Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Made you look. Don't really have a sister. But have an idea for a thread. I was watching an old Krauss debate on YouTube and the subject of incest came up. And he didn't seem to have that big a problem with it assuming that it's a relationship between two adults who are both in their right mind. We live in a very pc time, yet relationships (let alone marriage) between close relatives is hardly viewed as an ok thing by society. Do you think this should remain that way? If so, can you give an argument to support you case, preferably an argument that doesn't start with either "Ewww" or "well, the bible says..". And (probably going to get sht for this) how come similar arguments that are used in support of gay marriage cannot be applied here? Or can they? Two people (close relatives) who are both adults and in their right mind made a conscious decision. Go.

Ps: honestly interested in hearing arguments for both sides, never really thought about it and looking to get enlightened.

I don't mind. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish. Now, given, I'd find it weird and kind of off-putting seeing some dude marrying his sister or his mother, or his dad... oh, God.

Well people used to say the same thing about a dude marrying another dude. Some still do. Shouldn't we be open minded about it?

Originally posted by SamZED
Well people used to say the same thing about a dude marrying another dude. Some still do. Shouldn't we be open minded about it?

I suppose we should. Just don't have any kids, alright?

My first thought upon just seeing the title?

"Hm... bet this is a trick and the poster is ordained, and is going to 'marry' their sister to someone else."

^You gave me too much credit.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I suppose we should. Just don't have any kids, alright? Nah, we're adopting a Chinese baby.

nah, **** incest. it's biologically unsound and it's creepy for a good reason

Just a matter of time.

Animals next.

First, the GDF really has turned into a sh*tty, third-rate version of a Buzzfeed knock-off or news aggregator. This is the most blatant clickbait title I've seen, but it's not like it's new for us.

That said, this is one of the most hilariously done threads of this nature. And it's a surprisingly interesting topic, so I'll bite.

...

I can't come up with a reason why the marriage should be morally reprehensible (more on kids in a bit). I understand why it's looked down upon. But it's a particularly poignant question when you can strike at the heart of even the most progressive people with a lot of their own logic, but use it to make a point that a lot of them will find creepy. I love pushing intellectual boundaries, if only for the mental exercise. Well done.

Now, the primary concern seems to be children, and for good reason, it seems. So let's go there for a second. This is an area where I feel like we need raw data that I don't have access to. What are the statistics on birth defects for incestuous relationships? And, for comparative purposes, what are those same stats for women of various ages? 30+? 40+? 50+? There are even studies (though less conclusive) about increased risk of birth defects when it's the man who is older. But...we know for a fact that women over 40 have an increased likelihood for certain complications and birth defects. Yet we don't "look down" upon a 42-year-old woman having a baby. We just wish her the best. And I think the key question is: is that risk demonstrably lower than the risk associated with incest? If it's a negligible difference, are we applying a double standard? Or is the risk much higher for incest, thus providing potential justification for condemning one but not the other?

If it's the latter (large gap in risk), we then have to ask a follow-up: at what point do we draw the line for acceptable risk? And are we obligated to dictate - legally, legislatively, religiously, culturally, or otherwise - whether or not it's allowed?

I don't have answers to those. It hasn't and won't affect me or my family, so I don't have a particular reason to dig deep enough. But that's the level of research and inquiry that I think would be required to sufficiently form an opinion.

Originally posted by Digi


First, the GDF really has turned into a sh*tty, third-rate version of a Buzzfeed knock-off or news aggregator. This is the most blatant clickbait title I've seen, but it's not like it's new for us.

That said, this is one of the most hilariously done threads of this nature. And it's a surprisingly interesting topic, so I'll bite.

...

I can't come up with a reason why the marriage should be morally reprehensible (more on kids in a bit). I understand why it's looked down upon. But it's a particularly poignant question when you can strike at the heart of even the most progressive people with a lot of their own logic, but use it to make a point that a lot of them will find creepy. I love pushing intellectual boundaries, if only for the mental exercise. Well done.

Now, the primary concern seems to be children, and for good reason, it seems. So let's go there for a second. This is an area where I feel like we need raw data that I don't have access to. What are the statistics on birth defects for incestuous relationships? And, for comparative purposes, what are those same stats for women of various ages? 30+? 40+? 50+? There are even studies (though less conclusive) about increased risk of birth defects when it's the man who is older. But...we know for a fact that women over 40 have an increased likelihood for certain complications and birth defects. Yet we don't "look down" upon a 42-year-old woman having a baby. We just wish her the best. And I think the key question is: is that risk demonstrably lower than the risk associated with incest? If it's a negligible difference, are we applying a double standard? Or is the risk much higher for incest, thus providing potential justification for condemning one but not the other?

