Planetarion Forums - It's About Time We Got Over Our Anti-Incest Rhetoric

acropolis · 3 Jul 2003, 18:18

Seriously, what's the problem with incest per se?

Either you are going to give the malformed children option, or you are going to give the 'it's icky' option.

As in civil unions etc. for gays, the 'it's icky' option is certainly wrong to impose on other people. If you think it's gross, then don't do it.

As to malformed children, a couple things. If gay men can have their union, then why can't gay brothers? I find it unlikely that they will have problems with deformed children. Same with lesbian sisters.

And if homosexuals can do it, isn't it only fair that heterosexuals can too? Or do you favor discrimination?

Getting back to the malformed children thing, many unrelated people have a high chance of having malformed children. But there's no law against it in that case. It's clearly an issue of fundamentalist religious hatred.

Stop the hate people.

Free love.

etc.

Dante Hicks · 3 Jul 2003, 18:20

Obviously it should be legal.

But a high proportion of incestuous relationships are abusive, I would think (no stats though).

I've known people who ****ed their sister, they didn't seem too bad a person.

Freakozoid · 3 Jul 2003, 18:23

wow.

Ok

so you are saying that If a father wants to have sex with his daughter and she is willing then it is ok by you?

LHC · 3 Jul 2003, 18:23

'urgh'

But each to his own and all that

W · 3 Jul 2003, 18:23

I support Heinlein in this.

Snurx · 3 Jul 2003, 18:28

If somebody wants to, feel free. As long as both parties want to, i don't see the problem. Personally, i think its pretty gross, but that's me.

Incestual abuse, however, should be beaten down. Just like any form of abuse.

sinnamon xie · 3 Jul 2003, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
Seriously, what's the problem with incest per se?

Are you from Kentucky? :/

acropolis · 3 Jul 2003, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by sinnamon xie
Are you from Kentucky? :/

Yes That's The Anti-Incest Rhetoric I Was Talking About Thanks For The Example

queball · 3 Jul 2003, 19:27

gay twin incest porn
snorting coke, using KaZaA
while hunting foxes

Nodrog · 3 Jul 2003, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Freakozoid
wow.

Ok

so you are saying that If a father wants to have sex with his daughter and she is willing then it is ok by you?

Covered by paedophilia laws if they are under 14, nice try though.

3 Jul 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
gay twin incest porn
snorting coke, using KaZaA
while hunting foxes

If I were a woman and you were a man I would want to have your babies

Radical Edward · 3 Jul 2003, 20:19

because God will condemn you and you will go to hell, straight to hell, you will not pass go and you will not collect two hundred pounds.

roadrunner_0 · 3 Jul 2003, 20:40

heaven doesnt exist, this is it!
also, W, what is heinleins position on this, as i must have missed that book (or forgotten it, one of the two)

Dante Hicks · 3 Jul 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Freakozoid
so you are saying that If a father wants to have sex with his daughter and she is willing then it is ok by you?

As Nod said - if the girl is over a set again, then yup.

Obviously it could be more complex than this - if the girl was over 18 say, but retarded then social services (or whomever) could press charges.

JonnyBGood · 3 Jul 2003, 20:56

"We"?

acropolis · 3 Jul 2003, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
"We"?

'we' being western society.

if i'd specifically meant you i would've titled the thread "Can JohnyBGood Please Get Over His Anti-Incest Rhetoric?"

anyhoo, i don't see there as any need to treat a father and daughter as any different than any other older man and younger girl. if she's old enough, who cares?

(A: his wife.)

roadrunner_0 · 3 Jul 2003, 21:03

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
"We"?

now, there is a good irish blood joke in there somewhere, but i dont think i am brave enough to insult a mod

JonnyBGood · 3 Jul 2003, 21:04

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
'we' being western society.

if i'd specifically meant you i would've titled the thread "Can JohnyBGood Please Get Over His Anti-Incest Rhetoric?"

anyhoo, i don't see there as any need to treat a father and daughter as any different than any other older man and younger girl. if she's old enough, who cares?

(A: his wife.)

Then why'd you address this thread to individuals. Quick, to the batmobile to inform the world!

W · 3 Jul 2003, 21:13

Quote:

Originally posted by roadrunner_0
heaven doesnt exist, this is it!
also, W, what is heinleins position on this, as i must have missed that book (or forgotten it, one of the two)

He touches on it in several books, but especially in "time enough for love", where in one of the stories he* helps a brother&sister who is also husband&wife. There's a few tangents about genetics. Basically he says the genes should deside whether two people should have children, and that nothing should deside whether two people can love eachother or not.

