18 replies to this topic

[The Immortalist]

This video is pretty old but I would like to here peoples opinion on this video. Can you blame him? That's a really hot red head wife he's got there!

Edited by The Immortalist, 21 March 2011 - 02:30 PM.

[chris w]

Funny for myself that I feel no gut repulsion whatsoever, knowing they're siblings, so much for the Kassian "wisdom of repugnance" here. And indeed she is pretty hot (seems kinda slow on the brain though), since her name's Karolevski, my bet is that's Polish genes that made her that way    

I'm totally indifferent to what grown ups do in their free time (so I voted yes), it's pretty  medieval that the guy did two years in the slammer for simply banging his willing sister. I just think a couple in this circumstances should have enough responsibility to not conceive children, if there is that much of a risk of genetic defects, conceiving in such case is almost intentionally creating "centers of suffering" if you will, but in an article I read some time ago about exactly those two, it was said that lately he finally has underwent vasectomy.

If the female in a pair like this does get pregnant, and the tests show that the fetus is in the unlucky 50%, abortion should be an open option funded by the state, and even encouraged. If she still chooses to give birth, tough shit then, not much we can do, laws should always apply equally, like to all other people with heritable diseases choosing to have children, either - or, we allow all of the risk groups to make babies with no legal consequences (as I suppose is in majority of jurisdictions) or none of them, singling out incestual relationships is just an afterglow of cultural/religious taboos, I think.

For some strange reason, the topic of incest has been a little theoretical (this needs an emphasis ) interest of mine for some time, I like to crack jokes about it towards my sister, it's fun to see her head explode. Ussually there is the so called "Westermarck effect" at work which prohibits inbreeding urges to a large extent, but it works only if people spent some crucial part of childhood near each other (I guess 7 - 9 years old, but I'm not sure atm), it dims attraction to non - related persons as well, as was witnessed in Israeli kibutzes, where kids were brought up together. On some level I judge my sister as being a pretty woman, but it's more like looking at a work of art or something, a "sterile" type of attractiveness.

Since those Germans have met later in life, this mechanism was absent. There are on - line mutual help communities dedicated to this very problem, which they call Genetic Sexual Attraction.

Actually, Einsten was the product of a cousing marriage, take it for you will.

Edited by chris w, 24 March 2011 - 03:59 PM.

[The Immortalist]

 chris w, on 24 March 2011 - 03:51 PM, said:

Funny for myself that I feel no gut repulsion whatsoever, knowing they're siblings, so much for the Kassian "wisdom of repugnance" here. And indeed she is pretty hot (seems kinda slow on the brain though), since her name's Karolevski, my bet is that's Polish genes that made her that way    

I'm totally indifferent to what grown ups do in their free time (so I voted yes), it's pretty  medieval that the guy did two years in the slammer for simply banging his willing sister. I just think a couple in this circumstances should have enough responsibility to not conceive children, if there is that much of a risk of genetic defects, conceiving in such case is almost intentionally creating "centers of suffering" if you will, but in an article I read some time ago about exactly those two, it was said that lately he finally has underwent vasectomy.

If the female in a pair like this does get pregnant, and the tests show that the fetus is in the unlucky 50%, abortion should be an open option funded by the state, and even encouraged. If she still chooses to give birth, tough shit then, not much we can do, laws should always apply equally, like to all other people with heritable diseases choosing to have children, either - or, we allow all of the risk groups to make babies with no legal consequences (as I suppose is in majority of jurisdictions) or none of them, singling out incestual relationships is just an afterglow of cultural/religious taboos, I think.

For some strange reason, the topic of incest has been a little theoretical (this needs an emphasis ) interest of mine for some time, I like to crack jokes about it towards my sister, it's fun to see her head explode. Ussually there is the so called "Westermarck effect" at work which prohibits inbreeding urges to a large extent, but it works only if people spent some crucial part of childhood near each other (I guess 7 - 9 years old, but I'm not sure atm), it dims attraction to non - related persons as well, as was witnessed in Israeli kibutzes, where kids were brought up together. On some level I judge my sister as being a pretty woman, but it's more like looking at a work of art or something, a "sterile" type of attractiveness.

Since those Germans have met later in life, this mechanism was absent. There are on - line mutual help communities dedicated to this very problem, which they call Genetic Sexual Attraction.

Actually, Einsten was the product of a cousing marriage, take it for you will.

I should have added another option to the poll saying "I think incest is ok just not when children are produced from it". I thought the couple in this video were irresponsible for giving birth to children but they got what they deserved by having two severely disabled children and one born with a severe heart condition, only one had no serious afflictions.

