It went from being the most taboo type imaginable to the first things kids will see when they get a phone and look for adult content.
I understand and agree with children, and bestiality being off-limits due to the non-consenting nature of any sexual interaction with them but a fantasy re-enacted by actors about incest/stepincest or even playing dead people? Why do you care? It's someone else's kink, not yours, you wouldn't like if the majority of people thought your vanilla sex kinks are off-limits (no more missionary for you, it's disgusting!).
There are reasons beyond sex why incest (even with non-blood relatives) and bestiality are off the table. Not because of "vanilla" as you put it, but because they come with other costs. As does unprotected sex with multiple strangers, another stupid trope promoted in porn.
I was on a bus yesterday which took three times as long as it should have done. An hour and a half on a bus, and I still got in late despite setting out early. That was in a city. If you live outside a city, the public transport is even worse. I've missed job interviews, dates, other transport connections etc due to public transport. So yes, there are costs to that too.
So far nothing in that statement makes it comparable to bestiality or child porn, at all, why is that for you? Think answering this can move this conversation forward...
Logically, none of these arguments apply to “step-incest”.
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.)
Did those animals you're breeding 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?
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
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.
"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.972ma...
I think the 'animals can't consent' thing is a retroactive justification for what is either ick, or a religious hangover.
I've had female dogs on heat try to hump me. Is that not consent?
We don't get dogs permission before breeding them.
The concept of bodily autonomy for animals is basically non existent.
The argument was originally that it was 'unnatural' but gay rights put the nail in the coffin there. 'consent' sounds good, but it isn't what's going on. It's the same 'unnatural' position, without the intellectual honesty.
Problem for me is. I kind of agree with the current cultural position. But there's no actual framework around it, and I don't like arbitrary rules for arbitrary reasons.
unnatural argument is to be ignored IMHO, it does't makes sense outside our emotional feeling and has multiple (and contradictory) interpretation so you'll end up arguing on each cases and don't have a rule/framework.
A thought experiment from Jonathan Haidt:
> Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are stay- ing alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it OK for them to make love?
edit: Confusing story isn't it ? Here's an short but thorough analyse https://www.kevindorst.com/uploads/8/8/1/7/88177244/haidt_20...
0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Re the thought experiment. The standard argument is that of birth defects, which is obviously avoided. You could point to evolutionary pressures for the taboo also.
The thing is, kind of like pedophilia we've drawn a hard line. You could make the argument that someone the day before their 16th birthday is the same as the day after, therefore it's ok. I think the line being clear has more utility than the alternative. In this situation we're being invited to redraw a line, but where to put it? Do we make the getting pregnant illegal? Not being careful enough? So I would keep the line where it is.
I have some suspicions about which issue would be more important to the animals...
Somehow the sites a providing incorrect feedback to the uploaders and creators, which skews HEAVILY towards adding stepmom/stepsister into the title and plot. Someone pointed out that it's a convenient "plot" for having two people in the same room, but apparently the adult industry never figured out that having the actors pretend to be a couple is an equally convenient plot.
Incest fantasies are far more common than the number of people who would admit to them suggest.
Just like almost no one will admit to finding a girl a day under 18 sexually attractive, yet somehow "barely legal" porn is extremely popular.
To be more specific, the idea that step-cest warps children's minds is laughable when the larger issue is that 95% of porn portrays women as submissive sex dolls that exist for male pleasure. Don't forget the unrealistic expectations around body and beauty standards
Is this a step-phenomenon to clickbait titles?