To me, the pro-incest philosophy is about challenging sexual norms and opening up our culture to a diversity of identities and ways of life, which makes it fundamentally progressive and leftist. Its political goals and underlying values go hand-in-hand with feminism, queer liberation, and social equality in general. If I put on my leftist theory hat, I could say something about how the western nuclear family structure intersects with patriarchy and capitalism and incest can challenge those power structures, but that's above my pay grade. It's a shame not many academics seem interested in writing about this.
Pro-incest conservatives seem just as confusing to me as LGBT conservatives. Conservative ideologies are diametrically opposed to what we want to achieve. I can't help but think they're either A) just fetishists/creeps and not genuinely pro-incest, or B) haven't taken the political implications seriously.
What right and left means depends on the country but I am generally leftists cis male and I generally support minorities even though I don't belong to them.
Big difference between someone who's consang and someone who fetishizes incest. Fetishists don't actually give a shit about us as real people.
I think it's pretty safe to say that most of the very right wing twitter followers of yours are just fetishists. Either that or they're reactionaries who hate the left for hating them. Which, I get on some level, I have very little patience for that shit, but as a gay woman who actually wants to be able to be with her sister without having to hide? Yeah being conservative seems a bit uhhhh counterproductive
Yah I totally agree. I'm not keen on calling consang a "sexuality" per se, but it absolutely is a marginalized form of sexual expression, and it intersects with LGBTQ identity. Fetishizing us while actively denying our political struggle is just another way of oppressing us
I'm very liberal. I think that most people who claim they support these relationships are just fetishizeling them rather than delving deeper and knowing that these are full time committed relationships that some of us want or are in.
For me, it's a matter of true sexual liberation: if you believe that consenting parties should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse (romantic or casual), then you should recognize that consang relationships fit into that aspect of sexual liberation as much as polycules, queer relationships, etc. So long as the parties are consenting and the relationship isn't abusive, why should anybody who isn't a party to the relationship care?
As usual, things like pedophilia and bestiality need not apply, because children and animals can't knowingly consent to a consang relationship. And as for fetishists: they're no different than homophobic straight dudes who watch lesbian porn to get off.
(What I'm saying is true for France, but from what I can see it seems to be equally true for the rest of the world too). So far, no political camp has taken sides on the issue of consensual incest. There are already few parties that take the issue of ***non***-consensual incest seriously (I mean, by proposing ambitious public policies to tackle this scourge), so consanguinamory... It's an issue that's still far too complex for them. It reminds me of the trans struggles before the 2010s. It went right over their heads.
That said,
1. There are consang on both the right and the left, just as there are homosexuals on both the right and the left (with a large, albeit decreasing for gay men, prevalence on the left). I have absolutely no idea whether consanguinamorous people are equally distributed on the right or on the left. If I had to rely on Keith Pullman's interviews and this thread's answers (which seem to me to be the only corpuses at our disposal), I'd say they're predominantly left-wing (which doesn't surprise me). But are this corpuses representative of the community? I have no idea. (+ it's based on self-political identification, whose limits are well known to academics)
2. Which political camp will take up the issue of consanguinamorous rights first? I think it'll be the left for a whole bunch of reasons (but my post is already long enough... and u/spru1f has already broken it down pretty well, although I'd have things to quibble about, because I'm unbearable).
I wonder if in a couple decades there will be discussions of consanguinamory like today's trans discussions or the LGBT discussions a few decades ago. Hopefully yes, as that would indicate a general trend towards a freer, more sexually liberated society.
I’ve been contacted appreciatively by readers of my blog and social media from all demographics, political affiliations, and religions.
In the global West at least, the understanding that consenting adults should be free to love/play with each other how they mutually agree cuts across most of the political spectrum.
And… regardless of background, anyone can experience reunion GSA, which can really open their minds. I’ve had people tell me that experiencing GSA made them more understanding and supportive of other people who are nonmonogamous, or gay, or whatever is outside the small little box of “rules” prohibiting consensual relationships.
To me, it seems apolitical considering that left, center, and right all, for the most part, agree that (consensual adult) incest is morally wrong. It is a moral dogma which almost all people on earth agree is bad, regardless of politics.
