Support NeoGAF

[scosher]

Apparently I misread his post, but (and this coming from a queer who is not particularly interested in incestuous relations), the comparison to homosexuality stands. Biology has put a block on Incestuous behavior in a similar way to how it puts a block on homosexual behavior. The majority are not inclined to it in either case. In some fraction of the population, for whatever reason, sexual development is different and they become inclined towards sexual behavior that isn't appealing to the majority. In both cases you can read the fact of their difference as evidence of pathology, but in both cases you'd simply be using an impoverished naturalistic morality in order to put a fig leaf over your unjustified taboos.

Incest may be more profitably compared to bisexuality, in that, so far as I am aware, the socially discouraged attraction is not exclusive. And we do not limit our activism for queer rights to only exclusive homosexuals, and for good reason.

I think you're misunderstanding the "Westermarck Effect" theory. It's not really a biological block. It's a psychological block that's developed during early childhood. If you were separated from your sibling at birth and reunited later, that block would have never formed and such people were documented to have struggled to reconcile their sudden sexual attraction. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, two kids who are not blood-related but are raised in the same foster home (ie. one adopted) from ages 1 through 6, have shown the same psychological blocks and aversion to any sexual relations toward each other that normal siblings would have.

It's only biological in the sense that all (or most) humans develop this psychological block during early childhood development, possibly as evolution's way of preventing inbreeding and diversifying the gene pool. Unless you're saying homosexuality or sexual orientation is something that's developed from an early age, rather than being born with, it's not similar at all.

I think you're looking at this as is if the "psychological block" was placed on us solely because of society's mores today. But studies of past human societies and civilizations show that nearly all human societies in history, even when isolated and independent, still placed a strong taboo against incest within the nuclear family, especially parent-child.

Of course, this could all just be a load of bull as I'm not even sure if the Westermarck Effect is accepted fully by psychologists.

I think the GAF defense force that's surrounding this though are looking at it from the wrong angle -- like "who am I to judge how two consenting adults act?" or "I wonder how I would act if my mother looked like Sofia Vergara or my sister like Lacey Chabert." They're looking at it from outside-in, without that psychological block that makes incest seem so disgusting and abhorrent when viewing our own parents and siblings. Then again, who knows? Maybe if your mother was Lisa Ann or your sister was Kate Upton, that "psychological block" starts crumbling down at the onset of puberty.

 

[Socreges]

Apparently I misread his post, but (and this coming from a queer who is not particularly interested in incestuous relations), the comparison to homosexuality stands. Biology has put a block on Incestuous behavior in a similar way to how it puts a block on homosexual behavior. The majority are not inclined to it in either case. In some fraction of the population, for whatever reason, sexual development is different and they become inclined towards sexual behavior that isn't appealing to the majority. In both cases you can read the fact of their difference as evidence of pathology, but in both cases you'd simply be using an impoverished naturalistic morality in order to put a fig leaf over your unjustified taboos.

Incest may be more profitably compared to bisexuality, in that, so far as I am aware, the socially discouraged attraction is not exclusive. And we do not limit our activism for queer rights to only exclusive homosexuals, and for good reason.

The comparison only stands if you choose to interpret/frame the two in a limited way, as I feel you've done, by reducing it to a majority/minority distinction and ignoring other elements. As scoshed has explained (and as I explained before), they are different in other important ways.

Bisexuality is a better comparison, for sure. Yet it's still distinct for the first reason that I mentioned (and scoshed elaborated on).

Also both you and Deified have said that you are "not particularly interested" in incestuous relations. So that means you'd still be interested? This isn't meant as an ad hominem.

Normally this wouldn't even be a subject I'd think about, but I recently read a book dealing with this issue that changed my perspective. Forbidden by Tabitha Suzuma deals with this exact issue of two "adults" (teenagers, in this case) who are brother and sister and have fallen in love. I'll recommend it on the grounds that it's a beautifully-written novel, but if the idea of sibling incest absolutely repulses you and your mind will never be changed, there's no reason for you to like it. I also won't recommend it if you don't like sad books. I didn't want to like the book, I didn't even want to read it at first. But curiosity won in the end, and I wasn't disappointed. It made me wonder, is it really so wrong?

