What do you think of incest?

[Tom]

adoption is the best choice there

[DimDito]

*cough* Game of Thrones *cough

 

I thought the human mind is designed to not be attracted to family members. I guess some abnormalities should be expected...

[silverpikachu99]

No NO NO NO NOOOOOOO! I think incest in gross and unrealistic! The only thing I can think of when looking at my siblings is that they simply are my siblings. I DO NOT WANT A RELATIONSHIP WITH MY 11 YEAR OLD BROTHER. THAT'S CREEPY AND JUST ODD.

[Flutterz]

No NO NO NO NOOOOOOO! I think incest in gross and unrealistic! The only thing I can think of when looking at my siblings is that they simply are my siblings. I DO NOT WANT A RELATIONSHIP WITH MY 11 YEAR OLD BROTHER. THAT'S CREEPY AND JUST ODD.

What if he was 16?

[Nosebleed]

What if he was 16?

I still wouldn't like my sister even if she was my age. I don't think age is a factor on wether or not you fall for your sibling.

[Flutterz]

I still wouldn't like my sister even if she was my age. I don't think age is a factor on wether or not you fall for your sibling.

I disagree - I can totally imagine someone being in love with their sibling of a similar age, who wouldn't have fallen in love if they were for example 16 and 11.

[Nosebleed]

I'd disagree - I can totally imagine someone being in love with their sibling of a similar age, who wouldn't have fallen in love if they were for example 16 and 11.

But that would mean that all siblings that are close in age could have a chance of being in a relationship, I don't think that's true.

Indeed if they are closer in age they can relate to a lot better, but if they've grown to have a brother and sister relationship that's most likely never going to change. I think it'd have to be something you develop early on. But I might be wrong, i'm not attracted to my sister after all so I wouldn't know. 

I do agree it's more likely if they were closer in age but i don't think that's the factor that would determinate it.

[Flutterz]

But that would mean that all siblings that are close in age could have a chance of being in a relationship, I don't think that's true.

Indeed if they are closer in age they can relate to a lot better, but if they've grown to have a brother and sister relationship that's most likely never going to change. I think it'd have to be something you develop early on. But I might be wrong, i'm not attracted to my sister after all so I wouldn't know. 

I do agree it's more likely if they were closer in age but i don't think that's the factor that determines it.

It's love, there's no "factor that determines it", there's a million different ones, and age is one of them.

[Nosebleed]

It's love, there's no "factor that determines it", there's a million different ones, and age is one of them.

I guess so.

In my opinion as long as they both consent I don't really care what age they are.

This discussion actually made me discover a bunch of things regarding the law here. Apparently the age of consent here is 14 so you could be in a relationship with your middle schooler sister if she consented since there are also no restrictions regarding incest.

[Flutterz]

I guess so.

In my opinion as long as they both consent I don't really care what age they are.

This discussion actually made me discover a bunch of things regarding the law here. Apparently the age of consent here is 14 so you could be in a relationship with your middle schooler sister if she consented since there are also no restrictions regarding incest.

I've known for a while that the only thing you can't do with a close blood relative in Russia is marry them, and thanks to this thread I found out that in Canada incest is punishable by up to 14 years in prison, which sort of came as a shock.

[Nosebleed]

I've known for a while that the only thing you can't do with a close blood relative in Russia is marry them, and thanks to this thread I found out that in Canada it's punishable by up to 14 years in prison, which sort of came as a shock.

I was also shocked when I found out just the practice of incest is punishable by law in some countries.

I get that marriage might be illegal since it's very controversial but sending people to jail for dating their sibling sounds extreme.

14 years of jail time is more than some convicted murderers get here. 

If you raped them, that's not okay, but if you both consent why should you go to jail.

[Flutterz]

I was also shocked when I found out just the practice of incest is punishable by law in some countries.

I get that marriage might be illegal since it's very controversial but sending people to jail for dating their sibling sounds extreme.

14 years of jail time is more than some convicted murderers get here. 

If you raped them, that's not okay, but if you both consent why should you go to jail.

Pretty much, in Russia the maximum sentence for a normal murder is 14 years or something like that.

At least Canada is consistent - murder gets you life in prison here.

[Nosebleed]

Pretty much, in Russia the maximum sentence for a normal murder is 14 years or something like that.

At least Canada is consistent - murder gets you life in prison here.

Here 25 years in jail is the most you get no matter what crime(s) you commit.

I could murder 1000 people slowly and painfully, I still would only get 25 years max. 

I think this justice system is slightly flawed. Maybe that's just me.

 

But going back on topic.

Anyone can find incest disgusting, that doesn't mean it should be illegal. As long as they're not affecting someone else's life, nothing should be wrong. This includes not having children since you'd be affecting the child's life.

