108: Heart-wrenching Hentai

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Heart-wrenching Hentai

"Ironically, perhaps a bit like reading Playboy for the articles, many fans claim to play these games for the stories. The majority of the time these games are click-through dialogue over still images and descriptive prose, with the occasional break to pick a plot branch (think Choose Your Own Adventure) that helps to decide which of your often rudely-used playthings has now become the love of your life.

"It seems rather paradoxical: In a game full of superficiality, stereotype and cheap thrill, why do players need such elaborate storylines?"

Permalink

Well, I tried to read it from a more open-minded point of view, rather than with the (quite justified, I think, though I don't make the accusation that it is accurate) instinct to view it as a desperate defense of jerking off to little girls. I think there's a message to be had here, though it may not be the one the author implies. This is what I took away: Can you really understand a (sub)culture unless you subject their porn to the same general kind of scrutiny to which you subject their art? And since I think the answer is a resounding "probably not," this makes a pretty good analysis. Pornalysis, if you will. It didn't seem like that was the purpose for which the article was written, but then again it is difficult to write about controversial smut without being conscious of its moral context, however more interesting its absence might make it.

I think h-games (or just visual novels in general) get a lot of bad rap because people are quick to judge them. Most people can only see the bad ones that are already in their mind, so they are quick to dismiss the genre.

However, many of these games actually deal with more serious issues and are more focused on a creating a good story than most Western games. Since these games have nothing to rely on but their story, art, and voice acting, many of them put a strong priority on creating a thought-provoking or moving story. These games aren't all just about sex since many games don't even have sex scenes or are forcibly added to sell more copies.

One of the best types of these games out here is Ever 17, which doesn't contain any sex, yet the game doesn't lose any of its impact. In the game, a group of people are trapped under an underwater amusement park. The game shows how each person copes with the situation differently, how they struggle to maintain their sanity as a group in a desperate situation, how they got into the situation they're in (figuring out the mystery of the situation is a big part of the game) and other themes which would ruin the story if I told them here. I've never played a Western game with a story that even comes close in comparison to how gripping this game is (Don't judge this game by its demo. The demo is a mashup of the game to introduce all the characters.)

A major h-game released in the US recently is Yume Miru Kusuri, which deals with themes that most people have experienced in high school, such as bullying, drugs, and the difficulty in finding a meaning or direction in life.

When you play some of these games, you need to approach them with an open mind. You have to realize that not all the games are rife with sexual fantasies, rather many games deal with serious issues that are rarely seen in Western games. The moniker visual novel is a pretty accurate description since these games are a lot like books with art and sometimes voice acting. If you try any of these games that focus on a story with an open mind, you won't regret it.

Something interesting about Kana Little Sister: There's only one unavoidable sex scene in the game, and it's with the protagonist's girlfriend Yumi. While there are still scenes that attempt to sexualize Kana (at least in the path I took), the player (and ergo the protagonist) can opt not to act on certain 'impulses.'

I will say this, though--KLS is one of the few games I've ever played that genuinely emotionally effected me. Yeah, finding out what happened to The Boss at the end of MGS3 was powerful, but... it wasn't the same at all. Kana Little Sister is, honestly, the one game that has brought me close to tears.

This was an absolutely wonderful read in more ways than one. Every aspect of the subject was articulated so well, its basically the ultimate brief explanation on the appeal of eroge games. Certainly, a must-read for anyone that doesn't have first-hand experience with H-dating sims and dismisses the genre, or those who wish to have a better understanding.

I don't know what to say really... Hard to take such a serious article and badger it over being about something typically ragged on, while at the same time maintaining a bit of an objective viewpoint... I'll try though.
Wow.
Seriously though, despite the loud-mouthed ranting of people saying that games should be focused mostly on gameplay, I still maintain the fantasy that a good story will make a game worthwile as long as the style doesn't alienate potential players. Which visual novels tend to do, due to the highly structured nature of the genre, it 'limits' the amount of interactivity that the player can exert on the game other than telling your avatar which storyline to walk to. If that's the genre then, fine, as long as the things it's supposed to focus on are done well enough (in this case story, art, voice acting, and music).
From the review/analysis, I have to say that the game sounds quite interesting, possibly something hard to handle, but I still have to wonder what everyone else is thinking and experiencing (put dirty thoughts aside for that comment).

