I was literally using “lives for the pussy” as an imitation of the very douche college frat boy you speak of. In any case, it should be pretty obvious that sexual attraction/arousal doesn’t stem from genitalia themselves (as much as erotic fanfiction tells you otherwise 
)… if it isn’t then it’s a reminder of weird humanity has gotten
(The following was dictated to my phone via text to speech so apologies for weirdness)
Yeah I 100% agree and I totally am not picking on you, but in a way, your ironic use of the phrase is a far superior Catalyst to initiate a conversation which will be far less hostile. I’d hasten to emphasize that there is a big gap between what ought to be and what is and this is something we should not forget. Because frankly the way I see it a lot of people have missed the memo that people are more than the sum of your body parts and I think the prevalence of pornography ( and generally sexualized material) has a lot to do with this: it’s not that p*** is necessarily bad but rather the way we interact with it and in many cases grow to rely on it bypassing real life interactions and considerations in the pursuit of instant gratification is like relying on drugs to keep you happy. If you’re able to compartmentalize and be aware of this phenomenon then you might be ok but there’s a reason why many psychologists now primarily specialise in p*** addiction. So despite what might seem like an obvious thing this is the state of our world as it stands now.
ramthecowy:
humans who have some sense of concious and conscience start attaching sexual value to things like animals, silicon toys and little children then, at least for me, we’re getting into seriously weird territory
This is a deliciously controversial area of discussion. I’m not going to go into too much detail but while it may be convenient to separate humans biological imperative from cognitive and value-added behaviours it’s worth remembering that the latter is merely a natural extension of our biology (controversial point number one, depending on your religious, scientific, and philosophical belief). If you don’t agree with that let’s just say IMHO rule 34 speaks to an actual fundamental, inherent part of our behaviour and that we’ve merely spent thousands of years trying to defy this only speaks volumes in its favour. Again I must emphasize I’m only talking about how things are and not how things ought to be, because if we truly do conduct ourselves as the ravening Beasts that we are capable of being we wouldnt be sticking around for very much longer.
(skip forward several hours and now I’m back at a computer)
This is a good juncture to bring up this musing:
KA24DE:
More like how have we regressed to this point?
Have we really? It may seem so in such a polarised, heated climate where everything seems diametrically opposed, but if you look long enough at the history of our ideas and values, and more importantly our awareness of them, you’ll probably find that the reason we seem so inundated with bad news these days is because we’re becoming more aware of the reality of, again, what is happening versus what we assumed should be happening i.e. just how far our real behaviours are from what we always thought they were more like thanks to our over-inflated egos (or overreaching the presumption that cogito ergo sum which I’ll add can be thought of as a side-effect of the mechanisms of our consciousness… if you believe what Dennett says). Many places along the line we thought we were hot shit and demonise any perceived aberration from this, but all that really achieves is us doing all the behaviours we more typically engage in behind closed doors (like beating your spouse, men, women or other), or pretending that systematic, dynamic inequalities (e.g. casual sexism, see DeusExMackia’s examples), are okay. If you want to see the true face of man, you see man during war and conflict: Syria, Afghanistan, the activities of ISIS. Those are not the activities of demon, they are the activities of real people (Geez, I sound like Freud describing the superego, ego, and id). The only difference I have with what KA24DE said is that man’s behaviour during war has remained constant throughout all ages: they torture, kill, rape and pillage.
Even, and I will limit myself on this point, Trump’s election and the wave of social conservatism (or really just anti-immigration) that’s sweeping the globe right now shouldn’t be viewed as a regression. It’s a fluctuation in our dynamic, but that’s… fine, for want of a better word. Some of we (and this includes I) lefty social progressives have been going a bit too nuts lately and it’s a narrow line between pushing for change and being an bully.
Back on point– Ram brought up what seems like a reasonable assumption: we have a list of reasonable versus unreasonable behaviours which we ascribe values to, which we seem to have reasonable consensus on and therefore most people are content enough to live life without examining them in too much detail. The reasonable part of this is that we can’t be obliged to turn over every stone in our minds. But faced with the thousands of years of evidence that our assumptions don’t give us a very clear picture of the reality of our behaviours, don’t you think that they should be challenged? I assert that they need to be, in the interests of deepening our understanding of how we behave so that we might develop superior moral standards by which we can truly evolve to be a more civilised race as opposed to behaving on historical precedent and papering over gaps with stigma and prejudice.
This is a confronting approach to many. More confronting still is the typical (frequently atheist, though not necessarily so) assertion that the refusal to engage in such a process is intellectual laziness… where the atheists come in is that they frequently accuse religious persons who do so of using appeal to Divine authority as a form of laziness.
“Goodness gracious strop will you shut up already” I hear people saying… but I’m going to pretend the next question Ram has is: “so… exactly what does this have to do with thinking about animals, silicon, or minors sexually?” I’m not encouraging people to think about them in sexual terms. To be clear, I’m not advocating that everything have a sexual dimension (I also feel this is too much, too distracting, too unproductive), rather, I’d like people to challenge themselves to more properly define what is ‘weird’ about them, because in doing so, you’ll hopefully refine your definitions on what the real difference between humans and other animals is, and the basis for our social beliefs about the agency of minors and therefore the ethical and legal protections we afford them, and how this paradigm differs from, say, a time in history where sex with minors was actively encouraged (see: ancient Greece, having blown the mind of many an Arts student).
Can’t help you on the silicon bit though, Ram, that’s outside of my educational background 
(edit: anybody interested enough to try and figure out what the hell I just said or do some reading on things I referenced very loosely and lazily, feel free to ask but maybe not so much here unless you wanna tag me and put it under a cut lol)