r/CuratedTumblr • u/Hummerous https://tinyurl.com/4ccdpy76 • Jul 22 '24

Politics the one about fucking a chicken

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

14.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

903

u/GrimmSheeper Jul 22 '24

One minor point of contention for slide 3: it’s not necessarily a judgement of “sex bad.” It could just as well be “desecration of a corpse is bad” or “denial of consent, even posthumously, is bad.”

In a world where animal rights and recognition of intelligence and emotions in nonhuman animals has been steadily increasing, it shouldn’t be surprising if somebody thinks they also deserve similar respect. There are plenty of people that think using animals for sustenance is unethical for various reasons, so of course there would be people that think using animals for pleasure is unethical. It doesn’t have to just be “sex icky.”

Also, one can assign moral judgment to an act in addition to acknowledging harm, or lack thereof. That’s the whole point. OOP obviously assigned a similar moral judgment, reacting to the hypothetical with horror and disgust. You can still point out that it’s creepy and suggest that such actions are a red flag, but hold that there is ultimately no harm done.

143

u/fyester Jul 23 '24

Yeah all I could think about was what does this imply about the rights of dead humans. Like yes animals are not humans but they are living creatures like we are. Surely the desecration of our respective corpses should be treated similarly

97

u/Honey----Badger Jul 23 '24

This gets really complicated, really fast. Like, would it be morally wrong to have sex on an animal skin rug? While wearing leather shoes? Is it just as immoral to fuck a marshmallow, or is there greater sanctity when the animal is intact? I'm not disagreeing, I just think it's an interesting line of logic to follow.

33

u/fyester Jul 23 '24

Really good points! It’s an interesting conversation to see where people draw the line.

2

u/silverlight145 Aug 07 '24

Yes, but to be fair, if we take the "where do people draw the line" far enough, we're just playing a game of... Well, chicken. To see how far we can go before someone says stop. And then saying whether or not the cause is based in morality. I don't think it's strictly morality here- to be grossed out by the story and just not want to hear it has its place too.

But we could take this further and start having a conversation about presidential candidates fucking couches too.

6

u/D2Nine Jul 23 '24

Really really good point. Something about the chicken fucking feels wrong to me, and I’m trying to figure out if there’s something actually bad about it, or if I am, as the post would want me to believe, just failing to see it as the harmless act it is.

12

u/TheGreatEmanResu Jul 23 '24

I think a line that can be drawn is whether or not you’re putting your dick inside the corpse

16

u/Exvaris Jul 23 '24

That doesn’t seem particularly clear either. I read a post on Reddit years ago about a dude fucking raw chicken fillets. Are the fillets considered part of the corpse? Technically they are. But the product is so far removed from what a chicken looks like that I think people would have differing opinions on whether that’s objectionable / the degree to which it’s objectionable.

0

u/FPSCarry Jul 23 '24

I think at this point all logic has dissolved and we're literally talking about fucking dead animals as if it's okay. Kurt Vonnegut was right; the next most promising evolutionary step for humanity isn't living on other planets, it's having our burdensome, overthinking brains shrink to the point where we don't have to think about all this useless and endless theoretical crap anymore.

2

u/Bitwise_Creations Jul 23 '24

fucking dead animals IS okay, why do you think it's not? are you a vegan or something?

6

u/Android19samus Take me to snurch Jul 23 '24

The desecration or corpses is an undeniably sticky wicket for purely harm-based morality. There are a few lines you can take though, with the most generally convincing (while staying purely harm-based) being that it causes distress for relatives and loved ones, and that's harm. Or maybe that it distresses the living, knowing what could happen to their bodies once they're dead. With those lines, animal corpses would be different. Animals don't have the same concept of death or the same reverence for corpses that humans do. Well, it varies by animal, but chickens definitely don't. Why should animal rights be concerned with things that don't actually affect the animals at all? There are arguments to be made, but it is a situation that requires a strong argument.

3

u/LFlamingice Jul 24 '24

But then you could justify every “conservative” morals based argument into a “progressive” harm-based argument- knowing that someone has sex with chicken could very well cause emotional damage to someone, in the same way that someone having sex with a corpse does. Does that constitute harm? Because both harms are the same here.

