mopgoblin on 17/1/2008 at 07:30
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
I respect how you put this stuff across, but really, the capacity for corruption of legalities and the perversion of principles tends to occur too often in practice (and we are really discussing theory here, after all) and I see the legalisation of fringe sexual practices as potential vindication to more extreme fringe groups whose intentions are not quite so well meant.
Perhaps, but you could just as easily argue that legality of "fringe practices" is (or would be) beneficial or neutral, as the extreme groups will be cut off from the rest of the community due to legitimate fringe groups gaining a greater interest in differentiating themselves. For example, BDSM groups tend to emphasise safety and consent - these are the things that distinguish them from more extreme people. If BDSM was illegal, it'd probably be more difficult for the benign people in that community to protect themselves from the dangerous people, since there'd be less ability to filter out the latter. If abuse was noticed, there'd be incentives not to report it to the police (fear of also being prosecuted, possible sense of solidarity). Obviously it doesn't translate across perfectly, but I'd say the principles are at least somewhat applicable. An accurate distinction between weird-but-harmless and harmful seems pretty valuable to me.
There's also the argument that the actions of the extreme groups are ultimately their own responsibility, regardless of how they extrapolate from the values of society. After all, society isn't exercising power by making things legal, and I can't imagine society or the media actually promoting harmful bestiality or incest, especially to the degree that would significantly affect behaviour. And with most other sex acts, it's pretty clear that it'd be unreasonable to stop people from having some consensual fun because someone else can't figure out the importance of consent.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
And I reckon that lots of people would lose their virginity to siblings, especially in societies where being a virgin at 20+ brands you a goof.
I'd say the stigma of fucking your siblings is stronger and probably more likely to persist than the stigma of remaining a virgin beyond the age of 19 - is it really useful to consider a hypothetical society where sibling-fucking is (strictly) more acceptable than remaining a virgin? And, of course, the perceptions regarding virginity exist despite the lack of any law to back them up.
SubJeff on 17/1/2008 at 07:42
I'm specifically talking about a time when the taboo of incest is forgotten and I explicitly stated that.
Look at other taboos that are dying now that laws against them have been repealed. Homosexuality for one.
mopgoblin on 17/1/2008 at 08:18
The taboo regarding homosexuality may be gradually dying, but it's far from dead. My suspicion is that the people who attach importance to the age at which virginity is lost are for the most part the same people who still cling to that taboo; the people who analyse by projecting their own tastes onto others, and thus tend to judge others' behaviour by treating the "eww" factor as more relevant than participants' desires.
I don't think it's possible to get to the permissive society you're talking about, via progress supported by a philosophy having an emphasis on consent, without destroying the virgin-stigma in the process.
Chimpy Chompy on 17/1/2008 at 09:04
On the bestality bit, I think the point is abuse and suffering. It's legal to kill a sheep for dinner, but I don't think it's legal to start punching it in the face. Screwing it is deemed another kind of abuse. We've decided that ending animals' lives to serve us is fine, we just shouldn't make them suffer whilst still alive.
In real terms these are non-issues anyway. Can anyone picture some organised pro-incest lobby successfully pushing through a change in the law? And even a politician coming from an individual-freedoms angle like Strontz would realise it would probably be political suicide.
The_Raven on 17/1/2008 at 09:29
Quote Posted by SD
Again, I haven't noticed anything confrontational, and I fail to see anything mindboggling in my initial post, which simply illustrated that I found prohibition of sexual relations between consenting adults bizarre, and my puzzlement that sex with an animal is somehow considered worse than slaughtering it, a double standard which (unless you're one of these weirdos who considers rape a worse crime than murder) should be obvious to just about anyone.
I guess that makes me a weirdo, but that's nothing new. My view on it is this, rape leaves a completely different victim than murder. Once your dead, your dead. Rape, however, leaves a person to live a life of psychological pain, due to a very intimate intrusion of their person. While it is possible to get over that, I consider living in constant pain to be worse than simple death.
mopgoblin on 17/1/2008 at 10:08
That is perhaps a useful view when attempting to measure harm from a relatively detached or uninvolved perspective, but if we attempt to measure the severity of a crime using such a calculus of pain, we reach the disturbing conclusion that rape is less severe if the victim is murdered (or dies in some other way, such as suicide) immediately afterward. Painlessly murdering a rape victim would become an act of mercy, a mitigating factor, even an "anti-crime". I don't see a way we can reasonably treat rape or torture as worse than murder, but we can treat them as having similar severity; this is the view I'd advocate.
