View Full Version : Incest
I'd like to hear your opinons on the morality etc... of this subject. Maybe we can even get a debate going :D.
Mine, previously posted at BF:
Love is love. No matter what. If a parent and his son are in love, good for them! If they want to get married, great! Sex? Hot, but totally cool with me.
Making out with your cousin is NOT SICK. If you are in love, then you are in love. If you're taking advantage of her because she's hot, then that's just as bad as taking advantage of someone else because they're hot. It's not any more or less gross because of relation.
Having children:
Due to the fact that there is a higher chance of birth deformities in incestous relationships, I'd say you either want to adopt or not have kids.
If they are in love, incestous sex is no more wrong then any other types! And with birth deformities, it's not a taboo on sex, just be careful. Because if you accidently conceive, I'd just be worried that you're taking a high risk of giving one kid a fucked up life.
Conclusion?
Love is love. Love with cousins is love. Love with parents is love. This love is no more wrong then love between a man and a woman who have no blood between them.
ZE END.
Protosschick99
08-25-2004, 1:24 PM
That is disgustingly gross.
Yuck, don't me me puke man......
Cygnus
08-25-2004, 1:35 PM
Yet why is it gross? If someone truely cares for someone, does it matter?
Chiron
08-25-2004, 1:43 PM
People are not animals, actions should not be based on instinct alone. That's why we have all that grey stuff in our heads. You don't have children to "create" another spouse in 20 years, that's just wrong. People that develop those kinds of feelings for their own children (not step-parents) have some psychological problems that need to be addressed. The same goes for siblings and cousins. You know the joke about the only red-neck virgin is the one who can outrun her brothers? It's a joke, not a way of life!
People are not animals, actions should not be based on instinct alone.
Love is not instinct. Lust is instinct, not love.
Sauvastika
08-25-2004, 1:49 PM
My belief is like that of Cygnus'. Yeah, love is love even if you love your cousin, sister, aunt, etc.
How exactly is incest immoral? How is love immoral?
There's no reason why incestous couples can't be together. Concieving children is another story, though. The child has a high chance of having a defect, and it is not fair for a children to be born with defects, while having the risks already knowm. Though, like Cygnus said, incestous couples can always adopt.
Cygnus
08-25-2004, 1:54 PM
riBd actually mentioned that in his post, but moving on. Birth defects between first cousins are a 1% chance. Those between close family, are drastically higher. If first cousins wish to take the risk, then yes they can but of course you have to remember that incestious marriage is banned in the US.
You can still live with the person of course, but marriage is not allowed. Kind of silly if you ask me.
EDIT: Also about adult family members falling in love (I'm refering not parental love but rather a relationship you would have with someone else) with children... Remember that pedophilia is a bit different from a consentual relationship.
That is disgustingly gross.
Yuck, don't me me puke man......
"Gross" is not a valid argument for anything.
People are not animals, actions should not be based on instinct alone. That's why we have all that grey stuff in our heads. You don't have children to "create" another spouse in 20 years, that's just wrong. People that develop those kinds of feelings for their own children (not step-parents) have some psychological problems that need to be addressed. The same goes for siblings and cousins. You know the joke about the only red-neck virgin is the one who can outrun her brothers? It's a joke, not a way of life!
You know how instincts operate from within the grey stuff in our heads, right?
--------------
My take:
Even though I can't see any moral or ethical argument that permits us to ban incest, incest should be treated with suspicion due to the following:
1. (Regarding parent-children incest only). Children are suspectible to parent abuse more so than others. Children look up to parents, they will do what they tell them to do, etc. etc. I think you know where I'm getting at. Parent-children incest is more likely to be abuse/rape/brainwashing than other sex.
2. Incest is forbidden from an evolutionary point of view. It results in inbreeding, which detoriates our gene pool. It is a tremendous disadvantage to our species. Therefore, the normal person will consider sex with close relatives extremely disturbing. Try imagining yourself having sex with your mom/dad or your siblings. Pretty gross, isn't it? People who desire sex with close relatives are thus "abnormal" in one way or another. It contradicts the rules of evolution.
--------------
Oh, by the way, normal parent-child love doesn't lead to sex. Love in this matter means caring for or wishing the best for.
Valjean
08-25-2004, 2:10 PM
I'm in total agreement with TheBB.
hammocksleeper
08-25-2004, 2:12 PM
Birth defects between first cousins are a 1% chance. I'm glad you said this. To the people who make the "malformity" argument: There is a much greater chance that a child conceived between two complete strangers will have certain detectable genetic disorders than there is of a child conceived between two cousins having defects as a result of incest.
Should all couples be required to undergo genetic testing to see the probability that the combination of their genes will produce a malformed child? And if these tests prove positive, should the couple be prohibited from marrying/conceiving together?
In my personal opinion, I totally disapprove incestous relationships between parent and child; as well as between siblings. But I'm not really sure what to say if it's between cousins.
I consider incest in the nuclear family just plain wrong, but I admit that me feeling this way has to do with the way I was raised and what society expects of me. Because of this very fact, I even have a hard time imagining what I would do were I not raised this way. It would be interesting to examine children who have not been exposed to such dogma and see if they would seek incestous relationships with their parents or siblings or any kind of close relative.
A cousin (although not an adequately descriptive term) is a more distant relative... and well, all I can say is that when two people love each other very much, and everything is consensual, then I'd give it a go.
UED77
Protosschick99
08-25-2004, 2:37 PM
Okay then why don't all of us just fall in love with our brother's/sisters/aunts/uncles/mom's/dads??
My dad is like 44, I'm 18--That's gross.
My step-dad is 46--No thank you.
My brother Danny is like 30 something and he's married! Eww no.
My brother Jeremy is 24 and he is just...Not right in the head--That's okay.
My brother Jason is 18, a complete idiot, and doesn't realize what he has until it's gone, he's stupid (Literally, he hasn't graduated from High school--He's very slow...) and he's a butt crack.
My brother Eddie is 16, a butt munch, a jerk to me when he feels like it, and the age difference--No thanks, I'll pass.
My Uncle Larry is in his 40's and married--I love him derly, but not like that.
