Contraceptives...and Incest

[Shinova]

Incest is wrong today. In the future, however, that may change.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

The hell it will.

That's just fucking revolting.

[Shinova]

The hell it will.

That's just fucking revolting.

YOU think it's revolting, but that's only you out of a planet's worth of people and in this time period, not a century or two later.

A little over hundred years ago, interracial marriages were considered unthinkable. Nowdays they're common. Same can happen with incest, and in the future it may no longer be called incest.

I'm against incest, since it harms family relationships. But lately, the traditional family has been losing influence. And with that, familial relationships may change dramatically. The concept of family may cease to exist.

Point is, we live today, not a hundred or two hundred years in the future. Therefore we're in no position to assume what will change and what will stay the same.

[Jim Raynor]

Even if the traditional family is on the decline, there will always be parent-child relationships as long as people continue to raise there own children.

[Utsanomiko]

Speaking of The Flood, Jehovah let Og the Nephilim survive the flood. Ok, technincally, he survived simply because the water only came up to his knees. Then there's the story of Og sitting on top of the Ark and demanding that Noah feed him oxen.

Hot damn, I love early Judeo-Christian mythology/scripture; it's the only thing more fucking absurd than modern Christian mythology (or lack thereof, See: Fundamentalist, Cult). When I get more posts, I'm going to ask my title to be "Canaanite Deity", or somesuch thing.

[Newtonian Fury]

Morality is too messy. Just let them do it. I think it's sick, but some people get off of counter-societal activities. As long as incestual pregnancies are stopped, there really aren't any tangible problems for other people.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yeah, but all these other things (other then the sick shit and incest) have had precedents in history. More or less tolerated homosexuality in Greece, interracial marriages between nobility. Interracial/interethnic marriages between Roman soldiers and provincial wives. On the other hand, there's no precedent for wide-scale incest.

Generally, homosexuality and interracial sex has been observed in animals. Incest doesn't occur in primates in any significant percentage, I believe.

There's not much historical or biological precedent for mass-scale incest. Homosexuality and interracial sexual relationships have been with us since the dawn of civilization in significant quantities.

[Nick]

There's not much historical or biological precedent for mass-scale incest. Homosexuality and interracial sexual relationships have been with us since the dawn of civilization in significant quantities.

So we have sexual attraction to:

1. the opposite sex (heterosexuality)
2. the same sex (homosexuality)
3. close relatives (incest)
4. the dead (necrophilia)
5. animals (beastiality)
6. children (paedophilia)

(obviously there are many more possible slants to the human sex drive - dominance, submission, pain, etc, etc, etc. Humans are inventive when it comes to sex).

Now, for all of the above, there are people who will tell you it is always wrong, and others who will tell you it isn't. For each individual, the way they feel is governed by biology and the wiring they acquired while growing up. The way they act may be influenced by rational thought processes (again, depending on their biology and the way they are raised).

1. & 2. may be good (between consenting adults), but may also be unacceptable (in the form of rape).

3. As others have said, in the absebce of harm (i.e. between consenting adults), what goes on behind closed doors is nobody else's business.

4. AFAIK, the main objection to this is that, while the dead person isn't around to complain, it is hardly the most respectful way of treating the remains of someone who has passed away. So, unless the deceased is a card-carrying supporter of passive necrophilia (DAAS!), corpses are off limits out of respect for the memories of the dead, and for the friends and relatives who survive them.

5. Well, for this one I'd have to say if you aren't hurting the animal, and that's your gig. . . I honestly can't find any objective harm in it. Any ideas?

6. This one seems to kick up a few vehement reactions the world over. . . as others have said, the main problem is that it has a somewhat unpredictable, but generally negative, effect on a child's development. The adult is expected to have a bit more control over their urges, and be able to resist any temptations they may feel.
*shrug* This is actually an area where the vehemence of some people's reactions can actually make it harder to cope with - any one who was afflicted with those sorts of urges might have trouble seeking help in controlling them (out of fear of being branded a "potential child molestor"). And so, they try to deal with it without seeking help - possibly with tragic consequences.

The trick is to try and shutdown the instinctive "it's evil" reactions so that we can actually look at things objectively to try and understand the actual harm they cause, and hence the reasons for considering them to be wrong. A "but it's obvious" reaction doesn't help when it isn't obvious to someone else. . . so objective evidence for harm, please!

[Nick]

As to why the issue is not fully explained in the Bible is interesting. Oh well, back to the books.

