An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'".[1] It is generally considered to be a bad argument because the implicit (unstated) primary premise "What is natural is good" is typically irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact. In some philosophical frameworks where natural and good are clearly defined within a specific context, the appeal to nature might be valid and cogent.
Appeal to nature is a well trod logical fallacy. You would have to answer the question "Why would attraction being more natural make it better?"
For that matter, how are you even measuring better or worse?
And those are more useful lines of inquiry that can lead you to an interrogation of phenomenon like hyper-sexualization and the commodification of sex and aesthetics under capitalism. But those things aren't bad because of where they exist on a scale from natural-unnatural, those things are bad because of the harm that they manifest for the people that experience those things.
Not OP, dont think there's a way to completely uncondition yourself and become 100% "natural". We're at our core cultural and therefore socialized. To unravel that completely is to dehumanize yourself, if that makes sense.
I think the most we can hope for is to find the problematic preferences that are underpinned by sexism, racism, and different "body phobias" and try and move past them as best we can
Hence the quote brackets. Natural is of course itself an artificial category. Nothing unnatural exists.
What I'm saying is that we've been socialised, and some of that has fucked us up. But it's also part of who we are, and if it isn't causing us distress or hurting others materially, a few problematic kinks or social attitudes floating around your head are not that bad.
For instance, do I like pretty dresses because they're beautiful and I like them and their aesthetic inherently? Or because I grew up exposed to an endless barrage of Disney Princesses and other exhortations to femininity? Fucked if I know, but the latter probably had its effect.
deleted by creator
Appeal to nature is a well trod logical fallacy. You would have to answer the question "Why would attraction being more natural make it better?"
For that matter, how are you even measuring better or worse?
And those are more useful lines of inquiry that can lead you to an interrogation of phenomenon like hyper-sexualization and the commodification of sex and aesthetics under capitalism. But those things aren't bad because of where they exist on a scale from natural-unnatural, those things are bad because of the harm that they manifest for the people that experience those things.
it is 12:51AM CDT and by God I am linking the Xenofeminist Manifesto
Based
deleted by creator
Not OP, dont think there's a way to completely uncondition yourself and become 100% "natural". We're at our core cultural and therefore socialized. To unravel that completely is to dehumanize yourself, if that makes sense.
I think the most we can hope for is to find the problematic preferences that are underpinned by sexism, racism, and different "body phobias" and try and move past them as best we can
Hence the quote brackets. Natural is of course itself an artificial category. Nothing unnatural exists.
What I'm saying is that we've been socialised, and some of that has fucked us up. But it's also part of who we are, and if it isn't causing us distress or hurting others materially, a few problematic kinks or social attitudes floating around your head are not that bad.
For instance, do I like pretty dresses because they're beautiful and I like them and their aesthetic inherently? Or because I grew up exposed to an endless barrage of Disney Princesses and other exhortations to femininity? Fucked if I know, but the latter probably had its effect.