Scots Taffer on 17/1/2008 at 10:15
Rape is the removal of a person's sexual rights for a period of time that has significant consequences, murder is the removal of a person's life and everything thereafter, quite a significant difference I reckon.
SD on 17/1/2008 at 17:47
Quote Posted by Shug
And in terms of beastiality, taking the line that "as long as we're killing animals, we may as well be able to rape them!" is, if you'll excuse the pun, pretty fucking stupid. I'm going to assume that it's just a subtle way to mention your hatred of animal treatment in abattoirs/batteries rather than a genuine belief that raping animals isn't somehow an additional cruelty in and of itself. And that's the only term you could realistically use - it is, and would be, rape.
I find it strange that you label sex with animals as rape, yet you wouldn't dream of calling the slaughter of animals "murder". How can you have it both ways?
Quote:
Not to mention the legality of raping animals would obviously extend past livestock to stray cats / the family dog / uncle bill's prize goldfish, and that is just beyond bizarre that you could entertain the idea as some kind of taboo-shattering achievement and a step forward in liberal thinking.
Well of course, basic animal welfare regulations would have to be upheld. I think buggering a kitten would be a clear violation; allowing a randy hound to enthusiastically pound your wife, not so much
As an aside, I do wonder if animal cruelty cases are much more numerous in those countries (eg Sweden) where bestiality is entirely legal (and almost mainstream).
Quote:
Your problem shouldn't be the 'double standard' - and "the" problem isn't the taboo against sexual deviance - the issue should be stopping widescale animal abuse rather than accepting further animal abuse in the form of raping animals. Otherwise it's just a case of justifying one wrong with another.
Well it's like I say, we live in a world where killing animals is not considered abuse, so I don't see how having sex with them (so long as no lasting harm is done) can be considered such. I believe you cannot have it both ways - animals are either chattel, or they aren't.
SubJeff on 17/1/2008 at 18:08
We kill animals to eat them though, and we need to do this. Just killing an animal for no reason or just for fun is largely not acceptable because it's unnecessary, as would beastiality be.
I know you're going to roll out the "we don't need meat" line but the fact is meat contains nutrients that are not easy to come by otherwise and unless you have access to a good variety of non-meat food products and the knowledge to take advantage of it you will, yes will, be more likely to have poor health.
As to the kitten/hound comment - there are animals that will gladly have sex with humans. (fyi Piggy, a friend of mine at school had a dog that was hot for the ladies. It went mental around teenage girls and tried to hump them all the time. If they had really let it, you know it would have.)
But it would more likely be male humans having sex with animals and forcing them. Then it wouldn't matter if it were a kitten or another animal.
Shug on 17/1/2008 at 23:18
That's ok subbie I'll field this one
Quote Posted by SD
I find it strange that you label sex with animals as rape, yet you wouldn't dream of calling the slaughter of animals "murder". How can you have it both ways?
boom VVV
Quote Posted by Shug
And in terms of beastiality, taking the line that "as long as we're killing animals, we may as well be able to rape them!" is, if you'll excuse the pun, pretty fucking stupid. I'm going to assume that it's just a subtle way to mention your hatred of animal treatment in abattoirs/batteries rather than a genuine belief that raping animals isn't somehow an additional cruelty in and of itself. And that's the only term you could realistically use - it is, and would be, rape.
Besides, we can and do have it both ways. Animals aren't all lumped in the same category; livestock are raised solely to be eaten, family pets are for loyalty / guard dog duties / keeping the kids entertained, and so forth. There's a whole host of variety and even with animals designated solely to be eaten, there are still regulations about humane treatment in that process (as far as I'm aware, anyway). This belief that since a large amount of people eat pigs, cows and sheep, all animals are therefore subject to our WHIM and should bow to our sexual needs just seems a very misguided attempt to pound on about animals being murdered for food. It's horrifically simplified and doesn't really do this discussion any justice.
I honestly don't even know if you're trying to play some kind of bizarre devil's advocate about how we should go ALL THE WAY with cruel acts to animals of all sorts because we eat a fraction of them.
