Quote: Jim Jackson said: You have no data on which to base this conclusion. There are no comparable standards for measuring "damage."
True.
How about "negative effect"?
Again, no way to measure this "negative effect." I still think in this area, you're reaching.
Quote: Pariah said: Assuming the participant is a charmed individual like yourself whose educated in these matters
You mean "charming" and "who's."
Quote: the fact alone that you know the act wasn't meant to be done or inflict damage and/or pain in such a way (obviously not the case for the vagina), yet you do it anyway reveals an adaquete amount of evidence pointing towards the intent to hurt you or your co-participant (pain or not).
Not at all. If it "hurts a little at first then feels good later" (those who are bottoms clearly say this to be the case), then "pain" was not the intention, just merely a nuisance at the start.
I still don't see why you're so bent on hanging a moral evaluation on something based on the extent to which it causes pain. Again, I point to childbirth...from all accounts, a damned painful process. Yet it is not morally repugnant, it is morally beautiful.
And do you wish to tell me that Priests who remain celibate never feel any physical discomfort from their vows of chasity? Are we to then believe that because they're experiencing pain/discomfort, their vows are immoral?