Zieth:
I've never played a Western game with a story that even comes close in comparison to how gripping this game is

It's very easy to make a statement like this when you have barely played any off-the-radar western games. Do not generalize like this again.

Katana314:
It's very easy to make a statement like this when you have barely played any off-the-radar western games. Do not generalize like this again.

I'm going to assume that you have played this game that the discussion is about too, before you are generalizing also.

Whoah whoah whoah. Let me get something straight: this game has you HAVING SEX WITH YOUR DYING SISTER? I'm sorry, but there are certain things that are just indefensible. The protagonist could have been having sex with her in imaginationland on top of an ice cream sundae surrounded by an angel choir and it would still be fucking abhorrent.

I'm guessing that this isn't the first conclusion you've ever come to in your life?
Yes, that is one facet of the game beside an (apparently as I haven't played it) engaging story. If you are going to carry on about something to the extreme, then, no, the game is a totally indefensible, monstrous pile of shit.
But if you can let go of the controversial-extremism, then you can fully understand the concept of being a sentient being.
[EDIT]
Not saying that incest is the only way you can be a sentinet being, but being so extremely dead-set against something that you can't learn from it (when it has possible value for a deeper understanding of life), that shows a lack of intelligence.
[/EDIT]

LordOmnit:
I'm guessing that this isn't the first conclusion you've ever come to in your life?
Yes, that is one facet of the game beside an (apparently as I haven't played it) engaging story. If you are going to carry on about something to the extreme, then, no, the game is a totally indefensible, monstrous pile of shit.
But if you can let go of the controversial-extremism, then you can fully understand the concept of being a free-thinking being.

Okay, but INCEST? With dying people, no less? This isn't just me being some close-minded person unable to break free of society's norms, we're talking about one of the most disgusting sex acts this side of necrophilia. Actually, nix that, I would rather fuck a rotting corpse than my own sister. How could you possibly take a narrative about compassion and the healing power of intimacy seriously when it involves HAVING SEX WITH YOUR DYING SISTER?

LordOmnit:

[EDIT]
Not saying that incest is the only way you can be a sentinet being, but being so extremely dead-set against something that you can't learn from it (when it has possible value for a deeper understanding of life), that shows a lack of intelligence.
[/EDIT]

Yeah, I'm extremely dead-set against incest in the same way I'm extremely dead-set against fucking kittens or beating up old people.

Think about this; there is a certain culture out there that believes that fraternal twins that have different sexes were predetermined by heaven to be together, resulting in their forced marriage. I'm not going to say that this is right or wrong, but it is a belief of a certain people, which is the same as your complete aversion to the very idea of incest (to the degree of considering necrophilia). I can't say for sure if any other incest is acceptable in that particular people, but I would assume that if that was expressedly stated, then it would be that other incest relations were similarly NOT acceptable.
Nobody is saying that you or anyone else has to have sex with your sister, nobody is saying anyone will, but the fact remains that it is a concept that has existed for quite a while. You have to take a liberal viewpoint at first to understand something well, first looking at it as a whole, each facet, etc. and then making a decision. YOUR way of going about this shows that you are prone to impulse, little judgement, and no consideration for consequences. While you have made a (variably) correct conclusion, "incest = wrong," you are using that as a wall, or more accurately, a doom-fortress that you are hiding atop of and shooting down repetative arguments. There isn't any need to say "HAVING SEX WITH YOUR DYING SISTER," again, because I got it the first time, come up with a more well developed argument first.
So where am I going with this? Yes, "incest = wrong," but "incest = no possible philisophical value for reflection on the human being?" No.

Oh yeah, and as to the fucking kittens and beating up old people: that isn't really relavent to a discussion about the topic at hand.

LordOmnit:
Think about this; there is a certain culture out there that believes that fraternal twins that have different sexes were predetermined by heaven to be together, resulting in their forced marriage. I'm not going to say that this is right or wrong, but it is a belief of a certain people, which is the same as your complete aversion to the very idea of incest (to the degree of considering necrophilia). I can't say for sure if any other incest is acceptable in that particular people, but I would assume that if that was expressedly stated, then it would be that other incest relations were similarly NOT acceptable.
Nobody is saying that you or anyone else has to have sex with your sister, nobody is saying anyone will, but the fact remains that it is a concept that has existed for quite a while. You have to take a liberal viewpoint at first to understand something well, first looking at it as a whole, each facet, etc. and then making a decision. YOUR way of going about this shows that you are prone to impulse, little judgement, and no consideration for consequences. While you have made a (variably) correct conclusion, "incest = wrong," you are using that as a wall, or more accurately, a doom-fortress that you are hiding atop of and shooting down repetative arguments. There isn't any need to say "HAVING SEX WITH YOUR DYING SISTER," again, because I got it the first time, come up with a more well developed argument first.
So where am I going with this? Yes, "incest = wrong," but "incest = no possible philisophical value for reflection on the human being?" No.

