I don't thinks it is immoral, but based on the genetic argument above it would not be a good idea. I remember reading that people are often attracted to those who are most genetically different from themselves, and this is something that actually can be determined through pheremones. So next time a woman comes up and sniffs you guys, don't run unless she's your close relation.
i think it's been pretty well explained....
btw, i thought juniper was a girl...
hah, anyone on the internet is an "it"
trust no one
btw, i thought juniper was a girl...
hah, anyone on the internet is an "it"
trust no one<< Why ask questions that can't be answered? Why don't we just start making threads on:
Why is Beastiality wrong?
Why is the sky blue? >>
Actually, there's a scientific answer to why the sky is blue. Something about the way light is refracted off the atmosphere, I beleive.
<<
<< Why ask questions that can't be answered? Why don't we just start making threads on:
Why is Beastiality wrong?
Why is the sky blue? >>
Actually, there's a scientific answer to why the sky is blue. Something about the way light is refracted off the atmosphere, I beleive. >>
This I know...blue light has a shorter wavelength than red light. When sunlight makes the trip to earth, it hits air molecules and the blue light gets scattered much more than the red light (but the red light is the light that gets to the earth)
When sunset comes around, the angle that the sun's coming at you is different so the effective atmosphere the light has to travel through is thicker...thus the blue all gets scattered away before getting to you and all you see is the red.
Here's a question for the religious folks. If adam and eve were the first humans on earth and everyone descended from them then how did the human population grow without incest? Sorry if this has been answered already but I skimmed the posts in this thread and got tired of reading all the "cause its wrong" and "why you wanna bang your sister you're sick" posts!
While I agree with them that its wrong (of course), it could have been said more tactfully by some. And it needn't be said for the hundredth time. I really wish people with nothing new to add to a topic would just shut their yaps sometimes. And there was no need to flame Juniper unless you're insane or something lol.
While I agree with them that its wrong (of course), it could have been said more tactfully by some. And it needn't be said for the hundredth time. I really wish people with nothing new to add to a topic would just shut their yaps sometimes. And there was no need to flame Juniper unless you're insane or something lol.
First off, I revere Juniper for having the tenacity to start a discussion such as this. For those simple-minded people who flame her, I again recommend leaving the thread.... It's a good question, and if we can't approach and discuss the topic in a mature, grown-up manner, then we shouldn't discuss such at all.
Here's a question for the religious folks. If adam and eve were the first humans on earth and everyone descended from them then how did the human population grow without incest? Sorry if this has been answered already but I skimmed the posts in this thread and got tired of reading all the "cause its wrong" and "why you wanna bang your sister you're sick" posts!
It's agreed on that in the beginning, Adam and Eve were perfect. Their offspring were much closer to being perfect (genetically in this case) than us....we're many generations later in this spreading of imperfection. Since their genes were still close to perfect, imbreeding did little to bring out all the negative recessives.
As for when imbreeding became taboo, this is what I think (or read somewhere...): In the past, such was customary in many cultures, as it was much easier to find a mate within one's village or extended family. Since villages were small, the gene pool wasn't too diversified after a few generations. Similar case in extended families. Well, deformed children was a common occurence in this situation, and many thought they were being cursed by a higher realm (ie God) for mating with their own family or village members... This wasn't seen when people mated with strangers. Since they noted this, it's become a taboo; nobody wants deformed offspring...do we?
Here's a question for the religious folks. If adam and eve were the first humans on earth and everyone descended from them then how did the human population grow without incest? Sorry if this has been answered already but I skimmed the posts in this thread and got tired of reading all the "cause its wrong" and "why you wanna bang your sister you're sick" posts!
It's agreed on that in the beginning, Adam and Eve were perfect. Their offspring were much closer to being perfect (genetically in this case) than us....we're many generations later in this spreading of imperfection. Since their genes were still close to perfect, imbreeding did little to bring out all the negative recessives.
As for when imbreeding became taboo, this is what I think (or read somewhere...): In the past, such was customary in many cultures, as it was much easier to find a mate within one's village or extended family. Since villages were small, the gene pool wasn't too diversified after a few generations. Similar case in extended families. Well, deformed children was a common occurence in this situation, and many thought they were being cursed by a higher realm (ie God) for mating with their own family or village members... This wasn't seen when people mated with strangers. Since they noted this, it's become a taboo; nobody wants deformed offspring...do we?
