-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Incest
- Thread starter St Dionysius
- Start date
because as everyone knows, the government exists primarily to cleanse the human gene pool and prevent "abnormalities"
I really can't understand why people insist on the "mutated children" thing. We all know it's bad (even a fine child will always probably have a worse gene pool and will inevitably pass it up to his offspring), but there is always the possibility a couple does not have children. There are plenty in the world of couples without children, and I fail to see why allowing incest forbidding incestors from reproducing (they would still be eligible for adoption, though) is unreasonable.
Such an argument is divided in two.
Group A think that sex is performed because it feels good.
Group B think that sex is performed for reproduction purposes.
Of course, all of the people in Group A will be in favour of incest, while not all of the people in Group B will be in favour.
Thus this argument will never be won by any side unless the people from Groups A and B try to merge the two groups together.
Group A think that sex is performed because it feels good.
Group B think that sex is performed for reproduction purposes.
Of course, all of the people in Group A will be in favour of incest, while not all of the people in Group B will be in favour.
Thus this argument will never be won by any side unless the people from Groups A and B try to merge the two groups together.
The only difference being that, while group A does not mind what group B think when it comes to group B's businesses, group B actually does care about group A to the point of negate their right to think differently from them. I wonder why people are so concerned about what other people do. They want to have sex together because they like it. Fine. What else?
Because Group B will look at Group A and say "hey you're not (always) having sex for reproduction purposes!" and will thus think that Group A people are "bad". That's why.
Just the fact that you think I'm bad does not mean you should "ban me" (somehow). I don't like discos for several reasons, I will never go to one and I'm a bit biased towards people who attend them. But that does not mean I would forbid them. The thing I hate about some people is their inability to say: "I don't like something. I have no logical reason to hate it. Let's ignore my feelings and allow it". This is the most honest attitude for any kind of intellect, and the only one which should be allowed to write laws. For the interest of everyone.
Let me provide my own personal view on this matter.
First of all, I feel that any form of non-consensual incest is wrong. I hope everyone agrees at least on this. Children that went through an incest experience often exhibit serious psychological problems later on in their lives, and obviously that cannot be good.
Now let's tackle consensual incest. Studies show that when two people live together during the first six years of either lives, both are desensitized to sexual attraction. This suggests that natural selection evolved in this way so that inbreeding is discouraged.
However, if two people of the same blood, say a brother and sister, are raised separately and then meet in their adulthood, they might find themselves very attracted to each other. This suggests that natural selection considers people that have lived with a child in the first six years of his or her life as being the child's family.
Unfortunately, inbreeding in large populations increases the probability of birth defects. In small populations, this often doesn't happen: if children born with birth defects die before they mate, the frequency of defective genes in the population will decrease over time. In large populations, such 'defective' genes have a higher probability of surviving.
The only problem I find with consensual incest, then, is the increase of defective genes in a large population. This might not be apparent immediately, since the offspring might look healthy; however, they would also have a high risk of having their own babies born with birth defects, and so on. I think I'll be excused if I tried to stop two consenting adults into incest when the human race is at risk of becoming weaker as a consequence.
First of all, I feel that any form of non-consensual incest is wrong. I hope everyone agrees at least on this. Children that went through an incest experience often exhibit serious psychological problems later on in their lives, and obviously that cannot be good.
Now let's tackle consensual incest. Studies show that when two people live together during the first six years of either lives, both are desensitized to sexual attraction. This suggests that natural selection evolved in this way so that inbreeding is discouraged.
However, if two people of the same blood, say a brother and sister, are raised separately and then meet in their adulthood, they might find themselves very attracted to each other. This suggests that natural selection considers people that have lived with a child in the first six years of his or her life as being the child's family.
Unfortunately, inbreeding in large populations increases the probability of birth defects. In small populations, this often doesn't happen: if children born with birth defects die before they mate, the frequency of defective genes in the population will decrease over time. In large populations, such 'defective' genes have a higher probability of surviving.
The only problem I find with consensual incest, then, is the increase of defective genes in a large population. This might not be apparent immediately, since the offspring might look healthy; however, they would also have a high risk of having their own babies born with birth defects, and so on. I think I'll be excused if I tried to stop two consenting adults into incest when the human race is at risk of becoming weaker as a consequence.
Am I wrong or are you still implying that the two "incestors" have to have a child? Because I thought we all agreed upon the fact that give birth to a child with a person of the same blood was immoral (for the reason you outlined). The question is: two people who share a bloodline (cousins, brothers etc. - I'd rule out parents and sons/daughters since it is a LOT more controversial) and decide to... fuck each other (sorry for my rough language but I ignore the "politically correct" term to use in pace of "fuck"^^) are doing an immoral thing? and if so, WHY? (Don't forget the latter question folks^^ think of it as a paragraph voting to a Suspect Test - you have to give motivations for your decision!)
I don't think making incest illegal will have any effect on the people who do it. It's illegal for people to rape (ok you win akuchi, "fucking" does soud like a bad choice of word) minors, but there's tons of registered sexual predators out there. Society's laws do not have an affect on people when it comes to sex, IMO. When people are horny they want to fuck, and they are not going to think about any stupid rules/laws to decide if what they want to do is right or wrong. I've seen some shit on TV about how the body goes through tons of chemical changes when they start thinking about sex. It's also clear that in the male, sexual arousment takes from the blood that goes into the brain, and that cuts the amount of oxygen that the brain gets to use; Therefore limiting his judgment. I'm pretty sure most people who perform incest already have some doubts in their head about what they are about to do is wrong. But they do it anyway, because the needs of the body are more important that what the brain is thinking. That doesn't make much sence, but the chemical rush the brain gets is adictive. Sex needs to be programed as a overpowering urge since it's essecially what keeps the speices going on. So what we have here is Social Laws and ideas vs Bilions of years of evolution. It's clear to me which is going to overcome the other.