Just adopt. In fact I find adoption better than having your own children. You get to choose your kid, you can skip steps in raising them (the most annoying ones like changing diapers), and you're saving a lonely human being that  lost their parents. I find whoever adopts children to be a savior.

[GKats12394]

I guess so.

In my opinion as long as they both consent I don't really care what age they are.

This discussion actually made me discover a bunch of things regarding the law here. Apparently the age of consent here is 14 so you could be in a relationship with your middle schooler sister if she consented since there are also no restrictions regarding incest.

 

Not trying to change the topic to pedophilia or anything, but this goes onto that topic sort of, in the idea that the reason sexual age limits were passed as laws is because of maturity. This day in life, kids are commonly learning about sexual education and/or are being exposed to sexual content at early ages such as 10-13 and as bad as it is, 15 years are commonly getting pregnant.

 

However, in my opinion, the law was passed to prevent kids without mature enough minds to comprehend just what they're doing sexually, from being misguided or taken advantage of. So IF a 13 year old KNOWS that having sex can lead to pregnancy, and other various sexual facts, why can't they indulge in it as well by consent?

 

Moving back to the topic of incest, I believe that the only reason people see it as wrong is because public stigma deems it so. If hundreds/thousands of years ago, people did not initially label it as wrong, who knows what we could have developed into thinking? What if some king in the old days made it allowed, or even preferred? Would society have grown in this modern day to believe it is completely acceptable? 

 

It goes hand-in-hand with homosexuality stigma. "It's not right" is just the same. No rule book anywhere states that men were meant to be with women. No where in any rule book states that brother and sister were meant to not be together.

 

In the end, it comes down to simply believing people should be able to fall in love with whomever they desire, regardless of title, rank, gender, relationship, social standing or age (within a sense of understanding. Not saying a 50 year old pedophile should be allowed to "fall in love" with a 7 year old who doesn't know what love is).

[zoom909]

"It's not right" is just the same. No rule book anywhere states that men were meant to be with women. No where in any rule book states that brother and sister were meant to not be together.

It's nature's rule book.  It's natural to have sex to...you know...reproduce viable offspring.

[Dark Ariel7]

It's nature's rule book.  It's natural to have sex to...you know...reproduce viable offspring.

Animals have incest all the time. The chances of offspring being off when having incest is higher not a certainty. Also humans don't have to follow that book. If they did I would be praised for murdering Idiots rapists and the deformed. Then they would not be able to reproduce. As it stands now even saying what I said would get be branded a monster by certain people.

 

i heard something really nice in an anime the other day.

"The rules of what is forbidden are just things decided by man"

[zoom909]

Animals have incest all the time. The chances of offspring being off when having incest is higher not a certainty. Also humans don't have to follow that book. If they did I would be praised for murdering Idiots rapists and the deformed. Then they would not be able to reproduce. As it stands now even saying what I said would get be branded a monster by certain people.

 

i heard something really nice in an anime the other day.

"The rules of what is forbidden are just things decided by man"

 

I didn't mean "what animals do", but rather, knowing what we know about how nature works, there is a natural (biological if you prefer that word) reason for rules against incest.

 

And surely you can build your philosophy of life off of something other than anime quotes.  I know I do.

[Dark Ariel7]

Does the messenger affect the message?

Should I have based if off of what some old dead guy said 500 years ago for it to be more credible?

My previous statement holds in every way. You cannot kill those who should not breed. You cannot nutter them. So why is it O.K. to say that 2 people cannot have sex just because they biologically should not? Plus there are more than enough people in the world. The human race is not close to extinction that we need to monitor birth rates. What is ti to the grand scheme of things if like 2% of the population stopped having kids and adopted instead? Because I mean does anyone think that there is a number bigger than maybe 5% of the population that will have incestuous relations just because they can? There is no biological reason to stop incest in a real like scenario.  if we were close to extinction then maybe but not now.

[Down]

 

My previous statement holds in every way. You cannot kill those who should not breed. You cannot nutter them. So why is it O.K. to say that 2 people cannot have sex just because they biologically should not? Plus there are more than enough people in the world. The human race is not close to extinction that we need to monitor birth rates. What is ti to the grand scheme of things if like 2% of the population stopped having kids and adopted instead? Because I mean does anyone think that there is a number bigger than maybe 5% of the population that will have incestuous relations just because they can? There is no biological reason to stop incest in a real like scenario.  if we were close to extinction then maybe but not now.

 

All that he means is that the biological reason exists, not that it is still valid in our contemporary society.

 

There is a reason for forbidding incest and it's that it goes against evolution, AND it increases the chances of genetic diseases. Even without the biological proof we have today, incest have been forbidden in about every society ever, which seem to implies some kind of innate consciousness of the issue (that's an argument used for claiming the existence of transcendant moral laws by some people if I'm not wrong).

