4 ms·

Children and animals can’t consent and are relatively helpless, so must be protected. Real incest leads to a high risk of developmental problems for subsequent

by mft_ 8mo ago

Children and animals can’t consent and are relatively helpless, so must be protected. Real incest leads to a high risk of developmental problems for subsequent children, so a ban makes sense. Logically, none of these arguments apply to “step-incest”.

nephihaha 8mo ago
Incest isn't just about genetics. People have adult godparents, foster children, adopted siblings and a whole load of other relations without genetic connections being involved. There are power dynamics and a whole load of other reasons it isn't right.
- mft_ 8mo ago
  All very fair points; I was thinking (but didn't specify) of the step-brother/sister relationship as mentioned in other comments. And just to be clear, I'm not an especial advocate here! I'm just interested as always in establishing clear logical rules that can then be applied fairly.)
benj111 8mo ago
You say animals can't consent, but in the uk it's illegal for the ladies to have sex with male animals. That must imply some sort of consent. This also raises interesting moral questions for the farming industry. Did those animals you're breeding consent?
- mft_ 8mo ago
  (Your question doesn't make sense, but) A quick search shows that sex with an animal is definitely illegal in the UK [0] whether it's a male or a female human involved. [0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/69 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/69
  - benj111 8mo ago
    Yes. But a male animal getting an erection implies some kind of consent? And if it doesn't? What about farms breeding livestock? Society has decided that you can rape a pig for profit, but not for pleasure. So is it really about consent? Or puritanism?
    - mft_ 8mo ago
      Physiologically, a male getting an erection implies stimulation, not consent. However, more broadly I agree with you that laws protecting animals from harm can often lag behind what some might consider necessary. And despite laws protecting animals from "unnecessary suffering" [0] we still allow the slaughter of animals for food; presumably either because such slaughter is considered necessary, or because the suffering is considered reduced to an acceptably level. [0] e.g. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/69 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/69
      - benj111 8mo ago
        I think you're missing the point. I stick my penis in an animal. That is illegal. I stick something else in there to get it pregnant. Not illegal. So this isn't about consent. And it's not about the laws lagging. It's about the law differing depending on why you're doing the thing to the animal. I don't doubt that some vegans might treat animal breeding as rape but I don't think the general population does, or consider that element suffering in any way.
        aziaziazi 8mo ago
        Thanks for the interesting thoughts, your questions definitely makes sense to me. "Children and animals can’t consent" view from _mst is a non perfect position but perhaps better that considering the opposite? Children can be groomed to consent and others animals training to. Here's a sensitive topic but I think it adds to the conversation: It has been reported dogs been used to rape humans. That's horrific for the victim, however consider this: sure the dog somewhat consent, but is it his own will if the trainer ask him to? This is not to contradict you demonstration based on erection. Regulations for animals are sometimes justified, though they are extremely loose when tied to consumption. https://web.archive.org/web/20260301174553/https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/?utm_source=972+Magazine+Newsletter https://web.archive.org/web/20260301174553/https://www.972ma... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMClnrt6p1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMClnrt6p1U
Hizonner 8mo ago
You're also in favor of keeping animals from being bred for the specific purpose of being killed and eaten, right? I have some suspicions about which issue would be more important to the animals...

by mft_ 8mo ago

nephihaha 8mo ago

Incest isn't just about genetics. People have adult godparents, foster children, adopted siblings and a whole load of other relations without genetic connections being involved. There are power dynamics and a whole load of other reasons it isn't right.

mft_ 8mo ago
All very fair points; I was thinking (but didn't specify) of the step-brother/sister relationship as mentioned in other comments. And just to be clear, I'm not an especial advocate here! I'm just interested as always in establishing clear logical rules that can then be applied fairly.)

benj111 8mo ago

You say animals can't consent, but in the uk it's illegal for the ladies to have sex with male animals. That must imply some sort of consent. This also raises interesting moral questions for the farming industry. Did those animals you're breeding consent?

mft_ 8mo ago
(Your question doesn't make sense, but) A quick search shows that sex with an animal is definitely illegal in the UK [0] whether it's a male or a female human involved. [0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/69 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/69
- benj111 8mo ago
  Yes. But a male animal getting an erection implies some kind of consent? And if it doesn't? What about farms breeding livestock? Society has decided that you can rape a pig for profit, but not for pleasure. So is it really about consent? Or puritanism?
  - mft_ 8mo ago
    Physiologically, a male getting an erection implies stimulation, not consent. However, more broadly I agree with you that laws protecting animals from harm can often lag behind what some might consider necessary. And despite laws protecting animals from "unnecessary suffering" [0] we still allow the slaughter of animals for food; presumably either because such slaughter is considered necessary, or because the suffering is considered reduced to an acceptably level. [0] e.g. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/69 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/69
    - benj111 8mo ago
      I think you're missing the point. I stick my penis in an animal. That is illegal. I stick something else in there to get it pregnant. Not illegal. So this isn't about consent. And it's not about the laws lagging. It's about the law differing depending on why you're doing the thing to the animal. I don't doubt that some vegans might treat animal breeding as rape but I don't think the general population does, or consider that element suffering in any way.
      - aziaziazi 8mo ago
        Thanks for the interesting thoughts, your questions definitely makes sense to me. "Children and animals can’t consent" view from _mst is a non perfect position but perhaps better that considering the opposite? Children can be groomed to consent and others animals training to. Here's a sensitive topic but I think it adds to the conversation: It has been reported dogs been used to rape humans. That's horrific for the victim, however consider this: sure the dog somewhat consent, but is it his own will if the trainer ask him to? This is not to contradict you demonstration based on erection. Regulations for animals are sometimes justified, though they are extremely loose when tied to consumption. https://web.archive.org/web/20260301174553/https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/?utm_source=972+Magazine+Newsletter https://web.archive.org/web/20260301174553/https://www.972ma... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMClnrt6p1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMClnrt6p1U

Hizonner 8mo ago

You're also in favor of keeping animals from being bred for the specific purpose of being killed and eaten, right? I have some suspicions about which issue would be more important to the animals...