*) It is obvious that Lazarus Long and the other similar characters is Heinlein as he wished he would be.

roadrunner_0 · 3 Jul 2003, 22:03

Quote:

Originally posted by W
He touches on it in several books, but especially in "time enough for love", where in one of the stories he* helps a brother&sister who is also husband&wife. There's a few tangents about genetics. Basically he says the genes should deside whether two people should have children, and that nothing should deside whether two people can love eachother or not.

*) It is obvious that Lazarus Long and the other similar characters is Heinlein as he wished he would be.

ah, thank you, yes, i do see what you mean now,and, thinking about it, i can see what you mean about long as well

Cmdr_Cyrax · 3 Jul 2003, 22:24

[insert referal to Darwin and his cousin here]

Nusselt · 3 Jul 2003, 22:38

wouldnt that lead to inbreeding within society???? are we going to end up like the people of greenland asking passing strangers to shag our wifes to vary the pool (see this months FHM - oh yes my sources are immaculate).

Also as nice as it is to think 'ouside the box' as it were about sexual matters (a good way to 'control' juveniles would be to focibly make them have sex with men/women and thereby attempt to 'smoothout' any problems they have during puberty - if you believe that some of their problems are the result of sexual fustration), arent we biologically 'programmed' to automatically be repulsed (sexually) by our immediate family (through learning their smells as children etc)

lastly dante has now admitted that not only does he think about hammering his friends to death - but these very friends have comitted incest with their sisters, but its ok, they're throughly nice men apart from that.

Mr Hicks the pollution is getting to you.

G_frog · 3 Jul 2003, 22:50

I'd be worried about letting eugenics in by the back door.

There's no reason it would happen, but my faith in civilization is at a fairly low ebb.

W · 3 Jul 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt
wouldnt that lead to inbreeding within society???? are we going to end up like the people of greenland asking passing strangers to shag our wifes to vary the pool (see this months FHM - oh yes my sources are immaculate).

Also as nice as it is to think 'ouside the box' as it were about sexual matters (a good way to 'control' juveniles would be to focibly make them have sex with men/women and thereby attempt to 'smoothout' any problems they have during puberty - if you believe that some of their problems are the result of sexual fustration), arent we biologically 'programmed' to automatically be repulsed (sexually) by our immediate family (through learning their smells as children etc)

lastly dante has now admitted that not only does he think about hammering his friends to death - but these very friends have comitted incest with their sisters, but its ok, they're throughly nice men apart from that.

Mr Hicks the pollution is getting to you.

A) You can have sex without children.
B) Any programming we might be born with, we're free to reprogram once we attain sentience (as actual incest cases, suicides etc show)
C) You've got some pretty serious neuroses there. How was YOUR childhood?

Dante Hicks · 3 Jul 2003, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt
arent we biologically 'programmed' to automatically be repulsed (sexually) by our immediate family (through learning their smells as children etc)

So what's the problem then? Surely no-one would want to do it then.

p.s. They weren't Londoners this one person I knew of. It's not like I joined a club or something.

Nodrog · 3 Jul 2003, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by G_frog
I'd be worried about letting eugenics in by the back door.

There's no reason it would happen, but my faith in civilization is at a fairly low ebb.

Arent incest laws (justified on grounds of not increasing the liklihood of producing children with health problems) technically a form of eugenics (albeit in a rather loose sense of the word)?

Kumnaa · 3 Jul 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Freakozoid
wow.

Ok

so you are saying that If a father wants to have sex with his daughter and she is willing then it is ok by you?

if its not rape why not ?

Nusselt · 3 Jul 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by W
A) You can have sex without children.
B) Any programming we might be born with, we're free to reprogram once we attain sentience (as actual incest cases, suicides etc show)
C) You've got some pretty serious neuroses there. How was YOUR childhood?

well then you want to allow incest as long as it doesnt produce children?? what happens if children are born??? isnt it a bit strange to allow incest but then disallow what is the at the end of the day the point of intercourse between heterosexual couples i.e. children (yes yes gay issues and fathers sleeping with sons aside).

we are not born with this programming, im afraid i dont know exactly how it works as im not a biologist but the smells we 'recognise' from our parents dont attract us (to avoid inbreeding through evolution)

Neuroses about what dood? my childhood was fine.

