Dr. Ablow at it Again (not quite as bad as beastiality)

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

image

I'm starting to wonder, if some people don't have the fundamental cog in the human psyche that allows them to feel automatic disgust.

To those agreeing, do you have siblings? Yes? No?

I have, so I couldn't stop stop myself from reflexively retching.

It's a free world, but it's still a bit messed up.

Frission:
I'm starting to wonder, if some people don't have the fundamental cog in the human psyche that allows them to feel automatic disgust.

The answer is yes--and that's basically why incest exists.

dmase:
Unless sibling relationships are encouraged in a culture it won't become a serious issue. People could be having sex with their sibling as much as they wanted thousands of years ago and yet they decided to instead breed with other people. Why? Because it benefits evolution, maybe there is a scientist somewhere who could explain genetically why we don't mess around with siblings but the general reason is to allow diversity. The children of incest are usually horribly ill suited for survival even in modern times, especially in relationships with close relatives like brother and sister.

Capthca: yadda yadda yadda

Thanks captcha I see you really respect my view.

If you were paying attention you'd already had seen the genetic argument basically is pointless in any situation where said pairings aren't preferred or mandatory or physically the only pairings possible.

Frission:

I'm starting to wonder, if some people don't have the fundamental cog in the human psyche that allows them to feel automatic disgust.

To those agreeing, do you have siblings? Yes? No?

I have, so I couldn't stop stop myself from reflexively retching.

It's a free world, but it's still a bit messed up.

Nobody's suggestion, again it should be the automatic preferred thing, or that if you're OK or indifferent with something that means you automatically have to do it yourself.

Just saying that, eh, if it happens and it's not born of abuse, and it's consenting adults.. who the fuck cares.

Frission:
image

I'm starting to wonder, if some people don't have the fundamental cog in the human psyche that allows them to feel automatic disgust.

To those agreeing, do you have siblings? Yes? No?

I have, so I couldn't stop stop myself from reflexively retching.

It's a free world, but it's still a bit messed up.

Yes, three.

I felt automatic disgust.

.... I still think they should be able to if they wanted to.

Damien Granz:
If you were paying attention you'd already had seen the genetic argument basically is pointless in any situation where said pairings aren't preferred or mandatory or physically the only pairings possible.

I...must have missed that bit of the debate. Could you repeat the arguments made supporting that statement, and maybe quote the relevant posts?

EDIT: After rereading the thread, I think I understand the point you're trying to make--that when you take genetics off the table (i.e. no consanguinal reproduction), there's no real reason for incest to be taboo. In theory, I might agree with you--the implications of the Westermarck effect suggest that reproduction can be avoided when both parties are made aware of the situation. So let's see:

1) A couple meets that happen to be siblings separated from birth. Things go swimmingly.
2) They discover their sibling-ness, and are faced with a choice:
a) Separate romantically and pursue other relationships (of course, they don't have to give up the sibling-ness)
b) Remain together, but forgo reproduction.

I think I'd be okay with that progression of things. I'd still say the couple should be greatly encouraged to go for 2a (why let their genetic potential go to waste), but the decision is ultimately up to them. Note that I am only (hesitantly) okay with it in this specific progression, wherein the two parties are otherwise completely unaware of each other until they are both adults, and both are intelligent and rational enough to weigh the two options properly.

Damien Granz:

dmase:
Unless sibling relationships are encouraged in a culture it won't become a serious issue. People could be having sex with their sibling as much as they wanted thousands of years ago and yet they decided to instead breed with other people. Why? Because it benefits evolution, maybe there is a scientist somewhere who could explain genetically why we don't mess around with siblings but the general reason is to allow diversity. The children of incest are usually horribly ill suited for survival even in modern times, especially in relationships with close relatives like brother and sister.

Capthca: yadda yadda yadda

Thanks captcha I see you really respect my view.

If you were paying attention you'd already had seen the genetic argument basically is pointless in any situation where said pairings aren't preferred or mandatory or physically the only pairings possible.

