Incest

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

The only problem I have is with having kids. People should take more care. Adopt, use protection or do a vasectomy (is this how you write it?).

nope, nope, and nope.
I think it really is none of my business. However this may be because I dont have siblings or cousins to really think about how this could be repulsive or not.

Mr F.:

I actually find that logic to be hilarious. Some people just do not like the idea, at all. And some of those people are strait. I know its comforting to think that EVERYONE who finds something disgusting is secretly in denial. But it simply is not true.

Do you like maggots? (Not equating gay sex to maggots, I have a fucking phobia of maggots). Very, Very few people do. Those that do not like maggots are revolted by maggots. Those that are revolted by maggots do not want to fuck maggots.

Maggots aren't sexual

But I know of people who developed a phobia of insects after watching aliens after they absorbed all the sexual metaphors

OH! they could be considered phallic though

Didn't quote you in the huge reply I made. Sorry. Also, sorry if this is a double post.

I like how you are implying that I have feelings towards my sisters because I find incest revolting. Its such an awesome piece of logic. Like when people say "Thou Doth Protest Too Much".

Well in this case you do

It is possible for someone to just hate an idea. I despise capitalism, under your logic I am an anarcho-capitalist in denial. Nope.

Stop assuming my observations hyperbolic please, this is a big problem you have. Every situation is unique, and therefore every situation. You have a problem with hyperbole.

Not assuming that EVERYONE that hates someone secretly likes it, I'm saying you in particular have a siscon complex based on the subtext of what you have typed out in this thread.

Please actually address my points.

Your points can be summed up into "I'm my opinion incest is wrong, because in my opinion the human brain is wired to be repulsed by it, so if you disagree with my opinion in my opinion you are a disgusting human being."

Thou doth protest too much

Especially when your opinion can be traced to a repressed Siscon Complex, I just can't take your point's seriously

Just a quick request to humanity in general: Can we please stop assuming that everyone who dislikes something secretely loves it? I find it annoying. I find it an infuriating way of people trying to end arguments. I know in some cases its true, some of the most violent homophobes are homosexuals in denial. Yet I think you will find that a lot, probably MOST homophobes are not homosexuals in denial. Much like a lot, quite probably most, people who are anti-racism are not massive racists.

The logic is just stupid.

So are straw man arguments

I have a better one.

If you get disowned from your family, can you legally marry your (now former) siblings? That's one to bend people's brains a little.

As for sex in and off itself, well, as long the SSC rule is in effect, it's no problem at all as far as I'm concerned.

image

It took 4 pages for an Arrested Development reference (at least I didn't notice any)?

For shame, Escapist!

Anyway, so long as it's two consenting adults, I'm OK with it. And by OK I mean that I would personally would never do it, and I might think of the two people doing it to be a bit weird. Beyond that though I wouldn't say it was particularly morally wrong, or should be banned.

Arakasi:

Oh god I hate the movie Gattica. Seriously, despise the thing. And I nothing Blade Runner, I nothing it so very hard.

I bet you enjoy Nickleback too.

Come on, you're talking about eugenics supporting eugenics, even if its passively. Please tell me you've read some scholarly articles about the socolgical impact of eugenics before you start talking about it.

Between consenting adults, I could care less what they do.

On a personal note I do have a sister who is attractive. But the thought.......Ugh! I just threw up in my mouth alittle.

Vegosiux:
If you get disowned from your family, can you legally marry your (now former) siblings?

Actually thats fairly easy to reply to. The answer is no. According to the law you are still blood siblings and cannot marry. Personally I don't care. But most civilized countries laws do not recoginse family disownment.

The Ubermensch:

Mr F.:

I actually find that logic to be hilarious. Some people just do not like the idea, at all. And some of those people are strait. I know its comforting to think that EVERYONE who finds something disgusting is secretly in denial. But it simply is not true.

Do you like maggots? (Not equating gay sex to maggots, I have a fucking phobia of maggots). Very, Very few people do. Those that do not like maggots are revolted by maggots. Those that are revolted by maggots do not want to fuck maggots.

Maggots aren't sexual

But I know of people who developed a phobia of insects after watching aliens after they absorbed all the sexual metaphors

Didn't quote you in the huge reply I made. Sorry. Also, sorry if this is a double post.

I like how you are implying that I have feelings towards my sisters because I find incest revolting. Its such an awesome piece of logic. Like when people say "Thou Doth Protest Too Much".

Well in this case you do

It is possible for someone to just hate an idea. I despise capitalism, under your logic I am an anarcho-capitalist in denial. Nope.

Stop assuming my observations hyperbolic please, this is a big problem you have. Every situation is unique, and therefore every situation. You have a problem with hyperbole.

