Incest

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Provided it's between consenting adults I see no problem with it. Anything like kids being abused by their parents would come under child abuse anyway, or sexual abuse laws if the 'kid' is also an adult, so we have laws in place already to cover those cases. As far as consenting relationships (casual or otherwise) go, I see no problems here. I actually have a story in my head that includes two characters, a pair of twin sisters, who are in an incestuous relationship (well, until one of them is murdered) - the surviving twin is one of the main characters, and the relationship is only ever shown as being loving and normal compared to the other characters' relationships. That should tell you all you need to know about my view on incest. I.e. it's perfectly fine by me.

I'm perfectly fine with incest-

Morally: There is no such thing as a universal correct morality,Morality is man made as it is a belief and is not a tangible/measurable occurrence in nature and as such it is completely subjective with no one moral belief system being any more correct than the other and as such making laws based purely on morals is incorrect.

Offspring: With all the way's we can prevent childbirth this is non-issue,if the idea of a defective child scares you so much simply enforce the use of condoms/abortions. We allow "normal" couples to give birth to defective children so why is it different for incest couples,"oh they have a higher chance" so what! Or couples have a chance but we don't regulate them giving birth or not same thing with this.

Personally: It doesn't effect therefore I do not care if incest is practised or not. So really we are bannning something just because people find it gross which if we are going to have laws is a horrible way to go about it as what people find gross is so subjective that it allows anything to be banned because of the personal belief of a few people. Instead what should be banned is thing that directly harm the running of society as that is the purpose of the law-to make sure that the community runs smoothly.

It's weird but to each his own and if there are offspring just make sure they are not the horribly mutated kind that go on massacres with chainsaws.

Arakasi:

Aha. Well that should certainly be a challenging read for one of my mindset. Though I my understanding was that it was primarily anti-authoritarianist and not necessarily communist.

He was disillusioned by Communism at the time. But the point of 1984 is that dehumanising the population isn't inherent to the type of government you have.

You should know that there is a reason beyond mere general critisism behind why I don't like Blade Runner and Gattaca: I was forced to study them in school. That'll ruin the best of movies. Although there was one technique I liked in Blade Runner, and that was the one where all the replicants in the film had their eyes flash, and in one scene, for a split second Harrison Ford's eyes flashed. And I do like the setting, it was basically ripped off by my favorite childhood games: Perfect Dark. I'll watch your video and respond should I find anything interesting to discuss about it.

Eyes... I loved literary deconstruction, that's what I do. We got to do Star ship troopers and Enders Game in high school; that teacher was edgy as fuck

I'm 19, if that gives you any indication of what I've grown up with. As far as I'm concerned, it's primarily Pokemon.

22, Gardevoir is the shit. I EV train motherfucker come at me.

But my mum was really into scifi.

I agree, that doesn't however mean there is free will. I have argued this a trillion times on these forums and unless you're particularly interesting in understanding why there is no free will (I word it this way becase it is not an opinion it is fact, just one few think about and subscribe to).

If you're talking about how experience, genetics, the temperature in the centre of the earth, the amount of radiation produced by the sun, your interactions with other people, the time the pope took a crap on 28/6/1641, the lines of flux emanating from the Andromeda galaxy and every single other variable in the universe are all part of the equation that determines your next decision then yes, I can see that.

It doesn't diminish your choices though.

It all depends on the cost to the companies that can perform it. Admittedly it could be problematic were it only for the rich, creating a class divide and a genetic divide in one, however the GM rich could easily donate sperm to make shitloads of money on GM sperm and equalise the inequality.

But why would they? they make more profit off of a depressed labour market that will work for chips.

The brain is just a machine; a highly complex biological computer. So theoretically it is possible, but I think using cybernetics to fix it is kind of like trying to stickytape an egg back together.

Depends on what the issue is; if it was a visual issue like colour blindness you could replace the occipital lobe. They are actually mapping the brain pathways at the moment and have found that there is a lot more order to the synapse pathways that they expected.

You can't like... Own things, man.

