some things shouldn't be touched

[PepperElf]

http://www.creators.com/advice/annies-mailbox/annie-s-mailbox-r-2009-06-05.html

i figured this would jsut get locked out on the other site, though... i'd be surprised if anyone supported this controversial practice...


actually it's a bit surprising the dad admitted to it publicly, though he didn't share his real life name....

anyway.... he and his wife are in their late 40s, his wife has been too tired for sex so he's given up trying. and now he's getting aroused watching his 16 year old daughter and is having fantasies about her.

*insert puke emoticon*

[Rubystars]

It's bad enough that she's 16, but his own daughter? Ugh... how horrible.

[Nyoibo]

Those impulses are actually more common than you'd think, however it's how those impulses are addressed that is important, at least this guy's acknowledging the fact he has a problem.

[AFPheonix]

Jesus H Christ some people are screwed up. Go clean the kitchen dude, that'll probably get her revved up.

[BroomJockey]

I think that it's mostly a case of the dude's not getting attention from where he theoretically should be, so his subconscious turns to the next closest female. He knows consciously it's wrong, for oh so many reasons, but his daughter's probably huggier, or some such than his wife. I think if he manages to get his marriage in order, the problem would go away.

That or the dude seriously just needs to go out and bang a hooker.

[Flyndaran]

Evolution has pushed men to find young attractive females attractive. Preteding that isn't true is not healthy.
Saying such an uncomfortable truth in public is also not healthy.
Most people are itching to be vigilantes in some regard.

While the feelings may be normal, when they get so uncomfortable as to need help does suggest they might be stronger than average.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Important to remember, as has already been said, that men are biologically wired to find young women attractive. The stigma of incest is a societal construction.

I therefore hold the opinion that incestuous thoughts are completely natural for those who have them, but again, as has been said before, it's the actions taken (or more importantly not taken *wink*) that are really important.

If you have incestuous or pedophile thoughts, and manage to resist/keep from acting on them... you're a better person than me. God knows I almost never go against my impulses (spending, eating, etc.)

[Flyndaran]

..
If you have incestuous or pedophile thoughts, and manage to resist/keep from acting on them... you're a better person than me. God knows I almost never go against my impulses (spending, eating, etc.)

I doubt you would rape someone just because you find them attractive.
That's what pedophilia is, "simply" a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I doubt it has any real correlation to a severly poor impulse control.
Besides, most child rapes are not done by pedophiles, just like most pedophiles don't rape children. Admittedly the few pedophiles that do rape children account for a disproportionately large percentage of all child rapes.

Also while one evolutionary trait makes incestuous thoughts common, there is also a weaker evolutionary trait to find it icky.
Bonobos have a strong instinctive dislike of mothers having sex with sons, but they like it in every other way imaginable.

[Boozy]

I doubt you would rape someone just because you find them attractive.
That's what pedophilia is, "simply" a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I doubt it has any real correlation to a severly poor impulse control.

That's exactly the comparison I used this morning when talking to someone else about this. The vast majority of heterosexuals can control themselves around attractive members of the opposite sex. The average pedophile is no different.

Besides, rape isn't about sexual attraction. It is about violence, rage, and power.

[lovlybones]

maybe he could just go for one of his daughters friends so its not incest...

[BroomJockey]

maybe he could just go for one of his daughters friends so its not incest...

He's in his 40s, daughter is 16. Her friends are also likely 16. Statutory rape makes this a bad idea.

[AFPheonix]

Or maybe he can figure out why he and his wife have drifted apart, get their acts back together, and get some hot steamy action with her.

[Flyndaran]

That's exactly the comparison I used this morning when talking to someone else about this. The vast majority of heterosexuals can control themselves around attractive members of the opposite sex. The average pedophile is no different.

Besides, rape isn't about sexual attraction. It is about violence, rage, and power.

Some of the time it's about those things. But often it is about sex coupled with the rapist's not caring about others' feelings.

[violetyoshi]

It's no surprise, when women who appear to look like young ladies are plastered in billboard ads, and pornified by the media. This is the result of a society obsessed with the youth ideal, men's desires are screwed up because almost everywhere they look, there's something there displaying a 16 year old looking woman acting provocative.

The sooner we stop idealizing the ideal image of a female, as young and thin like a child, the sooner this will stop happening.

