the shit that doesn't stink
- Thread starter scifes
- Start date
I believe that sexual act between two adult persons and they consenting to sexual act
and it going on in a private space,is not my competence to judge.
If sexual act going on In a public space then even a sexual relationship between a woman and a man bothers me.
(Im not like to see couples that fuck on the streets).
and it going on in a private space,is not my competence to judge.
If sexual act going on In a public space then even a sexual relationship between a woman and a man bothers me.
(Im not like to see couples that fuck on the streets).
There is a strong biological prohibition against incest. It is built into us because of the much higher probability of the children that result being deformed, or cretins.
The mechanism by which this biological imperative works is interesting. There is no way an individual can determine genetic relationship. So the prohibition works on cohabitation at an early age. Boys and girls who are brought up together develop a psychological bar to sexual attraction. They may love each other as siblings, but will have no physical attraction - quite the contrary.
Lots of variations on the theme. If non related boys and girls are raised together, they will develop the same inhibition. However, if genetic siblings are raised apart, and only meet after puberty, the physical and sexual attraction between them is likely to be just as strong as between non related people.
The are cases of brother and sister being raised by different foster parents, and later meeting without knowing they are related, and actually getting married and having kids.
So is incest wrong?
Mostly, yes. Because it is hard to be absolutely 100% sure that incest will not result in offspring, and those offspring are very likely to be deformed. If it was possible to make the sex totally infertile, with no chance at all for offspring, then you could argue that this makes it all OK. Maybe, but my emotional and instinctive revulsion to the idea still applies.
The mechanism by which this biological imperative works is interesting. There is no way an individual can determine genetic relationship. So the prohibition works on cohabitation at an early age. Boys and girls who are brought up together develop a psychological bar to sexual attraction. They may love each other as siblings, but will have no physical attraction - quite the contrary.
Lots of variations on the theme. If non related boys and girls are raised together, they will develop the same inhibition. However, if genetic siblings are raised apart, and only meet after puberty, the physical and sexual attraction between them is likely to be just as strong as between non related people.
The are cases of brother and sister being raised by different foster parents, and later meeting without knowing they are related, and actually getting married and having kids.
So is incest wrong?
Mostly, yes. Because it is hard to be absolutely 100% sure that incest will not result in offspring, and those offspring are very likely to be deformed. If it was possible to make the sex totally infertile, with no chance at all for offspring, then you could argue that this makes it all OK. Maybe, but my emotional and instinctive revulsion to the idea still applies.
(Insert title here)
So if the day my daughter turns eighteen I start telling her how hot her tits and ass are, and try to get her into my bed for a fuck, you don't think that will change the fundamental structures of the family?
Visceral Instinct said:
So if the day my daughter turns eighteen I start telling her how hot her tits and ass are, and try to get her into my bed for a fuck, you don't think that will change the fundamental structures of the family?
Really? Racehorses, cats, lovebirds and pharaohs don't seem much bothered.
Documentation? What probability of which deformities in non-incestuous as compared to consanguinous populations of what size?
Not always true. But when true, here is a possible alternative explanation: Familiarity breeds contempt. Perhaps adolescents seek novelty. Maybe the snotty kid who put earthworms down your back doesn't look all that romantic, come mating time?
Is this biological or social?
Wherefore, biological prohibition?
And they didn't even notice that the kids were deformed cretins until some busybody told them the truth, whereupon they went all tragic....
Actually, the only reason there might be anything wrong with the offspring is if both parents carry a recessive gene, such as hemophilia. The odds are against it.
You've made no logical case for that.
Ah! That's the case. Your emotional (not instinctive!) revulsion is learned. Cultural. There is a reason for societies instituting such a taboo: to protect young girls from their fathers and brothers. Since it works more often than not, it's probably a good idea.
Jeeves
You are demonstrating your ignorance.
Inbreeding leads to a wide range of problems with the children, and this is something that has been known for thousands of years. For example : such inbreeding is common among Muslims.
http://europenews.dk/en/node/34368
I quote :
"Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develops slower in inbred babies:"
Plus a hell of a lot more problems.
The fact that I feel revulsion to incest does not alter the scientific findings that children of incest are likely to be brain damaged and physically deformed.
You are demonstrating your ignorance.
Inbreeding leads to a wide range of problems with the children, and this is something that has been known for thousands of years. For example : such inbreeding is common among Muslims.
http://europenews.dk/en/node/34368
I quote :
"Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develops slower in inbred babies:"
Plus a hell of a lot more problems.
The fact that I feel revulsion to incest does not alter the scientific findings that children of incest are likely to be brain damaged and physically deformed.
