|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"How would you handle a pie in the face?"
Love you, too
CKCP said:
I am sorry, but I have to say this is ridiculous. It is not sexual assault. Unless he bruises her thigh with his boner, she has no idea that he has a pie in the face fetish. In short, whether he has a fetish or not has NO effect on her receipt of the pie. What you are proposing is some sort of thought crime, which is not surprising in this day and age, but it is still ridiculous.
clownpies said: A lot of creepy fucks in this thread basically suggesting you sexually assault this woman. Sure, you would almost certainly get away with it in the spirit of just getting her back, but obviously she views it as harmless fun rather than something sexual.
I am sorry, but I have to say this is ridiculous. It is not sexual assault. Unless he bruises her thigh with his boner, she has no idea that he has a pie in the face fetish. In short, whether he has a fetish or not has NO effect on her receipt of the pie. What you are proposing is some sort of thought crime, which is not surprising in this day and age, but it is still ridiculous.
Agree. Seeing nonsense like this on here more and more - trying to claim innocuous things are rape and assault. All from total hypocrites, of course, who watch mainstream messy scenes for their potential erotic value. Never has anyone offered an explanation how this will injure the imaginary "victim" because there is no injury.
I had a very similar situation to yours where I was caked very spontaneously by a friend's wife. If you enjoyed receiving it as much or more than you enjoy giving it (like me) you lucked out. By the way I did get her back several weeks later with a cream filled donut. It was just fun, not sexual as this was my friend's wife! Although I do enjoy the memory of my (very arousing) surprise caking in my mental rolodex from time to time. How was she injured when she did that and I was aroused by it?
Anyway your first reaction is usually correct. There is no guilt, especially since she's the driving impetus behind all of it. Can you imagine if no man could ever look at a woman and feel aroused without her knowing he was aroused? LOL. You see how this topic quickly devolves into a ridiculous quagmire of stupidity and standards impossible to define, identify and comply with when taken to its logical conclusion. It's why we have laws that are specific and enforceable.
YO, I was playing a card game at work with a girl, (we have a lot of downtime) she suggested whoever won got to pie the loser. I told her I would be turned on by that, and that it was a fetish of sorts for me, she said "bring it on".
Easier said than done, but I say (depending on your personal life and situation) go that direction.
Sounds like you're a quality dude either way, keep being you.
Easier said than done, but I say (depending on your personal life and situation) go that direction.
Sounds like you're a quality dude either way, keep being you.
Ok, the fact that she said, "I know you'll get me back, so hopefully it isn't too bad getting pied", makes it very clear that she is expecting to get a pie in return. She is expecting it.
So, go for it. Keep it non-sexual. Pie her as though it is innocent fun and a crazy thing to do to a friend. You might have to even pretend you are not into it sexually if necessary. Keep it silly, child-like and fun.
Sexual assault? That is crazy. That is like telling a foot-fetish guy who works at a shoe store not to put shoes on women's feet, as it would be sexual assault. No, it would be putting shoes on a woman, whether or not the guy is getting turned on by it. What about a hairstylist who gets turned on seeing a certain hairstyle? If he creates the hairstyle on a woman, is he sexually assaulting her? Of course not.
She basically asked for it. Maybe she thinks it would be crazy, innocent fun, and she wants to experience it. Treat it that way. You'll be ok, because nobody can read your mind. Just keep your thoughts to respecting this friend. If a woman asked me to throw her in the mud, would I say no because it might turn me on? Of course not. I'd do it, but I'd do it pretending it was just a crazy innocent stunt based on wanting to be silly. Do the same.
So, go for it. Keep it non-sexual. Pie her as though it is innocent fun and a crazy thing to do to a friend. You might have to even pretend you are not into it sexually if necessary. Keep it silly, child-like and fun.
Sexual assault? That is crazy. That is like telling a foot-fetish guy who works at a shoe store not to put shoes on women's feet, as it would be sexual assault. No, it would be putting shoes on a woman, whether or not the guy is getting turned on by it. What about a hairstylist who gets turned on seeing a certain hairstyle? If he creates the hairstyle on a woman, is he sexually assaulting her? Of course not.
She basically asked for it. Maybe she thinks it would be crazy, innocent fun, and she wants to experience it. Treat it that way. You'll be ok, because nobody can read your mind. Just keep your thoughts to respecting this friend. If a woman asked me to throw her in the mud, would I say no because it might turn me on? Of course not. I'd do it, but I'd do it pretending it was just a crazy innocent stunt based on wanting to be silly. Do the same.
sploshcouple said: Never has anyone offered an explanation how this will injure the imaginary "victim" because there is no injury.