This jumped out at me. Why would you actively seek out and read an entire book on a subject that "normally you wouldn't even think about" and you "didn't even want to read". Methinks you doth protest too much.

Btw, a quick google search yielded the studies below that demonstrate a correlation between dysfunctional family environments and incest (sibling) relations. I hope we can all agree that parent-child incest relations are a priori fucked up.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014521348790038X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014521349500040F
http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/10/2/195.short

 

[beril]

Personally I think the taboo against it is a bit exaggerated

The comparisons with homosexuality works to some extent. You can't use social taboo, psycological effects or biology to condemn it without also condemning the gay community. Yes it's bad for the genepool and yes there may be natural phenomenons to prevent this behaviour. But being gay also significantly lowers ones chances of successfully passing on ones genes, and the majority does not get sexually attracted to people of the same sex, and it has been forbidden thoughout most of history.

Incest isn't a sexual orientation though. There may be people who don't have the same psychological blocks against it as most people, but I don't think there is a condition where people are exlusively attracted to their family members, so keeping it forbidden isn't really very discriminating either.

I'm not sure exactly how serious the effects of inbreeding are on the offspring, and somehow I doubt there exists a lot of modern studies on it, because I just can't imagine where they'd get the data. It should probably be avoided, but do we know if it's any worse than a lot of other perfectly legal things.

 

[Escape Goat]

Until we start locking women up for smoking or doing drugs while pregnant how can people use the "it harms the baby" argument? I'm not saying I want people to have incestuous babies but I think its just a front for their real problem which is the brother sister having sex.

 

[dojokun]

Coercive incestuous relations are wrong because they are coercive, not because they are incestuous. Abusive incestuous relations are wrong because they are abusive, not because they are incestuous. Predatory incestuous relations in general are wrong because they are predatory, not because they are incestuous.

We already have laws against rape, sexual harassment, abuse, etc. No need to ban incest itself. Those of us without incestuous desire complexes can live and let live.

And I agree with posters like Teh Hamburlglar that the allowance of pregnant women to smoke and drink proves that baby-harming isn't the real problem people have with incest.

 

[FairyD]

I don't know how I missed this thread, but I would bone a hot cousin.

 

[Despera]

Isn't this thread a rinse and repeat of the the huge incest one from way back???

Which one? Would like to see if GAF approved of incest back then like it does now.

 

[Like the hat?]

I don't care who people fuck as long as it's between two adults, 100% consensual, safe, and nobody is getting hurt. However, don't be surprised if people don't like it.

 

[Binabik15]

Argument 2 is weak. If one wants to do everything to avoid genetic problems in their offspring (and that offspring's offspring) having children with direct relations is a bad idea. .

I don`t like this argument for the criminalisation of incest, but it`s used in many of the countries where incest is ilegal.

It´s so slippery sloping into "should disabled people with genetic defects be allowed to have babies or even sex" territory and eugenics and shit that it makes my skin crawl as a German. Baaad experiences where had with this line of thinking.

Incest shouldn`t be legal (as in: let them marry and get tax deductions and all), since it REALLY complicates things, but people sure as hell shouldn`t go to jail for it.

Damning people before they're born is rightfully a taboo

People with certain disabilities or couples with rare gentic matches will have a much higher chance of getting malformed, dead or intelligence reduced children than incestuous couples, depending on what they have, yet I`m 100% behind them getting kids if they are willing to care for their offspring to their full capabilities, but that should be mandatory for all parents.

 

[meijiko]

This jumped out at me. Why would you actively seek out and read an entire book on a subject that "normally you wouldn't even think about" and you "didn't even want to read". Methinks you doth protest too much.