If it's the latter (large gap in risk), we then have to ask a follow-up: at what point do we draw the line for acceptable risk? And are we obligated to dictate - legally, legislatively, religiously, culturally, or otherwise - whether or not it's allowed?

I don't have answers to those. It hasn't and won't affect me or my family, so I don't have a particular reason to dig deep enough. But that's the level of research and inquiry that I think would be required to sufficiently form an opinion.

IOW: you want new jack marry your sister.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
IOW: you want new jack marry your sister.

Shhh. I might actually be able to have a non-combative conversation in this forum for the first time in months. Go play with your toys.

*throws political thread across the room*

Fetch!

Well, all through out history, insest has been openly accepted through various cultures and societies. However, that doesn't mean it's right and if you said you wanted to marry your sister i'd slap you.

There are some other considerations I didn't touch on as well. Mostly I focused on brother/sister and the children issue. Someone mentioned things like marrying one's mother or father, in either a heterosexual or homosexual relationship. I hope it's not close-minded to say that issues of mental health and parental abuse could be involved in such cases, so I would think there would need to be a thorough psychological evaluation before anything was made official.

But, assuming two people of sound mind who aren't being manipulated or coerced into anything...sure? That it seems inherently creepy to us is a mental boundary, not unlike what many still experience with LGBT relationships. I can't say it feels normal or right to me, tbh, but since I can't explain why that is using objective criteria, I have to admit that it's likely my own bias instead of something inherently wrong with it (again, presuming there's nothing foul about the situation as I mentioned earlier).

Take Oedipus. Until he learns the truth of his wife/mother, no one frets much. Ignoring the magical elements of the story, the stigma was cultural, not inherent.

Or, sh*t, who watches Game of Thrones? Joffrey's a little sh*t, but biologically sound. The rest of the children are fine too. Yes, it's fiction. But my point is this: what's inherently wrong with their love/relationship/children? They hide it, but it's because it's stigmatized in society. If you strip down the ancillary drama, would you condemn what they're doing? Because we can imagine a RL situation like theirs, can't we? And we can imagine a situation like that with well-adjusted children and loving parents, yeah?

We need those numbers, as I mentioned earlier. The conversation hinges on them, imo, but I'm not the man to find them. We also have to realize that what we're talking about is a healthy relationship in all other ways...a lot of incest currently involves the issues I mentioned earlier, and isn't healthy in any way. If we use modern examples of incest as our guidepost, it won't end well.

...

Basically, what am I missing? I'm reserving my opinion on children pending data, and stipulating mentally sound decisions by well-adjusted adults. Is it wrong for another reason? Much like OP, I'd be interested in hearing why.

Originally posted by Digi

Basically, what am I missing? I'm reserving my opinion on children pending data, and stipulating mentally sound decisions by well-adjusted adults. Is it wrong for another reason? Much like OP, I'd be interested in hearing why.


Well, it's a case where the human mind is actually built with some fairly strong emotion settings dealing with family members, and they normally only break under bad situations, and there's usually power imbalances as well. A recipe for compounded problems.


In a case where the people actually don't know each other, people who grew up separately... yea, those aspects aren't as present. There's still some genetic issues so having kids is not recommend, but the mental issues aren't really there as much. My instinct is still against it, but it's not as severe.

Originally posted by Q99
Well, it's a case where the human mind is actually built with some fairly strong emotion settings dealing with family members, and they normally only break under bad situations, and there's usually power imbalances as well. A recipe for compounded problems.


In a case where the people actually don't know each other, people who grew up separately... yea, those aspects aren't as present. There's still some genetic issues so having kids is not recommend, but the mental issues aren't really there as much. My instinct is still against it, but it's not as severe.

Right, we're talking about ideal conditions. I understand that, for practical purposes, there's something wrong a lot of the time when it happens irl.

And I'd still like to see the data on genetic issues as compared to women of advanced age(s) giving birth normally. We may be right to stigmatize it. But if it's equivalent to, say, a 45-year-old woman giving birth in terms of risk, we may have a double standard on our hands.

Originally posted by SamZED
Made you look.



Damn you, Sam.

http://listverse.com/2014/05/22/10-incendiary-facts-about-incest/

Originally posted by Q99
My first thought upon just seeing the title?

"Hm... bet this is a trick and the poster is ordained, and is going to 'marry' their sister to someone else." Since Sam posted it, I thought it was legit.

