consent or agency has nothing to do with it, it's a violation of purity norms
-
-
Replying to @alicemazzy
Yeah but purity norms don't develop for no reason
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @sonyaellenmann
I could speculate on origins, but there's an important distinction between harm (rape, murder) and purity (cannibalism, incest) norms
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alicemazzy @sonyaellenmann
it isn't important that there isn't a "victim" given mutual consent (people who argue about prion disease or inbred children miss the point)
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @sonyaellenmann
I mean that because people are used to thinking of widely proscribed actions in terms of harm done, when it comes to purity violations, they...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alicemazzy @sonyaellenmann
...(if they are arguing said violations ought to be punished) try to construct the violation in terms of harm norms because it's how they think of transgression
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alicemazzy @sonyaellenmann
eg "close relation incest is wrong because it could produce a malformed child, the victim of the action!" what if they use birth control and if it fails abort? "there's still a chance!" etc
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alicemazzy @sonyaellenmann
when the right argument is, it's banned because it's so disgusting that it offends our sensibilities as a society
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alicemazzy @sonyaellenmann
So arbitrary tho. “Societal sensibilities” change ~every generation
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
not arbitrary, the prevalence longevity and frequent independent emergence of incest/cannibalism taboos would suggest there is an underlying mechanism
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.