I wasn't actively seeking. It was recommended to me on the grounds that it was a well-written and thought-provoking book. My initial response to the recommendation was to walk away, but the controversial subject paired with the good reviews eventually intrigued me enough to read it. I told myself I probably wouldn't like it, and I was surprised to find it evoking an emotional response from me that wasn't repulsion. If anything it says less about me and my predispositions towards incest and more of the power of good storytelling.

 

[Socreges]

I'm not sure exactly how serious the effects of inbreeding are on the offspring, and somehow I doubt there exists a lot of modern studies on it, because I just can't imagine where they'd get the data. It should probably be avoided, but do we know if it's any worse than a lot of other perfectly legal things.

Genetic defects occur in something like 30-40% of cases and the results are not good.

I wasn't actively seeking. It was recommended to me on the grounds that it was a well-written and thought-provoking book. My initial response to the recommendation was to walk away, but the controversial subject paired with the good reviews eventually intrigued me enough to read it. I told myself I probably wouldn't like it, and I was surprised to find it evoking an emotional response from me that wasn't repulsion. If anything it says less about me and my predispositions towards incest and more of the power of good storytelling.

Fair enough.

Interestingly, the book's premise is that the family suffers from dysfunction and that the relationship is a result of that. It's almost like it's impossible to tell such a story without having to give that kind of rationale.

 

[Devolution]

I don`t like this argument for the criminalisation of incest, but it`s used in many of the countries where incest is ilegal.

It´s so slippery sloping into "should disabled people with genetic defects be allowed to have babies or even sex" territory and eugenics and shit that it makes my skin crawl as a German. Baaad experiences where had with this line of thinking.

Incest shouldn`t be legal (as in: let them marry and get tax deductions and all), since it REALLY complicates things, but people sure as hell shouldn`t go to jail for it.



People with certain disabilities or couples with rare gentic matches will have a much higher chance of getting malformed, dead or intelligence reduced children than incestuous couples, depending on what they have, yet I`m 100% behind them getting kids if they are willing to care for their offspring to their full capabilities, but that should be mandatory for all parents.

You should read the whole thread I already went down this road.

 

[Famassu]

There's a reason why there's a behaviour for offsprings (both sexes or just female or male) of a lot of animal species to often not staying with the same pack or to leave their parents and find a new pack or environment to live in, that same reason applies to why incest is "wrong" with humans too. The genetic diseases becoming more common is NOT a weak argument at all, it's a very strong one. Even NOW, when people don't usually have children with their immediate relatives, there are a lot of heritage diseases common in certain parts of the world that have become common even when the couples haven't been too close relatives.

Now imagine if incest was made legal and it perhaps became a lot more common in due time. The situation would be even worse. We would basically be in equally shitty a situation as a lot of dog races, where they all have so many genetic diseases since there's been no(t enough) control of keeping the family lines as separate as possible. It's simply asking for trouble, in the long run.

 

[meijiko]

Interestingly, the book's premise is that the family suffers from dysfunction and that the relationship is a result of that. It's almost like it's impossible to tell such a story without having to give that kind of rationale.

Yeah, in the book the siblings actually reason that if they didn't have such a fucked up life, they probably wouldn't have been attracted to each other in the first place. Essentially taking the role of parents to their three younger siblings probably didn't help, either. They were still missing that initial familial bond, though, for some reason.

 

[scosher]

Coercive incestuous relations are wrong because they are coercive, not because they are incestuous. Abusive incestuous relations are wrong because they are abusive, not because they are incestuous. Predatory incestuous relations in general are wrong because they are predatory, not because they are incestuous.

We already have laws against rape, sexual harassment, abuse, etc. No need to ban incest itself. Those of us without incestuous desire complexes can live and let live.

And I agree with posters like Teh Hamburlglar that the allowance of pregnant women to smoke and drink proves that baby-harming isn't the real problem people have with incest.

Except it's not that simple.

There's a much stronger implication of coercion in incestuous relationships, especially parent-child, than say homosexual relationships. It would actually be more akin to laws banning teacher-student relationships, cause you're dealing with an abuse of authority. Or even statutory rape, cause despite the legal definition of the age of consent, we all know that a 16-year old is old enough to know what they're pulling their pants off for.

There's also the issue that even with incest being outright banned, the number of reported accounts of incest or incestual rape are probably a miniscule fraction of how many actually occur. Very few people will come forward to tell even their closest friend that they were raped by their father, older brother, or uncle (or mother, sister, aunt to be gender equal). And the psychological damage from any incestual relationship can be life-long, even if at the time they had consented.

If a brother and sister both overcome their psychological and societal barriers and fall truly in love with each other, and are both consenting adults, then in such a scenario, I suppose we can let bygones be bygones and let Cersei and Jaime live. So long as they don't have demon spawn like Joffrey. But I think these cases are rare. I get the sense (backed by nothing really since reported incestual relationships are rare) that most cases involve only one party who has no psychological aversion to boning his sister/brother, and coerces the other into the act.

 

[Champomade]

I'd look at you weird, but whatever.

Having kids is not okay, in my opinion, because it breaks one of the rules I believe that people should follow in general:

If everybody (or a majority of people) did this would society be hindered by it?

The answer to this rule, for incest, is yes, society would be hindered by it. If they're not going to have kids, then whatever, they're not hurting anybody (except possibly eachother).

Isn't it even worse for homosexuality?

 

[dojokun]

Except it's not that simple.

There's a much stronger implication of coercion in incestuous relationships, especially parent-child, than say homosexual relationships. It would actually be more akin to laws banning teacher-student relationships, cause you're dealing with an abuse of authority. Or even statutory rape, cause despite the legal definition of the age of consent, we all know that a 16-year old is old enough to know what they're pulling their pants off for.

There's also the issue that even with incest being outright banned, the number of reported accounts of incest or incestual rape are probably a miniscule fraction of how many actually occur. Very few people will come forward to tell even their closest friend that they were raped by their father, older brother, or uncle (or mother, sister, aunt to be gender equal). And the psychological damage from any incestual relationship can be life-long, even if at the time they had consented.

If a brother and sister both overcome their psychological and societal barriers and fall truly in love with each other, and are both consenting adults, then in such a scenario, I suppose we can let bygones be bygones and let Cersei and Jaime live. So long as they don't have demon spawn like Joffrey. But I think these cases are rare. I get the sense (backed by nothing really since reported incestual relationships are rare) that most cases involve only one party who has no psychological aversion to boning his sister/brother, and coerces the other into the act.

You're assuming it's parent-child. Not all incest is like that. Like I said, abusive relationships are already illegal so if a dad fucked his daughter and she wasn't happy with it, there's abuse laws in place for that.

You didn't say anything to dispute my post.

 

[tiff]

The genetic diseases becoming more common is NOT a weak argument at all, it's a very strong one.

There's a strong argument for eugenics in general. I don't think anyone would argue that we shouldn't try to minimize the number of inheritable diseases we pass on to future generations, the issue is how far we're willing to go to do that. How many rights we're willing the step on.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Arguing in opposition to incestuous relations on the basis of genetically abnormal offspring is to imply the motive behind their sexual pleasure to be reproduction. Obviously this is not true

 

[stufte]

Meh. If consenting adult siblings/cousins/etc. wanna bone. who gives a shit.

 

[Odrion]

It's been stated before, but in the interest of a thread bump I'll say it again: an animal cannot consent.

"Consent". Dude, it's in the title of the thread.

You should read the posts beyond the thread title.

/ironic mode ON
yeah... They look mentally healthy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqGLLU9ES90
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/v...mber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
...
/ironic mode OFF

Yeah, they're fucking weird.

I like this youtube quote:

They are not in love. These two people have an unnatrual attachment. I mean, they 'fell in love' after their mother died. Patrick had a hard life, being raised in Foster Care kinda sucks. Then after finally meeting up with his Mom, she dies. And theirs only one person left that Patrick uses possibly after becoming very depressed. And Susan was like 15, she was vulnerable and young, she saw her brothers attachment as affection and didn't realize that he needed help. This isn't love.

