws today would probably just lead to covert abuse.

Necrophilia is, I think, fairly straightforward: there is no person or animal being harmed. But it raises an interesting question: what bodies should be "available"? Probably those that come from people that had consented to that possibility, or something to that effect.

This all probably sounds extreme, but it's, I think, a straightforward application of the position that only those sex acts are wrong that harm a person or an animal capable of feeling pain in a non-consensual and egregious manner.

Rereading one of your previous comments, I think you might have misunderstood me as claiming that you had accused me, or cmrd. Rafiq, of a "blood fetish" (meaning bloodthirstiness in this case); I was talking about an exchange on a previous thread.

All these "I claimed" and "you thought" are probably making this very difficult to follow, heh. I hope I have carried my point across.

As for these cases, right of the bat most sexual contact with animals seems to occur in situations that are animal abuse. And animals can not consent to sexual acts in the manner in which humans can; therefore it seems to me that sexual contact between humans and animals is not correct when initiated by the human.

Dolphins have been known to initiate sex with humans, though. Is it wrong for the human to accept that? I don't know; I don't think it is, but it might be that I simply can't see something that makes it immoral.

What specific other entities? Animals?