It sucks that todays society is so different that there's legitimately good reasons to not want men to masturbate freely in public because nowadays it means you're probably a dangerous weirdo instead of an enlightened free spirit. They should have some kind of formal test set up where you are thoroughly interviewed by a panel of scientists, philosophers, nobel laureates etc. and if you are the .01 percent who meets the criteria of being a true modern day philospher and gentleman you are given a special glowing e-bracelet so that if you are in public and are struck by a sublimely erotic idea you can freely explore its possibilities in your mind with no care to your ephemeral worldly surroundings. Instead of being horrified at some random dude jacking off in a mall food court you could just hold up your glowing wrist and everyone would smile solemnly and feel priveliged to be allowed to witness a great mind at work.
ya same desu
t.
>>1134115
>t. Autistic manchild who believes he's an Ubermensch
Public displays of sexuality are all abhorrent.
>>1134480
t. catholic
>>1134115
you seem to be implying that Diogenes wasn't a creepy, neurotic hobo
>>1134480
I get grossed out when a woman in line ahead of me at the grocery store is buying toilet paper.
Do you really have to announce the workings of your digestive system to the world?
>>1134480
t. Stacy
>>1134553
I don't understand.
>>1134536
you haven't given a reason why you should control it
>>1134568
I'm not the one controlling it. Social custom has already determined this as unacceptable behavior, in most countries, especially the civilized ones. You have to explain to me why social custom should be done away with.
"Abhorrent" is a description of the action's relationship to emotional reactions, not to laws or control. By insisting that you be allowed to masturbate in public whenever you want to, you are expressing a desire to exercise control over me. I refuse to let that happen if I do not have to, since you have no inherent right to control me.
>>1134601
there's nothing wrong with anything sexual. Sexual activity is human nature. Nobody complains about animals fucking out in the open, do they?
>>1134601
>social norms don't need to be justified
>>1134615
>there's nothing wrong with anything sexual. Sexual activity is human nature.
Both claims require a great deal of support, which you haven't offered.
>Nobody complains about animals fucking out in the open, do they?
No, but many people like going about their daily lives without witnessing it in contexts where they don't want to. Human sexuality is involved with things like individual psychology and social contexts in ways that animal sexuality aren't, at least not in ways that are relevant to this discussion about an explicitly political topic. Animals do not have representation in government.
>>1134616
What are you going to do? Ignore them all? You won't get very far doing that, you'll probably get locked up. The social customs that keep people in association with each other justify the existence of the state and of interpersonal relations; acting as if it's even possible to throw them all aside and replace them as if society itself were a blank slate just doesn't make sense to me.
>>1134689
>Sexual activity is human nature.
Actually, this claim doesn't require much support--what requires support is the implication that being natural makes something good, morally praiseworthy, desirable, etc. Poison is natural, but drinking poison kills, for example.
>>1134115
>enlightened free spirit
>a true modern day philosopher and gentleman
>allowed to witness a great mind at work
>>1134616
If you want to live in society and benefit from it, you ought to obey the rules set down to create a stable society.
>>1134480
Fuck off christurd, don't you have a chastity belt to tend to?
