The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
NC-17 RATED FUN: LET'S GET REAL HERE--How Many of Us Have Been SWOONING Nonstop?
Lumière:
--- Quote from: dmmb_Mandy on April 18, 2006, 06:57:56 pm ---By the way everyone, I just wanted to say something.
I really want to thank RT for starting this NC-17 thread originally (although it wasn't NC-17 at first. I think I played a part in converting it to dirty-ville ;D). Yes it's been GREAT fun, with all the raunchiness & all. But I've also grown close with a lot of you and really consider you all friends. You're all fabulous and I'm truly honoured to know you. So I just wanted to show my appreciation to RT, as the founder of our beloved raunchy home, and to show my appreciation to all of us who keep it nice and dirty and fun.
:-* :-* :-*
--- End quote ---
I guess RT did way more than create the thread...
he and Brandon livened things up quite a bit with their cyber-love. ;)
EnnisDelMar:
Part 2 hunh? Couldn't we stop our raunchiness at part 1? lo :P
moremojo:
--- Quote from: lnicoll on April 18, 2006, 06:37:48 pm ---
I've gotta hear this, Scott..the Tom part, I mean. Please...dive in.
Leslie
PS, everyone else, Leslie checking in on the new thread....
--- End quote ---
Thanks, Leslie, for your interest!
Here goes...Placentophagia is actually quite common among mammalian mothers. I'd even go so far as to say it is well-nigh universal outside of the human community (I'm no zoologist, so don't quote me on this). I have heard of some human mothers reporting a desire to lick their newborn infants, which seems to me to be a residual instinctive reflex to clean one's young orally as mammals are wont to do.
So we can agree that placentophagia is natural among mammals, and could be a residual response in humans. Outside of being instinctual, I could see how a human mother might wish to consume the placenta as a form of symbolic bonding with her child, or the process in which the child was produced. We have already read of at least one couple who buried the woman's afterbirth to make some kind of symbolic statement that was meaningful to them if no one else.
Now, bear with me...what if Tom might wish to consume Katie's placenta in some sort of symbolic bonding ritual that would honor (in his mind) his connection to Katie, their child, the birth process, or any or all of the above? It's true that the article had Tom on record as stating his desire to benefit from the nutritional value of the placenta (a value which is accurately reported), but this doesn't necessarily preclude a symbolic component to his motives, which he may not even have necessarily articulated to himself on a conscious level.
All I'm saying is that, however odd it might strike the majority of us, Tom's motives might arise out of feelings of, or desire for, love and closeness with these two human beings in his life. It certainly is eccentric (i.e., it falls outside the norm), but it is not necessarily evidence of mental aberration. I think some people's revulsion might reside in the recognition that the proposed act is a manifestation of cannibalism, but this element does not disturb me, as I find cannibalism, in and of itself, to be a moral non-issue. That is to say, the consumption of human flesh by other humans, insofar as this does not involve murder, deceit, or willful transgression of the wishes of the deceased, is, to my mind, neither right nor wrong on a moral scale. But that can be another discussion...
Ultimately, the question I ask when confronted by stories such as this is: Is anyone being hurt by this? When I can find no affirmative answer to that question, I tend to just want to let it be. And this is how I respond to this story.
Thanks for bearing with me, and anyone let me know if I can expound on any points. All feedback and criticism is welcome.
Best regards,
Scott
JennyC:
--- Quote from: EnnisDelMar on April 18, 2006, 07:10:59 pm ---Part 2 hunh? Couldn't we stop our raunchiness at part 1? lo :P
--- End quote ---
Oh, you can not stop there. Come on...... for the newbie here, pleeeease ::)
JennyC:
--- Quote from: moremojo on April 18, 2006, 07:18:24 pm ---Here goes...Placentophagia is actually quite common among mammalian mothers. I'd even go so far as to say it is well-nigh universal outside of the human community (I'm no zoologist, so don't quote me on this). I have heard of some human mothers reporting a desire to lick their newborn infants, which seems to me to be a residual instinctive reflex to clean one's young orally as mammals are wont to do.
So we can agree that placentophagia is natural among mammals, and could be a residual response in humans. Outside of being instinctual, I could see how a human mother might wish to consume the placenta as a form of symbolic bonding with her child, or the process in which the child was produced. We have already read of at least one couple who buried the woman's afterbirth to make some kind of symbolic statement that was meaningful to them if no one else.
Now, bear with me...what if Tom might wish to consume Katie's placenta in some sort of symbolic bonding ritual that would honor (in his mind) his connection to Katie, their child, the birth process, or any or all of the above? It's true that the article had Tom on record as stating his desire to benefit from the nutritional value of the placenta (a value which is accurately reported), but this doesn't necessarily preclude a symbolic component to his motives, which he may not even have necessarily articulated to himself on a conscious level.
All I'm saying is that, however odd it might strike the majority of us, Tom's motives might arise out of feelings of, or desire for, love and closeness with these two human beings in his life. It certainly is eccentric (i.e., it falls outside the norm), but it is not necessarily evidence of mental aberration. I think some people's revulsion might reside in the recognition that the proposed act is a manifestation of cannibalism, but this element does not disturb me, as I find cannibalism, in and of itself, to be a moral non-issue. That is to say, the consumption of human flesh by other humans, insofar as this does not involve murder, deceit, or willful transgression of the wishes of the deceased, is, to my mind, neither right nor wrong on a moral scale. But that can be another discussion...
Ultimately, the question I ask when confronted by stories such as this is: Is anyone being hurt by this? When I can find no affirmative answer to that question, I tend to just want to let it be. And this is how I respond to this story.
Thanks for bearing with me, and anyone let me know if I can expound on any points. All feedback and criticism is welcome.
Best regards,
Scott M.
--- End quote ---
Scott,
Very interesting reading. You have a good point here. Guess we all should not so quickly judge something/someone that we don't agree to or do not fully understand. Isn't this what we are against here? Though I find him getting weird recently, I will retract the comments to call him totally nuts.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version