The authors were writing for an audience that wasn't particularly skilled in the arts of literary or logical criticism?

I find explaining errors in the Bible much easier these days than I did a few years ago. . .

[Jim Raynor]

There's not much historical or biological precedent for mass-scale incest. Homosexuality and interracial sexual relationships have been with us since the dawn of civilization in significant quantities.

So we have sexual attraction to:

1. the opposite sex (heterosexuality)
2. the same sex (homosexuality)
3. close relatives (incest)
4. the dead (necrophilia)
5. animals (beastiality)
6. children (paedophilia)

(obviously there are many more possible slants to the human sex drive - dominance, submission, pain, etc, etc, etc. Humans are inventive when it comes to sex).

Now, for all of the above, there are people who will tell you it is always wrong, and others who will tell you it isn't. For each individual, the way they feel is governed by biology and the wiring they acquired while growing up. The way they act may be influenced by rational thought processes (again, depending on their biology and the way they are raised).

1. & 2. may be good (between consenting adults), but may also be unacceptable (in the form of rape).

3. As others have said, in the absebce of harm (i.e. between consenting adults), what goes on behind closed doors is nobody else's business.

4. AFAIK, the main objection to this is that, while the dead person isn't around to complain, it is hardly the most respectful way of treating the remains of someone who has passed away. So, unless the deceased is a card-carrying supporter of passive necrophilia (DAAS!), corpses are off limits out of respect for the memories of the dead, and for the friends and relatives who survive them.

5. Well, for this one I'd have to say if you aren't hurting the animal, and that's your gig. . . I honestly can't find any objective harm in it. Any ideas?

6. This one seems to kick up a few vehement reactions the world over. . . as others have said, the main problem is that it has a somewhat unpredictable, but generally negative, effect on a child's development. The adult is expected to have a bit more control over their urges, and be able to resist any temptations they may feel.
*shrug* This is actually an area where the vehemence of some people's reactions can actually make it harder to cope with - any one who was afflicted with those sorts of urges might have trouble seeking help in controlling them (out of fear of being branded a "potential child molestor"). And so, they try to deal with it without seeking help - possibly with tragic consequences.

The trick is to try and shutdown the instinctive "it's evil" reactions so that we can actually look at things objectively to try and understand the actual harm they cause, and hence the reasons for considering them to be wrong. A "but it's obvious" reaction doesn't help when it isn't obvious to someone else. . . so objective evidence for harm, please!

Okay, let me get this straight. The incest supporters here are saying incest, and other deviations perfectly ok in the absense of any victimization, and that society should cast off its negative judgement about them because it's nothing but baseless ancient taboos. But just because someone isn't victimized in the classic sense of rape doesn't mean that it should be considered normal, healthy behavior. Again, can you tell me with a straight face that someone who screws his mom or his pet dog is mentally healthy and in no need for therapy?

You cry out for getting objective evidence for harm instead of stating "obvious" that somethings wrong, but you're applying your method unevenly. You gloss over incest without mentioning the obvious mental problems that can come up when close family members have sex, yet you say that sexual relationships with children can have "a somewhat unpredictable, but generally negative, effect on a child's development." and that adults with pedophilic tendencies should be able to control their urges. Oh yeah, real objective evidence all right. Going by your reasoning, shouldn't parents control their urges for their own children, and siblings with attractions to each other learn to keep away?

Like I said before, each and every one of us has drawn lines as to what is considered ok. Not that this is exactly a bad thing. Say things as they are. Like I said before, some things are just downright messed up, and being PC about it won't change that.

[Cpt_Frank]

Going by your reasoning, shouldn't parents control their urges for their own children, and siblings with attractions to each other learn to keep away?

let me put it that way: If both partners do want it then it's ok.
However, most children who are abused don't want it.
See the difference now?

[Master of Ossus]

Going by your reasoning, shouldn't parents control their urges for their own children, and siblings with attractions to each other learn to keep away?

let me put it that way: If both partners do want it then it's ok.
However, most children who are abused don't want it.
See the difference now?

There's really no way to tell the difference, though. It's unfortunate, but most abused children don't feel confident enough in themselves to stand up for their rights. We learned all about this while I was getting my teacher credential. It's sometimes really hard to tell if someone is being abused or not, based on their reaction, or whether they're just having fun. Unfortunately, much of the time, the consequences can be psychologically disastrous for children. I think it's better safe than sorry, in regards to this issue.

[Cpt_Frank]

basically that's about what I tried to express.

[Utsanomiko]

Actually, I've heard from some studies that a major reason incest cases aren't reported is because both parties find some measure of pleasure/enjoyment (I forget the exact wording) from it, even in common stepfather-daughter cases.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, I've heard from some studies that a major reason incest cases aren't reported is because both parties find some measure of pleasure/enjoyment (I forget the exact wording) from it, even in common stepfather-daughter cases.

They do. It's really too bad, but almost invariably the child later has serious psychological trauma stemming from the experience, though usually this is not because of "recovered memories" and such.

[Cpt. Marko Ramius]

Hey if all you guys want to fuck your siblings, that's fine with me... but my sister is ugly as hell. *shivers*

Really, though, what doesn't go in the world of sexuality today? I think that Nick made some good points. (By the way, you left out bisexual... my best friend happens to be bi, that's thy I noticed.) I agree with the fact that in the future, it may not be such a taboo. I mean, I can't even find biblical reference for it. If I assume that the bible is right (which I usually do at this point), then Adam and Eve's kids HAD to commit incest for the perpetuation of the species. Same thing with Noah and the ark. So I reallly can't find any moral leg to stand on here. Now, as I said before, I'm kinda immune from this, because I have no attractive relatives that I'm currently aware of. But if someone else wants to do it... well, it's their life and not mine.

[XPViking]

Going by the Biblical account, there seems to be brief period of time in which incest was allowed in order to perpetuate the species. Once it got to a certain level, then the practice was outlawed.

XPViking

[Darth Wong]

Going by the Biblical account, there seems to be brief period of time in which incest was allowed in order to perpetuate the species. Once it got to a certain level, then the practice was outlawed.

Who gives a shit? I hate to beat a dead horse, but the Bible is of precisely zero value in determining morality (see "appeal to authority" fallacy), and its ridiculous fairy tale stories of 900-year old men and 20 foot tall Goliaths are too stupid for anyone but a brainwashed child to accept. This whole Bible/incest thing is just a red-herring sidetrack briefly taken by this thread; it has nothing whatsoever to do with its central subject.

Regarding incest, people should not confuse the concept of incest with parental violation of children, which is a particular subset of incest. Incest may seem wrong, but no one's being hurt, and if both partners are consenting adults with no implicit or explicit power relationship being used for coercive purposes, then it may strike us as deviant, but given the availability of birth-control and abortion to eliminate the possibility of inbred children, it's not immoral.

[Next of Kin]

If you want to cuddle up to your cousin then move to Shelbyville.

[Master of Ossus]

If you want to cuddle up to your cousin then move to Shelbyville.

Now let's all celebrate with some turnip juice.

Anyway, is there anyone on this seriously considering incest, because it seems like almost everyone here is just playing devil's advocate in determining the morality of this. It doesn't seem like anyone is seriously considering it.

[Master of Ossus]

given the availability of birth-control and abortion to eliminate the possibility of inbred children, it's not immoral.

Jerry Springer has taught me otherwise.

[Darth Wong]

If you want to cuddle up to your cousin then move to Shelbyville.

Now let's all celebrate with some turnip juice.

Anyway, is there anyone on this seriously considering incest, because it seems like almost everyone here is just playing devil's advocate in determining the morality of this. It doesn't seem like anyone is seriously considering it.

I guess the point is simply that there is no valid reason to declare it immoral. Doesn't mean we're going to run out and do it.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Maybe it's because I'm an only child, but if I had a hot sister, I'd want to screw her silly.

[Nick]

Really, though, what doesn't go in the world of sexuality today? I think that Nick made some good points. (By the way, you left out bisexual... my best friend happens to be bi, that's thy I noticed.)

I never meant to imply the categories were mutual exclusive

[Alyeska]

Okay, let me get this straight. The incest supporters here are saying incest, and other deviations perfectly ok in the absense of any victimization, and that society should cast off its negative judgement about them because it's nothing but baseless ancient taboos. But just because someone isn't victimized in the classic sense of rape doesn't mean that it should be considered normal, healthy behavior. Again, can you tell me with a straight face that someone who screws his mom or his pet dog is mentally healthy and in no need for therapy?

Can you tell me with a straight face that someone who has unfounded hate for something with no logical reasoning doesn't need therapy?

You seem to fail to understand that without a victim, that means people are not being hurt and therefor there is nothing wrong. You yourself just said there is not victimization. That means no mental harm either.