Go show me some examples of a mentally healthy individual that engaged in a incestuous relationship (that was healthy) with their siblings or parents. Not some person's anecdotal experience either.

 

[dude]

I remember when we had this thread about a guy having a child (through a donated sperm and egg) with his grandmother and being flamed to hell for defending their right to do so. A mod even changed the title to reflect the a small group of us thought consenting adult might pursue their own happiness as they see fit (It went something a long the lines of "GAF has a incest defense force, kthx bye".)

I didn't read this whole thread, but I'm glad GAF seems a tad more reasonable now.

 

[Javaman]

I remember when we had this thread about a guy having a child (through a donated sperm and egg) with his grandmother and being flamed to hell for defending their right to do so. A mod even changed the title to reflect the a small group of us thought consenting adult might pursue their own happiness as they see fit (It went something a long the lines of "GAF has a incest defense force, kthx bye".)

I didn't read this whole thread, but I'm glad GAF seems a tad more reasonable now.

it's all cool now that it's on Game of Thrones.

 

[Bad7667]

This jumped out at me. Why would you actively seek out and read an entire book on a subject that "normally you wouldn't even think about" and you "didn't even want to read". Methinks you doth protest too much.

You don't read books that are in direct contrast to what you may believe or feel? I am a atheist but I read books written by evangelicals ( well try to any way).

I don't think reading something you may inherently disagree with is suspicious.

 

[Plywood]

Someone has been watching Game of Thrones.

This thread:

Targaryen's did it first.

 

[Socreges]

You don't read books that are in direct contrast to what you may believe or feel? I am a atheist but I read books written by evangelicals ( well try to any way).

I don't think reading something you may inherently disagree with is suspicious.

Buh??

I wasn't talking about reading something in opposition to what you believe. I was talking about reading something on subject that you don't think about (I suspect, as an atheist, you think about religion) or didn't even want to read about (I suspect you read about evangelicals because you wanted to). Those points were even in "quotations", so I'm surprised that you could manage to get confused.

 

[Twilight Gap]

I'm okay with incest, as long as the couple doesn't reproduce together.

real talk, if i had a nice sister who wanted to hit close to home i'd be down. social dating is unnecessarily cruel and unforgiving, especially as i get older and have to come to terms with the person i would likely end up with having banged a dozen dudes beforehand. And after finding said person, they can disappear at any time for the dumbest reasons. With a sis you don't have that weighing over your head, nor do you have to scramble for a secluded area to bone when you have instant access to bedrooms under the comfort of your own home.

unfortunately this wont make it much further than fleeting fantasies.

 

[terrisus]

real talk, if i had a nice sister who wanted to hit close to home i'd be down. social dating is unnecessarily cruel and unforgiving, especially as i get older and have to come to terms with the person i would likely end up with having banged a dozen dudes beforehand. And after finding said person, they can disappear at any time for the dumbest reasons. With a sis you don't have that weighing over your head, nor do you have to scramble for a secluded area to bone when you have instant access to closed rooms under the comfort of your own home.

unfortunately this wont make it much further than fleeting fantasies.

For a bump of a nearly 2-year-old thread, I definitely feel like there's more to this post than this...

 

[Booshka]

necro incest bump

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

For a bump of a nearly 2-year-old thread, I definitely feel like there's more to this post than this...

Yeah, you don't just bump 2 year old incest threads to rant like that...

 

[Twilight Gap]

For a bump of a nearly 2-year-old thread, I definitely feel like there's more to this post than this...

Holy shit, I didn't realize the thread was two years old...

I got here from this post and had assumed it was in that thread.

I suppose the damage has been done already though.

 

[biosnake20]

 

[MacNille]

Incest is bad. Necroincest is worse.

 

[Jean Valjean]

Oh, yes...

 

[SwiftDeath]

Incest in my opinion is playing roulette with the genetic gene pool. Close breeding even within an extended family can lead to some really bad genetic conditions. Just look at the royal family's in the past.

Nature values diversity, not sameness*

*Unless you're a worm apparently ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

Edit: Didn't even realize I was responding to a 2 year old thread

 

[Danneee]

How is a pregnant woman driving a car something that should be avoided like smoking or drinking? Dumbest thing I've read this week.

Edit: even if it was written two years ago. Sigh..

 

[BlackSalad]

Incest is bad. Necroincest is worse.

Which begs the question, is she still your sister if she's dead?

 

[H.Protagonist]

real talk, if i had a nice sister who wanted to hit close to home i'd be down. social dating is unnecessarily cruel and unforgiving, especially as i get older and have to come to terms with the person i would likely end up with having banged a dozen dudes beforehand. And after finding said person, they can disappear at any time for the dumbest reasons. With a sis you don't have that weighing over your head, nor do you have to scramble for a secluded area to bone when you have instant access to bedrooms under the comfort of your own home.

unfortunately this wont make it much further than fleeting fantasies.

I don't know what I find weirder: you preferring to bang a sister over anyone else, or that you think a sister wouldn't also have or want to bang a couple of dudes and/or also leave for the 'dumbest of reasons'. The cardboard cut-out woman is probably the more unrealistic part of your fantasy here.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

real talk, if i had a nice sister who wanted to hit close to home i'd be down. social dating is unnecessarily cruel and unforgiving, especially as i get older and have to come to terms with the person i would likely end up with having banged a dozen dudes beforehand. And after finding said person, they can disappear at any time for the dumbest reasons. With a sis you don't have that weighing over your head, nor do you have to scramble for a secluded area to bone when you have instant access to bedrooms under the comfort of your own home.

unfortunately this wont make it much further than fleeting fantasies.

Um. I feel like there's more to this story.

 

[Oersted]

Arguing in opposition to incestuous relations on the basis of genetically abnormal offspring is to imply the motive behind their sexual pleasure to be reproduction. Obviously this is not true

And on top of that, we would have to forbid disabled people to have sex.

 

[Mdot]

Wow, this isn't something I was expecting to see pop up on Gaf today.

 

[zeemumu]

The cardboard cut-out woman is probably the more unrealistic part of your fantasy here.

Just seemed too weird to not point out.

 

[TCRS]

Wow, this isn't something I was expecting to see pop up on Gaf today.

instant sunday evening entertainment.

 

[John Kowalski]

like yesterday i was talking with my mother about how she probably shouldn't expect any grandchildren, and she was like "well guess i'll have to take care of that myself then"

ten showers have not been enough to clean that off of me

 

[Deaf Spacker]

And on top of that, we would have to forbid disabled people to have sex.

No, just no.

Not all disabilities are hereditary.

I'm not sure if you were being serious but this is a common misconception.

 

[Twilight Gap]

I don't know what I find weirder: you preferring to bang a sister over anyone else, or that you think a sister wouldn't also have or want to bang a couple of dudes and/or also leave for the 'dumbest of reasons'. The cardboard cut-out woman is probably the more unrealistic part of your fantasy here.

I'm not opposed to letting romantic feelings for a woman develop even if they're a member of the same family (blood or otherwise). My point was more directed towards a person who is a total stranger becoming a total stranger again after a break up. For the relationships I invested so heavily in, it just isn't an attractive eventuality.

Um. I feel like there's more to this story.

Perhaps in another lifetime.

 

[Mondy]

like yesterday i was talking with my mother about how she probably shouldn't expect any grandchildren, and she was like "well guess i'll have to take care of that myself then"

ten showers have not been enough to clean that off of me

 

[Sorian]

I was thinking whatever post rezzed this thread had to be really good. I guess I'm not completely disappointed. Have you had sex with your sister necro bumping wizard?

 

[ronito]

Wait. Did someone just bump a 2 year old thread just to say he'd prefer to bang his sister?

 

[pants]

@zoba thanks for bumping this