I've got two sisters and many female cousins.Commissar Sae said:
[sub]Must refrain from making a joke about cousins not being siblings (but actually ARE because of incest) because that's not a very good joke.[/sub]
Poll: Is incest wrong if it's consensual?
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
[sub]Must refrain from making a joke about cousins not being siblings (but actually ARE because of incest) because that's not a very good joke.[/sub]
As regards (1), what % of women are "known to be psychologically screwed up by abortion"?Gunjester said:
Stats from a peer reviewed study please.
Anecdotes and Urban Legends do not count, nor does so called pro-life propaganda.
On topic:
When you say incest, do you mean parental, or sibling?
Full or halfblood siblings?
Apart from the "ick" factor, would the main reason against "consenting sibling incest" be the potential to harm for any potential offspring?
Morally? Not really, two consenting adults, regardless of relation remove the moral aspect of the act. However, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it's the consequences that are very morally charged.
For the pair, the act (or indeed relationship) would need to be hidden, either fully or through some means of deception to appear publicly as a couple due to the moral and social ramifications. If that's as far as it goes then I can't really blame anyone if that's the road they choose, but discovery could do massive damage not only to themselves but to their family and friends.
I also believe it's an unhealthy misconstrual of familial love for erotic love and creates a slippery slope from a societal point of view. When a child comes into the mix, however, it's a whole different ball game.
On a purely genetic level a first generation child from incestuous relations should only have a marginally increased risk of abnormality. So from the perspective of health it's not a total disaster. But that's where the relative upsides end.
Could you ever bring that child to meet the family? Could you hide the truth from your child, knowing that they may unwittingly reveal your secret by discovering their schoolmates have two sets of grandparents? If you were to have a second child, could you deny their own possible incestuous relationship, as while your grandchildren from this arrangement run a vastly increased risk of disorders, you are something of a hypocrite for closing a door you opened.
Even if you could find a workable solution to these adversities, the laws are in place for a reason. Institutionalized incest could cripple a society within two or three generations, yet our concern for the rights of the individual (which I wholeheartedly support) clouds our ability to decry people who choose this path.
I think you have to outlaw it on the grounds that of course, it will still occur, but the illegality will dissuade the vast majority (although many other factors would be more prominent in preventing incest than the legality) and therefore I can see my way to having no moral objection to a childless incestuous couple, but that is my line. However, the concept in legal terms is unenforceable, plus the issue is not so widespread as to require such legal alterations...
For the pair, the act (or indeed relationship) would need to be hidden, either fully or through some means of deception to appear publicly as a couple due to the moral and social ramifications. If that's as far as it goes then I can't really blame anyone if that's the road they choose, but discovery could do massive damage not only to themselves but to their family and friends.
I also believe it's an unhealthy misconstrual of familial love for erotic love and creates a slippery slope from a societal point of view. When a child comes into the mix, however, it's a whole different ball game.
On a purely genetic level a first generation child from incestuous relations should only have a marginally increased risk of abnormality. So from the perspective of health it's not a total disaster. But that's where the relative upsides end.
Could you ever bring that child to meet the family? Could you hide the truth from your child, knowing that they may unwittingly reveal your secret by discovering their schoolmates have two sets of grandparents? If you were to have a second child, could you deny their own possible incestuous relationship, as while your grandchildren from this arrangement run a vastly increased risk of disorders, you are something of a hypocrite for closing a door you opened.
Even if you could find a workable solution to these adversities, the laws are in place for a reason. Institutionalized incest could cripple a society within two or three generations, yet our concern for the rights of the individual (which I wholeheartedly support) clouds our ability to decry people who choose this path.
I think you have to outlaw it on the grounds that of course, it will still occur, but the illegality will dissuade the vast majority (although many other factors would be more prominent in preventing incest than the legality) and therefore I can see my way to having no moral objection to a childless incestuous couple, but that is my line. However, the concept in legal terms is unenforceable, plus the issue is not so widespread as to require such legal alterations...
Yeah, that's the point. Primitive man doesn't understand a learning disability or being prone to a disease you might get should you live to be the positively ancient age of 35. It does understand that that person with tits is your sister and you don't hit that, because animals that do that end up doing it a bunch and turn into extras from, "The Hills Have Eyes".Loop Stricken said:
Also, saying that psychological disorders have no genetic competent is just absolutely and completely false.
I spoke to a Gay rights advocate a little while back on the subject and she said that so long as it is two consenting adults then it's okay.
I'm glad she did because it would have been a double standard to say 'Equal rights for everybody!' And then say 'except you incest, you're vile and wrong and perverted.' Oh the Irony!
And besides, even if they did end up having a kid, they could always abort it. I mean who has kids in this day and age.
I'm glad she did because it would have been a double standard to say 'Equal rights for everybody!' And then say 'except you incest, you're vile and wrong and perverted.' Oh the Irony!
And besides, even if they did end up having a kid, they could always abort it. I mean who has kids in this day and age.
Morally, it's a little iffy. Biologically, dear gods yes it's wrong. Genetic diversity is a very, very good thing for any species, humans included. A lack of genetic diversity, not so good.
The idea at the center on my morality has always been 'do whatever makes you happy as long as it isn't hurting anyone else'. If the sex is concentual and there's no chance of producing offspring then, I guess, it's alright. It grosses me out to my core for what I would imagine are biological instincts, but hey, whatever floats your boat I guess.
all the guys here saying its wrong would probably have no problem watching twin women going at it.
Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen: When two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction. This phenomenon, known as the Westermarck effect, was first formally described by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck in his book The History of Human Marriage (1891). The Westermarck effect has since been observed in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.dagens24 said:
In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups, based on age, not biological relation. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only fourteen were between children from the same peer group. Of those fourteen, none had been reared together during the first six years of life. This result provides evidence not only that the Westermarck effect is demonstrable but that it operates during the period from birth to the age of six.[4]
When proximity during this critical period does not occur ? for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another - they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults. This phenomenon is known as genetic sexual attraction. This observation supports the hypothesis that the Westermarck effect evolved because it suppressed inbreeding. This attraction may also be seen with cousin couples.
Wikipedia, just interesting reading. That's the biological instinct, so children raised apart won't get the ick unless they were actually told they were brothers and sisters, and even then it's not imprinted.
1) I did say generally.Xanadu84 said:
2) Animals DO do that. Lots. Hamsters? Pretty much ALL hamsters you buy from pet shops nowadays? All from one batch of something like ten that were found in some eastern European country iirc.
of course back them hamsters were as big as giraffes and had wings.
I'm not usually one to go 'It's simply morally wrong because it is so there', because I feel that's always an inadequate response. But in this case... I'm afraid I'm wholly succumbing to the social stigma. Just thinking about it makes me squirm in an uncontrollable way.
Who am I to say it should be forbidden to everyone, though?
Who am I to say it should be forbidden to everyone, though?
Yes, I have heard of it. Last I heard it was on pretty shaky ground on account of being a bit shit of a theory.Blitzwing said:
Edit: or not. Might've been something else. ALAS!
The reason it is banned is not because there is influence within the relation, it is because there is influence outside the relation, which will still be there even if the relation were to break up.Hurray Forums said:
The problem with that is that often when it is abused, and because the victim will have to live with the perpetrator afterwards they'll lie about their consent, or have convinced themselves already they are consenting.
This indeed does also happen within other relations - ask anyone working in Social Services, and you'll hear a few horror stories.
I'm not entirely sure though what your point is about legislation not preventing all perpetrators. Has it ever, for any crime?
The main difference between my examples and yours is that mine are banned because the the negative chances far outweigh the positive sides. And in a more cynical view: because public opinion isn't in favor of banning cars. (Guns are effectively banned in many countries though).
I can't fault the OP for having the topic at dinner, I've had some insane ones pop up at our dinner table. Never that, though.
My Grandma did go into a rant once about the reason that my mother and father got divorced was because there wasn't enough sex in the relationship. Trying eating your meal after that.
As far as the topic is concerned.
The majority of inbreeding the lay folk refer isn't brother/sister relations, but cousins. "The royal family did it all the time!". Never with a brother/sister AFAIK.
Most studies on sexual attraction at a biological level, have shown that we are predisposed to not be attracted to our own siblings at any level and that those who are usually show some kind of social problems or trauma. Not the case for cousins, which we have no genetic deposition to not breed with them, only social immorality which is culturally based. There are also things like the Westermarck effect which imprints on us a tendency to avoid sexual relationships with those we were raised with.
So incest as defined as brother/sister relationship, even consensual between two adults is wrong.
The area is more grey when talking about cousins, or even second cousins. If you sleep with your grandfather's brother's granddaughter is it really incest? Thats a question for society to answer.
Personally if I have any knowledge of our family trees intersecting thats abit too much for me. Even if its not a blood relationship. For example, brother-in-law(sister's husband)'s cousin is totally in love with me. I find the whole thing a bit weird. But I don't find anything morally wrong with me and her having a relationship. Nor would I mind too much, it would just take a little more convincing than normal to jump on that wagon.
My Grandma did go into a rant once about the reason that my mother and father got divorced was because there wasn't enough sex in the relationship. Trying eating your meal after that.
As far as the topic is concerned.
The majority of inbreeding the lay folk refer isn't brother/sister relations, but cousins. "The royal family did it all the time!". Never with a brother/sister AFAIK.
Most studies on sexual attraction at a biological level, have shown that we are predisposed to not be attracted to our own siblings at any level and that those who are usually show some kind of social problems or trauma. Not the case for cousins, which we have no genetic deposition to not breed with them, only social immorality which is culturally based. There are also things like the Westermarck effect which imprints on us a tendency to avoid sexual relationships with those we were raised with.
So incest as defined as brother/sister relationship, even consensual between two adults is wrong.
The area is more grey when talking about cousins, or even second cousins. If you sleep with your grandfather's brother's granddaughter is it really incest? Thats a question for society to answer.
Personally if I have any knowledge of our family trees intersecting thats abit too much for me. Even if its not a blood relationship. For example, brother-in-law(sister's husband)'s cousin is totally in love with me. I find the whole thing a bit weird. But I don't find anything morally wrong with me and her having a relationship. Nor would I mind too much, it would just take a little more convincing than normal to jump on that wagon.
The societal revulsion to the idea of incest just came from the fact that incest spawned babies tend to have mutations.
As long as you aren't making babies and risking bringing malformed babies into the world I have no problem with incest, I don't think it's morally wrong at all.
As long as you aren't making babies and risking bringing malformed babies into the world I have no problem with incest, I don't think it's morally wrong at all.