Feminist on Incest: "the incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as the primary institution of the culture" (Andrea Dworkin, 1974) (self.politics)

submitted 2 months ago by Wallura to c/politics@hexbear.net

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago

This is a topic I am fully chud-brained on. Some things should be illegal because I just find them that gross and off-putting. You can give me some convoluted argument explaining how consent between adults in incestuous situations is invalid, but we all know that incest between consenting adults is illegal purely on the grounds of being repugnant to the majority of people, and that that’s the way it ought to stay.

[-] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 32 points 2 months ago

I can't get on board with this because this exact reasoning also works for sodomy laws.

[-] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

leftist rationales around laws forbidding bestiality [...] are so strained

what-the-hell

The left rationale around outlawing bestiality isn't strained at all. Animals can't give informed consent. If that's not self-evidently enough for you, then I don't know what to say.

[-] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago

The vegan leftist rationale outlawing bestiality isnt strained. The non-vegan leftist rationale that the animal’s consent matters when it comes to sex with a human but not when it is forcibly impregnated or killed by a human is strained.

[-] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago

The Banned Comment

I know, that’s why it’s chud-brained. And I think that’s why liberal or leftist rationales around laws forbidding bestiality and incest are so strained, no one wants to lend credence to a “it should be illegal based on my personal feelings about it” mindset. But ultimately nothing is objective, all law have a root in morality and all morality ultimately has a subjective basis. And this is one area I’m just gonna have to skip the line and say it’s bad because I feel that it’s bad very strongly.

[-] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago

"consenting adults" is doing some lifting there because of grooming and power dynamics.

very very rarely unwitting siblings who were adopted into separate households grow up without knowing each other, meet without knowing they're related and start a relationship and sometimes courts decide that isn't illegal as long as they don't reproduce. biologists can chime in on whether one generation is enough to Hapsburg.

i think it's motivated by disgust but it's also a pretty good heuristic for abuse, unlike sodomy laws.

[-] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago

Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. In the incredibly unlikely scenarios where two siblings of the same age who are now grown adults and independently decide, free of any insidious influence past or present, that they are in love and want to be together without ever having children, I still want them to be lowered into a hole and for that hole to be covered forever (humanely).