brother and sister sex!!!!!!!!

[darkblue]

asdf for one.. these are underage children..

 

two- There are genetic risks involved

 

three - It is not natural, in the sense that they are related, they have the same blood. [not literally]

 

four - There is no acceptable excuse as to why they should be having sex.. They are related, They have shared a home.

 

This is like you having sex with your mother.. Why don't you do it? because it is just plain wrong.

 

As to your comment about

 

most uninformed comment EVER

 

You are in NO way informed if you are reasoning this behaviour as acceptable.

 

That's all I have to say.

 

Darkblue

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

 

The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.

Oscar Wilde

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Dark you completely ignored the information asd gave you. Plus mine. And no it is in no way the same as the mother/son thing.

Totally different dynamics.

nobody is arguing these kids shouldn't be having sex at that age. Only that the incest part of the argument might not be as bad as people think.

[asdf]

asdf for one.. these are underage children..

 

two- There are genetic risks involved

 

three - It is not natural, in the sense that they are related, they have the same blood. [not literally]

 

four - There is no acceptable excuse as to why they should be having sex.. They are related, They have shared a home.

 

This is like you having sex with your mother.. Why don't you do it? because it is just plain wrong.

 

As to your comment about

 

most uninformed comment EVER

 

You are in NO way informed if you are reasoning this behaviour as acceptable.

 

That's all I have to say.

 

Darkblue

 

why don't you actually read what i said before commenting on it. your first three points were already completely accounted for. your other points are based on what society tells you is wrong, but you haven't actually given a reason why they're wrong.

[moe42]

all i can say is that is gross and well thats all i have to say its wrong gross nasty and it just shouldnt happen just a question but where you live is this normal

[darkblue]

To asdf

 

First off, Don't disrespect other users.

 

I'm very entitled to my opinions, as you are.

 

Just because society says it is wrong, does not make it wrong, I agree. But on this subject, in my opinion, society does have the correct principals.

 

Why do you agree with it?

 

Would you consider brother/sister sex?

 

Darkblue

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

Friendship often ends in love; but love in friendship - never.

-Charles Caleb Colton

[avman]

Let me remind you all to please respect each other even if you do not agree.

[asdf]

To asdf

 

First off, Don't disrespect other users.

 

I'm very entitled to my opinions, as you are.

 

Just because society says it is wrong, does not make it wrong, I agree. But on this subject, in my opinion, society does have the correct principals.

 

Why do you agree with it?

 

Would you consider brother/sister sex?

 

Darkblue

 

I only said that when you said incest makes albinos, that it was the most uninformed comment ever. I may have been wrong, there may be more uninformed comments, but it really was uninformed nonetheless, and your points show a lack of biological knowledge.

 

I know you are entitled to your own opinions, but i pointed out your opinions don't have any logical reason behind it.

 

I don't have a sister, and I don't know if I would be attracted to her (most likely I wouldn't, due to the Westermark effect I mentioned earlier before) but I certainly don't see how morality comes into the picture with the difference between a family member and a non-family member.

 

You'll notice in this thread the only arguments are along the lines of "it makes defected children" (untrue, it only slightly increases the chance, and you wouldn't tell non-related couples to not have children because their genes weren't ideal anyway) and also "it's just gross/sick/disgusting/evil" which is the kind of excuse people rely on when they don't have any valid reasons. Whereas the people who say "it's not nessesarily wrong" had argued with facts to back them up (except that one guy who just said it was a turn on for him)

 

I have no problem with people who are not interested in incest (I'm not interested in it myself) but I find it inappropriate to condemn or judge other people's lifestyles on such arguments which people believe only because it was socially imprinted on them.

[DN]

I wonder if people would have a different reaction if this were a case of a 14 year old boy having sex with his 12 year old sister.

 

Under British law I am fairly certain that the sister at least would be guilty of a criminal act. If the authorities were to find out, I would be surprised if both children were not removed from the home and taken into care.