This is moral relativist bullshit. Cultures have existed that believed in human sacrfice, cannibalism, wife burning, stoning rape victims, and slavery, but I'm perfectly comfortable denouncing those as wrong. Incest is fucked up not only because it's genetically hardwired into us to be disgusting and produces seven-toed mutant babies, but also because any older sibling-younger sibling sexual relationship is fundamentally exploitative.

Yes, things that are wrong are certainly worthy of exploration for the sake of philosophical and, moral, and cultural understanding -- books like Lolita or basically any war movie are evidence enough for this -- but there is a HUGE difference between exploration and endorsement. This game flagrantly crosses that line by basically saying, "yeah he has sex with his sister but it's okay BECAUSE THEY LOVE EACH OTHER AND IT'S TOTALLY NOT VULGAR". That's just fucking ridiculous. Furthermore, having a game that CONDONES INCEST be touted as a breakthrough in game storytelling can do nothing but harm public perception of the hobby I love. The prevailing attitude here seems to be "the story is fantastic, except for the incest, but that's a pretty minor part of the story". How does that not sound wrong to you?

LordOmnit:
Oh yeah, and as to the fucking kittens and beating up old people: that isn't really relavent to a discussion about the topic at hand.

It's perfectly relevant to the discussion at hand. Both are similarly exploitative to a man having sex with his younger, dying (and underage?) sister.

Hmm, would you then discount the Greek play of Oedipus as being completely without worth? I mean, the whole thing is about a guy having sex with his mother!

That being said, I find it odd that the concept of consentual (and that's a key point) sex with a sibling is some how worse (or even equal) in your eyes than violently assualting elderly strangers. It's not like you ever rape or abuse Kana. Perhaps I find it difficult to see how your own personal disguist at a topic would allow you to conflate what is essentially harmless (both sides want it, or it doesn't happen. You *can* opt out, and you can never force Kana) to both parties involved with actually physically causing harm to an unwilling party. They're not even remotely on the same level, your personal feelings towards the act notwithstanding. That being said, and this is a bit of a spoiler... so I dunno if I should even be posting it. But Kana *isn't even a blood relation*. She was adopted.

Efftee:

This is moral relativist bullshit. Cultures have existed that believed in human sacrfice, cannibalism, wife burning, stoning rape victims, and slavery, but I'm perfectly comfortable denouncing those as wrong. Incest is fucked up not only because it's genetically hardwired into us to be disgusting and produces seven-toed mutant babies, but also because any older sibling-younger sibling sexual relationship is fundamentally exploitative.

Yes, things that are wrong are certainly worthy of exploration for the sake of philosophical and, moral, and cultural understanding -- books like Lolita or basically any war movie are evidence enough for this -- but there is a HUGE difference between exploration and endorsement. This game flagrantly crosses that line by basically saying, "yeah he has sex with his sister but it's okay BECAUSE THEY LOVE EACH OTHER AND IT'S TOTALLY NOT VULGAR". That's just fucking ridiculous. Furthermore, having a game that CONDONES INCEST be touted as a breakthrough in game storytelling can do nothing but harm public perception of the hobby I love. The prevailing attitude here seems to be "the story is fantastic, except for the incest, but that's a pretty minor part of the story". How does that not sound wrong to you?

Huh. That's interesting. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the ero-games that basically let you *rape* other characters than I would be about consentual sex between step-siblings when it comes to making video gaming look bad. I'm still not totally sure I buy your argument that there's something inherently wrong with it too. All of your other examples of things from cultures, the human sacrificing, the slavery, the stoning, burning at the stake... they either end lives or end freedom. The 'incest' portrayed in the game, does neither. And the statement that all such relationships are inherently exploitive runs straight up along a line of rampant generalization. You haven't played the game, you don't know what the character's relationship is like, you don't even know how the scenes develop. You can't honestly say that they're expressive of an exploitive relationship. Or rather, you can but such an opinion is grounded in absolutely nothing, and thus holds absolutely no weight.