If you where paying attention to my post you would have noticed I said, "unless sibling relationships are encouraged in a culture". That includes all of the above, but despite that I still believe a brother and sister on a desert island won't have sex with one another because they feel like it's wrong, I'm assuming to normal brothers and sisters.

And if want to assume that culture will suddenly turn in modern times to one that actually suggests brother sister relationships that your making a huge leap from reality. Even in a culture where brother and sister relationships aren't taboo they would make up a relatively small fraction of the total population. Like I've said already if we where to have incest relationships increase and more children to be born from these relationships it would be obvious why it wouldn't work out, the genetic of these children from incest would make them nearly cripples after two generations.

dmase:

If you where paying attention to my post you would have noticed I said, "unless sibling relationships are encouraged in a culture". That includes all of the above, but despite that I still believe a brother and sister on a desert island won't have sex with one another because they feel like it's wrong, I'm assuming to normal brothers and sisters.

Actually it's been verified that a person's desire to couple or have a relationship will eventually break down barriers like that, including their sexual orientation.

That doesn't mean that men trapped on an island that start to fuck because they're super lonely 'become' gay or bisexual. It's just that desire to be with somebody breaks down those barriers, eventually.

Again, said relationships aren't always exactly the most healthy or fulfilling.

dmase:

If you where paying attention to my post you would have noticed I said, "unless sibling relationships are encouraged in a culture". That includes all of the above, but despite that I still believe a brother and sister on a desert island won't have sex with one another because they feel like it's wrong, I'm assuming to normal brothers and sisters.

dmase:
And if want to assume that culture will suddenly turn in modern times to one that actually suggests brother sister relationships that your making a huge leap from reality. Even in a culture where brother and sister relationships aren't taboo they would make up a relatively small fraction of the total population. Like I've said already if we where to have incest relationships increase and more children to be born from these relationships it would be obvious why it wouldn't work out, the genetic of these children from incest would make them nearly cripples after two generations.

OK, man, which is it? You want to bust my nuts so hard on this for not listening to you, so pick a stance. It's a bit dishonest to take both stances and then get upset when I tell you one of them is wrong by going "But I held the other stance!". Is it not a genetic problem (unless that relationship becomes so prevalent that it becomes the 'default' relationship type), or is it this immediate problem that causes problems nearly instantly.

If you believe the former, then you're right we have nothing to argue about. If it's the latter, then I'm telling you that was already discussed.

Vuliev:

Damien Granz:
If you were paying attention you'd already had seen the genetic argument basically is pointless in any situation where said pairings aren't preferred or mandatory or physically the only pairings possible.

I...must have missed that bit of the debate. Could you repeat the arguments made supporting that statement, and maybe quote the relevant posts?

EDIT: After rereading the thread, I think I understand the point you're trying to make--that when you take genetics off the table (i.e. no consanguinal reproduction), there's no real reason for incest to be taboo. In theory, I might agree with you--the implications of the Westermarck effect suggest that reproduction can be avoided when both parties are made aware of the situation. So let's see:

1) A couple meets that happen to be siblings separated from birth. Things go swimmingly.
2) They discover their sibling-ness, and are faced with a choice:
a) Separate romantically and pursue other relationships (of course, they don't have to give up the sibling-ness)
b) Remain together, but forgo reproduction.

I think I'd be okay with that progression of things. I'd still say the couple should be greatly encouraged to go for 2a (why let their genetic potential go to waste), but the decision is ultimately up to them. Note that I am only (hesitantly) okay with it in this specific progression, wherein the two parties are otherwise completely unaware of each other until they are both adults, and both are intelligent and rational enough to weigh the two options properly.

What I'm saying is that 2c, that they don't give a shit and have kids only becomes a problem after a large time. That the problems inherent in 1-2 generations isn't much different than having any 2 members of the same race mate. Yes, it will become a problem. I admit that. But steps don't have to be made to forgo it on a national scale, because chances are, those two siblings children aren't going to marry their own siblings, if they even have any.

If the situation you've stated had astronomical odds, the odds become exponentially astronomical the more generations you add onto it, until they basically become retardedly long odds before genetic problems arise.