I do not consider an anti-Muslim propaganda rag hard science. And even that one can only state that inbreeding caused a 10-point drop in IQ after 1400 years (without a reference to what IQ tests were administered to what sample of population. Suppose they pulled the usual racist shit: an IQ test that actually measures the subject's knowledge of an unfamiliar culture?) or "a few hundred years". This is probably true in a very small gene-pool. Bu what, exactly, are the odds of 'Flowers in the Attic' continuing for seven generations?
The problems of less than normal children from incest is well documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Inbreeding
I quote :
"Inbreeding (reproduction between two related individuals) may also involve incest. Inbreeding leads to a higher proportion of congenital birth defects through an increase in the frequency of homozygotes.[49] The effects of this can diverge - recessive genes that produce birth defects could become more frequent, resulting in a higher rate potential of these defects while genes that do not code for birth defects can become increased within a population. The overall consequences of this divergence depends in part on the size of the population. In small populations, if children born with heritable birth defects die before they reproduce the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population with an overall decrease in the number of birth defect-causing genes over time. In larger populations it is more likely that large numbers of carriers will survive and mate, leading to more constant rates of birth defects.[50] A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding at the first cousin level of 4.4%.[51] At any rate,the degenerative effects of inbreeding will only be significantly fatal after two or more repeated incest cases, and that varies depending on the number and quality of inherited congenital disorders of which the family members may be carriers. A study of a group of 21 made up of brother-sister or father-daughter offspring found that 12 had abnormalities with 9 of which were classed as severe.[52]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Inbreeding
I quote :
"Inbreeding (reproduction between two related individuals) may also involve incest. Inbreeding leads to a higher proportion of congenital birth defects through an increase in the frequency of homozygotes.[49] The effects of this can diverge - recessive genes that produce birth defects could become more frequent, resulting in a higher rate potential of these defects while genes that do not code for birth defects can become increased within a population. The overall consequences of this divergence depends in part on the size of the population. In small populations, if children born with heritable birth defects die before they reproduce the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population with an overall decrease in the number of birth defect-causing genes over time. In larger populations it is more likely that large numbers of carriers will survive and mate, leading to more constant rates of birth defects.[50] A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding at the first cousin level of 4.4%.[51] At any rate,the degenerative effects of inbreeding will only be significantly fatal after two or more repeated incest cases, and that varies depending on the number and quality of inherited congenital disorders of which the family members may be carriers. A study of a group of 21 made up of brother-sister or father-daughter offspring found that 12 had abnormalities with 9 of which were classed as severe.[52]"
Well, exactly! This can be a problem if incest is a regular occurrence, generation after generation, within the same confined gene pool - and depending on the number and kind of flawed recessive genes present in the first place. Where this is most likely to happen is in a a small, geographically isolated community. It doesn't matter what moral taboos the rest of the world makes, these people have no choice: they can marry one another or nobody at all.
There is no biological obstacle to them mating and producing children. Nature doesn't care. If a genetic combination doesn't work, Nature kills it off and keeps on truckin'. If the incestuous clan is lucky, the fatal defects will be bred out in a few generations; if it's unlucky, it will grow weaker, less fecund and eventually extinct.
Inbreeding is not an instant and inevitable problem in one isolated case of a brother and sister being raised apart, meeting as adults and falling in love - unless they both carry a fatal recessive gene. This doesn't happen every Thursday, and their children - unless the busybody, who thinks its his calling to ruin their lives, takes the children away to be raised by different anonymous foster parents - are even less likely to marry each other, because the familiarity non-attraction principle applies if they're raised together. So, what's the probability of this one meeting even taking place, let alone causing harm down the line? (Ick factor aside, realistically.)
No matter how much society disapproves of incest, no matter how seriously the law takes it, Nature doesn't care; biology doesn't care; the animal body doesn't care - it keeps happening. Unfortunately, the kind of incest that happens most often is perpetrated on the young and vulnerable by someone older and stronger. It's not the consanguinity that makes it wrong, but the assault.
There is no biological obstacle to them mating and producing children. Nature doesn't care. If a genetic combination doesn't work, Nature kills it off and keeps on truckin'. If the incestuous clan is lucky, the fatal defects will be bred out in a few generations; if it's unlucky, it will grow weaker, less fecund and eventually extinct.
Inbreeding is not an instant and inevitable problem in one isolated case of a brother and sister being raised apart, meeting as adults and falling in love - unless they both carry a fatal recessive gene. This doesn't happen every Thursday, and their children - unless the busybody, who thinks its his calling to ruin their lives, takes the children away to be raised by different anonymous foster parents - are even less likely to marry each other, because the familiarity non-attraction principle applies if they're raised together. So, what's the probability of this one meeting even taking place, let alone causing harm down the line? (Ick factor aside, realistically.)