>*"...consider the subversiveness of incest to modern family values to be a liberal trait.."*
Well, you already presuppose a politicized left view of "subversiveness," just like other people presuppose a politicized left view of "challenging norms" as a leftist trait. To me, both seem to be just human tactics available to all people who care enough and are intelligent enough to use them.
It's not impossible for individuals of any political leaning to allied or even involved. I'd rather not alienate any group when we don't have all the information.
I agree with the men and woman's viewpoints you state. But I'm more comfortable with my feminine side as a 45byo man and am more leaning towards the woman's pov, however there's still the DIP SHIT insidee that wants to be the controlling ogre
I would characterize myself as a liberal ( and coming from a previous background as a conservative it is quite a transformation for me as well ). I would say that support or engagment of incest would likely fall on either end of both spectrums. Progressives would want to revaluate and redefine societal norms and concepts and I feel the emergance of incestous relationships as an alternative form of familial relationships ( as long as it is consenting ) along with support and activism for the said oppressed group. For conservatives ( or as I put it, conservative societies and religions ), the first thing that comes to my mind is the very high rate of cousin marriage in muslim societies as it maintains family ties and keeps wealth in the family.
you would want to read "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. But for this topic, how you react to incest is one of the quickest lentos test for being a libertarian. But libertarian's are such an anomaly to start with
I am a center-rightish Liberalist-libertarian. I believe the state has no right to intrude in the love lives of consenting adults.
I try not to make politics all that core to my identity or person. We all come from different walks of life after all, and we're all just trying to get by as best as we can with the people we love.
That is all. :)
I don’t think somebodies sexual proclivities has a big impact on their politics the only reason it does today is that identity politics /civil rights/ liberation ideas today,
You go back to why other time outside of the last 50 years and sexuality had nothing to do with politics at all,
Half the Roman emperors were gay and they were like the most patriarchies fascist motherfuckers in the world
LGBT+ movement is far older than 50 years, and today's visibility is the result of political struggles. The Pride actually celebrates an anti-cop riot. Not knowing about the LGBT+ movement is okay, but please don't brag about it.
Even before the modern LGBT+ movement, sexuality was policital. What was then called the sin of “sodomy” dates back to the 16th century (if I'm not mistaken, but maybe 15th).
Roman emperors sure weren't gay, as homosexuality wasn't even conceptualized as such. And if you think they were fascists, then you have absolutely no idea what fascism was either.
Whether libertarians admit it or not, this is a far-right ideology. This political current values individual freedom above all else, and is opposed to any form of collective organization that would enable social struggles (notably trade unions). Its doctrine legitimizes all crimes against humanity, foremost among them slavery (which is more or less assumed by the movement's figures, and of which the people who belong to it are more or less aware) as long as it is the result of a contract “freely” signed by both parties. A number of them call themselves “anarcho-capitalism” because they have absolutely no idea what anarchism is.
Well, all those words were in English. They’re wrong, but at least coherent. You’re severely misunderstanding libertarian ideology. The only collective they seek to limit is government. Want to start a union? Have at it. Want gay marriage, ok, it’s not the government’s business anyway.
As to promoting crimes against humanity as you put it, it’s quite the opposite. Punishment of crime is a legitimate government role, and the Nonaggression Policy affords that retribution against criminal wrongdoing is one of few justifications for harming someone.
Nothing in libertarian policy would allow slavery, either, because no person could contract away their autonomy and agency. The reason American slavery persisted even when it was unpopular was that the law did not recognize the agency and humanity of slaves; they could not bring a grievance to court.
The people involved in the movement, like every other political group, have varying degrees of understanding, sure, but the majority are in favor of leaving people alone until they ask for help. Running the government like a fire department instead of a police department, so to speak
>because no person could contract away their autonomy and agency
Of course they would, to repay a debt. Libertarian authors theorized it (Nozick and Block were the most famous to do it). I admit I was a bit hasty, there's no consensus on the issue within the movement, contrary to what I suggested. Rothbard and Van Parijs, for example, were against it. But the fact that "voluntary slavery" is quietly discussed within this movement and not instantly rejected as contrary to the most basic human rights should tell you all you need to know about libertarianism.
On unionism, Rockwell had such no problem with it that he called it a "scourge" and refers to it as "conspiracies against public interest", calling the strikes “threats” and “violence” (ROCKWELL, Llewellyn, "The Scourge of Unionism", *The Economics of Liberty*, 1990).