Of course not every one who does incest is making babies, since there is protection, but the drive to perfom sexual acts does not take into consideration that they will use contraceptives.
So yeah, I don't think this can really be a discussion about legality. It's basically a thread to propose what you think about incest personally.
Of course not every one who does incest is making babies, since there is protection, but the drive to perfom sexual acts does not take into consideration that they will use contraceptives.
So yeah, I don't think this can really be a discussion about legality. It's basically a thread to propose what you think about incest personally.
You're right about poit a, so i changed it.
But for point b, i still stand by my argument. Females also get some sort of chemical rush, and females can also perform sexual acts that they might not have done if they were thinking straight. I wasnt saying that rapists only rape simply because they are overcome by the urge for sexual needs, but that obviously is part of why they do it.
Bullshit. Rape isn't a "fast way to have sex". It's not even at all.
People don't really do things they'd otherwise never would do just because they have a hard-on. Look at it this way, you've probably been really, really horny in your life. Did you ever think "man, that chick is hot, I should grab and force myself on her, daaamn that'd be fun"? If you did, then there's probably something wrong with you... Believe it or not, rape really isn't about sex. Rapists get off by using control and power, and they don't "lose control of their mind" or any bullshit like that.
People are missing my point. My point was that even if incest is illegal, the people who want to do it will continue with their plans regardless of laws. I was only suggesting an example. Rape is the first sexual action i could think of that is limited by laws. If incest were to be limited by laws, it would not have much of an effect. The correlation behind my example was supposed to be: People who rape, don't give a fuck if it's legal or not; therefore people who participate in incest probably wont either. How many of you would rape just because no one said it was illegal?
Not, I rape people because i'm horny.
@chris is me: I didn't know rape wasn't about sex... I don't know much about rapists so i would not know. But by your logic, if it's about power then wouldn't that mean that Presidents and leaders an whatnot would also be rapists? They get to their place of political Power by striving for it. So they want power and since rape is about power, they are rapists. I might be missing your point, but this thread really isnt about rape. Akuchi was replying to my post and i replied to her reply, it seems to me you didn't read my other post, or you misunderstood
Not, I rape people because i'm horny.
@chris is me: I didn't know rape wasn't about sex... I don't know much about rapists so i would not know. But by your logic, if it's about power then wouldn't that mean that Presidents and leaders an whatnot would also be rapists? They get to their place of political Power by striving for it. So they want power and since rape is about power, they are rapists. I might be missing your point, but this thread really isnt about rape. Akuchi was replying to my post and i replied to her reply, it seems to me you didn't read my other post, or you misunderstood
What chris is trying to say is that the thing which attract the rapist so much about the act of raping is not the idea of having sex with a girl, but rather of forcing a girl into submission. And most men (at least, rapists) think that the most immediate way to take possess of a girl is to possess herl sexually.
The power of Presidents (and the lust of it) is a different thing, even if it is really possible for the two kinds of lust to coexist in the same person. But, most importantly: what does this thing have to do with the OP?
Either nobody bothers to read all my posts or I'm just a fucking dumbass who can't write for shit. I'll just stop posting now since nobody seems to understand what i'm trying to write.
THIS is your point, and it is quite apparent too. The thing is: this isn't actually the point of the discussion. There are a lot of wrong things that people will continue to do regardless of law, like theft for example. Instead, what I'd like you to answer to is: should incest be legal (assuming we both agree upon the fact that, even if it were legal, having children should be forbidden to them)?
That was only the point about the rape stuff.
That is what i had to say about the original topic, the rest was just my reasoning as to why I came to the conclusion I did. I'm not saying it should be legal or illegal since i don't think it matters.
I am of the opinion that both the number of laws and the limitations they entail should be absolutely minimized.
I doubt that incest (and reproduction through it) being legal would do much harm to society, as it would most likely remain a fringe practice. Just allow all consensual relations to happen and run statistics for a while. If there are problems at least we will know exactly what they are and we'll be able to address them properly and not necessarily through legal means.
There are also many better ways for society to counter practices that are viewed as harmful. Unprotected sex may lead to unwanted pregnancies and children resulting from accidents may be less happy, but we don't make it illegal to have unprotected sex for non-reproductive purposes. We simply sensitize people so that they are careful and use proper protection. Same goes here, really. Take measures to minimize the practice, carefully monitor potential "willing victims" to avoid certain sorts of abuse, but there is no need to clutter the legal system with these concerns. It would only lead to inconsistency and injustice towards several people engaging in consensual, responsible incest (who probably have it bad enough with social stigma).
I'm also amused by everyone putting emphasis on how they are disgusted by the practice, as if it mattered.
I doubt that incest (and reproduction through it) being legal would do much harm to society, as it would most likely remain a fringe practice. Just allow all consensual relations to happen and run statistics for a while. If there are problems at least we will know exactly what they are and we'll be able to address them properly and not necessarily through legal means.
There are also many better ways for society to counter practices that are viewed as harmful. Unprotected sex may lead to unwanted pregnancies and children resulting from accidents may be less happy, but we don't make it illegal to have unprotected sex for non-reproductive purposes. We simply sensitize people so that they are careful and use proper protection. Same goes here, really. Take measures to minimize the practice, carefully monitor potential "willing victims" to avoid certain sorts of abuse, but there is no need to clutter the legal system with these concerns. It would only lead to inconsistency and injustice towards several people engaging in consensual, responsible incest (who probably have it bad enough with social stigma).
I'm also amused by everyone putting emphasis on how they are disgusted by the practice, as if it mattered.