No matter how much society disapproves of incest, no matter how seriously the law takes it, Nature doesn't care; biology doesn't care; the animal body doesn't care - it keeps happening. Unfortunately, the kind of incest that happens most often is perpetrated on the young and vulnerable by someone older and stronger. It's not the consanguinity that makes it wrong, but the assault.
It's a personal trait which the individual is more or less powerless to change. It's like being white, or having blue eyes.
How do you get non-coercive agreement with informed consent from a non-human animal?
Incest is a little different.
What about underaged blue-eyed people?
Says the law of virtually every nation.
Sure, they can decide, but that's not the important factor. Legally, the important question is whether they can give informed consent.
Ok from a moral point of view, from a legal point of view, or something else?
I think this phenomenon is correct. :scratchin:
At least it works with my wife,that we are together for some time.
OK? No. However, i don't know where those subjects came from; how the researchers collected them, and what their histories were. For example, did they enter the study because of their abnormalities; did the subject families all come from the same remote mountain village; how many of the parents had visible abnormalities; were the daughters retarded before the fathers molested them - or were they all consenting, competent adults ....? Did the researchers put an ad in the paper, asking cohabiting sibling and father/daughter couples to come forward with their children, and these 21 emerged from the general population?
Not enough information to judge.
You require more information than that?
Jeeves
You demanded references for something that has been accepted as correct by almost all relevent scientists, and has been seen as correct throughout human history. I supplied you with two sets of references, with data, which you are now criticising.
Why don't you get honest and admit that you are rejecting the data because you do not want to believe it?
You demanded references for something that has been accepted as correct by almost all relevent scientists, and has been seen as correct throughout human history. I supplied you with two sets of references, with data, which you are now criticising.
Why don't you get honest and admit that you are rejecting the data because you do not want to believe it?
"Out of 21 schoolboys of African-American background, 12 were found to be violent sociopaths." If this were true, wouldn't you want to know:
1. whether the source of subjects was an art school, a seminary or a reform school
2. who was studying the boys
3. by what methods
and 4. for what purpose.
I would want to know those things before i used the results to establish an attitude to whole class or race of people, before i used the results to regulate other people's behaviour and to punish people for their behaviour.
Besides provenance, the main reason i'm skeptical of this second study (the first article one doesn't count; i'm still cleaning my eyeballs) is the very small sample size and lack of medical history.
But, okay, let's move on. Let's say that the sample in this study is representative of the general population. Let's say that 53% of first-time matings between closely related people has a high probability of producing defective offspring.
Suppose then, that competent, consenting adults who wished to marry their near relatives agreed to be sterilized before the ceremony.
Would that make incest morally acceptable?
1. whether the source of subjects was an art school, a seminary or a reform school
2. who was studying the boys
3. by what methods
and 4. for what purpose.
I would want to know those things before i used the results to establish an attitude to whole class or race of people, before i used the results to regulate other people's behaviour and to punish people for their behaviour.
Besides provenance, the main reason i'm skeptical of this second study (the first article one doesn't count; i'm still cleaning my eyeballs) is the very small sample size and lack of medical history.
But, okay, let's move on. Let's say that the sample in this study is representative of the general population. Let's say that 53% of first-time matings between closely related people has a high probability of producing defective offspring.
Suppose then, that competent, consenting adults who wished to marry their near relatives agreed to be sterilized before the ceremony.
Would that make incest morally acceptable?
To the following question :
"Suppose then, that competent, consenting adults who wished to marry their near relatives agreed to be sterilized before the ceremony.
Would that make incest morally acceptable?"
I would not use the term 'morally', since that has a very fuzzy meaning. However, that situation would make the incest medically acceptable, which is another thing.
"Morally acceptable" often means 'emotionally acceptable', and it would not be that. However, if near relatives marrying after sterilisation became a very common thing, then society would probably change its attitude, and the practice might then be considered morally acceptable.
"Suppose then, that competent, consenting adults who wished to marry their near relatives agreed to be sterilized before the ceremony.
Would that make incest morally acceptable?"
I would not use the term 'morally', since that has a very fuzzy meaning. However, that situation would make the incest medically acceptable, which is another thing.
"Morally acceptable" often means 'emotionally acceptable', and it would not be that. However, if near relatives marrying after sterilisation became a very common thing, then society would probably change its attitude, and the practice might then be considered morally acceptable.
Society doesn't make rules on medical grounds, but on what it considers 'moral' - fuzzy and emotional as that concept may be.
Medically, killing a terminal cancer patient would make sense. Legally, we're not allowed to do it - in most places, not even the patient begs us to. And that's because the majority still feels that killing is immoral.
(Except when it's righteous.)
Medically, killing a terminal cancer patient would make sense. Legally, we're not allowed to do it - in most places, not even the patient begs us to. And that's because the majority still feels that killing is immoral.
(Except when it's righteous.)