As ~always with gender and politics, there’s a pretty big gap between what is and what ought.

What is: The people who make and seek out men-only groups have a stereotype of being shitty, sexist people. The stereotypes around women-only groups are a lot weaker and less negative. These stereotypes are not rules, but do certainly lead to some social stigma.

What ought 1: In a better world gender-specific groups might exist for people to find support and connection around their gendered experiences. There’s some experiences that aren’t commonly shared across genders and it can be a lot easier and safer to share with people who you know also have that experience.

What ought 2: In a still better world there wouldn’t be a significant desire for such groups because we are all sensitive and caring enough that such a group doesn’t make sharing meaningfully easier or safer, because it’s already easy and safe.

X-Clacks-Overhead

Be careful to make sure that it doesn’t spoil faster in water. And that it doesn’t settle

Yes. Haven’t even had any really bad scrapes or anything.

Some odd I pass out from blood loss (like everyone). Or pain. Also I’m gonna have even more wicked scars on the sides of my fingers. But like, no broken bones and no major trauma is just really survivable.

https://xkcd.com/936/

Critics say this needs more testing - cool sure let’s make that happen! I don’t think its wrong to publish data from 1 or 2 people, so long as you don’t present that data as definitive.

Uhh, clouds? Duh

Fuck you Un-guy’s your Fieri

No copyright

Most of the time, yeah

Excellent! Lots of other people in thread have made minor corrections (that are mostly accurate) but you have a far more important thing - STYLE! Your penmanship has a great style made in part by those little differences! Don’t change it so much you lose that

Do you think it’s (morally) right for you to have kids that you know would have a 50% chance to have bone tumors?

Sex bans are generally not workable. A marriage ban for you would be restrictive. This is very different for cousins, because there’s plenty of non-cousin alternatives for everyone.

“I don’t believe the state should have a say in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.”

So that’s why it’s a marriage ban?

24 US states ban cousin marriages. No states ban people over 40 from having children. You want to equate the two but there is a line between that that you can draw, as evidenced by half of the USA doing so.

I’ve expanded on my views elsewhere in thread.

Children of first-cousin marriages have a 4–6% risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders compared to the 3% of the children of totally unrelated parents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

Is it eugenics now to say people should avoid conceiving children that are likely to have birth defects?

Should disabled people be blanket banned from having sex or children? No obviously not. Not really workable anyways and quite morally hazardous to put into law, as you point out.

Should people with disabilities ought to (in a moral sense) have children that are at high risk of sharing their disability? Also no. To be frank, there’s a reason we call it disability. Even though they can have good, rich, valuable lives, they much more often don’t.

This is definitely a question of degrees. Society and medical support can change this line. Like where diabetes used to be a death sentence now it’s serious but treatable. So less problematic to pass on diabetes today vs 200y ago, but why would you want to?

Finally let’s get to cousins. Beyond the additional risk that they have children with health problems, there’s a question of consent. Even between cousins (like siblings) there’s often a power dynamic that makes consent hazardous. So IMO, obviously immoral. Making this illegal is not very restrictive (it affects you banging like 0-100 specific people out of literally billions) and codifies what was a taboo anyways (which is like, a pretty significant amount of law). 24 US states agree with me.

Siblings definitely have power dynamics that make consent very hazardous. I’d argue first cousins also have such dynamics. Perhaps to a lesser degree, but there’s no real benefit from having cousins marry and there is an increased risk of birth defects, so better to disallow it.

Videos that can vote

The Prisoner: https://youtu.be/osNmf_zmSyE

Fits with the theme of the comic tho