Incest

Remove all ads!

How can you look at your own sister be sexually attracted to her? The idea sickens me and, to me, suggest mental instability.

 

Well one of Papa Freud's main tenets of psychoanalysis is based on incestuous feelings toward the parent of opposite sex. And that's in normal human development.

I think it's normal according to psychoanalysis to feel incestuous feelings, but not normal if you act upon them.

Don't know what's Freud's opinion on sibling relations however.

And for the record, I think a lot of psychoanalysis is a steaming pile of excrement in any case...

As a biology student I'd say that something is not normal with people who have incestuous relationships. They're a statistical anomaly. It shouldn't happen. There are physiological mechanisms that are there to prevent incest. Something's not functioning properly. Maybe both of these two have an impaired olfactory lobe or something...

 

Homosexuals aren't blood related. It's just two consenting adults in love, they're not harming anybody or risking anything (except prejudice from idiots). Siblings getting together risk having children who have a high chance of being disabled or malformed. It's unfair and sick. It will also split and ruin families.

I don't see how you can compare homosexuality to incest at all. There's a good reason why one is illegal and one isn't.

 

Who says they want that there?

Fundamentalist Mormons. They were excommunicated for refusing to abandon polygamy whent eh Church called a halt to the practice in teh 1890's. They are no longer real Mormons.

Incest is a greivous sexual sin, prohibited in the Bible in the same chapter as the prohibition of homosexuality and beastiality.

That said, on a personal level, what consenting adults do sexually is none of my business. I am not their Bishop, so I don't want to know about such sins. It is my responsibility to cry repentance, but that's all I really want to do with the situation.

Incest (consenting or otherwise) is one of three criterion where the Church softens its stance on abortion. I believe the reasons that AFI brought forth is part of that reason.

I don't think the state or anyone can force an abortion under those, or any circumstances...

The scary thing is that as these cases come forward, a lobby for consenting incest may develop, calling for a changing of such laws. Someday a future generation may not feel the same revulsion I've seen here...

 

Interesting. So, if two siblings were sperated at birth, met each other without knowing they were related, there will be a built-in thing that stops them from loving each other?

 

Them hitting each other was bad luck. Them staying together, knowing they're siblings, is what's sick.

[ March 20, 2007, 10:53: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Well, basically one of the main things that influences on how we pick our partners is our sense of smell. That's the chemistry in love. You're attracted to the person the most who's immune system and genes compliment your own in the way that makes the healthiest babies.

The thing that's missing from here is the psychological inhibitors that you get by growing up together with someone, whether we're talking about blood relations or adopted siblings. But because of how spouse selection works even with humans, it is unlikely that siblings would get married and have children even if they wouldn't know that they're related. I'm guessing there being a psychological reason why they were drawn together. Something might have been seriously wrong with their family when they were children that has made it easier for them to cling to each other more than they're attracted towards other people.

Or maybe it's just that these two are anosmic chainsmokers...

 

If these two are lacking the socialised psychologic inhibitors that normal siblings have, they are psychologically imcomplete, like small children in this regard. They certainly made the impression on me. Maybe that's even a clinical disorder. They are lacking the same thing that prevents sane parents from having sex with their children. They are aberrations.

 

So people with different views to you are abberations? Interesting. Some cultures are less severe on incest, are they abberations too?

 

I don't know, but what I do know is that if they continue with the acceptance of incest they will end up as abberations because of genetical disorders.

 

Daie,
the cultures with different view are only comfortable with cousins intermarrying. They don't go any further. The two in our case are brother and sister. So your comparison falls way short, is in fact misleading and/or uninformed. These 'other cultures', Islam in particular, wouldn't accept that. Islam prohibits marriage in these cases. The Qur’an sais:

And it's not that these two creeps just have 'different views'. Paedophiliac parents also don't just have a 'different view'. It's that they lack the psychological inhibitor siblings that have been raised normally have.

And yes they are aberrations, if normal raising results in the natural emergence of psychological inhibitors. Then they are not normal, anormalities = aberrations.

If you insist on being provocant, I would appreciate some serious effort. Contrarianism is boring and mindless.

 

I do have a hot MILF aunt though...

...

...we are not related by blood.

 

I can understand your point, but on the other hand I can also see why punishing long-term lovers would be pointless. Have you ever considered how much more harm it would do to imprison the father of three children and force them to be apart simply because some people think they are disgusting?

If so, why? I have understood that you want the punishment to be absolute and remorseless.

@ Gnarfflinger

Religion and churches are irrevelant.

 

Although most people have those psychological inhibitors (primarily dealing with members of the opposite that live in close proximity to each other), some societies establish norms which overcome those inhibitors. In most societies even adopted children (who have been treated as siblings from infancy) show the lack of sexual attraction even though they are not at all related -- a trait so eloquently described by Barmy.

However, some societies have a much smaller population to draw from. In fact, there are many cases where smaller communities separate the men from the women -- without this close sibling bonding incestual relationships become more prevalent as the built-in 'sickening factor' is basically eliminated by the separation. These cultures do still have a line drawn as far as relationships are concerned and it is usually cross-cousins are acceptable (anything closer is taboo except under dire circumstances).

One item to note; passing on a genetic deformity requires a person to have such a deformity -- this is actually relative rare (2-3% of the population if I recall).

I have to mention this:

Wow, this is a huge milestone on the boards. Ragusa, I never thought I see you write something like this, you've come so far....

I almost feel like weeping for joy....

 

What about couples that look a LOT alike? That always creeped me out...

 

That simply isn't true. Must genetic deformities are recessive traits, meaning it is possible to carry the gene for the deforming trait without actually expressing the trait. There are very few dominant genetic deformities, because dominant traits always manifest themselves. The biology term is "heterozygous viability". This means that a heterozygote (in other words someone with one copy of the normal gene and one copy of the abnormal gene) function as normal individuals. As long as you have one good copy of the gene, you look and act exactly the same as someone with two good copies of the gene.

EDIT: It should be noted that every single cell in the body of a heterozygote has a copy of each of the genes. It is still not entirely clear how the body "knows" to use the copy of the correct gene.

[ March 20, 2007, 19:14: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Actually, no. Two people who are heterozygous for a genetic deformity can pass on the gene even though they suffer no effects from it themselves. Since most people are not heterozygous for the same deformities, they won't pass the deformities on to their offspring. Siblings (and, to a lesser extent, first cousins) are much more likely to be heterozygous for the same deformities. In the event that they are both heterozygous for the same condition, there is a 25% chance that the deformity will manifest. To make things worse, the odds are strong that a sibling or cousin pairing will be mutually heterozygous for more than just one deformity or negative trait.

EDIT: Aldeth beat me to it.

 

You're both saying the same thing I am -- I just phrased it poorly (I was using the term genetic deformity as literally a deformity in the genetic code, an abnormal gene -- not a physical manifestation thereof).

You must have the abnormal gene in order to pass it on (whether it is dominant or recessive or heterozygote). Not everyone has such a genetic abnormality. The odds of having such an abnormality are fairly low -- if you have one, then odds of passing it on are not so low (as you both pointed out) -- especially when mating with someone with the same issue.