LOL WUTWhen our biologically based aversion to incest that helps preserve our species survival is too “ableist” and isn’t “woke” enough.

submitted by BioEssentialism from pprincette.tumblr.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

We still don’t want to deal with large proportions of the population having defects. It’s not good for society. Society cannot function like that. That’s why male-female incest gets more disgust than same-sex incest. And the latter is still viewed negatively, because there are special bonds between family members that get spoiled after a sexual encounter.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

That’s why male-female incest gets more disgust than same-sex incest.

Does it?

[–]Haylstorm 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Pretty sure if you're fucking a relative everyone is equally disgusted no matter what.

Well that's not exactly true. Some cultures are okay with cousins for example but everyone is gonna be disgusted if you're fucking a parent or sibling. So it's clearly more about the closeness of relation than anything else. Which ya know. Incest.

[–]NerveActive 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The cultures who support it only accept hetero incest.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Which is fucked when you think about it because they also tend to be cultures that look down on/ban homosexuality in general for being “immoral” and yet they have no problem with fucking inbreeding?!” Make it make sense indeed!

Homosexuality meanwhile not only isn’t harmful to any outside parties (unlike inbreeding) but it also actually helps our species and planet by mitigating overpopulation and being spare hands to take care of all those orphaned and abandoned children out there. (I’m pretty sure this is the exact reason why being gay even exists as an orientation in the first place)

So uh yeah in the case of incest in particular, gay incest is objectively better by like all accounts, and should be logically given more rights than straight incest which should just be outright cancelled altogether. But then again we’re not dealing with very logical people on either side of this debate now are we? One side believes that a day old clump of cells is a human being, sperm is alive so therefore masturbating = murder, and Mary was a virgin who got impregnated by Sky Magic.

And then the other side believes that biological sex isn’t real, men can get pregnant and that you actually can “converso therapy” the homosexuality away as long as you put a dress on it and call it a “girldick.” Also being queer is a choice just like the religious conservatives claim, how dare you say they’re “born that way” you bigoted, ableist NAZI! /s

[–]PenseePansy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Homosexuality meanwhile not only isn’t harmful to any outside parties (unlike inbreeding) but it also actually helps our species and planet by mitigating overpopulation and being spare hands to take care of all those orphaned and abandoned children out there. (I’m pretty sure this is the exact reason why being gay even exists as an orientation in the first place)

I doubt that this is the reason why homosexuality exists, actually. Not that I disagree about it being a functional product of evolution-- this seems clear enough to me-- only about what makes it so.

I don't think that could be mitigating overpopulation, because, for most of human history, there just weren't that many people-- in fact our species was nearly wiped out more than once. The explosion in Homo sapiens's numbers took place far too recently (in evolutionary terms) to have driven the development of homosexuality.

Basically, I think that homosexuality is just one example of how, for an intelligent social species, "sex" will naturally come to be about much more than just reproduction. It will have other meanings: social; emotional/psychological. And these are, in their own way, just as important. They can also contribute to the species's welfare; they can help it survive.

You can see this principle in action throughout the animal kingdom. The less intelligent a species (like, say, insects), the more sex is strictly-reproductive; it has no other meaning for them. Then look at one of the two extant species most closely-related to us: bonobos/pygmy chimps (Pan paniscus). Their entire social structure is shaped by sexual behavior... most of it non-reproductive (and often same-sex). What purpose is it serving, then? It's being used to diffuse tensions which, among our other closest relatives (chimpanzees, P. troglodytes), cause regular-- often violent-- conflict. Bonobos rarely fight, and therefore rarely inflict the serious, sometimes fatal, injuries on each other than chimps frequently do. All because of sex having meanings for them well beyond the reproductive (important though that is).

And if this is true of a species far less intelligent and complex than our own, I think that it must go double for human beings.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The less intelligent a species (like, say, insects), the more sex is strictly-reproductive; it has no other meaning for them.

This actually makes me wonder if homosexuality exists in insects now…

[–]PenseePansy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure if "homosexuality", per se, exists in any species other than our own, you know? I mean, same-sex sexual activity certainly does... but does ANY sexual orientation? That entire concept seems like an inherently-human thing. I don't know that I'd even say that bonobos have it, and they seem more human-like in their sexual behavior than any other species I can think of. Calling them "bisexual", or the majority of animals "heterosexual", just seems weird to me.

Maybe it's because, in all other animal species, sexual behavior is instinctive. They don't need to be taught about "the birds and the bees". They know what to do; it's programmed in them. Not so for us. Children are famous for their oddball, spectacularly wrong-headed notions of where babies come from. All we have is our sexual orientation to guide us (at least if we're not asexual)-- and that's only a matter of the sex/es we're attracted to; it tells us nothing about how to act on that attraction-- and what we manage to learn (or figure out). Otherwise, nature's left us pretty much on our own, as far as sex is concerned.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not sure if "homosexuality", per se, exists in any species other than our own, you know? I mean, same-sex sexual activity certainly does... but does ANY sexual orientation? That entire concept seems like an inherently-human thing. I don't know that I'd even say that bonobos have it, and they seem more human-like in their sexual behavior than any other species I can think of. Calling them "bisexual", or the majority of animals "heterosexual", just seems weird to me.

I meant that it’s homosexuality in orientation, because while animals aren’t exactly cognitive of their state of being, there are in fact purely homosexual animals who refuse to mate with the opposite sex and only go with the same sex - that story of the Gay Penguins for instance who took in an orphaned baby Penguin and raised it as their own.

Which is why I think homosexuality has to be genetically influenced at some level, and the only possible purpose such an orientation could even serve is population mitigation.