That sister kisser.

Marrying your sister is ok as long as she's hot.

If you are marrying your ugly sister then you're not in love, you were just lazy and wanted to hook up in your own house.

Hence why your kids came out so ugly.

honestly to me the interesting point of the article i posted is that we apparently have an instinctual urge to not indulge in incest across different cultures and societies... incest would have always been a pretty convenient mating strategy if it was evolutionarily/genetically desirable... but it's not. it leads to poor results, so there are evolutionary pressures against it, and yet in some cases for cultural reasons it ends up happening anyway (as in the historical cases the article provided) and whenever it does it is almost always exposed as something flawed.

now... say you're talking about people doing incest without having kids, as you say.... there are two angles here

one is without having kids genetically, via adopting. this means they still do have kids they just rule out the genetic problems inherent to inbreeding. which is a slight improvement.. but still a flawed relationship to me because there is more to a family than just genetics. family members play certain roles in our lives.... which is what makes it akward if someone hooks up with their step-sister or something... that has nothing to do with genetics and more to do with human psychology. so if the parents have that sort of stunted relationship i can imagine that having an impact on their adopted offspring.

but beyond that... there's the angle of just people doing incest without making or adopting any kids. this is better... but still creepy. because the family roles are still getting mixed up.

I'm not sure if shooting down incest because of "family roles" from the get to go, while accepting psychologically unstable people breed is without double standards.

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm not sure if shooting down incest because of "family roles" from the get to go, while accepting psychologically unstable people breed is without double standards.

This.

Red's link makes some cogent points. I don't have time to get into them in any detail at the moment. But at least genetically, it's quite clear that there are severe disadvantages.

Polygamy may become legal before incestuous marriages, I would think. I'm of the opinion, if you want to marry a sibling, you are not of sound mind.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I'm of the opinion, if you want to marry a sibling, you are not of sound mind.

See, that's an a priori assumption. Even if this is true most of the time, for me to agree with you, it would need to be true all of the time. Can you make that claim? I think the justification for it becomes harder at that point.

I stipulated earlier that in any and all cases involving an intent to enter into an incestuous union, a thorough psych evaluation should take place. Would that not be enough of a precaution to dull this criticism?

We're dealing in hypotheticals at this point, I realize. I don't think incest is healthy, by and large. I'm just saying that I can conceive of a reasonable scenario in which it is.

I could see like if you never knew your sibling and then met them as an adult..it would be way less creepy then if you grew up with this person in the same house.

It is creepy, but I wouldn't make it illegal. Though it should be illegal to knock up your sister. Plus what if it doesn't work out? Are you going to remain alone? Not many dudes would want to date a chick who used to bang her bro. I don't care if you are the most beautiful woman on the planet, that is outright nasty.

Even if you could safely have kids with a sibling I wouldn't be okay with it. Merely because that kid is going to be utterly destroyed by other kids if anyone ever finds out his daddy is also his uncle. Hell even an adopted kid would suffer torment if people found out his adoptive parents were brother and sister.

Originally posted by Digi
See, that's an a priori assumption. Even if this is true most of the time, for me to agree with you, it would need to be true all of the time. Can you make that claim? I think the justification for it becomes harder at that point.

I stipulated earlier that in any and all cases involving an intent to enter into an incestuous union, a thorough psych evaluation should take place. Would that not be enough of a precaution to dull this criticism?

We're dealing in hypotheticals at this point, I realize. I don't think incest is healthy, by and large. I'm just saying that I can conceive of a reasonable scenario in which it is.

I agree with what you are saying. The only factor preventing this from being legal are reproductive issues, not the fact that the couple are siblings. The Courts would have to decide on whether the happiness of the couple is more important than the welfare of any future children. I'm not sure if it would be a type of Civil Rights or humanitarian issue when children are highly likely to have birth defects or mental retardation, if yhe fetus even survives at all.

I agree, this is all hypotheticals. In the event incestual marriages were legalized, I would imagine the couples taking advantage would be an extremely minute number, less than a 1/100th of a percent of the population. With such a small minority, would it be worth the effort to even pass such a law?

It's also a slippery slope because if you can marry your sister then why couldn't a mother marry her son or any sicko shit like that?

Originally posted by Surtur
It's also a slippery slope because if you can marry your sister then why couldn't a mother marry her son or any sicko shit like that?


Who knows what the future holds. In the past, the majority of Americsns thought homosexuality was sick and evil, but times have changed. Maybe in the future, most people would be accepting of incestuous marriages. Not me though. The thought of sleeping with mom or sis is enough to make me vomit lol.

But there is a difference. A mother has influence over a child, and even a sibling can have a lot of influence over a younger sibling.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I agree with what you are saying. The only factor preventing this from being legal are reproductive issues, not the fact that the couple are siblings. The Courts would have to decide on whether the happiness of the couple is more important than the welfare of any future children. I'm not sure if it would be a type of Civil Rights or humanitarian issue when children are highly likely to have birth defects or mental retardation, if yhe fetus even survives at all.

I agree, this is all hypotheticals. In the event incestual marriages were legalized, I would imagine the couples taking advantage would be an extremely minute number, less than a 1/100th of a percent of the population. With such a small minority, would it be worth the effort to even pass such a law?

Actually, children born from incest aren't that much more likely to have birth defects or be retarded than children born to non-relatives. It takes more than one generation of inbreeding to produce the really nasty results.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Actually, children born from incest aren't that much more likely to have birth defects or be retarded than children born to non-relatives. It takes more than one generation of inbreeding to produce the really nasty results.

That is true. There is still a higher than normal risk, even for 1st generation offspring. I still see it as playing russian roulette. You are correct though, it becomes more pronounced in later generations.

Originally posted by Surtur
Plus what if it doesn't work out? Are you going to remain alone? Not many dudes would want to date a chick who used to bang her bro. I don't care if you are the most beautiful woman on the planet, that is outright nasty.

This is an emotional argument. You make some good points otherwise, but it's so, so easy to let reactions like these form our opinion on the matter. And I think it's instructive to see how infused into the discussion this sort of statement is.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's also a slippery slope because if you can marry your sister then why couldn't a mother marry her son or any sicko shit like that?

Psych eval. + consenting, emotionally stable adults. It's weird for me to think about too, but no more or less repugnant than other scenarios if we control for those potential pitfalls. You might still be right; a part of me really wants to agree with this in full. But I want to hear a rebuttal to that that makes sense to me.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That is true. There is still a higher than normal risk, even for 1st generation offspring. I still see it as playing russian roulette. You are correct though, it becomes more pronounced in later generations.

Which is why, earlier, I said that it would be instructive to see what the rates of birth defects are for older women. We don't look down on or contemplate legislation on women over 40 having babies. Or 50. Or whatever. But there are proven risks involved. Is it a double standard? Or are the risks MUCH higher for incest? I don't know the answer, but I think the answer would reveal a lot about our possible preconceptions.

This f---ing forum, though. I just started laughing thinking about this thread as a whole.

KMC: "Hey Digi! Wanna defend incest today?"

Digi: "WTF KMC, no thanks!"

K: "No, no, I insist. Here's a topic and some reasonable positions on it for you to eventually make yourself seem like a pervert, regardless of how carefully you pick your language. You're welcome."

D: "God damnit, KMC."

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm not sure if shooting down incest because of "family roles" from the get to go, while accepting psychologically unstable people breed is without double standards. that's fair enough

maybe those people shouldn't breed... honestly i think there are a ton of people who shouldn't breed... and it is sort of frowned upon for them to do so. such as people who are drug addicts... it's not exactly out of the norm to tell methheads they shouldn't be bringing kids into the world.

keep in mind i haven't necessarily advocated enforcing this through legislation

merely maintaining the mainstream societal taboo

Originally posted by Digi
This f---ing forum, though. I just started laughing thinking about this thread as a whole.

KMC: "Hey Digi! Wanna defend incest today?"

Digi: "WTF KMC, no thanks!"

K: "No, no, I insist. Here's a topic and some reasonable positions on it for you to eventually make yourself seem like a pervert, regardless of how carefully you pick your language. You're welcome."

D: "God damnit, KMC."

So nothing new hmm

Originally posted by Digi
This f---ing forum, though. I just started laughing thinking about this thread as a whole.

KMC: "Hey Digi! Wanna defend incest today?"

Digi: "WTF KMC, no thanks!"

K: "No, no, I insist. Here's a topic and some reasonable positions on it for you to eventually make yourself seem like a pervert, regardless of how carefully you pick your language. You're welcome."

D: "God damnit, KMC." This makes me proud of myself.

Well part of it is emotional since I didn't think this was just asking if incest should only be legally wrong. Just like the issue of kids is an emotional one, even adopted kids.

Originally posted by Digi
This is an emotional argument. You make some good points otherwise, but it's so, so easy to let reactions like these form our opinion on the matter. And I think it's instructive to see how infused into the discussion this sort of statement is.



Psych eval. + consenting, emotionally stable adults. It's weird for me to think about too, but no more or less repugnant than other scenarios if we control for those potential pitfalls. You might still be right; a part of me really wants to agree with this in full. But I want to hear a rebuttal to that that makes sense to me.



Which is why, earlier, I said that it would be instructive to see what the rates of birth defects are for older women. We don't look down on or contemplate legislation on women over 40 having babies. Or 50. Or whatever. But there are proven risks involved. Is it a double standard? Or are the risks MUCH higher for incest? I don't know the answer, but I think the answer would reveal a lot about our possible preconceptions.

I think when you have to start talking about mandatory psych evals before relationships can begin you're talking about a situation where the alternative of the couple having to find others to be with is more viable than doing what it takes for them to be together in a "healthy" way. Premarital counseling is certainly something that I think most professionals would recommend for any couple, but if it's essential, then there's something of merit in considering the possible flaws that may arise as reason for keeping the practice outlawed.

I do not care what other adults do. Mind your business.

Any relationship that needs a psych eval to begin is probably doomed. It's sort of like those relationships where the people get together because one person cheated on their significant other with them. They then get together not realizing a relationship that required adultery to begin is all kinds of tainted.

There is also the very real fact that an older sibling or a parent can indeed have a bad influence on their child/younger sibling.

BUMP

I enjoy watching all the uncomfortable responses.

Originally posted by SamZED
Made you look.



You did make me look!!!!!!!

Gooooood...

Incest is sorta where I draw the line on being open-minded about relationships and marriage, simply because of how many consequences it carries with it.

What if we add eugenics into the mix? Say Sam and Sally Incest want to get married and have a child. "NAY" screams everyone. Cries of "It's gross" and "Think of the children" echo all around. But let's say the Incests (yes that's what I'm calling them) are taking advantage of cutting technology that allow them to eliminate any and all potential hazards that come from their unholy union? That's right ladies and germs, no defects AT ALL. What say ye? Yuck btw

I remember seeing a headline about a mother and her adult daughter being arrested for their consensual incestuous relationship not long ago.

While I still think it's weird and disgusting, I don't it's anyone else's business, much less something to be arrested for.

What if one or both parties were incapable of having a child? Would that change matters further?

This must be the Sis-gendered thing I keep hearing about...

Originally posted by Nibedicus
This must be the Sis-gendered thing I keep hearing about...

Originally posted by Nibedicus
This must be the Sis-gendered thing I keep hearing about...


Well done. love

I forget. This is two sisters wanting to marry right?

Making it Homo makes it more Better/Ok right?

Phuck you Badabing

Incest is hot af, I've been peeping the incest subreddit lately. Good stuff.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I remember seeing a headline about a mother and her adult daughter being arrested for their consensual incestuous relationship not long ago.

While I still think it's weird and disgusting, I don't it's anyone else's business, much less something to be arrested for. That's hot.

Great bump, r.

SamZED, the new king of GDF

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Great bump, r.

SamZED, the new king of GDF My hopes are that any new member gets to see everything we've done to evolve intellectual boundaries.

How hot do you think Digi's sister is to have him rethinking everything he thought he knew about brother sister relationships?

She must be a 7 with a nice 🎂, imo.

Digi is a good looking guy and he's buff (or at least was).

I'm guessing anywhere from a 6-9 out of 10.

I see what you did there.

Best part is Richard Dawkins has been reading my thread and clearly agrees with me. Also, it proves I am not the only one asking such questions. Face it people, we (pervs) won. I have overprogressived the progressives.

BI3wxqu29ac

And while my colleague Doctor Dawkins prefers to use the term "Yack factor" I favor the "Ew factor" instead, but it's a minor disagreement, I retain a lot of respect for him and for the rest of my peers.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
SamZED, the new king of GDF
I'm just getting started.

That's not problem this is not irritating

Originally posted by SamZED
Best part is Richard Dawkins has been reading my thread and clearly agrees with me. Also, it proves I am not the only one asking such questions. Face it people, we (pervs) won. I have overprogressived the progressives.

BI3wxqu29ac

And while my colleague Doctor Dawkins prefers to use the term "Yack factor" I favor the "Ew factor" instead, but it's a minor disagreement, I retain a lot of respect for him and for the rest of my peers.


I'm just getting started.

Instead of making it two sisters he should have made it a brother and sister and just stipulated the brother agrees to get a vasectomy before they get involved.

Simply because the ick factor is indeed lessened if it's two women.