Scots Taffer on 16/1/2008 at 00:31
Quote Posted by Fingernail
But the point some others have made is that now, thanks to modern new fancy technology, it [non-procreational incest] doesn't have to cause harm!
Finally we are free to do as we have always secretly wished, right guys?
Right, and as I said, between two consenting adults that's their decision but ultimately one I find rather repugnant, not just because of taboo and simple understanding of the universe but because of what I'm about to point out below.
Quote Posted by SD
Okay assmunch, let me introduce you to something called Mill's Harm Principle, which is kinda the foundation of liberal theory:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.Can you tell me who is harmed if a brother and sister decide to start fucking each other?
Here's a more pertinent question, if incest is legalised who can you see that may be potentially harmed through it?
Hint: child abuse.
Quote Posted by SD
So far as the bestiality thang is concerned, as DinkyDogg points out, animals don't consent to be consumed, so why should their consent be required for sexual relations? So long as basic animal welfare is maintained, I see absolutely no reason why people should not be permitted to engage in intercourse with their dogs and horses.
Ultimately, the reason incest and bestiality are offences in most jurisdictions iis because humans are incredibly petty creatures who believe their moral standards should be applied to everyone. More enlightened societies than ours will shatter these taboos, just as our more enlightened society has shattered the taboos of homosexuality and inter-racial sex.
Hahah, wow. It will become "enlightened" to fuck animals? How is reverting to such baser instincts and satisfying any need in a primeval manner in any way "enlightened"? I guess it all boils down to what you regard sex as and whether or not our enlightened contemporaries will view merely as a way to get your jollies off and not as part of a meaningful relationship or as a method for propogation of the species. But really, given that none of this is absurdist joking, I really can't continue this debate with someone whose view I think is so bizarrely warped.
I welcome your new period of enlightenment, where I get to fuck to fuck my dog then get my mother or sister to polish my cock off afterwards, you lunatic.
Quote Posted by The_Raven
You can say this about human beings too. Do you make your partner sign consent forms before every sexual act? :p
Well, I'll ask my wife if I've ever raped her.
mopgoblin on 16/1/2008 at 00:39
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
So what other factors define gender, beyond the physical body? I mean I know intersex people exist, I'm really just curious as to how that happens.
Well, gender is the set of behavioural, social, and cultural attributes correlated with sex - "masculine" and "feminine" refer to gender, while "male", "female", and "intersex" refer to physical sex. Societies tend to construct gender roles - a gender role is a set of behaviours the society considers desirable or appropriate for a gender that they recognise (I'm mostly trying to make sure we're using the same definitions here). Since the Enlightenment, in Western societies it's mostly been:
male -> masculine -> productive -> paid work, business, politics, public sphere
female -> feminine -> nurturing -> childcare, housework, private sphere
There are plenty of problems with this, of course. Gender is more of a spectrum than the binary division assumed by society - individuals might accept or reject behaviours associated with their "default" gender for reasons that can be conscious or unconscious, reasoned or intuitive. In the more extreme cases, a person might identify more strongly with another gender than with the gender society expects them to have. Although Western societies are mostly getting better at accepting this, they're still not really there yet, and the default assumptions are still male=masculine, female=feminine. Some other societies recognise additional genders and/or don't make the Western assumptions.
One of the big problems caused by Western societies' assumption of two distinct genders is that this requires an assumption of two distinct sexes. When an intersex child is born (assuming the condition is recognised, so usually this means ambiguous genitals in practice), there's a notion that they should be either male or female. From what I understand, doctors have started to accept the validity of a wait-and-see approach in recent years, but even now they'll often recommend surgery. One or two decades back, surgery was usually seen as the only option. There wasn't any notion that the individual should have to give consent, or any consideration given to how it'll affect sensitivity or their ability to enjoy sex, or any notion that that the doctors might choose the "wrong" sex (the sex inconsistent with the child's natural gender, if that can be said to exist). The usual suggestion was to make aggressive attempts to socialise the child to identify as the gender associated with the assigned sex, and not to inform the child of anything. The process often involved additional surgery and/or hormone teratments later in childhood - concealing the reasons for this is incredibly fucked up.
There are quite a few recognised intersex conditions - congenital adrenal hyperplasia (overproduction of male hormones, potentially causing ambiguity in XX people), androgen insensitivity syndrome (androgen receptors partially or fully nonfunctional in XY people), unusual sex chromosome configurations, mosaicism, chimerism, and some others I don't recall offhand.
Quote:
Also I get a bit twitchy around people putting Enlightenment in inverted commas.
Perhaps that was a bit harsh. I was trying to indicate that cultures can't undergo large changes or geographic expansion without some destructive effects.
mopgoblin on 16/1/2008 at 02:17
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Here's a more pertinent question, if incest is legalised who can you see that may be potentially harmed through it?
Hint: child abuse.
I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to separate out the cases where there's an imbalance of power. Indeed, existing legislation usually treats those as more severe.
Quote:
Hahah, wow. It will become "enlightened" to fuck animals? How is reverting to such baser instincts and satisfying any need in a primeval manner in any way "enlightened"?
Well, enlightenment as used here is really about accepting (or at least tolerating) behaviour, and not about actually doing those things yourself. I'd say I have an enlightened attitude toward a rather wider range of sexual acts than many people do, but that doesn't mean I've done all of those things myself, nor that I would want to in the future. It just means I don't consider them to be intrinsically wrong, and I don't approve of using coercive power to stop others from enjoying them.
The_Raven on 16/1/2008 at 03:00
Mopgoblin, that a very articulate version of my post. :thumb:
Scots Taffer on 16/1/2008 at 03:22
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Well, enlightenment as used here is really about accepting (or at least tolerating) behaviour, and not about actually doing those things yourself. I'd say I have an enlightened attitude toward a rather wider range of sexual acts than many people do, but that doesn't mean I've done all of those things myself, nor that I would want to in the future. It just means I don't consider them to be intrinsically wrong, and I don't approve of using coercive power to stop others from enjoying them.
And even if this is what SD was trying to say, he has such a horrible way of saying it that I can't fucking stand it. I see what you're saying and while I think it may be very far-reaching in its scope, I've also got to wonder at what point it all becomes undone - I mean, is this about toleration of behaviour or is it about anarchy? Where does it stop, within reason? And yes, much of my repulsion is based on the sheer "ew" factor of well why do you
want to sleep with your sister or your pet dog as opposed to sleeping someone not related to you by blood. Plus I can quite safely say that it is no more a hop, skip and jump away from bestiality to pedophilia because if a dog can consent, then sure a child can too.
Eldron on 16/1/2008 at 06:31
and thank god that incest is forbidden, nobody ever harms their children now because of that!
we should create laws against heterosexual intercourse, so that people stop having sex with other peoples children!
Papy on 16/1/2008 at 06:47
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Here's a more pertinent question, if incest is legalised who can you see that may be potentially harmed through it?
Hint: child abuse.
Ah... The "think of the children" card. I was wondering who would be the first to play it.
SD on 16/1/2008 at 07:38
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
I welcome your new period of enlightenment, where I get to fuck my dog then get my mother or sister to polish my cock off afterwards, you lunatic.
You are one fucking disrespectful little shit. Can't you debate without resorting to insults and cheap shots?
As mopgoblin points out "enlightenment" is about accepting and tolerating harmless behaviours that the majority may find distasteful. Enlightenment has always referred to a period where people begin to base rules and regulations in reason rather than prejudice and authoritarian bigotry, so don't dare pretend I mean different. And you can shove the "accepting bestiality == accepting child abuse" strawman up your rectum too.
In my book you need a better reason to curtail human rights other than "Scots Taffer doesn't like them".
Ko0K on 16/1/2008 at 08:19
So, twins doing each other in porn has been business as usual for some time, by the way. The so-called "main-stream" media didn't pick up on that back then, and now they make news of this while trying to come across as though they're being considerate and responsible by basically telling all but the names?
Anyway, I wonder if they're still secretly seeing each other.
