Incest, Bestiality, and Polygamy

[obfuscator]

I don't see how someone can find having sex with a family member or an animal arousing.

 

Well that just shows that were all humans, were all different and have different tastes in stuff.

 

But that doesn't necessarily mean it should be ok ;)

[Howlin0001]

I'm in no way saying it is.

[Housepig]

Incest - I suppose, theoreticaly, if the offspring is adult and consenting and protection is used, there's no logical argument against it. But it's still a disgusting thought.

 

 

 

Bestiality - As above. It's no worse than killing them for food, so...

 

 

 

Polygamy - Nothing wrong with it, as long as all the women (or men--do any people have multiple husbands?) consent.

[bluehooloovo]

Incest: If they are incapable of having children (due to age, surgery, whatever), then I definitely have no problem. Not my problem, none of my business, let them do what they like. Also,

While I understand your position as being completely anti-Christian right, you are going down a road of being blinded by these prejudices.

 

 

 

The abhoration of incest goes back way before Christ, and even before Judaism. In ancient Greek and Chinese culture, it was considered the most heinous crime against nature. People would kill over incestuous relationships.

In ancient Egypt (I'm only sure about the Ptolemaic dynasty, but I wouldn't be surprised if other dynasties had it going as well), it was considered normal and was heavily encouraged that royals marry their siblings. And then you've got the Greek gods who were almost all married to a sibling (or parent...), though that's general excused by the fact that they're gods and mortal norms don't apply to them. Just presenting a counter to your examples.

 

 

 

Bestiality: Definite squick factor here for me. That said, I think that if it was made legal, there ought to be some pretty close restrictions on it to keep the animal from getting hurt. But I'd be just as happy if it was illegal, so meh.

 

 

 

Polygamy: Definitely should be legal, though with a rewrite of how marriage benefits work. Also, like any marriage, all parties have to give their consent - in a "normal" relationship, that's just the husband and wife; in a polygamous one, that's everyone: the husband, the first wife, the new wife. Or the wife, the first husband, the new husband. I'm flexible that way. Social Services (stretched thin as it is...) might want to do a bit more checking up on these families though, in case of the possibility that others have mentioned of child abuse.

[Zierro]

Yes, that can be used as an argument I suppose. However, do animals really consent to being slaughtered for food or being our pets, either? Animals don't consent to a lot of things, and we don't seem to have a problem with them.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean their bodies are free game to do whatever we want. If that were true, then we could say beating animals is okay because they don't consent to us eating them, so we don't need their consent for abusing them.

 

 

 

Also, I don't know whether you have the consumers in mind or the producers. The consumers are actually doing the animals a favor by making sure their death was not in vain. The animal is already dead whether you buy it or not, so buying it is a good thing. The producers need money somehow and as long as they aren't abusing the animals, then there's nothing wrong with it. It's part of survival. You eat to survive and you work to survive. Sex has nothing to do with survival though.

[Lenin64]

Incest- banned for obvious reasons, the chance of having a child with genetic problems is greatly increased.

 

Indeed. A step in the right direction towards eliminating the mutant.

 

 

 

In ancient Egypt (I'm only sure about the Ptolemaic dynasty, but I wouldn't be surprised if other dynasties had it going as well), it was considered normal and was heavily encouraged that royals marry their siblings.

 

Also most of Europe's royal families up to at least WWI. Not siblings, but cousins. But still family.

 

 

 

For all saying animals can't consent, you've obviously not read the dolphin sex guide. I've a feeling I can't link to it, but it's fairly clear on consent. And I will laugh hard if killerbeer responds to all those saying bestiality is horrible and disgusting. Not to say I condone it, apart from a dolphin I have no idea where to....go, and what I can think of is not my idea of a fun time, but the actual act itself I don't feel should be illegal. Except there's no way to record rape.

[venomai]

All three should be legal, hands down. "It's gross" is not a good enough reason to keep something illegal.

 

 

 

As has been said, the animals can't really give their consent. As for the second post, neither one can really give their consent, and therefore should obviously not be tolerated.

 

The question of consent is completely irrelevant. We slaughter, skin, eat, mutilate, etc. animals all without their consent. Under no law is "consent" by animals necessary or expected.