Efftee:

It's perfectly relevant to the discussion at hand. Both are similarly exploitative to a man having sex with his younger, dying (and underage?) sister.

Oh like hell it is. Physical violence against a completely unwilling subject is EXACTLY the same as *consentual* sex with what basically amounts to a step-sister? Please, *that's* ridiculous.

Eolirin:
Hmm, would you then discount the Greek play of Oedipus as being completely without worth? I mean, the whole thing is about a guy having sex with his mother!

That being said, I find it odd that the concept of consentual (and that's a key point) sex with a sibling is some how worse (or even equal) in your eyes than violently assualting elderly strangers. It's not like you ever rape or abuse Kana. Perhaps I find it difficult to see how your own personal disguist at a topic would allow you to conflate what is essentially harmless (both sides want it, or it doesn't happen. You *can* opt out, and you can never force Kana) to both parties involved with actually physically causing harm to an unwilling party. They're not even remotely on the same level, your personal feelings towards the act notwithstanding. That being said, and this is a bit of a spoiler... so I dunno if I should even be posting it. But Kana *isn't even a blood relation*. She was adopted.

Did you actually bother reading more than three words of what I wrote? Thematic exploration and endorsement are two VERY different things. Oedipus's marriage to his mother is, quite literally, a curse. "Consensual" incest isn't even really possible given the exploitative nature of a parent-child or older-younger sibling relationship, and ESPECIALLY not so if one of them is underage. And saying "oh yeah but she's adopted" is a cop-out, similar to hentai games that depict obviously underage girls and then put "18-years-old" in their character descriptions. In any case, if you really think adopted people are any more likely to sexually desire their adopted parents or siblings than other people, then I'd be more than happy to introduce you to some adopted people who would be more than happy to slap you in the mouth for being a deviant tool.

Efftee:

Eolirin:
Hmm, would you then discount the Greek play of Oedipus as being completely without worth? I mean, the whole thing is about a guy having sex with his mother!

That being said, I find it odd that the concept of consentual (and that's a key point) sex with a sibling is some how worse (or even equal) in your eyes than violently assualting elderly strangers. It's not like you ever rape or abuse Kana. Perhaps I find it difficult to see how your own personal disguist at a topic would allow you to conflate what is essentially harmless (both sides want it, or it doesn't happen. You *can* opt out, and you can never force Kana) to both parties involved with actually physically causing harm to an unwilling party. They're not even remotely on the same level, your personal feelings towards the act notwithstanding. That being said, and this is a bit of a spoiler... so I dunno if I should even be posting it. But Kana *isn't even a blood relation*. She was adopted.

Did you actually bother reading more than three words of what I wrote? Thematic exploration and endorsement are two VERY different things. Oedipus's marriage to his mother is, quite literally, a curse. "Consensual" incest isn't even really possible given the exploitative nature of a parent-child or older-younger sibling relationship, and ESPECIALLY not so if one of them is underage. And saying "oh yeah but she's adopted" is a cop-out, similar to hentai games that depict obviously underage girls and then put "18-years-old" in their character descriptions. In any case, if you really think adopted people are any more likely to sexually desire their adopted parents or siblings than other people, then I'd be more than happy to introduce you to some adopted people who would be more than happy to slap you in the mouth for being a deviant tool.

Eh, the Oedipus comment was actually posted in delay to your second post, so the whole exploitive stuff hadn't appeared on my screen yet. So, with that, I'd withdraw the comment.

But I still call bullshit on it *necessarily* being exploitive. If the older sibling never shows any interest, but the younger sibling does, and comes to the older one, would it still be exploitive? You could even make the arguement that such a situation could result in the older sibling being exploited by the younger, rather than the other way around. It's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be. If you don't take the situation in context, and you can only do so by actually *playing* the game, not having an instant and complete knee-jerk reaction to the game even touching on the theme, then you have nothing viable to add to discussion about this. You cannot presume to know what goes on in everyone's head, and while yes, these sorts of situations are inherently complex, inherently dangerous, and thus should be avoided as much as possible, there aren't any hard and fast rules you can place on these sorts of relationships. People are different, and thus the relationships between those people are different.

