To be into bestiality or into momcest?

>>898268099 (OP)

Momcest can create offspring and that offspring will likely be biologically defective. There’s also the likelihood of other peripheral social problems stemming from that for both people involved, along with the possibility of destroying the entire family. Bestiality, on the other hand, is harmless so long as it’s consensual. So, momcest.

>>898268099 (OP)

momcest. animals were made to serve their masters. just look at the goyim

>>898268099 (OP)

Depends on if your mom is hot *Pulls barrel to forehead* now come test my AlreadyDeadAndInHell theory.

>>898268099 (OP)

momcest goes all the way back to the greeks, bestiality as well so this shit has been around for as long as there is recorded history.



basically people are sex crazed hairless chimps and there is no way around all the retardation. so i wouldn't worry about it. both fetishes are a genetic dead end

Le reddit

>>898268099 (OP)

Being against momcest is worse than getting fucked by a dog, self-admitted friendless incel spammer. Anyone can see that it's you again.

>>898268099 (OP)

The real question is, why do you hate your mom so much and refuse to love her fully?

>>898268099 (OP)

checked

I'd say there's more likelihood of momcest being carried out irl, which you could count towards it being the worse fetish to have

Bestiality is worse in the sense that animals cannot consent to sex, whereas your mom can, regardless of how fucked that would still be.

I haven't looked it up but I'd imagine bestiality would carry longer prison sentences than incest, so that could make it worse

Sexual acts are morally objectionable according to the caliber of their deviation from the intended and natural function of sex: primarily, procreation and the generation of long-lived progenitors, and, incidentally, pair-bonding. With that in mind, this is my ranking of immoral sexual acts from least to greatest:



>seduction

That is, purposefully sexually arousing oneself or another without the intention of engaging in sexual intercourse. At best, this is simply uncharitable.



>fornication

Natural relations where procreation is possible in principle, but outside of a committed agreement of fidelity and the care of offspring.



>adultery

Natural relations where procreation is possible in principle, but which violate a committed agreement of fidelity to another person.



>incest

Natural relations where procreation is possible in principle, but which introduces the possibility of unhealthy offspring and flouts the natural relationships proper to people connected by consanguinity or affinity.



>rape

Natural relations where procreation is possible in principle, but not only is a committed agreement of fidelity and the care of offspring not present, it is expressly rejected by everyone involved. It's uncharitable and traumatic. Pedophilia fits into this category, but is worse than ordinary rape because procreation is impossible. When procreation is possible, it becomes dangerous to the mother and child.



>sodomy (coitus interruptus)

Unnatural relations where procreation is impossible in principle, but where pleasure is not sought in isolation from natural social relationships.



>masturbation

Pleasure is intentionally sought in isolation from natural social relationships and procreation. Necrophilia belongs here, but is perhaps worse due to it also being sacrilegious.



>homosexuality

Unnatural relations where procreation is impossible in principle and which not only rejects but inverts the natural order of procreative relations.



>bestiality

An affront to the human species.

>cont.



Sexual acts can be made categorically worse by overlapping categories. For instance, masturbation to fantasies of a wholesome married life is better than masturbation to fantasies of homosexuality or bestiality. Rape is bad, but rape by sodomy is worse. Etc. Etc.

>>898268099 (OP)

posting frogs