G_frog · 3 Jul 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Arent incest laws (justified on grounds of not increasing the liklihood of producing children with health problems) technically a form of eugenics (albeit in a rather loose sense of the word)?

yes, i was hoping no one would notice that :/ with the status quo as it is tho, both eugenics and incest are quite seperate taboos so i don't think breaking one would break the other.

(since such rules seem to be vaguely religiously founded they make me wonder if early religions underwent some kind of selection.)

Nodrog · 3 Jul 2003, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by G_frog

since such rules seem to be vaguely religiously founded they make me wonder if early religions underwent some kind of selection.

I think its more to do with wanting a healthy and strong populous, in the interests of fighting wars and stuff. I doubt its has religious origins, but religion was probably used to justify it.

pablissimo · 4 Jul 2003, 00:42

mmm

twins

W · 4 Jul 2003, 00:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt
well then you want to allow incest as long as it doesnt produce children?? what happens if children are born??? isnt it a bit strange to allow incest but then disallow what is the at the end of the day the point of intercourse between heterosexual couples i.e. children (yes yes gay issues and fathers sleeping with sons aside).

we are not born with this programming, im afraid i dont know exactly how it works as im not a biologist but the smells we 'recognise' from our parents dont attract us (to avoid inbreeding through evolution)

Neuroses about what dood? my childhood was fine.

Why not move the punishment for incest to become a punishment for risking a child with some genetic illness?

The point of intercourse between heterosexual couples is the same as the point of any sex at all. At the end of the day, a very minority of the intercourses occuring has the point of making children.

And how do we know that the smells we recognize is unattractive if not by genetic programming? When to we learn to learn this about these smells?

Your comment about juvenile problems being caused by sexual frustration seemed like something Freud would say, and we allknow Freud was the father of all neuroses.

Mushroom · 4 Jul 2003, 00:55

Quote:

Originally posted by pablissimo
mmm

twins

Best reply yet

Radical Edward · 4 Jul 2003, 05:19

Quote:

Originally posted by W
Why not move the punishment for incest to become a punishment for risking a child with some genetic illness?

this would then be reliant on demonstrating that the parents had recessive allele diseases, and also it would forbid anyone with any hereditary illness from breeding. Eugenics in other words. you would have to be so explicit about it that wou would more or less have to say "you can have sex with siblings etc but you can't have children with them"

Dante Hicks · 4 Jul 2003, 08:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Radical Edward
you would have to be so explicit about it that wou would more or less have to say "you can have sex with siblings etc but you can't have children with them"

Do we have laws against severe alcoholics (women) having children, or those with genetic disabilities, or crack addicts?

If not, why not?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a good idea for brothers and sisters having kids together, but if we're going to "ban" them from doing so, wouldn't we have to ban various other people having kids too?

W · 4 Jul 2003, 10:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Radical Edward
this would then be reliant on demonstrating that the parents had recessive allele diseases, and also it would forbid anyone with any hereditary illness from breeding. Eugenics in other words. you would have to be so explicit about it that wou would more or less have to say "you can have sex with siblings etc but you can't have children with them"

So? The law already meddles with peoples sex lives, why can't it be more explicit if that creates more freedom?

Radical Edward · 4 Jul 2003, 10:29

I am not saying there is anything right or wrong in it, I am just saying that you would have to be explicit. There are probably other points I could make, but I have other things to do now rather than think about the ins and outs of incest.

Radical Edward · 4 Jul 2003, 10:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a good idea for brothers and sisters having kids together, but if we're going to "ban" them from doing so, wouldn't we have to ban various other people having kids too?

I wasn't suggesting it as an option, merely as something else to consider when addressing W's point.

MrL_JaKiri · 4 Jul 2003, 10:51

Quote:

Originally posted by roadrunner_0
now, there is a good irish blood joke in there somewhere, but i dont think i am brave enough to insult a mod

[edit]

Who needs eugenics when you have me?

Radical Edward · 4 Jul 2003, 10:52

so long as they keep it in the family, I have no opinion on the matter.

Deffeh · 4 Jul 2003, 12:33

I dont think incestuous couples should be allowed to reproduce.

I personally find the thought horrid, but i think the way soceity deals with it is ok. If incest was legal, fathers could not "rape", but "mentally ready" their little daughters into sleeping with them. They look up to their dads, if it was legal and accepted, why wouldnt they sleep with them, when it might not be what they truly wanted?

Legalising incest gives birth to an abuse of power. Not to mention the fact that every family social event would be ****ing awkward if you have two people of the same age, eg cousins.