> Of course not! Because pigs are intrinsically and universally ugly and sex with a pig is universally disgusting.
Allegations regarding one of the recent British Prime Ministers aside:
If this was truly universal, nobody would have bothered writing laws to ban it because nobody would be offending their sensibilities by doing it. Aella's surveys suggest such interests are far more common than I would have guessed.
Which actually supports your statement that "beauty" is not intrinsic… or at the very least "sexy", which isn't the same thing at all, c.f. the other reply pointing out that they don't want to get off with the night sky.
Put it this way, you don't necessarily want to fuck everything that's beautiful. But everything you want to fuck will be beautiful and this is nearly an absolute must. It's a single arrow, one way relationship.
So my example is apt. The whole point is pigs are ugly, but there is a high intelligence out there who thinks pigs are so freaking beautiful they will fuck a pig. and that high intelligence, is other pigs.
People get so pedantic with the example and deriving little unnecessary things off of it. It's JUST an example. You really need to see what the "point" of my example and see if it makes sense. The example is just illustrative. If some minor aspect of the example is "offensive" or doesn't make sense to you it doesn't mean my point is dead. The example is an example to help you understand, it's not a proof.
Allegations regarding one of the recent British Prime Ministers aside:
If this was truly universal, nobody would have bothered writing laws to ban it because nobody would be offending their sensibilities by doing it. Aella's surveys suggest such interests are far more common than I would have guessed.
Which actually supports your statement that "beauty" is not intrinsic… or at the very least "sexy", which isn't the same thing at all, c.f. the other reply pointing out that they don't want to get off with the night sky.