<< Because it's sick first of all, hehe.
Actually because they will have retarded children. >>
That is a myth.
-- mrcodedude
CrazyHelloDeli
Platinum Member
- Jun 24, 2001
- 2,854
- 0
- 0
For crying out loud, you people are sick...Why are the mods even letting this go on?! Idiots...
I'm sorry if I'm repeating what someone has already said because I read the first 100 post and then the last 31 or so before I got tired of reading.
By the way, this is just my way of procrastinating because I'm supposed to be studying...
This is some information I learned in my Marriage and Kinship class. (wow, apparenlty you do learn stuff in distribution requirement classes).
Incest hasn't always been reprehensible. There are certain cultures in which incest was encouraged. Which ones? I forgot. So I didn't learn very much.
However, interestly enough there might actually be a developmental component to why incest is repulsive to us. So in Isreal there were a group of Jews, that decided to raise children as communities. So basically what they did was at a very early age, groups of children were raised together in the sense, that they spent all there time together, eat together, learned together, etc... Later on there were expected to marry within the group. However, they have found was that the average birth rate was lower than normal. Remember this is a time when they didn't really have birth control yet, we can use this as a rough measurement of sexual attraction. The data seems to imply that being in constant proximity at a younge age has an negative effect on sexual attraction. However, the problem with this is that you have no control group to compare against.
Therefore, we can look at another population. Back a long time ago, in Taiwan, marriages were still arranged. However there are two forms of arranged marriage. One in which, the bride was obtained when she was fully mature, and the other when the bride was obtained close to birth, and the husband and wife were raised essentially as brother and sister throughout their developmental years. In comparing the birth rates of arranged marriages of mature girls and arranged marriage of cohabited children, you also see a decreased birth rate among those of cohabited children.
However, you may say that perhaps it's just familiarity that is decreasing the sexual attractiveness of the partner. When you graph the birth rate as a function of the age in which the girl was brought into the household, you find that there is a gradual decrease when you go from maturity to about 5 years of age. And when you go from 5 years old to almost close to birth, you find that the birth rate decreases dramatically. This seems to imply that there is some degree of imprinting that occurs during our first few years of life, that seems to tell us that the people around us are off limits. However, the mechanism for this has not yet been established.
As an interesting side note, in the late 19th century and late 20th century, it was actually debated by biologists on where inbreeding was a good thing or a bad thing. It was clear that inbreeding as deletarious effects on individuals, however, it was not clear that it was necessarily bad for the population. One argument was that inbreeding allowed for natural selection to bring out deletarious mutations earlier and prevent their spread in the general population. Therefore, inbreeding actually increases the fitness of the population. However, the problem with that argument was that they didn't know that mutation were capable of arrising spontaneously. So there are always going to be an endless supply of deletarious mutations. Another argument was that inbreeding minimal if any effect on population dynamics. At least in animal studies it has been shown that after 59 generations of intense inbreeding you see survival rates close to those that are randomly mated.
Ok, my girlfriend is getting mad that I'm not studying (she just came back from dinner). So need to wrap up quickly basically incest might actual provide some short term benifits in population fitness in the short term. However, it will decrease the fitness of the population in the long term because by homogenizing the population, you make it less capable of adapting to change. Therefore, evolution favors species that do not inbreed.
By the way, this is just my way of procrastinating because I'm supposed to be studying...
This is some information I learned in my Marriage and Kinship class. (wow, apparenlty you do learn stuff in distribution requirement classes).
Incest hasn't always been reprehensible. There are certain cultures in which incest was encouraged. Which ones? I forgot. So I didn't learn very much.
However, interestly enough there might actually be a developmental component to why incest is repulsive to us. So in Isreal there were a group of Jews, that decided to raise children as communities. So basically what they did was at a very early age, groups of children were raised together in the sense, that they spent all there time together, eat together, learned together, etc... Later on there were expected to marry within the group. However, they have found was that the average birth rate was lower than normal. Remember this is a time when they didn't really have birth control yet, we can use this as a rough measurement of sexual attraction. The data seems to imply that being in constant proximity at a younge age has an negative effect on sexual attraction. However, the problem with this is that you have no control group to compare against.