This is terrible reasoning. So from your perspective it's perfectly permissible to be a peeping tom as long as you don't get caught? If the victim never finds out then there's no injury, right?
There is no guilt, especially since she's the driving impetus behind all of it. Can you imagine if no man could ever look at a woman and feel aroused without her knowing he was aroused?
There's nothing morally wrong with finding someone attractive, or getting a fetishistic thrill out of something unto itself. No one is claiming that, and if you think anyone was then you need to work on your reading comprehension. Obviously KnightKing didn't act inappropriately in a situation where he wasn't the driving force behind the reasons the fetishistic actions took place. BUT if he were to arrange a scenario where he got a sexual thrill without the other parties involved knowing, it violates their consent.
Bobographer said: That is like telling a foot-fetish guy who works at a shoe store not to put shoes on women's feet, as it would be sexual assault.
...Yes? That's pretty disgusting behaviour. Just because the victim is unaware of the perversion doesn't mean it's acceptable behaviour. How many women do you think would go to a shoe store if they knew the clerk got off on touching women's feet?
What about a hairstylist who gets turned on seeing a certain hairstyle? If he creates the hairstyle on a woman, is he sexually assaulting her?
Lets say for example a hairstylist has a fetish for women in a bowl cut. Maybe you can make a argument outlining reasons why such a person shouldn't be a hairstylist, but I'm not terribly concerned with that argument at the moment, as my only point has been about something more egregious. If our hypothetical hairstylist always recommended to every woman that sat in his chair that they should get a bowl cut then he's acting like a creep. He's purposefully attempting to manipulate someone else for sexual pleasure without their knowledge.
C'mon, someone help me out here. I think my point is pretty simple. Can someone who disagrees with what I'm saying please explain to me how I'm incorrect? Because from my perspective, the points I'm making are wholly uncontroversial.
Bobographer said: That is like telling a foot-fetish guy who works at a shoe store not to put shoes on women's feet, as it would be sexual assault.
...Yes? That's pretty disgusting behaviour. Just because the victim is unaware of the perversion doesn't mean it's acceptable behaviour. How many women do you think would go to a shoe store if they knew the clerk got off on touching women's feet?
I have a female friend who goes shoe shopping in hopes of being helped by a foot/shoe fetishist. She says they give far better and more attentive service, will let her try on almost every pair of shoes in the shop if it isn't a busy day, and will occasionally pass along their employee discount if she flirts. So who's the victim in that situation?
If you can't compartmentalize your fetish you probably shouldn't engage in activities that, for you, go beyond what is intended. If I'm working with a youth group at church and they decide to pie the leaders, if I can't take a pie without morning out "fuck yes," I probably shouldn't be doing it. Be reasonable and respectful, and don't take advantage of people. 
Firstly to be on topic since the OPs thread has been hijacked.
You should do something comparable that doesn't make you feel conflicted.
Now
NO, because a peeping tom is perfectly cognizant of what they are doing and it's EXPLICITLY for the purposes of getting off. IF I have a pie fetish and I were to pie this person back for the INTENT of getting them back, your argument is that I've committed some form of rape that the other party isn't even aware of. Maybe I did get off on it even. But my intent wasn't to, it was to get the bitch back for hitting me with a fucking pie!
There's nothing morally wrong with finding someone attractive, or getting a fetishistic thrill out of something unto itself. No one is claiming that, and if you think anyone was then you need to work on your reading comprehension. Obviously KnightKing didn't act inappropriately in a situation where he wasn't the driving force behind the reasons the fetishistic actions took place. BUT if he were to arrange a scenario where he got a sexual thrill without the other parties involved knowing, it violates their consent.
You should do something comparable that doesn't make you feel conflicted.
Now
clownpies said:
This is terrible reasoning. So from your perspective it's perfectly permissible to be a peeping tom as long as you don't get caught? If the victim never finds out then there's no injury, right?
sploshcouple said: Never has anyone offered an explanation how this will injure the imaginary "victim" because there is no injury.
This is terrible reasoning. So from your perspective it's perfectly permissible to be a peeping tom as long as you don't get caught? If the victim never finds out then there's no injury, right?
NO, because a peeping tom is perfectly cognizant of what they are doing and it's EXPLICITLY for the purposes of getting off. IF I have a pie fetish and I were to pie this person back for the INTENT of getting them back, your argument is that I've committed some form of rape that the other party isn't even aware of. Maybe I did get off on it even. But my intent wasn't to, it was to get the bitch back for hitting me with a fucking pie!