In the cases we have to look at where genetic problems did and are arising, it's a very different situation than the most of us in the world face. You do have problems slowly arising in the Amish after 200 years of inbreeding with such a small group. Again, I admit this. But their situation is because there's only so few of them and often they refuse to breed outside the group. You have similar situations with small tribes in the middle of basically nowhere, for the same reason.

The second type of cases to look at are where families were encouraged or forced to inbreed because of pedigree or to keep the 'royal line' pure. I'm aware of this problem too, which is why at no point I suggested we specifically encourage or force people to inbreed.

But those aren't likely conditions for say, you and I, or most people.

I'm saying we don't really need to encourage 2A or 2B because nature and random selective chance in following generations will do it for us long before it becomes a problem.

I think it's a solution in need of a problem.

Vuliev:
[quote="Realitycrash" post="528.387953.15531748"]Snip

After getting pretty much zero sleep last night, I managed to get some thinking done instead.
I realized that legalizing an act that has pretty much zero chance of getting caught (unless they admit it) is sort of futile. Legal or illegal, those that do it are going to do it anyway.
And legalizing marriage is similarly pointless, since cheating the system would be rather easy via a name-change and getting married somewhere-else than their place of birth (Vegas, perhaps?), or just going to another country.
Overall, the act of legalizing might not carry enough weight after-all.

[b]However/b>, I'd still like a more detailed answer from you both concerning my question of limiting breeding for those of genetic defects. I disagree with the idea that eye-sight defects should be allowed, because it is correctable. If our aim is to preserve the genetic line, why should we allow these people (me) to breed, but not say..Those that are color-blind (also me, by the way), which we can not correct?
Polluting our genetic offspring is the same no matter what, is it not? With your argument, we allow a deficient gene to spread, thus lowering the quality of our genes. If it is a matter of CHANCE and HOW LARGE a defect, then where do you draw the line?
And, like I said, what about those that have..Oh..say 50% chance of passing down a terminal illness? (say..Huntington's Disease? Maybe it doesn't work like it does on House, though, I wouldn't know)

Edit: Tried to quote Jux in here as well, but the quoting system is fucking with me again.

Damien Granz:
snipped

yeah i'm gonna bust your balls because you still not reading my posts. I said that given a culture that was encouraged to inbreed, incest would become more common. Such as royal bloodlines, I then go on to state that could not happen in modern times though, why because we understand the genetic problem associated with incest. So would you like to argue that in modern times we will switch to a incest promoted society?

I also stated that an incest neutral society, one that didn't care, would have much less incest why because genetically we don't wanna fuck our family because we know genetically we are similar and something feels wrong about it. It's not just a cultural mechanism at the point it's a genetic one.

I'm using different examples and you just don't seem to be following them. But overall my main point is that we would never become a society that would be incest promoting, even the royal bloodlines had a reason, and the person making the choice wasn't one of the two involved in the relationship.

Now as far as studies have proven I only see your example of the Amish. Which is BS because the Amish don't support having sex with siblings. Is there some inbreeding in small populations, yes. If they had the choice would they go elsewhere you bet.

Which finally brings me to the OP and what I as answer. The title of one of the articles is will incest ever be normal? I gave my reason why they wouldn't, because of our understanding of genetics and the overall world perception since the dawn of time don't fuck you sister/brother. Are there exclusions in the past? Yes, are their exclusions in a modern society that understands genetics, NO.

So society wants you to you probably would, society is neutral on it you won't, society says no you won't.

As far as two people stranded on a desert island, they would choose masturbation 100% of the time over sexual relations with a male(if they are straight) or a family member(if they are normal, and I mean that in the sense that they're brain works the same way a normal person would).

dmase:

yeah I'm gonna bust your balls because you still not reading my posts. I said that given a culture that was encouraged to inbreed, incest would become more common. Such as royal bloodlines, I then go on to state that could not happen in modern times though, why because we understand the genetic problem associated with incest. So would you like to argue that in modern times we will switch to a incest promoted society?

OK, what's your point? Why are you arguing with me? You stated at one point this, which I agree with. Then you stated at another point that it had to be curved because of damage that would be done instantly, which was the point I had a problem with. Now you're repeating the point I agree with again.

dmase:
I also stated that an incest neutral society, one that didn't care, would have much less incest why because genetically we don't wanna fuck our family because we know genetically we are similar and something feels wrong about it. It's not just a cultural mechanism at the point it's a genetic one.

It's both, to degree. And I agree that it's not a problem. I feel that we should be neutral as a society because it's not a problem, and my stance with people doing things that aren't harmful is to not care that they are.

Again, my complaint about your point wasn't this, it was when you said, then unsaid, then re-said, then unsaid again, that it was a problem within one generation.

You seem to be really just trying to argue for the sake of it now.

dmase:
I'm using different examples and you just don't seem to be following them. But overall my main point is that we would never become a society that would be incest promoting, even the royal bloodlines had a reason, and the person making the choice wasn't one of the two involved in the relationship.

Who said we should promote it? I'm pretty sure nobody did. I said it's only a problem when it's promoted or mandatory due to geographical or other reasons, which you seem to be agreeing with.

dmase:
Now as far as studies have proven I only see your example of the Amish. Which is BS because the Amish don't support having sex with siblings. Is there some inbreeding in small populations, yes. If they had the choice would they go elsewhere you bet.

They still inbreed with close enough relatives fast enough that it's a problem. There's not some inbreeding with them, there's a massive amount.

That said, I don't suspect that the whole of the world would become this way, because again I think that random selection will clear that up before it can spitball fast enough.

dmase:
Which finally brings me to the OP and what I as answer. The title of one of the articles is will incest ever be normal? I gave my reason why they wouldn't, because of our understanding of genetics and the overall world perception since the dawn of time don't fuck you sister/brother. Are there exclusions in the past? Yes, are their exclusions in a modern society that understands genetics, NO.

You know what? I think you don't understand the difference between the words tolerated, normal and statistically probable.

dmase:
So society wants you to you probably would, society is neutral on it you won't, society says no you won't.

Again then that's fine. Why not stay neutral on it then?

dmase:
As far as two people stranded on a desert island, they would choose masturbation 100% of the time over sexual relations with a male(if they are straight) or a family member(if they are normal, and I mean that in the sense that they're brain works the same way a normal person would).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_sexual_behavior

Frission:
image

I'm starting to wonder, if some people don't have the fundamental cog in the human psyche that allows them to feel automatic disgust.

To those agreeing, do you have siblings? Yes? No?

I have, so I couldn't stop stop myself from reflexively retching.

It's a free world, but it's still a bit messed up.

I've often been told that to erm..enjoy... twincest porn.. one really has to be an only child.

Realitycrash:

However, I'd still like a more detailed answer from you both concerning my question of limiting breeding for those of genetic defects. I disagree with the idea that eye-sight defects should be allowed, because it is correctable. If our aim is to preserve the genetic line, why should we allow these people (me) to breed, but not say..Those that are color-blind (also me, by the way), which we can not correct?

Give my analogy another read--I'm not sure how sciency you are, but I think the basic concepts in it are covered in K-12:

Also, what do you mean by "preservation"? If by "preservation" you mean "weeding out of inferior traits" (as you seem to be saying), then you need to understand that that's not the goal. The goal in this particular scenario (incest) is simply to prevent new, purely damaging, traits from entering the pool, and to maintain the current level of hereditary disease (I'll explain the second half in a bit with the other half of your post.) Incest not only creates fundamental errors in the offspring's DNA, but also increases the chance of hereditary disease beyond that of ordinary pairings with the same traits.

Realitycrash:
Polluting our genetic offspring is the same no matter what, is it not? With your argument, we allow a deficient gene to spread, thus lowering the quality of our genes. If it is a matter of CHANCE and HOW LARGE a defect, then where do you draw the line?
And, like I said, what about those that have..Oh..say 50% chance of passing down a terminal illness? (say..Huntington's Disease? Maybe it doesn't work like it does on House, though, I wouldn't know)

And here's where the most important thing is defining the problem. With existing hereditary disease, the notion of "pollution" doesn't exist--the traits are already spread into the pool. Therefore, our goal at the moment, with our current technological level, is to keep the concentration of those traits from jumping, and maybe even set it a little on the decline through education of trait-holders and encouragement to really think twice about children. That education focuses on the hereditary disease(s): what they do, the chance that the child could end up with the trait active, and what to do if that happens.