Not assuming that EVERYONE that hates someone secretly likes it, I'm saying you in particular have a siscon complex based on the subtext of what you have typed out in this thread.

Please actually address my points.

Your points can be summed up into "I'm my opinion incest is wrong, because in my opinion the human brain is wired to be repulsed by it, so if you disagree with my opinion in my opinion you are a disgusting human being."

Thou doth protest too much

Especially when your opinion can be traced to a repressed Siscon Complex

Just a quick request to humanity in general: Can we please stop assuming that everyone who dislikes something secretely loves it? I find it annoying. I find it an infuriating way of people trying to end arguments. I know in some cases its true, some of the most violent homophobes are homosexuals in denial. Yet I think you will find that a lot, probably MOST homophobes are not homosexuals in denial. Much like a lot, quite probably most, people who are anti-racism are not massive racists.

The logic is just stupid.

So are straw man arguments

*sigh*

Scroll up on and read my large reply. I made multiple points, not all of which were based on the fact that I find the act utterly repulsive. Please would you stop using internet psychology to try and indicate I secretly want to fuck members of my family. I do not, I find the very thought to be repulsive.

You are disregarding my opinion because you are finding non-existent subtext within my post. I find this highly annoying.

At no point did I state that if you disagree with my opinion that you are a disgusting human being. Hell, I did not even equate incest with being a disgusting human being. Just a disgusting act, that disgusts me, an act that would make me think you were mentally ill. It does not make you a "Disgusting person".

Please would you avoid putting words in other peoples mouths. It does make discussion rather difficult.

Finally...

At what point did I begin protesting too much? Was it when I stated my honest opinion? An opinion which is shared by a lot of people? Christ.

*ponders*

Right. Because maggots and politics were not good enough logic, how about this?

I find the idea of being pissed on to be foul. At no point would I ever allow someone to piss on me. The idea is disgusting. It disgusts me. The very thought of it makes me want to vomit. I have an instant, visceral, gut reaction to the idea. Due to my stating this, do I secretly harbour thoughts of being pissed on? Do I desperately want to be urinated on?

Please, ser, accept that some people can hate something, genuinely find it disgusting, without wanting it. And, if you simply cannot, please do not further derail this thread with a reply. Your opinion is noted, yet of no value, so stop wasting my time by sharing it.

The Ubermensch:

Arakasi:

Oh god I hate the movie Gattica. Seriously, despise the thing. And I nothing Blade Runner, I nothing it so very hard.

I bet you enjoy Nickleback too.

Come on, you're talking about eugenics supporting eugenics, even if its passively. Please tell me you've read some scholarly articles about the socolgical impact of eugenics before you start talking about it.

I absolutely have not, and now I shall copy-paste my opinion of Gattica:

Me:
Gattica was fucking terrible.

It brought up 'problems' of a potential society that two seconds of logic could solve, and the main character was a selfish dick.

Now the kind of 'problems' raised by the movie are used by anti-intellectual, anti-genetic modification, anti-stem cell research nutjobs when it could do so much good.

Mr F.:

Filiecs:

But is such disgust universal? If it was universal, then why does incest exist? Also, why are there people who are NOT disgusted by it?

Well, this one is easy: Because people do things which universally disgust other people all the time. One may as well ask why rape or genocide exist (Not that I am equating consensual incest with rape or genocide), people just do shit. Because they enjoy it, because they think that it is right, because morality is subjective (Will expand on that in the end of my post)

Except that we do have an answer for why rape and genocide are considered evil, that fit's into a larger frame of morality: Don't cause harm, do to others what you would want them to do with you, your rights expand as far as my body begins, etc.

Rape and genocide aren't even "revolting" in the same evolutionary psychological way that you try to attribute to incest to begin with. People are NOT hardwired to find rape and genocide revolting. The Old Testament urged israelites to rape the defeated enemy tribe's women, and to smash their infants on the rocks. This was the moral commandment of a Righteous God.

Our civilization didn't just arbitarily decide to change this because our guts suddenly started to tell us that it is revolting after all, but because now we understand more about empathy and about the paradigm of the Golden Rule, than we used to.

Mr F.:

Yes, it is. I cannot remember the term, its been a while since I have studied psychology. To use an example, there is a reason why maggots make us feel ill. They are bad for us, they indicate rot, rotten food, things which can harm us. That is the logic I am using.

Evolutionary psychology is only an explanation for WHy we have certain urges, it doesn't imply anything about what we should do with them.

You might find maggots disgusting, then don't be around maggots. But that doesn't mean that you should exterminate maggots, or even tell other people that they ought to stay away from maggots because they also ought to find them disgusting. [/quote]

Mr F.:

Entitled:
Your brain might be hardwired to find incest disturbing, but it's also hardwired to find people who are visibly different from your own monkey tribe revolting.

