# Incest



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

As part of a Philosophy course on the nature of liberty and freedom, we came across a new topic today; incest was up for discussion. As expected, there was the rancorous groans of dissaproval. But I didn't think I'd be the only student in the room to be pro-legalisation.

Personally I'm a man who believes that all restrictions on sex between any mature consenting partners should be removed. And after objecting to the points made against legalisation, there was a hell of a discussion.

My personal opinion is that anti-incest laws are based in circular reasoning; that popular stigma caused the law to be introduced, and that the law is used to validate the stigma.

As for the effects on incestuous children's gene pool, there's only going to be a problem if both partners carry a recessive gene - which would probably mean a documented family history of the illness - and also if the child manages to inherit both of those genes - which there are 3:1 odds against. 

Another argument raised was how the Bible forbids incest. Aside from the obvious dismissal_ "So what; it's a book, why does that imply objectivity" _it's a bullshit claim anyway - Sarah was Abraham's sister, and even Leviticus allows for a man to marry his daughter.

The prevalence of unfounded prejudices was astonishing. What's FAF's views on incestuous relationships and their status in law? inb4 "six likes incest"; I'm not incestual.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jun 9, 2011)

Well personally, I think as long as there's mature consent on both sides, by all means, they should be allowed to go for it. "To each their own" and all that. It still strikes me as very odd, though...


----------



## Evandeskunk (Jun 9, 2011)

Well, if someone where to be in such a relationship, my only wish is for them not to have sex in front of me. This applies to every other kind of couple out there.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 9, 2011)

Evandeskunk said:


> Well, if someone where to be in such a relationship, my only wish is for them not to have sex in front of me. This applies to every other kind of couple out there.


 
which makes your comment absolutely irrelevant^^



SIX said:


> As part of a Philosophy course on the nature of liberty and freedom, we came across a new topic today; incest was up for discussion. As expected, there was the rancorous groans of dissaproval. But I didn't think I'd be the only student in the room to be pro-legalisation.
> 
> Personally I'm a man who believes that all restrictions on sex between any mature consenting partners should be removed. And after objecting to the points made against legalisation, there was a hell of a discussion.
> 
> ...


 
i agree with you. its based on stigmas and no one should decide who other people can or cant be with.
here in germany there was a case once about 2 siblings. they didnt know that though because their parents got a divorce very early after they both were born. then they got married and actually got a child.
the authorities were debating whether the marriege should be nullified and whether they may keep the child or not. what the fuck...


----------



## Fenrari (Jun 9, 2011)

Evandeskunk said:


> Well, if someone where to be in such a relationship, my only wish is for them not to have sex in front of me. This applies to every other kind of couple out there.


 
Well I'd hope random strangers didn't have sex in front of you on a regular/semi-regular basis. 

As for my personal views. I'm not into it, BUT if someone else where, let them have their fun, Though I'd still prefer there to be some type of education program that blatantly states that your children may be fucked up if you do with a relative. After all if it's consentual and both individuals are of age, I don't really see what else could be brought up against it.


----------



## ~secret~ (Jun 9, 2011)

Personally I'm against incest. Overall I think it's bad for the species on oh so many levels, but my main problem is with how someone can see a brother/sister/whatever as a potential sexual partner. But if two people want to get it on regardless of blood who am I to say it's wrong? I'm just some dude with differing opinions on the matter.


----------



## Glitch (Jun 9, 2011)

It really squicks me out, but your argument makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Cain (Jun 9, 2011)

I'd agree that everyone should have their choice, but to me it just makes me


----------



## InflatedSnake (Jun 9, 2011)

~secret~ said:


> Personally I'm against incest. Overall I think it's bad for the species on oh so many levels, but my main problem is with how someone can see a brother/sister/whatever as a potential sexual partner. But if two people want to get it on regardless of blood who am I to say it's wrong? I'm just some dude with differing opinions on the matter.


*WHERE THE FUCK DID THE "THIS" BUTTON GO?
*Oh there it is.


----------



## Unsilenced (Jun 9, 2011)

I think incest is disgusting. 

I also think that my personally finding it disgusting has nothing to do with anything in terms of the law should be.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jun 9, 2011)

I think it should be legal as the reasons against it are nearly all poor and only apply to certain situations. It's a case of being seen as immoral because it evokes feelings of disgust. That's just a reason to not engage in it yourself but not a good enough reason to forbid others from it.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

I say no. Those people obviously have some type of disorder and letting them breed will cause mutant children who will live day to day miserable, getting mocked, teased and they will probably die of some type of illness.

The end.

Oh and I also think incestual breeding with animals is disgusting and wrong too - although it doesn't have nearly as bad of an impact on the offspring as human incest does.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I say no. Those people obviously have some type of disorder and letting them breed will cause mutant children who will live day to day miserable, getting mocked, teased and they will probably die of some type of illness.
> 
> The end.
> 
> Oh and I also think incestual breeding with animals is disgusting and wrong too - although it doesn't have nearly as bad of an impact on the offspring as human incest does.


 
Condoms


Contraception

and BORTIONS


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> Condoms
> 
> 
> Contraception
> ...


 Condoms and contraception =/= 100% effective way to stop pregnancy and abortions aren't legal all over.

& i sure as fuck aint willing to pay for this shit through my healthcare for some nasty ass bro and sis who pump eachother in the ass and OOPS DERP-BABY


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Condoms and contraception =/= 100% effective way to stop pregnancy and abortions aren't legal all over.
> 
> & i sure as fuck aint willing to pay for this shit through my healthcare for some nasty ass bro and sis who pump eachother in the ass and OOPS DERP-BABY


 
Can the rule be applied to anybody else?


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> Can the rule be applied to anybody else?


It can and I already do apply it to other people.
For example, if I donate my organs when I die, I don't want them going to select types of people.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> It can and I already do apply it to other people.
> For example, if I donate my organs when I die, I don't want them going to select types of people.


 
Can you expand on this please?


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> Can you expand on this please?


No if I go into detail as to what types of people they are, I'll get in trouble


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> No if I go into detail as to what types of people they are, I'll get in trouble


 
...

...

...

I'll leave it there.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
uhhh what?


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> uhhh what?


 
Not donating your organs to "certain types of people"? Regardless of how good or bad they are, you're being discriminative and unkind in a bad way.

If those are "people who are not your blood type" then it's fine for biological reasons, else, it's bad.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> No if I go into detail as to what types of people they are, I'll get in trouble


 
PM?


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

To each their own. I could see it happening if I connected with a sibling on some level. Wouldn't want to have a full relationship. I could care less though if others find it hot or not. With the science available now a days, you could probably get gene tested and told by a doctor the chances of your baby having issues and which issues they would be. It's all about the planning if you're going down that route. 

On Clayton's line of thought, no one should have sex unless you know your genes are 100% grade A. Otherwise there's the chance any straight couple could have issues before or during child birth that could be costing through healthcare... That's like saying, "It ain't 100% safe, I don't want it to be allowed!"


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jun 9, 2011)

Clyaton said:
			
		

> I say no. Those people obviously have some type of disorder and  letting them breed will cause mutant children who will live day to day  miserable, getting mocked, teased and they will probably die of some  type of illness.
> 
> The end.
> 
> Oh and I also think incestual breeding with animals is disgusting and  wrong too - although it doesn't have nearly as bad of an impact on the  offspring as human incest does.​



Nice. Two fallacies in one post. You pull out one of the main (and a very poor) argument against incest that it leads to deformed children. Even if we grant you that, which is a bit generous because you'd need repeated inbreeding for problems to emerge unless you have really poor genes, it has nothing to say about homosexual incestuous relations or incestuous relations involving activities like anal or oral sex. 

Also how do you come up with the idea that incestuous breeding with animals is less harmful than with humans? Apart from maybe some exceptions, I think mice are immune to inbreeding, ither animals will react just the same way as they have the same genetics. Inbreeding is why pure-breed dogs are prone to various diseases, just like the European royal families have haemophilia. It affects animals and humans the same.


----------



## Larry (Jun 9, 2011)

"That one felt like my dad!"


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Not donating your organs to "certain types of people"? Regardless of how good or bad they are, you're being discriminative and unkind in a bad way.
> 
> If those are "people who are not your blood type" then it's fine for biological reasons, else, it's bad.


 
I'm also discriminative against incest. What of it.
Just because I don't support a dad + daughter plowin' doesn't mean I'm a bad person.
I personally think incestuous relationships would be damaging psychologically. A daughter is not supposed to have that sort of a relationship with her father, it's not balanced. A father is supposed to be a role model and a supporter, not her boyfriend.



HyBroMcYenapants said:


> PM?


Nope.



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Nice. Two fallacies in one post. You pull out one of the main (and a very poor) argument against incest that it leads to deformed children. Even if we grant you that, which is a bit generous because you'd need repeated inbreeding for problems to emerge unless you have really poor genes, it has nothing to say about homosexual incestuous relations or incestuous relations involving activities like anal or oral sex.
> 
> Also how do you come up with the idea that incestuous breeding with animals is less harmful than with humans? Apart from maybe some exceptions, I think mice are immune to inbreeding, ither animals will react just the same way as they have the same genetics. Inbreeding is why pure-breed dogs are prone to various diseases, just like the European royal families have haemophilia. It affects animals and humans the same.



Yeah the "ass-pump" part was me making myself lol. 

& it is. Pure-bred animals are often inbred, yet they are not born with crippling defects. Champion dogs, cats, horses, etc are often the result of inbreeding. You may read about it more if you like on Google. But then again, getting into an argument with you, Rakuen about moral issues with certain things is like smashing my head against a brick wall.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:
			
		

> & it is. Pure-bred animals are often inbred, yet they are not born  with crippling defects. Champion dogs, cats, horses, etc are often the  result of inbreeding. You may read about it more if you like on Google.  But then again, getting into an argument with you, Rakuen about moral  issues with certain things is like smashing my head against a brick  wall.



Some are and the defects are the high risks for various inherited conditions. Did it not occur to you that that's the same sort of thing that would happen to people? Not necessarily crippling defects and one-eyed monsters but mostly normal people but plagued with diseases the same way pure-bred animals and royal families are. Inbreeding has happened a lot, you just don't see it and greatly exaggerate the consequences.


----------



## Fiesta_Jack (Jun 9, 2011)

It's not just a morally subjective issue. We're biologically programmed to not find our relatives attractive, because inbreeding is not good for the species. The whole "they both need recessive genes for anything bad" argument kinda sucks though, since there's a pretty decent shot of both of them carrying a gene if one of them has it. Not to mention the difficulty in knowing what sorts of recessive genes one is carrying. 

Anyhoodles, I still think it should be legal between siblings and cousins, even if I find it fucking gross. I'd say they should be required to sterilize one party if there's a marriage, though. Parent and child incestuous relations, however, are a no-no. The power difference between a parent and child is too great for that to be okay, psychologically, in a relationship.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Fiesta_Jack said:


> Parent and child incestuous relations, however, are a no-no. The power difference between a parent and child is too great for that to be okay, psychologically, in a relationship.


 How is it different between a brother and a sister? I think there would be issues between them in the household if the two aren't adults yet.


----------



## Enwon (Jun 9, 2011)

To be honest, I would've been vehemently opposed to it at one point, but now, not really.  As long as it's 2 consenting, mature adults, what does it matter?  The fact that the kids are more likely to be born with defects isn't a good reason for banning it.  Also, I think most people who commit incest would do it regardless of the law.  Many states already have it legal to marry your cousin, including Arizona.

Personally, I would never commit incest.  But I don't believe my own moral standpoint is a fair argument against those who think differently.


----------



## Fiesta_Jack (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> How is it different between a brother and a sister? I think there would be issues between them in the household if the two aren't adults yet.


 
You're raised to think that your parental figure is always right, and knows best. If this becomes a relationship, issues like money, personal freedoms, and independence become heavily taxed. It's hard to have an equal partnership with a parent, since you're conditioned to be subservient to them. That's not healthy for a relationship at all.

Brother and sister relationships tend to be closer to equal, in terms of power level, assuming they're around the same age. There's certainly some power difference, but not the same "dad always knows best" that comes from parenting.


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

Fiesta_Jack said:


> You're raised to think that your parental figure is always right, and knows best. If this becomes a relationship, issues like money, personal freedoms, and independence become heavily taxed. It's hard to have an equal partnership with a parent, since you're conditioned to be subservient to them. That's not healthy for a relationship at all.
> 
> Brother and sister relationships tend to be closer to equal, in terms of power level, assuming they're around the same age. There's certainly some power difference, but not the same "dad always knows best" that comes from parenting.



Sometimes this is the reason non-incestial relationships either work, but others think one of the two is being controlled, or don't work because one is treating the other as if they are a child in need of a parent. I've seen both sides of that. Either way it gets messy. I'd have a hard time seeing an incest relationship working out, but then again, that's only if I look at it as having that parent/child relationship in effect as part of the relationship as a negative thing.

It's hard to set your own personal feelings or ideas of what's right on a subject aside and think as the one involved. It's how a lot of belief-logic arguments end up in circles. -edit, as belief-belief arguments are just as bad if not worse, in the case where neither is able to keep up logical answers/responses.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> For example, if I donate my organs when I die, I don't want them going to select types of people.


 Actually you'd have no say in the matter, you know why?  Cause you'd be dead and the doctor's wouldn't give a shit who you didn't like.


Unsilenced said:


> I think incest is disgusting.
> 
> I also think that my personally finding it disgusting has nothing to do with anything in terms of the law should be.


 Honestly that's my opinion of laws all around is that just cause someone finds something disgusting, doesn't justify it for being a law on that sole basis.

As far as incest goes I don't give a shit, but on the other point is the law is based on the mentality of, "eww it's gross".  So my opinion overall is that I don't care, but I do care about how stupid the law is.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Jun 9, 2011)

Despite the fact I find that shit nasty, I think they should be able to do it if they want. Just because it's not my thing doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to do it.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Fiesta_Jack said:


> You're raised to think that your parental figure is always right, and knows best. If this becomes a relationship, issues like money, personal freedoms, and independence become heavily taxed. It's hard to have an equal partnership with a parent, since you're conditioned to be subservient to them. That's not healthy for a relationship at all.
> 
> Brother and sister relationships tend to be closer to equal, in terms of power level, assuming they're around the same age. There's certainly some power difference, but not the same "dad always knows best" that comes from parenting.


 
No I agree on the parent thing. but I can see sexual harassment and shit happening in both relationships



CannonFodder said:


> Actually you'd have no say in the matter, you know why?  Cause you'd be dead and the doctor's wouldn't give a shit who you didn't like.


 Then I guess I aint becoming an organ donor B]


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Then I guess I aint becoming an organ donor B]


 Just because a group of people you don't like might get your organs?
Also come on, tell us who you wouldn't give your organs too... pwease?


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Just because a group of people you don't like might get your organs?


 Yep! 
I will mention one of the types of people I will not donate organs to is smokers. They take their lungs for granted and boo hoo  I got lung cancer
Tough shit, bitch. You aint gettin me


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Yep!
> I will mention one of the types of people I will not donate organs to is smokers. They take their lungs for granted and boo hoo  I got lung cancer
> Tough shit, bitch. You aint gettin me


 Actually that is understandable, if someone is going to just waste my organs and die themselves, then what's the point?


----------



## Thatch (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> As for the effects on incestuous children's gene pool, there's only going to be a problem if both partners carry a recessive gene - which would probably mean a documented family history of the illness - and also if the child manages to inherit both of those genes - which there are 3:1 odds against.


 
And seeing how stupid and ignorant people can be, 3:1 is quite enough to fuck up the genepool severely.
No, I don't think that breeding incestous children should be condoned.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 9, 2011)

Thatch said:


> And seeing how stupid and ignorant people can be, 3:1 is quite enough to fuck up the genepool severely.
> No, I don't think that breeding incestous children should be condoned.


 If a person raises them for them to think the norm in society is incestual relationships then that's a hella no.
If not, then I don't care.


----------



## Shiroka (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I say no. Those people obviously have some type of disorder and letting them breed will cause mutant children who will live day to day miserable, getting mocked, teased and they will probably die of some type of illness.


 
What about same sex inbreeding? Would having sex with your brother be okay if you're gay?

That being said, I don't really care what people do in their bedroom, as long as it's mutual. If they give birth to mutant alien babies though, I'll be honest in saying I don't know what we should do at that point.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 9, 2011)

Shiroka said:


> If they give birth to mutant alien babies though, I'll be honest in saying I don't know what we should do at that point.


 Well if it's a friendly alien who just wants to find the mother ship, I say let him, but don't let E.T. phone home cause that'd be one hell of a phone bill.
But if it's a facehuger, it will bleed acid if you try to kill it.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 9, 2011)

I would never do it and find the idea somewhat disturbing.

Even so, I don't think the state should interfere with non-abusive personal relationships between mature, consenting adults--so, yeah, it shouldn't be illegal as long as everyone's mature and consenting. For that matter, I don't think the state should try to control people's reproductive choices. (How would that even be handled? Forced sterilization? Fuck that.) I hope that they _wouldn't_ have kids, certainly there should be a strong _social_ push against it, but I don't think that the state should have the power to regulate it, because that's basically eugenics--not only that, but it's a big double standard. See, my brother and I both carry autosomal dominant genetic disorders, any children we produce will have at least a 50% chance of inheriting it, regardless of our choice of partner. Meanwhile, unless there's a strong family  history of genetic disease, the risk of turning out a horribly deformed  child after one generation of inbreeding is pretty low in most cases. (Also note that inbreeding can highlight good traits as well as bad--that's why you get champion inbred animals as well as sickly awful inbred animals.) So, my brother and I are at liberty to breed despite having a high risk of producing sick children, but these loving couples aren't allowed to breed because of a low risk of producing sick children? If you're going to ban the latter, it's only fair to ban the former, otherwise you're basically penalizing some people for speeding slightly but not penalizing other people for going double the limit while on a cell phone and applying makeup. At that point, we open up the bulk-sized can of eugenics soup, and uh, I don't think many people really want that.


----------



## BrennanTheWolfy (Jun 9, 2011)

As long as it doesnt harm me and its completely consensual, I could care less.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Shiroka said:


> What about same sex inbreeding? Would having sex with your brother be okay if you're gay?
> 
> That being said, I don't really care what people do in their bedroom, as long as it's mutual. If they give birth to mutant alien babies though, I'll be honest in saying I don't know what we should do at that point.


 
>same sex inbreeding
.......

& no I'm not okay with it either.


----------



## 8-bit (Jun 9, 2011)

LOL, no thanks. It's pretty nasty and I don't think it should be accepted.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 9, 2011)

8-bit said:


> LOL, no thanks. It's pretty nasty and I don't think it should be accepted.


 So do I. Should it be illegal, though, just because we think it's kind of gross? I mean, some people think homosexuality and miscegenation are really gross, do we ban those?  Assuming it's between consenting adults and all.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 9, 2011)

Uh, no.

Besides the biological effects that many people have brought up, and in some cases ignored, I do believe that they is a psychological aspect to all of this. Of course, I don't have facts or studies to back me up on this, but looking internally at you family for a mate indicates a couple things to me. The first one is that you have to be messed up to look at a relative and think "Hmmm, yes, I think I'll have some of that, thank you", and the second is that you're cowardly anti-social piece of shit if you can't look outside familial boundaries for a mate.

"But Xenke, that doesn't mean it should be wrongggg"

I think it should be against the law. Aren't some laws designed to save people from their own stupidity? Why should this be any different? It's pretty stupid.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> So do I. Should it be illegal, though, just because we think it's kind of gross? I mean, some people think homosexuality and miscegenation are really gross, do we ban those?  Assuming it's between consenting adults and all.


Gay marriage should be legal because it is two unrelated, mature, adult men getting married

Incest should be illegal because what if it's a dad creeping on his daughter? She lives under his roof and he wants that, he can do whatver he wants cause it's his house and I think it will lead to sexual harassment


----------



## Spatel (Jun 9, 2011)

I love it when gays talk about other types of queer activities and say "ew gross, that should be illegal". Never mind that most people find YOU gross. Just goes to show, being in a persecuted minority doesn't make someone any more enlightened about social issues than an average member of the population.

It's unfortunate.

Consenting adults, you idiots. If they're not reproducing it's fine.



Clayton said:


> Gay marriage should be legal because it is two unrelated, mature, adult men getting married
> 
> Incest  should be illegal because what if it's a dad creeping on his daughter?  She lives under his roof and he wants that, he can do whatver he wants  cause it's his house and I think it will lead to sexual  harassment


 
Dad creeping on daughter should be illegal because it's pedophilia, not  because it's incest. If it were any other man his age it would still be  wrong.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I love it when gays talk about other types of queer activities and say "ew gross, that should be illegal". Never mind that most people find YOU gross. Just goes to show, being in a persecuted minority doesn't make someone any more enlightened about social issues than an average member of the population.
> 
> It's unfortunate.
> 
> Consenting adults, you idiots. If they're not reproducing it's fine.


 
Uhmmmmmmmmm just because I'm gay that means I can't be against things such as incest, baby raping and scat?

I find straight sex disgusting, that means that Christians can't find gays repulsive.

Big ol hugbox up in this B


----------



## Xenke (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I love it when gays talk about other types of queer activities and say "ew gross, that should be illegal". Never mind that most people find YOU gross. Just goes to show, being in a persecuted minority doesn't make someone any more enlightened about social issues than an average member of the population.
> 
> It's unfortunate.
> 
> Consenting adults, you idiots. If they're not reproducing it's fine.


 
Because people who think differently aren't allowed to have their own opinions, yep.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 9, 2011)

Shall we lock this? I'm getting the feeling it will get out of control pretty soon.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Uhmmmmmmmmm just because I'm gay that means I can't be against things such as incest, baby raping and scat?
> 
> I find straight sex disgusting, that means that Christians can't find gays repulsive.
> 
> Big ol hugbox up in this B


 
Notice what you did there: incest and scat are relatively harmless. Baby raping, on the other hand, is pretty terrible.

But I realize irony is lost on you. Conservatives tend to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia as well. If you want them to shut up, stop trying so hard to emulate them when it comes to other sexual minorities.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Dad creeping on daughter should be illegal because it's pedophilia, not  because it's incest. If it were any other man his age it would still be  wrong.


 
First off, that isn't pedophilia. Google the definition of pedophilia

Second, what if she's 18
& why is it wrong


----------



## Xenke (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Notice what you did there: incest and scat are relatively harmless. Baby raping, on the other hand, is pretty terrible.
> 
> But I realize irony is lost on you. Conservatives tend to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia as well. If you want them to shut up, stop trying so hard to emulate them when it comes to other sexual minorities.


 
Incest isn't a sexuality you twat.


----------



## VoidBat (Jun 9, 2011)

Funny, as I saw the thread title I thought: "Rednecks."
Anyway, if it involves minors then it's strict no. But if you're an adult, sure, knock yourself out. Not my headache, yours, not mine.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Incest isn't a sexuality you twat.


 
"Twas' the fight began."


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 9, 2011)

There's no one in my family I want to get close to in such a manner, but I don't think it should be illegal for other people.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> "Twas' the fight began."


 
You're in the Rants & Raves forum and you're expecting people not to argue? You may as well do a 180* and head for The Den. This isn't a hugbox.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> First off, that isn't pedophilia. Google the definition of pedophilia
> 
> Second, what if she's 18
> & why is it wrong


 "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children."

If she's 18 then it's sexual assault. She's old enough to make her own decisions, but parents can be coercive, especially on their dependents. If she's still a dependent, living in his house, then it could still be child abuse. She can't run away easily, and daddy pays the bills, so she better do what he says. Even if incest were legal this would be reprehensible.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You're in the Rants & Raves forum and you're expecting people not to argue? You may as well do a 180* and head for The Den. This isn't a hugbox.



To argue is one thing, to insult is another one.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You're in the Rants & Raves forum and you're expecting people not to argue? You may as well do a 180* and head for The Den. This isn't a hugbox.


 
We're in OT, Clayton.

Walls are still stained with shit and blood, but this place has a chandelier.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Incest isn't a sexuality you twat.


 Sexual minority != sexuality. Queer is a broad term encompassing any behavior that is seen as an alternative to typical sexual behavior.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Sexual minority != sexuality. Queer is a broad term encompassing any behavior that is seen as an alternative to typical sexual behavior.


 
Well then your parallel doesn't really line up.

It's like comparing a square to a trapezoid. I mean sure, their both quadrilaterals, but only one of them is a regular polygon.


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children."
> 
> If she's 18 then it's sexual assault. She's old enough to make her own decisions, but parents can be coercive, especially on their dependents. If she's still a dependent, living in his house, then it could still be child abuse. She can't run away easily, and daddy pays the bills, so she better do what he says. Even if incest were legal this would be reprehensible.



There are many decisions in life that are made with the logic of 'better do what they say.' If you have a job, you better do whatever your boss tells you or you'll get fired. To me, sex shouldn't be something you have to do (unless you're a prostitute), but if the daughter is old enough to think for herself they she should be allowed to do what she wants. What if the child was the pursuer and the dad was hesitant but was a single father?


----------



## Xenke (Jun 9, 2011)

Cocobanana said:


> There are many decisions in life that are made with the logic of 'better do what they say.' If you have a job, you better do whatever your boss tells you or you'll get fired. To me, sex shouldn't be something you have to do (unless you're a prostitute), but if the daughter is old enough to think for herself they she should be allowed to do what she wants. What if the child was the pursuer and the dad was hesitant but was a single father?


 
The psychological effects the a parental figure has over their children is far more complex, compelling, and powerful than what a boss has over their employees.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children."
> 
> If she's 18 then it's sexual assault. She's old enough to make her own decisions, but parents can be coercive, especially on their dependents. If she's still a dependent, living in his house, then it could still be child abuse. She can't run away easily, and daddy pays the bills, so she better do what he says. Even if incest were legal this would be reprehensible.


 Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. An 18 y.o is not prepubescent.

I'm not saying she molests him, I'm saying he creeps on her.



AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> To argue is one thing, to insult is another one.


 I don't really care either way


Xenke said:


> We're in OT, Clayton.
> 
> Walls are still stained with shit and blood, but this place has a chandelier.


 oops, my bad. I thought it was R&R because of the arguing lol


----------



## Cocobanana (Jun 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> The psychological effects the a parental figure has over their children is far more complex, compelling, and powerful than what a boss has over their employees.


 
Even more compelling than the force that drives some people to get effed in the butt, bareback, and with an anonymous partner?


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> If she's 18 then it's sexual assault. She's old enough to make her own decisions, but parents can be coercive, especially on their dependents. If she's still a dependent, living in his house, then it could still be child abuse. She can't run away easily, and daddy pays the bills, so she better do what he says. Even if incest were legal this would be reprehensible.


 
This. The term creeping itself could have numerous meanings. Considering the context, it would be dad hitting on daughter. Which happens more often than you'd think, even if the daughter doesn't want it and nothing ever happens. The question if you're going in that direction is, does said daughter (could be dad/son, mom/son, mom/mom) feel obligated in someway to go through with it, or is it something they actively want. As said, there aren't a lot of studies, especially any concrete enough to be known by the general population whether the son/daughter of a parent once at age, and without being raised and coerced while under-age, that decides they want "some of that" from a family member, could be considered wrong in a way that could be considered a mental disorder. And not avoiding popular opinion is not a disorder. 

I saw someone bringing up biologically made for comment in here too. Biologically the penis is meant to go in a vagina for the reason of procreation. The difference between us and most animals is how advanced our minds are and how it allows us to even consider this topic. If you want to say we're mentally made to not want it, and anyone that does is handicapped, then the same goes for anyone else wanting sex not for the intent of our urges to procreate and then incest, and homosexuality become a way our species has evolved to help stop over-population. 

All you need is one incest couple to live a healthy life to prove its possible. It's up to anyone else to successfully disprove the case. Till someone comes up with hard evidence of either/or this thread is just opinions and theories.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Well then your parallel doesn't really line up.
> 
> It's  like comparing a square to a trapezoid. I mean sure, their both  quadrilaterals, but only one of them is a regular polygon.


 
Incest is a type of sexual activity that can be practiced by consenting  adults that doesn't hurt anyone. It's different from homosexuality, but  the defense for it is the same, and the arguments against it are just as  ideologically bankrupt, at the end of the day. If you want to appeal to  civil liberties you have to support it.

I don't see a way around it, but feel free to try.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Incest is a type of sexual activity that can be practiced by consenting  adults that doesn't hurt anyone. It's different from homosexuality, but  the defense for it is the same, and the arguments against it are just as  ideologically bankrupt, at the end of the day. If you want to appeal to  civil liberties you have to support it.
> 
> I don't see a way around it, but feel free to try.


 
Disallowing one is discriminatory, while the other isn't?

Dunno, seems like fairly simple logic, they both have that ew factor, but we can only get away with banning one of them.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 9, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Shall we lock this? I'm getting the feeling it will get out of control pretty soon.


 
Nah not at the moment. I see too many sensible argu- OH MY GOD FURRIES USING LOGIC!



*WARNING: Guys keep it civil. I am proud you have come thus far with your discussions- Don't insult one another and if you must argue take it to PM please.*


----------



## Bliss (Jun 9, 2011)

I saw an interesting documentary about GSA which results Westermarck effect not developing correctly. Might give little understanding.


----------



## Azure (Jun 9, 2011)

Meh, there isn't any compelling evidence for it to be wrong genetically, there's plenty of tards made by regular people just fucking, and it's not like everyone and their sister are gonna fuck and make babies,we're talking not that many people here in the first place. Morally, every last part of the law is bullshit. Consenting adults should not be subject to popular vote as to what they do in the bedroom, end of story.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 9, 2011)

As long as it's same generation, then it creeps me out but I'm not vehemently against it. There's nothing ethically wrong about it like people try to say there is.


----------



## Rossyfox (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> As for the effects on incestuous children's gene pool, there's only going to be a problem if both partners carry a recessive gene - which would probably mean a documented family history of the illness - and also if the child manages to inherit both of those genes - which there are 3:1 odds against.


 
no it's not as simple as that
homogeneity is a problem beyond specific disease genes


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Disallowing one is discriminatory, while the other isn't?
> 
> Dunno, seems like fairly simple logic, they both have that ew factor, but we can only get away with banning one of them.



Couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic there or not. :V

It's only disciminatory once the general population starts deciding it is... Not long ago there was no problem with those hating on homosexuals unless someone higher on the food chain decided there was one. Same could be said about a lot of things. If you discriminate against someone for something, you're saying they are a sub-human, not fitting into your species.

-edit: Not sure how that part after "simple logic" got there, but it appeared when I clicked reply with quote.


----------



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. An 18 y.o is not prepubescent.
> 
> I'm not saying she molests him, I'm saying he creeps on her.


 
I'd like to suggest that the legalisation of incest does not mean the number of people interested in incest would increase [as in, simply removing legal punishments doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly decide that they want a piece of it.]

If the father is attracted to his daughter and is a creeper, then he would harass her regardless of whether incest was legal or not. Furthermore, if she's under eighteen he'd be charged with child abuse; if she was over eighteen, it would be rape. Incest's legality doesn't really matter in this case if it's not mutual - and, as I said in the OP, this is all assuming mutual attraction.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> I'd like to suggest that the legalisation of incest does not mean the number of people interested in incest would increase [as in, simply removing legal punishments doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly decide that they want a piece of it.]
> 
> If the father is attracted to his daughter and is a creeper, then he would harass her regardless of whether incest was legal or not. Furthermore, if she's under eighteen he'd be charged with child abuse; if she was over eighteen, it would be rape. Incest's legality doesn't really matter in this case if it's not mutual - and, as I said in the OP, this is all assuming mutual attraction.


I still don't support it, mutual or not. I can just see it turning south if he were threatening to kick her out or something


----------



## Spatel (Jun 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Disallowing one is discriminatory, while the other isn't?
> 
> Dunno, seems like fairly simple logic, they both have that ew factor, but we can only get away with banning one of them.


 
Disallowing either is discriminatory. Just because people that practice incest don't make it a full time profession doesn't mean they're being treated as anything other than less by society. They have to keep their incestuous relationships a secret, unless they want to risk prosecution, or risk losing their all of their social standing. Incestuous couples can't marry. They can't adopt. Seems like a pretty similar fight actually...


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 9, 2011)

My two cents- Playing devil's advocate... Sex is sex and as adults consenting you should be able to fuck who you want and no one give a fuck because it only involves one party. Therefore if you want to fuck your sister go ahead just don't touch me.

Incest is gross in my opinion and the thought of it makes me WARGARBLEGARBLEGARBLE but if two adults want to screw you shouldn't stop them.


----------



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I can just see it turning south if he were threatening to kick her out or something


 
That'd be exploitation. She could probably have him for blackmail. Again, it's not really anything to do with the legality of incest.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 9, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Incest is gross in my opinion and the thought of it makes me WARGARBLEGARBLEGARBLE but if *two* adults want to screw you shouldn't stop them.


Two or more, you mean. Polyamory could be the next thread topic. Of course that argument would proceed pretty much the same way.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> That'd be exploitation. She could probably have him for blackmail. Again, it's not really anything to do with the legality of incest.


 Yes it does. There's a power imbalance between parent-child relationships.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> If the father is attracted to his daughter and is a creeper, then he would harass her regardless of whether incest was legal or not.


 >Implying the law has no affect on people's actions. 

Plus, you're assuming it would be rape when there's really no reason to assume that. The problem is that the parent could influence his child so much. Sure, it might technically _count_ as rape because of the coercion aspect, but he's not going to get caught and charged with rape when the child is simply being influenced into it and not forced or blackmailed or anything.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Yes it does. There's a power imbalance between parent-child relationships.


 
The biological relation has nothing to do with that. If it were a stepfather or some other guardian it wouldn't be incest, but it would be just as bad.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> The biological relation has nothing to do with that. If it were a stepfather or some other guardian it wouldn't be incest, but it would be just as bad.


 Yes but if we were to discuss step-dad + daughter that would be called blackmail/coercian/abuse of power. Right now we're discussing blood-relatives and blackmail/coercian/warping

I truly believe that parent-child relationships are built up around warping the child.


----------



## Azure (Jun 9, 2011)

Wow, so much hail mary philosophy going on right now.


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

Spatel said:


> The biological relation has nothing to do with that. If it were a stepfather or some other guardian it wouldn't be incest, but it would be just as bad.


 
This is generally the more common one I hear of and have seen with friends, furry and not.


----------



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> >Implying the law has no affect on people's actions.
> 
> Plus, you're assuming it would be rape when there's really no reason to assume that. The problem is that the parent could influence his child so much. Sure, it might technically _count_ as rape because of the coercion aspect, but he's not going to get caught and charged with rape when the child is simply being influenced into it and not forced or blackmailed or anything.



Then you're talking about psychological programming - essentially, brainwashing. 

I didn't really assume anything - Clayton's scenario was creeper dad trying to get in with unwilling daughter. But what you're talking about is a child raised by a father with the intent to have sex - again, if that child's a child, the dad's still going to be charged with child abuse. The blood relation doesn't matter when the kid's not mature enough to have legal consent.


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Yes but if we were to discuss step-dad + daughter that would be called blackmail/coercian/abuse of power. Right now we're discussing blood-relatives and blackmail/coercian/warping
> 
> I truly believe that parent-child relationships are built up around warping the child.


 
What's the difference? You were stating power a minute ago and just now changed your wording. Are you changing the meaning of what you've been implying, or using the two inter-changeably?


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

moriko said:


> What's the difference? You were stating power a minute ago and just now changed your wording. Are you changing the meaning of what you've been implying, or using the two inter-changeably?


 No I think they're both power abuse and both warping, but that child was born to that dad and grew up as that dad being a role-model just to be warped and used as a boyfriend/girlfriend

I think it's just as bad with a stepdad + child, but that is not what this topic is about


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 9, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> >Implying the law has no affect on people's actions.
> 
> Plus, you're assuming it would be rape when there's really no reason to assume that. The problem is that the parent could influence his child so much. Sure, it might technically _count_ as rape because of the coercion aspect, but he's not going to get caught and charged with rape when the child is simply being influenced into it and not forced or blackmailed or anything.


 Not just a incestuous situation could coercion be used as a way to sleep with someone.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> Then you're talking about psychological programming - essentially, brainwashing.
> 
> I didn't really assume anything - Clayton's scenario was creeper dad trying to get in with unwilling daughter. But what you're talking about is a child raised by a father with the intent to have sex - again, if that child's a child, the dad's still going to be charged with child abuse. The blood relation doesn't matter when the kid's not mature enough to have legal consent.


 Yes, I was talking about psychological programming, but it's a result of the fact that it's a parent and child situation. And the parent-child relationship matters when the child reaches the age of legal consent. Without some sort of law, then it would be basically undetectable and impossible to stop that sort of thing from happening, but if there's a law that stops even 1% of cases of that happening, then I believe it to be a success. 


CannonFodder said:


> Not just a incestuous situation could coercion be used as a way to sleep with someone.


 Thanks for the non sequitir, CF. I never implied that it was only found in incestuous situations.

I think I'm going to read all your posts with this after them, because that's how they all come off as.


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

Warping insinuates the father or dad is training or brainwashing the kid. What if the kid is the pursuer and the father is hesitant but interested? (I think I'm repeating someone else situation here...)


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

moriko said:


> Warping insinuates the father or dad is training or brainwashing the kid. What if the kid is the pursuer and the father is hesitant but interested? (I think I'm repeating someone else situation here...)


 That's what NAMbLA says, but to say "yes" to a child pursuing sexual acts is training/grooming as well.

Adult-child relationships are not healthy. I don't care how old the kid is or how close they are. They are not balanced and they are not healthy. Children and adults are not supposed to have that sort of relationship with each other.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 9, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> but if there's a law that stops *even 1%* of cases of that happening, then I believe it to be a success.


 To me a law with a low success rate is a failure, no matter how justifiable and a waste of paper.

These laws are based on the, "gross" factor and a waste.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 9, 2011)

I'm so happy this has not gotten out of control.

But I'm not going to argue with anyone about it.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 9, 2011)

moriko said:


> Warping insinuates the father or dad is training or brainwashing the kid. What if the kid is the pursuer and the father is hesitant but interested? (I think I'm repeating someone else situation here...)


 There's still a discrepancy in the power in that relationship that I don't feel is healthy. One person should not have complete authority over another in a relationship, especially not within a family where people usually turn to for support. What if the relationship went badly? What would happen then?



CannonFodder said:


> To me a law with a low success rate is a failure, no matter how justifiable and a waste of paper.
> Imo to justify a law like this you would have to actually have non-biased statistics.
> Meaning in my opinion in order for a law like this to have a reason  other than, "eww" factor it should have solid proof justifying why it is  on the books in the first place, other than hypothetical made up  situations.
> 
> short version:  These laws are based on the, "gross" factor and a waste.


Why would it be a failure, even if it's justifiable? Is there a giant group of adult-child relationship pairs in healthy relationships that would be slighted by a law like that? I HIGHLY doubt it. 

 I'm talking specifically about cross-generational things. The current laws are based on a "gross" factor, yes, but that doesn't mean that all laws involving the subject would have to be.

Also, inb4 your edit of your post.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jun 9, 2011)

Has anyone ever heard of the FA artist who sleeps with his sister in real life?


----------



## Azure (Jun 9, 2011)

WWW.JAYNAYLOR.COM :v


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> That's what NAMbLA says, but to say "yes" to a child pursuing sexual acts is training/grooming as well.
> 
> Adult-child relationships are not healthy. I don't care how old the kid is or how close they are. They are not balanced and they are not healthy. Children and adults are not supposed to have that sort of relationship with each other.


 

As I said earlier, you'd have to prove in some way that the son/daughter is groomed/trained. In brother/sister incest relations, would the age matter if it was 1 year, 2? Which one is grooming which at that point? It's possible that the child is grooming the parent if you think about it. Which one is truly pushing the other into something? I don't think you can prove it's the parent training/grooming/warping as you put it if the son/daughter is old enough to make the same adult decisions as the parent.

-edit just to get the point across, by which the OP originally stated, brother-sister and any mix of the two is included in this. And discrepancy of power: What if the 'child' is in their 20's out of college and on their own, this isn't just about young adults living in their parents house.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jun 9, 2011)

Why be shocked that furrys are into incest?  They'd take sex any way they can get it.  :V

Beyond any sort of biological reasoning you have to take into account social standing within a community of individuals.  Say this out loud to yourself:  "I fucked my sister/brother/cousin."  Imagine explaining that kind of situation to someone.  You're essentially committing social suicide.

Ethics are developed through a community understanding of what is considered right and wrong, regardless of legal definition.  And ethically, having a sexual relationship with your sibling in a Western society is just plain wrong, creepy, and oh so disgusting.

I mean really, who do you associate people having sex with their kin with?  Unless you'd like to be seen in the same light as Jim-Bob and Sue-Ellen in the back woods of Alabama, I'd suggest keeping it in your pants and try to find love in a less disturbing fashion.



Azure said:


> WWW.JAYNAYLOR.COM :v



Oh you.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Has anyone ever heard of the FA artist who sleeps with his sister in real life?


 
I don't think they actually do but w.e. Still gross.



moriko said:


> As I said earlier, you'd have to prove in some way that the son/daughter is groomed/trained. In brother/sister incest relations, would the age matter if it was 1 year, 2? Which one is grooming which at that point? It's possible that the child is grooming the parent if you think about it. Which one is truly pushing the other into something? I don't think you can prove it's the parent training/grooming/warping as you put it if the son/daughter is old enough to make the same adult decisions as the parent.


 They are. There's no doubting that a child + adult relationship involves grooming. If you want to know the definition of grooming, Google it.

& I sitll think it's unbalanced.
 They have to have some sort of trauma or mental disorder in order to look at their brother or sister and say "I want to put my dick int hat"


----------



## Conker (Jun 9, 2011)

I'm against incest, but it's for the "it's gross and weird" reasoning and nothing to do with logic, laws, or science.


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Beyond any sort of biological reasoning you have to take into account social standing within a community of individuals.  Say this out loud to yourself:  "I fucked my sister/brother/cousin."  Imagine explaining that kind of situation to someone.  You're essentially committing social suicide.


 
Imagine being around 20, 30, 40 years ago and saying the same thing in another manner, "I fucked my *boy*friend" when you yourself are a man. Even today this can be social suicide in schools, or in a group of adults that happen to find it wrong and/or disgusting. You can't say "But it's not the same" because at one point it was considered such by popular opinion.


----------



## Bloodshot_Eyes (Jun 9, 2011)

I personally don't give a shit what you do or with who. :/


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jun 9, 2011)

moriko said:


> Imagine being around 20, 30, 40 years ago and saying the same thing in another manner, "I fucked my *boy*friend" when you yourself are a man. Even today this can be social suicide in schools, or in a group of adults that happen to find it wrong and/or disgusting. You can't say "But it's not the same" because at one point it was considered such by popular opinion.


 
Well then again this also isn't 20, 30, 40 years ago.  What went on that long ago is irrelevant to today's standards.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 9, 2011)

Mod warning to you guys, this is a sensitive subject riddled with other inflammatory topics, but I expect all of you to take a breathe and be civil. No more name calling.


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Well then again this also isn't 20, 30, 40 years ago.  What went on that long ago is irrelevant to today's standards.


 
Then it's also possible that this law can be overturned and in 20-30-40 years incest could be accepted. Also I stated that even in todays society homosexual's coming out can be social suicide, be it in school and/or workplace. If Obama tomorrow came out that he was divorcing his wife and decided to come out of the closet and look for another man to fall in love with, I don't think he'd be very popular for long. Not with the current majority, and especially from the general religious population.

Edit- Not wanting to side track, just giving an example of how it's only wrong if the majority of people believe it. But that does not mean it's logically wrong for those into it to do it. Only that others *feel* so.


----------



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Well then again this also isn't 20, 30, 40 years ago.  What went on that long ago is irrelevant to today's standards.


 
I think it's a valid analogy, though, and the claim that incest is perceived today in the same way homosexual relationships were perceived in the past has a certain truth to it. The deduction is that incest will, in the future, be seen in the same light that homosexual relationships are seen today.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jun 9, 2011)

In case you guys don't know. I'm talking about Kitsuneyoukai. I'm pretty sure does sleep with his sister in real life, as opposed to just drawing incest comics.


----------



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> In case you guys don't know. I'm talking about Kitsuneyoukai. I'm pretty sure does sleep with his sister in real life, as opposed to just drawing incest comics.


 
He says he slept with his sister, but that sister was just his sockpuppet account.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 9, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Mod warning to you guys, this is a sensitive subject riddled with other inflammatory topics, but I expect all of you to take a breathe and be civil. No more name calling.


 Where was this? I haven't seen any name calling.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> I think it's a valid analogy, though, and the claim  that incest is perceived today in the same way homosexual relationships  were perceived in the past has a certain truth to it. The deduction is  that *incest will, in the future, be seen in the same light that  homosexual relationships are seen today.*


Completely possible but really far-fetched unless a large part of the population becomes liberal/more tolerant. The road, I think it's obvious, is even rockier.



RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> In case you guys don't know. I'm talking about *Kitsuneyoukai*. I'm pretty sure does sleep with his sister in real life, as opposed to just drawing incest comics.


 That has got to be one of the dullest usernames ever (japanese-sounding usernames are everywhere). And makes you think he does? But then, what would be his motivation to admit it?



Jashwa said:


> Where was this? I haven't seen any name calling.


I think it's possible she was talking about the eventual revelation in Ray's post.


----------



## Fay V (Jun 9, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Where was this? I haven't seen any name calling.


 It happened, don't do it, shitstorms are bad mmkay. /modding


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Where was this? I haven't seen any name calling.


 This.
Nobody is name-calling.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jun 9, 2011)

Ah fuck it, I was going to say a long post, but I'll just summarize.
Morality and ethics aren't gray and white they are relative to the situation and evolve over time.  Using your own morality as a basis of a argument is pointless.

Also on the topic of coercion, the difference between it and brainwashing is that brainwashing involves abuse physically/mentally/emotionally/financially.  The reason why it is so hard to put someone behind bars for coercion is because it doesn't actually harm a individual, it is the warping of their views so they fit yours/do something you want.  While current ethics classifies this as immoral, because of society classifies it as "normal", there are individual who like to be on the receiving end of that.  Almost all of society agrees brainwashing is wrong, but coercion is the gray area inbetween.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Ah fuck it, I was going to say a long post, but I'll just summarize.
> Morality and ethics aren't gray and white they are relative to the situation and evolve over time.  Using your own morality as a basis of a argument is pointless.
> 
> Also on the topic of coercion, the difference between it and brainwashing is that brainwashing involves abuse physically/mentally/emotionally/financially.  The reason why it is so hard to put someone behind bars for coercion is because it doesn't actually harm a individual, it is the warping of their views so they fit yours/do something you want.  While current ethics classifies this as immoral, because of society classifies it as "normal", there are individual who like to be on the receiving end of that.  Almost all of society agrees brainwashing is wrong, but coercion is the gray area inbetween.


 
Unless they're into BDSM, normal people don't like being blackmailed or coerced.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Jun 9, 2011)

I recently heard an interesting story about incest. Someone at school told me about two sisters who are 12 and 18 have regular lesbian sexual activities.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Leafblower29 said:


> I recently heard an interesting story about incest. Someone at school told me about two sisters who are 12 and 18 have regular lesbian sexual activities.


 That's chomo shit


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jun 9, 2011)

moriko said:


> Then it's also possible that this law can be overturned and in 20-30-40 years incest could be accepted. Also I stated that even in todays society homosexual's coming out can be social suicide, be it in school and/or workplace. If Obama tomorrow came out that he was divorcing his wife and decided to come out of the closet and look for another man to fall in love with, I don't think he'd be very popular for long. Not with the current majority, and especially from the general religious population.
> 
> Edit- Not wanting to side track, just giving an example of how it's only wrong if the majority of people believe it. But that does not mean it's logically wrong for those into it to do it. Only that others *feel* so.



But that's public opinion on the Obama thing, and there's a lot that goes into not liking a politician for their sexuality.  Governor Jim McGreevy of New Jersey for example was having an affair with another man while married to his wife.  He came out as gay as an excuse to resign for a position which he was responsible for royally fucking up the state's property taxes, closed door deals with contractors, and other instances of corruption.  In this case, it wasn't so much an issue that he was gay, just that he was using it as a means to divert people's attention away from real issues, and then make money off of it while leaving his wife and kids with nothing.  My point?  It's all about context.  But I digress.

You can argue public opinion on homosexuals until you're blue in the face, but one thing slowly becoming accepted doesn't automatically mean that everything else is going to be as well, or that it should.  People have made similar arguments in regards to drugs.  Just because one thing is accepted or is on the verge of acceptance ie. marijuana, that doesn't set off a green light for everything else.

And I'm not arguing logic here.  I'm arguing the court of public opinion, which can't and shouldn't be ignored when discussing a matter like this.  You can use the logic label all you want, but it will never be as compelling with an issue like this as society or what we know of the kinds of people who do engage in that sort of behavior.



SIX said:


> I think it's a valid analogy, though, and the claim that incest is perceived today in the same way homosexual relationships were perceived in the past has a certain truth to it. The deduction is that incest will, in the future, be seen in the same light that homosexual relationships are seen today.


 
I don't think so, because it's an extreme leap in logic to suggest that because one aspect of life is changing over a 40 year period that all other social taboos MUST ALSO change.

By that same logic, since women were forced to wear long skirts in the workplace in the 50s, today they should be allowed to be completely nude.


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 9, 2011)

I must agree with the earlier post that we as a society decide what is acceptable or not. Social standing, despite the pretended apathy many of you will attempt to decry, is very important to us all by nature and we will always be inclined towards that which our society accepts as the proper course regardless of law. All jabs and stabs at the social abilities of those who support incest aside, the situation here in western culture to such an unsavory topic will likely never change so I highly suggest if you care about it to any degree you seek a country where such behavior is accepted.

 Tea, FAF?


----------



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I don't think so, because it's an extreme leap in logic to suggest that because one aspect of life is changing over a 40 year period that all other social taboos MUST ALSO change.
> 
> By that same logic, since women were forced to wear long skirts in the workplace in the 50s, today they should be allowed to be completely nude.


 
Not really. There's no binary switch on public opinion; by my logic, since women were forced to wear long skirts in the workplace, today they should be allowed to wear what they like.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> By that same logic, since women were forced to wear long skirts in the workplace in the 50s, today they should be allowed to be completely nude.


 
Where I live, it's legal for a woman to walk around in public topless.



SIX said:


> Not really. There's no binary switch on public opinion; by my logic, since women were forced to wear long skirts in the workplace, today they should be allowed to wear what they like.


 
That's your warped logic though, not the way the world thinks.
I for one, don't support public nudity but I don't care if it's a woman topless.
If it's a woman or man with no underwear on, you bet your sweet ass I'm gonnac all the police


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> Not really. There's no binary switch on public opinion; by my logic, since women were forced to wear long skirts in the workplace, today they should be allowed to wear what they like.


 
The assumption that because some things may change, all things will change is rather silly.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> Not really. There's no binary switch on public opinion; by my logic, since women were forced to wear long skirts in the workplace, today they should be allowed to wear what they like.


 
And what if what they like is nothing at all?  That fits into "what they like."



Clayton said:


> Where I live, it's legal for a woman to walk around in public topless.


 
I'm using the specific example of "in the workplace."

And no I'm not talking about gentleman's clubs.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm using the specific example of "in the workplace."
> 
> And no I'm not talking about gentleman's clubs.


 ohhh yeah I getcha. I dont support nudity in the workplace.


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 9, 2011)

Clearly it should be considered acceptable for only women to wear Codfish on their heads, but not men.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 9, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> The assumption that because some things may change, all things will change is rather silly.



Which can be fixed by replacing "will" with "may" for similar matters. Which is what I understood with his post, just saying. Nothing againts yours, just saying it's not guaranteed but a possibility.


----------



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> The assumption that because some things may change, all things will change is rather silly.


 
The assumption that something as fluid as culture will never is also silly; furthermore, I never made the claim that you're suggesting I made. With two similar topics within the same band of cultural recognition, I do believe change begets change; that the change in 'homosexuality as taboo' is comparable to the change in 'incest as taboo'. Both deal with the public opinion of sex, which is changing even now. Pornography is widely available, for example, when it was heavily stigmatised not that many decades ago.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> The assumption that something as fluid as culture won't is also silly. But I honestly believe that the change in 'homosexuality as taboo' is comparable to the change in 'incest as taboo'. Both deal with the public opinion of sex, which is changing even now. Pornography is widely available, for example, when it was heavily stigmatised not that many decades ago.


 
What about an adult plowing a 16y.o girl. 16 is the age of consent, so it should be accepted and not shunned for being absolutely disgusting


----------



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> What about an adult plowing a 16y.o girl. 16 is the age of consent, so it should be accepted and not shunned for being absolutely disgusting


 
You're talking about age difference. I believe that that, too, will in time become more acceptable; society's beginning to accept that not everyone is interested in straight, monogamous sex with a single, similar, and lifelong partner. Deviation from that norm is increasing, and so the definition of the 'norm' itself is changing.


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

I will agree to what you said, logic does not automatically mean it will be acceptable, and I was only arguing on that point as it's the only one here that seems to be of issue. If it changes, it'll depend on the progression of the people.

The girls topless thing. I absolutely believe they should be allowed if men are. Would I personally? Depends on the social awkwardness of the situation. If it became commonplace it would probably end up in peoples minds the same as seeing a guys chest in public. But that's for another thread (I think there was one?).

I personally think this thread has come to it's general conclusion that public opinion does matter a lot, but that logically it can be considered find in the right situation to the two specifically involved, barring outside non-scientific opinions.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> You're talking about age difference. I believe that that, too, will in time become more acceptable; society's beginning to accept that not everyone is interested in straight, monogamous sex with a single, similar, and lifelong partner. Deviation from that norm is increasing, and so the definition of the 'norm' itself is changing.


 
No, sorry. Societyw ill never accept an adult fucking a 16 y.o girl
And society will never accept animalfuckery either


----------



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> No, sorry. Societyw ill never accept an adult fucking a 16 y.o girl
> And society will never accept animalfuckery either


 
Holland's age of consent is 12, so far as I'm aware. I'd imagine there's at least a few sixteen year old girls there in relationships with a large age difference.


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 9, 2011)

The problem is you're all delving into your own personal opinions and refusing to stay objective.

No, you cannot assume because a disliked but unrelated topic changed that another disliked topic will change.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> Holland's age of consent is 12, so far as I'm aware. I'd imagine there's at least a few sixteen year old girls there in relationships with a large age difference.


 That doesn't mean people accept it.
Over here, that shit would get their diddlin ass thrown in jail


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> The assumption that something as fluid as culture will never is also silly; furthermore, I never made the claim that you're suggesting I made. With two similar topics within the same band of cultural recognition, I do believe change begets change; that the change in 'homosexuality as taboo' is comparable to the change in 'incest as taboo'. Both deal with the public opinion of sex, which is changing even now. Pornography is widely available, for example, when it was heavily stigmatised not that many decades ago.


 
What are you talking about?  Playboy was released in 1953, featured nude centerfolds (not exactly "artistic"), and sold like crazy.  Sex has always been a huge industry in at the very least American culture throughout the 20th century.  The only thing hotly debated was the medium, and by 1970, hardcore porn via film was being commercially sold almost everywhere in the West.  The most objection that was seen against porn during the "Sex Wars" of the 70s were mostly from feminist groups who claimed that porn objectified women, not from traditional avenues like the Church or rowdy politicians.



moriko said:


> IThe girls topless thing. I absolutely believe they should be allowed if men are.


 
They aren't.  But this isn't a gender issue, what's being taken to task is the idea that "if one thing is allowed, everything should be allowed" and if you're going to use the broad term of "they can wear whatever they want," then literally you are also giving that person free reign to choose "nothing at all" as a viable option, in my example of a workplace scenario for women.


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> No, sorry. Societyw ill never accept an adult fucking a 16 y.o girl


 
Only comment on this as to not derail the thread. But it is perfectly legal for a 16yo girl in this state to have sex with an 18-23 year old. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Florida

Many states have changed that one, and because the line was blurred enough even society wise because of how close the ages were.


----------



## BRN (Jun 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> What are you talking about?  Playboy was released in 1953, featured nude centerfolds (not exactly "artistic"), and sold like crazy.  Sex has always been a huge industry in at the very least American culture throughout the 20th century.  The only thing hotly debated was the medium, and by 1970, hardcore porn via film was being commercially sold almost everywhere in the West.  The most objection that was seen against porn during the "Sex Wars" of the 70s were mostly from feminist groups who claimed that porn objectified women, not from traditional avenues like the Church or rowdy politicians.



Forty years before Playboys release, pornography was hugely stigmatised. Yet merely ten years later, the first pornographic film was released.


----------



## moriko (Jun 9, 2011)

This threads getting out off topic as the points have all been made already and I already posted to what it came down to at the end of this discussion. I'm done posting unless something new comes up.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jun 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> Forty years before Playboys release, pornography was hugely stigmatised. Yet merely ten years later, the first pornographic film was released.


 
Not the issue.  Your claim of "it hasn't been that long since porn has stopped being stigmatized" was being taken to task.  About 60 years is a pretty fucking long time.  

And BTW, the first porn film was released in 1895.


----------



## Sar (Jun 9, 2011)

Evandeskunk said:


> Well, if someone where to be in such a relationship, my only wish is for them not to have sex in front of me. This applies to every other kind of couple out there.


 
DO NOT WANT. I hate that so much, buses are the worst for them.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

moriko said:


> Only comment on this as to not derail the thread. But it is perfectly legal for a 16yo girl in this state to have sex with an 18-23 year old.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Florida
> 
> Many states have changed that one, and because the line was blurred enough even society wise because of how close the ages were.


 
Boy, what aren't you understanding?
Just because it's legal in Bumfuckistan, Nowhere to plow a sheep, doesn't mean the world will accept it.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jun 9, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Just because it's legal in Bumfuckistan, Nowhere to plow a sheep, doesn't mean the world will accept it.


 
[yt]zsq9pRhXjok[/yt]

AIN'T NO RULE SAYIN' A DOG CAN'T PLAY BASKETBALL DON'TCHA KNOW?


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> [yt]zsq9pRhXjok[/yt]
> 
> AIN'T NO RULE SAYIN' A DOG CAN'T PLAY BASKETBALL DON'TCHA KNOW?


 
those movies are so incredibly stupid


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 9, 2011)

I think this has pretty much run its course and there isn't much more that can be said. To keep this topic from becoming a dead horse that you all will barbarically beat I think I'll lock it.


----------