I kid, but this is something I've been thinking about. I suppose you own land by trading with the person who originally owned it, and if it isn't owned, I guess it could be claimed (within some sort of reason I haven't thought of) or perhaps the government does own it by default of being able to defend it then it sells it to the people as a contract that the government will defend that area of land, considered part of x country. I'd like to hear Rand's view on this, but I haven't heard of it as of yet.

Dude, just chillax and smoke a dubie.

See, a wise person would tell you that it was an inequality to begin with that caused the problem, the concept of 'illegals' not the system of capitalism.

I just said that dehumanisation of a person isn't inherited by a type of system.

Not living in America I am not sure what you're talking about. I think taxes should pay for education (only the taxes of parents) (because face it, no one will ever get this right unless it is run by a board of scientists or something similar), the police and the military. I do like the idea of optional taxation, for example having a default tax that allows you access to universal health care, but being able to opt out of it should you think you don't need it. Same applies for roads.

I'm actually from Australia, here we do pay car registration which pays for the roads... I really don't want to get into taxation as I think money is actually becoming obsolete as we approach the Type One Epoch. I see Technocopianism, basically true Marxist communism (which has never existed in reality) with a decentralised government, made possible through technology and lasers.

I could go into why I think this but I pretty much already have.

Again, not an objectivist, and even so objectivism is certainly not what is happening in America otherwise Rand wouldn't have written a word.

I didn't say it was objectivist, I was saying the "Ideal" you proposed already exists in America. As you said, this isn't objectivism. There is something about Rand's philosophy which is very Darwinian. Darwin's philosophy of survival of the fittest has actually been disproved; many creatures act socially, help each other survive. I mean in many way's humans do this and we are the most successful species on the planet. War's are won by cooperation, advancement is made through finding new ways of healing the sick. We are at our best when we bind together, normally against another group of us but hey? It sorta works.

That's my issue with objectivism. In truth you have to let some people suffer or else they will never learn, but most of the time it's okay to give the hobo on the side of the street your spare change.

My respect for the Japanese has significantly risen in light of this information. I personally try not to be biased towards my family and that is seen as incredibly odd by, well, everyone. The Stoics seem to be pretty good for it though.

Please, verify what people say.

image

I read xkcd, in fact that comic was one of the reasons I bought Atlas Shrugged. "You're telling me it's an evil terribly written piece of trash that attempts to justifiy absolute selfishness and that no one should ever read it ever? Yeah, well I'll think I'll decide that for myself. To the Book Depository!". I'm not saying that xkcd said that, but that sure seemed to be everyone else's opinon. Being about 5/6 through it, it doesn't deserve the rap it gets.

Yeah probably, we all actually agree with most of what she says, but the levels she thinks we need to go are a bit to extreme for most of us

and to be honest:

The Ubermensch:

Arakasi:

Aha. Well that should certainly be a challenging read for one of my mindset. Though I my understanding was that it was primarily anti-authoritarianist and not necessarily communist.

He was disillusioned by Communism at the time. But the point of 1984 is that dehumanising the population isn't inherent to the type of government you have.]

Ahh, right. I don't exactly know what is meant by 'dehumanisation' though.

The Ubermensch:

You should know that there is a reason beyond mere general critisism behind why I don't like Blade Runner and Gattaca: I was forced to study them in school. That'll ruin the best of movies. Although there was one technique I liked in Blade Runner, and that was the one where all the replicants in the film had their eyes flash, and in one scene, for a split second Harrison Ford's eyes flashed. And I do like the setting, it was basically ripped off by my favorite childhood games: Perfect Dark. I'll watch your video and respond should I find anything interesting to discuss about it.

Eyes... I loved literary deconstruction, that's what I do. We got to do Star ship troopers and Enders Game in high school; that teacher was edgy as fuck

Oh, I love it now but making a child do it as a part of class, it'll ruin anything.

The Ubermensch:

I'm 19, if that gives you any indication of what I've grown up with. As far as I'm concerned, it's primarily Pokemon.

22, Gardevoir is the shit. I EV train motherfucker come at me.

