Taboos

[duchess of malfi]

Now dennis - maybe this guy was just wishing the chicken a happy birthday.

just a Think Tank joke.

[dennisrwood]

Kym: I had been a veggie in the past, and one night after having trapped a mouse on the glue pads and disposing of the poor creature I prayed. I asked God for a sign if He wanted me to give up eating dead animals. so while riding to work the next morning I prayed again for a sign. I looked to our right and running at full speed parallel to our car but over a hundred yards away was a beautiful deer in a cow field, in a part of the highway that I haven't seen a deer in in the eight total years before or since. he ran with a few minutes and we passed. I asked my wife if she saw that, and she said no. so I told her the whole story. at first she had a lot of trouble with it. we argued about it. one night a month or so later we were driving back from Houston, and she asked me if I was sure God had set me a sign. well not minutes later a deer ran in front of our car and into the woods on our left. again, a road we commonly use. all times of day, and not have seen a deer before or since. well we sat stunned, and my wife quoted my signature, when she had to slow down because a cat ran in front of the car. in an area with no houses for a bit. I joked that God had run out of deer. well she stopped arguing the point and embraced my conversion. in fact she eats little meat now, going days without. and the odd thing? no one questions it. I thought her very conservative, hunting family would say something. not a thing, and they know the whole story. her sister and brother -in-law are hunters, they had a veggie Thanksgiving for me. (in addition to their traditional one, but hey!) aI don't miss it much. I regreted not having tried sushi, and Julie found a restaurant that does veggie Sushi. (they use sea salt and seaweed to mimic the fish) so all is good.

duchess: maybe they have different ways of saying howdy where he lives?

[Avatar]

Great story Dennis. Thanks for sharing it. But back to the chicken guy, why is it wrong? The chicken is dead, what business of ours is it how someone chooses to "stimulate" himself? Nobody (not even the chicken) is being harmed and I can think of far more objectionable and dangerous fetishes.

As we've said elsewhere, I don't think that people get to choose what will arouse them. Hell, we don't know why certain things do it for some people, and if we can ever hope to, I think it's a long way away.

And as for incest, (I want ot be very clear that I'm talking consensual here), it's only wrong in the genetic sense of an increased possibility of producing defective offspring. If it's guarenteed that no offspring will result, why should we care who sleeps with who?

It's nobodies business but their own. Of course, arguments can be made for psychological damage, even given a consensual relationship, but I hardly think we're in the position to evalutae the effect on themselves that others actions have on them.

The only person in that position is the person concerned. I'm always opposed to the "I know whats best for you" mentality.

--Avatar

[The Leper Fairy]

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

[CovenantJr]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.13.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

[Avatar]

And?

Opinions! We need opinions!

--A

[matrixman]

TLF and CovJr are minimalists.

[Avatar]

A noble goal I suppose, but not much room for comment.

--A

[dennisrwood]

Avatar:
both are wrong cause the bible tells me so?

now seriously. humping chickens implies some sort of deviency. the man is not wired right. he should be desiring sex between himself and a consenting adult. I won't argue homosexuality, but sex is for two adults. not a dead animal. does the guy have some sort of necropheliac going on here. any shrink would ask that this guy get help.

incest is a cultural thing, no? what societies allow it? and since you can't marry your sister, it is just selfish sex anyway. no chance for marriage. no chance for normal procreation. which do you want me to argue here?

[Avatar]

now seriously. humping chickens implies some sort of deviency. the man is not wired right. he should be desiring sex between himself and a consenting adult. I won't argue homosexuality, but sex is for two adults. not a dead animal. does the guy have some sort of necropheliac going on here. any shrink would ask that this guy get help.

But you're assuming that there is some "right" way of being wired. What about the guy who gets aroused by high-heeled shoes? Hell, it could be considered a bizarre form of masturbation. It's not normal by societies norms, certainly. But that doesn't make it wrong. The only legitimate way to judge wrong is by the harm it causes. No harm, no foul. ( )

incest is a cultural thing, no? what societies allow it? and since you can't marry your sister, it is just selfish sex anyway. no chance for marriage. no chance for normal procreation. which do you want me to argue here?

Off the top of my head, no societies encourage it, or even explicitly allow it. What difference does that make? If a million people believe a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. Marriage and lack of procreation are not sufficient reasons to deny it. Otherwise sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to engage in sex either.

Sex is quite capable of being a good in and of itself. Your description of it as selfish is neither here nor there. It's an assumption about the participants which they would, no doubt, take unkindly if they were real. It's up to them to decide the value thereof, and only they are in a position to do so. As long as it's consensual, and no harm accrues to either by their own lights, it's none of my business.

--Avatar

[duchess of malfi]

The only cultures that I know of that allow immediate family incest/marriage allowed it for only certain people -- such as the royal family in ancient Egypt (and also ancient Hawaii if I remember correctly). The royals were thought to be related to the gods, and the bloodlines were to be kept "pure".

Many cultures actually are much more restrictive than ours (meaning western European civ) in terms of degrees of relatedness of cousins, etc. who are allowed to marry.

I've only had a few anthro classes, and those years ago, though, so hopefully Kins can pop in and correct me if I have remembered this incorrectly.

The thing with the chicken grosses me out because of the disease possibilities. I would actually be more grossed out, however, if the chicken were still alive. Animals cannot be consensual sex partners by definition, with the possible exceptions of those great apes who have learned sign language.

[dennisrwood]

and since the ergo can not consent while alive, or when dead, then the man is forcing the act upon the chicken? and dead it seems like a double force of will by the man. necropoultrism must be stopped.

Avatar: some of still believe that sex is for procreation.

[Kinslaughterer]

In terms of incestual relationships, many small populations have engaged in such activities. Some polynesian cultures still practice very open sexual experimentations particularly young adults not unlike bonobos.
Bonobos by the way practice non-procreation sexual activity and frequently lesbian behavior.

By the way if you believe the Bible then we started from just 2, somebody was having an incestuous relationship...
Oddly enough a few avian species practice rape, necrophilia, and homosexual encounters. God sure made some weird creatures...

[Avatar]

He sure did. Including man.

If I recall, the bible provided some "extra" people for the sons of Adam to marry. It doesn't say where they came from, but there's definitley a reference to the children (or was it daughters) of somebody.

If I recall, the standard chistian rebuttal is that the bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve were the only people created, just that they were the first.

Dennis-- So no sex for the sterile?

As I said earlier, if communicable disease was an issue, then there is a discernable harm, which makes it "wrong" in that sense alone. I'd also have a problem if it was a live chicken, because the chicken would certainly be harmed.

BTW Kin, historically, the Zulu tribe also practiced non-procreative sexual activity, (although not, as far as I know, incestually), and according to legend, the famous king, Chaka, was born by "accident" after just such activity, leading to him being ostracised as a child.

--Avatar

[SoulQuest1970]

As I was taught in Catholic school going against the Baltimore Catachism, The stories in Genisis, etc, were stories and legends passed down through oral tradtion and therefore not to be taken literally. The whole Adam and Eve thing was supposed to make a point and is not historical. There may be historical basics to it, but it is a story none the less.

[danlo]

incest is a cultural thing, no?

Just look what happened to the British Monarchy

You said "oral"! (Beavis and Butthead tittering commences )

"Thou shall not pick one's nose during intercourse"





oh and btw.......

[dennisrwood]

Soulquest is correct, we Catholics don't take Genesis as a straight history. and I belive that the land of Nod is mentioned, so there were other towns it seems.

and I defy anyone to tell me a chicken humper doesn't have some sort of psychological problems.

Avatar: if for whatever reason you are not fertile, you are still allowed to have marital relations. I was trying to show the historical reasons against incest. nad I can't think of too many (if any) incestial relationships that don't cause many problems for the people involved.

[Kinslaughterer]

I'm not suggesting that we take a literal interpretation of the Bible (far from it)

I'm not about to defend sex with dead chickens either, but it really doesn't have anything to do with me. It can be classified as "abnormal"

Genetically speaking, "inbreeding" or incestual relationships are not particularly bad unless a recessive genetic defect is present in the founder's of the line. If there are no defects then there is no real problem. Again I'm not defending incestual relationships they are another cultural taboo.

[Avatar]

Exactly my point there Kin. A cultural taboo, albeit rooted in sound genetic practices, it is only through the need for those practices that it could be considered "wrong". If children are not the issue, then it's just sex between two consenting adults.

--A

[TRC]

Darn now that is going to be acceptable, and I don't have a sister. Anyone have one I can borrow ?