As for the things we want to limit, we approach it, in a sense, through triage: target the most dangerous/harmful traits first, and get to the lesser/superficial things last. Medical science has given us a pretty good idea of what to look for: sickle-cell anemia, cancer, Huntington's, ALS, MS, Alzheimer's, the myriad debilitating skin/bone/muscle deformities, and so on and so on. We're looking for things that have very harmful effects upon the people afflicted with them--and that's where incest/inbreeding comes in. Inbreeding, even in the first generation, produces significant harmful effects upon the offspring. Therefore, since our goal is to target significantly harmful effects and then maintain or diminish their presence in the gene pool, incest/inbreeding is a clear and valid target.

Now, to bring back your examples of poor eyesight/colorblindness: those traits are well on the "lesser/superficial" end of things. That's not to say we don't want to eliminate them eventually--of course we do. But since we have for those problems relatively cheap, widely available treatments that essentially nullify the symptoms of the problems, we can set those problems aside and focus on combating the important things (like the ones I listed above.)

Here's a tentative recap so far in case I lost you somewhere (and please let me know if I did so I can work on my explanation techniques: fundamentally, you're approaching this from two standpoints, both of which are invalid: the standpoint of "a defect is a defect, it's all the same," and "eugenics are accomplished reproductively (i.e. selective breeding.)" Not all defects are equal in scale: some are quite clearly more detrimental than others, and need to be dealt with first.

Now, to continue on.
To deal with the identified targets, you have two options: cure them as they occur, or snipe them out of the genetic code. The first one is easier (relatively speaking), but only solves one at a time, and cure might not necessarily hold long enough for the defect to pass out of the pool.

There are two (well, three, I suppose) approaches to the second method:
1) Weed the trait out over successive generations (selective breeding.) Basically impossible to implement on any scale large enough to affect enough of the pool, can weaken or even eradicate positive traits, can introduce new harmful traits--hell, you're not even guaranteed that the trait you're trying to get rid of will be gone by the time you're done.
2) Directly remove/neutralize the genes responsible at birth. You remove all the uncertainty of the first approach, and the method works for multiple traits at once. Unfortunately, this approach isn't possible at the moment. Personally, I'm confident that we'll be able to do this in the near future (I'm not a genetic researcher, so I can't give you a timeline.)
3) Cybernetic augmentation--essentially, neutralizing the natural frailties of the body through body-wide augmentation (obviously, this affects more than just genetics.) Again, not really possible at this point, but we're making strong progress.

So, to recap: question is not "okay/not okay," rather "most/least harmful"--concentrate efforts towards the "most harmful" end of the spectrum. Goal is status quo or lower; we have options to achieve our goal, but reproductive eugenics (selective breeding) is not one of them. Hopefully, all this makes sense!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Damien Granz:
If the situation you've stated had astronomical odds, the odds become exponentially astronomical the more generations you add onto it, until they basically become retardedly long odds before genetic problems arise.

Okay, so why bother making the exception for it in the current laws? Easier to deal with in both the long and short run, and--

Damien Granz:
I think it's a solution in need of a problem.

--so you've actually been agreeing with me this whole time? That the best course of action is to do what we're currently doing? I don't understand what you're doing.

Realitycrash:
[b]However/b>, I'd still like a more detailed answer from you both concerning my question of limiting breeding for those of genetic defects. I disagree with the idea that eye-sight defects should be allowed, because it is correctable. If our aim is to preserve the genetic line, why should we allow these people (me) to breed, but not say..Those that are color-blind (also me, by the way), which we can not correct?
Polluting our genetic offspring is the same no matter what, is it not? With your argument, we allow a deficient gene to spread, thus lowering the quality of our genes. If it is a matter of CHANCE and HOW LARGE a defect, then where do you draw the line?
And, like I said, what about those that have..Oh..say 50% chance of passing down a terminal illness? (say..Huntington's Disease? Maybe it doesn't work like it does on House, though, I wouldn't know)

Edit: Tried to quote Jux in here as well, but the quoting system is fucking with me again.