 

 

 

[NB]

 

 

 

Pedophilia--> Should obviously be illegal because child abuse is not something that I condone, and that's exactly what pedophilia is. Now, the age of consent should be 16 in my opinion, so that might be a pedophilia by some standards...but not by most of the Western nations including a few US states. Pedophilia is also a disease, unlike homosexuality.

 

Pedophilia is a medical term which describes the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubsecent children. It describes an individual's feelings, not their behaviour. In fact, most convicted child sex offenders do not appear to be pedophiles (in that they do not have a primary or exclusive attraction to prepubescent children).

 

 

 

The legal and laymen usage of 'pedophile' (as a child sex offender) creates an unnecessary social stigma that targets a mostly innocent group of people -- people who suffer from a sexual orientation that they did not choose or want.

 

 

 

Furthermore, it is no more a "disease" than any other sexual orientation; be it homosexuality, heterosexuality, or even zoosexuality.

 

 

 

See my earlier post for details.

 

 

 

 

 

The consumers are actually doing the animals a favor by making sure their death was not in vain. The animal is already dead whether you buy it or not, so buying it is a good thing. ... You eat to survive and you work to survive. Sex has nothing to do with survival though.

 

We've already discussed this in length. Just because eating meat "has to do with our survival" doesn't mean that the meat we eat at lunch and dinner is needed for our survival. Thousands upon thousands of people, and sometimes entire communities, are able to survive perfectly well without any meat at all in their diet.

 

 

 

And, obviously, those "already dead" animals are raised and killed only because they are going to be made into human-consumed meat. It's not as if farmers are turning roadkill into prime quality beef.

[Zierro]

We've already discussed this in length. Just because eating meat "has to do with our survival" doesn't mean that the meat we eat at lunch and dinner is needed for our survival. Thousands upon thousands of people, and sometimes entire communities, are able to survive perfectly well without any meat at all in their diet.

 

 

 

Eating meat simplifies the necessary process of eating for survival as opposed to the complications caused by going out of your way and being a vegetarian. Sex has absolutely nothing to do with survival though.

 

 

 

Let me ask a question. Do you think it's okay to torture animals against their will?

[bluehooloovo]

In ancient Egypt (I'm only sure about the Ptolemaic dynasty, but I wouldn't be surprised if other dynasties had it going as well), it was considered normal and was heavily encouraged that royals marry their siblings.

 

Also most of Europe's royal families up to at least WWI. Not siblings, but cousins. But still family.

Yeah, but most people aren't quite as squicked by cousins/don't quite consider it incest/whatever. But yeah, royals always used to marry fairly close. Family trees gave me such headaches in European History class... >.< ;)

[Omar]

I'm cool with incest and polygamy as long as no one is forced to do it, but necro/pedo/zoophilia doesn't allow for consent.

[Kiriyama]

I'm cool with incest and polygamy as long as no one is forced to do it, but necro/pedo/zoophilia doesn't allow for consent.

 

 

 

Actually, you could get consent form the person before they died. If they die young of course.

 

 

 

But it is pretty disrespectful to the family.

[Omar]

Okay, maybe in that way.

[ThurinEthir]

Incest - I suppose, theoreticaly, if the offspring is adult and consenting and protection is used, there's no logical argument against it. But it's still a disgusting thought.

 

 

 

Bestiality - As above. It's no worse than killing them for food, so...

 

 

 

Polygamy - Nothing wrong with it, as long as all the women (or men--do any people have multiple husbands?) consent.

 

Basically what I think. I don't think I would ever consider any of these acts, but if someone does, it has no real effect on me.

[magekillr]

Pedophilia is a medical term which describes the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubsecent children.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. There's medical, legal, and psychological definitions, all meaning something slightly different, and in some cases there's a completely different meaning with subtle differences

 

 

 

It describes an individual's feelings, not their behaviour. In fact, most convicted child sex offenders do not appear to be pedophiles (in that they do not have a primary or exclusive attraction to prepubescent children).

 

 

 

The legal and laymen usage of 'pedophile' (as a child sex offender) creates an unnecessary social stigma that targets a mostly innocent group of people -- people who suffer from a sexual orientation that they did not choose or want.

 

 

 

Well it seems you addressed the legal term down here, lol.

 

 

 

Furthermore, it is no more a "disease" than any other sexual orientation; be it homosexuality, heterosexuality, or even zoosexuality.

 

 

 

Sorry, I shouldn't have said disease. It's a disorder. Yes, you're right, it's a sexual orientation just like homosexuality. The reason pedophilia is a disorder while homosexuality is not is because pedophilia poses a significant harm to those involved.

 

 

 

The essential features of a Paraphilia are recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors that generally involve nonhuman subjects, children, or other non-consenting adults, or the suffering or humiliation of oneself or ones partner.

 

 

 

http://www.medem.com/medlib/article/ZZZUZRUZGLC

[indy500fan]

As an objectivist (or maybe I am a nihilist, haven't decided yet) I believe that any action between two consenting adults is ok. So incest and polygamy are ok, and necrophilia if consent is given while the person is still alive. Pedophilia involves person not considered adults, and so even with their consent it shouldn't be legal. The definition of adult will need to be lowered though to 15 or 16. Bestiality involves property, and you can do whatever you wish (that doesn't infringe on any other person's rights) with your own property.

[venomai]

Do you think it's okay to torture animals against their will?

 

It's illegal and "wrong" not on the grounds that the "animal did not consent," but on the grounds that you are causing unnecessary pain to an animal. Just as the law sees it.

 

 

 

It's a disorder. Yes, you're right, it's a sexual orientation just like homosexuality. The reason pedophilia is a disorder while homosexuality is not is because pedophilia poses a significant harm to those involved.

 

As was the case with homosexuality in the past, the significant harm is created by the intense social stigma and widespread ignorance surrounding the topic.

 

 

 

..snip...

 

 

 

http://www.medem.com/medlib/article/ZZZUZRUZGLC

 

What's your point?

[magekillr]

Are you honestly saying that you support the rights of adults to have sex with young children if the child "consents" to it?

 

 

 

The point is that it's a disorder, and I believe it to continue to be a disorder because I don't think the harm comes from a "social stigma." Perhaps it should be treated differently, in which case I agree because I think it's demonized far too easily, but what are you arguing for if not a condoning of this act?

 

 

 

One final edit: I don't think that its status should affect the fact that the act of pedophilia is a crime. I think I feel the same way as Green, but I'm not prepared to tell the APA what is and what is not a psychological disorder.

 

 

 

In other words, I agree with the distinction between "the legal [discourse], the moral [discourse], and the medical [discourse]."

[Zierro]

It's illegal and "wrong" not on the grounds that the "animal did not consent," but on the grounds that you are causing unnecessary pain to an animal. Just as the law sees it.

 

 

 

What makes unnecessary rape okay, but unnecessary pain wrong? Like I said before, that's quite an irregular place to draw the line at.

 

 

 

Just because consent isn't required in some fields doesn't mean it is irrelevant. By this logic, since we don't need consent from someone to speak to them then we don't need consent to have sex with them.

[fastortoise]

After thinking about it, my opinion on incest stays unchanged.

 

 

 

If it were not for the taboos associated with incest, there would be so many chowderheads (for lack of a better word) producing genetically unfit babies with their siblings. Even if both parents are consenting, I do not expect everyone to fully understand the risks of having a baby with your siblings. In short, it's like taking 10 flowers, purposely selecting the worst trait each have, and combining all those to make a genetically unfit plant.

 

 

 

It may not harm you directly, but do you really want your country to pay millions of dollars in order to keep such a baby alive? The only way to prevent having these genetically unfit babies is to make the entire ordeal taboo (which is what has been done, and is proven to be successful).

 

 

 

However, with bestiality, no such consequences are possible. Also, we've done so much to animals lately that it may finally be time for bestiality to be accepted. I mean, we slaughter them at a national scale, use them for harsh drug tests, some even tamper with their genomes to create mutant versions of the species. So what if you want to put your ramrod in them? Let's face it, society's needs will always involve animal cruelty, why not give them a little love for once?

[killerbeer0]

animals cannot state their opinion on anything, let alone give consent to having sex.

 

 

 

Bull****... an animal uses body language (which is 90% of human communication) and they can definitely give the message that they are enjoying something or not, and they express displeasure in very overt ways. In fact, an animal doesn't have any reasons to consent without really meaning it like people sometimes do for whatever reason. Also in most instances of beastiality consent is desired and very important, there are cases when it isn't but that falls into a category called zoosadism which is harshly looked down upon in the zoo community (there have been known instances of the community administering vigilante justice to zoosadists). Another example involving consent is that animals have been known to voluntarily abstain from relations with their own species in favor of the human they have a relationship with.