And with the adoption it's not so much that they're more or less likely to feel a certain way, it's simply that if they *do* have those feelings, then that knowledge allows them greater freedom to want to act on them. The condition of having those feelings may not occur very often, but if it does, then there's less of a reason for them to supress it.

Yes, but you are forgetting that relativism and frame of reference are the only way we can understand the world. You are looking from your point of view, down the sight of your sniper-rifle of righteousness, not unlike the ranting religious fanatics that tell me I'm going to Hell every, single, god, damned, freaking, day when I pass by Turlington or Library West.
Did I say that cannibalism was acceptable? No.
Did I say that human sacrifice was okay? No.
Did I say that wife burning was accepable? No.
Did I say that stoning rape victims was okay? No.
Did I say that slavery was acceptable? No
Did I say that incest was acceptable? No, in fact, I said it was wrong.
Now, do you even realize that the whole genetic thing is really only a series of reinforcing bad traits and reinforcing good traits further than they already were? It isn't that single instance inbreeding (as opposed to merely incest) is more likely to cause defects, it is going to reinforce the family's traits, good, bad, neutral. Sure there is an increased possibility to have certain genetic problems, but it isn't assured. I'm still not condoing incest, but it seems you are misinformed or wildly fanatical.
As to something being fundamentally exploitative, that is debateable, as one would need to know the circumstances before making a judgement on, oh... say... ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.
And considering the open-ended nature of the story, it could be anything from totally filial love to mildly romantic to sexual to even more extreme (obviously) exploitative relations.
"The story is fantastic, except for the incest, but that's a pretty minor part of the story." That sounds pretty inaccurate to me, it sounds more like you or whoever posted that are missing the point that the game revolves around the level of love between the brother and sister (as I listed off before). And personally I believe that pedophilia (especially to the degree of Lolita) is worse than incest, for various reasons that I won't extrapolate on because you would harp about those too.
And, no, it isn't a perfectly relevant point, because you are mixing up the concept here. The idea is that beating up old people or having sex with kittnes for shits and giggles is wrong on all levels, whereas there is limited (NOTE I SAID LIMITED) possible (NOTE I SAID POSSIBLE) to concieve merit in the idea of a sibling love that may or may not be at "appropriate" levels. But that brings us back to the cultural frame of refence point, now doesn't it?

Eolirin:
And the statement that all such relationships are inherently exploitive runs straight up along a line of rampant generalization. You haven't played the game, you don't know what the character's relationship is like, you don't even know how the scenes develop. You can't honestly say that they're expressive of an exploitive relationship. Or rather, you can but such an opinion is grounded in absolutely nothing, and thus holds absolutely no weight.

I'm perfectly fine making this generalization, in the same way that a military officer having a sexual relationship with someone under their command will always be unethical, or a teacher with a student. An older sibling or parent is in a position that makes a sexual relationship... inappropriate, to put it very, very lightly.

In any case, my "opinion" is grounded in the fact that neither I nor anyone I know (outside of the internet, I guess) can think of many things more fucking horrifying than having sex with a family member. Just because your incest fantasy has the girl saying "I love you so much ni-chan :3" at the end doesn't mean it jives at all with reality. Even a so-called "consensual" sexual relationship with a family member would all but certainly have dire emotional consequences in the future.

Man I took too long and missed all of the good bits, eh? Oh well, let's try and work through the muck...
Eolirin. Thank you for being so much more eloquent than me and making much better points. Thank you.
Efftee. When are you going to understand that:
A) the world is much broader than you think and people can make decisions on their own
B) the direction of the approach DOES make a difference
C) your military reference is incorrect, it isn't unethical, it is illegal
D) the human mind is much more complex than you seem to want to believe- capable of the most amazing things (neutral), the most sweethearted and good-natured things (good), and at the same time the most amazingly terrible, horrifying, evil things (bad)?

Let me qualify the military thing: while only unethical in the respect that it is possible for favoritism to take place, it is illegal for that reason, and that reason alone.

Eolirin:
But I still call bullshit on it *necessarily* being exploitive. If the older sibling never shows any interest, but the younger sibling does, and comes to the older one, would it still be exploitive? You could even make the arguement that such a situation could result in the older sibling being exploited by the younger, rather than the other way around. It's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

Bullshit. If a student approaches a teacher, and the teacher acts on that, is the relationship still exploitative? Hell yes it is.

Anyway, I don't have to play the game and "see what the specific situation is" to make a judgment call on it. Incest is deviant, in the truest sense of the word. People without serious emotional issues or defects simply aren't attracted to family members. It's hardwired into us a product of evolution. Shit, even animals, who will readily engage in interspecial sex and rape, won't fuck their immediate family.

LordOmnit:
Man I took too long and missed all of the good bits, eh? Oh well, let's try and work through the muck...
Eolirin. Thank you for being so much more eloquent than me and making much better points. Thank you.
Efftee. When are you going to understand that:
A) the world is much broader than you think and people can make decisions on their own
B) the direction of the approach DOES make a difference
C) your military reference is incorrect, it isn't unethical, it is illegal
D) the human mind is much more complex than you seem to want to believe- capable of the most amazing things (neutral), the most sweethearted and good-natured things (good), and at the same time the most amazingly terrible, horrifying, evil things (bad)?

Ethics and legality aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they often go hand in hand. Also, favoritism is not the only reason why sexual relationships with inferiors is not allowed in the military. It can also affect the decision-making process of the superior -- it's for the same reason that women are not allowed to serve in combat units.

As for your last comment, what's your point? Of course people are capable of doing bad things, nobody's contesting this. That also doesn't make those things any less bad.

Inappropriate isn't the same as necessarily *wrong*. Even in the groups you've mentioned there may be cases in which the situation *isn't* exploitive. The rules are set up as thus because it's far less frequent for them to be exploitive than not, and because failure to set them up that way allows adminstration to fall into favoritism. Because it's so hard to really examine the context of relationships like that in a fair way it's impossible to maintain a system that's not prone to corruption without simply banning it as a whole. But those are institutionalized situations, and because of the difficulties involved, close examination of said situations would waste more time than simply banning them out right. It still doesn't speak towards the universality of the rule that all such relationships *must* be exploitive. If we disgard the comment as having the weight of a universal, and really you've provided *no* reason why it should be considered thus, then you must examine context unless you want a baseless kneejerk reaction. When discussing Kana, it honestly doesn't matter if *most* similar situations would be exploitive. It only matters if *this* situation is exploitive.

And grounding your opinion solely in the viewpoints of you and the people you tend to communicate with isn't a valid grounds for dismissing a concept without examining the context that concept is based on.

Eolirin:
Inappropriate isn't the same as necessarily *wrong*. Even in the groups you've mentioned there may be cases in which the situation *isn't* exploitive. The rules are set up as thus because it's far less frequent for them to be exploitive than not, and because failure to set them up that way allows adminstration to fall into favoritism. Because it's so hard to really examine the context of relationships like that in a fair way it's impossible to maintain a system that's not prone to corruption without simply banning it as a whole. But those are institutionalized situations, and because of the difficulties involved, close examination of said situations would waste more time than simply banning them out right. It still doesn't speak towards the universality of the rule that all such relationships *must* be exploitive. If we disgard the comment as having the weight of a universal, and really you've provided *no* reason why it should be considered thus, then you must examine context unless you want a baseless kneejerk reaction. When discussing Kana, it honestly doesn't matter if *most* similar situations would be exploitive. It only matters if *this* situation is exploitive.

And grounding your opinion solely in the viewpoints of you and the people you tend to communicate with isn't a valid grounds for dismissing a concept without examining the context that concept is based on.

Name one otherwise emotionally stable person in the history of the human race who has been sexually attracted to a member of their immediate family. Please.

In the case of deviance, any choice you make about your sex-life WILL make you a deviant. You don't have to touch on taboos (a loan word meaning sacred rather than wrong in the original language) or even some more extreme things.
If you decide to remain a virgin for your life, then you are being deviant to the norm of society in general.
If you decide to do only seemingly 'normal' things, then you are, again, not conforming to the normality of society.
If you do all of the lower-level things in addition to normal things, then you aren't normal because you are doing those things, rather than the publicly 'normal' things.
And you don't seem to understand where the idea of family attraction/detraction mostly comes from. It generally comes from closeness in early and middle (even late to a degree) childhood. Siblings separated from each other before they significantly interact are just as likely to be attracted to each other as any other two random people, whereas if they were raised together they are much less likely to. And even beyond that, children from separate families raised in close proximity WHO ARE OF NO BLOOD RELATIONS are much less likely to be attracted to another of the group, even if encouraged.

