You're gonna have to explain this to me in the simplest possible terms. Leave aside the incest for a minute to simplify it as much as possible and just explain this part:
1. Why would an androgynous utopia logically lead to fucking animals?
2. Why would anyone consider it a utopia if animals were being fucked?
It becomes MUCH much simpler if you replace "Bestiality" with "Trans."
This feminist is a proto troon. Litterally. Uses all the exact same tricks, reasoning and logic troons use except for dogfucking instead of trooning out.
2) For Dworkin - under patriachy - sex and sexual desire (including fucking animals) is fundamentally intertwined with violence, abuse and domination. But in non-patriarchal "androgynous world" sex (including animal fucking) would stop being fundamentally abusive.
Men are violent, ergo in their mind sex is violence, ergo having sex with animals is abuse because its violence and we need to let women lead instead that are less violent and thus won't ban violence and incest.
The roundabout language used in this is modern day troon speak.
"Anything I don't like is violence."
How is this literally any different from troons claiming "Misgendering" is violence?
Primary bestiality (fucking between people and other animals) is found in all nonindustrial societies. Secondary bestiality (generalized erotic relationships between people and other animals) is found everywhere on the planet, on every city street, in every rural town. Bestiality is an erotic reality, one which clearly places people in nature, not above it.
Rape, Cannibalism, Infanticide, Matricide and Patricide are also found in several non industrial societies. The author doesn't even attempt to give an argument for why this is ok, she just makes a baseless claim on how fucking animals is erotic, and just repeats it for several paragraphs never even attempting to justify it, in hopes we eventually buy into it, exactly the same way trannies do with "trans women are women", except in this case its "sex with animals is erotic".
Bonus points for using non industrial societies as arbiters of what is just and moral, just like troons go "There are dozens of tribes across the planet with 84 genders, they are so enlightened."
And of course the whole thing contradicts itself. The basic line of thinking is "Men are violent, ergo they think sex is violence, ergo having sex with animals is abuse because its violence." but then goes on to say:
The separation of man from nature, man placing himself over and above it, is directly responsible for the current ecological situation which may lead to the extinction of many forms of life, including human life. Man has treated nature much as he has treated woman: with rape, plunder, violence.
If sex is innately violence and fucking animals is llegal because its violent, and at the same time man views women they same way they view animals, then why is sex with women legal? If the hierarchy of man is "Man > Everything" else and they view women as no better than nature they should be pro bestiality, not against.
The relationship between people and other animals, when nonpredatory, is always erotic since its substance is nonverbal communication and touch. That eroticism in its pure form is life-affirming and life-enriching was sufficient reason to make bestiality a capital crime in the Dark Ages, at least for the nonhuman animal;
"Life-affirming" and "Life enriching".
This is literally modern day troon speak. Doesn't explain or justify why the fetish in question is ok, just repeats ad nauseum how ok it is and hopes we buy into it. (Trans women are women.)
The author is asking for unlimited sexual permissiveness, she's using "violence" to describe literally everything she doesn't like, she's claiming being allowed to partake in her fetish is "life affirming", and arguing that society as whole be changed to be more accepting of her fetish in a future utopia. Even uses "Non industrial societies do it." In the same way troons go "There's actually tribes in the amazon with 38 genders."
In case there was ever any doubt troons made trannies., look no further.
Many radical feminists do de-emphasize behavioral differences between men and women in imagined 'state of nature' and often keep quite mum about the issue. So while men are innately inclined to be pedophiles, rapists and generally sadistic towards the defenseless, radical feminists tend to emphasize social causes for these behaviors.
Privately, some radical feminists actually believe in some form of female supremacy. Many think, for example, that our societies would be better off, more altruistic, happier etc. and less violent and warring if women were in control. As an example, most radical feminists don't advocate for total genocide of men, even if men are biologically predestined to be rapists and sadists, but aim towards building a kinder society that minimizes these innate male behaviors and protects their victims.
The fact that in the other thread you were saying if we just let women take the lead we'd have a "less violent" utopia and now you're linking feminist literature claiming that incest and dogfucking are a utopic vision of an androgynous feminist paradise (that explicitly calls the banning of incest and bestiality violence) falls pretty much in perfect line with what I was saying about feminists wanting an ultra permissive society with no boundaries or limits is what created troons.
You're linking feminist literature claiming that incest and bestiality (peak sexual degeneracy) are idylic while at the same time failing to realize how that kind of thinking (everything is allowed, everyone can do anything, no boundaries) would lead to troonery (more sexual degeneracy), how much cognitive dissonance does it take to even accomplish that?
Do you genuinely fail to understand how extreme sexual permissiveness leads to troons or do you think that troons are somehow a special case because its degeneracy comitted by men instead of women?
