108: Heart-wrenching Hentai

[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)?

 

[LordOmnit]

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.

 

[Efftee [deprecated]]

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.

 

[Efftee [deprecated]]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Efftee [deprecated]]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Efftee [deprecated]]

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.

 

[LordOmnit]

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

 

[Kava [deprecated]]

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.

 

[LordOmnit]

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.

 

[Eolirin]

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.)

 

[Efftee [deprecated]]

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.

 

[LordOmnit]

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

 

[Efftee [deprecated]]

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.

 

[Efftee [deprecated]]

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.

Crime is a violation of societal laws. Laws and norms do not necessarily line up identically.

 

[Kava [deprecated]]

Wikipedia actually has a mention of siblings, separated from childhood, being sexually attracted to each other as adults. [Look up 'genetic sexual attraction']

Likewise, it also has a few notes regarding people who are raised together having a decreased incidence of sexual attraction- the Westermarck effect.

 

[LordOmnit]

Quite right, but they are along the same lines, otherwise the laws wouldn't have been instated to begin with, or am I wrong and laws are drawn out of a hat. And as for your magical recognition thing that doesn't exist, that proves that nature has no qualms about allowing incest, otherwise there would be something that helps prevent it from happening. That doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong, but continuing on that point seems pointless with you. That is unless I abandoned all reason and decided, "Hey, I'll just agree with the fanatic. And try and drink gasoline too!"

 

[Eolirin]

Also, considering that we cannot do a sampling of people with incestuous feelings to any degree of accuracy, calling on us to find people that meet a very vague definition of sanity is all but impossible. I could ask you to find a similar list of people that are insane who had feelings towards a sibling but didn't force themselves on them. But you'd be just as unable to do so. We really only hear stories about the ones that *were* abusive. Most of the ones who weren't abusive wouldn't even mention it though, because rarely would it be acted on. And for those that did have mutual feelings, and expressed them, they'd probably be rather unwilling to talk about it too, simply because of the sort of kneejerk response they'd get. That doesn't mean that they *don't* or *can't* exist though.

 

[Efftee [deprecated]]

Quite right, but they are along the same lines, otherwise the laws wouldn't have been instated to begin with, or am I wrong and laws are drawn out of a hat. And as for your magical recognition thing that doesn't exist, that proves that nature has no qualms about allowing incest, otherwise there would be something that helps prevent it from happening. That doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong, but continuing on that point seems pointless with you. That is unless I abandoned all reason and decided, "Hey, I'll just agree with the fanatic. And try and drink gasoline too!"

You're about as sharp as a bowling ball. I say that laws and norms don't always line up identically, and you claim I'm saying that laws are arbitrary. I say that a genetic response has as much to do with one's own consideration of what is family as shared heredity, and you claim this proves there is no natural aversion to incest. Go read a book or fuck your sister or something, just stop posting.