My Uncle Greg is in his 50's--Still no! I love him too, but not all ghetto an incestuous like this thread is suggesting.
My other Uncles are all in their 50's and Ewww---No! That is gross and immoral.
I'm glad you said this. To the people who make the "malformity" argument: There is a much greater chance that a child conceived between two complete strangers will have certain detectable genetic disorders than there is of a child conceived between two cousins having defects as a result of incest.
Should all couples be required to undergo genetic testing to see the probability that the combination of their genes will produce a malformed child? And if these tests prove positive, should the couple be prohibited from marrying/conceiving together?
The probability of birth defect after several generations of incest, however, is much higher. MUCH higher.
Cygnus
08-25-2004, 2:41 PM
PC, just because your family is one way doesn't mean that it can't happen with someone else... and BB, you're quite right, but again take a gander at what hammocksleeper said. Why aren't regular people checked for the possibility of birth defects in their offspring (although some now are beginning to check actually), while those in an insestous relationship can't marry for that reason?
Isn't that discrimination?
Battlecruiser
08-25-2004, 2:42 PM
"Gross" is not a valid argument for anything.
You know how instincts operate from within the grey stuff in our heads, right?
--------------
My take:
Even though I can't see any moral or ethical argument that permits us to ban incest, incest should be treated with suspicion due to the following:
1. (Regarding parent-children incest only). Children are suspectible to parent abuse more so than others. Children look up to parents, they will do what they tell them to do, etc. etc. I think you know where I'm getting at. Parent-children incest is more likely to be abuse/rape/brainwashing than other sex.
2. Incest is forbidden from an evolutionary point of view. It results in inbreeding, which detoriates our gene pool. It is a tremendous disadvantage to our species. Therefore, the normal person will consider sex with close relatives extremely disturbing. Try imagining yourself having sex with your mom/dad or your siblings. Pretty gross, isn't it? People who desire sex with close relatives are thus "abnormal" in one way or another. It contradicts the rules of evolution.
--------------
Oh, by the way, normal parent-child love doesn't lead to sex. Love in this matter means caring for or wishing the best for.
I see... Nice contradiction.
I think the parent and child one is very wrong. I can't even understand how that is possible. I haven't heard of a case like that either in my whole life. I don't understand how it can even happen.
Valjean
08-25-2004, 2:45 PM
Okay then why don't all of us just fall in love with our brother's/sisters/aunts/uncles/mom's/dads??
My dad is like 44, I'm 18--That's gross.
My step-dad is 46--No thank you.
My brother Danny is like 30 something and he's married! Eww no.
My brother Jeremy is 24 and he is just...Not right in the head--That's okay.
My brother Jason is 18, a complete idiot, and doesn't realize what he has until it's gone, he's stupid (Literally, he hasn't graduated from High school--He's very slow...) and he's a butt crack.
My brother Eddie is 16, a butt munch, a jerk to me when he feels like it, and the age difference--No thanks, I'll pass.
My Uncle Larry is in his 40's and married--I love him derly, but not like that.
My Uncle Greg is in his 50's--Still no! I love him too, but not all ghetto an incestuous like this thread is suggesting.
My other Uncles are all in their 50's and Ewww---No! That is gross and immoral.
Well then if you don't want to, you don't have to fall in love with any of your relatives. But like Cygnus said, this doesn't mean it couldn't happen with someone else.
BC, did you even read the post? You apparently didn't.
a) You can't use "I think it's gross, therefore it shouldn't be allowed" as an argument.
b) Most people think incest is gross, hence it supports my claim that it runs against evolution.
These two claims does not contradict.
and BB, you're quite right, but again take a gander at what hammocksleeper said. Why aren't regular people checked for the possibility of birth defects in their offspring (although some now are beginning to check actually), while those in an insestous relationship can't marry for that reason?
Isn't that discrimination?
Maybe, maybe not. Consider it ...
- Normal birth defects occur at a low rate among a lot of people.
- Incest related birth defects occur at a slightly higher rate among fewer people.
It follows that the latter is much easier to control than the former.
And please remember that I'm not advocating ban of incest, in my post I stated that incest "should be regarded with suspicion" (or something of that nature, can't remember).
Actually, here's something that came to my mind after reading PC's post.
A partial reason why people are not attracted to their relatives might be because they live with them everyday. Which means that you not only share the pleasant experiences, as one would predominanty do with a non-relative lover; but you also have to see them and learn to live with them when they have a bad day or not in the optimal shape.
UED77
Battlecruiser
08-25-2004, 2:46 PM
BC, did you even read the post? You apparently didn't.
a) You can't use "I think it's gross, therefore it shouldn't be allowed" as an argument.
b) Most people think incest is gross, hence it supports my claim that it runs against evolution.
These two claims does not contradict.
If I didn't read your post how would I have known it said that. You said, saying it is gross isn't a valid arguement, though you used it in your own.
Actually, here's something that came to my mind after reading PC's post.
A partial reason why people are not attracted to their relatives might be because they live with them everyday. Which means that you not only share the pleasant experiences, as one would predominanty do with a non-relative lover; but you also have to see them and learn to live with them when they have a bad day or not in the optimal shape.
UED77
The reason people are not attracted to their relatives is because it's a tool from the side of evolution to prevent inbreeding. End of story.
If I didn't read your post how would I have known it said that. You said, saying it is gross isn't a valid arguement, though you used it in your own.
What the fuck... I used the fact that people think incest is gross to support my claim that incest runs against evolution. I did not use the fact that I think it's gross to argument directly against incest. Get your logic straight.
Battlecruiser
08-25-2004, 2:56 PM
What the fuck... I used the fact that people think incest is gross to support my claim that incest runs against evolution. I did not use the fact that I think it's gross to argument directly against incest. Get your logic straight.
Wow, big difference. Just because you used it indirectly against incest, doesn't mean you didn't use it at all. Anyway, whatever. This is a retarded arguement. I don't want to spam the boards with this.
hammocksleeper
08-25-2004, 2:57 PM
The probability of birth defect after several generations of incest, however, is much higher. MUCH higher.Yeah but we're talking about cousins. In other words, people with no more than 12.5% blood relation.