Therefore, we can look at another population. Back a long time ago, in Taiwan, marriages were still arranged. However there are two forms of arranged marriage. One in which, the bride was obtained when she was fully mature, and the other when the bride was obtained close to birth, and the husband and wife were raised essentially as brother and sister throughout their developmental years. In comparing the birth rates of arranged marriages of mature girls and arranged marriage of cohabited children, you also see a decreased birth rate among those of cohabited children.
However, you may say that perhaps it's just familiarity that is decreasing the sexual attractiveness of the partner. When you graph the birth rate as a function of the age in which the girl was brought into the household, you find that there is a gradual decrease when you go from maturity to about 5 years of age. And when you go from 5 years old to almost close to birth, you find that the birth rate decreases dramatically. This seems to imply that there is some degree of imprinting that occurs during our first few years of life, that seems to tell us that the people around us are off limits. However, the mechanism for this has not yet been established.
As an interesting side note, in the late 19th century and late 20th century, it was actually debated by biologists on where inbreeding was a good thing or a bad thing. It was clear that inbreeding as deletarious effects on individuals, however, it was not clear that it was necessarily bad for the population. One argument was that inbreeding allowed for natural selection to bring out deletarious mutations earlier and prevent their spread in the general population. Therefore, inbreeding actually increases the fitness of the population. However, the problem with that argument was that they didn't know that mutation were capable of arrising spontaneously. So there are always going to be an endless supply of deletarious mutations. Another argument was that inbreeding minimal if any effect on population dynamics. At least in animal studies it has been shown that after 59 generations of intense inbreeding you see survival rates close to those that are randomly mated.
Ok, my girlfriend is getting mad that I'm not studying (she just came back from dinner). So need to wrap up quickly basically incest might actual provide some short term benifits in population fitness in the short term. However, it will decrease the fitness of the population in the long term because by homogenizing the population, you make it less capable of adapting to change. Therefore, evolution favors species that do not inbreed.
Crap, this thread is still up and running?
I thought it would of died a while ago.
Did you finally get what you were looking for juniper (or however you spell your name)?
I thought it would of died a while ago.
Did you finally get what you were looking for juniper (or however you spell your name)?
<<
<< Because it's sick first of all, hehe.
Actually because they will have retarded children. >>
That is a myth.
-- mrcodedude >>
It's no myth. To say you will have retarded children for sure is wrong, but there is definitely an increased liklihood of complications.
We've ignored it and this nasty thread is STILL here.
We'll give you what you want. Go and screw your sibling, Juniper. You've earned it. <gag>
We'll give you what you want. Go and screw your sibling, Juniper. You've earned it. <gag>
Wow, most of the posts in this thread indicate that people really don't think much and just react...and they provide answers to a question that was not even asked. Some of these people probably have really hot sisters/brothers/cousins...and regardless of whether they admit it or not, I can almost guarantee you they at one point in their life they've thought about having sex with one or some of their relatives. I bet most of the people who said, "Because it's sick" or "It's just wrong" have thought about getting it on a regular basis with their sibling/cousin before, and maybe they even went so far as to go all the way.
As was already pointed out, humans are subject to a core set of biologically programmed routines that govern our behaviour. Survival is the number on instinct, and procreation of the species is probably second. Having sex with a person who is biologically close to you will not provide a diverse gene pool upon which to breed a strong species... "Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness." -- Ghost in the Shell ..now some people say that instincts cause the thought or act of having sex with a close relative repulsive, but it's more like the drive to procreate with a person who is NOT your relative is stronger than the drive to procreate with a relative.
The taboo placed on incest is nothing more than society influencing the minds of people. I don't think incest, for the intent of having sex for pleasure, is any different than homosexuality...in fact, homosexuality is more abnormal than incest. I doubt that many people would be honest about something like this on a public forum. They'd rather be like everyone else and simply dismiss it as wrong/disgusting without question.
It has been done before, and it goes on all the time...it is nothing new either.
-= SsZERO =-
As was already pointed out, humans are subject to a core set of biologically programmed routines that govern our behaviour. Survival is the number on instinct, and procreation of the species is probably second. Having sex with a person who is biologically close to you will not provide a diverse gene pool upon which to breed a strong species... "Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness." -- Ghost in the Shell ..now some people say that instincts cause the thought or act of having sex with a close relative repulsive, but it's more like the drive to procreate with a person who is NOT your relative is stronger than the drive to procreate with a relative.
