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

[DN]

Historically lot's of people have been in love with their siblings.

 

Really? That's interesting, who for instance?

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Dn I admit I was thinking about Caligulia when I thought of that..........

[DN]

Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (Caligula, or 'Little Boots') was also insane and more famous for making his horse a Roman Consul.

 

According to Robert Graves, in I, Claudius, he also murdered his sister after having sex with her.

 

Hardly a great role model for incestuous relationships!

[tsunami2005]

Getting back to the case given by Drawing Queen, I am of the view that this need not be taken as incest per se. considering the age of them, especially the boy (he is just 12) it looks more like they are exploring each other out of sheer curiosity than having any actual sex. This sounds more like "lets play doctor" than "lets make love".

 

In all probability the desire thay have to see a real nude body of the opposite sex and touch it made them to do so and will end real soon. Sometimes weird things happen, when I was 12, i used to kiss another boy of my age fantasizing he is a girl- it was not a gay relation, I guess I was using him as my walking and talking girl doll and he was doing the same to me. Neither of us had any homosexual orientation later nor do we think of those acts as gay experiences.

[DN]

As I said before, leaving aside the incest aspect; I find it interesting that people do not seem to view a 14 year old girl having sex with a 12 year old boy in the same way as if the genders were reversed. The fact is that this boy is probably being exploited by his older sister and the chances are that, if they are caught, she could be in serious trouble.

[tsunami2005]

DN, the factor that distinguishes between exploitation and exploration is age gap of course. If the boy had been 12 and the girl 17, it would have definitely been a case to be referred to law or atleast professional help. But the gap here is just 2 years.. I cannot visualize a 14 year old girl as a molestor.

[DN]

DN, the factor that distinguishes between exploitation and exploration is age gap of course. If the boy had been 12 and the girl 17, it would have definitely been a case to be referred to law or atleast professional help. But the gap here is just 2 years.. I cannot visualize a 14 year old girl as a molestor.

 

My question, however, is would people believe a 14 year old boy would be molesting a 12 year old girl under similar circumstances. And I think in either case it is still a matter for the law and/or professional help.

[Vanilla]

I don't think this should be under estimated. You cannot compare kissing another little boy when you were like 5? to having sex with a sibling.

 

How does anyone here know it is just out of curiosity? How does anyone here know that someone there isn't being deeply affected? This is not something you just go and say "oh they're just curious no big deal"...

 

If they tell that to someone and truly mean it thats one thing, but until then you odn't just ignore the fact that a brother and sister at such tender age are having sex with eachother. If it were your kids would you just ignore it and think "oh they're just exploring their bodies" or would you confront it and treat it for what it is ot be sure nobody ends up psychologically or emotionally damaged in the end.

 

Listen most kids that age do wonder. But the healthy 14 yr old girl will tell you this about their 12 year old brother "i can't stand him, he's always bothering me and getting me in trouble" and the healthy 12 yr old boy would say "she's so stupid I'm going to read her diary"....none of them will bust out and say "I have sex with my little brother/older sister"...

Are we blind here? It didnt happen once people, its ongoing, and it needs to be addressed wether its purely curiosity or something else.

 

I agree with DN. Don't give me that stuff about the age gap. If a 14 yr old boy was having Sex with his 12 yr old little sister his butt would be in court so fast because it would be considered molestation/rape. If not how come we see those cases on tv all the time? How can anyone say this is completely normal without even treating these children? They are children! Their brain has not developed fully the part of desicion making -consequences.

 

I'm sorry but I just really can't stand when people justify things like "oh its normal to be curious and have sex with your sibling" or in posts where men cheat "its in their instinct to have sex with as many women as possible"...yes this would all be true if we were dogs, rabbits, pigs, cats ...ANIMALS. But there is a reason we are HUMANS with a conscience and feelings and elaborate brains...we are humans not animals. Lets not forget that.

 

If the these siblings had maybe kissed or mentioned a mere fantasy that is one thing. But lets not just ignore the fact that they are having intercourse and could potentially really be damaging someone. What would you do if they were YOUR children? or children you loved? Come on...seriously. give me a break.