I disagree.

You are disagreeing with hard science. Look up "genetic attraction". It's a proven fact that we instinctively find faces genetically less similar to ours more repulsive.

For that matter, the famous "uncanny valley" effect also implies that human bodies that are subtly different from yours are repulsive. It's used to explain the fear of skin diseases and the fear of dead bodies (and zombies), but it can also jusify some racism, and even the disgust with old people.

Mr F.:

Yes, with regards to interracial sex taboos and all of that shit. Yes, with regards to the very concept of race. No with regards to incest, bestiality and pedophilia.

Your failure to make a moral distinction between consensual and nonconsensual sex, is disturbing.

Mr F.:

Power relationships in families are weird. Every-ones family is unique, yes, but in MOST cases, the parents have the most power and the children have the least. There is a distinct hierarchy present. The same reasoning as to why teachers should not fuck their students applies here. Power relationships, a position of care. It is frowned upon because people are on different levels, that the opportunity for exploitation is HUGE.

We created a specific cultural taboo for incest, and another one for student-teacher relatinships.

At the same time, the media glorifies inter-class romance, that also has a power difference, not to mention rescuer-romance, but even the Nightingale effect, or the Stockholm syndrome (Beauty and the Beast, anyone?) Celebrities having sex with groupies is also often glorified, there is a power difference there too.

Besides, taboos about incest already existed when society didn't give a flying fuck about consent, back when women were the legal property of their husbands, and raping a virgin meant that you then had to marry the damaged goods. People just figured out that there is a connection thabetween Incest and diseases, so they made a taboo against it. Now we have birth control, and we could even measure whether or no there is a genetic risk with any couple, so people are just making up new excuses about "power levels" that they don't really care about in other situations.

Arakasi:

Milk:
This thread is going to end well.

seydaman:
-Is incest morally wrong?

Nope.

-Should incest be legally banned?

Nope.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Yeah but provided no one is getting hurt it is none of my business.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Agreed entirely.
Although I think that having a child from incest (however close the relation is that is considered statistically dangerous for the child) should certainly be banned.

There is a slight increase but the math is still fairly safe. It would take generations of repeated sibling relations to warrant significant risk.

I don't care about if the incestuous couple makes kids or not, I'm concerned about the relationship dynamic in incestuous relationships. You'd have a tough time convincing me that a mother does not have a power over her son that makes any kind of relationship between them at best morally dubious.

Y'know how professors shouldn't have sex with pupils? It's like that, but X10.

Also, once you start building incestuous families, things get bad pretty quickly, all insular and stuff.

So yeah, I'd ban incest.

Entitled:

Mr F.:

Filiecs:

But is such disgust universal? If it was universal, then why does incest exist? Also, why are there people who are NOT disgusted by it?

*SNIP*

Except that we do have an answer for why rape and genocide are considered evil, that fit's into a larger frame of morality: Don't cause harm, do to others what you would want them to do with you, your rights expand as far as my body begins, etc.

Rape and genocide aren't even "revolting" in the same evolutionary psychological way that you try to attribute to incest to begin with. People are NOT hardwired to find rape and genocide revolting. The Old Testament urged israelites to rape the defeated enemy tribe's women, and to smash their infants on the rocks.

Our civilization didn't just arbitarily decide to change this because our guts suddenly started to tell us that it is revolting after all, but because now we understand more about empathy and about the paradigm of the Golden Rule, than we used to.

Mr F.:

*SNIP*

Evolutionary psychology is only an explanation for WHy we have certain urges, it doesn't imply anything about what we should do with them.

You might find maggots disgusting, then don't be around maggots. But that doesn't mean that you should exterminate maggots, or even tell other people that they ought to stay away from maggots because they also ought to find them disgusting.

Entitled:

Mr F.:

Entitled:
Your brain might be hardwired to find incest disturbing, but it's also hardwired to find people who are visibly different from your own monkey tribe revolting.

I disagree.

You are disagreeing with hard science. Look up "genetic attraction". It's a proven fact that we instinctively find faces genetically less similar to ours more repulsive.

For that matter, the famous "uncanny valley" effect also implies that human bodies that are subtly different from yours are repulsive. It's used to explain the fear of skin diseases and the fear of dead bodies (and zombies), but it can also jusify some racism, and even the disgust with old people.

Mr F.:

Yes, with regards to interracial sex taboos and all of that shit. Yes, with regards to the very concept of race. No with regards to incest, bestiality and pedophilia.

Your failure to make a moral distinction between consensual and nonconsensual sex, is disturbing.

