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

all 74 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

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

Oh, they’re not saying “incest is good”. They’re saying “making Elsa and Anna fuck in a fanfic is the same thing as actually fucking your sister”.

[–]On_WheelsWe need to secure the existence of the gay race 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What is it with so many people on the internet not being able to distinguish between fiction and reality. I think the lack of grass touching is starting to do considerable damage to them.

[–]GrilledTofuIdentifying as a block of tofu 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't get this either but it's becoming too common.

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

To be fair I too would also only be able to ship pairings that I would support or consider ethical in real life as well.

So uh yeah actually that means I’d only ever consider shipping same-sex or adoptive siblings while never dare touching the opposite-sex equivalent.

Turns out that yes Patricia, promoting and encouraging inbreeding is actually wrong, whudda thunk!

What’s funny is that the majority of fandom seems to implicitly understand this as well seeing as how when incest does get shipped, it’s usually either gay or adoptive. There are very, very few straight incest pairs being shipped unless it’s something already canon to the source material (Such as Game Of Thrones) because most normal people are able to acknowledge and comprehend that biology and biological differences exist compared to these woketards.

[–]IMissPorn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But also, "if you think Elsa and Anna fucking is OK because they can't have kids, you're literally Hitler".

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

Imagine actually wanting to give your kids a potentially life-threatening disability.

Couldn’t be me~ 💅

Then again this is from the same group of people who really want to make fucking “Transabled” an actual thing so should we really be that suprised?

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

Which should be considered fine in both fiction and reality so long as you’re both consenting adults, since it’s not like you can inbreed anyways.

But no, the wokies want to ignore reality and pretend that there are no biological differences or even repercussions at all because that’s insert SJW buzzword here.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (60 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 -  (53 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 -  (8 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.

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

But what about lesbian twins?

[–]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.

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

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

I’m not, as long as it’s gay and between consenting adults of a similar age.

Straight incest will always be nasty and unnatural as fuck though because us straights, due to having a reproductive imperative are literally wired to find our close relatives sexually repulsive in order to preserve our species. (Since being a two-sex species we survive via genetic diversity)

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

You’re right. Gay incest is seen as worse. But both are bad.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Yeah. Gay incest seems less of a problem due to that, but there is a slippery slope of rationalization from "...well, if gay incest is okay because there won't be a child born of it...then by that logic, opposite-sex incest should be okay as long as they practice safe sex....and by that logic, if the woman takes the pill or the man has a vasectomy, then they should be able to have unprotected sex....and if we're saying unprotected opposite-sex incest is fine, who cares if they use protection?"

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. All incest should be banned.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Biologically speaking even if we did allow only gay incest that will never happen, because the straight majority has a built in biological mechanism in place that makes us find our close blood relatives as sexually repulsive in order to promote genetic diversity. ( Google The Westernmarck Effect)

A few countries actually have decriminalized same-sex incest while still making straight incest illegal and they’ve never had to worry about a slippery slope. Turns out you’d have to be quite literally insane and in the running for The Darwin Award if you as a heterosexual are sexually attracted to either your sibling, parent or (god-forbid) child.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I want to believe you, but the stats would worry about Westermarck Effect covering this [it is kind of...conveeeeeeeeeeenient...that we're only seeing this rise of support for incest after incest/"no, no, they're only step-family, honest!"] porn became popular enough to be notable.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I want to believe you, but the stats would worry about Westermarck Effect covering this

Where the fuck is there suddenly such a big increase in (heterosexual) incest? Isn’t it still one of the rarest things in the world? (Not counting cousin marriages)

[–]PenseePansy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Where the fuck is there suddenly such a big increase in (heterosexual) incest? Isn’t it still one of the rarest things in the world? (Not counting cousin marriages)

I don't know about a big increase, but no-- it isn't esp. rare, and never has been... unfortunately. At least if we're talking about fathers (and even more particularly stepfathers) preying on their minor daughters. Also other male adults in a girl's family: uncles; grandfathers. When you're talking about incest... that's the prototypical example of it. Which, being male/female, really does fly in the face of the idea that there's any great aversion to it based on reproductive considerations. (And of course, with a stepfather, genetics aren't even a factor.) The aversion in contemporary culture is mainly because it's child molestation, and in a context where the child is even more vulnerable than usual-- because the man molesting her is someone whom she's emotionally, and legally, dependent on; one of the very people she has a right to look to for protection. It's a terrible betrayal of a child.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

stepfather

While definitely an inappropriate and unethical grooming relationship, I don’t count this as incest so for me the point here is moot.

Fathers, Grandfathers and Uncles

Question, is Grandfather or Uncle heterosexual incest more common than father/daughter? As much as it creeps me out to admit it I would imagine the Westernmarck Effect doesn’t extend outside of first-degree relatives (so like parents and full siblings) I mean stuff like cousin and half-sibling marriage has been a historical norm for a reason, perhaps the genetic relatedness in the case of extended family members is just distant enough to offset any potential for inbreeding side-effects and so our species hasn’t yet developed an effective innate aversion to it like we have for 1st degree incest?

The father/daughter cases being as common as you tell me is what really astounds me, why isn’t the Westermarck Effect working on these men? Unless Paternity Uncertainty makes it so that a father can never truly know if his daughters are actually his daughters and that might be a factor here in the decreased aversion to first-degree incest?

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

While definitely an inappropriate and unethical grooming relationship, I don’t count this as incest so for me the point here is moot.

I consider it incest because it's driven by the same factors as with incestuous fathers (see below).

Question, is Grandfather or Uncle heterosexual incest more common than father/daughter?

Hard to say; it's my impression that father/daughter is the most common. Which, yes, contradicts the Westermarck Effect... but there are other factors at play here, specifically cultural ones. Never forget that being the one species to possess conceptual intelligence means that our behavior is shaped not only by evolution and biology, but also by ideas. Including ones that are wrong. In both sense of the word. As well as destructive and, sometimes, just fucking stupid. Like the "trans" train wreck! And, indeed, "gender" as a whole. That's the ideology underpinning the incestuous abuse of girls. Which leads me to:

The father/daughter cases being as common as you tell me is what really astounds me, why isn’t the Westermarck Effect working on these men?

Because something else is working on them, and it's stronger: gender roles. The ancient, pervasive system of sex-based stereotypes which classify "female" as inferior and "male" as superior. Female people are seen primarily in terms of the value given them by male people; since most male people are straight, this is fundamentally sexual. Most men don't extend this rule to their daughters, of course... but, unsurprisingly, quite a few do. Because that's what girls are for, in their minds (and it's one logical way of reading gender roles, tbf).

Which is the basic reason why I hate gender-woo. And everything that arises from it. Because this is the original evil ideology. Whether anyone tries to disguise it with colorful, New! Improved!TM packaging or not.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That's slightly different from what I'm saying. There isn't a big increase in heterosexual incest yet, BUT, considering that incest porn has exploded as a genre in the last decade, that obviously says there IS a big increase of people who are turned on by the thought of incest...and if that number of people who are turned on by that rises, it stands to reason there will eventually be a rise in people who manage to succeed at it.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Is this straight incest in particular that’s exploded or gay?

If it is straight is it an actual emphasis on being blood-related or is it more of a Step family fetish thing?

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It usually tends to be straight incest that is seen a lot (though gay incest porn isn't uncommon either.)

For the straight part, it depends on where it's made. Fanfiction/fanart will do more outright blood-related stuff (and it's important the rise started through hentai doujinshi which did have it as blood-related to kick it into overdrive.) Actual humans in porn, it's step family fetish stuff, but I still don't consider that a good excuse considering how many times the step fetish shit will have a scene with multiple partners, and how when this happens, each partner in the scene are sold as step-relatives of each other in a "...yeah, after you have more than about 3 people in the scene, you're not fooling anyone. If you have to have some incredibly intricate family tree of who's parent married who to explain how they're all not blood-related step-family, we all kind of know some of the people in that scene are supposed to be blood-related and engaging in incest together."

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

Lesbian incest still sounds kinda hot.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

How is gay incest bad exactly when incest only developed as a taboo in the first place in order to promote genetic diversity to keep the species alive? (Since we produce sexually rather than asexually)

Homosexuals are already wired not to reproduce so I really don’t see what the problem is here. Why should a purely reproductive based taboo even apply to them?

This is of course assuming you’re only talking about siblings or cousins, shit like parent/child will always be immoral but even then that’s less because of the incest and more because of the fundamentally unequal power-dynamic.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

People think it's bad for the same reason some think normal gays are bad: "I don't like it so that makes it bad".

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Yep, my rule of thumb is that so long as it’s consenting adults and not harming anyone (so no potential for inbreeding) then it’s kosher and they can go hog-wild for all I care!

Considering how the wokies love to Pride (kek) themselves on how “un-bigoted” and “tolerant” they are I’m surprised they’ve yet to extend this same courtesy to consenting adult gay incest.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

They're not un-bigoted and tolerant. All they do is silence dissent, and they don't even know anything about the "minorities" they think they're fighting for. The only thing that matters is their political agenda, and they only reinforce stereotypes and misconceptions by defending them against all common sense. Right now their favorite is trans people...the fact that they're pushing all this weird "social construct" and "identity" stuff, or even worse, that's it's not a bad thing or even good, proves they have no idea what they're talking about, it's all misconceptions and stereotypes. In 2020 it really picked up with race, when all the media cheered on the rioting in the name of black people. And of course racism started gaining a lot more popularity after that, actually it started a whole chain reaction that completely destroyed the entire conservative platform, where they abandoned all patriotism and freedom and rights almost overnight, suddenly advocating for nothing but the use of government to force "traditional values" on everyone like the caricature leftists used to make of them. I know this is not only online as I've observed the same changes irl, people who changed their minds about freedom when they saw "anarchists" rioting for the left, even though those "anarchists" were actually the same socialist SJW tyrants they used to recognize as the threat. But those kinds of incidents create fear and panic, and I suppose people had no time to think any further about the matter and simply took the rioters' word for it what they stood for, and also tried to make a quick reaction by simply doing the opposite. I believe this has been a conspiracy for a very long time and was done on purpose to take over the Republican party just like the Democratic party was taken over decades ago.

And what exactly is there to be proud of in a sexuality? The answer is nothing, it just makes it look stupid; but it's very useful for political purposes.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

This is all well and good and I agree with you but that still doesn’t answer the question of why they apparently advocate for all non-offending, consensual adult relationships yet somehow make an exception for gay incest? Do they really not recognize the cognitive dissonance involved in that?

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Because they don't find them useful for their agenda.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

They’re just as gay as all the rest of their beloved LGBTQ+ alphabet soup though so why shouldn’t they embrace them?

It’s not like they’re the gay pedos that diddle kids, so they’re not directly hurting their agenda either.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You’re right. Gay incest is seen as worse. But both are bad.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You’re right. Gay incest is seen as worse. But both are bad.

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

Yes. I can only bring myself to ship incest if it’s either the same-sex or adopted, and that goes for supporting such couples in real life as well.

Heterosexual incest will always be a fucked inbred mess that literally goes against our very biology. (As a species that reproduces via genetic diversity)

Incidentally I’m not the only one with this opinion either, it’s a pretty common view-point, certain countries like Germany, Ireland and Hong Kong criminalize hetero incest but allow homo, and even fandom implicitly acknowledges this difference because you’ll see wayy more same-sex incest ships than the opposite.

That’s not to say opposite-sex incest doesn’t get shipped but it’s in the minority and is usually done in tandem with the same degenerate freaks who ship pedophilia.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nothing degenerate about buggery...

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

buggery

?

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

Countries like Hong Kong, Germany and Ireland seem to think so considering they outlawed all heterosexual incest while decriminalizing it’s same sex counterpart.

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

I don't know too much about Hong Kong, but Germany and Ireland are part of the American sphere of influence, the Gay Afro-Zionist Empire (GAZE), where homosexuality is privileged across the board.

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

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.

I don’t know… call me an evil biological essentialist and utilitarian but I think we should do what countries like Hong-Kong, Germany and Ireland do and legalize incest for consenting adult same-sex couples only, and also remove the stigma when applied to them. (This of course would only apply to sibilings or cousins close in age, intergenerational incest like parent/child is too rife for abuse and grooming to ever be safely legalized, same-sex or not)

Do homosexuals even experience the Westernmarck Effect like heteros do? I mean the only reason we’ve evolved to be repulsed by incest is because we’re a sexually dimorphic two-sex species who reproduces sexually rather than asexually, thus requiring genetic diversity and too much inbreeding pretty much would spell the end of our species. But homosexuals are already born without a reproductive imperative, they’re the small portion of any given population literally wired NOT to reproduce (my theory is that this gene developed in order to prevent overpopulation) so why should or would a purely based reproductive taboo even apply to them?

It’s time to bring back acknowledging biological differences and set double (but fair) standards that make sense for these differences, maybe that’ll finally wake up this generation and get us off this wild ride of A Woke New World - make biology and science matter again!

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't know. Homosexuality is probably some kind of disorder, and they evidently still have reproductive instincts, or they wouldn't mate at all, like myself. The only difference with heterosexuality seems to be the attraction to the "wrong" sex. This would exclude pseudo-homsexuality though, such as people who are trying to be trendy, or are only "gay" because they have a fetish for it.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Homosexuality is probably some kind of disorder

No, it’s just another natural wiring or else it wouldn’t be seen in most species.

and they evidently still have reproductive instincts, or they wouldn’t mate at all, like myself.

No if they had reproductive instincts they would quite literally be straight, or even bi.

Is this your way of saying you’re asexual?

For what it’s worth I personally think it’s the exact same gene that contributes to all these different reproductive mitigating orientations such as homo/bi/trans and yes even ace, but just manifested differently. (Or maybe not to as strong an extent as in the case of bisexuals)

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, it’s just another natural wiring or else it wouldn’t be seen in most species.

Other species don't have disorders?

No if they had reproductive instincts they would quite literally be straight, or even bi.

Then why do they try to mate? That's an instinct designed to make a person reproduce, even if it's not their intended goal.

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

Other species don't have disorders?

Correct so homosexuality shouldn’t be considered a disorder.

Then why do they try to mate? That's an instinct designed to make a person reproduce, even if it's not their intended goal.

I believe there’s a certain reproductive inhibiting gene out there that manifests itself in different ways - some of it is complete asexuality and the absentation of sex itself, another way is still having that sexual urge but directing it towards the “wrong” gender, and still others is the individual in question having a brain that is more wired akin to the opposite sex which causes severe body dysphoria and makes them cease using their reproductive organs.

Regardless of how it manifests the end result is still the same: prevent a selected portion of the population from reproducing at all costs in order to maintain species-wide population stability.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

By that logic nothing is a disorder because everything is for natural selection's agenda. No matter how terrible of a burden it is on the individual, as long as it's meant for natural selection.

Luckily abnormal sexuality isn't usually problematic but that doesn't mean it's intended.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

>implying there's anything at all wrong with eugenics

[–]IMissPorn 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For real, eugenics got a bad rap. Just because it can be taken too far, doesn't mean you shouldn't try to ensure your kids are healthy.

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

Not wanting to inbreed isn’t even eugenics, it’s just being an actually sane, normal individual who is doing what our species was built to do - reproduce through diversity.

If we all started inbreeding the human race would literally die out, do the wokesters want to drive us to extinction? Because this is how you get extinction.

[–]jet199 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Even chimpanzees have a taboo against incest, and they don't have words.

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

Chimpanzees are now ableist shitlords that deserve to be cancelled! /s

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Tumblr is poison.