Sex on the new forum

[CJ]

They're even more concerned about their own PR than Richard was.

And how is that anything to be surprised about, Anth?

You really think it would be a good idea for the new forum to demonstrate, and thus prove, to critics and watchers that there really was "something rotten in the Internet culture" - as described by Richard in his 'Outrage' post - present in the old forum and which was the primary reason for shutting it down? Do me a fucking favour.

And if I'm really that much of a fucking 'prude', then I really don't understand how I came to have four kids.

One can have kids and still disagree with other peoples sexual behaviour. It's when a person starts criticising somebody else's consensual adult sexual behaviours, which they have no business to do, that their behaviour becomes that of a prude. Having children and being prudish are not related as one is a primary biological function and the other is a secondary social attitude.

Oh, get off your high horse before you fall off, CJ. "Criticising somebody else's consensual adult sexual behaviours"? No. As far as I am concerned you can do whatever the fuck you like, and yes, it's no business of mine.

But somebody else's consensual adult sexual behaviour described in graphic detail with the aim of titillation whilst trying to pass it off as 'a personal journey of revelation' is hypocrisy, and that I can criticise until the cows come home.

You tried to tell me that I had hurt your feelings with my criticism, remember, CJ? But to say more would require revealing the contents of PM's, although as they were on the now defunct forum I'm not sure the rules against that still stand.

And if it hadn't been for one of your 'coterie' propositioning me to meet for sex, then I probably wouldn't have been inclined to believe what was being said about the true nature of what was going on.

No disclosure of any private details relating to other members (including all forms of correspondence, physical meetings, details of relationships, photographs, anonymised recounts or stories, etc.) without the permission of the other party/ies involved.

You did not, and do not have, my permission to reveal any prior correspondence between us, either it's existance or the nature of it's content.

[Thinking Aloud]

Take it elsewhere, will you?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Private conversations should stay private unless there is an overriding need for them to be shared, and then only to the minimum required to resolve a situation.

[Doubtdispelled]

You did not, and do not have, my permission to reveal any prior correspondence between us, either it's existance or the nature of it's content.

Fair enough, CJ. I didn't intend to 'reveal' anything further anyway, past the point at which we took our discussion to PM after you claimed I had hurt your feelings in the open forum.

Unfortunately I do seem to have broken the proscription you give there against revealing the existence of prior correspondence between us. What you do about that is of course entirely up to you. Maybe you should ask that the rules be amended to reflect that proscription?

Take it elsewhere, will you?

That, Thinking Aloud, is precisely what I said CJ should do. I was told in no uncertain terms to 'fuck off'.

[lordpasternack]

Don't have time for a long response right now. I'll say quickly that it's a false dichotomy to set up how things are here, and how things are there as the only existing viable stances to take as a forum with respect to human sexuality. Surely it's more of a continuum? And it's fallacious to suggest that any relaxation in rules would lead to gratuitous unseemliness, and to go on and infer this as an actual motive for people.

I have never stopped finding the wording of those rules - which were drafted in a hurry and under pressure, by none other than the great Timonen - to be too draconian and too sweeping in their wording, and that's even when there was some reasonable rationale behind them. And even Richard Dawkins, back then, conceded that not every aspect of informal sexual discussion in OT was beyond the pale, and actually invited members to try drafting better guidelines - though in the activity I don't think anyone took him up on it and it was never honoured.

[lordpasternack]

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 0#p1430000

I feel like I'm trapped. A part of me understands where Richard is comming from. But another part of me thinks this is rather extreme. Not everything in the OT was "horrible" and I liked being to go to other adults, on this forum, about my problems. It formed a sense of family, that I do not actually get from my real family. I like being able to recieve advice on many things, that includes sexuality, that I might not other wise be able to get on another forum.

This sucks. I don't know what to do

OK, so we need to have a constructive discussion about what to do. OF COURSE not everything in the OT was horrible, and that is why we need to preserve it without running the risk of playing into the (all too eager) hands of our enemies. If you don't like the guidlines Josh drew up, I'm sure he'd be open to suggestions. Would you like to try drafting some guidelines yourself? It might be really helpful.

Richard

[Ayaan]

I don't understand why this has to be an issue at all. There are no ideal, perfect forums out there - there are only forums that work better for a given individual or individuals.

Besides, rationalskepticism has only just gotten started good after a bit of a shock. It's not surprising that they've kept things pretty much the same I'm sure that as time passes, there will be changes over there - although there is no way of saying what those changes might be.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't understand why this has to be an issue at all. There are no ideal, perfect forums out there - there are only forums that work better for a given individual or individuals.

Besides, rationalskepticism has only just gotten started good after a bit of a shock. It's not surprising that they've kept things pretty much the same I'm sure that as time passes, there will be changes over there - although there is no way of saying what those changes might be.

It's almost like they're evolving.

[charlou]

You did not, and do not have, my permission to reveal any prior correspondence between us, either it's existance or the nature of it's content.

Fair enough, CJ. I didn't intend to 'reveal' anything further anyway, past the point at which we took our discussion to PM after you claimed I had hurt your feelings in the open forum.

Unfortunately I do seem to have broken the proscription you give there against revealing the existence of prior correspondence between us. What you do about that is of course entirely up to you. Maybe you should ask that the rules be amended to reflect that proscription?

Take it elsewhere, will you?

That, Thinking Aloud, is precisely what I said CJ should do. I was told in no uncertain terms to 'fuck off'.

This (thread) isn't the place for it.

[maiforpeace]

The new forum has only been up about 10 days, and already people are trying to create some sort of rivalry or discord between the two where none need exist. Bad idea, and leave me out of it thanks. We got a a lot of goodwill out of the way we handled the sudden influx of people looking to make a new start after they'd been shafted. I'd prefer to keep that goodwill on our balance sheet. [/accountancy speak]

+1

We are different forums. That's it. I'm sure people would have been clamoring for the sexual content from the beginning if that's what they wanted. Since it was not part of the discussions that were occurring on RD forums for the last year or so any way and the membership was comfortable with that, it makes sense they would just continue that way. Does that make them prudes? Absolutely not, it just means they have different interests in what they want to discuss.

Discussions of a more sexual nature are important and meaningful, and should have a place. We created the place for that here. If they fill that niche over at Rational Skepticism, then some of the new users who are here now, because we do allow discussion of a more sexual nature won't come to Ratz anymore. I like the new folks, I want them to stay, and I am proud that we are the forum who allows frank discussions of a sexual nature.

[Doubtdispelled]

This (thread) isn't the place for it.

Tell that to CJ, Charlou.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This (thread) isn't the place for it.

Tell that to CJ, Charlou.

I'll tell it to everybody.

[FBM]

Let's cut to the chase: Can we have sex on the new forum or not? 'cause I ain't gettin' none here. Just a lot of smilies promising it hypothetically.

[Blondie]

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... t1782.html

I'm honestly not trying to flame or anything. I just want to discover the vibe of the new forum.

Getting a sense of Déjà vu yet?

Since they locked the cunting topic.. I'll post here.

[Doubtdispelled]

Since they locked the cunting topic.. I'll post here.

And while you're at it, you might like to answer my question, which unfortunately got lost in a lot of other crap......