See my edit, I already addressed this. On further reading, go with Vuliev's post. I had originally found my view of 'incest related defects bad/non incest related defects ok' to be stuck in a bit of a bind. He makes a compelling argument, and one that I agree with.

Vuliev:

Damien Granz:
If the situation you've stated had astronomical odds, the odds become exponentially astronomical the more generations you add onto it, until they basically become retardedly long odds before genetic problems arise.

Okay, so why bother making the exception for it in the current laws? Easier to deal with in both the long and short run, and--

Damien Granz:
I think it's a solution in need of a problem.

--so you've actually been agreeing with me this whole time? That the best course of action is to do what we're currently doing? I don't understand what you're doing.

You misunderstand. I'm of the mind when I say we shouldn't do anything with them, I mean that the default stance should be that we don't punish them or make what they do illegal.

I don't think they need an exception to allow them to do what they do, I think the exception that disallows it should be removed.

When I said it's a solution in need of a problem, I meant that the 'solution' to keep our genetics healthy is in need of an actual threat to them; there isn't really any to be had here except in severely fucked up cases I'm blue in the face talking about and done with.

Damien Granz:
You misunderstand. I'm of the mind when I say we shouldn't do anything with them, I mean that the default stance should be that we don't punish them or make what they do illegal.

I see now, thank you, but I still disagree. As it stands, making something legal that was previously illegal is tantamount to making that thing socially acceptable, social acceptance is ambivalence toward and/or positive view of that thing, ambivalence/positive view encourages proliferation of the thing. This sequence (or its inverse, in the case of things like slavery) has happened with pretty much every major philosophy change in the world; most recently, with interracial and homosexual relationships. The major difference, though, is that resistance against those movements came essentially from widespread ignorance--resistance against incest is based upon the Westermarck effect and empirical evidence demonstrating the detrimental effects of incest, i.e. a mix of a psychological safeguard and a rational, informed opinion based on fact.

Now, in the case of incest, the aforementioned proliferation throws away any notion of "drop in the bucket" rationalizations of its impact on the gene pool, and the only thing that prevents that proliferation is the Westermarck effect. As it stands, the Westermarck effect isn't well enough understood to know whether or not it would adequately restrain proliferation of incest. If it's strong enough, incest can be made legal; if not, we do nothing and maintain current views on the subject. Either way, we maintain current values until that point, as the Westermarck effect is critical to both of our arguments. Acting before we know its place as a variable is incredibly reckless and irresponsible--the potential harm to society and the gene pool far outstrips the current harm to a negligible few peoples' freedom.

Damien Granz:
snipped

I'm arguing because you came after me in a confrontational way in your first post, and you still don't under stand what I'm saying even after I say it.

There where driving forces behind most of the problems related to incest, when there are none it's significantly reduced and even in situations where those driving forces are present the amount of incest is still significantly lower, why? Because we are biologically built to not wanna fuck family. I don't think I can make it more simple.

Our bodies think in term of the next generation no the next 10. When the Amish in breed with their second cousin their offspring aren't crippled from birth they are normal individuals it's after it happens for 3 or 4 generations that truly crippling disabilities come into play. Our bodies can't plan out how the next 100 years of it's genome are going to be spread out, but it can attempt to control the next generation.

And the wiki source you give is bullshit, not because it's from wiki but for 2 reason one you didn't bother reading it to it's barely sourced. If you look it plainly states that homosexuality in prison is often coerced and the excuse of heterosexual men that what they did was just to get by was actually hiding their bi-sexual or homosexual tendencies. And also describes people with mental disorders, not exactly the normal people i was referring to.(I hope that gives you a decent reference to normal).

Finall the sources, half are about bestiality, two are about lesbian coeds, one is a dead link and the only one relevant is about prison's, and make the express point that in environments like prisons where "consent is lacking".

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked