Re: Stop insulting Me

If you disagree, contradict it with this 'proof' you talk about. If you're not willing to go out of your way to provide that and just assume everyone knows where it is (and agrees with it) then you could save yourself additional effort by not replying at all. It makes replying easier if there are less commentators, and more quality replies that create a progressive conversation.

You're asking for something you never provide Yourself - sorry but there are more unsourced statements in your posts than in the rest of the index. Every poster that has replied long replies to You has at times asked You to present proof and are still waiting for it, so personally i don't think You have much of a right to demand it. Yeah, i know perfectly that's a tu quoque, but at least maybe You'll realise how that does NOT lead to improved understanding.

Unico has posted the sources many times - do the search...

Furthermore, it's rather odd how, when speaking disrespectfully to me, your capitalization contradicts this by upper-casing 'you' in reference to me and lowercasing 'I' in reference to you. If that's an attempt to calm down a reaction it has the reverse effect.

No, that's an according reaction to your criticism of Lucky's capitalisation of "Girl" and "Woman". You said it was not an achievement therefore didn't deserve capitalisation, yet You always capitalise the first person singular nominative pronoun, which implies it is an achievement to be You - so i have decided to capitalise it. Accordingly too, since i don't consider an achievement to be me, as i only see myself as the product of my genes, i see no reason to capitalise it in reference to myself.

You have used a straw man argument here, implying I said that people are attracted to their hand. I didn't. Don't do that anymore. I don't appreciate the misdirecting and depricating sarcasm. You know very well that masturbation is using the hand in combination with imagination to have a sexual release.

If you are not attracted to your hand, then it is not an optimal sexophoric object. If your optimal sexophoric object is out of reach, then you are sexually deprived.

There - that's why i brought up hand attraction.

It is not a strawman - the premise is implied in what You said. The only way in which you would be not deprived is if you were attracted to your hand; so it is relevant.

Sex is not required to have that benefit. Essentially, you can pursue these needs separately. Someone is not being abused or neglected simply because they aren't combining sexual release with interpersonal relationships.

Just like the overwhelming majority of antis do, You are intentionally synonymising "sex", "sexual" and "sexuality" with p.i.v., and while i understand that it suits You as it is the least encompassing definition, i happen to differ.

My view is that "sex", "sexual" and "sexuality" include what you name "interpersonal relationships", as well as many different levels of physical interaction. Not just p.i.v.

Stopping desired sexual acts is not forcing undesired sexual acts.

Curious thing there.

Lemme see...

Stopping you from voting Obama is not forcing you voting McCain

Hmmmm...

Stopping you from going to the synagogue is not forcing you to attend the church

Hmmmm...

Stopping you from smoking and eating trans is not forcing you to reduce the cost of your healthcare

Hmmmm...

Stopping you from entering country X is not forcing you to stay in country Y

Hmmmm...

Stopping you from having a legal abortion is not forcing you to deliver the child

Hmmmm...

Stopping you from working is not forcing you to be pennyless

Hmmmm...

Stopping you from having a legal euthanasia is not forcing you to live indefinitely

Hmmmm...

Stopping you from using contraception is not forcing you to breed

Ok i will stop...

Do You see the problem???

The problem there is not that the statements are theoretically false - they can all be regarded as, essentially, true statements.

The problem is that the exercise of freedom is by necessity twofold. There can be no freedom to without a correlative freedom not to; and viceversa, there can be no freedom not to without a freedom to. It is just not coherent logically. For freedom to be coherent, inaction has to itself be an act too. If, as in this case, sexual abstinence becomes an obligation rather than a choice, then it's still an outside imposition over the individual's will, no different in its freedom infringing character than any other imposition on the same matter. (admittedly, it might be different, same as many other impositions can be different to each other - but, eg, imposed Atheism respects freedom as much as imposed X religion does).

You can weasel out that one is not equivalent to the other all that You want - but they are equally freedom infringing. For that matter, all that You call "undesired sexual acts" are different to each other too!!

Because of all of the above too...

"Sexual abuse, also referred to as molestation, is the forcing of undesired sexual acts by one person upon another."

...given forced abstinence is an equal infringement of freedom to forced non-abstinence, you just proved it IS sexual abuse.

Now, as for the internal contradictions:

((If you cannot follow logic and internal premises, stop reading immediately...))

M = major; m=minor; a=auxiliary; c=conclusion

Statement 1: Sex isn't like air or food or mental stimulation, it is not sexual abuse to withhold sex.

Statement 1 is analysed:
1.M Sex is not necessary to survive.
1.m1 What is not necessary to survive is a luxury.
1.m2 Withholding a luxury is not abuse.
1.c It is not abuse to withhold sex.

Statement 3: That is not sexual abuse though. Sexual abuse involves sexual interaction, not interference with it. Sorry.

Statement 3 is analysed:
3.M1 Sexual abuse involves sexual interaction.
3.m1 Interference with sexual interaction is not sexual interaction. [contradicted by the above on freedom, but that's your premise]
3.m2 Interference with sexual interaction is not sexual abuse.
3.m3 Prevention of desired sexual activity is interference with sexual interaction.
3.c Prevention of desired sexual activity is not sexual abuse.

but...

X.M1 Prevention of desired sexual activity is not necessary to survive. [new premise, but care to contradict it??]
X.m1 [from 1.m1] What is not necessary to survive is a luxury.
X.m2 [from 1.m2] Withholding a luxury is not abuse.
X.c1 Not preventing [ie, allowing] desired sexual activity is not abuse.

but then...

Y.M [from 1.m1] What is not necessary to survive is a luxury.
Y.m1 [from 1.m2] Withholding a luxury is not abuse.
Y.m2 [inferred from Y.m1] Withholding something necessary to survive is abuse.
Y.m3 [from X.c1] Allowing desired sexual activity is not abuse.
Y.c Preventing desired sexual activity is not necessary to survive.

however...

Y.c Preventing desired sexual activity is not necessary to survive.

contradicts...

3.M1 Sexual abuse involves sexual interaction.

You can weasel out for one step by changing 3.M1 to...

3.M2 Sexual abuse involves undesired sexual interaction.

3 would still stand with the change.

but then a new premise comes up to contradict THAT...

Z.M Whether or not you survive the sexual interaction is not dependant on whether or not it was desired or undesired.
Z.m1 [from Y.c] Preventing desired sexual activity is not necessary to survive.
Z.c Preventing undesired sexual activity is not necessary to survive.

which then contradicts 3.M2!!

At this point, you can still try to survive by saying that "no sexual activity", while not necessary to survive, is still a superior outcome to "sexual activity".

But then you said too that...

Statement 2: Furthermore, it is impossible to forcibly sexually deprive somebody because of the existance of masturbation. To deprive that requires other forms of abuse.

For example, to stop people from instinctively doing this, they physically abuse them by pulling their hand away, or psychologically abuse them by telng them is bad.

Statement 2 is analysed:
2.a1 Masturbation prevents sexual deprivation.
2.a2 [inferred from 2.a] Masturbation counts as sexual activity.
2.a3 It is only possible to prevent masturbation through other types of abuse.
2.a4 It is physical abuse to pull a person's hand away to prevent masturbation.
2.a5 It is psychological abuse to tell a person that masturbation is bad.

But if you have introduced "no sexual activity", while not necessary to survive, is still a superior outcome to "sexual activity", then clearly prevention of masturbation is a superior outcome to non-prevention of masturbation, which contradicts 2.a4 and 2.a5