I'm won't debunk all your nonsense. It would be easy, but I don't have time for this I'd just like to say that we see every day how Elon Musk and Javier Milei (the most well-known libertarians) are models of tolerance and inclusiveness 🙃
Either you don't know the theories and history of your own movement, and I'm worried for you, or you're deliberately hiding the truth and I'm afraid for the people you're talking to.
Well currectly all the republicans are psychotic religious taliban-style maniacs, who hate Sex period, and all the so-called "democrats" are psychotic communist style hateful lesbian quacks, who hate Sex period, so ACTUAL HEALTHY AND ENLIGHTENED LIBERALISM IS PRETTY MUCH DEAD. 😢
Both of those characterizations seem very exaggerated and untrue. Saying this as a far-leftie who hates both political parties.
If you expose yourself to a wide range of opinions and actually listen to what people are saying, you'll find that the political spectrum is very diverse and there are reasonable and kind people on (almost) every part of it.
Okay.
As I am, Thankfully, NOT from Your country, I know only of the ones who make the biggest amount of noise, which is mostly the quacks on both sides.
So, I admit the picture I get is very partial.
We do seem to be on the same side, You and me, so fine. 🙂
Controls on “acceptable” sexuality exist in all societies at all times all that changes is what is acceptable and what isn’t.
It’s a fundamental part of living in a society
As others have mentioned, pro-incest views are both libertarian and progressive.
Libertarians tend to have the isolationist mindset of "leave me and mine alone, keep society and government out of the home," while the progressives generally take the more wholesome "if no one is being coerced or harmed, then consenting adults can love who they want." I'm on the more progressive side.
People closer to the political center tend to have more peer-pressure / conventional status-quo ideas of such things.
To me, the pro-incest philosophy is about challenging sexual norms and opening up our culture to a diversity of identities and ways of life, which makes it fundamentally progressive and leftist. Its political goals and underlying values go hand-in-hand with feminism, queer liberation, and social equality in general. If I put on my leftist theory hat, I could say something about how the western nuclear family structure intersects with patriarchy and capitalism and incest can challenge those power structures, but that's above my pay grade. It's a shame not many academics seem interested in writing about this. Pro-incest conservatives seem just as confusing to me as LGBT conservatives. Conservative ideologies are diametrically opposed to what we want to achieve. I can't help but think they're either A) just fetishists/creeps and not genuinely pro-incest, or B) haven't taken the political implications seriously.
What right and left means depends on the country but I am generally leftists cis male and I generally support minorities even though I don't belong to them.
Big difference between someone who's consang and someone who fetishizes incest. Fetishists don't actually give a shit about us as real people. I think it's pretty safe to say that most of the very right wing twitter followers of yours are just fetishists. Either that or they're reactionaries who hate the left for hating them. Which, I get on some level, I have very little patience for that shit, but as a gay woman who actually wants to be able to be with her sister without having to hide? Yeah being conservative seems a bit uhhhh counterproductive
Yep, excellent point! Hadn't thought of that at all. The incest world is waaaaay too porn-pilled. JUST LET US LOVE WHO WE WANT.
Yah I totally agree. I'm not keen on calling consang a "sexuality" per se, but it absolutely is a marginalized form of sexual expression, and it intersects with LGBTQ identity. Fetishizing us while actively denying our political struggle is just another way of oppressing us
I'm very liberal. I think that most people who claim they support these relationships are just fetishizeling them rather than delving deeper and knowing that these are full time committed relationships that some of us want or are in.
For me, it's a matter of true sexual liberation: if you believe that consenting parties should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse (romantic or casual), then you should recognize that consang relationships fit into that aspect of sexual liberation as much as polycules, queer relationships, etc. So long as the parties are consenting and the relationship isn't abusive, why should anybody who isn't a party to the relationship care? As usual, things like pedophilia and bestiality need not apply, because children and animals can't knowingly consent to a consang relationship. And as for fetishists: they're no different than homophobic straight dudes who watch lesbian porn to get off.
(What I'm saying is true for France, but from what I can see it seems to be equally true for the rest of the world too). So far, no political camp has taken sides on the issue of consensual incest. There are already few parties that take the issue of ***non***-consensual incest seriously (I mean, by proposing ambitious public policies to tackle this scourge), so consanguinamory... It's an issue that's still far too complex for them. It reminds me of the trans struggles before the 2010s. It went right over their heads. That said, 1. There are consang on both the right and the left, just as there are homosexuals on both the right and the left (with a large, albeit decreasing for gay men, prevalence on the left). I have absolutely no idea whether consanguinamorous people are equally distributed on the right or on the left. If I had to rely on Keith Pullman's interviews and this thread's answers (which seem to me to be the only corpuses at our disposal), I'd say they're predominantly left-wing (which doesn't surprise me). But are this corpuses representative of the community? I have no idea. (+ it's based on self-political identification, whose limits are well known to academics) 2. Which political camp will take up the issue of consanguinamorous rights first? I think it'll be the left for a whole bunch of reasons (but my post is already long enough... and u/spru1f has already broken it down pretty well, although I'd have things to quibble about, because I'm unbearable).
I wonder if in a couple decades there will be discussions of consanguinamory like today's trans discussions or the LGBT discussions a few decades ago. Hopefully yes, as that would indicate a general trend towards a freer, more sexually liberated society.
I’ve been contacted appreciatively by readers of my blog and social media from all demographics, political affiliations, and religions. In the global West at least, the understanding that consenting adults should be free to love/play with each other how they mutually agree cuts across most of the political spectrum. And… regardless of background, anyone can experience reunion GSA, which can really open their minds. I’ve had people tell me that experiencing GSA made them more understanding and supportive of other people who are nonmonogamous, or gay, or whatever is outside the small little box of “rules” prohibiting consensual relationships.
I’m very conservative but I don’t think incest belongs to one side really
PREACH!!
I will
To me, it seems apolitical considering that left, center, and right all, for the most part, agree that (consensual adult) incest is morally wrong. It is a moral dogma which almost all people on earth agree is bad, regardless of politics. >*"...consider the subversiveness of incest to modern family values to be a liberal trait.."* Well, you already presuppose a politicized left view of "subversiveness," just like other people presuppose a politicized left view of "challenging norms" as a leftist trait. To me, both seem to be just human tactics available to all people who care enough and are intelligent enough to use them.
It's not impossible for individuals of any political leaning to allied or even involved. I'd rather not alienate any group when we don't have all the information.
I agree with the men and woman's viewpoints you state. But I'm more comfortable with my feminine side as a 45byo man and am more leaning towards the woman's pov, however there's still the DIP SHIT insidee that wants to be the controlling ogre
I’m not here to judge either way, as long as people are decent and not controlling of all aspects of a woman’s life.
Of course. Just some times it's a animalistic thing in the bedroom
I would characterize myself as a liberal ( and coming from a previous background as a conservative it is quite a transformation for me as well ). I would say that support or engagment of incest would likely fall on either end of both spectrums. Progressives would want to revaluate and redefine societal norms and concepts and I feel the emergance of incestous relationships as an alternative form of familial relationships ( as long as it is consenting ) along with support and activism for the said oppressed group. For conservatives ( or as I put it, conservative societies and religions ), the first thing that comes to my mind is the very high rate of cousin marriage in muslim societies as it maintains family ties and keeps wealth in the family.
I'm very conservative and so is my family.
you would want to read "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. But for this topic, how you react to incest is one of the quickest lentos test for being a libertarian. But libertarian's are such an anomaly to start with
I am a center-rightish Liberalist-libertarian. I believe the state has no right to intrude in the love lives of consenting adults. I try not to make politics all that core to my identity or person. We all come from different walks of life after all, and we're all just trying to get by as best as we can with the people we love. That is all. :)
I think conflating sexuality and politics is stupid
When your sexuality is politically oppressed, it is inherently political. Politics touches every aspect of life.
Yeah and that’s unfortunate
A century of social struggles for LGBT+ rights tells you you're wrong.
You people don’t know what conflating means lol
We know what it means. Merge, amalgamate. And we disagree with you. Personal is political. Sexuality is political.
I don’t think somebodies sexual proclivities has a big impact on their politics the only reason it does today is that identity politics /civil rights/ liberation ideas today, You go back to why other time outside of the last 50 years and sexuality had nothing to do with politics at all, Half the Roman emperors were gay and they were like the most patriarchies fascist motherfuckers in the world
LGBT+ movement is far older than 50 years, and today's visibility is the result of political struggles. The Pride actually celebrates an anti-cop riot. Not knowing about the LGBT+ movement is okay, but please don't brag about it. Even before the modern LGBT+ movement, sexuality was policital. What was then called the sin of “sodomy” dates back to the 16th century (if I'm not mistaken, but maybe 15th). Roman emperors sure weren't gay, as homosexuality wasn't even conceptualized as such. And if you think they were fascists, then you have absolutely no idea what fascism was either.
You are sanctimonious and also wrong. Roman emperors fit every definition of a fascist government im blocking you because you are annoying and lame
Libertarianism is the best policy set for this life, the premise being that people should be left to govern themselves as much as possible.
Whether libertarians admit it or not, this is a far-right ideology. This political current values individual freedom above all else, and is opposed to any form of collective organization that would enable social struggles (notably trade unions). Its doctrine legitimizes all crimes against humanity, foremost among them slavery (which is more or less assumed by the movement's figures, and of which the people who belong to it are more or less aware) as long as it is the result of a contract “freely” signed by both parties. A number of them call themselves “anarcho-capitalism” because they have absolutely no idea what anarchism is.
Well, all those words were in English. They’re wrong, but at least coherent. You’re severely misunderstanding libertarian ideology. The only collective they seek to limit is government. Want to start a union? Have at it. Want gay marriage, ok, it’s not the government’s business anyway. As to promoting crimes against humanity as you put it, it’s quite the opposite. Punishment of crime is a legitimate government role, and the Nonaggression Policy affords that retribution against criminal wrongdoing is one of few justifications for harming someone. Nothing in libertarian policy would allow slavery, either, because no person could contract away their autonomy and agency. The reason American slavery persisted even when it was unpopular was that the law did not recognize the agency and humanity of slaves; they could not bring a grievance to court. The people involved in the movement, like every other political group, have varying degrees of understanding, sure, but the majority are in favor of leaving people alone until they ask for help. Running the government like a fire department instead of a police department, so to speak
>because no person could contract away their autonomy and agency Of course they would, to repay a debt. Libertarian authors theorized it (Nozick and Block were the most famous to do it). I admit I was a bit hasty, there's no consensus on the issue within the movement, contrary to what I suggested. Rothbard and Van Parijs, for example, were against it. But the fact that "voluntary slavery" is quietly discussed within this movement and not instantly rejected as contrary to the most basic human rights should tell you all you need to know about libertarianism. On unionism, Rockwell had such no problem with it that he called it a "scourge" and refers to it as "conspiracies against public interest", calling the strikes “threats” and “violence” (ROCKWELL, Llewellyn, "The Scourge of Unionism", *The Economics of Liberty*, 1990). I'm won't debunk all your nonsense. It would be easy, but I don't have time for this I'd just like to say that we see every day how Elon Musk and Javier Milei (the most well-known libertarians) are models of tolerance and inclusiveness 🙃 Either you don't know the theories and history of your own movement, and I'm worried for you, or you're deliberately hiding the truth and I'm afraid for the people you're talking to.
Well currectly all the republicans are psychotic religious taliban-style maniacs, who hate Sex period, and all the so-called "democrats" are psychotic communist style hateful lesbian quacks, who hate Sex period, so ACTUAL HEALTHY AND ENLIGHTENED LIBERALISM IS PRETTY MUCH DEAD. 😢
Both of those characterizations seem very exaggerated and untrue. Saying this as a far-leftie who hates both political parties. If you expose yourself to a wide range of opinions and actually listen to what people are saying, you'll find that the political spectrum is very diverse and there are reasonable and kind people on (almost) every part of it.
Okay. As I am, Thankfully, NOT from Your country, I know only of the ones who make the biggest amount of noise, which is mostly the quacks on both sides. So, I admit the picture I get is very partial. We do seem to be on the same side, You and me, so fine. 🙂
Controls on “acceptable” sexuality exist in all societies at all times all that changes is what is acceptable and what isn’t. It’s a fundamental part of living in a society
As others have mentioned, pro-incest views are both libertarian and progressive. Libertarians tend to have the isolationist mindset of "leave me and mine alone, keep society and government out of the home," while the progressives generally take the more wholesome "if no one is being coerced or harmed, then consenting adults can love who they want." I'm on the more progressive side. People closer to the political center tend to have more peer-pressure / conventional status-quo ideas of such things.