Nice. More of a 1-2 gen man myself, but I don't mind gen 3.

The Ubermensch:

But my mum was really into scifi.

Mine was more into say, Star Trek than specific movies. I still like Next Generation.

The Ubermensch:

I agree, that doesn't however mean there is free will. I have argued this a trillion times on these forums and unless you're particularly interesting in understanding why there is no free will (I word it this way becase it is not an opinion it is fact, just one few think about and subscribe to).

If you're talking about how experience, genetics, the temperature in the centre of the earth, the amount of radiation produced by the sun, your interactions with other people, the time the pope took a crap on 28/6/1641, the lines of flux emanating from the Andromeda galaxy and every single other variable in the universe are all part of the equation that determines your next decision then yes, I can see that.

It doesn't diminish your choices though.

Well there are 4 camps, the one which says you can have free will even with determinism (compatibalism), one that says you can't (hard determinism, one that says the universe isn't deterministic and there is free will (libertarianism) and one that says there isn't free will in an indeterministic universe (hard incompatibalism).

I generally fall under 'hard determinist', but I will admit that most modern physicists don't think determinism is true, so I'm willing to accept hard indeterminism.

I agree though, it doesn't diminish choice, it just diminishes the way most people think about choice, i.e. 'Free Will'.

The Ubermensch:

It all depends on the cost to the companies that can perform it. Admittedly it could be problematic were it only for the rich, creating a class divide and a genetic divide in one, however the GM rich could easily donate sperm to make shitloads of money on GM sperm and equalise the inequality.

But why would they? they make more profit off of a depressed labour market that will work for chips.

Because in an environment where no one sells, the sperm is greater than gold. You can rely on selfishness to fix that one.

The Ubermensch:

The brain is just a machine; a highly complex biological computer. So theoretically it is possible, but I think using cybernetics to fix it is kind of like trying to stickytape an egg back together.

Depends on what the issue is; if it was a visual issue like colour blindness you could replace the occipital lobe. They are actually mapping the brain pathways at the moment and have found that there is a lot more order to the synapse pathways that they expected.

Sure, but can you imagine getting anything in the brain without damaging it? I mean, who knows what the future will hold, but remember that prevention is almost exclusively better than the cure.

The Ubermensch:

You can't like... Own things, man.

I kid, but this is something I've been thinking about. I suppose you own land by trading with the person who originally owned it, and if it isn't owned, I guess it could be claimed (within some sort of reason I haven't thought of) or perhaps the government does own it by default of being able to defend it then it sells it to the people as a contract that the government will defend that area of land, considered part of x country. I'd like to hear Rand's view on this, but I haven't heard of it as of yet.

Dude, just chillax and smoke a dubie.

The day I smoke a dubie is the day I will allow someone to decapitate me.

The Ubermensch:

Not living in America I am not sure what you're talking about. I think taxes should pay for education (only the taxes of parents) (because face it, no one will ever get this right unless it is run by a board of scientists or something similar), the police and the military. I do like the idea of optional taxation, for example having a default tax that allows you access to universal health care, but being able to opt out of it should you think you don't need it. Same applies for roads.

I'm actually from Australia, here we do pay car registration which pays for the roads...

Interesting coincidence, so am I.

The Ubermensch:

I really don't want to get into taxation as I think money is actually becoming obsolete as we approach the Type One Epoch. I see Technocopianism, basically true Marxist communism (which has never existed in reality) with a decentralised government, made possible through technology and lasers.

You should visit my thread about the Experience Machine, if you haven't already. Anyhow, I think something like that, if you're talking about what I think you're talking about, is more far away then we think.

The Ubermensch:

Again, not an objectivist, and even so objectivism is certainly not what is happening in America otherwise Rand wouldn't have written a word.

I didn't say it was objectivist, I was saying the "Ideal" you proposed already exists in America. As you said, this isn't objectivism. There is something about Rand's philosophy which is very Darwinian. Darwin's philosophy of survival of the fittest has actually been disproved; many creatures act socially, help each other survive.

