Liberals in sweden want to make incest and necrophilia legal

[Betelgeuse]

All I have to say is: Giggity!

[evogsr]

i understand that pedos can't exactly help being attracted.

i personally would like to experiment on people that have molested children, so we could find a way to remove the attraction from pedos that want to be good people and get fixed.

Don't expect that to happen anytime soon. The idea of a solution being put forward is letting them seek consent from parents.

[Underverse]

you know what i mean lol, also seen some really pretty ones sucking horses.

and go google if you wanna know why it's wrong to look at kids sexually. all kinds of psychological shit, the physical damage it can cause. all kinds of stuff. i'm not a doctor, i can't name everything wrong with it off hand. but to me, this is the one moral case that stands above all others, one of three moral codes humanity should stand by "you don't fuck kids".

The damage is caused by either violence or society, which victimizes them and takes away their agency. Pedophilia has been a part of humanity for eons. These types of sexual interactions are not innately harmful, the same way sex is only harmful when it's rape.

I feel like bestiality is dangerous...in fact, there are several cases of people being killed by animals during the act.

[derpkitteh]

Don't expect that to happen anytime soon. The idea of a solution being put forward is letting them seek consent from parents.

that's not acceptable. in any way shape or form.

it's a problem that needs to be fixed, and i think if we pick enough prisoner's brains apart, we can find the cure.

- - - Updated - - -

The damage is caused by either violence or society, which victimizes them and takes away their agency. Pedophilia has been a part of humanity for eons. These types of sexual interactions are not innately harmful, the same way sex is only harmful when it's rape.

I feel like bestiality is dangerous...in fact, there are several cases of people being killed by animals during the act.

yes, bestiality can be dangerous for the human. that's ok though, it should still be legal, because if the human gets hurt, that means the animal didn't consent and the human learns their lesson.

it's just not right to mentally fuck up a child like that. it strips them of their childhood, it's wrong. it needs to be cured.

[evogsr]

that's not acceptable. in any way shape or form.

it's a problem that needs to be fixed, and i think if we pick enough prisoner's brains apart, we can find the cure.

I agree, but take a guess at the sort of people putting forth ideas like that?

[Underverse]

You have to think in the terms of your own sexuality. You have no control over what attracts you and stimulates you sexually. Pedophiles are no different, they are not making a conscious choice to be attracted to children. Thus the only wrong thing is the wrong processing in certain parts of the brain. Pedophiles are just kids in adult clothing. It must be incredibly tough to live a life like that. I pity them.

What can be argued to be wrong however, is acting upon those desires even after understanding the potential damaging effect it may have.

This is nothing more than a cheap copout.

People are not born into being straight, gay, or pedophiles. People are born with slight predispositions towards acting certain ways, and culture does the rest. But the dichotomy is false anyway, because humans overlap each other in phenotypes to a great extent.

Pedophiles are created because society does not allow a faint trace of an interest to be acted upon; so it grows. But see, pedophilia has shaped human evolution for millions of years. And even today, you can see it in adult relationships. Why do we like women to shave their legs (and often, other bits)? Why do women have higher voices, less hair, less musculature, and more neotenous facial features? Look at chimpanzees. We've come a long way, and all of these traits were selected for through sex.

But even if none of that was true, we see pedophilia in other apes all the time. Bonobo mothers use it to calm their kids. Fathers use it to pair bond - a mechanism of resource distribution that allows young bonobos to thrive when they can't fend for themselves.

No, it's not a brain defect, or something determined by birth. It's a part of our nature that's been maligned by a culture averse to human contact.

- - - Updated - - -

yes, bestiality can be dangerous for the human. that's ok though, it should still be legal, because if the human gets hurt, that means the animal didn't consent and the human learns their lesson.

it's just not right to mentally fuck up a child like that. it strips them of their childhood, it's wrong. it needs to be cured.

Again, you're operating under the premise that it's innately harmful. You have no evidence to support this claim, and nature would disagree with you.