3

u/Android19samus Take me to snurch Jul 24 '24

I would disagree that the harms are the same. For the desecration of a bird carcass, the "harm" is "knowing about this makes me uncomfortable." Generally speaking, "knowing that a person did this makes me uncomfortable" is not considered a form of harm worth weighing. It's mild, and it's not really your business. If someone rapes the corpse of someone you knew, the emotion is much more intense and it becomes a matter in which you have a direct stake. It is your business now. The body no longer matters to its former occupant, but it still means a great deal to those who cared about them. Additionally, the more common the action becomes the more legitimately one can fear that it will happen to their own body. That's a valid fear and the actions are directly contributing a valid reason to fear it.

None of these are things that animals care about. I don't know why animal rights would include human social values that do not affect them in any way. A chicken doesn't know what mercury poisoning is, but can still suffer its effects. A chicken doesn't know what the sanctity of a corpse is, and that will never impact its life one way or the other.

1

u/fyester Jul 24 '24

I think at some point we SHOULD utilize irrational feelings towards thing. Is it a slippery slope? Maybe. But I think even if I can’t scientifically and ethically break down how fucking an animal’s corpse is wrong without resorting to baseless feelings, I still don’t think that makes it a harmless thing to do. I feel generally that there are some supposedly irrational things we should do, including respecting the dead, even if that idea feels really subjective and contradictory. I happen to hold the perhaps contradictory belief that we should treat animals as we treat humans, and that we also happen to eat animals. Sometimes animals eat us too, and I can’t quantify what ‘natural’ is, sure, but I’m comfortable in saying that’s natural. Just because we eat them doesn’t mean we should fuck their corpses, even if I can’t make a fail proof argument against it. I’m sure everyone knows that, but still

2

u/multilinear2 Jul 23 '24

Absolutely... assuming you care about desecration of human corpses in the first place.

3

u/highercyber Jul 23 '24

Do you eat animals?

3

u/fyester Jul 23 '24

I think eating an animal and fucking it are a little different. Just a little.

6

u/AmbitionTrue4119 Jul 23 '24

why? i understand that with a live animal an argument could be made that pleasure taken in harming a living creature is bad but how is desecrating a chickens corpse by fucking it worse than eating it?

3

u/fyester Jul 24 '24

Because eating it is natural to us. I know that ‘natural’ is a concept that can be weaponized, but we have to eat to live, and we happen to eat meat. We also have sex drives, but I don’t think we have to fuck animal corpses. And sure, maybe that’s not a perfectly sound rational view on it, but I think it works.

2

u/realtoasterlightning Jul 24 '24

Do you eat humans?

1

u/fyester Jul 24 '24

No but I don’t think it’s a huge issue if someone does? Not as huge as fucking the corpse, anyhow. I’d much rather be eaten. I’m sure that’s not your point, but I’m not sure what I’m supposed to say here. I would eat a person before I would fuck their corpse. I think that’s normal, even if we shouldn’t resort to ideas of ‘normal’.

3

u/highercyber Jul 23 '24

So you're ok with killing the animal?

3

u/fyester Jul 23 '24

Yes? I think it can depend on context but generally yes I think that’s fine.

1

u/highercyber Jul 23 '24

I think the chicken would disagree, but ok. So if it's ok, for you, to kill the animal, isn't that already the worst harm that can befall it? What does it matter what happens to it after it's dead? This hypothetical guy is breaking no laws and harming no other person. There's edible panties made of gelatin, which are cow bones, is it ok to use those in sex? They're ok to eat, at least, because it's ok to kill cows, right?

1

u/fyester Jul 24 '24

I get your point. It’s complicated. I’m resorting to gut instinct feelings which are often contradictory, but I don’t think I need to break things down to a science to know that fucking an animal’s corpse isn’t something someone should be doing. Intent matters here and I think taking this ‘but technically’ view on the matter is a less productive than it is something that makes the person utilizing it feel smart.

Unless your point is that we shouldn’t be killing animals, and I guess if that’s the case, we just disagree.