The taboo placed on incest is nothing more than society influencing the minds of people. I don't think incest, for the intent of having sex for pleasure, is any different than homosexuality...in fact, homosexuality is more abnormal than incest. I doubt that many people would be honest about something like this on a public forum. They'd rather be like everyone else and simply dismiss it as wrong/disgusting without question.
It has been done before, and it goes on all the time...it is nothing new either.
-= SsZERO =-
thank you SsZERO for some degree of truth. I may not agree with 100% of what you said, but you are a lot closer to the truth than others.
Darwin can shed more light on the truth of this than any bible ever could!!!
By the way, Lions and others gain control of a breeding population of females and kill any offspring that are not their own. This has even recently been documented in Feral housecats. The males will breed with ANY female....it is the offspring of others they remove from the gene pool.
Darwin can shed more light on the truth of this than any bible ever could!!!
By the way, Lions and others gain control of a breeding population of females and kill any offspring that are not their own. This has even recently been documented in Feral housecats. The males will breed with ANY female....it is the offspring of others they remove from the gene pool.
I am not a religious person at all, and I do not believe in a god or supreme being, or anything like that...hence, I do not use a preexisting set of guidlines to determine what is right and what is wrong. To make really simplify what I was saying in my previous post: people are naturally and instinctively sexual beings. That is how humans are designed. With basic survival such as eating and maintaing health aside, the desire to procreate is the main drive of most people. Since humans have the ability to overcome instinct with willpower, humans can choose to participate in the act of sex for pleasure, profit, or whatever reason other than procreation. With that in mind, there is no biological "lockout" that would deter humans from becoming sexually involved with their relatives. If a person is just looking to have sex and nothing else, then all humans are fair game, relatives or not.
Whether it is right or wrong is up to the people involved...though the responses in this thread is a pretty good indication of how most people would react if you were to announce your 2 year love affair with your 1st gen cousin.
-= SsZERO =-
Whether it is right or wrong is up to the people involved...though the responses in this thread is a pretty good indication of how most people would react if you were to announce your 2 year love affair with your 1st gen cousin.
-= SsZERO =-
<< We've ignored it and this nasty thread is STILL here.
We'll give you what you want. Go and screw your sibling, Juniper. You've earned it. <gag> >>
-killmeplease
<< Crap, this thread is still up and running?
I thought it would of died a while ago.
Did you finally get what you were looking for juniper (or however you spell your name)? >>
-Jero
Excuse me, some of us are having a real discussion here about genetics. If you can't handle it, the get the @#$% out.
Ionizer86, thanks for your post, you've answered my question.
bugsysiegel
Golden Member
- Jan 11, 2001
- 1,213
- 1
- 81
<< Here's an unpopular opinion: because God says it's wrong, along with bestiality and homosexuality. They're all in the same list of prohibited sex acts in the Bible. >>
Prohibited unless of course you are Adam, Eve, or one of thier kids, or one of kids of Moses, then incest is OK. The bible is such a piece of hypocritical crap.
As far as in-breeding causes retardation, doesn't it take like 2-3 generations? Not 100% positive about that, but I thought it did take a generation or two before the lack of cross-dna "mixing" would start to effect offspring.
As far as is it wrong, I don't think anything that happens between two consenting adults is wrong. If birth defects weren't an issue (read: birth control) and two adults who were related wanted to bump uglies, I don't see an issue with it. Personally, I don't feel any sexual feelings for my sister (I'm 33 she's 30) and the people who meet her always, ALWAYS, tell me she's hot. I'm like, Shut up dude!
<< British Royalty is a good example of incest...ya wana turn out like them?? All ears and no chin??? >>
<< As long as you're not having kids I suppose really there isn't anything "wrong" with it. >>
It's expected in Alabama isn't it
.<< Incest is wrong, at least morally.
Say a brother and sister have sexual relationship. Why is that wrong? Why should it be wrong?
Most people I have discussed this subject with, come as far as "Oh its just sooo wrong." No valid reason.
I want to hear your views, because Ive not heard of any good reason which enlightens my mind about this issue. >>
Hey, you could read up on Freud and Jung psychology, and you'll know why it's wrong 99.99% of the time by culture's vantage point. The 0.0001 % is a matter of very very exceptional circumstances.
The development of moral intelligence in a person is dependent on his/her psyche's ability to suppress unnecessary sexual impulses from the EGO via ID. The person develops a secondary [capable of superseding EGO] sphere, Super-ego -- to refine and develop his/her conscience ideals. So if "brother and sister have sexual relationship", part of their conscience is not strong enough to overcome their own primal sexual instincts for each other.
Super-ego is subdivided into two parts: Conscience ideal [do not indulge] and Ego ideal [must indulge]. Ego ideal has a subclass level called the Unconscious that arises in certain situations to override conscience, instincts at depths of possible unknown causation.
Make sense?
I haven't read through the whole thread but biologically, each individual is heterozygous recessive for a few (say 5-10) very harmful genes. Mating with someone in your immediate family means there are very good chances that they have the same potentailly hrmful recessive genes.
By mating with somkeone in your family, there's a 25% chance for each gene that the child will have the trait, i.e. there are very good chances that the child will have at least one of these harmful traits. As a result, biologically and culturally we have learned to stay away from incest
-Ice
By mating with somkeone in your family, there's a 25% chance for each gene that the child will have the trait, i.e. there are very good chances that the child will have at least one of these harmful traits. As a result, biologically and culturally we have learned to stay away from incest
-Ice
<<
<< This thread is sick. This is a hardware site, not a porn forum. I think if you want to stoop to such filthy depths and even discuss such trash, you should do with people like you who think this kind of filth is acceptable. Why don't you find the nearest cess pool to ask this question. God I swear there is just flat out trash in this world. >>
what a surprise... classy I sure hope you're a perfect angel or God is going to laugh in your face when your self-righteous ass goes to meet him.
Juniper NEVER stated ANYWHERE that she was taking part in incest or sexual relations of ANY KIND. It's just a topic to discuss, and the OFF TOPIC forum is the correct place to do it. It's actually a very interesting subject, not so much because of incest itself, but the varying ways that people respond to the mere mention of the word incest. We're trying to get at the essence of human nature here... nobody's saying "yeah go ahead with it". Sometimes a topic can be discussed for discussion's sake. There is nothing wrong with identifying WHY it's wrong.
But obviously you've nothing constructive to add (no shocker there) so why don't you dig the panties out of your ass and go somewhere with yourself. For someone so disgusted, you must have had enough interest in this thread to click on it. If you find it so repugnant go read some other thread.
l2c >>
Pfffahahahahaha.. So the 'classy' cat comes out of the bag..
Why does this subject effect everyone so negatively?
Some people eat crickets, and that's considered nasty. Some people screw animals, and that's considered nasty. The lunch lady - nasty. But why people? Just because it unsettles your stomach, doesn't make it WRONG. If it disgusts you, then don't look. Most incestual relationships out there don't flaunt it, but we all know they exist. AND THAT IS OK.
Remember gays/lesbians and how nasty that was a few years back? 90% of you "hated" those "nasty freaks". Did you know that Alexander the Great had sex with over 1000 men during his campains? His whole army was primarily gay, and the rest bisexual... Was that nasty? Were they shunned by society then? Nope, in fact, Alexander the Great is one of the most influential people of our history and a main reason why we(western civ) are the way we are.
You know England has incestual affairs all the time? Who cares? Whatever werks.
So long as they don't have children, it's fine by me!
Some people eat crickets, and that's considered nasty. Some people screw animals, and that's considered nasty. The lunch lady - nasty. But why people? Just because it unsettles your stomach, doesn't make it WRONG. If it disgusts you, then don't look. Most incestual relationships out there don't flaunt it, but we all know they exist. AND THAT IS OK.
Remember gays/lesbians and how nasty that was a few years back? 90% of you "hated" those "nasty freaks". Did you know that Alexander the Great had sex with over 1000 men during his campains? His whole army was primarily gay, and the rest bisexual... Was that nasty? Were they shunned by society then? Nope, in fact, Alexander the Great is one of the most influential people of our history and a main reason why we(western civ) are the way we are.
You know England has incestual affairs all the time? Who cares? Whatever werks.
So long as they don't have children, it's fine by me!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter