Incest and other things...

[Zealot]

So the typical reason given for gays being able to marry or whatnot is that it's a relationship between two parties which we have no right to interfere in if it harms nobody and I agree completely.

But what about between brother and sister? We've come to frown on things like this because it can cause birth defects to their child if they decide to have children i.e a third party is involved upon which potential harm would be put. Now what if one of them were sterile and no one was harmed? Also what about animals, if it could be shown that animals are consenting to sexual acts.

Just wondering what the left position on this is.

[Tablo]

If family members want to have consensual intercourse or even have a child, then it is their own personal decision and no one else has the right to stop them.

[StalinFanboy]

i am personally against all forms of moral order. its not my cup of tea, but the way people want to live their lives is up to them and the other people they decide to share their life with.

[Zav]

Love is love. I see no problem with it should it occur between relations or species.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

But what about between brother and sister? We've come to frown on things like this because it can cause birth defects to a child i.e a third party is involved upon which potential harm would be put.

I wouldn't see why a brother and sister wouldn't be able to marry each other,if they have those feelings for one another.I would find it odd but not strange.

Birth defects?


Now what if one of them were sterile and no one was harmed?What about it?


Also what about animals, if it could be shown that animals are consenting to sexual acts.Animals cannot consent to sex.

[Kitty_Paine]

Birth defects?


"Inbreeding leads to a higher probability of congenital birth defects because it increases that proportion of zygotes that are homozygous, in particular for deleterious recessive alleles that produce such disorders" - Livingstone, FB (1969). "Genetics, Ecology, and the Origins of Incest and Exogamy". Current Anthropology 10: 45–62.


But I really don't care what people do with eachother, as long as they're consenting, etc, etc. Then no one should bother them or care. Why do people worry about other's lives so much?

I will never know... :blink:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It may not be my thing, but who am I to judge?

[leftistopposition]

It may not be my thing, but who am I to judge?


I agree with Esperanza on this.

[RedScot24/11/1859]

I think it should be legal but heavily discouraged, it does cause defects but I think it would be too intrusive to outright ban it.

[kahimikarie]

I guess in "theory" I see nothing wrong with incest, but it seems unlikely that there are many happy, healthy, truly consensual... incestuous relationships. Seems like there would be all sorts of problems with power imbalances/manipulation/family pressures etc...

Today afaik the vast vast majority of incest that occurs is just molestation of young girls/boys by family members (including siblings.) But even in a situation where one party doesn't believe they're being taken advantage of, I'd still wonder if that was really the case via things like "Stockholm syndrome" (for lack of a better term), familial love/obligation etc messing with their feelings.

Hope people don't see this as me trying to play "moral police" but I just think the incest thing isn't as straightforward as people tend to make it out to be, on "either" side.

[El Louton]

Brother and Sister? Sorry that's wrong. Cousins maybe but siblings? No.

[Princess Luna]

Brother and Sister? Sorry that's wrong. Cousins maybe but siblings? No.
I don't see what is wrong with it. While I personally don't find the idea of incest appealing, it is really none of my business. I don't think incest should be illegal, nor do I think people who practice it should be shunned, regardless of rather it is with parents, siblings, or cousins. Provided it involves consenting adults, and one party isn't taking advantage of the other.

[Kitty_Paine]

Brother and Sister? Sorry that's wrong. Cousins maybe but siblings? No.

If the possibility of conception is eliminated (birth control and a condom; or one is infertile for example) and say there was no chance of any emotional/mental damage to those involved (family was okay with it or out of the picture; they were consenting and had talked it over thoroughly, including risks, etc.) then what would be wrong with it? Basically if no one got hurt, why do you believe it is wrong? I can understand if you have a religious objection but I'm just wondering what your reasoning is.

[black magick hustla]

i hope there is more incest it pisses off the right people

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't give a shit, its up to people what sexual activities they engage in, as long as proper consent and care is involved.

[Princess Luna]

If the possibility of conception is eliminated (birth control and a condom; or one is infertile for example) and say there was no chance of any emotional/mental damage to those involved (family was okay with it or out of the picture; they were consenting and had talked it over thoroughly, including risks, etc.) then what would be wrong with it? Basically if no one got hurt, why do you believe it is wrong? I can understand if you have a religious objection but I'm just wondering what your reasoning is.
I don't see why conception is a issue, even if it is between siblings the effect on the offspring is minor, sever health effects and extreme deformities only start to appear after several generations of inbreeding. At least this is what I have read, someone who knows more about genetics please correct me if I am wrong.

[Firebrand]

I don't see why conception is a issue, even if it is between siblings the effect on the offspring is minor, sever health effects and extreme deformities only start to appear after several generations of inbreeding. At least this is what I have read, someone who knows more about genetics please correct me if I am wrong.

Effects vary depending on how many genes and which genes siblings share. If there is a family history of genetic disorders then the risks for any children would be quite high and most familes have a history of something. On the whole it tends to be a bad idea, thats why most cultures have some form of incest taboo although applications may vary. Anyway to be honest I don't think it would happen very much even if it were legal. There is a pre-disposition amongst human beings and lots of other species not to be attracted to close relatives. This is because widening the gene pool tends to be advantageous to offspring. The whole attractiveness of the mysterious stranger thing actually has a biological basis.

Anyway if you want proof that inbreeding causes a reduction in the mental capabilities of offspring you need look no further than the royal family.

[X5N]

I don't see why conception is a issue, even if it is between siblings the effect on the offspring is minor, sever health effects and extreme deformities only start to appear after several generations of inbreeding. At least this is what I have read, someone who knows more about genetics please correct me if I am wrong.

Yeah, incest really isn't that much of a problem until you get to this level:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Carlos_segundo80.png

Unless of course you have some kind of major recessive genetic disorder in the family.

[hatzel]

To be honest inter-sibling incest probably wouldn't be all that common, even in the absence of any taboo or prohibition concerning incest, if you happen to accept the Westermarck effect.

How exactly this animal consent thing is going to work, though...I guess one could just wait there naked and hope the animal in question approaches, if that could be construed as consent, but I don't think one could ever claim to have acquired consent from an animal if one initiates contact. This isn't to say animals are necessarily incapable of providing consent or otherwise, but proof of this would be nigh on impossible to come by, so I'd say we're firmly in the realm of hypotheticals at the moment.

[Princess Luna]

To be honest inter-sibling incest probably wouldn't be all that common, even in the absence of any taboo or prohibition concerning incest, if you happen to accept the Westermarck effect.

How exactly this animal consent thing is going to work, though...I guess one could just wait there naked and hope the animal in question approaches, if that could be construed as consent, but I don't think one could ever claim to have acquired consent from an animal if one initiates contact. This isn't to say animals are necessarily incapable of providing consent or otherwise, but proof of this would be nigh on impossible to come by, so I'd say we're firmly in the realm of hypotheticals at the moment.
You don't need consent with animals, because animals are not sentinent beings. The same reason it is alright to enslave and kill them.

[Lanky Wanker]

I see no problem with incest overall as long as it is of course consensual and doesn't put anyone else at risk (which leads to the disabled offspring story).

As for sex with animals, I think it depends on the animal. Trying to have sex with a hamster would be pretty cruel and probably mean pinning the hamster down while you try to... well I have no idea what you would do to such a small creature. However, if it's something like a rottweiler or a horse, I'm pretty sure it'd let you know if it had a problem with you trying to shag it.

[Elysian]

I am curious ... is bestiality okay? If you say animals cannot give consent to have sex, neither did they give consent for you to kill and eat them. But we do kill and eat them. Hmm...

[Krano]

None of my business.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Its private I don't really care.

If its zoophilia, I have no problem
If its beastly, I have massive amounts of problems

[Rafiq]

Oh look, yet again a demonstration of the postmodern and radically bankrupt Left.

Let's focus on actually getting to class power before we discuss whether buttfucking a gorilla should be accepted as a social norm.

Incest and bestiality have nothing to offer to the class struggle, unlike anti-sexism(gay rights), feminism, anti racism, etc.

[Zav]

Oh look, yet again a demonstration of the postmodern and radically bankrupt Left.
Let's focus on actually getting to class power before we discuss whether buttfucking a gorilla should be accepted as a social norm.
Incest and bestiality have nothing to offer to the class struggle, unlike anti-sexism(gay rights), feminism, anti racism, etc.
So we should only talk about the Glorious Popular Social Revolution then?
What have those things to do with class struggle other than the liberation from oppression? Incest and bestiality have everything to do with sexual freedom, and given our highly sexual nature, sexual liberation is extremely important. If you don't want to talk about it, then don't post on the thread.


You don't need consent with animals, because animals are not sentinent beings. The same reason it is alright to enslave and kill them.
You don't need consent with babies, because babies are not sentient beings. The same reason it is alright to enslave and kill them.
Nice attitude you have there. Maybe when we have learned to use our sentience positively without causing destruction we can pompously fling it about. Also, several primate species (and dolphins and whales) are close to something we could call sentience. The fact that we evolved it first does not make us superior. Humans are like the tall bully, pushing everyone else around just because they can. In a few (relative) years, the other kids are going to push back.
EDIT: I find it interesting that those with your attitude (most people, unfortunately) separate themselves from the rest of Animalia. You're little more than a bald, bipedal, big-headed chimp.

[Kitty_Paine]

I don't see why conception is a issue, even if it is between siblings the effect on the offspring is minor, sever health effects and extreme deformities only start to appear after several generations of inbreeding. At least this is what I have read, someone who knows more about genetics please correct me if I am wrong.

You may be and probably are correct, I haven't looked into the issue further. I just know it's an argument some people have against it. So for the sake of the scenario I was presenting to the poster, I wanted to eliminate it.

But besides refering to the "deformities" part of inbreeding I was also addressing other issues that come along with it. For example, the terrible bullying the child may face in school and from his/her peers in general. And it may be hard for the child to understand the concept of his/her parents being brother and sister as well. These are not my arguments against it, just ones I have heard. And again, I just wanted to eliminate this aspect for the sake of my question.

[Kitty_Paine]

You don't need consent with babies, because babies are not sentient beings. The same reason it is alright to enslave and kill them.
Nice attitude you have there.

I believe that was said sarcastically by ThePonyEveryponyShouldKnow...

[Ostrinski]

You may be and probably are correct, I haven't looked into the issue further. I just know it's an argument some people have against it. So for the sake of the scenario I was presenting to the poster, I wanted to eliminate it.

But besides refering to the "deformities" part of inbreeding I was also addressing other issues that come along with it. For example, the terrible bullying the child may face in school and from his/her peers in general. And it may be hard for the child to understand the concept of his/her parents being brother and sister as well. These are not my arguments against it, just ones I have heard. And again, I just wanted to eliminate this aspect for the sake of my question.This can be dealt with swiftly and easily (assuming we're talking post-revolution).

[Kitty_Paine]

This can be dealt with swiftly and easily (assuming we're talking post-revolution).

I was more or less talking nowish but are you suggesting that post-revolution people whould be more open and accepting of these things so it wouldn't be as much of a problem? Or were you refering to more of a solution to this?

[Ostrinski]

I was more or less talking nowish but are you suggesting that post-revolution people whould be more open and accepting of these things so it wouldn't be as much of a problem? Or were you refering to more of a solution to this?I was referring to a more.. Robespierrian solution. But alternatives of greater practicality are always welcome.

[Kitty_Paine]

I was referring to a more.. Robespierrian solution. But alternatives of greater practicality are always welcome.

lol, okay... I guess the Robespierre solution might work just as well :rolleyes: It would certainly be an affective short term solution if nothing else.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

if i could walk with the animals, talk with the animals.......

[Princess Luna]

I believe that was said sarcastically by ThePonyEveryponyShouldKnow...
No I was being serious, you can go out and shoot a deer for no more reason then personal enjoyment and many people will defend your right to do so. And even more people will defend the mass slaughter of animals for meat. The keeping of pets is by definition slavery, and yet even the most ardent vegans express no problem with it. If the same standards that we apply to humans, are not applied to animals in those cases, then it becomes hypocritical to say we should apply the same standard of needing consent for sex, to animals that we use for humans. Also just clarification when I says "animals" i'm using the popular meaning, not the scientific one.

[KR]

In a few (relative) years, the other kids are going to push back.

Now where do you get that idea from?