When you mentioned the "Kassian Wisdom of repungence" I checked it out and after I read what it was about I could help but laugh at the fallaciousness of that theory.

About the Westermarck effect I don't think that can apply to everyone, certainly not me. Like for example I've lived with my sister my whole life and she's a very pretty woman and if in a hypothetical scenario she suddenly came into my room with just her panties on and asked me if I wanted to f*ck I'd do it if there was a condom nearby(although I wouldn't even think about if if my sister was ugly). Also I'm attracted to my aunt who is also related to me and I'd f*ck her if I ever got the chance.
Oh an please don't say I'm a deviant or whatever for not being affected by the WesterMarch effect     It effects most people because in Darwinian terms it is an advantage to the species for being being turned off by your close family members so as to keep people from having babies with harmful mutations. Now it doesn't matter because there is birth control and abortion clinics so now the Westermarck effect is almost useless and I guess some people like me are just not born with it.

Edited by The Immortalist, 25 March 2011 - 04:14 AM.

[chris w]

Lol, don't worry, it takes more than what you wrote for me to call someone a pervert, I've heard/seen weirder shit. Maybe you're just the next step in our evolutionary process .

Those guys that I knew close enough, and who had sisters, always seemed confounded when I asked if they ever sexually fancied their siblings, it was like "duude, never, GTFO", so I kind of took the whole Westermarck thing for granted, but I'm not saying that it applies absolutely everywhere to everybody, every time. The pharaohs for example didn't seem to mind that much, in some African tribes in certain circumstances it was not only allowed for the king, but specifically demanded of him that he sleeps with his mother (and then gets executed, but that's another story) so it's all more complicated than just one biological rule. Let's spread the love !

Edited by chris w, 26 March 2011 - 02:32 PM.

[Rational Madman]

This constitutes a terrible invasion into a sovereign province of privacy, because judging by the potential of systemic harm, the state has little interest in intervention.  There is a rational and innate aversion to inbreeding that acts as a formidable obstacle against the practice reaching statistical relevance, which means that the action of the state has a basis primarily in superficial fear and disgust that's being shrouded by some other dubious pretext.  But because of the unintended ancillary costs in this case, the stakes are higher than we might want to think, because a precedent is being set for violating a domain of privacy that by logic, norm, and statute should be inviolable.  Although it should probably go without saying, I don't consider incest a positive societal trend, but I would rather it exist on the margins of society than to peel away from the fruit of privacy, or perhaps worse, diminish the heterogenity of a society.

Edited by Rol82, 17 April 2011 - 03:10 PM.

[The Immortalist]

 Rol82, on 16 April 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

This constitutes a terrible invasion into a sovereign province of privacy, because judging by the potential of systemic harm, the state has little interest in intervention.  There is a rational and innate aversion to inbreeding that acts as a formidable obstacle against the practice reaching statistical relevance, which means that the action of the state has a basis primarily in superficial fear and disgust that's being shrouded by some other dubious pretext.  But because of the unintended ancillary costs in this case, the stakes are higher than we might want to think, because a precedent for violating a domain of privacy that by logic, norm, and statute should be inviolable.  Although it should probably go without saying, I don't consider incest a positive societal trend, but I would rather it exist on the margins of society than to peel away from the fruit of privacy, or perhaps worse diminish the heterogenity of a society.

So basically your saying that people should be able to do whatever they want if it doesn't actually hurt anybody?

[niner]

 The Immortalist, on 17 April 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

 Rol82, on 16 April 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

This constitutes a terrible invasion into a sovereign province of privacy, because judging by the potential of systemic harm, the state has little interest in intervention.  There is a rational and innate aversion to inbreeding that acts as a formidable obstacle against the practice reaching statistical relevance, which means that the action of the state has a basis primarily in superficial fear and disgust that's being shrouded by some other dubious pretext.  But because of the unintended ancillary costs in this case, the stakes are higher than we might want to think, because a precedent for violating a domain of privacy that by logic, norm, and statute should be inviolable.  Although it should probably go without saying, I don't consider incest a positive societal trend, but I would rather it exist on the margins of society than to peel away from the fruit of privacy, or perhaps worse diminish the heterogenity of a society.

So basically your saying that people should be able to do whatever they want if it doesn't actually hurt anybody?

But it did hurt somebody- their kids.  In the video, it mentioned that the first two had some sort of disorder, and apparently this is sufficiently common among the children of sibling pairings to explain the near-universal taboo against it in human societies.  If they didn't have kids, then they could be having sex with farm animals for all I care.  BTW, that girl is pretty average looking; not "hot" enough to justify all that trouble if hotness is the sole criterion.  IMHO...