Oh, I did make a little point about consensual incest earlier on. As in, it is slightly different. But I still think it is foul.

Honestly? I find the idea of people trying to defend incest to be disturbing. I find the very idea disturbing and I genuinely think (Like the above examples) it is a sign that someone is mentally ill. Whilst acceptance for the mentally ill is a good thing, not something I would argue against, I would argue against legalising incest and making it socially acceptable.

Because it is one thing to try and help people who are ill, another to legislate in such a way that nobody bats an eyelid. Sorry of this sounds... Insulting? Insensitive?

I sorta made the point in my huge post. I think if you are fucking a family member something is wrong with you. I find it repulsive.

But this is just something that is going to have be accepted in further discussion. Sorry if you find my views disturbing. Let me state that the feeling is vaguely likewise.

Entitled:

Mr F.:

Power relationships in families are weird. Every-ones family is unique, yes, but in MOST cases, the parents have the most power and the children have the least. There is a distinct hierarchy present. The same reasoning as to why teachers should not fuck their students applies here. Power relationships, a position of care. It is frowned upon because people are on different levels, that the opportunity for exploitation is HUGE.

We created a specific cultural taboo for incest, and another one for student-teacher relatinships.

At the same time, the media glorifies inter-class romance, that also has a power difference, not to mention rescuer-romance, but even the Nightingale effect, or the Stockholm syndrome (Beauty and the Beast, anyone?) Celebrities having sex with groupies is also often glorified, there is a power difference there too.

Besides, taboos about incest already existed when society didn't give a flying fuck about consent, back when women were the legal property of their husbands, and raping a virgin meant that you then had to marry the damaged goods. People just figured out that there is a connection between Incest and diseases, so they made a taboo against it. Now we have birth control, and we could even measure whether or no there is a genetic risk with any couple, so people are just making up new excuses about "power levels" that they don't really care about in other situations.

What if I stated that I do think the power levels argument holds water and I do care about it in other situations? My teacher-pupil argument is still a decent example of one of my main arguments against incest. Also, a few of your examples do not quite work. Someone falling in love with a rescuer (Someone who briefly held power over them and no longer does) is quite different from someone fucking a family member. You can just walk away from a rescuer. Bleh. Honestly, I find it hard to come up with a decent analogy for incest. It is rather unique.

Although I am beginning to consider that perhaps I should change a small aspect of my view. If I attempt to think about things from a more objective standpoint it is harder to argue that incest is morally wrong. Sex between consenting adults is not wrong.

Just... Revolting. And, in the case of a parent and child, I would still hold morally wrong (For the same arguments as the teacher-pupil relationship, duty of care etc etc etc).

It is wrong of me to apply the fact that I find an act repulsive to morality.

That said, I still hold that it is repulsive and a sign of mental illness.

Arakasi:

I absolutely have not, and now I shall copy-paste my opinion of Gattica:

Me:
Gattica was fucking terrible.

It brought up 'problems' of a potential society that two seconds of logic could solve, and the main character was a selfish dick.

Now the kind of 'problems' raised by the movie are used by anti-intellectual, anti-genetic modification, anti-stem cell research nutjobs when it could do so much good.

They are also used by Transhumanists. Gattaca dealt with prenatal genetic modification and genetic profiling. Stem cells are post-natal and I didn't see anything anti-intellectual about it unless you think that there are a subset of people physically unable to comprehend astrophysics based on their genetics, which is untrue as we've discovered that genes aren't the be all and end all of your physical make up. Please look up the term Epigenetics.

Mr F.:

*sigh*

Scroll up on and read my large reply. I made multiple points, not all of which were based on the fact that I find the act utterly repulsive. Please would you stop using internet psychology to try and indicate I secretly want to fuck members of my family. I do not, I find the very thought to be repulsive.

>I know I love my sisters more then I could (currently) love a partner

*Snigger*

You are disregarding my opinion because you are finding non-existent subtext within my post. I find this highly annoying.

W3LL, 1F MY OBS3RV4T1ONS 4R3 1NCORR3CT, B4S3D ON F4LICI3 WHY DO YOU F33L TH3 N33D TO CONV1NC3 M3 I'M WRONG?

At no point did I state that if you disagree with my opinion that you are a disgusting human being.

>- Should incest be legally banned? Yes.

No, you just think love should be legislated and your morality should be imposed on others.

Hell, I did not even equate incest with being a disgusting human being. Just a disgusting act, that disgusts me, an act that would make me think you were mentally ill. It does not make you a "Disgusting person".

Please, impose your opinion on the world, while the church imposes theres

Please would you avoid putting words in other peoples mouths. It does make discussion rather difficult.