 

The poster who mentioned royalty sharing genes is correct but is being somewhat misleading. It is true that Queen Victoria married her first cousin and that the present Queen and her husband are both descendants of Victoria, in fact most European royalty share a descent from Victoria and Albert - but there is no case that I am aware of in English history where a brother married a sister - the laws of incest forbid it.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Dn what I was suggesting is that the Bourbons, Stuarts, present etc have had such a closed off community that they might as well be two siblings. My case for a specific instance was the ancient,s specifically post Alexander Pharoahs right up to Cleopatra and her brother who were just fine.

[DN]

I understand, although I am not aware of much inbreeding by the Stuarts, there was certainly a lot by the Hanovers, remember the incidence of hemophilia in Victoria's descendants; but as I said that doesn't match the present case because this one involves siblings and the gene pool is so different when it comes to sibling vs cousins. Siblings have only two people from which to inherit their genes and only four grandparents - cousins have four from the first generation and eight from the second, and even if there is the marriage of cousins at either of those generations it is still more. It is the degree of consanguinity that is the decisive issue.

[asdf]

for the genetic argument, is this under the assumption that genetically people alike shouldn't reproduce because their children are more likely to have "defects" then you could use the same argument that people with recessive genes shouldn't reproduce at all, and only people considered fit should reproduce.

[Minty80]

What disturbs me most about this is that considering their ages and the extreme taboo against incest in this society I'm left to wonder if the girl wasn't the victim of sexual abuse at some point in her life.

 

It would fit a fairly common pattern, sadly.

[darkblue]

DN is correct on the hemophilia in Queen Victoria's decendants; I know of the Tsar Nicholas of Russia's son having this condition (and the story of Rasputin etc)

 

So yes, there are cases of 'defected' offspring from interbreeding.

 

as for asdf's quote of 'most uninformed comment ever'.

 

not quite, there are cases of albino offspring as a result of interbreeding.

 

What your points for 'support' are, are still unclear..

 

Apart from the fact that you don't like how 'society implies these theories of incest being wrong upon us'.

 

Darkblue

 

_____________________________________________________________

Some people are only alive because it is illegal to shoot them..

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Ummm Yeah I am well aware of Russian Nicolas' hemophiliac son.

That wasn't neccesarily from incest. Couples who are incestuous have that sons that that happens to. Although it is carried by the mother it happens usually among the Y chromosome.

[SPark]

Well, I actually have an informed opinion on the incest/ inbreeding debate in terms of genetics...but by way of the world of dog breeding! Inbreeding does NOT "produce" any defects that are not already in the background...it just shrinks the gene pool to a greater or lesser degree, so that you`ve got more possibility of whatever IS back there popping up. If you inbreed 2 perfect (and I`m talking outwardly and genetically perfect...not just the dog itself but the whole pedigree) dogs (not that there are any), you`d get perfect puppies...on the other hand, inbreed 2 unhealthy fearbiters and look forward to a litter of more of those! Of course there are also unhealthy dogs and fearbiters that come from completely unrelated parents, so people who say "that dog is nasty because it`s inbred" usually have no idea what they are talking about...if they said "that dog is nasty because it`s inbred on Nasty Dog A, four times in the third generation" or something, then it would make more sense!

 

Brother/ sister is the closest inbreeding you can do...as others have pointed out, closer thant parent/ offspring or cousins.

 

To relate this to people, most people have NO idea of what kinds of genetic defects lurk 2 or 3 generations back, and the human gene pool has lots of weird recessives and things. The same genetic principles apply, though...just, depending on the family, there might be a bigger chance of bringing unexpected defects to the fore.

 

I hope that the original poster finds a way to get her friend some help, though...I also wonder about the possibility of past (or ongoing) sexual abuse by a parent.

[asdf]

DN is correct on the hemophilia in Queen Victoria's decendants; I know of the Tsar Nicholas of Russia's son having this condition (and the story of Rasputin etc)

 

So yes, there are cases of 'defected' offspring from interbreeding.

 

as for asdf's quote of 'most uninformed comment ever'.

 

not quite, there are cases of albino offspring as a result of interbreeding.

 

What your points for 'support' are, are still unclear..

 

Apart from the fact that you don't like how 'society implies these theories of incest being wrong upon us'.

 

Darkblue

 

There are cases where "defected" children have resulted from inbreeding, but it doesn't mean that inbreeding was the cause. These "defects" occur from "normal" breeding too. Albinoism can happen with "normal" breeding too. Does that make "normal" breeding wrong?

 

My positions just stands because there is no logical reason to think incest is wrong or any less moral than non-related couples breeding.

 

And of course, if you use the genetic argument, then you're saying that there's something morally wrong with having a baby that's defected or an albino, then you'd also have to come to the conclusion that "defected" people do not have the right to reproduce either.

[DN]

[My positions just stands because there is no logical reason to think incest is wrong or any less moral than non-related couples breeding.

 

And of course, if you use the genetic argument, then you're saying that there's something morally wrong with having a baby that's defected or an albino, then you'd also have to come to the conclusion that "defected" people do not have the right to reproduce either.

 

Of course, you may hold your postion on the moral issue - however, the legal issue remains: incest is a crime and so is under-age sexual intercourse.

 

I disagree with your statement that because someone holds the position that incest is wrong they are saying that it is morally wrong to heve 'defective' children or allow 'defective' people to mate. I think incest is wrong and do not hold either of those two viewpoints. One does not necessarily follow the other in logic.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

If it isn't because of genetic defects than precisely why is it you think it is morally wrong?

I agree they shouldn't be having sex regardless. They are too young.

[DN]

If it isn't because of genetic defects than precisely why is it you think it is morally wrong?

I agree they shouldn't be having sex regardless. They are too young.

 

I think incest is morally wrong because of the increased risk of birth problems. But thtat doesn't mean that I think people with birth defects should be terminated before birth or discriminated aagainst.

 

Similarly, I think it morally wrong for a woman to smoke and drink while pregnant because of the rist of problems for the baby - but that doesn't mean I want to terminate the baby.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Dn

lol This isn't a subject I feel passionately about. I am gonna get that out of the way first. I do however like exploring and challenging taboos from culture to culture to try and get to the most objective morals possible.

So I will reply to your answer by saying fair enough. However would you still hold that moral standard if one of them was sterile or voluntairly under went sterilization to avoid that possibility and they were also both consenting adults?

[DN]

Well, if we are talking hypothetically; probably not.

 

A former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau was once commenting on the relaxation of the laws on homosexual acts and said "The view we take here is that there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

 

Or, as Mrs. Patrick Campbell was reputed to have remarked: "It doesn't make any difference what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."

 

I believe that if your actions do not impact on anyone else (potential children, for example) and both people are old enough to consent, then, as much as I personally find incest repugnant, it is not my concern.

 

However, in the case we are talking about there are no such undertakings by either party and neither of them is of the age of consent.

[Day_Walker]

It seems that the scientific genetic evidence has been pushed to the side in this debate, the issue still comes up about how incest will directly cause birth defects, albanism or whatever else. As Jenifer and I pointed out with our genetic evidence the scientific evidence says that with inbreeding the gene pool isnt as large and its possible for genetic defects to occur with their offspring but only if those defects are present in the gene pool already.

 

it would be difficult to come up with a answer why incest is morally wrong with out brining in birth defects (because it isnt supported by the scientific evidence). That seems to be the issue at hand and the answer that is waiting to be read.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

So the conclusion is that Incest with sister is equally/or to a lesser extent morally wrong than smoking or drinking alcohol while pregnant. So why are more people repelled by it?

[ShySoul]

Well it may sound weird but I kinda find it errotic. I mean I have read many stories in mens magazines where the "sexy older sister" made a man out of her baby brother. I have 4 sisters that are dolls and well................., anyhow it might not be for everyone but after all it is only sex.

 

Well, consider the source of those stories, mens magazines. There all about sex anyways so why not have stories like that. And "only sex?' If you treat sex so lightly then its no wonder you don't have a problem with it.

 

I think incest is morally wrong because it confuses the different types of love people have. The love you feel for your family is not a romantic love that would involve sex. You love and appreciate these people for being there and caring for you, but not in a get naked and get busy way.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Shy how do you know somebody can't feel romantic love for their sister but not the sinbling kind? Remember how much modern culture can influence romantic/sexual mores. I think a lot of sisters including the ones so outraged on here, feel romantic/lust love deep down for their brothers but because of social objections it makes them act all the more strongly opposed to it. Historically lot's of people have been in love with their siblings.