Also, danger is a good reason to outlaw sexual relations with animals.

[derpkitteh]

Again, you're operating under the premise that it's innately harmful. You have no evidence to support this claim, and nature would disagree with you.

Also, danger is a good reason to outlaw sexual relations with animals.

it might not be harmful for them to lose their childhood, but it is really, really really fucking wrong. a kid should only have to think about playing, making friends, and doing homework. they shouldn't have to think about the things that come with sex, that's just wrong.

and no, danger isn't a good reason to outlaw bestiality. if danger was a good reason to outlaw something, you'd outlaw smoking and alcohol.

[Underverse]

it might not be harmful for them to lose their childhood, but it is really, really really fucking wrong. a kid should only have to think about playing, making friends, and doing homework. they shouldn't have to think about the things that come with sex, that's just wrong.

and no, danger isn't a good reason to outlaw bestiality. if danger was a good reason to outlaw something, you'd outlaw smoking and alcohol.

Yes, yes you would. And I think smoking should be outlawed, and I think it will be, with time. Alcohol has other benefits - social lubrication, mostly, that have value to society. Bestiality does not have any value beyond baseline.

So I assume you're okay with people having sex with anyone post-puberty, given your idealistic 'playing, friends, homework' trifecta. So you've lowered the bar to ~12. Logically, I used to agree with that. But I've come to understand that sexual interactions are not innately harmful, not matter the age at which they take place. These organs are functional in all regards except reproduction from the moment we're born. I would rather see parents, like bonobos, use pleasure to calm their kids, instead of violence. Only in this fucked up post-agricultural culture do we think that violence is a more acceptable means of disciplining children. If you're so worried about mental effects, maybe you should start there.

[derpkitteh]

i don't think parents should hit their kids. they sure as fuck shouldn't fuck them, either, unless they're 18+.

let kids be kids, leave them alone, don't touch the. it's that simple. this shit needs to be corrected, and there's plenty of test subjects wasting away in prison. the sooner we start picking their brains apart, the sooner we fix this shit.

and i still say danger's not a good reason to outlaw it. people do stupid, dangerous crap all the time. sky diving, alcohol, nascar, mma, all of this crap is dangerous.

[Underverse]

i don't think parents should hit their kids. they sure as fuck shouldn't fuck them, either, unless they're 18+.

let kids be kids, leave them alone, don't touch the. it's that simple. this shit needs to be corrected, and there's plenty of test subjects wasting away in prison. the sooner we start picking their brains apart, the sooner we fix this shit.

and i still say danger's not a good reason to outlaw it. people do stupid, dangerous crap all the time. sky diving, alcohol, nascar, mma, all of this crap is dangerous.

You cited your reasons as 'playing, friends, etc'. Post puberty, people are thinking about sex. Why are you now raising the bar to 18? You have no logical argument here.

'Let kids be kids' - yeah, because we let them grow up in a vacuum as is. We take away their consent and force them through so much mind-boggling shit, and you're worried about a little genital contact? Lol. Also, good luck fixing most of human psychology, because pedophilia has been with us for eons. Why do you think human females are basically phenotypically children?

Finally, if something is dangerous and provides no benefit beyond baseline, it's not morally right to engage in such a behavior. Legislation requires a stronger moral imperative, so maybe we don't illegalize it; but it probably isn't moral or acceptable behavior either.

[evogsr]

I'm not sure apes make the best subject for what we should model modern societies to when sex is the topic.

[Underverse]

I'm not sure apes make the best subject for what we should model modern societies to when sex is the topic.

I'm not arguing that their behavior is a determining factor; I'm simply presenting it as a line of evidence, alongside many other lines of evidence. My argument is one that errs on the side of sexual freedom; if you want to structure how people engage in sexual relations, you can feel free to make that argument, but I have no doubt it will be heavily subject to cultural whims.