[asdf]

[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.

 

i never said or implied that the only reason people think incest is wrong is because of the genetic thing. i was just pointing out how their line of thought would continue if they had the view point. in fact, i previously stated in my posts that i believed the majority of people thought it was wrong just because they've been told by society it's wrong. i was just pointing out the "flaw" in the genetic argument (not a flaw if you think handicapped people are inferior to healthy people).

[asdf]

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.

 

thus it is morally wrong for a person with a higher chance to pass on defective genes to reproduce?

[asdf]

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.

 

Okay, then that's something we can agree on. I'm not a fan of incest myself. I just happen to find nothing morally wrong with it.

 

I do agree in this case, the issue is that they are both too young.

[asdf]

But there is a reason we are HUMANS with a conscience and feelings and elaborate brains...we are humans not animals. Lets not forget that.

 

Humans are animals

[asdf]

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.

 

so are you saying that different types of "love" should be isolated from each other? a friend can't be a romantic partner as well? a sibling can't be a friend as well?

[Vanilla]

yes SUPERIOR animals that have a conscience and can reason and understand, we're not pigs or cats or dogs who just do instinct. we were given a brain and respect and an elaborate brain for a reason so don't come and tell me we're just plain animals so we can go running around like wild chickens doing thoughtless acts that can truly affect other people. i don't buy it for one second.

[animatrix]

I have a friend I met at university years ago. She has suffered from eating disoders and depression for many many years. She has been suicidal, hospitalized and on anti-depressants. WHY? Because when she was younger her brother was having sex with her. It has scarred her deeply FOR LIFE! They were close to the ages of the siblings we are talking about.

Maybe there are people out there who don't think it's wrong to hook with a sibling, but there must be reasons why that the vast majority of us gay or straight don't. Whether we can verbally express it or not, we must know instinctively it's not right.

[Vanilla]

i completely agree. Siblings, parents, family- they're the people one goes to for love, for nurture. One is supposed to feel safe around them and know that they treasure one. So when someone in a person's family commits a lude act upon one it is not right and in most cases severely affects a person psychologically for life.

[OceanEyes]

i previously stated in my posts that i believed the majority of people thought it was wrong just because they've been told by society it's wrong.

 

Point taken - but having sexual intercourse with your brother/ sister isn't like smoking a joint. Wouldn't that be along the same lines as having sex with your mother or father? Then backed up by the reason that "we're all animals" and acting upon instinct? That's messed up. I've never had the instinct of jumping my brother's bones, I can tell ya that.

[ShySoul]

schatzieK, I'm agreeing 100% with you.

 

Yes, humans are animals. But we are higher evolved animals. Other animals don't have the capacity for abstract thought. The can't grasp ideas such as truth, justice, freedom, love, etc. I don't see pigs creating complex communties and inventions to make life easier and better for all (the novel Animal Farm notwithstanding). These animals are ruled by instincts, humans are unigue in that they can rise above that. We have the ability to see right and wrong. So to justify something on the basis of "humans are animals" is to neglect what makes us special, what makes us, us.

 

so are you saying that different types of "love" should be isolated from each other? a friend can't be a romantic partner as well? a sibling can't be a friend as well

 

I'm saying that family love doesn't include romantic love, not that all loves are separated. Siblings are friends, even though they may not act like it usually . But siblings aren't sex partners. Just like friends are not sex partners. It wouldn't make sense to say that you are friends so you should sleep with each other. There are different stages, friends to relationship to romantic partner. Each stage builds off the last but are still separate. So when you hit romantic partner, you still have the friendship as a foundation. But family is a completely different thing, which does not include romance anwhere in there (except of course for husband/wife).

[asdf]

yes SUPERIOR animals that have a conscience and can reason and understand, we're not pigs or cats or dogs who just do instinct. we were given a brain and respect and an elaborate brain for a reason so don't come and tell me we're just plain animals so we can go running around like wild chickens doing thoughtless acts that can truly affect other people. i don't buy it for one second.