[Rational Madman]

 niner, on 17 April 2011 - 03:38 AM, said:

 The Immortalist, on 17 April 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

 Rol82, on 16 April 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

This constitutes a terrible invasion into a sovereign province of privacy, because judging by the potential of systemic harm, the state has little interest in intervention.  There is a rational and innate aversion to inbreeding that acts as a formidable obstacle against the practice reaching statistical relevance, which means that the action of the state has a basis primarily in superficial fear and disgust that's being shrouded by some other dubious pretext.  But because of the unintended ancillary costs in this case, the stakes are higher than we might want to think, because a precedent for violating a domain of privacy that by logic, norm, and statute should be inviolable.  Although it should probably go without saying, I don't consider incest a positive societal trend, but I would rather it exist on the margins of society than to peel away from the fruit of privacy, or perhaps worse diminish the heterogenity of a society.

So basically your saying that people should be able to do whatever they want if it doesn't actually hurt anybody?

But it did hurt somebody- their kids.  In the video, it mentioned that the first two had some sort of disorder, and apparently this is sufficiently common among the children of sibling pairings to explain the near-universal taboo against it in human societies.  If they didn't have kids, then they could be having sex with farm animals for all I care.  BTW, that girl is pretty average looking; not "hot" enough to justify all that trouble if hotness is the sole criterion.  IMHO...

But I imagine they were fully cognizant of the likelihood of birth defects---just like parents over 50---and nonetheless, decided to assume the burden anyway.  Was this ill-advised, of course, but it's still not a reason for prohibition.  In this context, I would prefer that the state threaten a reduction of child benefits in the event of incestual procreation.  Which as a consequence, would reduce the societal cost of the relationship by altering incentives, yet preserve the liberty of the individuals in the partnership.

[niner]

 Rol82, on 17 April 2011 - 05:07 AM, said:

 niner, on 17 April 2011 - 03:38 AM, said:

 The Immortalist, on 17 April 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

 Rol82, on 16 April 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

This constitutes a terrible invasion into a sovereign province of privacy, because judging by the potential of systemic harm, the state has little interest in intervention.  There is a rational and innate aversion to inbreeding that acts as a formidable obstacle against the practice reaching statistical relevance, which means that the action of the state has a basis primarily in superficial fear and disgust that's being shrouded by some other dubious pretext.  But because of the unintended ancillary costs in this case, the stakes are higher than we might want to think, because a precedent for violating a domain of privacy that by logic, norm, and statute should be inviolable.  Although it should probably go without saying, I don't consider incest a positive societal trend, but I would rather it exist on the margins of society than to peel away from the fruit of privacy, or perhaps worse diminish the heterogenity of a society.

So basically your saying that people should be able to do whatever they want if it doesn't actually hurt anybody?

But it did hurt somebody- their kids.  In the video, it mentioned that the first two had some sort of disorder, and apparently this is sufficiently common among the children of sibling pairings to explain the near-universal taboo against it in human societies.  If they didn't have kids, then they could be having sex with farm animals for all I care.  BTW, that girl is pretty average looking; not "hot" enough to justify all that trouble if hotness is the sole criterion.  IMHO...

But I imagine they were fully cognizant of the likelihood of birth defects---just like parents over 50---and nonetheless, decided to assume the burden anyway.  Was this ill-advised, of course, but it's still not a reason for prohibition.  In this context, I would prefer that the state threaten a reduction of child benefits in the event of incestual procreation.  Which as a consequence, would reduce the societal cost of the relationship by altering incentives, yet preserve the liberty of the individuals in the partnership.

Oh, liberty my ass.  You're proposing to further punish the innocent but genetically defective child so the brother and sister can have babies without getting hassled by the state?  What if the child needs institutionalization, and bro and sis can't afford it?  Shall the state pony up for a bullet to put the kid out of his misery without burdening the taxpayers?  This is Libertarianism gone nuts, as usual.

[chris w]

 Rol82, on 16 April 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

There is a rational and innate aversion to inbreeding that acts as a formidable obstacle against the practice reaching statistical relevance, which means that the action of the state has a basis primarily in superficial fear and disgust that's being shrouded by some other dubious pretext.

OTOH the same traits you enumerate describe paedophilia.


PS F*ck, not a single post without typo in my lifetime.

Edited by chris w, 19 April 2011 - 06:29 AM.

