View previous topic | View next topic

O what shall the O-episodes be called?

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

suze
1234337.  Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:21 am Reply with quote

Is there anything the other way about?

I know that some will tell you that activities of the kind alleged against Jimmy Savile and the like were socially acceptable back in the day, but I don't believe it. If it had been so, those who did it would have seen no need to keep it secret.

While things like smoking and driving drunk were more socially acceptable formerly than now, they are not considered obscene today. Ill-advised in the first case and criminal in the second, but not obscene.

Conversely, indulging in homosexual acts really was considered obscene in a bygone era; words like "perversion" and "repugnant" were freely used.

What has moved the other way?

 
Bondee
1234338.  Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:25 am Reply with quote

Not "obscene" as such, but the racist terms that were in everyday use in the 70s?


Last edited by Bondee on Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:26 am; edited 1 time in total

 
'yorz
1234339.  Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:25 am Reply with quote

Slavery?

 
suze
1234342.  Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:45 am Reply with quote

Bondee wrote:
Not "obscene" as such, but the racist terms that were in everyday use in the 70s?


I'd be inclined to give you that point, except that such terms appear to have become socially acceptable once again. I've been called a "Politically Correct Libtard" for objecting to "Paki".

'yorz wrote:
Slavery?


Yes, I'll certainly give you that one.

 
Spud McLaren
1234359.  Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:30 pm Reply with quote

Words such as fuck, cunt and nigger; the first two because they were the only words going at certain times and weren't considered curse words, and the third because it was formerly more socially acceptable amongst the classes who might use it than it has been for the last 30 years and more. Latterly all three have become more acceptable again, albeit under very different circumstances than before.

There's also the ancient Roman (or was it Greek, or both?) practice of taking a young adolescent lover of the same sex.


Last edited by Spud McLaren on Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
Dix
1234363.  Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:15 pm Reply with quote

Tinkering with the wedding tackle of pre-pubescent boys to preserve their singing voice into adulthood?

 
Spud McLaren
1234364.  Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:22 pm Reply with quote

And shagging other animals in the US. Unless the 2017 bill has very recently been voted in, Nevada still has no bestiality law. New Hampshire's ban came into effect on 1st Jan 2017.

 
AlmondFacialBar
1234392.  Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:52 am Reply with quote

In Germany bestiality as such is legal. It comes under the general umbrella of animal cruelty, so basically if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Flossie had a good time, too, you're grand.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
Ian Dunn
1234401.  Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:37 am Reply with quote

Concerning this, the issue of depicting animals and sex in fiction is a blurry area, especially when the animals are anthropomorphic.

Pornography depicting anthropomorphic animals, known as yiff, seems to be almost unregulated. So long as it doesn't feature people and fall under bestiality, it seems to be OK.

The most famous example of a comic depicting anthropomorphic animal sex is Omaha the Cat Dancer. In 1988, a Chicago comic book shop named Friendly Frank's was fined $750 for selling it and other publications considered obscene. This resulted in the formation of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit organisation protecting First Amendment rights of comic book artists, who helped to pay the fine.

In 1990, copies of the same comic were seized by police in New Zealand, who claimed the comic was indecent, and Toronto, who claimed it depicted bestiality. Both charges were rejected.

Source: Omaha the Cat Dancer website (nsfw)

 
crissdee
1236577.  Mon May 08, 2017 7:39 am Reply with quote

Had a look at that link out of interest, very strange...

Went on a well-known book buying site to have a look for it. One edition was going for.......1,566!

A reviewer complained that the comic showed only the fun bit of sex, not the venereal disease and the unwanted pregnancies. Well DUH!!! it's a f*cking comic! Not a sociological study of the sex industry!

 
'yorz
1236631.  Mon May 08, 2017 12:16 pm Reply with quote

Spud McLaren wrote:
And shagging other animals in the US.

Quote:
Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with an animal is guilty of bestiality

So engaging in natural carnal copulation with an animal is dandy?


Last edited by 'yorz on Mon May 08, 2017 3:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
Spud McLaren
1236649.  Mon May 08, 2017 2:53 pm Reply with quote

Evidently.

 
suze
1236666.  Mon May 08, 2017 5:12 pm Reply with quote

Surely the point here is that "carnal copulation with an animal" can never be "natural", in the eyes of they who make the rules. After all, didn't old laws against sodomy use words like "unnatural" of it?

 
Spud McLaren
1236743.  Tue May 09, 2017 4:00 pm Reply with quote

Mebbe in Nevada and New Hampshire the default assumption is that sex with other species isn't unnatural, unless there's an element of bondage involved, or similar.

 
'yorz
1236745.  Tue May 09, 2017 4:13 pm Reply with quote

Anyroads, the word unnatural is entirely superfluous.

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group