EdvardMunch
08-25-2004, 2:59 PM
Okay then why don't all of us just fall in love with our brother's/sisters/aunts/uncles/mom's/dads??
My dad is like 44, I'm 18--That's gross.
My step-dad is 46--No thank you.
My brother Danny is like 30 something and he's married! Eww no.
My brother Jeremy is 24 and he is just...Not right in the head--That's okay.
My brother Jason is 18, a complete idiot, and doesn't realize what he has until it's gone, he's stupid (Literally, he hasn't graduated from High school--He's very slow...) and he's a butt crack.
My brother Eddie is 16, a butt munch, a jerk to me when he feels like it, and the age difference--No thanks, I'll pass.
My Uncle Larry is in his 40's and married--I love him derly, but not like that.
My Uncle Greg is in his 50's--Still no! I love him too, but not all ghetto an incestuous like this thread is suggesting.
My other Uncles are all in their 50's and Ewww---No! That is gross and immoral.
These objections seem more based on age difference, marital status or personality of the people, and not their relation.
Here's a hypothetical scenario: What if you had an 18-year old Brad Pitt as your brother? :) Or, if Brad Pitt isn't hot, then Insert Hot Male Celebrity Of Appropriate Age And Personality here:
Someone asked an "expert" on the risks of inbreeding to the child. Here's what they said: "According to Dr. Diana Bianchi, of the Medical Genetics program at Tufts University Medical School, the genetic risks may actually be quite high. She cited a study of parent-child and brother-sister incest showing a rate of genetic abnormalities of 43%. Not all of these abnormalities were serious, but many were."
http://www.mhsource.com/expert/exp1120897h.html
Besides, incest is more common than everyone thinks. A married couple are technically brother and sister in-law. :)
Protosschick99
08-25-2004, 3:04 PM
For realz? Well, it's "In-Law", meaning through marriage, not blood.
But still--That sounds wierd :P
Riptokus
08-26-2004, 1:13 AM
Man I just saw a bunch of crap in here. About Incest being restricted as an evolutionary trait. Let me tell you one thing I am 100% Confident on. It's a proven fact that Incest allows recessive genetic traits to be more dominant in future generations (A lot of those are what we would consider severe birth defects, BTW.)
As a result, Incest allows a more diverse genepool. It kind of sounds odd, but it's true. If everyone in Warboards stuck with their own family for like 5 Generations, You would have 5 complete subspecies of Human.
For myself though, I am so brainwashed by society that Gross works as a perfect argument against it.
So...... GROSS!!!! YUCK! EWWWW!!!!
* Riptokus pukes
Need I say more? I wouldn't have it any other way. BTW, You can't be a judeo-christian and have an incestful relationship. A christian friend of mine says it's all written in the bible in Exodus, But I wouldn't know.
SexForTwo
08-26-2004, 4:19 AM
Trauma towards the child is probably the reason, because it can result in horrible consequences between child, parent and whatever.
Cousin-to-cousin - I'm not sure if that is incest..... It happens sometimes. Which is still scary.
But it is unnatural, freaky, and illegal.
Wow, big difference. Just because you used it indirectly against incest, doesn't mean you didn't use it at all. Anyway, whatever. This is a retarded arguement. I don't want to spam the boards with this.
Yeah, BIG difference. Read a book on logic and come back when you are going to be right about something.
GiaDragoness
08-26-2004, 8:39 AM
Pardon my blondeness, what is incest?
:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:
"doing" close members of your family
GiaDragoness
08-26-2004, 8:54 AM
o.............k. Well, from a personnal veiw, I'd say "ew" of course, from a philosophical veiw, I would have to say there really is'nt aanything wrong with it except for the supposed increased chance of defects, or having sex with someone who is married to someone else. Doing your cousins seems a bit less wrong than your immediate family. I dont see how most syblings could ever want to do each other because they are always at each others throats.
Having sex with your own parents? That's just wrong in sooo many ways. If it gives you pleasure, and all parties enjoy it, i guess, but still, you'd be having sex with someone who is already married, if they are not married, than it's just odd that your doing the person responsible for your own birth. The fact on how you could like, be your own grand parent very easily is a bit disturbing and would screw things up in legal records would also be a downside. Plus you would get beaten up in school alot.
I'd have to say it sounds pretty gross to do your own parents or some crap like that, and although i'd say it does'nt appeal to my fancy, as long as you dont break anything like marrige-wise, legality-wise, or your not bringing some mutant abomination into the world, there's nothing really you can do to stop other people from doing it.
:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:
well, "legality wise" its already illegal isnt it?
Cygnus
08-26-2004, 10:13 AM
Yes Singo it is, but it only prevents anyone who is a first cousin or more immediate family from marrying right?
singo
08-26-2004, 10:14 AM
does it??
didnt know that, thought it forbade the whole thing
Riptokus
08-26-2004, 11:13 AM
does it??
didnt know that, thought it forbade the whole thing
Technecally, that would forbid sex at all. If you believe in creationism we are all decendants from adam or eve or something like that.) Even if you don't, well by now just about everyone is related, if you go back far enough. For evolutionists, You could say we are all related from the primordial soup, therefore when you eat a cow you are really eating a distant cousin.
The law drew a line because somewhere there had to be a line.
hammocksleeper
08-26-2004, 11:24 AM
It's a proven fact that Incest allows recessive genetic traits to be more dominant in future generations (A lot of those are what we would consider severe birth defects, BTW.) As a result, Incest allows a more diverse genepool. It kind of sounds odd, but it's true. If everyone in Warboards stuck with their own family for like 5 Generations, You would have 5 complete subspecies of Human.
This sounds very intriguing, but I won't believe it until you explain it better.
TheGreatBrain
08-26-2004, 1:38 PM
I instinctively think incest is terrible, but it's difficult to come up with any arguments that are actually concrete. But there is one thing that pops out in my mind.
Having a child I in an incestuous relationship is wrong. What two consenting adults do, however perverse and warped it is, is their buisiness. But subjecting a child to that kind of environment is simply not right.
killer-penguin
08-26-2004, 1:58 PM
as far as incest goes...
would you be willing to have sex with your mother/father/cousin/brother/sister? If yes then fine.