[.fonclea.]

for me no way, it's disgusting

[The Immortalist]

 .fonclea., on 24 April 2011 - 09:30 PM, said:

for me no way, it's disgusting

So then how far do you go in your disgust towards incest? Do you think it's wrong for cousins to marry? Second cousins? Third cousins? Fourth Cousins?

[love2yu]

There are two aspect of life in which we human being think Practical and Therotically.

Practically there is nothing wrong in Incest, Incest sexual relationship is not new its going on since acient times and can also say sicne inception of life on earth. Once can check about spiritual sex, and other sexual relationship since inception and go back to histroy.

It is we who are responsible for creating barriers, there are some condenders in our society who want to rule the world and society as per their norms and believe.

I ask simple question.

1. Who created Religion? (from my point of view, it is we human only nature helped as we wanted)

2. Who created Society? (we only created for own selfish interest)

3. Who created rules and regulations and law? (we only created)

4. Who is barring our liberty? (we are resposible for the same)

Nature law is not barring, and incest is not against nature law.

Our society, our legal system will never understand such relationship because it is right said "LAW is BLIND" and only take decision on proofs and law of number.

I strong believe Incest should be legaliesed and German brother and sister should be granted relief and legal status for their relationship.

The should be no discrimination about religion, society or relationship.

[Droplet]

I wouldn't say it's "okay" but on the plus side, at least they are adult humans who can consent. I do have a lot of sympathy in situations where a couple didn't even know they are brother and sister. However, there will always be a chance of reproduction and suffering children and for this reason I think it's not something I'd see as "okay." Face it, many couples do want children and I reckon many incestous couples if we look at it as being like any other adult relationship would feel the same way.

[Connor MacLeod]

 The Immortalist, on 27 April 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

 .fonclea., on 24 April 2011 - 09:30 PM, said:

for me no way, it's disgusting

So then how far do you go in your disgust towards incest? Do you think it's wrong for cousins to marry? Second cousins? Third cousins? Fourth Cousins?

Philosophical consistency of this sort is not generally a very practical basis upon which to formulate laws in the real world. For example, the same type of argument that you are employing here could just as easily be applied to pedophilia. How young is too young? Upon what principle do you base this? And if there exists no absolute principle upon which to base such a demarcation, does that then imply that there should be no laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children?

[Rational Madman]

 Connor MacLeod, on 12 November 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:

 The Immortalist, on 27 April 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

 .fonclea., on 24 April 2011 - 09:30 PM, said:

for me no way, it's disgusting

So then how far do you go in your disgust towards incest? Do you think it's wrong for cousins to marry? Second cousins? Third cousins? Fourth Cousins?

Philosophical consistency of this sort is not generally a very practical basis upon which to formulate laws in the real world. For example, the same type of argument that you are employing here could just as easily be applied to pedophilia. How young is too young? Upon what principle do you base this? And if there exists no absolute principle upon which to base such a demarcation, does that then imply that there should be no laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children?

Since the sexual fascination that drives pedophilia has a basis in the innocence of the subject and the sadism of the predator, I imagine there aren't that many cases where the age is close to the legal barrier.  And furthermore, compared to acts of incest, there seems to be little moral ambiguity in cases of pedophilia, because I presume that the costs incurred by the younger subject are almost unfailingly serious.  For incestual relationships, though, the costs that compel public action don't seem to be very visibile, since most relationships of this sort are probably distinguished by a consensual agreement between adults, and because it's sensible to assume that knowledge of the potential consequences prevents most partners from seriously considering the choice of procreation.  But looking beyond the relativity of the two, I'm mostly bothered by the volume of the attention that both are subject to, which is rarely proportionate to an objective assessment of their harm potential.

[Connor MacLeod]

 Rol82, on 12 November 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

I imagine there aren't that many cases where the age is close to the legal barrier.

I believe you are wrong; certainly the number of such cases vastly outstrips the number of sibling couples who want to get married.

[The Immortalist]

 Connor MacLeod, on 14 November 2011 - 08:37 AM, said:

 Rol82, on 12 November 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

I imagine there aren't that many cases where the age is close to the legal barrier.

I believe you are wrong; certainly the number of such cases vastly outstrips the number of sibling couples who want to get married.

This thread is not even about cases of uncles sexually molesting their unwilling nieces or something akin to that. This thread is about consensual adults who are siblings who want to have a sexual relaionship.

[Earth Citizen]

In my mind, to judge the morality of an adult consensual copulation based on one's own gut emotions is a violation of that couple's privacy.

However children do have a right to not be subject to unnecessary risks of disability.

Edited by Earth Citizen, 22 April 2012 - 04:05 PM.