 

That being said, evolution as it's been done so far no longer apply to our society, which is why I don't believe there is a reason for forbidding incest anymore at all - as I previously said.

[Soradragoon]

All that he means is that the biological reason exists, not that it is still valid in our contemporary society.

 

There is a reason for forbidding incest and it's that it goes against evolution, AND it increases the chances of genetic diseases. Even without the biological proof we have today, incest have been forbidden in about every society ever, which seem to implies some kind of innate consciousness of the issue (that's an argument used for claiming the existence of transcendant moral laws by some people if I'm not wrong).

 

That being said, evolution as it's been done so far no longer apply to our society, which is why I don't believe there is a reason for forbidding incest anymore at all - as I previously said.

Agree. From my point of view (I have an older sister) is not something that crossed my mind. I have no moral problems of any kind (if someone wants to do it do it, I see no problem) but I find it impossible to look at my sister like that. I hardly see her as a woman, much less have felt sexual attraction to her.

[Katatsumuri]

All that he means is that the biological reason exists, not that it is still valid in our contemporary society.

 

There is a reason for forbidding incest and it's that it goes against evolution, AND it increases the chances of genetic diseases. Even without the biological proof we have today, incest have been forbidden in about every society ever, which seem to implies some kind of innate consciousness of the issue (that's an argument used for claiming the existence of transcendant moral laws by some people if I'm not wrong).

 

That being said, evolution as it's been done so far no longer apply to our society, which is why I don't believe there is a reason for forbidding incest anymore at all - as I previously said.

 

I don't want derail this thread into the question of if we evolve or not (due to the fact that "winning" an argument on the internet is almost impossible), so don't reply to this, or argue about this. This is just me posting some links about evolution...

 

link 1

link 2

link 3

 

Disclaimer: all of these links are from "The guardian", and were acquired in a very short time, because I am a lazy person...

[Mephisto]

I have to admit I find it surprising that this thread is still alive.

 

The argument for incest seems to be "nobody has the right to tell anyone else how to live their lives".

 

This is equivalent to denying the necessity of government.

 

Government tells us how to live our lives on points they deem significantly important to public interest. Sure, there's some in the argument that things should be left up to personal discretion, but government is not allowed to be wishy washy and have to make a stance on a topic.

 

Their stance is that incest is not acceptable under the law.

 

Is their stance wrong? Sure it might be, but a more concrete argument for why they are wrong is necessary other than "it's natural" or "it's alright if only a minority does it".

 

If a person has natural inclinations to kill people, that doesn't justify them killing people just because they can't help it. Sure it's a rather extreme example, but I just wanted to make a point.

 

Making something against the law also doesn't destroy a minority, since it is up to the individual whether to follow the law. After all, fuwanovel still exists.

[Down]

 

The argument for incest seems to be "nobody has the right to tell anyone else how to live their lives".

 

This is equivalent to denying the necessity of government.

 

Government tells us how to live our lives on points they deem significantly important to public interest. Sure, there's some in the argument that things should be left up to personal discretion, but government is not allowed to be wishy washy and have to make a stance on a topic.

 

Governments don't tell people how to live their lives. The juridic part of the governement tells what you can and what you can't do, the degree of freedom is quite different. 

 

 

Is their stance wrong? Sure it might be, but a more concrete argument for why they are wrong is necessary other than "it's natural" or "it's alright if only a minority does it".

 

On the contrary. You need a solid argument to restrain liberties, because you don't forbid things just because "I don't see a good reason to allow it". The default status on a topic should be "authorized", not "forbidden".

 

And that doesn't stop the debate. We don't stop debating about morals just because we have laws - especially since those laws can change.

[Mephisto]

The concrete argument for why they are "wrong" in this case is the fact that they have no solid argument to restrain people's liberties, and that is how the case would be presented if the basis of the law is tradition and unclear scientific reasons.

 

Fair enough on the "how to live their lives" part, that was a rather colloquial slip of the tongue. The intention was to state that the government has the right to distinguish between right and wrong, since that's the power we conferred onto them (although that doesn't mean each individual does not also have the ability to distinguish right and wrong themselves).

 

That "default status" is rarely the case in my opinion. Exercising caution in unknown territory is usually the standard approach, especially if there are potential negative side effects.

 

Sure, there's no reason to stop the debate, but I felt like it should be addressed from the governments standpoint as well since they are involved.

[Dark Ariel7]

whoa whoa whoa. The government is not meant to have the power to differentiate between good and bad. At least not in the US. It is MEANT to follow the will of the general public who decided what was right or wrong. Does it do that? well no, but that is what it is supposed to do.

The de facto decision of the law should not be "no, unless you can prove it is OK." it should be "OK, unless you can prove it is wrong."

Since you cannot give solid proof that it is wrong to have incestuous relations then it should be a yes.