 

 

 

Necrophilia and pedophilia are different... the first involves a party that is unable to express consent because they're dead or sleeping (necrophilia does not necessarily involve a corpse, a sleeping person counts as well) and the other involves a party that isn't sexually mature and therefore unable to make an informed decision (not to mention predatory behavior). Beastiality however, involves two sexually mature individuals, both capable of giving consent to the other. Please don't try to include beastiality with those other two, it is easy to know if it is consensual and both parties enjoy it.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Let's face it, society's needs will always involve animal cruelty, why not give them a little love for once?

 

 

 

If you are implying that beastial relationships are cruel you are mistaken (they can be, in the case of zoosadism, but "normal" relationships can be cruel as well). Like I wrote above, an important aspect of it is mutual enjoyment.

[Distracted]

What the hell man, that is wrong on so many levels.

 

 

 

Incest: this is unnatural. In biology I was taught that the only valid reason for incest with any species would be to start somewhere new, where there isn't anyone else. Odds of misformed children and such grow, and it just isn't right. Think of Fritzl, and that Italian guy that encouraged his son to have 'fun' with his sister... It's just wrong.

 

 

 

Bestiality: this is wrong on so many levels... Why the hell would a human being have sex with for example a dog. I'm not even [bleep]ing kidding, it's ridiculous. Do you see horses having sex with monkeys? No, so we shouldn't have this kind of thing either. It's just [developmentally delayed]ed.

 

 

 

Polygamy: polygamy has actually occurred with people, but I think of it as wrong. It's not right that a man gets to have multiple women that he can just accompany at will, while a woman has to obey the man. Even if it is written by law that such things shouldn't happen, it'll happen.

 

 

 

What has OT come to...

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

animals cannot state their opinion on anything, let alone give consent to having sex.

 

 

 

Bull****... an animal uses body language (which is 90% of human communication) and they can definitely give the message that they are enjoying something or not, and they express displeasure in very overt ways. In fact, an animal doesn't have any reasons to consent without really meaning it like people sometimes do for whatever reason. Also in most instances of beastiality consent is desired and very important, there are cases when it isn't but that falls into a category called zoosadism which is harshly looked down upon in the zoo community (there have been known instances of the community administering vigilante justice to zoosadists). Another example involving consent is that animals have been known to voluntarily abstain from relations with their own species in favor of the human they have a relationship with.

 

 

 

Necrophilia and pedophilia are different... the first involves a party that is unable to express consent because they're dead or sleeping (necrophilia does not necessarily involve a corpse, a sleeping person counts as well) and the other involves a party that isn't sexually mature and therefore unable to make an informed decision (not to mention predatory behavior). Beastiality however, involves two sexually mature individuals, both capable of giving consent to the other. Please don't try to include beastiality with those other two, it is easy to know if it is consensual and both parties enjoy it.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Let's face it, society's needs will always involve animal cruelty, why not give them a little love for once?

 

 

 

If you are implying that beastial relationships are cruel you are mistaken (they can be, in the case of zoosadism, but "normal" relationships can be cruel as well). Like I wrote above, an important aspect of it is mutual enjoyment.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I think killerbee just won at least one third of this thread. Surprisingly, I have to agree with him here, although I find beastiality a little odd, his points are all valid.

[Zierro]

What has OT come to...

 

 

 

This is what happens when logic is overused.

[Lionheart_0]

I'm gonna have to play the Too Controversial card here guys, sorry.

 

 

 

1.8 - Highly Controversial Topics

 

 

 

These conversations tend to lead to violent outbursts based on strong personal beliefs. Be careful when discussing such topics as topics that get out of control will be removed and action will be taken depending on the severity. These topics may contain, but are not limited to drugs or the use of illegal drugs, beliefs/opinions on religion, political subject matter (i.e., new governmental laws, candidates, etc.), abortion, sexual orientation and/or highly controversial current events. This applies to all forums, threads, posts, private messages, profiles, avatars and signatures.

 

 

 

Please note: We also do not allow posts or discussions containing religious references of any kind outside of the Off-topic forum, where moderate and sensible discussion relating to religion is allowed. Also, we do not allow any religious text or images in our users' signatures or profiles.

 

 

 

I kinda agree with the report, and these are family forums. There is nothing wrong with the discussion of such topics that you guys are talking about, but I don't think this is the best place to talk about it.