 

Humans are about as "instinctual" as animals. We do have seuperior brain masses, but the fact is, all animals, including humans, behave on the way their brain is designed to. The only reason we aren't out in the wild is because we've had society imprinted on us. A human raised out in the wild raised with parents who also have no imprint of society would be "animal" like. There did exist human tribes which others considered "animal like" in their way of life too, their brains were just the same, they just didn't have the same social bounds as other humans. Granted, humans are smarter (for most part), but that doesn't make people less instinctual. We eat, we mate, and we're competitive. The only difference is our society and how it imprints us.

[asdf]

i previously stated in my posts that i believed the majority of people thought it was wrong just because they've been told by society it's wrong.

 

Point taken - but having sexual intercourse with your brother/ sister isn't like smoking a joint. Wouldn't that be along the same lines as having sex with your mother or father? Then backed up by the reason that "we're all animals" and acting upon instinct? That's messed up. I've never had the instinct of jumping my brother's bones, I can tell ya that.

 

with the mother/father thing, the only thing i would be worried about is the age difference (i think that being too young when having sex can have undesirable effects on somebody).

 

I'm not saying you should feel like you should jump your brother. In fact, I said in most cases, it's natural not to want to. But there still is no reason why incest is anymore right or wrong than sex with a non-relative.

 

The "it's just wrong", "i just know it's not right" arguments so far are just take incest being wrong as an axiom, but there's been no good argument. I can take similar parallells to when people believed that the earth was flat, then that the sun orbited around the earth. They just believed it to be true, just because they were told, but they had little proof (although from some facts they gathered, their arguments were more credible than the arguments being made against incest).

[asdf]

I have a friend I met at university years ago. She has suffered from eating disoders and depression for many many years. She has been suicidal, hospitalized and on anti-depressants. WHY? Because when she was younger her brother was having sex with her. It has scarred her deeply FOR LIFE! They were close to the ages of the siblings we are talking about.

Maybe there are people out there who don't think it's wrong to hook with a sibling, but there must be reasons why that the vast majority of us gay or straight don't. Whether we can verbally express it or not, we must know instinctively it's not right.

 

That sounds either like rape, or an imposed guilt. And I'm definitely not saying you should have sex with your brother if it scars you for life. I'm also not saying you should have sex with anybody if it scars you for life.

 

But if a man and a woman were having sex, not rape, not scarring, or anything, then what is the real difference if the man and the woman were related, and if they weren't? Only their genes.

[melrich]

Humans are about as "instinctual" as animals. We do have seuperior brain masses, but the fact is, all animals, including humans, behave on the way their brain is designed to. The only reason we aren't out in the wild is because we've had society imprinted on us. A human raised out in the wild raised with parents who also have no imprint of society would be "animal" like. There did exist human tribes which others considered "animal like" in their way of life too, their brains were just the same, they just didn't have the same social bounds as other humans. Granted, humans are smarter (for most part), but that doesn't make people less instinctual. We eat, we mate, and we're competitive. The only difference is our society and how it imprints us.

 

This is not correct. Humans obviously hace a larger brain mass relative to total body size than any other animal but the differences go well beyond "brain mass". There are fundamental differences in the way a human brain works to that of, say, a cow.

 

Further, in the context of this subject, nearly all species of mammal have evolved "protection" against inbreeding. What do I mean by "protection"? One example is a leopard. Its siblings carry a scent that is designed to warn it that mating is undesirable. Another example is lions, the males are "forced" from the pride once they reach the age they would be mating, another is chimpanzees which have strict social structures that prevent the mating of first blood relatives.

 

These patterns are prevalent throughout nature and scientists believe they only breakdown with depletion of the species.

[Vanilla]

I am sorry. I just can't see it nor agree with it. I don't want to have sex with my brother or any relative NOT because society told me it was wrong -but because something in me NATURALLY finds it wrong.