Ever read The Selfish Gene? If not, do it now. It is amazing, and it explains how creatures help each other socially from a selfish place and how that results in apparent altruism.

The Ubermensch:

I mean in many way's humans do this and we are the most successful species on the planet. War's are won by cooperation, advancement is made through finding new ways of healing the sick. We are at our best when we bind together, normally against another group of us but hey? It sorta works.

See above. Read The Selfish Gene.

The Ubermensch:

That's my issue with objectivism. In truth you have to let some people suffer or else they will never learn, but most of the time it's okay to give the hobo on the side of the street your spare change.

I disagree. It is never okay to give the hobo on the street your spare change. If you are going to help him, do it right, do not give him the means to buy move of whatever his/her vice is.

The Ubermensch:

My respect for the Japanese has significantly risen in light of this information. I personally try not to be biased towards my family and that is seen as incredibly odd by, well, everyone. The Stoics seem to be pretty good for it though.

Please, verify what people say.

You want me to go into what the Stoics think about family relations?

The Ubermensch:

I read xkcd, in fact that comic was one of the reasons I bought Atlas Shrugged. "You're telling me it's an evil terribly written piece of trash that attempts to justifiy absolute selfishness and that no one should ever read it ever? Yeah, well I'll think I'll decide that for myself. To the Book Depository!". I'm not saying that xkcd said that, but that sure seemed to be everyone else's opinon. Being about 5/6 through it, it doesn't deserve the rap it gets.

Yeah probably, we all actually agree with most of what she says, but the levels she thinks we need to go are a bit to extreme for most of us

Then you have the people who judge based on speculation without actually having read it. Sigh.

The Ubermensch:

and to be honest:

Depressing.

-Is incest morally wrong?
No.

-In the case of no possible offspring?
No.

-With offspring?
No. It's a calculated (slight) risk.

-Should incest be legally banned?
No.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?
No.

Is incest wrong? No, not really. The only issues that should really be considered with incest are the possibilities for defects (something that generally isn't too much of a risk until you get several generations of incest) and the relations between the two parties. If the two parties are within the same generation like siblings or cousins, then the relationship between them would usually be fine, but when you start going outside their generation it becomes a problem.

Take parents for example; they have an inherent amount of influence over their children due to their legal and parental power over them. I'd say that in such cases, you might have to institute rules similar to those of psychiatrists and teachers; you can't have a relationship with someone you have that much power over.

Is it morally wrong? Brother - sister, aunt - nephew, uncle - niece; all perfectly cool in my book so long as babies are not being made and everyone is legal and consenting because, hey, they ain't hurting anyone. Mother - son, father - daughter however is a bit less so, not that it's truly awful it's just not quite as morally grey...

Should it be banned? Maybe not outright, but it should be frowned upon and doing it without protection should be very illegal.

Does it disgust me? No, not really, so long as there's no offspring and it's... Clean. If I found out a friend was fucking his sister I'd be fine with it. Hell, if I had a sister that was attractive, legal age and consenting I wouldn't be totally against it...

Lawnmooer:
Yeah, there is some risk caused by incest, but stuff like the royal bloodlines (Where they try and keep their blood "Pure" for as long as possible) are just extreme cases, I don't think that if incest was legal that everyone would start having children with only people in their immediate families for multiple generations. It'd probably be a rare occurance that would most likely (I don't know the actual numbers) be less chance of causing defects than what some people can get for various problems like cancer risk or other things.

I'm saying it's wrong, not that it should be illegal. There is a difference.

It was just an example of long term forced incest that still yields genetically identical offspring, to show how the risk isn't going to be as high as "Every instance of incest will yield freaky babies with webbed feet" or something crazy. That said, if someone was to try and breed their family over 100 years, they may encounter at least some problems.

True, humans are at higher risk of genetic mutation when committing incest (If I recall correctly I believe it's something to do with how the embryo forms for humans) while animals are usually less likely to encounter such problems, it still would most likely require multiple generations of incest to cause most/any problems.

It's still a risk, and frankly saying "it's only bad if you do it in two/three generations in a row" strikes me as rather hypocritical for the first generation to try and tell their kids.