There is no guilt, especially since she's the driving impetus behind all of it. Can you imagine if no man could ever look at a woman and feel aroused without her knowing he was aroused?
There's nothing morally wrong with finding someone attractive, or getting a fetishistic thrill out of something unto itself. No one is claiming that, and if you think anyone was then you need to work on your reading comprehension. Obviously KnightKing didn't act inappropriately in a situation where he wasn't the driving force behind the reasons the fetishistic actions took place. BUT if he were to arrange a scenario where he got a sexual thrill without the other parties involved knowing, it violates their consent.
How? I'm going to straw man like you keep doing but insist you aren't. ::clears throat::
So that's saying I violate a woman's consent if she's wearing a low cut dress and stockings, and I find it attractive and get a boner. Nevermind the fact that I may say nothing to them, hide the boner and go about my life. Maybe I'll go home later, think about it, and rub out some knuckle children. Did I just mentally rape that woman? IF SO, are we not ALL guilty of such a thing? There are a lot of foot fetishists out there for instance. If every time they see an attractive woman in shoes they like they are NOT supposed to feel anything, and NOT dare feel attraction, because that would be akin to sexual assault.
This goes back to the age old argument that women get raped because they dress to sexy, which isn't true.
The answer here is self control. And for the people that can't, they need to be treated and/or prosecuted based on the nature of their individual situations.
Bobographer said: That is like telling a foot-fetish guy who works at a shoe store not to put shoes on women's feet, as it would be sexual assault.
...Yes? That's pretty disgusting behaviour. Just because the victim is unaware of the perversion doesn't mean it's acceptable behaviour. How many women do you think would go to a shoe store if they knew the clerk got off on touching women's feet?
What about a hairstylist who gets turned on seeing a certain hairstyle? If he creates the hairstyle on a woman, is he sexually assaulting her?
Lets say for example a hairstylist has a fetish for women in a bowl cut. Maybe you can make a argument outlining reasons why such a person shouldn't be a hairstylist, but I'm not terribly concerned with that argument at the moment, as my only point has been about something more egregious. If our hypothetical hairstylist always recommended to every woman that sat in his chair that they should get a bowl cut then he's acting like a creep. He's purposefully attempting to manipulate someone else for sexual pleasure without their knowledge.
C'mon, someone help me out here. I think my point is pretty simple. Can someone who disagrees with what I'm saying please explain to me how I'm incorrect? Because from my perspective, the points I'm making are wholly uncontroversial.
Because you are determine what is "egregious", not the person it's happening to. Perhaps that shoe salesman can do his job without running to the bathroom between each customer for a quick fap. It's this little thing called self control. You are positing things to the Nth degree. So when someone makes a counterargument using the same logic you don't have a leg to stand on because there is an important thing missing here, "context".
(side note, what woman does shoe shopping and has men put shoes on their feet? Can't women put shoes on their own damn feet? Isn't this what "feminism" has been fighting for this entire time!?)
So let's say in this scenario that a woman comes in and asks the clerk ahead of time if he gets off on this. Let's assume he's honest and says "yes, I have a foot fetish, but I can do my job without being a rapist." There are two scenarios I can see playing out after this.
1. The woman accepts the clerk at his word and allows him to proceed.
2. The woman is upset and cannot proceed. She either tries the shoes on herself, or leaves the store.
I don't think this particular clerk is doing anything wrong.
Now, if the clerk didn't say anything and still conducted himself professionally, I STILL don't think there is a problem here. You can't control people's thoughts or feelings.
Lastly, IF the clerk WERE in fact a scumbag who DID go get off on this between customers, how are we going to know? Then, if we find out, how do we pursue it? The law is unclear here (at least to my knowledge, I'm not a lawyer. But it seems increasingly like we need to be to function in our society).
IF that clerk were to perform his job and THEN go out of his way to tell the woman "BTW, I'm totally a creep, and I'm going to go jerk off into these shoes now" THEN we have a problem.
He's more potato now than man. Twisted and evil.
Ok, one girl's perspective here...
I think you certainly can pie her back! She might even want you to do it! For most people, this sort of thing is simple fun and for all you know, maybe she has always wanted someone to pie her because she wants to see what that's like. But that's a lot of guessing of her state of mind. I'm operating under this simple tenant of how adults act:
Adults don't generally do things to people they don't want done to them
There are exceptions where people do bad things, of course, but aside from psychopathic behavior and women who hit men thinking they can't be hit back (I, for one, take the stance that no one should hit anyone--it's much simpler!), this is how people operate. If I push someone into the pool for comedy, I can expect it to happen back to me. It's reasonable and I'd be a jerk for dishing it out and not being able to take it back.
You can, of course, ask yourself what your motivations are. Do you think she's secretly a wammer and want to unlock her? That's unlikely. Can you just enjoy an innocent pieing back and forth as it will be? If so, then do it! If not, then don't.
As for that it's your fetish and how would she feel about that... If you don't make it obvious and don't act creepy, it's not going to be an issue for her. Girls aren't stupid (and we also have sex organs that work too) and we know guys get off on stuff we do when we don't want them to. As long as we don't see it or have to deal with it, most girls don't worry about it. If I wear open-toed sandals, I know some guy on the street with a foot fetish will look at my feet and get excited. If he keeps it to himself, it's fine. If he says, "Hey, those are really cute shoes!" in a friendly manner, I'll probably take it well. If he says, "Your feet are SO HAWT AND MUH DICK IS SO HARD," I will be very uncomfortable. But if that stays in his head, I'm ok with it all.
As another example (coming back to feet, sorry), some movie directors have foot fetishes and always have scenes of barefoot actresses in their films. Actresses have no problems working with them because what they are asked to do doesn't make them uncomfortable and nothing weird gets said to them. For us, it's about feeling safe. If I feel safe and aren't being pushed to do things I don't want to do, I'm ok with whatever. When I feel things could turn threatening or someone puts pressure on me to do something I've told them "no," that's when I'm going to get upset.
Just don't be creepy. People do receive things in different manners and make sure you let them. For her, the pieing is fun and innocent, most likely. Don't take that away from HER. If you really want to test the waters, you can say "I'm going to get you back when you least expect it!" Her reaction will tell you everything.
I think you certainly can pie her back! She might even want you to do it! For most people, this sort of thing is simple fun and for all you know, maybe she has always wanted someone to pie her because she wants to see what that's like. But that's a lot of guessing of her state of mind. I'm operating under this simple tenant of how adults act:
Adults don't generally do things to people they don't want done to them
There are exceptions where people do bad things, of course, but aside from psychopathic behavior and women who hit men thinking they can't be hit back (I, for one, take the stance that no one should hit anyone--it's much simpler!), this is how people operate. If I push someone into the pool for comedy, I can expect it to happen back to me. It's reasonable and I'd be a jerk for dishing it out and not being able to take it back.
You can, of course, ask yourself what your motivations are. Do you think she's secretly a wammer and want to unlock her? That's unlikely. Can you just enjoy an innocent pieing back and forth as it will be? If so, then do it! If not, then don't.
As for that it's your fetish and how would she feel about that... If you don't make it obvious and don't act creepy, it's not going to be an issue for her. Girls aren't stupid (and we also have sex organs that work too) and we know guys get off on stuff we do when we don't want them to. As long as we don't see it or have to deal with it, most girls don't worry about it. If I wear open-toed sandals, I know some guy on the street with a foot fetish will look at my feet and get excited. If he keeps it to himself, it's fine. If he says, "Hey, those are really cute shoes!" in a friendly manner, I'll probably take it well. If he says, "Your feet are SO HAWT AND MUH DICK IS SO HARD," I will be very uncomfortable. But if that stays in his head, I'm ok with it all.
As another example (coming back to feet, sorry), some movie directors have foot fetishes and always have scenes of barefoot actresses in their films. Actresses have no problems working with them because what they are asked to do doesn't make them uncomfortable and nothing weird gets said to them. For us, it's about feeling safe. If I feel safe and aren't being pushed to do things I don't want to do, I'm ok with whatever. When I feel things could turn threatening or someone puts pressure on me to do something I've told them "no," that's when I'm going to get upset.
Just don't be creepy. People do receive things in different manners and make sure you let them. For her, the pieing is fun and innocent, most likely. Don't take that away from HER. If you really want to test the waters, you can say "I'm going to get you back when you least expect it!" Her reaction will tell you everything.
Potatoman-J said:
Because you are determine what is "egregious", not the person it's happening to. Perhaps that shoe salesman can do his job without running to the bathroom between each customer for a quick fap. It's this little thing called self control. You are positing things to the Nth degree. So when someone makes a counterargument using the same logic you don't have a leg to stand on because there is an important thing missing here, "context".
(side note, what woman does shoe shopping and has men put shoes on their feet? Can't women put shoes on their own damn feet? Isn't this what "feminism" has been fighting for this entire time!?)
So let's say in this scenario that a woman comes in and asks the clerk ahead of time if he gets off on this. Let's assume he's honest and says "yes, I have a foot fetish, but I can do my job without being a rapist." There are two scenarios I can see playing out after this.
1. The woman accepts the clerk at his word and allows him to proceed.
2. The woman is upset and cannot proceed. She either tries the shoes on herself, or leaves the store.
I don't think this particular clerk is doing anything wrong.
Now, if the clerk didn't say anything and still conducted himself professionally, I STILL don't think there is a problem here. You can't control people's thoughts or feelings.
Because you are determine what is "egregious", not the person it's happening to. Perhaps that shoe salesman can do his job without running to the bathroom between each customer for a quick fap. It's this little thing called self control. You are positing things to the Nth degree. So when someone makes a counterargument using the same logic you don't have a leg to stand on because there is an important thing missing here, "context".
(side note, what woman does shoe shopping and has men put shoes on their feet? Can't women put shoes on their own damn feet? Isn't this what "feminism" has been fighting for this entire time!?)
So let's say in this scenario that a woman comes in and asks the clerk ahead of time if he gets off on this. Let's assume he's honest and says "yes, I have a foot fetish, but I can do my job without being a rapist." There are two scenarios I can see playing out after this.
1. The woman accepts the clerk at his word and allows him to proceed.
2. The woman is upset and cannot proceed. She either tries the shoes on herself, or leaves the store.
I don't think this particular clerk is doing anything wrong.
Now, if the clerk didn't say anything and still conducted himself professionally, I STILL don't think there is a problem here. You can't control people's thoughts or feelings.
This is a bizarre argument, particularly given that the original question seems to have been solved a while back. But what is the internet for if not litigating disagreements to no real end?
This isn't a terribly complicated problem... And it has nothing to do with the other party. You are responsible for your own actions. If you do something to another person in order to indulge yourself sexually, even if it's incidental and you've got a great excuse, it's still wrong. Not because they know, but because you know.
There are an infinite number of examples and scenarios to try and dispute, but at the end of the day, if you're doing something that you know you find sexual to someone who doesn't know you find it sexual, it's wrong. It doesn't matter that, if you'd explained yourself, the other person wouldn't have cared. You can't get to consent through assumption.
GherdG said:
This is a bizarre argument, particularly given that the original question seems to have been solved a while back. But what is the internet for if not litigating disagreements to no real end?
This isn't a terribly complicated problem... And it has nothing to do with the other party. You are responsible for your own actions. If you do something to another person in order to indulge yourself sexually, even if it's incidental and you've got a great excuse, it's still wrong. Not because they know, but because you know.
There are an infinite number of examples and scenarios to try and dispute, but at the end of the day, if you're doing something that you know you find sexual to someone who doesn't know you find it sexual, it's wrong. It doesn't matter that, if you'd explained yourself, the other person wouldn't have cared. You can't get to consent through assumption.
Potatoman-J said:
Because you are determine what is "egregious", not the person it's happening to. Perhaps that shoe salesman can do his job without running to the bathroom between each customer for a quick fap. It's this little thing called self control. You are positing things to the Nth degree. So when someone makes a counterargument using the same logic you don't have a leg to stand on because there is an important thing missing here, "context".
(side note, what woman does shoe shopping and has men put shoes on their feet? Can't women put shoes on their own damn feet? Isn't this what "feminism" has been fighting for this entire time!?)
So let's say in this scenario that a woman comes in and asks the clerk ahead of time if he gets off on this. Let's assume he's honest and says "yes, I have a foot fetish, but I can do my job without being a rapist." There are two scenarios I can see playing out after this.
1. The woman accepts the clerk at his word and allows him to proceed.
2. The woman is upset and cannot proceed. She either tries the shoes on herself, or leaves the store.
I don't think this particular clerk is doing anything wrong.
Now, if the clerk didn't say anything and still conducted himself professionally, I STILL don't think there is a problem here. You can't control people's thoughts or feelings.
Because you are determine what is "egregious", not the person it's happening to. Perhaps that shoe salesman can do his job without running to the bathroom between each customer for a quick fap. It's this little thing called self control. You are positing things to the Nth degree. So when someone makes a counterargument using the same logic you don't have a leg to stand on because there is an important thing missing here, "context".
(side note, what woman does shoe shopping and has men put shoes on their feet? Can't women put shoes on their own damn feet? Isn't this what "feminism" has been fighting for this entire time!?)
So let's say in this scenario that a woman comes in and asks the clerk ahead of time if he gets off on this. Let's assume he's honest and says "yes, I have a foot fetish, but I can do my job without being a rapist." There are two scenarios I can see playing out after this.
1. The woman accepts the clerk at his word and allows him to proceed.
2. The woman is upset and cannot proceed. She either tries the shoes on herself, or leaves the store.
I don't think this particular clerk is doing anything wrong.
Now, if the clerk didn't say anything and still conducted himself professionally, I STILL don't think there is a problem here. You can't control people's thoughts or feelings.
This is a bizarre argument, particularly given that the original question seems to have been solved a while back. But what is the internet for if not litigating disagreements to no real end?
This isn't a terribly complicated problem... And it has nothing to do with the other party. You are responsible for your own actions. If you do something to another person in order to indulge yourself sexually, even if it's incidental and you've got a great excuse, it's still wrong. Not because they know, but because you know.
There are an infinite number of examples and scenarios to try and dispute, but at the end of the day, if you're doing something that you know you find sexual to someone who doesn't know you find it sexual, it's wrong. It doesn't matter that, if you'd explained yourself, the other person wouldn't have cared. You can't get to consent through assumption.
This is the entire reason I posited that the shoe salesman could have a foot fetish and still perform his job. It's a matter of self control. It would be ridiculous if he couldn't sell shoes just because he liked women's feet. There are going to be a lot of situations where you see women's feet. If it's THAT big a problem, then he can't go to the beach either.
My entire argument is that most people don't operate to the Nth degree and you can't possibly account for EVERYTHING. Also, that you don't know other people's minds. I think Justine put it more succinctly than I did.
"Hey, you have nice shoes" - Even if a foot fetishist says this, he didn't commit rape in his head.
He's more potato now than man. Twisted and evil.
Potatoman-J said:
This is the entire reason I posited that the shoe salesman could have a foot fetish and still perform his job. It's a matter of self control. It would be ridiculous if he couldn't sell shoes just because he liked women's feet. There are going to be a lot of situations where you see women's feet. If it's THAT big a problem, then he can't go to the beach either.
My entire argument is that most people don't operate to the Nth degree and you can't possibly account for EVERYTHING. Also, that you don't know other people's minds. I think Justine put it more succinctly than I did.
"Hey, you have nice shoes" - Even if a foot fetishist says this, he didn't commit rape in his head.
This is the entire reason I posited that the shoe salesman could have a foot fetish and still perform his job. It's a matter of self control. It would be ridiculous if he couldn't sell shoes just because he liked women's feet. There are going to be a lot of situations where you see women's feet. If it's THAT big a problem, then he can't go to the beach either.
My entire argument is that most people don't operate to the Nth degree and you can't possibly account for EVERYTHING. Also, that you don't know other people's minds. I think Justine put it more succinctly than I did.
"Hey, you have nice shoes" - Even if a foot fetishist says this, he didn't commit rape in his head.
Agreed, not 'couldn't sell shoes.' But I think, probably 'shouldn't sell shoes.'
Because there are many jobs in sales which don't involve women's shoes.
If you choose to play a prank, or take a job, or whatever, where you indulge your personal fetish via unwitting participants, it's still wrong. What they think doesn't change the fact that you're choosing to proceed without giving them the opportunity to decline.
This is terrible reasoning. So from your perspective it's perfectly permissible to be a peeping tom as long as you don't get caught? If the victim never finds out then there's no injury, right?.
The morality police never run out of strawmen to avoid defending the specific scenario in question. Your implication of "being caught" implies criminal activity in your ridiculous, vague and irrelevant strawman. If you are implying a person standing in their own yard sees another person in their house strutting around in their birthday suit because that person failed to use a window treatment for its intended purpose and the viewer did not stop watching after becoming aroused, but the viewed never knew a voyeur saw them - correct there is no injury. If there is an injury, what is it?
if he were to arrange a scenario where he got a sexual thrill without the other parties involved knowing, it violates their consent.
No, it doesn't. The reason none of the morality police can ever explain the fictitious injury is because it is irrelevant to the subject what thoughts or emotions the OP experiences AS LONG AS THEY DON'T FEEL IT. What is relevant to an injury or inappropriate behavior are the thoughts and emotions the subject experiences. In this scenario the OP didn't even arrange the scenario. This happened to him. It's clear she assumes reciprocal behavior will follow.
Its NOT like he's got one hand down his pants while pieing strangers at a bus stop. Now there is an injury. You have made this sexual for the subject and clearly a reasonable person would be disturbed by that behavior. I don't need your consent to feel arousal, thrills or sexual emotions. I do need your consent to make you feel them.
These exchanges are becoming tedious for all involved I'm sure, so I'll just respond briefly and avoid the histrionics.
...There's no victim in this scenario as she explicitly consents. Can you seriously not see the difference between this scenario and what I'm describing?
Yes, and more specifically the other party isn't being given an opportunity to make their own determination about a sexual situation you're purposefully foisting upon them. I agree with GherdG's assessment.
100% agree with your assessment here, this was exactly my point. People who explicitly find a fetish sexual should not go out of their way to have a fetishistic interaction with someone without their consent.
Whether or not people worry about how they're potentially sexualized without their consent has no bearing on whether it's appropriate to do it. It's rather clearly immoral to arrange a scenario for your sexual gratification that involves someone else without getting their consent.
Literally no one has ever thought that in this thread, this line is reasoning would only be used by the strictest, most conservative Dworkin-esque feminist thinkers. An actual straw man too, can you spot the differences between this and the analogies I've used?
How bizarre. You took my analogy that was meant to illustrate how absurd your take was and doubled down on it, you truly don't see the moral implications the way I do. I don't think any further discourse is possible, I find you repugnant.
itsagaz said: I have a female friend who goes shoe shopping in hopes of being helped by a foot/shoe fetishist. She says they give far better and more attentive service, will let her try on almost every pair of shoes in the shop if it isn't a busy day, and will occasionally pass along their employee discount if she flirts. So who's the victim in that situation?
...There's no victim in this scenario as she explicitly consents. Can you seriously not see the difference between this scenario and what I'm describing?
Potatoman-J said: Because you are determining(sic) what is "egregious", not the person it's happening to.
Yes, and more specifically the other party isn't being given an opportunity to make their own determination about a sexual situation you're purposefully foisting upon them. I agree with GherdG's assessment.
Justine said: Can you just enjoy an innocent pieing back and forth as it will be? If so, then do it! If not, then don't.
100% agree with your assessment here, this was exactly my point. People who explicitly find a fetish sexual should not go out of their way to have a fetishistic interaction with someone without their consent.
As long as we don't see it or have to deal with it, most girls don't worry about it.
Whether or not people worry about how they're potentially sexualized without their consent has no bearing on whether it's appropriate to do it. It's rather clearly immoral to arrange a scenario for your sexual gratification that involves someone else without getting their consent.
Potatoman-J said: "Hey, you have nice shoes" - Even if a foot fetishist says this, he didn't commit rape in his head.
Literally no one has ever thought that in this thread, this line is reasoning would only be used by the strictest, most conservative Dworkin-esque feminist thinkers. An actual straw man too, can you spot the differences between this and the analogies I've used?
sploshcouple said: If you are implying a person standing in their own yard sees another person in their house strutting around in their birthday suit (...) and the viewer did not stop watching after becoming aroused, but the viewed never knew a voyeur saw them - correct there is no injury. If there is an injury, what is it?
How bizarre. You took my analogy that was meant to illustrate how absurd your take was and doubled down on it, you truly don't see the moral implications the way I do. I don't think any further discourse is possible, I find you repugnant.
clownpies said:
...Yes? That's pretty disgusting behaviour. Just because the victim is unaware of the perversion doesn't mean it's acceptable behaviour. How many women do you think would go to a shoe store if they knew the clerk got off on touching women's feet?
...Yes? That's pretty disgusting behaviour. Just because the victim is unaware of the perversion doesn't mean it's acceptable behaviour. How many women do you think would go to a shoe store if they knew the clerk got off on touching women's feet?
You're right that if I knew the salespeople got off on me, I'd be unlikely to go back. But it's about how I feel and what is made known to me. Truth is that I don't worry about what I don't know as long as I feel safe and comfortable because you just can't go through life any other way.
Trust me, some girl you probably don't like has pleasured herself to you. You've probably done that with someone you've crushed on before too (and every girl knows she's been the subject of this sometime). Does that mean you should never talk to that person? No. Just don't tell her what you've done.
Lets say for example a hairstylist has a fetish for women in a bowl cut. Maybe you can make a argument outlining reasons why such a person shouldn't be a hairstylist, but I'm not terribly concerned with that argument at the moment, as my only point has been about something more egregious. If our hypothetical hairstylist always recommended to every woman that sat in his chair that they should get a bowl cut then he's acting like a creep. He's purposefully attempting to manipulate someone else for sexual pleasure without their knowledge.
This really isn't the same thing at all. Truth is that I prefer a male hairstylist to a female one because I want a style that's more attractive to men. I want my stylist to think I look hot. Of course, I also want to like the style he comes up with, so as long as I like it too and he's not recommending and styling me in a dishonest way (i.e., he likes it but NO ONE else does), I'm ok with this.
Again, as long as there's no weird creepy comments or touching or any hint that it might go that way.
Justine said: Can you just enjoy an innocent pieing back and forth as it will be? If so, then do it! If not, then don't.
100% agree with your assessment here, this was exactly my point. People who explicitly find a fetish sexual should not go out of their way to have a fetishistic interaction with someone without their consent.
I'd like to think he can do something which is part of his fetish yet not be all weird and creepy about it and get off on it every time. I know I can. If I find a male friend doing something I really find stimulating (sexy voice, for example), I don't have to run for the hills because I'm going to have sopping wet panties just being around it. It's called having some control. But I know some of you boys have trouble with that....
Dale Cooper said: YO, I was playing a card game at work with a girl, (we have a lot of downtime) she suggested whoever won got to pie the loser. I told her I would be turned on by that, and that it was a fetish of sorts for me, she said "bring it on".
Easier said than done, but I say (depending on your personal life and situation) go that direction.
Sounds like you're a quality dude either way, keep being you.
Easier said than done, but I say (depending on your personal life and situation) go that direction.
Sounds like you're a quality dude either way, keep being you.
I think this is how most girls react to this sort of thing. We get it. Guys get turned on by random things we do. If it's something we're comfortable doing and the reaction isn't threatening (someone we know and trust), then most of us aren't going to have a problem with it. It's 100% about what we see, not what goes in your head. Weird shit goes on inside ours too.
You think all those girls who model don't realize their male photographer/videographer is turned on by her in lingerie or the nude? As long as he isn't make her feel uncomfortable and she feels safe, she'll be ok with that because she was ok with being around people in that state of dress.
Most of all, though, I think it's sad to ruin something for someone else who can take it lightly because you feel you'll be violating her with feelings in your head. Consideration is nice and all but let others enjoy things in their way too without imposing your own thoughts on them.
tarte23 said: Don't get her back, it would be so wrong of you.
It would hurt and tarnish your white knight and SJW status
It would hurt and tarnish your white knight and SJW status
::sigh:: and now the pendulum has gone all the way to the right... The OP has clarified their question and got the advice they needed. This train has gone completely off the track...into an explosives warehouse.
Please try (everyone, not just this poster) to keep it on track.
He's more potato now than man. Twisted and evil.
This happened quite a few years ago.
I was part of a sales organization and we had lots of silly contests. Two popular ones were the baby food content (the loser had to wear a bib and eat baby food) and pie in the face.
Once, my team won, and as the leader, I got to pick the punishment. I didn't pick baby food (since I don't have a baby food fetish) and picked the pie.
There were two very hot girls on the losing team and we got to hit them with real pies. I make sure I got to hit one of them.
That was a fantastic masturbation session later that night. Who was harmed? No one.
I was part of a sales organization and we had lots of silly contests. Two popular ones were the baby food content (the loser had to wear a bib and eat baby food) and pie in the face.
Once, my team won, and as the leader, I got to pick the punishment. I didn't pick baby food (since I don't have a baby food fetish) and picked the pie.
There were two very hot girls on the losing team and we got to hit them with real pies. I make sure I got to hit one of them.
That was a fantastic masturbation session later that night. Who was harmed? No one.
DeanAbraham said:
It probably sucked for the guy with the baby food fetish
johnnypie said: This happened quite a few years ago.
I was part of a sales organization and we had lots of silly contests. Two popular ones were the baby food content (the loser had to wear a bib and eat baby food) and pie in the face.
Once, my team won, and as the leader, I got to pick the punishment. I didn't pick baby food (since I don't have a baby food fetish) and picked the pie.
There were two very hot girls on the losing team and we got to hit them with real pies. I make sure I got to hit one of them.
That was a fantastic masturbation session later that night. Who was harmed? No one.
I was part of a sales organization and we had lots of silly contests. Two popular ones were the baby food content (the loser had to wear a bib and eat baby food) and pie in the face.
Once, my team won, and as the leader, I got to pick the punishment. I didn't pick baby food (since I don't have a baby food fetish) and picked the pie.
There were two very hot girls on the losing team and we got to hit them with real pies. I make sure I got to hit one of them.
That was a fantastic masturbation session later that night. Who was harmed? No one.
It probably sucked for the guy with the baby food fetish
GODDAMMIT!!! THAT'S IT, I'M DED!!!
He's more potato now than man. Twisted and evil.