[Revi]

Yes, yes you would. And I think smoking should be outlawed, and I think it will be, with time. Alcohol has other benefits - social lubrication, mostly, that have value to society. Bestiality does not have any value beyond baseline.

So I assume you're okay with people having sex with anyone post-puberty, given your idealistic 'playing, friends, homework' trifecta. So you've lowered the bar to ~12. Logically, I used to agree with that. But I've come to understand that sexual interactions are not innately harmful, not matter the age at which they take place. These organs are functional in all regards except reproduction from the moment we're born. I would rather see parents, like bonobos, use pleasure to calm their kids, instead of violence. Only in this fucked up post-agricultural culture do we think that violence is a more acceptable means of disciplining children. If you're so worried about mental effects, maybe you should start there.

So smoking should be illegal, but parents disciplining their kids by fucking them should be legal?

[Underverse]

So smoking should be illegal, but parents disciplining their kids by fucking them should be legal?

Context matters. If harm is caused, it needs to be justified with a benefit. The benefit to smoking is feeble at best.

I'm not advocating for rape. Rape is simply a destructive act. But my disdain for rape does not translate into a disdain for sex, or other sexual interactions. In the context of this argument, I would say sexual interactions to calm children would be permissible and preferable to spanking or psychological abuse in the form of isolation. That doesn't mean rape, beatings, or violence.

[evogsr]

I'm not arguing that their behavior is a determining factor; I'm simply presenting it as a line of evidence, alongside many other lines of evidence. My argument is one that errs on the side of sexual freedom; if you want to structure how people engage in sexual relations, you can feel free to make that argument, but I have no doubt it will be heavily subject to cultural whims.

No other species exemplifies the human species sexual behavior, other than humans. It's confusing to me how you could even come to the conclusion that it's a line of evidence by bridging to another species.

While pedophilia has existed through the ages, there's nothing to suggest that it was normal, and not viewed as anything but deviance.

[Revi]

Context matters. If harm is caused, it needs to be justified with a benefit. The benefit to smoking is feeble at best.

I'm not advocating for rape. Rape is simply a destructive act. But my disdain for rape does not translate into a disdain for sex, or other sexual interactions. In the context of this argument, I would say sexual interactions to calm children would be permissible and preferable to spanking or psychological abuse in the form of isolation. That doesn't mean rape, beatings, or violence.

You don't need to justify freedoms, you only need to justify taking them away. Smoking, apart from some very specific circumstances, is only harmful to the one choosing to do it.

I assume you want it banned because of secondary smoking, so justify it in the context of children. Do you think the overall negative impact of having a smoker for a parent is greater than the negative impact of having a parent who had sex with you since childhood?

How do you plan to combat grooming, psychological force, power imbalance, children being afraid to hurt their parents, and the countless other ways pedophilia and incest happens without physical force?

[Underverse]

No other species exemplifies the human species sexual behavior, other than humans. It's confusing to me how could you even come to the conclusion that it's a line of evidence.

While pedophilia has existed through the ages, there's nothing to suggest that it was normal, and not viewed as deviance.

No other species exactly mimics human sexual behavior, but that's in large part because of how cultures formed around the time sedentary settlements were being established. That is to say, our current sexual behaviors are subject to strong cultural forces and do not reflect sexual behaviors natural to humans. As we become a more sexually liberal culture, our behaviors will approach their natural norms.

Pedophilia/ephebophilia (which we don't differentiate between) has existed through the ages and indeed has been viewed as normal in numerous cultures, in some of which the prevalence of the behavior approached 100% (specifically, certain areas around the Greek isles as well as tribal societies in Papua New Guinea and Sub-Saharan Africa). But these historical examples still draw almost exclusively from post-agricultural societies or societies that have been heavily influenced by agriculturalists; a more objective view can be obtained by examining traits that we've evolved with, such as neoteny and sexual dimorphism.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't need to justify freedoms, you only need to justify taking them away. Smoking, apart from some very specific circumstances, is only harmful to the one choosing to do it.

I agree with your first statement. But smoking isn't only harmful to the smoker; he doesn't live in a vacuum, after all. You have second hand smoke to consider (which isn't just a problem for smoking households - it's rare to catch a breath of city air that isn't tainted with cigarette carcinogens). You have the cost of buying a pack to consider, which will pay for ads to hook more people and reduce the quality of their lives. You have medical costs to consider, which is a cost to all of society. Smoking isn't a one-dimensional issue. But that being said, the cost of legislation would be large, possibly too large to justify.

I assume you want it banned because of secondary smoking, so justify it in the context of children. Do you think the overall negative impact of having a smoker for a parent is greater than the negative impact of having a parent who had sex with you since childhood?

Yes. If that parent is nurturing and fosters positive traits, I see no reason for harm to be part of this calculation. Sexual interactions (not necessarily penetrative sex - that's quite rare in pre-pubertal individuals who are victims of sexual abuse, more common in ephebes) can serve as a powerful mechanism of pair bonding that can act to strengthen familial ties and improve trust between individuals - as long as you don't have a culture that condemns you as a victim with no agency, and your parents as rapists who are going to jail.

How do you plan to combat grooming, psychological force, power imbalance, children being afraid to hurt their parents, and the countless other ways pedophilia and incest happens without physical force?

The same way people combat rape and psychologically abusive relationships. Stop conflating clearly abusive situations with non-abusive situations. Unless you want to accept that pedophilia is not inherently harmful and discuss only the abuses of the system.

Also, I'm not just talking about violence. I'm talking about anything that's destructive.

[Anonymous1038853]

This is an incredibly unpopular opinion, but I do maintain the stance that incest should be legal. If two consenting adults want to bump uglies, then I feel that they should be allowed to do so. I mean, I think it's weird, but it's not inherently harmful.

[Revi]

Yes. If that parent is nurturing and fosters positive traits, I see no reason for harm to be part of this calculation. Sexual interactions (not necessarily penetrative sex - that's quite rare in pre-pubertal individuals who are victims of sexual abuse, more common in ephebes) can serve as a powerful mechanism of pair bonding that can act to strengthen familial ties and improve trust between individuals - as long as you don't have a culture that condemns you as a victim with no agency, and your parents as rapists who are going to jail.

Where are you getting this from? Certainly not anyone who has worked with victims of pedophilia or psychologists. Do you have a credibly source that you're basing this on?

The same way people combat rape and psychologically abusive relationships. Stop conflating clearly abusive situations with non-abusive situations. Unless you want to accept that pedophilia is not inherently harmful and discuss only the abuses of the system.

Also, I'm not just talking about violence. I'm talking about anything that's destructive.

So you expect the child to go to the police to report on their parents? Because that's how we combat rape and psychologically abusive relationships, by encouraging people to come forward and helping them once they do. You seriously expect children to do that? To their own parents?!

[evogsr]

No other species exactly mimics human sexual behavior, but that's in large part because of how cultures formed around the time sedentary settlements were being established. That is to say, our current sexual behaviors are subject to strong cultural forces and do not reflect sexual behaviors natural to humans. As we become a more sexually liberal culture, our behaviors will approach their natural norms.

Pedophilia/ephebophilia (which we don't differentiate between) has existed through the ages and indeed has been viewed as normal in numerous cultures, in some of which the prevalence of the behavior approached 100% (specifically, certain areas around the Greek isles as well as tribal societies in Papua New Guinea and Sub-Saharan Africa). But these historical examples still draw almost exclusively from post-agricultural societies or societies that have been heavily influenced by agriculturalists; a more objective view can be obtained by examining traits that we've evolved with, such as neoteny and sexual dimorphism.

I'm sorry, just don't buy it. I've never read anything that had an anthropological account of antiquated human sexual behavior remotely suggesting what you are. At least nothing that is accepted or qualified by that field. The junk I have read, almost always has a known apologists name attached to it and adheres to fringe.