LordOmnit:
In the case of deviance, any choice you make about your sex-life WILL make you a deviant. You don't have to touch on taboos (a loan word meaning sacred rather than wrong in the original language) or even some more extreme things.
If you decide to remain a virgin for your life, then you are being deviant to the norm of society in general.
If you decide to do only seemingly 'normal' things, then you are, again, not conforming to the normality of society.
If you do all of the lower-level things in addition to normal things, then you aren't normal because you are doing those things, rather than the publicly 'normal' things.
And you don't seem to understand where the idea of family attraction/detraction mostly comes from. It generally comes from closeness in early and middle (even late to a degree) childhood. Siblings separated from each other before they significantly interact are just as likely to be attracted to each other as any other two random people, whereas if they were raised together they are much less likely to. And even beyond that, children from separate families raised in close proximity WHO ARE OF NO BLOOD RELATIONS are much less likely to be attracted to another of the group, even if encouraged.

You're confused as to what deviant behavior means. Deviant behavior refers to a blatant VIOLATION of social norms, not merely doing something unusual. Wearing a toga every day, or, say, remaining a virgin all your life is strange, but it's not deviant behavior. Something like, for example, masturbating in public, on the other hand, is.

Oh, and the call for sane people: Patrick Stübing and Susan Karolewski. Look 'em up.

To paraphrase a point from Heinlein, being sexually attracted to somebody and acting on that attraction are very different.

Readings from a few psychologists might prove to be interesting (for both thought and debate/discussion)- I believe Gutenberg has most of the relevant texts.

No, you fail to see the sociological viewpoint of deviance, being not conforming to societal norms, whereas CRIME is blatant violation and disregard for societal norms and laws. It doesn't mean that violation and non-conformation are different, it means that the degree (which is inherent in the sense of the differing degrees of the words) as to which one "commits" these acts.

Efftee:

Bullshit. If a student approaches a teacher, and the teacher acts on that, is the relationship still exploitative? Hell yes it is.

Anyway, I don't have to play the game and "see what the specific situation is" to make a judgment call on it. Incest is deviant, in the truest sense of the word. People without serious emotional issues or defects simply aren't attracted to family members. It's hardwired into us a product of evolution. Shit, even animals, who will readily engage in interspecial sex and rape, won't fuck their immediate family.

Huh, so how exactly is the teacher exerting pressure on the student to have sex with them? If the teacher says no, but the student persists till eventually they give in, is the teacher still exploiting their position? If the teacher simply goes along with it because they don't want to *hurt* the student's feelings, is it still exploitive on the part of the teacher? Certainly, you could say that the *teacher* is being exploited by the student in that case, but it would be very hard to say the opposite. Exploitation requires that one side is forced into a situation they would, at least on some level, not be on. Since you can't get into anyone's head besides your own, it's quite impossible to make a call on whether or not that's occuring without looking at the interaction between the two.

Also, about interfamily sex in the animal kingdom, that's completely untrue. The Bonobo (a form of Chimpanzee) will have sex with it's immediate family, even underage members. They are, I should point out, a fairly close relative of the human race. I'm sure there may even be other species, but that's the one that comes to mind immediately. Sex has a completely different role in Bonobo society than human society though, or even in other species of primate. It's a method for greeting and conflict resolution, among other things. The Bonobo is also much more peaceful than the other form of chimpanzee, called the common chimpanzee, which is extremely prone to physically attacking other chimps not part of it's immediate community. But no, it's not inherently wired into all animal species. Actually, some studies would suggest that it's not even inherently wired into humans either, but rather that it's environmental (which is not to say that it's *societal* but there's been some work done that would point towards siblings who weren't raised together having a higher chance of finding the other sexually attractive.)

LordOmnit:
Oh, and the call for sane people: Patrick Stübing and Susan Karolewski. Look 'em up.

A highly unusual case, as he did not meet his biological family until well into adulthood.

Yes, but you did ask for it, ergo, I gave because I felt the need to.

Eolirin:
Actually, some studies would suggest that it's not even inherently wired into humans either, but rather that it's environmental (which is not to say that it's *societal* but there's been some work done that would point towards siblings who weren't raised together having a higher chance of finding the other sexually attractive.)

Well this is pretty self-evident. By "hard-wired" I mean that you will not be attracted to those who you *consider* to be family. I doubt there's any kind of magical genetic recognition of kinship that's at play.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here