[Flyndaran]

...
The sooner we stop idealizing the ideal image of a female, as young and thin like a child, the sooner this will stop happening.
You want to fight millions of years of evolution? Good luck.

[radiocerk]

Men can't help it. They're hardwired that way!

If I had a dime for every time I've heard that excuse.

Women shouldn't be given the freedom to go about topless, even though men do. -- Men look, and they can help it.

Hyper sexualized teenyboppers in the media. Well, they're just responding to ages of evolutionary programming.

I've even heard this excuse to forgive men for the most extreme and disgusting forms of porn (rape, pedophilia, etc. ) Well, men are visual creatures, just the way they are.

We've had 6000 years of civilization. City-dwelling, merchant-running, and all that. In that span of time, MANY things have changed. We no longer stone adulterers, our food choices have changed, no one considers me a spinster for being over 25 and unmarried. WHY do we continue to excuse this sociological throwback as a rationale? I've heard this comment from otherwise normal civilized guys to excuse their immature inability to keep from being pervs in an obvious manner.

You want to ogle the teenagers, don't do it obviously, and for heaven's sake, don't ogle your daughter. That's gross. And you don't get excused because she's a girl, and "that's what guys do. It's natural."

No, it's not.

[Nyoibo]

[I]
We've had 6000 years of civilization. City-dwelling, merchant-running, and all that. In that span of time, MANY things have changed. We no longer stone adulterers, our food choices have changed, no one considers me a spinster for being over 25 and unmarried. WHY do we continue to excuse this sociological throwback as a rationale? I've heard this comment from otherwise normal civilized guys to excuse their immature inability to keep from being pervs in an obvious manner.

Getting slightly off topic, what you are talking about are sociological changes, not biological, males are to an extent hardwired to look at all females as potential mates, until there is no longer a need for procreation that won't change.

[radiocerk]

Women are biologically hardwired to give birth as close to every 9 months as they can manage. Women have gotten over this. It's a question of mind over hormones. I like to believe that the average guy's mind actually can outthink his other head.

[BroomJockey]

Women are biologically hardwired to give birth as close to every 9 months as they can manage.

*laughs* No, they're REALLY not. They're biologically hardwired to give birth to as many children as their resources can support. Yes, they'll do it in as short a time as possible, but once they're at that limit, they stop. "Every 9 months" was a sociological imperative, not biological, and the resources thing is why so many women wait so long to have children now. They wanna have the solid marriage, the steady job, and the home to raise children, and a cushion to fall back on, all before they have that first kid. *That* is the biology kicking in. So even women haven't overcome it yet. And 6000 years? That's less than nothing in terms of evolution of instincts. Cats have been domesticated about that long, and they're still more than willing to eat you if they're starving, when dogs will lay down and die on their owner's grave. Come back in another 4k or so.

[Mr Slugger]

Women are biologically hardwired to give birth as close to every 9 months as they can manage. Women have gotten over this. It's a question of mind over hormones. I like to believe that the average guy's mind actually can outthink his other head.
But part of the thing that helps women get over their hardwiring issue is birth control of any kind. I mean like with my wife she got her tubes tied last year, but I can still tell every month when her most fertile time is. Yes she wants sex, but she wants sex because she's hardwire to want to get pregnant. Doesn't mean she ever will.

In the case of this guy he obviously knows it's a problem. In hardwire terms this guy's wife isn't giving him sex, which means he's not able to procreate, and here's another attractive female that is showing him some attention (granted in a father /daughter way) But at least he understands that it's wrong. But I think that in reality if there was a female say at work that was attractive to him and showed him some attention he'd be all over her instead. It's just that was what he saw first I guess.

Which is still disgusting by the way.

[gremcint]

I'm not really sure where I stand on this to be honest and I'm not really going to offer an opinion.

But this discussion reminded me of a blog post by someone I follow and I think some of you may find it interesting, it's related to the age thing not the incest thing.

http://theferrett.livejournal.com/12471.html

[Flyndaran]

...
In the case of this guy he obviously knows it's a problem. In hardwire terms this guy's wife isn't giving him sex, which means he's not able to procreate, and here's another attractive female that is showing him some attention (granted in a father /daughter way) But at least he understands that it's wrong. But I think that in reality if there was a female say at work that was attractive to him and showed him some attention he'd be all over her instead. It's just that was what he saw first I guess.

Which is still disgusting by the way.

Wanting is not taking!

Biology is impulses, but adult humans have the choice to indulge or not to indulge.

Say I am attracted to person X, it doesn't matter why, how, who, or what I want to do. I choose to avoid causing trouble for me and person X by not pursuing her.

Also, 16 is legal in a bunch of U.S. states.

As to incest, I find it icky as well. But I don't like laws being based on icky. As long as all parties are adults when the groovin' occurs, it's no one else's business.

[BroomJockey]

As to incest, I find it icky as well. But I don't like laws being based on icky. As long as all parties are adults when the groovin' occurs, it's no one else's business.

Incest isn't based on "icky," it's based on potential genetic errors and severe birth defects from not having enough diversity.

[Flyndaran]

Incest isn't based on "icky," it's based on potential genetic errors and severe birth defects from not having enough diversity.

That must be why we don't allow those with genetic defects marry each other. Oh wait, we don't do that at all.
If we give genetic dwarfs the pass when we know with absolute certainty that 1 in four of their children will suffer horrific defects, half will suffer the same problems as the parents, and only 1 in four will be born "normal", then why should the slight increase in risk for close relatives be singled out?

It all falls back on the "well it's icky" mentality. We shouldn't have those kind of laws in my secular opinion.

[BroomJockey]

If we give genetic dwarfs the pass when we know with absolute certainty that 1 in four of their children will suffer horrific defects, half will suffer the same problems as the parents, and only 1 in four will be born "normal", then why should the slight increase in risk for close relatives be singled out?


Because being a dwarf isn't a horrific defect. They're short, and have some specific health issues. Not a huge issue. Even more, it's possible for a "normal" couple to have a dwarf baby anyways, so dwarfism wouldn't be eliminated by refusing them procreation rights.

I ask with no venom or ridicule, do you have a single clue about any of this? Do you know the kind of shit that can show up in a limited genetic pool? We're not talking "extra toes" or anything like that. We're talking hearts on outside of ribcage, mental defects here-to-fore unknown, and worse. And the more insular the line, the worse everything gets. We're talking children who won't live to see double-digit ages, if they even manage to make it to term. And we're talking something that can be easily avoided simply by you not fucking your mother, or your sister, or your daughter. This is stuff animals learned not to do centuries ago. So I'm sorry, but to keep babies with half their brains missing from being conceived, you can live with your "ick" laws. They've actually got a reason beyond "morality," you simply can't fathom them due to barnacle syndrome.

[Nyoibo]

I ask with no venom or ridicule, do you have a single clue about any of this? Do you know the kind of shit that can show up in a limited genetic pool? We're not talking "extra toes" or anything like that. We're talking hearts on outside of ribcage, mental defects here-to-fore unknown, and worse. And the more insular the line, the worse everything gets. We're talking children who won't live to see double-digit ages, if they even manage to make it to term. And we're talking something that can be easily avoided simply by you not fucking your mother, or your sister, or your daughter. This is stuff animals learned not to do centuries ago. So I'm sorry, but to keep babies with half their brains missing from being conceived, you can live with your "ick" laws. They've actually got a reason beyond "morality," you simply can't fathom them due to barnacle syndrome.

I do and by the way, animals have not learned not to do it and a lot of breeders also use selective inbreeding without ill effects it usually takes a couple of generations for the defects to appear if it's between 1st step relations.

[BroomJockey]

I do and by the way, animals have not learned not to do it

As much as I hate to use it as a source, the fastest is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Results

Particularly the line in species such as horses, animals in wild or feral conditions often drive off the young of both genders, thought to be a mechanism by which the species instinctively avoids some of the genetic consequences of inbreeding.

Many prey animals and insects engage in similar behaviour. Also, there's theories that part of the reason for killing mates in insects like the Preying Mantis, or in certain types of fish is to help promote genetic diversity. I'd say they learned pretty damned well.

As for the breeding that humans do with animals, there's a reason purebred cats and dogs have such shitty health problems, which kinda proves my point. Especially your "couple generations" comment. Animals are capable of breeding much more quickly than people. Your "couple generations" takes a decade or LESS to reach in most breeder animals. That's nothing.

[Flyndaran]

As much as I hate to use it as a source, the fastest is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Results

Particularly the line

Many prey animals and insects engage in similar behaviour. Also, there's theories that part of the reason for killing mates in insects like the Preying Mantis, or in certain types of fish is to help promote genetic diversity. I'd say they learned pretty damned well.

As for the breeding that humans do with animals, there's a reason purebred cats and dogs have such shitty health problems, which kinda proves my point. Especially your "couple generations" comment. Animals are capable of breeding much more quickly than people. Your "couple generations" takes a decade or LESS to reach in most breeder animals. That's nothing.

You can't compare constant restrained inbreeding with single cases of close relatives breeding.

And besides, why do you think every sex act must result in children?

I still say the science is on the side of incest not being that big of a deal.
That still leads to the ick factor as the only real reason it's illegal.
Eugenics is normally considered a bad word. We let severely retarded deformed people breed, why not those with only a slightly increased risk of defects?

[Kalli]

Flyn is right - it's an icky thing, and not a genetic defect thing.

He used a bad example with the dwarfism, but if it was simply a matter of avoiding genetic defects, people with say muscular dystrophy in their family wouldn't be allowed to marry each other either, seeing as they could have a child with muscular dystrophy.

So pretty much Flyn's exact point, with a slightly better example.

[Lace Neil Singer]

It's one of the rules you have to abide by if you live in a civilised society. Like not murdering each other and not eating the bodies. Cannibalism is rife in a lot of uncivilised societies; why not allow it in the Western world? You want to allow incest; so that means I should have the right to kill you and eat you if I so wish.

[Flyndaran]

It's one of the rules you have to abide by if you live in a civilised society. Like not murdering each other and not eating the bodies. Cannibalism is rife in a lot of uncivilised societies; why not allow it in the Western world? You want to allow incest; so that means I should have the right to kill you and eat you if I so wish.

Is that a joke?
Two consenting adults engaging in pleasurable activities that don't affect anyone else is the same as murder?

[Nyoibo]

You want to allow incest; so that means I should have the right to kill you and eat you if I so wish.

No, not the same, not even anywhere near the same.

[Arcade Man D]

The reason for laws against incest isn't just about "icky", but because most incestuous relationships would have a huge power-gap that would be rife for abuse.

[Flyndaran]

The reason for laws against incest isn't just about "icky", but because most incestuous relationships would have a huge power-gap that would be rife for abuse.

So have regular marriages for the vast span of human history, so lets just abolish the whole thing, right?
Since we are talking about adults, how about if we give them the right to choose their own partners?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Is that a joke?
Two consenting adults engaging in pleasurable activities that don't affect anyone else is the same as murder?

Well, you seem to be throwing in arguments for every single example of unethical behaviour imaginable, so why can't I? True, I was being facetious, but you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, so I don't see why I can't do likewise.

If you want to live on a tiny island somewhere and screw your relations senseless, then fine; go ahead. But while you live in a civilised society, you obey the rules of that society regardless.

[Flyndaran]

Well, you seem to be throwing in arguments for every single example of unethical behaviour imaginable, so why can't I? True, I was being facetious, but you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, so I don't see why I can't do likewise.

If you want to live on a tiny island somewhere and screw your relations senseless, then fine; go ahead. But while you live in a civilised society, you obey the rules of that society regardless.
But you have not made a rational argument for why adult incest is uncivilized.
Civilized in my mind means secular and making laws based on religion or ick factor is not civilized.

[Lace Neil Singer]

So, what is your definition of civilisation? Anarchy? You haven't made a rational argument for that as of yet; and you're basically arguing for something that is genetically wrong, rather than just morally wrong. In any case, you're trying to avoid my point, which is that while you live in a group, you have the choice to either get the fuck out or obey the rules of that group at large, regardless of your own personal feelings on the matter. If everyone just did what they felt like, then it would be anarchy; and anarchy rarely provides stability.

[Nyoibo]

So, what is your definition of civilisation? Anarchy? You haven't made a rational argument for that as of yet; and you're basically arguing for something that is genetically wrong, rather than just morally wrong.

Who says it's genetically wrong? I want an example of it being genetically wrong and children resulting does not count, as has been pointed out in other threads a relationship does not have to be about having children and there have been cases of incestuous relationships having perfectly normal healthy children.