I will if you will captain hyperbolic strawman argument

At what point did I begin protesting too much? Was it when I stated my honest opinion? An opinion which is shared by a lot of people? Christ.

It is in the opinion of a lot of people that sodomy is abhorrent too. Don't hide behind the collective, it just strengthens my argument about subtext.

You: *Huh, I love my sister and want to do things to her*
Society: "Doing your sister is wrong!"
You: *Oh damn, society thinks doing your sister is wrong, I must hide my secret shame, but how to do that?"
You: "Doing your sister is wrong!"

*ponders*

Right. Because maggots and politics were not good enough logic, how about this?

>Equating maggots and politics to logic
I think we found where you went wrong

I find the idea of being pissed on to be foul. At no point would I ever allow someone to piss on me. The idea is disgusting. It disgusts me. The very thought of it makes me want to vomit. I have an instant, visceral, gut reaction to the idea. Due to my stating this, do I secretly harbour thoughts of being pissed on? Do I desperately want to be urinated on?

We are comparing waste (which some consider sexy I should point out) to your kawaii-desu-ne Imouto-chan. Either you are being facetious or its telling the mental lengths you have gone to to prevent yourself from ravishing that.

Please, ser, accept that some people can hate something, genuinely find it disgusting, without wanting it.

I accept that some people genuinely find things disgusting. What I don't accept is people turning their preferences into legislation and imposing it on everyone

And, if you simply cannot, please do not further derail this thread with a reply. Your opinion is noted, yet of no value, so stop wasting my time by sharing it.

Is it in your power to give someone the last word? I can, but not to someone who imposes a law on an act that doesn't infringe on natural rights.

Mr F.:

I sorta made the point in my huge post. I think if you are fucking a family member something is wrong with you. I find it repulsive.

But this is just something that is going to have be accepted in further discussion. Sorry if you find my views disturbing. Let me state that the feeling is vaguely likewise.

My real problem is not with your actual beliefs, but with your obvious lack of trying to connect your statement to any coherent belief system. Morality might be subjective to some extent, but moral systems can still be expected to have some sort of axiom behind them beyond "whatever I find wrong must be wrong".

Not to mention your usage of the concept of "mental illness", which also deviates from the medically accepted norm.

"people should be free to do whatever they want with their body" is a pretty commonly used liberal moral axiom.

"God created humans with an optimal natural order and we should try following that" is a conservative axiom.

When homophobes debate with gay rights people, I might find one side more repulsive than the other, and one more logically coherent than the other (and the two might not even be the same!), but at least they are both TRYING to be logically coherent and fit their views into a larger moral paradigm.

Incest?

Incest...is none of my business. I have never been affected by it, I never will, I have never known anyone engage in the act or suffered from moral problems regarding incest.

Incest is something I will never be fully educated on to form an opinion so thus I will keep my mouth shut.

Darken12:

Milk:
This thread is going to end well.

seydaman:
-Is incest morally wrong?

Nope.

-Should incest be legally banned?

Nope.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Yeah but provided no one is getting hurt it is none of my business.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to this sort of stuff.

This is my view as well. Though from a medical standpoint, I would recommend genetic counselling for heterosexual couples who might run the risk of being pregnant, just as it is recommended for couples who have a risk of passing on genetic conditions on their offspring.

Genetic counseling probably isn't a bad idea for anyone period, but unless there's a family history of genetic conditions popping up, the likelihood of it happening to children conceived through an incestuous relationship isn't tremendously higher than two random people hooking up. There's definitely a higher chance of it, but the actual change in risk tends to get blown out of proportion by the general populace.

Entitled:

Milk:

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Yeah but provided no one is getting hurt it is none of my business.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to this sort of stuff.

If someone would say "I find homosexuality disgusting but it's none of my business", "liberal" wouldn't be my firrst word of choice to describe that.

I understand the observation you are attempting to make but there is nothing about that statement is not liberal.

Besides I think you are to caught up on the word 'disgusting'. Disgusting is one of those words that can come across as something stronger than how the person truly feels. In this instance it could be interchanged with something milder like 'gross', or 'unpleasant' but really the intent and meaning behind the words are essentially the same.

And, if you still get your PC hard-on over that realise I find the idea of thinking about most couples having sex to be pretty damn gross. I don't want to think about my mother having sex, I don't want to think about a fat man having sex and I don't want to think about an incestuous couple having sex.

The Ubermensch:

Arakasi:

I absolutely have not, and now I shall copy-paste my opinion of Gattica:

Me:
Gattica was fucking terrible.

It brought up 'problems' of a potential society that two seconds of logic could solve, and the main character was a selfish dick.

Now the kind of 'problems' raised by the movie are used by anti-intellectual, anti-genetic modification, anti-stem cell research nutjobs when it could do so much good.

They are also used by Transhumanists. Gattaca dealt with prenatal genetic modification and genetic profiling. Stem cells are post-natal and I didn't see anything anti-intellectual about it unless you think that there are a subset of people physically unable to comprehend astrophysics based on their genetics, which is untrue as we've discovered that genes aren't the be all and end all of your physical make up. Please look up the term Epigenetics.

No, I'm not saying the movie is anti-intellectual, it very much isn't. I'm saying it's used by anti-intellectuals to justify backwards beliefs.

And I did a biology course. I know about genotypes and phenotypes.

Entitled:

Mr F.:

I sorta made the point in my huge post. I think if you are fucking a family member something is wrong with you. I find it repulsive.

But this is just something that is going to have be accepted in further discussion. Sorry if you find my views disturbing. Let me state that the feeling is vaguely likewise.

My real problem is not with your actual beliefs, but with your obvious lack of trying to connect your statement to any coherent belief system. Morality might be subjective to some extent, but moral systems can still be expected to have some sort of axiom behind them beyond "whatever I find wrong must be wrong".

Not to mention your usage of the concept of "mental illness", which also deviates from the medically accepted norm.

"people should be free to do whatever they want with their body" is a pretty commonly used liberal moral axiom.

"God created humans with an optimal natural order and we should try following that" is a conservative axiom.

When homophobes debate with gay rights people, I might find one side more repulsive than the other, and one more logically coherent than the other (and the two might not even be the same!), but at least they are both TRYING to be logically coherent and fit their views into a larger moral paradigm.

Did you finish reading my response?

I accepted that my view that it is morally wrong is not objective and therefore wrong. I have come to the conclusion that it is not morally wrong for two consenting adults to be in an incestuous relationship. However, I still hold that I find it utterly repulsive. Which does... Well, defuse the situation somewhat.

As for mental illness?

Well, this is where my view is again, slightly interesting and possibly offensive. In short: Accepting you have a problem is stage one on getting the problem sorted. Much like a pedophile needs help, I believe that someone who is partaking in incest needs help.

Before it is argued that I am stating it is morally wrong (I have accepted my view was incorrect), I do not believe that suicide is morally wrong. But I still believe someone who is suicidal needs help. So whilst incest might not be morally wrong, in some situations, I believe that those who would partake need help and are ill.

Arakasi:

No, I'm not saying the movie is anti-intellectual, it very much isn't. I'm saying it's used by anti-intellectuals to justify backwards beliefs.

Well thats hardly a reason to hate the movie. I know goodwins law and all, but I think this usage is the reverse, we don't hate Nietzsche because the Nazis bastardised his concept of the Ubermensch to include Aryan features

And I did a biology course. I know about genotypes and phenotypes.

These are out dated, please look up the term Epigenetic.

Or hell, here's a good video

seydaman:

-Is incest morally wrong?
-In the case of no possible offspring?
-With offspring?

-Should incest be legally banned?
-Does the act of incest disgust you?

No.

Well, that was fun! Let's just forward this to the rest of the world and-- oh.

---
See, the problem is, people think incest and default to godless heathen low IQ degenerates who are so disgusting only their own kin will take them, and they just pump out unholy deformed mutant babbies.

Now I can't speak as to how people actually go about porking their family, but the children thing? Massively overblown.
When you consider that the average chance for two as-unrelated-as-it's-possible-to-be people having a child born with birth defects is 2%, and that incest between siblings (not even cousins) is only double that... it's not a massive problem.
Yes, successive instances of incest and inbreeding will increase the chance for latent heath problems to express themselves, but at that point the situation is probably more endemic of some sort of abuse.

Regardless!
What consenting people do with or to each other, I feel, shouldn't concern anybody else.

Milk:
This thread is going to end well.

seydaman:
-Is incest morally wrong?

Nope.

-Should incest be legally banned?

Nope.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Yeah but provided no one is getting hurt it is none of my business.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Thus sums it up nicely. Although I do think that the couple, in the case of pregnancy, should think about the possibility of the child being born with any genetic problems and possible social side effects. So having a bit of foresight.

I wonder if people in this thread are taking into account the psychological aspects.

Incest was certainly a factor that encouraged and enabled sexual depravity in the West family.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_West )

Have the psychological effects of incest ever been researched or documented?

Is incest morally wrong?
Yes
In the case of no possible offspring?
Yes
With offspring?
Ew, yes!

Should incest be legally banned?
Probably.
Does the act of incest disgust you?
No...