Could you do it with a clear concience? Again...if yes then good 4 u.
Personally I wouldn't be able to do it (even though I have some hot cousins.) I wouldn't feel right afterwords and I KNOW I'd regret it. And thats just it...its a personal thing...sure they try to prevent incest because it can cause an increase in the birth defect rate but the main reason is because people look down on it. If you don't feel bad about...by all means go ahead and have sex with your mom.
This argument shouldn't be an argument about morals or anything else in that manner.
In agreement with TheBB, it goes against all our evolutionary functions. They have done experiments with mice and monkeys, in which 1 male and 2 females were allowed to mate for a short amount of time. One of the females was the male's sibling. In every pregnancy, the siblings never coppulated, which infers that animals instinctively do not mate with their siblings. If they did, they would produce abnormal progeny, and would be knocked out of the gene pool anyway.
Of course in this world, there are lots of different people, stalkers, rapists, killers, etc...
but out of all of those, none of them are more evolutionary incorrect than people who believe in incest.
Ole-The-Murder
08-31-2004, 3:45 PM
I don't care if it's incest, But I care if it's rape.
'nuff said about my view on it ;)
In other words; It doesn't matter if it's sex within the family, aslong as it's not forced. I don't give a **** aslong as no-one gets hurt :P
Yeah, sure the family member could convince the other family member into it...but aslong as one agrees, it's okay. Even if it's halting of evolution, who cares? We'll evolve, some way or another, and babies get born everyday....simply put; You don't become your own fath father by fucking your mother. If she gets a child, you'd be the father and brother of it at the same time...kinda creepy, huh? ;)
As for cousins. I don't think this is incest since if they're your cousin, they're not directly of your bloodline, but some of your parents brother/sister's child, and that's another family, so that's allright in my book. I'd perhaps do that if I wanted it real bad, but my mom? **** THAT!
LordAhriman
08-31-2004, 6:17 PM
Tell me something, guys. When's the last time you heard of a case of a dad having sex with his daughter because they found true love?
Battlecruiser
08-31-2004, 7:42 PM
Yeah, BIG difference. Read a book on logic and come back when you are going to be right about something.
Ok, whatever. Your not going to admit your wrong, so there is no point of me arguing with you.
"Gross" is not a valid argument for anything.
Try imagining yourself having sex with your mom/dad or your siblings. Pretty gross, isn't it?
If you haven't realized, you tried suggesting that having sex with your parents, or siblings is gross.
LordAhriman
08-31-2004, 11:10 PM
Yeah, guys - I'm sure it sounds all good and well in abstraction, but try to imagine yourself having sex with your mother. That's gross.
Xx_bender_xX
09-01-2004, 2:06 AM
ya i know what you mean. the love between family members is different than the love between a girl/boyfriend. I mean i could understand if they were a step sister or maby a VERY distant cousin, but your mother or sister!? thats just nasty
Ole-The-Murder
09-01-2004, 9:28 AM
Yeah, I know, incest is kinda STUPID, and meaningless, since there alotta things to **** than your own family, but'ah...eh! I can't stop 'em if 'em BOTH want it... (Not just one of them since then, it's rape)
There's no book of logic. THE Logic is objective, though...but A logic can be subjective.... Love is love whoever it is too, even if yes, childs are less likely to start a sexual relationship with their parents, but agreeing to it? Well...they don't know what sex is, so...they most likely just obey they parents so it's hard to prove that they WANTED it...not just was like, "okay" :)
Just to clarify, I am totally sure on the subject of incest, but divided on the subject of concieving, considering you may be giving some child birth defects.
This argument shouldn't be an argument about morals or anything else in that manner.Um, why not?
In agreement with TheBB, it goes against all our evolutionary functions. They have done experiments with mice and monkeys, in which 1 male and 2 females were allowed to mate for a short amount of time. One of the females was the male's sibling. In every pregnancy, the siblings never coppulated, which infers that animals instinctively do not mate with their siblings. If they did, they would produce abnormal progeny, and would be knocked out of the gene pool anyway.
Of course in this world, there are lots of different people, stalkers, rapists, killers, etc...
but out of all of those, none of them are more evolutionary incorrect than people who believe in incest.We have evolved past certain instincts for good reasons. People fall in love now, if it was all instincts it'd just be a string of one night stands.
People fall in love and mate with infertile people. That goes against every mating instinct we have.
See what I'm getting at? I see no reason why we should dissallow incest because of "evolutionary correctness".
Alternatively, if we were all really evolutionary correct with ourselves, men would go around raping all the women they see and are attracted to. We would kill our pets, then eat them for food (Probably with our bare hands.) etc etc....
Yeah, guys - I'm sure it sounds all good and well in abstraction, but try to imagine yourself having sex with your mother. That's gross.Try to imagine yourself having sex with another guy. That's gross too, huh?
Yeah. But guess what, a lot of people do it. And find it better then heterosexual sex. Because that's the way their brain is wired. There are always exceptions. In a world of 6 billion people there are a lot.
If you haven't realized, you tried suggesting that having sex with your parents, or siblings is gross.He was using it in a different, more logical sense.
1. (Regarding parent-children incest only). Children are suspectible to parent abuse more so than others. Children look up to parents, they will do what they tell them to do, etc. etc. I think you know where I'm getting at. Parent-children incest is more likely to be abuse/rape/brainwashing than other sex.This is true. I see no way to argue against this. Darnit! :P
2. Incest is forbidden from an evolutionary point of view. It results in inbreeding, which detoriates our gene pool. It is a tremendous disadvantage to our species. Therefore, the normal person will consider sex with close relatives extremely disturbing. Try imagining yourself having sex with your mom/dad or your siblings. Pretty gross, isn't it? People who desire sex with close relatives are thus "abnormal" in one way or another. It contradicts the rules of evolution.You're basically saying there are less people who feel this way? Well, yeah. Of course. Same, (but less drastically) with homosexuality. However, in a world of 6 billion people, I'm willing to bet there are still a good half a million, at least. And that's a hell of a lot of people's lives to ignore.
Having a child I in an incestuous relationship is wrong. What two consenting adults do, however perverse and warped it is, is their buisiness. But subjecting a child to that kind of environment is simply not right.Just because incest is frowned on by the major part of the community doesn't mean that it isn't right to subject a child (adoption, even.) to that environment. Hell, I would instantly take to a child of that environment, because I think that, if the parents relationship was love and not lust, he would have:
1) An open mind about things.
2) A "**** the world I'm doing my own thing" disposition.
That he would get from his parent's attitude.
Sure, some kids may make fun of him, but should that also stop homosexuals from having kids (adoption)?
How about canadians that move to America? I know a canadian that is teased rediculously in my high, just because she's from a different country.
Hey, back when racism and slavery was aflowing, should african-americans not have had kids? They got hurt/teased/abused more then any kid adopted or conceived by incestual parents would!
ya i know what you mean. the love between family members is different than the love between a girl/boyfriend. I mean i could understand if they were a step sister or maby a VERY distant cousin, but your mother or sister!? thats just nastyI hate this attitude with a vengance. It's nasty! Oh my god! Isn't it comprehendable that maybe some people don't think exactly the way you do?
I've used homosexuality as an example before, and I think it's pretty obvious the way I would use it here.
Same to you, ole.
Tell me something, guys. When's the last time you heard of a case of a dad having sex with his daughter because they found true love?It has happened. And trust me, with billions of people growing up more every day, I'm sure there are quite a few daughters who like/love their fathers like that and act on it, and I'm sure there are quite a bit more who don't because society would kill them.
You shouldn't be scared to love who you want to love because you think other people will frown on you. But it's an understandable fear. And that's why it's stupid that society should frown on such a thing (incest in general), preventing millions of people from falling in love with who they want to.
Skapare
09-01-2004, 2:37 PM
www.philosophersmag.com has a lot of interesting things to say on the topic of morality:
_______________________________________
Analysis: Morality, Taboos and the "Yuk Factor"
Probably most of us would like to believe we are able to give good reasons for the moral judgements that we make. For example, if we were asked why it was wrong for the older girl to push the younger boy off the swing, as described in the first question of this activity, we might talk about the fact that the boy's rights had been violated or about the fact that he experienced at least some physical harm. Whilst it is true that the philosophical waters would soon become muddied if we examined our reasoning more carefully, we are able to give at least prima facie good reasons for our judgement of moral wrongdoing.
However, there is a class of activities where it is much more difficult to offer arguments to support a judgement of moral wrong. This is the class of activities which are harmless (at least in a narrow sense), private and consensual, yet violate strong social norms. The examples we utilised in this activity were to do with the taboos and rituals associated with death, food and sexuality.
No doubt some people will suspect that we have constructed this activity with the intention of showing that people are just mistaken if they think that things like having sex with a frozen chicken are wrong. This is not the case, since it is possible to at least make arguments that such things are wrong. Here is an example of one such argument. Human beings are God's creations. Their sexuality is a gift from God to be enjoyed only in the context of a monogamous union between one man and one woman. Chickens, frozen or otherwise, are not part of the picture. Therefore, to have sex with one is to abuse the gift of sexuality, and will necessarily harm a person's relationship with God. It follows that having sex with poultry is a moral wrong.
So if the intention then is not to show that the moral prohibitions surrounding taboos cannot be justified, what are we trying to show with this activity?
Morality and Harm
The intention is to demonstrate that there are tensions in the way that people reason about morality. One important tension has to do with how central the idea of harm is to many moral frameworks. Previous research suggests that, with the exception of the siblings story, most people judge the scenarios presented here to involve neither harm to the protagonists nor to anybody else; but that, regardless, plenty of people still think that these scenarios depict acts which are morally wrong (see Haidt, Koller and Dias, Affect, Culture and Morality).
This activity asks people precisely to make judgements about whether acts can be wrong if they harm only the protagonist and whether they can be wrong if they harm no-one. If the answer to the second question is "no", then automatically any claim that the scenarios presented here involve moral wrongdoing results in difficulties. To retain a consistent moral outlook, it would be necessary to show either that there is harm in the acts depicted here, or to revise the judgement that some kind of harm is necessary for moral condemnation. Both resolutions contain philosophical complications.
There is harm in the acts depicted here
This will probably be the most popular response amongst people who think that their moral outlook has been unfairly identified by this activity as involving a possible contradiction.
There is no doubt that it is a defensible position to argue that there is harm in the acts depicted here. However, it is not an easy argument to make. Primarily, this is because these scenarios have been set up precisely in such a way so that it seems that no harm has occurred. The protagonists suffer no ill-effects as a result of their actions and their actions remain private. Given this, any argument that harm occurs is going to be very difficult to ground empirically. However, this is not to say that it cannot be done, simply that it is something which will require a good deal of thought.
The other point to make is that it is possible that a judgement that harm occurs is an ex post facto rationalisation of a prior intuition that the acts depicted here are morally wrong. In other words, people don't like things like incest and sex with poultry, they are pretty good at inventing stories to explain why they don't like them, but, in fact, they don't like them regardless. We already know that people engage in this kind of retroactive reasoning when justifying their responses to taboo type stimuli (see Haidt, Koller and Dias). We also know that judgements of wrongdoing by people who take a moralising stance towards the kinds of acts depicted here are better predicted by asking them whether they would be bothered to see these acts than by asking them whether anyone is harmed. The suspicion, then, is that a judgement that harm occurs is simply a buttress of a prior baseline moral commitment.
Harm is not necessary for moral condemnation
It is possible to argue that there is no harm, nor possibility of harm, in the actions depicted here, and yet they are still wrong, by insisting that harm is not necessary for moral condemnation. But again there are difficulties with this kind of argument.
The major problem is the danger that it will deprive the justifications offered for particular moral judgements of any real content. For example, whilst it is easy enough to claim that siblings should not have sex with one another because it violates the rules governing human sexuality which have been laid down by God, it is much more difficult to show what is wrong with violating these rules unless one talks about harm (though, of course, there is nothing to stop one simply asserting that it is wrong to break rules). Thus, one finds the idea in Christian theology that Man is harmed by his sins in that they constitute a barrier between himself and God.
Some philosophers have gone so far as to suggest that a notion of "harm", understood in a certain kind of way, is a prerequisite of proper moral reasoning. For example, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of classical utilitarianism, argued that pleasure and pain (a "positive harm"), instantiated in the notion of utility, are the only proper measures of value. In his terms, then, a wrong act is one which increases pain (or which, given equally possible choices, results in the least pleasure). Although utilitarianism has moved on since Bentham's day, it is still possible to find philosophers who are willing to argue that pain (and, by implication, a certain kind of harm) should be the central concern of moral philosophy. Richard Ryder, for example, in Issue 23 of TPM, argues that "our prime moral duty is to reduce the pains of others and especially of those who suffer most."
Of course, this is not to argue that these philosophers have got it right, and that some conception of harm has to be central to the moral judgements that we make. Rather, it is simply to claim that if one wants to argue that an act can be wrong without harm, or the possibility of harm, then it is necessary to think carefully about how one justifies the attribution of wrongdoing, in order to avoid at least some notion of harm - however broad - entering into the moral calculus.
The "Yuk Factor"
The other tension in moral reasoning that we hope this activity helps to elucidate has to do with the role of reason and emotion in moral judgements. One of the interesting things which Haidt et al found when exploring people's reactions to the scenarios featured in this activity is that people who have very strong emotional responses to these stories frequently find it difficult to provide an explanation or justification for what they are feeling. According to Steve Pinker, this is because our moral convictions are rooted not so much in reason, as in the evolutionary make-up of our minds. In his words: "People have gut feelings that give them emphatic moral convictions, and they struggle to rationalize them after the fact. These convictions may have little to do with moral judgements that one could justify to others in terms of their effects on happiness or suffering. They arise instead from the neurobiological and evolutionary design of the organs we call moral emotions." (The Blank Slate).
The dangers of rooting moral attitudes in emotion are obvious. It means that a "yuk-factor" might lead us to condemn actions - and even people - we have no good reason to condemn. For example, consider the fate of the untouchables in the Indian caste system. They were not allowed to touch people from the higher castes; they were not allowed to drink from the same wells; on public occasions, they had to sit at a distance from everybody else; and in some regions, even contact with the shadow of an untouchable person was seen as polluting and necessitated a purification ritual. Such prohibitions might sit easily with a certain kind of raw sentiment. They are much harder, if not impossible, to justify in the light of reason.
However, one must be careful not simply to assume that emotion has no role to play in moral reasoning. Indeed, some philosophers claim that it is just a mistake to think that moral judgement involves anything other than emotion. A. J. Ayer, for example, in line with the dictates of his logical positivism, argued that ethical statements are nothing more than the expression of emotional attitudes. He denied that it was possible for ethical statements to be factually true. Rather, they are exclamations of the form 'Hurrah for X!'.
Even if one does not accept this kind of extreme "emotivism", it is still fairly easy to see that emotion can play some kind of role in good moral reasoning. Empathy, for example, would seem to be an important component of a proper moral outlook. It is hard to imagine that the atrocities of the holocaust would have occurred had its protagonists been more able to imagine themselves in the emotional position of their victims. Indeed, the philosopher Jonathan Glover has argued that many of the atrocities of the last century were possible precisely because people's moral emotions had been switched off.
Nevertheless, it is probably right that we are suspicious of moral judgements which are rooted in the "yuk-factor". Steve Pinker, in The Blank Slate, puts it like this: "The difference between a defensible moral position and an atavistic gut feeling is that with the former we can give reasons why our conviction is valid. We can explain why torture and murder and rape are wrong, or why we should oppose discrimination and injustice. On the other hand, no good reasons can be produced to show why homosexuality should be suppressed or why the races should be segregated. And the good reasons for a moral position are not pulled out of thin air: they always have to do with what makes people better off or worse off, and are grounded in the logic that we have to treat other people in the way that we demand they treat us."
_________________________________________
I know that's a lot to read and not all of it is easy to make sense of unless you've taken the test that leads up to this discursion, but give it a try. It can be remarkably world-view-changing. :)
Anyway, personally I see no problems with incest in itself. There are things related to it that are or can easily be problematic, such as a parent taking advantage of their child against its will, inbred retards and so on and so forth, but a mutual love between two (or more) people on equal terms, being expressed physically? What's the bloody problem there?
Yeah, Asperger's syndrome is great. It prevents one from seeing the forest - I can only see the trees - and breaks big issues down to manageable, individual parts.
Ole-The-Murder
09-01-2004, 2:51 PM
Same to you, ole.
...Capitalized Ole.
Di'ye know I have AS, Skapare? Of course you din't, altho' someone may 'ave guessed so. Highly functional though, but I admit having psychic set-backs...I agree with Skapare very much here ;)
...YUK!
LordAhriman
09-01-2004, 6:05 PM
Alright, Ribd. Would you have sex with your mother?
Alright, Ribd. Would you have sex with your mother?By god you're RIGHT! Because, y'know, just because about ten people in an internet forum don't want to, nobody in the world ever will!
:rolleyes:
Xx_bender_xX
09-01-2004, 11:12 PM
if i were riBd's sister/mother id stay the hell away from him
if i were riBd's sister/mother id stay the hell away from him
I'm glad you countered my debate with such a well thought out argument.
Shinigami
09-01-2004, 11:35 PM
if i were riBd's sister/mother id stay the hell away from him
Resorting to something so crude as personal attacks in a forum that is supposedly heralded for its intelligent debate is simply something I will not tolerate. I won't ask you to apologize, though you should, because I know you won't mean it in the slightest. Just because James' opinion differs from your own, and even that of the general populous, that is no grounds for attacking him on a personal level, or even at all. That behavior shouldn't be displayed anywehere, much less in this forum particular forum. Consider this a warning.
Grom_Icecream
09-01-2004, 11:46 PM
I think i'll jump on Bird's side of this debate. Regarding the evolutionary argument, incest isn't as bad as people think in terms of birth defects. If it is a direct relative, sister, mother, father etc. There is like a 1 in 8 chance of inheriting a two recessive genes, creating a birth defect in the child. This is if and only if the parents of the child (the inbreeders) carry such disease genes in the first place.
The worst case when talking of incest is that of repeated inbreeding. This is where it all goes bad, and you get multiple defects and mental problems. Usually the first generation of incestious children are fine, the second generation have about 50% chance of being normal, but the third and any later generations are pretty much screwed.
So talking in evolutionary terms, incest isn't that bad unless you continue down the line.
Ill leave you all with this highly philosophical question to think about:
----- What if your sister is REALLY hot....? Is it OK then...??? -----
Xx_bender_xX
09-02-2004, 2:52 AM
riBd, shinigami, I just want to say that I am extremely sorry(no joke i realy am) the comment was meant to be more of a joke but i guess i was rather crule of me to write that. riBd, you have your own opinoins and I respect that. I was realy pissed off at that time ( my dad was giving me his bullshit) and so I needed to take my anger out somehow. So sorry :(
Please dont stay mad at me im usualy not like that
LordAhriman
09-02-2004, 3:18 AM
By god you're RIGHT! Because, y'know, just because about ten people in an internet forum don't want to, nobody in the world ever will!
:rolleyes:I can hardly believe you're criticizing someone else for making personal attacks when you'd say something like that. Though I myself am not known for my decency during debate, the vulgarity and pettiness of this board regularly astounds me.
"----- What if your sister is REALLY hot....? Is it OK then...??? -----"
A lot of people think my sister is hot, and yeah, she has everything that a woman needs to be attractive. However, she is my sister, and thus I would in no way attempt to bone her. Seriously, people, how jaded and desperate would you have to be in order to want sex with your sister?
If you can't think of a single example where a two members of the same immediate family found genuine true love in this day and age, then no, your argument doesn't hold weight, or at best not at much as if you had one.
I don't think there is anything biologically wrong with incest, but socially, that there is a stigma against it is unquestionable; thus, like it or not, people will treat it differently even in their every day lives than if we lived in a world where incest was thought of as acceptable. If both sides of an incestual relationship believe that incest is gross and evil, then no, they cannot possibly form a lasting love and bond; in the US and most parts of the world, I can confidently say that people share my negative reaction to incest.
If you manage to enlighten the world about incest, well, that's great. You've given a thousand times the amount of thought to it as most people ever will in their lives in just a few posts, and you have good points. Like I said, however, incestual relationships cannot ever work if there is the concious feeling that lust inside a family is wrong to feel.
Ole-The-Murder
09-02-2004, 7:24 AM
I think Bender should be allowed to say that IF 'i were rIbd's sister/mother/brother I'd stay away from him....'...even though it's a bit off-topic and personal, too, though, than an actual argument on the topic, Incest...no need to apologize yourself for thinking that, but it's not necessary to tell, is it? Just dropping in to comment...
'sides, I wouldn't **** my sister JUST 'cuz she was attractive, (if she's virgin or not also counts) I'd get her laid if she wanted to and I wanted to and it was love....nothing about apperances, etc, that's not a real relationship, is it? I don't like my sister much, so no thank you..and my mother? I think not to her best interest - But I'd sex some of my cousins, maybe, but that's not incest since it's only relatives, not immediate family...
riBd, shinigami, I just want to say that I am extremely sorry(no joke i realy am) the comment was meant to be more of a joke but i guess i was rather crule of me to write that. riBd, you have your own opinoins and I respect that. I was realy pissed off at that time ( my dad was giving me his bullshit) and so I needed to take my anger out somehow. So sorry :(
Dude, it's fine. I wasn't mad :) (Annoyed a little, maybe, but not anymore :))
I kinda did a little of that too.
http://img.orgnetwork.com/wb/misc/quotes/quot-bot-right.gifI can hardly believe you're criticizing someone else for making personal attacks when you'd say something like that. Though I myself am not known for my decency during debate, the vulgarity and pettiness of this board regularly astounds me.
Firstly, I didn't actually ever accuse him of such.
Secondly, you're right, generally. That was a bad way to phrase my point and it came off as me being an asshole:
Maybe I was confused about what he was getting at. I thought you was trying to ask me if I liked my mom, and then from that prove that "see, you don't like her either, it's impossible!" And that's where my comment was directed.
(Because that's the only way I could see that going besides you insulting me)
Again, I realize that was fairly offensive. Sorry.
but that's not incest since it's only relatives, not immediate family...No, that's pretty much still incest.
Grom_Icecream
09-02-2004, 11:16 AM
Hrmmmm..... It seems some people have taken my "what if your sister was REALLY hot" comment seriously..... it was a joke, and never meant as a argument. I mean, who would bone a direct relative just because they were hot. Only people with serious mental problems would do something like that.
This argument has kinda gone off topic, which was inevitable. If you look closely at the relative thing, all you christians are in trouble if you believe in Adam and Eve. I mean, the first two humans..... who would their children mate with? We are all inbred if you are a christian.
singo
09-02-2004, 11:39 AM
a tricky problem for those who are.......
i love atheism :P
Seraph_Knight
09-02-2004, 12:44 PM
Ok, so let me get this straight: You guys here at the intellectual round table refuse to let the concepts of "morally wrong" and "just plain gross" enter as actual evidence against gay marriage in the "crusade against same sex marriage going to far?" debate, yet it is a valid point in this debate? No, I don't think so. If guys and guys having sex and girls and girls having sex cannot be declared as morally wrong, or gross, than niether can having sex with your own family. If it IS true, that it increases the chance of birth defects, then THAT should be the issue, not about how gross it is.
singo
09-02-2004, 12:51 PM
If it IS true, that it increases the chance of birth defects, then THAT should be the issue, not about how gross it is.
agreed, and i for one do not wish to see humanity regress back into cavemen
and if the act itself is not, bringing a seriously deformed child with no chance at a decent quality of life......THAT is immoral
although hunting mammoths would be kinda cool
Ole-The-Murder
09-02-2004, 2:06 PM
If it wasn't for incest, humanity whould never have prospered, since at one point or another, early in history or in a small village, someone had to screw someone in their family to get children to offspring the next generation...
not necassarily
although royalty did a lot of it........i rest my case
Grom_Icecream
09-02-2004, 10:14 PM
In some stages of history Incest was seen as moral, as it was called keeping ones bloodlines pure.
Alot of this did come from royalty, as they thought the family would stay seperate and aloof from the rest of society if they kept the bloodlines pure. Probably the best case (most often used) of this is the early Egyptian pharoes. The inbreeding lasted roughly 15 - 20 generations, with fathers marrying daughters, sons marrying mothers, and brothers marrying sisters. Almost all the marriages constituted first defree incest. There were little birth defects and physical defects in this line, though a few of the people were undoubtedly mad.
The bad thing here was that as the national leaders had been doing it for so long, the populace started to copy, in the hopes of coming closer to god (pharoes were seen as gods/childern of gods). So there are actual cases where incest is frequent in a population. In this case it was basically seen as moraly neutral/right, as it was bringing people closer to god.
Ole-The-Murder
09-03-2004, 9:24 AM
Rednecks does incest because they "don't want to mix with lesser races" (such as negroes or "******-lovers)...
A shitload of crap...
(Ya bluebyten'Shinigami, whine away about my swearing...but if I write a plain swear word and get away with it because it's not censored, well, then what's the deal? Rules are rules, yes, but the same saying it shouldn't bother to go outside of rules and punish for swearing not censored...which means they're legal swear words...bull"shit" and "crap", etc...)
Wow, didn't notice ****** was censored until now, well, that was just to example what ku-klux klaners called 'em...yeah, KKK was supporters of in-bred white fuckin'....alotto swearin', huh? Just like the pharaos, afraid of getting unpure children of non-egyptian and non-noble blood, they screwed each-other over. Nice...but most likely only brother/sister/cousin and father/mother/uncle/aunt only. Not parents and kids, I think they had SOME limits, atleast....
Riptokus
09-03-2004, 10:55 PM
We have evolved past certain instincts for good reasons. People fall in love now, if it was all instincts it'd just be a string of one night stands.
People fall in love and mate with infertile people. That goes against every mating instinct we have.
See what I'm getting at? I see no reason why we should dissallow incest because of "evolutionary correctness".
Love is instictual.
The evolutionary benifit for this paticular emotion is because it takes longer to raise a child, so some kind of device is required to ensure the guy sticks around with the girl to ensure the child reaches adulthood. Most effective tool? Love. It is the natural state of all higher primates and Mankind to fall in love with the person they will have children with. As for an infirtile person, the idea behind love is to keep people together to raise children. The infertile direction dies out, but that doesn't mean everyone who has the love gene don't last, expecially when their children are protected and nurtured by 2 people instead of 1.
There's proof out there. Here's some-
http://www.uwec.edu/taylorb/LOVE/BCKGRNDS/Prehistory%20of%20Love.htm
This sounds very intriguing, but I won't believe it until you explain it better.Ok, Evolution is basically the change of a species over an extended period of time, branching off, and adapting to the enviroment. This is done mainly through natural selection using Variation and Mutation as it's key tools. Mutation is basically a change in a individual, Variation is generally difference a group of people have. A Blond would be Variation, 6 Fingered people would be a mutation. You all generally understand that, I'm sure.
I'm sure you all also agree that the Purpose of Sexual Reproduction is basically providing two bits of code and keeping the average of both. It creates a nice stable ground for everything to walk on. What Inbreeding does, however, is tosses that nice mechanism out. Now rather then the average of two different extremes, you got the average of two nearly identicals. So everything, GOOD and bad, gets passed on. The more this happens, the more natural selection will kick in to remove the stuff that don't make the cut.
So, how does this apply to Incest? Remove diverse genetic material and what do you get? You remove the cleaning element that Sexual Reproduction has. So you get all the crap with the good stuff, increasing Mutation and Genetic Drift. No matter what they are then different, and it'd take a lot of effort to breed it all out, if it's even possable. So what do you get when they eventually come back into the pool? New Variation. A whole lot of it bad, but some of it good, just like any bit in evolution. Of course that is ultimatly counter to the HUMAN species, and not whatever crazy Hunchback species they convert into after too much inbreeding. Still, It is more of a hit and miss situation, More Evolutionish because there is more fittest and less fit in situations like that. So from an evolutionary standpoint, it's a good thing. Bring them mutations out and make 'em dominant.
BTW, the reason this seems so crazy is because while I wrote it over an 8 hour timeframe, It only took me 10 minutes to write. It once was solid, but the 14th time I got interrupted to do some other thing, it kind of threw off coherency and It's reached the point where it's finish it or scrap it, and i feel it answers important issues, so here ya go, worst post in awhile!=)
Ole-The-Murder
09-04-2004, 6:02 AM
agreed, and i for one do not wish to see humanity regress back into cavemen
and if the act itself is not, bringing a seriously deformed child with no chance at a decent quality of life......THAT is immoral
although hunting mammoths would be kinda coolThe question is if it is....if they inbreed, they'll not go backwards, they'll just stay the same and not evolve, that's so.
The question is if they know or not - And if so, the chanche of it really happening, and why? Questionably 'immoral'....
And 'course, should we evolve backwards....and become AS cavemen...it whouldn't miracolously make mammoths for us to hunt, too ;)
The question is if it is....if they inbreed, they'll not go backwards, they'll just stay the same and not evolve, that's so.
and all the other species will evolve past us, thus, RELATIVE to the other species on this planet, we will be going backwards
And 'course, should we evolve backwards....and become AS cavemen...it whouldn't miracolously make mammoths for us to hunt, too ;)
I know that, i was taking the piss
although we could force elephants to inbreed as well :P
or not.........
Spartan-II
11-16-2004, 5:34 PM
Incest calls for one quick sp;ution.. SCOURGE THE HILLBILLIES!!
But, seriously. Consider this: You come home from school and your mom is stretched out on the sofa in some skimpy leather outfit. You walk over to her and .. *Blacks out from the sickness*
wraizyr
11-16-2004, 5:44 PM
2 things.
First no thread necro.
Second, and this is more of a personal thing, but don't use argument by outrage, especially in the Intellectual Roundtable
Wtf. You thread necro'd with a stupid ass comment like that?
-Neo
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.