Critiquing the post you never made?

"Of course. There is variation in any population. To pick a trivial example, blue eyes are innate but only some people have them."

So any policy based on the innateness of blue eyes ( where brown is a desired outcome ) is spurious. There is no predisposition to be blue ( except in those who are. )

And by extension, we can reduce this to saying that there is no harm ( except where it is, no matter how little or infrequent. )

Most folks use "innate" arguments for harm as more than a tautological statement that it exists for those in whom it exists.

"but we fight battles over minorities of different sizes. Should peanuts be banned from certain public places because enough people are allergic? What about fragrance sensitivity? Strobe lights for those with epilepsy? Etc."

Good examples.

And rational society has pretty much chosen to say "No" for very good reasons. We cannot ban raves just because Epilepsy exists. We expect these minorities to manage their unique reactions.

The exception being where they have no choice and indeed are compelled by the State. Public schools are eliminating allergens on the basis of compulsion in schooling and in "dining" ( closed campuses. ) Where there is no compulsion but only agency, then its a matter of choice.

""You could claim that a person cannot feel good about sadistic fantasies because harm to another is inherent in full expression of the desire."

"Or you could realize that they're fantasies. And no expression of a fantasy is any fuller than another. Clearly you haven't met any BD/S&M couples."

"You are just ignoring my parenthetical You could also argue that there is no need to feel bad in that case either without comment.

Yes, because how they feel about it is irrelevant to your claim that "harm to another is inherent in full expression of the desire."

It doesn't matter how I react to the Unicorns I encounter when they aren't there for me to encounter. And how someone feels about "existing inherent harm" has no validity when it doesn't exist. At this point you've ceased discussing "inherent" and are now addressing what a party believes. We cannot create policies based on the perception of harm which ignore the question of the existence of harm.

"Not very cooperative to assume I know nothing about another way of thinking about things when I've just suggested that I do."

You're right. Its not very cooperative to the enterprise of asserting that couples who have S&M fantasies want other to suffer to prove that reality contradicts the claim. But since when should I retreat from the real to indulge one of your unproven beliefs?

The truth is, I know folks who have "harm" fantasies. And I've even indulged a lover whose fantasy was me "raping" her. So I think I've got some valid insight into what you only speculate about.

"You focus on sadistic fantasies that can be fulfilled through role play. Of course they exist, but there are others where play would not be enough, and only the real thing would be satisfactory."

Now you're trying to be psychic. You go from the verifiable ( discussion of fantasy ) and then claim that it can only be "fully expressed" through harm ( false ) and now speculate about those who want to hurt others for the hell of it.

And yet the analogy is to those who desire consensual sex with children. So you've now switched the goalpost to another topic entirely; those who fantasize about making a child suffer.

While abstract thinkers at GC have still argued that LG death or suffering fantasies are not reality; most everyone here is repelled by the person admitting to them. And most posts in response to LG suffering fantasies do not address the fantasy itself but are arguments against the reality of being a sociopath.

But back to the original goalpost; fantasizing about consensual sex. My fantasies about Asia Argento, where in RL she doesn't want me, are not "fully realized" through raping her. The fantasy is about a consent she will not provide in RL. So assault runs counter to the fantasy. Its not that hard to figure out for any Teleiophile who has ever desired consensual sex w/ a celebrity. ( Which is every 18 year old bhoy on the planet. )

"I never said I wouldn't tell her. If you were being cooperative you'd fill in the blanks in the analogy as intended."

Not only will I not indulge your fantasy that you are psychic regarding another's unspoken motives, I will not indulge your fantasy that I am psychic either.

I don't see how any reading of "all I have to do is abstain from the activity." provides the caveat that "and by 'all I need to do' I REALLY meant 'among the many things I need to do."

Maybe my failure to hallucinate an exception to "all" is picking a fight. But that's a very strange request that I must misread you in order to avoid the charge ( and I better guess correctly when I do misread you. )

This isn't the first time you've demanded that I read the post you never bothered to make. If you could stick to what IS there, we'd all be better off.

Dante