I should clarify my standing on the ban. As I can see the moral and genetic problems with incest, it probably should be banned. But then there's the aspect of freedom. If two guys can get married because they're in love, why shouldn't two cousins? And the issue with religious groups would be smaller because God didn't fry people for incest. It would also need to define incest more clearly. How closely related would they have to be? That's kind of an important distinction.

And yeah, incest doesn't gross me out. I actually think its kind of hot. I should probably stop now...

incest doesnt bother me i guess since its their choice.

The Ubermensch:

Arakasi:

No, I'm not saying the movie is anti-intellectual, it very much isn't. I'm saying it's used by anti-intellectuals to justify backwards beliefs.

Well thats hardly a reason to hate the movie. I know goodwins law and all, but I think this usage is the reverse, we don't hate Nietzsche because the Nazis bastardised his concept of the Ubermensch to include Aryan features

Valid point, it still grates me though. That and the other things I mentioned.

The Ubermensch:

And I did a biology course. I know about genotypes and phenotypes.

These are out dated, please look up the term Epigenetic.

Or hell, here's a good video

That was quite interesting, I had heard of something similar before but it wasn't spelled out in such a manner. Though I'm still not quite sure how it tied in to the discussion.

Smeatza:
I wonder if people in this thread are taking into account the psychological aspects.

Incest was certainly a factor that encouraged and enabled sexual depravity in the West family.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_West )

Have the psychological effects of incest ever been researched or documented?

The problem with investigating what the psychological effects of defying a common moral taboo are, is that it inevitably ends up mixing up cause with effect.

Maybe incest "enabled" sexual depravity in the West family. Or maybe incest was an example of sexual depravity being enabled in the West family.

A few decades or centuries ago, in a world where homosexuality is illegal, a disproportional amount of gays that you would have heard about, would have been rapists. Not because there was any inherent connection between homosexuality and rape, but because smart, educated gays with self-control would have either kept their pants on, or found a discreet partner, while impulsive, uneducated, irresponsible ones would have gotten caught with their pants down. That's where the old "gays are pedophiles" stereotype originates from).

Maybe if incest would be culturally accepted, there wouldn't be any difference seen between two siblings ending up together, and two childhood friends ending up together, therefore we would be more likely to find successful, respectable, balanced people doing it. But as long as it's both illegal and shunned, it's inevitable that our sample of incestous relationships is leaning towards the kind of people who are already likely to break the law and defy social norms.

Mr F.:

Before it is argued that I am stating it is morally wrong (I have accepted my view was incorrect), I do not believe that suicide is morally wrong. But I still believe someone who is suicidal needs help. So whilst incest might not be morally wrong, in some situations, I believe that those who would partake need help and are ill.

You know what they used to do to homosexuals in England? You could go to prison or your could be chemically castrated.

Because of this legislation the greatest man in all of everything, Alan Turing, took his own life. The man who created a device that cracked the enigma code and is responsible for saving the world was forced to take drugs that messed him up to the point where he killed himself because his government thought that having sodomy with another consenting man was abhorrent and thought that they could "Fix" him.

I agree with you, there are some psychological factors, but you can't blanket every single case as being wrong. If they are consenting adults who cares. It's not like they're marching down the street proclaiming their love in multicoloured attire; which I guess is part of the reason its so easy to attack them.

You can't possibly know what's going on in everyone's mind when you won't even admit what's going on in yours

Arakasi:

Valid point, it still grates me though. That and the other things I mentioned.

>anti-intellectual
Nietzsche
>anti-genetic modification
Nietzsche and Prenatal Genetic Modification
>anti-stem cell
Used by nut jobs, yes, the movie itself isn't against that. Its against Prenatal Genmods

So these are gone

>It brought up 'problems' of a potential society that two seconds of logic could solve
Slavery, Racism, Famine, Social Inequality
History is filled with issues that can be solved with two seconds of logic, the reason that we don't use it is because if we did those with power would lose some if not all their power.
That's why the south fought against the north, thats why 92% of america's GDP goes to 5% of Americans

I will admit that the fact that we don't use this logic breaks my suspension of disbelief with reality too, but the movie was very much in keeping with the matrix we inhabit.

>and the main character was a selfish dick.
Gonna have to explain that one too me, seemed like he was just doing what he had to do in order to achieve his goals. He didn't do anything to anyone with out their consent, and the injustice inflicted on him were far worse than anything he did to anyone else.

That was quite interesting, I had heard of something similar before but it wasn't spelled out in such a manner. Though I'm still not quite sure how it tied in to the discussion.

Well, you and the guy you quoted were in favour of selecting genes, I've just proved that's futile with that video. The context in which you said it would be used was fair enough, but once the technology is available you can bet people will start using it in general. On top of the fact that prenatal genetic manipulation leaves those living behind, having the burden of being perfect is something we should not give to our children. Eugenics is wrong, however if it can be done postnatally then its fine, hence "I most certainly am asking for this".

