Incest is

[Sponge.]

poll you must take place in
















also bat country blows. just do it and make a topic

[Sponge.]

dear god someone delete this

migraine without begginning, why`

[End Master]

Despite the one heretic that picked "wrong", I still like that everyone is very sure on their stance on this subject.

You either can't wait to sex up that hot relative that you just know would be willing if certain impossible conditions were met or you come from a long line of sideshow freaks that makes the thought of such an act cause you to vomit in terror.

None of that wishy washy "let me think about it" bullshit here.

And in the spirit of picking a side, Sponge sucks worse than BatCountry for begging to have his thread deleted. Live with your fucking decisions!

[Vesnic]

... or you come from a long line of sideshow freaks that makes the thought of such an act cause you to vomit in terror.

How did you know? How did you KNOW?!

[donteatpoop]

I couldn't help but notice a glaring hole in the wishy washy "let me think about it" bullshit department.

[End Master]

Thank god, my OCD was going nuts seeing that one choice hadn't been picked. Knew I could count on you DEP.

[Locke]

...it's not my thing, but I don't have a problem with it.

This seems like a redux of the gay (...same-sex) marriage debate, in that I think it's asking the wrong question.

Why are we asking whether or not this should be legal?

Every time anyone wants to get married, they apply for a license. Every single couple has to ask permission from the government before their decision can be recognized. The government - theoretically - represents the will of the people. So why do so many people think they should have the right to decide who the guy down the road can marry?

It seems like a lot of civil rights could be salvaged - at no penalty to the tax base - if the "marriage license" was reframed as a "registration," with fees intact, tax codes appended to account for the polygamists and so forth.

That seems like the logical answer, but I don't see it happening (I suppose it would "devalue the family" and "destroy our culture" and whatever). I can't imagine a politician proposing something like that (but given our legislature, I doubt that marriage in its present form could get renewed if it came up for a vote).

I focus so much on marriage because I see it as the essence of social acceptance with regard to relationships, which I guess is the focus of this thread.

"Incest" feels like an ugly word - like someone labeled a thread "Nigger" or "Raw Sewage" and posted it to the main page. I feel odd just typing it out (because of course no one brings it up). I guess that's a cultural bias, and I do find the involvement of first-degree relatives (brothers and sisters, parents and children) off-putting. I think there are legitimate genetic issues at that level, but I believe the cultural prejudice - and its codification into law, to include significant terms of imprisonment - is the greater social issue.

I think it's amusing that two people are good with it, but only if it's "every once in awhile." Because I guess sometimes people just need a change of pace.

[Vesnic]

Bollocks. Incest is wrong. Full stop.

There's a reason why people have to sign their names attesting to the fact that they are not immediately related, not siblings, parent-and-child, aunt/uncle and niece/nephew or first cousins. That reason has been seen in countless individuals whose lives have been irrevocably ruined, through no fault of their own, even more than one generation onward, by incestuous couplings. Acknowledging that as a "factor" but then sort of not carrying it to its logical conclusion seems a lot like putting a blinder on.

There are other reasons too though. Government, for what it's worth, and without becoming a tyranny or, to realize today's greatest fear, a "Nanny State", does still bear some responsibility to protect people from themselves. The whole point of having government, as someone smarter than me once said, is to achieve collectively that which we cannot achieve individually. I find the protection of individuals from the abuse of their own families a good example of this collective support.

One of the major precepts of civil marriage (and the reason campaigners against gay marriage have no leg to stand on) is that both parties come to the marriage of their own free will and have not been coerced into making what is a life-altering and often lifelong decision. Now let's make ourselves uncomfortable and dive right into the taboo and propose that there's a father who has been having an incestuous relationship with his biological daughter since she was a child, and now he wants to marry her. She never had a chance to decide for herself if this was what she wanted and the power structures inherent in the family imply that she probably didn't have a real opportunity to rebel, much less express any opinions of her own. This is all in addition to the strictly interior psychological element, which is deep, insidious and not to be ignored. Incest is a power abuse and the abuse of an individual. Incest in a family is like corruption in a government. Its foundations are rotten, as it's based in fundamentally inhumane and non-egalitarian conditions. I argue that this does not just apply to parents-and-children but to any incestuous relationship, all of which are too close for comfort.

You don't even want to say the word "incest", yet you tacitly support it? These days, everyone is being trained to ignore their "prejudices", with the blanket assumption that any prejudice must of course be wrong, that it's all good, that people can do as they like and I'm cool with that, etc., etc., all the while ignoring the signals our own bodies and minds send us, sometimes with deafening volume. If the word "incest" makes you throw up in your mouth a little, then there might actually be a good reason for why it doesn't exist as a socially or legally sanctioned action. Investigating the source of your own revulsion would seem like the better first step than dismissing it outright.

[End Master]

Meh, if the two (or more) people are consenting adults I say let them marry whoever they want regardless of whether it's deviant or not.

"Incest marriages" still wouldn't nearly be common enough to be a threat to society on a genetic level. (At least not until it was "mandatory" like Sponge proposed)

Plus you're assuming that the forming of such a relationship MUST be abusive in some way. There's been cases where the two people didn't even know they were related (due to adoption or something similar) and they found out later they were related and then it's like "Oh noes, society doesn't approve we have to break up!"

Fuck that noise, as far as I'm concerned they haven't done anything wrong and should be able to marry if they still want. Hell, even if they do have some mutant freak, well that's just one more fucked up person in the world. We already got genetically inferior non-related people breeding. Nobody is going to notice another.

I do agree that you would occasionally get that creepo that's child grooming his daughter, but again there are already cases where someone that was merely a guardian of a child and not blood related still doing that. (Of course it's wrong either way, I'm just pointing it out that it isn't limited to incest)

I dunno, I've just never seen it as the "evil taboo" that everyone makes it out to be. Obviously if it's involving molesting ones own children (or child relatives) there's the evil, but I see that as evil due to it being pedophilla rather than the incest aspect.

I'll end on a light note and and say that barring the "long lost relative" scenario it probably is a pretty fucking LAZY way of getting laid. Lol.

[Locke]

That reason has been seen in countless individuals whose lives have been irrevocably ruined, through no fault of their own, even more than one generation onward, by incestuous couplings. Acknowledging that as a "factor" but then sort of not carrying it to its logical conclusion seems a lot like putting a blinder on.

I'm not dismissing the genetic issues. I just think they're irrelevant. I don't know where our technology is with regard to genetic testing, whether two related people can be examined and told exactly what they're in for (maybe genetic testing will be required someday, like blood tests in some states). But methods of ensuring sterility have been around for a long time. That seems harsh, but it does negate the issue, and I believe it's on the books in some places as an exception to the rule.

I also find it hypocritical that people with debilitating - and highly heritable - diseases like muscular dystrophy or Huntington's have unquestioned marital and reproductive rights.

As I understand it, the risk is minimal for first cousins (and outward from there), which could be why some states permit those marriages (or maybe it's because that wasn't always a taboo. I don't know). Other states extend the definition, instead, to include stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.

Consider this. You've been married ten years to a completely unrelated person, leading a normal life, when your lonely, widower parents meet in some other country and decide to get together, making your significant other a step-sibling. You think it's amusing, and by mistake you let it slip to someone who doesn't like you, a creep who's already hired one of his voyeur friends to follow you around, looking for dirt.

You end up taking a road trip through one of the jurisdictions I mentioned, where you stop at a hotel, turn out the lights, and enjoy each other's company. But the voyeur has a low-light lens and gets some good footage through a hole in the blinds. He reports you to the authorities, who are legally bound to arrest the two of you, nullify your marriage, fine you thousands of dollars, and imprison you for years. The kicker being that - as a sex offender - you're pretty much unemployable when you get out, and you have to sell your house and move someplace away from children.

...so that's obviously not going to happen, but it illustrates a point; the definition of "incest" isn't consistent, and what's fine in one state can essentially end your life in the next one. It's a bizarre patchwork of laws, like many of those still encountered by the LGBT community.

a father who has been having an incestuous relationship with his biological daughter since she was a child, and now he wants to marry her

A legitimate (albeit rare) scenario, that probably happens anyway, without the benefit of marriage or cultural acceptance. Still, I can see the point; the parent (or guardian)/child prohibition should probably stay on the books. It's going to mess with some people's lives, but on the balance, I think it's worth having. I'll agree - of course - that elements of coercion or power imbalance in a relationship are wrong. I don't think they necessarily extend past the parent/child point, though (if you do, please tell me where you want to draw the line).

These days, everyone is being trained to ignore their "prejudices", with the blanket assumption that any prejudice must of course be wrong, that it's all good, that people can do as they like and I'm cool with that, etc., etc., all the while ignoring the signals our own bodies and minds send us, sometimes with deafening volume.

I'm a passive guy; that's true. Other people start the fights, end the lifelong friendships, and so forth.

I don't think that's through "training," though, subtle or otherwise. And it bears mentioning that similar things were said about gay or biracial relationships a few years ago. My organic self wants to eat, sleep, and reproduce, with entertainment to fill the gaps, and with as little effort as possible. I'm sure it's an artificial divide at some point, but it doesn't know what's right.

When I was three or four, I stopped playing with the black girl down the street - her name was Shayla - because I could tell she was different. She was the only one in the neighborhood, and I instinctively didn't care for it.

When I was older, and my ethical framework was coming apart, I had cause to examine things from what I think is a better perspective. There's an initial "eewww" factor here, as there was at one time with homosexuals, or different races, but I don't think it's worth mentioning, or encoding into law.

Life - and quality of life - are first principles. Given the laws, in some cases (step-siblings), and our medical technology, where its application is unavoidable (siblings, other close relatives), I just don't think the prejudice and denial of rights is worthwhile.

I think people in that situation who love each other enough to walk through the fire are admirable. I've been around for awhile, and I haven't met anyone like that.

[donteatpoop]

There is a huge flaw in all of the reproductive arguments against incest. Incest does not have to equal reproduction. Contraceptives. Sure it feels better without them, but 'safe sex' is just as illegal as unprotected sex among incestors. To me, there's a definite difference.

It's weird to me, but if two cousins want to fuck... Why should I have anything to say about it? It doesn't affect me at all. And even unprotected... as Locke said, genetic repercussions from cousins is rare; it's sibling sex where all of the retards are spawned.

[End Master]

HAWT

No real reason for this, just felt like necromancing, though I still find the Flowers in the Attic book cover really amusing since it makes it look like a tender romance novel.

[Vesnic]

I propose that Jaime and Cersei are not a case of incest so much as Lannister insularity and narcissism run amok. They all literally want to fuck themselves because there just isn't anyone better in the whole wide Westeros. It's even more pronounced in the case of J & C, who go to some pains to tell everyone just how identical they once were, so much so that they could cross dress, with Jaime doing the needlework and Cersei in arms, and no one knew the difference!

Every time they have sex, they are really just masturbating. Whom do I love? I love me!

Of course there's the problem of their incest's productivity, with the whole story hinging on the repercussions of birthing little blond(e) beasties.

Oy!

[End Master]

I propose that Jaime and Cersei are not a case of incest so much as Lannister insularity and narcissism run amok. They all literally want to fuck themselves because there just isn't anyone better in the whole wide Westeros. It's even more pronounced in the case of J & C, who go to some pains to tell everyone just how identical they once were, so much so that they could cross dress, with Jaime doing the needlework and Cersei in arms, and no one knew the difference!

Every time they have sex, they are really just masturbating. Whom do I love? I love me!

Of course there's the problem of their incest's productivity, with the whole story hinging on the repercussions of birthing little blond(e) beasties.

Oy!

Oh I pretty much agree, though I do think Jamie is a lot more into Cersei rather than the other way around. Like I could imagine Jamie still wanting to be with Cersei even if she wasn't his sister.

In Cersei's case though, yeah she really likes fucking the male version of herself.