In any case, you're trying to avoid my point, which is that while you live in a group, you have the choice to either get the fuck out or obey the rules of that group at large, regardless of your own personal feelings on the matter. If everyone just did what they felt like, then it would be anarchy; and anarchy rarely provides stability.

So one assumes that you completely support the anti-gay marriage laws and tell any gay person that wants to get married to shut up or get the fuck out?

[radiocerk]

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with two adults in a consenting incestuous relationship, as long as they have no biological children. And perhaps, that one wasn't in a position of authority over the other. IE, brother and sister is not quite as squicky as father/daughter. After all, can you really have a consensual relationship with someone you're supposed to listen to?

[Flyndaran]

If you don't want relatives marrying because they MAY produce children that have a SLIGHTLY higher than average risk of birth defects, then you MUST refuse to allow anyone with a genetic disability to procreate, or you will be a hypocrite.

[Flyndaran]

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with two adults in a consenting incestuous relationship, as long as they have no biological children. And perhaps, that one wasn't in a position of authority over the other. IE, brother and sister is not quite as squicky as father/daughter. After all, can you really have a consensual relationship with someone you're supposed to listen to?

I'm 35. I don't obey my mother, and I don't think many other adults do either.
I may find the idea of incest icky, but there is no rational reason to make it illegal.

[Peppergirl]

And where do we draw the line at 'consensual'?

I just read an article about Mackenzie Phillips. She was defending herself for going public about what she originally termed as 'consensual incest'.

From the article, regarding incest in adults: "An older child is guilted into believing it's something they should do. There's a dynamic that alters the person's perception of what is right and wrong."

In Mackenzie's case, would it be just the drugs? Or we're there other mental issues at play?

[Boozy]

I agree with you, Flyn. There's no good reason for consensual incest to be illegal in this day and age. I understand why it once was though; birth control has not always been as widely available and effective as it is today. Because I also agree with Broom when he says that you can't compare the potentially horrific birth defects that can result from incest to, say, dwarfism. It made sense to make the sex itself illegal, since it had a higher probability of leading to pregnancy.

Today, it still makes sense to make procreating with a close relative illegal, but a consensual relationship that does not produce children harms no one.


From the article, regarding incest in adults: "An older child is guilted into believing it's something they should do. There's a dynamic that alters the person's perception of what is right and wrong."

You can say that about consensual adult sex between non-relatives, too. There are power dynamics at play in every single relationship we have as adults, even healthy ones.

At some point, the law cannot be making these judgments calls. At some point, the law must consider us adults and assume that we are able to make adult decisions. Bad things may happen to those who make decisions while in a position of vulnerability, but that can't be considered a crime. Far worse things happen when the law becomes paternalistic and starts making our decisions for us.

[Peppergirl]

At some point, the law cannot be making these judgments calls. At some point, the law must consider us adults and assume that we are able to make adult decisions. Bad things may happen to those who make decisions while in a position of vulnerability, but that can't be considered a crime. Far worse things happen when the law becomes paternalistic and starts making our decisions for us.


Agreed. Though, in her case, I'm quite sure her extremely dysfunctional upbringing and heavy drug use contributed to the situation. Would she have participated if she hadn't been so screwed up in the first placc?

[Boozy]

Would she have participated if she hadn't been so screwed up in the first placc?

Probably not. But I don't feel that the law should protect us from ourselves.

[Nyoibo]

After all, can you really have a consensual relationship with someone you're supposed to listen to?

There was a case of father daughter incest not that long agothe parents had separated years ago and the daughter had had no contact with the father, that removes that father daughter dynamic.

[Gravekeeper]

The problem with parent > child is as was said, the power dynamic in the relationship is not equal. Even if the child is a consenting adult, there is still that power dynamic. There's also the effect on the rest of the family, especially siblings. Its really just a Bad Idea(tm) all around.

If that dynamic is removed ( Through, say, adoption for example ) than the next concern is reproductive. However such pregnancies are usually a result of no knowledge of relation ( was put up for adoption ) or abuse. As its doubtful any two consenting adults aware of their close relation would risk a child.

The final concern is simply moral. The ick factor. We have a natural repulsion to incest. Though, curiously, only to direct incest. It's only in the western world where all incest is considered morally reprehensible.

In the rest of the world it can be acceptable to marry a cousin for example, and the statistical chance of birth defects between two cousins is only 1% more than between unrelated couples. If I recall the study they did in Australia right.

Of course if one family line only marries cousins over and over it will eventually thin out like European royalty and defects will emerge.

Personally, if its a case of no knowledge of relation, than fine, can't blame you for not knowing. Cousins? Sure, I'll accept that. But direct relation, with knowledge? No. There's something skewed there to have caused that to be honest. Its very difficult to say what the legal position should be however.

The chance of abuse, power imbalance, etc is too great for the law to ignore I think. Though what actions the law should take are probably debatable.

[Lace Neil Singer]

So one assumes that you completely support the anti-gay marriage laws and tell any gay person that wants to get married to shut up or get the fuck out?
Please don't throw strawmen into the debate; it just makes it look as tho you have no argument.

I'm done with this debate anyway; go fuck your mother if you like, just leave me out of it.

[Nyoibo]

Please don't throw strawmen into the debate; it just makes it look as tho you have no argument.

How is it a strawman, you said if you want to live in a civilised society you abide by the laws or get the fuck out, or is it only laws you agree with?

[AdminAssistant]

I'm done with this debate anyway; go fuck your mother if you like, just leave me out of it.

I feel the same way, Lace. Incest is not "icky", it's fucking sick. I feel the same way about pedophilia. Any grown person who gets their kicks by thinking about sex with children is a pervert whether or not they act on it.

[Flyndaran]

I feel the same way, Lace. Incest is not "icky", it's fucking sick. I feel the same way about pedophilia. Any grown person who gets their kicks by thinking about sex with children is a pervert whether or not they act on it.

I find that you are equating child rape with two consenting adults doing something that is none of your damned business rather juvenile and innately and logically wrong.
Your argument is exactly the same that homophobes use. I hope you eventually realize your error and feel sick about your own behavior.

[AdminAssistant]

I find that you are equating child rape with two consenting adults doing something that is none of your damned business rather juvenile and innately and logically wrong.
Your argument is exactly the same that homophobes use. I hope you eventually realize your error and feel sick about your own behavior.

Ummm. No.

But at this point...there really isn't any point in arguing with you is there? I mean, you're so damn determined to prove that it's somehow okay to have sex with your relatives. In many cases of incest, there is a power differential. I somehow think that very few of these cases are "Flowers in the Attic"-style experimentations between brother and sister. Fathers shouldn't lust after their daughters, mothers shouldn't lust after their sons.

And I wasn't equating it with child rape, I was equating it with pedophilia which you often go out of your way to defend and say isn't child rape.

And neither of these have anything to do with homosexuality. Homophobes are mostly 1) acting out of fear that homosexuals are a threat to hetero-normative gender roles or 2) gay themselves and trying to suppress it by hating everything gay to prove how 'straight' they are.

[Gravekeeper]

I think you're both going to extremes, to be honest.

Different people are wired differently and rarely have control of what they're attracted to ( Look how well trying to "fix" homosexuality has worked out for churches. ) The difference is civilized people do not act on uncivilized impulses. Much as I hate to wade in and appear to be defending either side of this.

Incest is icky, but someone having a passing naughty thought about a relative doesn't mean they're a horrible unspeakable godless monster. The same goes for pedophilia, zoophillia, orcphillia, Attractedtofistingaccountantswithcoconutsphillia and every other bizarre sexual fetish or attraction the human race has come up with and has likely always had since ages past to be honest. But there is a clear difference between thought, impulse and action, and that is what separates us from savages.

You can't condemn someone for thought crime. But at the same time, that doesn't mean something is ok just because its consensual.

[violetyoshi]

maybe he could just go for one of his daughters friends so its not incest...

Two words:

American Beauty.

[Flyndaran]

I am not talking about dangerous thoughts like wanting to have sex with a child. I am talking, repeatedly, about consenting adults doing something that is none of our damned business.
Secular civilization is about personal freedoms as long as they hurt no one else. This is a case of not hurting anyone else.
It is exactly like gay rights, in that while many may find it icky it still isn't any of our damned business.
The only reason to hate it is religious, and I loathe religion based laws.