 

Society tells me a lot of things I do not agree with and go against, but sexual contact with a family member is something I have felt my entire life would be wrong. It is not something someone had to tell me or talk to me about, it was something I already understood on my own.

 

Ive always seen my siblings and relatives period as people I love who nurture me, that kind of warmth. I have never felt any sexual desire for them. They're the people you turn to to feel safe, not for them to have sex with.

 

Society could turn around tomorrow and tell me "new findings show it is healthy to sleep with your brother!" and I would NOT EVER change how I feel. It's not even a way of thinking, its just something I feel that naturally comes out that its just not right to me.

 

Maybe I can't explain it well enough but I just can't stress that its not really society but something I "instinctively" knew since I was very young.

[asdf]

Humans are about as "instinctual" as animals. We do have seuperior brain masses, but the fact is, all animals, including humans, behave on the way their brain is designed to. The only reason we aren't out in the wild is because we've had society imprinted on us. A human raised out in the wild raised with parents who also have no imprint of society would be "animal" like. There did exist human tribes which others considered "animal like" in their way of life too, their brains were just the same, they just didn't have the same social bounds as other humans. Granted, humans are smarter (for most part), but that doesn't make people less instinctual. We eat, we mate, and we're competitive. The only difference is our society and how it imprints us.

 

This is not correct. Humans obviously hace a larger brain mass relative to total body size than any other animal but the differences go well beyond "brain mass". There are fundamental differences in the way a human brain works to that of, say, a cow.

 

Further, in the context of this subject, nearly all species of mammal have evolved "protection" against inbreeding. What do I mean by "protection"? One example is a leopard. Its siblings carry a scent that is designed to warn it that mating is undesirable. Another example is lions, the males are "forced" from the pride once they reach the age they would be mating, another is chimpanzees which have strict social structures that prevent the mating of first blood relatives.

 

These patterns are prevalent throughout nature and scientists believe they only breakdown with depletion of the species.

 

Second point is correct, and something I myself have pointed out earlier in this thread. In most cases, it is natural to not find related people attractive. It's called the Westermark effect. It's a form of imprinting on the infant that makes the people it's familiar with during it's infancy as sexually undesirable later in life.

 

Further scientific study has shown that people separated from relatives at childhood (brother's or sister's being adopted by different people, adopted kids reuniting with parents, all of which are more common after the internet has facilitated such reunifications to be possible) are actually more sexually attracted to each other than normal due to their genetic similarities, which supports the theory of this effect.

 

I agree, evolution has "worked" in a way to make relatives sexually unattractive to each other. But if something isn't "natural" does that mean it's morally wrong?

 

For your first part, partially you are right, and once again, I have pointed out that the human brain is relatively the largest of species around, but that doesn't change the fact that humans are instinctual. There may be pointable differences between a human and a cow, but the differences occur in the logic/reason part of the brain, which makes up most of our brain mass. This gives us higher ability to reason and abstract than other animals, but ultimately, our "reptilian brain" also known as the limbic system, is always in power. This part of our brain gives us the fundamentals on telling us to eat, mate, survive and be territorial. It's the part of our brain which drives fear, greed, etc.

 

I forgot the name of the second part, but it's came along with the evolution of mammals and it's revolved around emotions such as sadness, jealousy, etc.

 

Our logical/reasoning part of the brain is actually the weakest part of our brain. We are always ruled over by our need to survive and spread, then our emotions are secondary, and then logical deductions are only taken into consideration once the other two brains are satisfied.

 

Now, you are right, humans are much smarter than most other animals, but that doesn't change the fact that we're still animals. And smarter doesn't always mean "better". Humans are unique, but every species is unique in their own way. It doesn't mean we're "above" other animals.

[melrich]

I am not saying we are above other animals.

 

Your argument was that humans are like all other animals and the only thing stopping humans from mating with their first blood relations is socials structure.

 

That is simply not true. Wild animals do not mate with their siblings or parents unless environmental conditions make it imperative.

 

I made no mention of whether it is morally wrong or otherwise.