You also said that you knew about genotypes and phenotypes, thinkning that's what I was talking about. "Ignorance isn't the enemy of knowledge, the illusion of knowledge is"

The more you know!

I think that something like incest is just so culturally engrained, and so deeply embedded in our society as being wrong, that I don't think it will see the light of day anytime soon. And to be honest, some things are better left alone. There's too much risk with incest.
I find that a lot of people want to stretch and break rules just for the sake of having no rules, not because it will actually produce anything useful. I think that the reasons keeping incest socially repulsive are called for.

seydaman:
For a starting definition so there's no confusion

Definition of incest
noun
sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
Origin:
Middle English: from Latin incestus, incestum 'unchastity, incest', from in- 'not' + castus 'chaste'

It's from the Oxford Dictionary.

For discussion:

-Is incest morally wrong?
-In the case of no possible offspring?
-With offspring?

-Should incest be legally banned?
-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Given the topic, I think this should be an interesting supplement

In answer to your questions though (from my perspective at least)

Morally wrong?

No

In case of offspring?

Only if it's with direct family ie brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son, and that's only due to the the higher likelihood of genetic defects coming to the fore, and even then it's still up for debate.

Legally banned?

Hell no. Sex between two consenting adults is my only criterion for coital circumstances.

Disgust me?

Well let me put it this way: a few years back i was at a summer sophia symposium, I found out that two of my friends there were dating and hooking up despite being related to each other, specifically second cousins i think. My reaction to discovering that? I shrugged my shoulders and went back to my morning flapjacks.

Two consenting adults? No problem.

However, adult/child is wrong because it's an adult having sex with a child. I think that's (one of) the original reasons it's considered bad - adult/child gets rapey pretty much immediately.

For this reason, I'm generally more okay with sibling incest than anything between parent/child. Even between consenting adults, the parent/child seems ickier. Probably just my bias, but there you have it.

Then again, this whole thread is about personal bias (of one sort or other), so I'm not really alone.

I have no moral problem with incest itself. Whatever certain family members want to do, I've got no problem as long as it's consensual. What I do have a problem with is inbreeding: obviously, it presents real genetic problems and that's what I think shouldn't be allowed. The rates of mental illness are high and the national IQ is low, and we don't need to exacerbate that problem.
I'm not saying incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children, all I'm saying is that they should have to adopt.

The Ubermensch:

Mr F.:

Before it is argued that I am stating it is morally wrong (I have accepted my view was incorrect), I do not believe that suicide is morally wrong. But I still believe someone who is suicidal needs help. So whilst incest might not be morally wrong, in some situations, I believe that those who would partake need help and are ill.

You know what they used to do to homosexuals in England? You could go to prison or your could be chemically castrated.

Yes, I do. Of course I do. I am a bisexual living in England and I have studied history. I know what happened to Turing, I know he was pumped full of hormones. I also know that psychiatry has moved on since then, that we have stopped lobotomising people and that, in general, things are pretty decent within mental health care in this country. Could be better, could be worse.

The Ubermensch:

*SNIP*

I agree with you, there are some psychological factors, but you can't blanket every single case as being wrong.

You know, this would be easier if you actually started properly reading what I am writing! I accepted it is not immoral, however I will not move from me thinking that it is a sign of mental illness. If I am proven wrong in the fullness of time, fine and dandy. Thats life. However, I do find fucking a family member abhorrent. I find it revolting. And I believe that someone who is making the choice to fuck family members needs their head examined. I do not like you trying to argue that this situation is the same as homosexuality. The LGBTQ is not the LGBTQI. Sorry.

The Ubermensch:
If they are consenting adults who cares.

Again, I stated that I believe it is not immoral, but that I think it is a sign of being mentally ill. A quick search online only gives me cases of people who were abused in childhood (Although a clear link is there between victims of childhood sexual abuse and mental illness), it is rather hard to do studies on people who admit to being in incestuous relationships.

The Ubermensch:
It's not like they're marching down the street proclaiming their love in multicoloured attire; which I guess is part of the reason its so easy to attack them.

You can't possibly know what's going on in everyone's mind when you won't even admit what's going on in yours

*SNIP*

Please. Stop. For christs sake. I did not respond to your last post. It seems like your attempts to get the last word go so far as you having to have the last word twice (Thus continuing this circular bullshit.) This community has gone downhill since you are no longer able to label a troll a troll (that being a non-sequitur and not in reference to you, my good man).

If you wish to have a discussion, let us have a discussion.

But please, stop with your attempts to annoy me.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked