Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by MystiqueBeauty16 at 9:14 pm on Dec. 26, 2008 What are your thoughts on incest? I've been seeing a lot of topics about it lately, so I decided to make my own. Some people think incest is only wrong to us because society tells us it is supposed to be. Others disagree and argue that incest is wrong in any case; close blood relations should not be shared together due to possible mental health repercussions and birth defects if a baby was to be born. All in all, what are your thoughts on incest? Are you with it, against it, or neutral towards it, and why? Please, no, "Because it's disgusting," replies. I'm aware many of you think it's disgusting, but that wasn't my question. Give me a real reason and explain yourself as thoroughly as possible. -- Posted by gnr90 at 9:18 pm on Dec. 26, 2008 I am neutral on the matter. One thing I don't understand is, why do people say "You don't have the right to tell someone who to love or who not to love." when asked about homosexuality. Yet the first time you say "incest", they are saying "No. It is not natural, it is not right." Well, a hundred years ago, homosexuality was not seen as natural or right...I think people should just let it go... -- Posted by savannaaa at 9:23 pm on Dec. 26, 2008 Hm, I don't think that it's COMPLETELY wrong. I try to see it in the open-minded way... I don't think that family members are totally incapable of feeling different emotions for each other.  But what about those rare cases when they didn't know they were related? I mean, you'd have no idea. It's not like you meet your long lost brother and KNOW he's your brother. The only reason why I see it as wrong is because I think of what if they have a baby. It's horrible that they bring a child into this world that is bound to have complications. I think adoption should be there answer if they want to have a family. I'm pretty neutral. I don't think it's disgusting. Love is love. But it's selfish if they decide to conceive, in my opinion. :\ -- Posted by Blackadder at 6:43 am on Dec. 27, 2008 As the old saying goes; "the devil is in the detail" In principle I'll not against it at all.  I find the genetic arguement both weak and insufficient,  since we would still claim a couple (bro+sis) unable to have children (both 60yrs +, for example) are "sick".... and just as "sick" as another couple of siblings trying for children.     -- Posted by Twist3dHop3s at 10:30 am on Dec. 27, 2008 i dont agree with it. but if there was only adam and eve, how else would the world be populated. but i still stick to societies trend on this topic. -- Posted by Colleen35 at 1:37 pm on Dec. 27, 2008 I think incest is a poor choice due to the possible health repercussions, and I feel like it's wrong, because the sort of deep connection you have top someone in your family should preclude erotic love.  I can honestly say that the relationship I have with my best friend is like this, since she's acted as a sort of a surrogate mother/big sister for me.  I won't be stopping people who try it, as long as they understand the risks they're taking with pregnancy, but it's just not something I could live with. Quote: from gnr90 at 9:18 pm on Dec. 26, 2008 Well, a hundred years ago, homosexuality was not seen as natural or right... If by a hundred years ago, you mean now, then yes.  Have you heard some of the crazy conservative folk recently? -- Posted by Blackadder at 3:32 pm on Dec. 27, 2008 Quote: from Colleen35 at 9:37 pm on Dec. 27, 2008 I think incest is a poor choice due to the possible health repercussions, and I feel like it's wrong, because the sort of deep connection you have top someone in your family should preclude erotic love. I can honestly say that the relationship I have with my best friend is like this, since she's acted as a sort of a surrogate mother/big sister for me. I won't be stopping people who try it, as long as they understand the risks they're taking with pregnancy, but it's just not something I could live with. Consider a pair of siblings who cannot have children. -- there is then, no health repussions or risk of pregnancy.... ...does your opinion on incest change? if yes, then what you find disturbing is not the health implications, your objections are of a different nature. if your mind does not change, then would the thought that the health issues would not be that seroius? ...there is, in actuality quite a good chance that child would live a normal healthy life (particually considering the potency of modern medicine)   -- Posted by Colleen35 at 11:47 pm on Dec. 27, 2008 Quote: from Blackadder at 3:32 pm on Dec. 27, 2008   Consider a pair of siblings who cannot have children. -- there is then, no health repussions or risk of pregnancy.... ...does your opinion on incest change?   if yes, then what you find disturbing is not the health implications, your objections are of a different nature.   if your mind does not change, then would the thought that the health issues would not be that seroius? ...there is, in actuality quite a good chance that child would live a normal healthy life (particually considering the potency of modern medicine) Like I said, I'm not out to stop people who accept the health risks. or somehow circumvent them, it's not my place to say.  I just would be uncomfortable with it from personal experience.  To me, a certain level of relationship with someone precludes an erotic relationship with that person, and I feel like siblings generally have such a relationship. -- Posted by Explosion990 at 1:01 am on Dec. 28, 2008 There is a passage in the bible, of which the name escapes me, detailing 2 young woman sleeping with their drunken father in an effort to preserve their family line. Now, the casualness of which this passage is written suggests that actions such as these were perhaps commonly accepted back in the early stages of civilization. Yet, when mentioned today, incest is met with disdain and disgust. Why is this? I believe this is because as civilization has reached its most populous time in history, incest has no longer become a necessity for the survival of our species. Since humans now have a wide variety of potential mates available before them, we now have the chance to view incest from a different point of view. Now, a notion has been passed down in our genes from generation to generation which brings us the belief that becoming the lover of someone with whom you share blood is an extremely vile act. I too share this belief. Whether morally right or wrong remains a moot point, as it has now grown into a taboo act looked down upon by society. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 6:05 am on Dec. 28, 2008 Quote: from Explosion990 at 4:01 am on Dec. 28, 2008 There is a passage in the bible, of which the name escapes me, detailing 2 young woman sleeping with their drunken father in an effort to preserve their family line. Now, the casualness of which this passage is written suggests that actions such as these were perhaps commonly accepted back in the early stages of civilization. Yet, when mentioned today, incest is met with disdain and disgust. Why is this? I believe this is because as civilization has reached its most populous time in history, incest has no longer become a necessity for the survival of our species. Since humans now have a wide variety of potential mates available before them, we now have the chance to view incest from a different point of view. Now, a notion has been passed down in our genes from generation to generation which brings us the belief that becoming the lover of someone with whom you share blood is an extremely vile act. I too share this belief. Whether morally right or wrong remains a moot point, as it has now grown into a taboo act looked down upon by society. Just out of curiosity, do you have the reference for that? It sounds like you're talking about Lot's daughters, and they got a pretty strong reprimand for doing that. -- Posted by gro at 2:12 am on Dec. 30, 2008 Incest is the closest thing to a universal taboo that we have, even in societies of antiquity.  The degree of relation that is acceptable varies between societies (e.g., there are some that accept sister/brother relationships that still have taboos against mother/son relationships,) but there is universally some taboo against it.   Personal objection against it = it typically perverts relationships of authority. believe this is because as civilization has reached its most populous time in history, incest has no longer become a necessity for the survival of our species.   You smoked way too much fucking crack. -- Posted by Colleen35 at 2:10 pm on Dec. 30, 2008 My issues with it are mostly the genetic difficulties that can present when there's incestuous procreation; but if people are knowledgeable about that, then I'm in no position to stop them. To be honest, though, I don't think proper erotic feelings are possible for people you have a close enough relationship to (such as those you are raised with).  I believe that at a certain point, philia precludes eros. -- Posted by sakurag at 8:26 am on Dec. 31, 2008 I make no real stand on this issue, I believe it can be problematic if you are in any society which does not accept it.  Regardless of the reasons.. However, the genetic or health issues seem rather as a small 'against' for this case.  Is incest a full relationship with a related person or is it sex with them?  Because, the last time I checked, most people were not having sex to reproduce.  We have sex because we like it.  Occasionally someone has sex for a child or accidentally has a child, but I'm sure in most cases of incest, no children are hoped to come out of it.  People (related or not) usually have sex to have sex. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 7:04 pm on Jan. 1, 2009 Interestingly, I read somewhere on Yahoo this week that people are biologically designed so that while faces that are similar to ours stimulate feelings of affection, they do not stimulate feelings of sexual desire. Why this is the case biologically, I really can't say...perhaps it's God's/nature's way of ensuring biological diversity. My personal stance is that if you're not procreating and it's consensual, I don't really care. I don't want to hear about it or think about it, so please do keep it to yourself, but I don't really care what you do behind closed doors. -- Posted by Charolastra at 2:58 am on Jan. 2, 2009 incest for the purpose of procreating is "wrong". incest out of rape/power struggle is wrong. incest by consenting members of a family, without the purpose of procreating... well shit, i couldn't give less of a fuck if you wanna touch your sister, that's your own damn business... who am i to try and stop you? -- Posted by Monroe at 4:42 pm on Jan. 2, 2009 I think it is disgusting, honestly. I could never see myself wanting to have any sort of sexual relationship with anyone in my family. How could a sister and brother want to have sexual relations? I mean, you came from the same womb, the same genes, everything. It kind of baffles me... -- Posted by SpM at 12:12 pm on Jan. 3, 2009 Sex between two consenting adults is no one's business but their own. That incest should be illegal in this day and age is an absurd and hypocritical infringement upon basic human rights. Any merit to the genetic argument - that people should be prevented from pro-creating if their children will likely have birth defects - is vastly outweighed by the negative social consequences of legally enforced eugenics. The logical extension of such a policy would be universal genetic testing, and licenses to breed (although of course, in practice, people simply resort to a shameless double standard). The only other argument that I have come across is "ew, that's disgusting". I find this too breathtakingly immature to warrant much of a rebuttal, so I shall simply point out that awarding or denying basic rights based upon the personal preferences and prejudices of the majority has resulted in an appalling level of institutionalised racism, homophobia and sexism. The distinction between democracy and mob rule has always lain in the inalienable basic rights and protection of minorities that characterise the former system. Whether or not one is a member of the minority that wises to practice incest is irrelevant. The personal freedom that is being infringed upon belongs, in principal, to all citizens. -- Posted by smartlake at 12:44 am on Jan. 5, 2009 My personal morals say that incest is wrong, but who am I to suggest that my morals be imposed on everyone else.  I am a pretty ardent supporter of gay marriage, yet a lot of people aren't.  I don't let their morals dictate what I think, so I can't expect the same for time.  So, if the incest is....consensual....well, it is none of my damned business. -- Posted by smartlake at 12:45 am on Jan. 5, 2009 Quote: from crimeinstereo at 4:42 pm on Jan. 2, 2009 I think it is disgusting, honestly. I could never see myself wanting to have any sort of sexual relationship with anyone in my family. How could a sister and brother want to have sexual relations? I mean, you came from the same womb, the same genes, everything. It kind of baffles me... Believe it or not, but a lot of people think the same about gay marriage (perhaps you do, too, I dunno).  I agree that it is, but if they want to do it, that is their business. -- Posted by nikki at 4:40 am on Jan. 5, 2009 It's not our business to say whether it's wrong or not. I recently read somewhere that scientists had proven a baby produced between first cousins to have the same risk of genetic defects as one produced by a mother over the age of 40. So, if that's the argument people are taking, it's disgustingly weak. We wouldn't go out there and stop 40 year old's having sex because their children might have genetic defects, so why do we do it in cases of incest? Whilst I would never engage in incest myself, I don't see that it is our place to object when the parties involved are consensual adults who have chosen to do what they do. -- Posted by sophos at 5:37 am on Jan. 5, 2009 Live and let live; although one must be pretty desperate to have to dip into the immediate gene pool. -- Posted by omnifariam at 5:18 pm on Jan. 8, 2009 Great test drive subjects. But not for life partnerships. -- Posted by medjai at 7:21 pm on Jan. 9, 2009 If you and yours are erotically inclined then by all means go for it, just be safe about it and take the necessary health precautions. I don't really get turned on by anyone designated as a 'sibling' in my family, probably because of how I was raised, I don't even get sexual feelings towards my step sister, or my cousins, etc. To each their own though, really. -- Posted by Bearsy at 8:01 pm on Jan. 19, 2009 the guy in the bible was Lot.    * As a certified LiveWire Intellectual you are indubitably capable of composing a more verbose post! -- Posted by roflfuckyou at 12:59 am on Jan. 20, 2009 In all honesty I couldn't care less if two people of the same family decide to have sexual relations. At the end of the day if it is two consenting adults then what does it really matter? I think reproducing is a little wrong, but it doesn't necessarily form 'demented' or 'retarded' children, which is what most people think. It just improves the chances of some sort of dormant gene in your blood line becoming dominant in your children. But if you wish to have children, then each to their own. Go for it, who am I to say it's wrong? People need to mind their own business sometimes I think. -- Posted by ATTI at 5:56 pm on Jan. 22, 2009 It doesn't bother me - obviously, as my boyfriend is also a cousin of some sort (second cousin or first once removed - something like that). We're consenting adults - we're not hurting anyone else and the relationship actually predates the knowledge that we're related, though it didn't come as a surprise. Obviously we can't have children, so that's not even in the equation. We're just two people that fell in love; it's not because of or in spite of the fact that we're cousins. What people do in their own homes isn't my business as long as it isn't hurting me directly or hurting society at large. -- Posted by Seafercat at 11:01 pm on Jan. 24, 2009 incest doesn't bother me -- the only problem i have at all with it would be pregnancy and/or abuse. -- Posted by Takinam at 2:14 am on Jan. 25, 2009 Quote: from sophos at 5:37 am on Jan. 5, 2009 Live and let live; although one must be pretty desperate to have to dip into the immediate gene pool. You're the fucking man. XD. -- Posted by imatwirp at 7:02 pm on Mar. 1, 2009 Well this topic I am two sided. I am against it because family is family, and you can always mess up so badly that you never can have a family relationship with that person again. Its like breaking up with a girl or guy, you never are the same again, family should not be that way. I am also against it due to the fact that it is proven that immediate family sexual relationships can cause defects in children genetically. It screws up the coding in the DNA because they are two similar. We are not meant to be like that, Natural Selection is supposed to take place. We mix lines, we don't do the whole I'm your brother we should be together thing. Now for the other side, I don't have any negative feelings based on the fact that emotions can run deeper with family, you can become closer than any other couple. I would never have sex with a sister or mother or anything, but a cousin or something, maybe, I would give thought to it, but I would still avoid situations like that. Also, there is that whole taboo written all over it, which makes it just that more appealing to most. But think of it this way. We let our dogs and cats inbreed, so what is to say that we cant. Although, inbreeding in dogs does cause health issues. -- Posted by Tasbard at 9:49 pm on Mar. 1, 2009 It's taboo because incestuous unions hurt biological diversity and the species as a whole. Aside from my evolutionary-biological gut reaction, I've got absolutely nothing propelling me to my opposition of incest. Sorry. :/ Pages: 1 2  Next