Sure, but societies morals are full of double standards and things that don't make sense. For example; it's socially acceptable for men to sleep around with many women and can often be congratulated for it yet if a woman goes around sleeping with many men she gets labled as a "Slut" which is a complete double standard.

You've heard of a 'manwhore', right? And how women who have dates that sleep around DON'T take kindly to their men sleeping around?

Even considering that though, this one admittedly IS a dumb double standard. But I think it comes from the fact that men can fertilize as many women as they can fuck, while a woman can only be fertilized by one person at a time. So there's at least a logical chain behind it. Unless there's no one outside of your family available (unlikely in a world where you can circumnavigate the world in a day, more or less) why would you screw your family?

That's not to say that everything society tells us is misleading, or incomprehensible though the stuff that makes sense tends to be the common sense stuff. In the end you do have to draw from many different areas to provide yourself with your morality.

Yes. What's your point?

Darken12:

Of course, I have been trained to aid in giving genetic counselling for many different kinds of patients. From people with specific genetic conditions to those above a certain age (such as the case you mention) to those with a family history of genetic conditions to other risky cases, there is actually a significant number of couples who ought to be given genetic counselling. It's just not a very widespread practice.

This is one time I didn't read the rest of the thread, and it turns out I should have, as you mention this stuff later on. Cheers.

Vegosiux:

Helmholtz Watson:

OP: Yes, it is morally wrong, even without offspring. Yes incest should be outlawed and yes I find it disgusting espicially if its a granparent having sex with their grandson or granddaughter.

Well, it seems to me that "old people and sex, especially sex with young people" translates into "ewwwwww" in the minds of most people anyway, whether the couple in question is related or not...

While not incest, I have yet to hear people say "ewww" about Patrick Stewart(72) dating Sunny Ozell(34), or Al Pacino(72) dating Lucila Sola(33), which leads me to think that most people are not grossed out if the older person is popular enough.

No problem with it. As far as I know, the actual risk of two siblings reproducing with each other is low. Parent and child, on the other hand I hear is higher. Still, I don't think its much more than the risk that could come to offspring of mine, whom would almost certainly have their own disadvantages. As long as everybody is of age to consent, and nobody is being coerced into the sexual activity, (ie: I own the house, you want to live here past a certain age, you have to fuck me) I don't have much problem. I don't think most people should be having kids to begin with, so the fact that the conception is incestual is mostly irrelevant.

Don't believe it should be banned/outlawed. As long as the two people doing it are above the legal age and consenting then by all means go for it. I'd advise not trying for a kid though...

Does it disgust me? Yes. I'm very liberal about things and where people like to rub their genitals but that is one thing I could never condone. Not even drop dead gorgeous twin on twin action... just creepy man. BUT, by all means live your life and I'll continue not fucking my cousins.

Well to be honest I guess the best way to answer this is saying that it isn't my cup of tea. That being said, it isn't really my place to judge what anyone else does in the bedroom.

It's disgusting and I can explain why. During childhood, children imprint on their parents, most often they identify with the opposite sex parent (this also extends to uncles, aunts and step parents around at the time), in order to better create their own criteria for a mate. The normal psychological process means that the two identify each other as non-compatible sexually. This also extends to children raised with those siblings up to the age of 12, later than that the imprinting process is similar to that between said child and their corresponding parent.

Now deviation from this process is associated with many negative psychological phenomenon. I.E. molestation, grooming, mental and physical abuse. The most common of these deviations is seen between father and daughter and has an extremely high association with abusive behavior from said parental figure. Other deviations include mother and son, older sibling and younger sibling etc.

So with the inherent psychological defect within these people and it's association with physical/sexual/mental abuse... none of you should be "ok" with incest.

For people arguing the "consenting adults" thing, long term grooming of their own children is very common with pedo's, so their relative partner may consent later in life, but it is still a reflection of a distorted upbringing and something that should never be legalized.

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

For discussion:

-Is incest morally wrong?

Since I base my morals on whether or not people inflict physical or emotional pain, no.

-In the case of no possible offspring?

Nope

-With offspring?

Nope

-Should incest be legally banned?

Nope

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Yes, but my opinion on incest shouldn't matter since it doesn't hurt anyone, unless it persists for generations which is unlikely in an increasingly urbanized world. Most people who are family have no sexual attraction to one another, unless they've been separated before the sibling-bonding or parental-bonding process is completed.

Uriel-238:

Relish in Chaos:
I'm skeptical of people that talk about "genetic attraction" (especially when used as a justification for incest) in how humans are apparently hardwired to go after partners that looks similar to them...

Keep in mind that our brains are informed by our cohabitants regardless of blood-relations (specifically to mate with those who look like them, but not those particular specimens). Our mating desires can also be informed by other factors. And regardless, statistical tendencies found in studies of large groups tend to say very little about the individual e.g. just because women tend to be smaller and less muscular than men doesn't inform whether a specific woman will be a good marine.

Perhaps informed, but it doesn't necessarily translate into wanting to bang them. I'm just saying, I can't imagine ever finding anyone of my own race, let alone my mother or sister, sexually attractive. The only thing I'd want in common with a partner (in terms of appearance) is their weight (I'd say I'm of a fairly healthy size), and that's it. I don't care if they have red eyes, pink hair, or a mole on their thigh, as long as they look nothing like anyone I'm related to, because that's an instant turn-off.

Uriel-238:

I'm not comparing incest to homosexuality, rape fantasies, or urolagnia. Going by society's definition, it seems that anything other than heterosexual sex is considered "deviant".

I would, in that none of these predilections should inform the law. Homosexuality, rape fantasies (played out between consenting adults), scat play, whatever, shouldn't be criminalized because its presence offends some people. Some kinds of sex play are risky, but so is jumping out of an airplane with a questionably-packed parachute, and that's plenty legal.

Yeah, I agree. It's just that there's an actual legitimate reason for outlawing incest in the case of baby-making, because of the high risk of both physical and mental debilitation. As I said, it would be tough for a child, as they're growing up, to get their head around the fact that their mother is also their sister, not to mention how that could affect their own relationships in the future.

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?

-Is it morally wrong?
Nope

-In the case of no possible offspring?
Still...nope

-With Offspring
Well, genetically speaking incest needs to go two or three generations (If I recall correctly) before the genes become too similar and start to create problems. If my education isnt failing me a first generation product of incest will be no more deformed or disease prone than any other couples child.

-Should incest be legally banned?
Not in the slightest, two adults should be able to do what they want, be it the opposite sex unrelated, the same sex unrelated, or the same sex related or the opposite sex related.

-Does it disgust me?
Nah, no reason why it should other than flawed social conventions that failed to take hold in me.

Hmm.

Do you have siblings?

If so, if you found them emotionally/physically attractive, would you consider a romantic relationship? Assuming they also do.

If no, would you be fine with engaging in such a hypothetical relationship?

If engaged in such a relationship, would you tell people if they asked? Or keep it a secret on purpose?

Do you think there would be feelings of guilt? Or do you imagine yourself feeling fine/great?

as someone who has, on several occasions, practiced sibling incest, I can say that I do not find it wrong, or disgusting or understand why it would be illegal. Sex between consenting adults is just that in the end: sex between consenting adults.

Really i don't see the issue here.

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?

-Is incest morally wrong? I'm not sure how I feel honestly. On one hand, we are actually not only culturally conditioned to stray away from incest recent research says a majority of us may even be biologically conditioned. I forget a lot of the details, but basically it suggested that living with someone for so long in the same environment under those circumstances created a sort of sexaul deviation trigger in your brain psychology. You would not think of doing such things and would stay away from that sibling in circumstances that could create that urge. This is also linked to sibling rivalry and something about the way your siblings smell to you versus other people.

But, I'd have to go with no. The only things that condemn it fully are society and religious doctrine. Society over-emphasizes incomplete science that it is not knowledgable on to begin with due to their own repulsion.

-In the case of no possible offspring? The only real danger as someone already said is multiple generations of inbreeding. I don't the act of actual sex between siblings has health effects on just the two of them seeing as that's never been pointed out in any of the discussions I've heard about. Having a child once between siblings probably would not hurt their lineage too much even if it does weird me out a bit. I can't say for sure though seeing as I don't know much myself (sad considering my parents are doctors).

-With offspring? As long as they don't make a habit of having a lot of kids and raise the risk of giving one of them health problems later with each birth I think I'm fine.

-Should incest be legally banned? Isn't it already banned one way or another however flimsy or subtle those laws are between states in the U.S. or other countries' governments? I think there are a couple places it's stated as legal in clear writing but I don't remember. Again, I say no. My personal problems with it aside it doesn't really hurt anyone provided the couple follows the above guidelines.

-Does the act of incest disgust you? Eh, I don't know that it disgusts me. Wrapping my head around it leads to weird places is all.

seydaman:
Hmm.

Do you have siblings?

If so, if you found them emotionally/physically attractive, would you consider a romantic relationship? Assuming they also do.

If no, would you be fine with engaging in such a hypothetical relationship?

If engaged in such a relationship, would you tell people if they asked? Or keep it a secret on purpose?

Do you think there would be feelings of guilt? Or do you imagine yourself feeling fine/great?

-Do you have siblings? Yes, I have siblings.

-If so, if you found them emotionally/physically attractive, would you consider a romantic relationship? Assuming they also do. Honestly, it never really crosses my head. I think once I thought about her physical attractiveness when my sister got dressed up for something, but it was a stray thought. I was mostly thinking how weird it was she dressed up like that for the thing she was going to. I don't remember the details, but the thought wasn't banging my head from the inside. I am emotiionally close to her but it's strictly in a close friends/sibling way.

-If engaged in such a relationship, would you tell people if they asked? Or keep it a secret on purpose? I don't think I'd tell people. I'm not afriaid to speak my mind that often or say controversial things but I'd rather not deal with the attention. The disgust I'd receive is not worth it either especially since I would be getting it from good people I know and I don't want to distance myself from them despite our conflicting views.

-Do you think there would be feelings of guilt? Or do you imagine yourself feeling fine/great? I'd imagine I'd be feeling guilty. I already have personal issues with it. If I somehow convinced myself it was okay those thoughts would still linger. I don't get over simple things easily like saying/doing something stupid or going through a breakdown I couldn't really control. So, that'd be much much worse for me. It would just linger and hammer away till that part of me conflicting me just vanished from my character completely; that's the only way I get over things completely: the thing about me causing it has to change.

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.

Why? Look it up, the idea of an incestuous child being a hideous abomination is a misconception, unless WE ARE TALKING MULTIPLE GENERATIONS OF INCEST. Unless its progenitors are also the product of incest, all that will happen is that it will increase the chances of a genetic problem (over a non-incest) by about 2%. That's it, really. Game of Thrones got it right, unless you count being the most hateable person ever as a genetic defect

Kliever:

seydaman:
-Is incest morally wrong?

Yes

-Should incest be legally banned?

Yes

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Most definitely

Care to state your reasons why? That's far too vague.

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?

In this day and age, everyone you know could very well be part of your family from some point in time. I found out that three of the girls in my High School are born from the same family a good 19 generations ago.

Yea...

-yes
-yes
-yes

-yes
-yes

There is no good and bad incest. Incest is wrong period.

to all the people that are like "uhhh but the chances of complications are slim, it would only be a problem after several generations."

no.

true, the chance for severe problems right of the bat are slim. but if a person born of incest finds a parter one day that is also the product of incest, even if the two aren't related, we are already in trouble.

genetics are complex, and there is a VERY GOOD reason why there are inhibitions and mechanisms and the westermarck effect in place precisely to prevent a healthy human being from boning his close relatives. ever thought of that?

-Is incest morally wrong?
No.

-In the case of no possible offspring?
No.

-With offspring?
Begrudgingly, I suppose so, but it's on the cusp really, though not out of contempt or the like, just the risks for the children. Genetic counseling would be a good idea though, and if the kids are in the clear then by all means, go right ahead. Although it's none of my business regardless.

-Should incest be legally banned?
Frak no.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?
Nope.

Yeah no.
Just fucking no.

I don't even want to fucking think about Incest as that shit makes my skin crawl faster than a headcrab who just spotted Gordon Freeman.

Why didn't you just say "blood brothers/cousins"? Because every other form of incest involves a huge age difference, possible pedophilia and abuse of authority. Anyway... We don't live in the pink world of ecchi anime. We live in the nightmarish world of the 5 o'clock news. Pray for sexy time with 2 hot twins all you want... meanwhile there's some crazy bastard abusing his unknowing, unwilling daughter. So, long story short, personal opinion:

-Is incest morally wrong?
YES

-In the case of no possible offspring?
Still YES

-With offspring?
Double so.

-Should incest be legally banned?
Isn't it already?!

-Does the act of incest disgust you?
Of course it does.

fedefrasis:

Arakasi:

Milk:
This thread is going to end well.

Nope.

Nope.

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.

Why? Look it up, the idea of an incestuous child being a hideous abomination is a misconception, unless WE ARE TALKING MULTIPLE GENERATIONS OF INCEST. Unless its progenitors are also the product of incest, all that will happen is that it will increase the chances of a genetic problem (over a non-incest) by about 2%. That's it, really. Game of Thrones got it right, unless you count being the most hateable person ever as a genetic defect

Did you read my post?
I said it should be banned in instances when it is statistically dangerous to the child. If that happens to be after generatons of incest, so be it.

going to do this really quick and straight to point because lets face it, its allllllllll been said before:

im against incest.

i think it shouldn't be allowed due to dangers it promotes.

yes i know it usually requires several generations for harm but it still happens and i think its for that reason that incest should actively be prevented. and i think those who constantly babble on about it taking numerous instances to be dangerous are shortsighted

so yeah i think its potentially harmful and shouldn't be an acceptable practise.

It comes back to the old issue of what sex is for. In the olden days when we laid down most of our morality, sex was (ideally) only to be practiced with your spouse for the purposes of procreation; this is the same reason modern fundamentalist douchebags are so homophobic (apart from the fact that homosexuality just squicks them out). Of course we all know about affairs and prostitution and premarital sex and all that, but that was all considered "immoral", just like incest. Most of the old taboos about non-procreative, outside-of-marriage sex have kind of evaporated, but the taboo against incest has remained because it received reinforcement from the scientific discovery of the potenitally harmful consequences of interbreeding, once again missing the point that sex doesn't have to result in children (and in today's society, more often doesn't than does).

The way I consider it, what do people have sex for these days if not purely for reproduction? Usually it's nothing more than a shared act of pleasure with someone you love, or at least like, or at the very least, don't hate. If you love members of your family, there's really no reason I can think of that you SHOULDN'T share sexual pleasures with them as long as no children result. People can argue "it's immoral", but if you ask them "why?" the best they will be able to come up with is usually "it's just wrong". Hell, I don't think they can even cite the Bible- after all, in the Old Testament, Lot was raped by his own daughters and Yahveh didn't smite their incestuous asses for it even AFTER they became pregnant for it and I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the book does it ever say "don't sleep with family members" (and believe me, that book says a LOT of weird shit). If they say "it leads to inbreeding and deformed children" then you can ask "but what if it doesn't result in any children?" and they're stumped again.

So really, sheer concentrated thought leads me to the conclusion that, as long as it's consensual and handled responsibly, there's really nothing wrong with incest. I'd suggest that closely related couples who actually want to MARRY might need to be sterilised (maybe just the man so they can still have a child by non-incestuous proxy, similar to how a lesbian couple might want to), but otherwise it's cool.

Looking at the title, this is as "off-topic" as an off-topic discussion can get....lol

OT: With my current relationship with my family, the idea of incest does seem really odd. But, I can't speak for every family out there.

Also, does incest actually yield genetic mutations? Or is that just a myth...? I honestly don't know.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked