Scots Taffer on 15/1/2008 at 08:09
Quote Posted by SD
To a large extent I agree with you. In this day and age, a prohibition against incest seems an absurd infringement of the human right to consent to sexual relations with another adult.
But our society is full of weird and illogical sexual taboos and restrictions like that. I mean, it's okay to kill an animal, but try having sex with one, and you'll probably end up in the clink. Someone explain that one to me please :)
Both of these statements are intended as absurdist self-parody... aren't they?
I mean, you can't not only be this self
unaware but also shockingly retarded... in the off chance that are you (because you have been in the past), I'll give you a few very simple reasons why:
1. Incest has not been an observable evolutionary imperative, so saying that it's purely "social taboo" is bullshit
2. The lack of incest could be directly correlated to its potential implications with regards to congenital defects and weaknesses inherent in limiting the genepool
3. We kill each other, so animals are fair game and in the evolutionary sense it's predatory in nature (try killing a lion for food or fun) and more or less balanced -
breeding for killing is slightly different but an obvious byproduct of our natural instincts and industrialisation
4. A chicken can't give you consent, SD, no matter what way you explain "how it looked at you"
I personally think that the "long lost siblings being attracted to each other" is simply misplaced biochemical signals of pack loyalty being reinterpreted by the brain.
Eldron on 15/1/2008 at 09:03
homosexuality doesn't exactly further our evolution either :)
that said, they're adults and aren't hurting anyone.
but on that, in younger sibling relationships it has a way deeper psychological impact and it isn't a good thing, it's not about what people get disguisted by, because that can get as childish as joking about butthumping, but rather how it doesn't work with how a family is built.
ps. in sweden it's still legal to have sex with animals :/
Scots Taffer on 15/1/2008 at 09:07
Quote Posted by Eldron
ps. in sweden it's still legal to have sex with animals :/
Aha! Finally shug's fascination with Sweden is revealed.
Spaztick on 15/1/2008 at 09:21
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Aha! Finally shug's fascination with Sweden is revealed.
The thrill of getting caught?
Scots Taffer on 15/1/2008 at 09:26
That makes absolutely no sense.
SubJeff on 15/1/2008 at 09:40
It is unusual Ig, but there are lots of cases in this country where a mother is deemed unfit to care for 2 children, but not to care for 1 - social services would remove one child and put it up for adoption. I'm sure there are other reasons.
Scots - are you saying that if you can demonstrate that an animal wants you it would be ok? Cuz I know for sure of male dogs that would do women given the chance.
And the whole "evolutionary" reasons thing, whilst true to a certain extent, smacks of eugenics. The likelyhood of transmitting genes that will actually manifest a defect is much higher in many known genetic diseases, and in fact there are even those that are dominant with 100% penetrance. If we were to take it to it's logical conclusion there are people that would just be sterilised before reaching reproductive age as a matter of course, since siblings' chances of producing offspring with an observable abnormal phenotype is, whilst present, much smaller.
Also - why aren't we talking about your sister yet?
Better still - your wife's sister! :p
Scots Taffer on 15/1/2008 at 09:45
Just because the dog wants to, doesn't mean the woman does.
And stop trying to bring up the women in my life just because there are no interesting ones in yours.
SubJeff on 15/1/2008 at 09:47
But what if the woman does too? Wasn't the whole point of your argument that animals cannot consent?
And chill out. This is comm chat ffs.
Scots Taffer on 15/1/2008 at 09:55
It's precisely because it's comm chat that I'll pounce on any shitty joking that I see. :cool:
I'm not remotely unchilled.
And I don't consider the dog as "consenting" in that scenario anyway, because "consent" doesn't really apply outside of human exchanges as there are relatively few "consequences" of interspecies erotica (fucko) but the basic problem there is that it's just repulsive to contemplate. There's a reason we're different species.
SubJeff on 15/1/2008 at 10:02
So which is the real problem - lack of animal consent or that it's disgusting? You've flipped your focus here. I'll agree that it's gross, but then I find certain human acts gross. And although an animal can not formally consent they usually do what they want to do and don't do what they don't want to do. I always thought a large part of the issues was that sex with animals is considered animal abuse - it's defining that abuse that I'm questioning here.
I still think it's gross though.
And the one woman in my life is plenty interesting thanks.
