It is bigotry redolent of the fundies to bring up this stuff. (Though as I said some of them are more progressive.) It's just an attempt to smear practices you don't like by association. I'd guess that (almost ?) everyone here thinks that these practices are really icky even if, as with consensual adult incest, they are harmless.
As I said before, you don't need an explanation for not doing something (harmless) because you think it is icky. Just don't do it, then. If you thought it was icky, it wouldn't turn on people who like it do it with you, and they wouldn't want to do it with you.
But it's also inappropriate to excoriate others who do like it because they don't think it is icky. Actually it is worse than inappropriate. It is puritanical. Reactionary. Bigoted. Wrong. Vile. In fact, icky. As you would think -- I hope! -- if someone here laid into Brian because he's gay (as well as kinky), suggesting that it is bad for boys to like boys.
In connection with your comment that moral philosophy is a rationalization of our icks and that's OK. Yes, but as you also know, it is only the judgments we'd want to make reflectively that we keep in our moral philosophy. Pre-reflective judgments about which questions arise and that cannot be explained, justified, and defended, ought to be discarded.
So if all you have is the ick, that should make you reconsider. And that is all you have with kink, apart from some bad analogies and pseudo-Hegelian doubletalk from Kovel and Ted. You needn't reconsider the ick as far as yourself goes -- no one is asking you into a dungeon -- but the judgment that it is anything more than a wholly personal preference, like some people's taste for boys or girls or blondes or African-Americans or partners with big cocks or small tits.
--- Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --
> You still haven't said whether you think something
> is
> "wrong" with necrophilia or incest between
> consenting
> adults, and if so, why, considering that no one is
> harmed by them. I have no problem with saying that
> they are in some sense "wrong." For that matter I
> have
> no problem with saying that being a racist is in
> some
> sense "wrong," even if that racism is never acted
> upon
> and no one is harmed by it. Is it "wrong" for a
> pedophile to lust after children, even if that
> impulse
> is never acted upon (which I'm sure is probably the
> case with a lot of pedophiles)? I think most people
> here would say "yes."
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com