There is nothing wrong with incest, providing contraception is used. The only real harm is to the potential offspring, whose health is at risk.
The definition of incest varies somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, country to country, culture to culture. Whether or not there is "nothing wrong with it" might depend on how incest is defined by the law, custom and religion, the age of the parties involved, whether there is mutual consent possibly other factors. I certainly don't agree with the blanket statement that there is "nothing wrong with incest." There may be cases where incest is harmless, but I have a hard time envisioning them. I can sure think of a lot of examples where there is plenty wrong with it.
Hey, y'all - quick! Write this down: I agree with Ralph "Dirty" Deeds!
"I can sure think of a lot of examples where there is plenty wrong with it."
And for those who don't get it: morals is when you know better! That's for those who don't understand common sense and/or morality...duh. And that goes by tradition and country to country for their codes of conduct!
We all live by laws.
right...wrong...who's to say?
socially it is unacceptable, to put it lightly.
morally...well, most people live with morals given to them by church/religion (or society, which if you stop to think of where THOSE morals come from its clear to see ALL our accepted morals stem from religion/the bible)
i don't know, i am a live and let live person.
i find it repulsive...and i feel bad for judging actions that do not affect me whatsoever, but being in and of this society makes it hard not to.
my final answer:
to each their own. live and let live. whatever floats your boat...etc etc etc
i really believe that, but i can imagine the average person's reaction to your suggestions.
Seriously, dude, are you out of your fkn mind. Seriously, This is a ruse to get us worked up. Sorry, didn't catch me. If it's not a ruse, you su@k a$$.
There is not even a mili-second of debate on this....it's just WRONG.
Either that or you are so incapable of finding someone who will mate with you outside of your family that you are trying to justify the actions....wrong, wrong, wrong. Hire a dam prostitute.
Then the opposite is true as well. Which means the following statement would have to have equal value as the OP's:
There is nothing wrong with any sexual relationship, as long it is healthy in every aspect, including maturity, responsibility, contraception, respect, honor, love, etc., including taking genetic responsibility.
That means that children, mentally challenged, and those who are not mature enough to understand such relationships would be exempt. It means much more.
The root to such situations seems to be that we should treat others how we want to be treated. That takes putting yourself in the other person's position and imagining how they would feel, and realizing whether or not you would want to be treated in such a way.
Generally to me, this means that perhaps well over 80% (or more) of all relationships are unhealthy, abusive, based on using for gratification and much more.
OMG Daniel, is that you? Woohoo! Smokin', baby, absolutely smoking! Let's run away together and have a sexual relationship that is totally based on mutual gratification.
Totally agree with what you said above. You're spot on. Why are the rest of us allowed to be dysfunctional and detrimental to society in our own chosen ways, but not them?!!!
Hypocrisy and willing hatred. I understand that many people don't like looking in mirrors, but I cannot understand why they are so eager to hate.
Yes, it's me. Avatar posting at the urging of some friends. They said to "celebrate summer and being 54 yrs old and in shape." A few here think I stole it somewhere. Who cares, right?
I'm not beyond being a hedonist these days. My idealism seems to have gotten me just about nowhere in life. LOL However, my personal motto still stands:
Harm neither myself nor any other person.
That, however, doesn't reduce the idea of seeking pleasure for me...
Okay enough of decadence. I must pretend to work so I can pretend to be paid.
MrV, you make me laugh outloud. The things you google should be banned, not the activities themselves....
I personally don't see anything damaging in it, and over four pages of this thread I did not find any real objection either, except for irrational attempts to reinforce the taboo.
Great fun, for you! so, why dont you discuss this at home?
I'm generally open to most ideas (and deeply interested in human psyche and why people act and behave the way they do) but I have to say, I can NEVER understand how a sexual relationship between a parent and a child can be ok. Personally.... just the thought is revolting!
Morally bankrupt question. If you want to screw your relatives, you've got bigger problems than contraception. Look up Sigmund, he likes people that want to "do" their mother....or is it Dad with you?
I think human beings have adapted incest avoidance behaviour as part of the process of evolutionary natural selection. Two people with different traits: one finds family members sexually unattractive, one doesn't.
If the one that doesn't, mates with a family member, the offspring's chances of survival (and therefore reproduction) are significantly reduced because of the passing on of harmful recessive gene mutations, which cause genetic disorders and lead to impaired functionality.
The one that has a sexual aversion is more likely to mate with a non-family member, reducing the risk of genetic disorder, impaired functionality and increasing the offspring's chance of survival. In turn, the genetic trait that caused the sexual aversion in the parent is then replicated in the offspring, who in turn is more likely to mate with a non-family member, replicating the genetic trait further.
In this way human beings have adapted incest avoidance behaviour from natural selection. The mechanism by which that happens seems to be proximity of residence. You are less likely to be attracted to someone you've lived with during the first years of your life, than those you have not lived with. This is why siblings separated at birth may be attracted to each other after meeting later in life, and why someone adopted as a baby is not more likely to find a parent sexual attractive.
This incest avoidance behaviour then becomes woven into the social fabric. It becomes a taboo. Indeed, many social taboos can be directly linked to various behaviours adapted through natural selection. Morals and ethics are often intertwined with such behaviours. In essence, they are the social outputs of a biological process.
I think human beings have reached a stage of development where biological imperatives are in conflict with social imperatives. Issues of the type raised in your OP are representative of that conflict. Other examples are same sex relationships and our attitudes towards them, aspects of religion, gender roles, war and conflict. There's no doubt we're still subject to some biological imperatives, but the question seems to be which imperatives should we allow ourselves to be subject to.
I am simply stupified that you can so casually state there is nothing wrong with incest.
I thought it was that stuff you light to make it smell pretty,,,,, oh that,,,,
Well, what else is wrong about incest then? Why is it wrong -say- to fall in love with yer cousin? Why is it okay to meet some stranger at a club, have a few drinks, go back to their place, have a one-night-stand and never see each other again except for on maybe facebook but it's disgustingly immoral to fall in love with and marry yer cousin, assuming care is taken to ensure that no children will be produced from the union?
For myself I have to say that under circumstances such as that, I'd see nothing wrong about it. Kinda weird, different, taboo I admit, but what is wrongwith it?
Providing they don't reproduce. Because there are too many stupid people in the world as it is.
Yes. I am from the south. Why do you ask? Was it my willingness to discuss incest or my reference to too many stupid people?
Well, I didn't say that. I am not promoting, advocating or suggesting abortion. I do think there are some pretty darned reliable methods of pregnancy prevention however.
Is the risk of pregnancy the only objection? What else makes it wrong? I think that's the real question. If there's no molestation or children involved, and if the reproduction issue wasn't a factor, what would be so wrong about it?
That's the question.
What's wrong with it is the moral factor period.
The question is name that moral factor. If it's not molestation or irresponsibly producing human beings with less than average capabilities, then what is the moral factor that makes any and all incest a wrong?
You got nothing.
Well, you're entitled to your apparently baseless opinions. It's just too bad that you can't actually defend them.
Hmmm.. Guessing you're against gay marriage too then?
Sorry, I just can't think of any legitimate reasons for opposing nondestructive incest. I await further elucidation from you 'spiritual' types.
Sorry, Kimberly, I gotta go with Pandora here. Morality is not a matter of common sense, natural law or even a global God. It is a matter of locality; local history, local gods, local needs and local knowledge in some cases. Some US states allow first cousins to marry and some do not. Roman aristocracy used to marry brother and sister. Cannibalism is not unknown in some localities. Rape is often condoned and accepted as is mutilation of children.
Morality is never just common sense and such thinking will often get you killed in a locality foreign to you.
You win. I'll just back off now and let you guys go at it. I'm backing out of the room now with my hands up!
I think I have to agree. It's weird, but certainly not as immoral as some of the things that are common place in our daily lives.
And of course, reproducing under such circumstances shouldn't be allowed.
It's walking a fine line. Whose to say that an offspring wouldn't happen by accident? What would happen to the child if word got out. I mean when they got older wouldn't they know or find out? How would they feel about it?
I met a brother and sister who lived as man and wife and had kids. I think that's why I'm so freaked out about it. And then there recently was two young brothers that openly expressed having oral sex together!
What is happening in peoples minds in some of these circumstances to make it out to be acceptable?
I think it is sad and wrong!
Sometimes when a child or 'person' gets molested and it is 'incest' they feel guilty and as though they are to blame. That it is their fault it happened. Or because they felt feelings and emotions towards it. Then they start to believe that it is okay and acceptable behavior. Then it may go as far as wanting others to agree. To make it out to be a normal, acceptable experience when it is far from that. In all actuality it is a disgrace. It is wrong in every way.
Someone that believes that it is okay needs therapy to learn and heal the past and realize how important it is to live in a world with ethical principles. We use morals by choice. To be a good person is a choice. To love and care about others is a choice. To do right or wrong is a choice.
Karma comes back around full force. Don't do harm to others in that way. Get self help books, seek therapy or some form of counseling. Read books on ethical principles / living with morality.
God help you to guide you on the right path in life. Right now you are a disgrace to yourself and to others from your ignorance alone, but I have faith you can overcome your delusional state.
Not to many people would come out and say what I said to you, but I care about your life and hope you do too; enough to understand right from wrong, and to learn to overcome forms of darkness (evil) in your life. Choose to live in purity and light by healing your past. That's when you will be back on track. You know what is and isn't... so do what you know to be right and quit pretending. Clean out the cobwebs from your mind!
And, it might be helpful if you left your religious view out of it and talk to people like they are human beings.
So much for being moral, telling someone to seek help from their delusional state, when you have the same problem with your religion.
Just a thought.
i have to say, without reading or replying to anything else in your post...
the OP did not say anything about molestation...even underage sexual relations.
though incest is grouped in with those, for the sake of discussion we can politely remove it and only speak on incest, not the things we ASSUME go along with that.
i can't imagine that anyone...anyone...anyone is at a point in their development to objectively discuss such socially abhorrent acts as incest.
the most you will get, OP, is people insisting you are a troll (maybe so) or just straight detracting from the discussion by voicing their objections to incest, and who does not have those? discussing it does not mean one accepts or even participates in it.
Molestation is always wrong. The OP I am sure was not refering to molestation.
I'm not religious just spiritual. And if he was talking about his cousin then he should say so. I have met people where the incest was caused by molestation. It's walking a fine line!
...And maybe I was a bit hard on the guy but come on!
Great, now every one of my serial killer hubs has an unsightly link to a forum thread named 'Incest'.... what a pleasant impression for this site to give to the hundreds of people per days that visits that series of hubs.... I am sure that this will do wonders for my trade in books about serial killers
Great now my posts to the incest thread might be viewed by serial killers...
Sorry dude, that sucks.
Well you know, serial killers are my target market
I have only written about one incestrious serial killer, its not really their thing..... it might turn them away, they need threads about how to disect a body, how to dispose of a body, etc etc.... Even just a nice thread about unusual murder weapons would have done
hmmmmm. wondering which is worse? incest? serial killing? hmmmmmm. it's all so, so, seamy!
how can you even wonder?
unless those you are murdering in your serial killing are WILLING victims (oxymoron) then obviously incest, in and of itself, is not nearly as bad (infringing on anothers FREE WILL) as murder.
free will is the only morally important thing...imo.
violating that is as bad as some people see INCEST. which is both are willing, and neithers free-will is being violated, i may be repulsed, but is it wrong? i am not THEIR god...so i cannot judge that, can i?
however, were someone's free-will being violated in said incestuous relationship...or if one partner were too young to understand...obviously that would be AS BAD, IMO, as murder.
honestly, murder is one time. incest, against ones will, that lasts a lifetime...that may be actually worse, imo. :'(
REALLY??? The only thing that concerns you about this whole forum is YOUR freaking rankings/links/money whatever. SERIOUSLY.....What separates you from the molester??? Hmmmmm....I wonder.
I, personally, don't support incest. All of my issues with it aside, it's the ick-factor mostly. However, I don't find cannabalism so immoral.
*shrug* Random musing.
Cannibalism isn't particularly immoral. I was raised in a Christian church that practiced a ritual symbolic cannibalism every Sunday.
On the other hand just where and how did you get the meat???
Oh, I don't cannabalize. I just don't see the problem with it. Hehe.
Yeah, me too. I just can't see myself hacking an arm or leg off a corpse and gnawing away on it. Even if I did get some down I don't think it would stay there for long; I've been thoroughly indoctrinated by Western culture.
That's OK, though - I don't think I could really appreciate a cannibalistic neighbor and their Saturday afternoon barbecues no matter how nice they were.....
This my view exactly. Incest is a great example of something which many people think is wrong without thinking why. When they do think why, they realise there is nothing wrong, yet it remains repulsive. To my mind it's a matter of taste whether you are attracted to say a sibling, a parent or one of your offspring.
As several people have pointed out, let's keep incest separate from paedophilia and molestation etc. Let's assume the incest is between two consenting adults who are brother and sister, and who plan to avoid pregnancy.
Where is the immorality in that?
Oh and Kimberly, I have no first hand experience with any of the issues raised here. This is purely an intellectual exercise.
Forgive me, but you seem to either hold religious beliefs, which force an absolute morality on you, or you are going with the knee jerk, gut instinct response of 'incest is icky so it must be wrong'. If you are sure you've thought this through then I can respect your view, whatever that may be.
"If it causes family conflicts, mental problems and interpersonal complications, people will have to deal with it."
I agree with you. Although these problems can result from incest, they can also result from homosexual relationships. The real problem in these situations isn't the act itself, but rather the attitudes people have toward the act.
"who plan to avoid pregnancy." What is about the "best laid plans of mice and men"? There is your moral objection to incest in brother and sister. Unless one wishes to have their seed producing organs removed there is too high a possibility of pregnancy.
I also realize that even this is only personal opinion. To me any unnecessary risk of a defective fetus for purely selfish gains is unacceptable.
you know....i am appalled at the responses in this thread. the fact that people can be so...blasé about it...
really? your PARENT?
think about that for a moment...........HAVING SEX WITH YOUR PARENT OR OFFSPRING.
do people really need to explain why this is beyond disgusting? who CARES if it is "consensual"? McKenzie Phillips had "consensual sex" with her father beginning at age 19, and this went on for two years or more, and now she is calling herself a victim and an incest survivor. how can anyone who is a parent not see anything wrong with it? what a shame that any parent could destroy a precious, sacred and pure relationship with their child just for some twisted pleasure. trust me any trust and respect would fly out of the fvcking window. it appalls me that anyone thinks this is ok. WHO CARES WHAT THEY DO IN OTHER COUNTRIES?
thanks Stimp for telling it like it is.
Hey, Sugar, you can always rely on me for THAT. I'm normally pretty care-free and humorous...this just is not funny. What about those little boys/girls who have been incest victims....WHAT ABOUT THEM. To the person who thinks it OKAY, How the fck do YOU know if its consentual.....are they 25 years old......no. Cuz if they were, they wouldn't "do" you. You are pathetic.
HAHA! I KNEW you would have something good on this!
Why do you suppose it is a TABOO! to keep the species strong - so we don't weaken and die! and then there's the fact that familiarity breeds contempt - or it is supposed to!
I agree that there are good reasons for the taboo against incest.
If we believe what we’re told (because the majority of us have never done our own personal scientific research in this area) then incestuous relationships in terms of producing offspring lead to a much higher frequency of negative genetic mutations, etc. So this is probably a good enough reason alone for incest being considered a ‘bad’ thing or a taboo. But of course the actual physical act (forgetting possible psychological trauma) is not harmful between consenting partners.
Out of the five women I’ve had (semi) serious relationships with, four of them revealed to me that they’d been abused by fathers, uncles, brothers, as children. Leading me to believe one of three things:
(1) Total fluke
(2) Women who were abused as children/teens are attracted to me for some reason.
(3) This sort of thing occurs a hell of a lot more than most of us would like to think.
It seems to me that we’re all living in two parallel worlds. The one that we think surrounds us, and the one that actually does.
If I were to start a thread here asking everyone if they preferred ‘Naked Chicks’ or ‘Granny Sex’ I’m pretty sure that apart from a few jokers most would say naked chicks.
lol... Mrv you've GOT to stop googling all this crazy stuff... it's giving me sleepless nights!
edit: please oh please, let me go on living in my 'parallel' world... some sanity still left in it....
LOL, Hey, I'm not the one Googling these things (honest).
I'm just exposing everybody else's dirty little secrets.
You'll never look at anybody in the same way again.
I always knew that mask of yours would get to me one day....! Now stop looking right into my soul...! I swear I have no dark secrets to hide..!!
ah... what happened to all the good, pure things in life.... madness, madness indeed!
(see, I'm already beginning to sound like my grandma...)
grandma? that might be a dangerous thing to say .....
No Dark Secrets - Do I believe you? hmmmmmmm.
Madness indeed, I went to a night club last weekend for the first time in ages. It was like that scene from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with all the reptiles "Somebody was giving booze to these God damned things!"
A little more purity would be nice sometimes.
And just a little tip for you, do you really want to start sounding like a Grandma around these parts when you've only just looked at the above graph?
fear and loathing..hahahahah good qoute..hope you had some fun anyway
Yeah, one of my favorites. And it was certainly fitting.
It was a bit of a meat market, but I tried to have a good time.
How you doing?
Im well today. thank you. things are nice and quiet for now, Im getting to take a bit of a break from the chores. Ren and Stimpy is on.
Glad to hear that you're doing good. Quiet is good (sometimes).
Love Ren and Stimpy.
Yeah, good thanks. Just eating my dinner now.
Will give this thread back to the incest topic now. But I'll open another with a good question for you to answer when you get a minute.
I know... parents sleeping with their kids, guys preferring grannies to naked chicks...people so unwilling to trust and believe in your innocence (ok, I admit, I'm NOT that, but still.....) what on earth happened to the world of normal people.... ?!
ive never lived in a world of normal people, and grannies ARE chicks.
um... oh yes... I need to go google some serious stuff now... got a lot of learning to do! Nothing is as before....
@ Mrv: to rip off a quote from Nu's profile that I love:
"Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history, all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled, watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people you hate".
great quote. have fun with serious google, or ..I hope it goes well. Nice to see you for a minute.
I could go on and on and on about that, but I'll simply say "Great Quote!" and go eat my dinner.
It seems MOW has gone off to do some serious google-ing.
Have a nice dinner Mr V.
it was great to see you both
Im done hijacking now, but I still am curious to see one reason besides "icky" and the fear of mutant babies. realy a pretty interesting topic!
'what on earth happened to the world of normal people.... ?!'
I've started to believe that it never existed in the first place.
We were duped.
This is the world of normal people, and it always has been.
Yes! We're all unhealthy perverts!
Also, btw, it's just trendy to say you were molested as a child. Don't forget, some women lie just as easily as some men. It gets them attention.
I always take such claims with a grain of salt and the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, that may not be the case. Types are types. Not guaranteed, but results are typical.
I live in a very small, sort of backwoods community. Abuse is very common. While women certainly are more than capable of making up things, or slanting stories, to prey on the softer side of a caring guy, as far as the places Ive been and the people Ive known, its very real and it happens all the time.
You're absolutely right, and I'm glad you point that out. I should have been more careful about how I said that. I did not mean to disregard the very real problem.
But you know, alot of women are also just shameless liars. A shocking thing to lie about, you'd think, but they do it. Exaggerations, one-sided stories that neglect certain details, and also total outright lies.
There is a real problem, but it frequently doesn't actually exist for the people who are most vocal in retelling their own tales.
ya, it sucks that women would lie about it, becuase it makes it so the women who really need help are less likely to find it. people can only take the cry of "wolf" so many times.
Hence both my exes have lost vast amounts of credibility professionally and personally. I just kept my mouth shut and waited for the fire to start. It's truly sad, and doesn't need to happen, but it is a choice. A bad one!
Understanding this works on both sides of the gender fence, this is one of the MAJOR reasons I am divorced twice...
My how perception and reality become so easily skewed. Like false memory syndrome...
It is startling. I grew up observing this type of behavior in various of my female relatives. To be fair, I had no brothers, and only one male cousin of close proximity, so I'm not as familiar with male crimes, though I'm sure they're just as rampant.
I also have seen it in non-family members, and there was at least one occasion where I could not help thinking "you deserved it".
Maybe so, maybe not, but when a woman behaves in certain ways, it's kind of hard to blame your average stressed out and under-educated male for belting her one, and vice-versa I am sure.
I abused my husband once. It was a misunderstanding, and one of the funniest and most destructive episodes in our history.
I went out one night with some girlfriends I hadn't seen in a while, and he didn't really want me to go, and tried to talk me out of it, but I hadn't seen a couple of the girls in a long time so I went anyway.
When I got back home, he had locked the top lock. I could see him through the window, sitting in the chair watching TV, but he wouldn't let me in. He wouldn't even look at me, which was a common thing he used to do back then when we were mad at each other. I'd rant at him and he'd thoroughly ignore me and just keep watching TV because he knew that it made me even madder.
We were very young then, like 20ish. We have since both learned to act in more mature manners. More or less, lol.
So anyway, I eventually broke in through the bathroom window and lunged out into the main space of our studio apartment, flying at him sitting stolidly in his chair. I jumped on him yelling and beating him with my fists. He grabbed me and threw me onto the nearby bed, but I just jumped right back up and onto him, scratching and gouging and biting and shrieking like a mad woman.
He just kept pushing me away, holding down my arms. At no point during this exchange did he at any time hit me back in any way, but the struggle continued long enough to destroy about half of our possessions. It was a small studio apartment, we kept bumping into stuff, and I think I probably threw a few things -a bad habit that followed me well into my twenties.
As it turned out, my poor dear husband had come home from a long hard work-week on this Friday night to an empty apt. and fallen asleep watching TV in the chair. With the window unit air conditioner running near his head, and the TV blaring, my shouts and bangs on the thick metal door simply went unheard.
He had waken up unaware of what was happening with me flying directly at him. He wasn't ignoring me as I banged on the door and tapped at the window and yelled to let me in, he simply hadn't heard me.
To top it all off, he was right, and I shouldn't have gone out with that group of girls that night. We had ended up running into one of my exes, which truly was a coincidence but my girlfriends made the most of it, and we got into a car accident and lied to the police.
So I was already mad when I got home, cause my husband had been right about my girlfriends.
Anyway, once I had finally run out of steam, and heard his side of the 'I really was sleeping' story, and he had heard my side of being 'locked out by a jealous, immature boyfriend' (we weren't married then) everything was better. We laughed, got high and cleaned up the mess.
We saved one of the partially destroyed pictures though. It was an oil painting of the ocean we had bought together. Somehow we'd made a hole in the upper part of it, but my husband cut it down to size and restretched it or reframed it, whatever you call it. We still have that picture, it's hanging in our bedroom, and we call it our no-fighting reminder.
It doesn't work, we still fight all the time! But I don't think I ever hit him again.
I don't know exactly what my point is there, or if I even had one. It's one of my favorite memories though, which is odd I guess.
Well, I've spent far more time last night and today talking about incest than I ever really imagined I'd ever want to. Don't really care about the issue, if it is an issue, which I don't guess it exactly is.
But it's always nice chatting with you guys.
'Also, btw, it's just trendy to say you were molested as a child. Don't forget, some women lie just as easily as some men. It gets them attention. '
I really hope that's not true.
Although in fairness, most of them turned out to be a lot more unpleasant in character following break-up than they'd lead me to believe they were while I was seeing them.
At least you can see my mask, most are invisible.
Based on this additional information, I see no harm in it, either. But I think there would be a lot of stress in the relationship about unwanted pregnancies, which could be avoided with a few minor modifications.
Here in the South, we have a special term for incest: relative humidity. It's the sweat that forms whenever you're practicing the act with your cousin.
Seriously, I find incest abhorent. Maybe if it was with your third cousin's adopted sister's brother-in-law's aunt's ex-boyfriend...that would be okay.
I'm imagining that we are dealing with someone who is similar to this, sorry...just sayin....if you CAN find a mate outside of your family why would you NOT.....
Well, hell, if you ain't good enough for yer own fambly, who else ud want ya??
And why is anyone trying to justify this. I'm just appauled. I'm absolutely appauled than anyone would try to reason or justify this. Honest to GOD...yes, I said it...GOD.
Funny thing about stupid insults from dumb people. They're always funny, these attempted 'insults', and they do always point out someone's stupidity, but for me they have no sting at all.
I've been called pretty much everything I can think of, but then some attempted put-down or the other comes along -generally from some determinedly ignorant, self-righteous holy roller or the other- and I rediscover that despite all their sanctimonious self-aggrandizing, their minds can stoop to much lower depths than mine.
So call me a molestor if you like, you poor little thing you, or an abortion promotor, incest supporter, whatever, and I'll just add it to my list of accreditations, right behind closet lesbo, god-hater, negro-lover, anti-american, nazi-socialist, fascist and bitch.
What I love about this question is that it forces you to think (assuming you are of that persuasion, which clearly some are not). In the absence of an arbitrary, "god"-given morality, it is terribly important for humans to use their reason and brains to determine what is and is not moral.
So, without further ado, here are some thoughts as to why consensual incest among adults might legitimately be viewed as "wrong," using my humanist moral standard of "that which is moral produces a net positive gain to human progress, prosperity or happiness, and immoral, a net negative":
(1) every act of incest between 2 people of the opposite gender risks pregnancy which, as others have pointed out, almost guarantees decidedly negative outcomes (even surgically sterilized people might still conceive),
(2) even if a given act of male-female incest does not produce pregnancy, what is key is that as incest becomes accepted in a society, and more people are open to it and potentially do it (even experimentally), the risk of mentally/ physically handicapped children skyrockets very quickly, placing an amazing and unnecessary burden on individuals, society and, indeed, the human race (the same argument cannot be made for non-familial casual sex, non-familial polygamy or homosexual sex, for example); this is probably a key reason why primitive, ancient communities (which were tiny by today's standards) veered heavily against incest--for them it was a matter of sheer survival in a world where most people died as children and many women died in childbirth; but a lot of the same principles apply today.
(3) similar to #2, as a culture becomes acclimated to incest, they may place a dangerously low premium on genetic diversity; I'm not talking about a Nazi-style "superior race" or "keeping the wealth all in the family," but rather that a particular type of sex that has severe genetic and evolutionary effects becomes seen as a legitimate alternative to the type that propels human evolution and genetic growth and health (again, homosexual sex, which has no genetic effect, positive or negative, is immune on this point)
(4) less seriously, but still maybe a factor to consider, incest turns people's attention inward, toward their immediate family, rather than outward, toward the world, toward new people (new friends, new lovers, new cultures, new lifestyles, etc); yet again the genetic implications rear their ugly head: as one's sexual attention is turned toward one's family, any or all sexual release or sexual activity is directed in a very destructive way--destructive for the individual and the species; condoms break and birth control sometimes fails; in short, one is playing with genetic fire
I'm sure I could think of more problems if I thought long enough. All of these negatives outweigh the positives of the temporary pleasure enjoyed by the participants. It seems that a society that tolerates even moderate levels of consensual adult incest will not be around for very long.
Oh, and I hear you, Pandora. I've experienced my own share of insults and stupidity. A particularly fond memory I have is of a fellow hubber who first hated me because she thought I was a Muslim, then when she realized I am SECULAR (hence the name), dutifully expressed hatred toward me because I am a secularist.
I'm just waiting for someone to look at my current picture and exclaim "why the hell should I believe a talking dog?!"
These are interesting points, and I think are perhaps good reasons not to encourage incest. However they all stem from the idea that the offspring would be disadvantaged and a burden, except #4 which mentions experiencing new cultures etc, but you can do that without having sex with them.
Even if we agree that incest shouldn't be presented as an option, what if two siblings find themselves already in love? What could cause any of you to try and break that relationship up?
And a question for those of you who still think incest is 'wrong' (whatever that means), what if there was no sex involved? Just a loving relationship between two siblings with lots of making out?
It's not just the offspring from a particular individual relationship we have to consider, but the net effect on the health and evolution of the human species of incest being accepted on a large scale.
"except #4 which mentions experiencing new cultures etc, but you can do that without having sex with them."
My point on that one was that the human sexual drive is like a wild animal--it will go in whichever direction it is pointed. If a person's attention and interest and explorative tendencies are directed toward one's family, then one's sexual advances will be directed there as well. If, by contrast, one's attention/ interest is directed outward, then one's sexual advances and sexual desire will follow--and this is a healthy state of affairs. The "incestual mentality" for lack of a better term, or the mentality that gives rise to incest, is an issue to consider. Just a thought.
For example, I read about a study showing that men who watched violent pornography (where the woman is physically abused) later expressed the idea that violence against women or domestic violence is not all that serious a problem. This outcome was not seen in the group who watched non-violent pornography. Also, many studies have shown that people raised in abusive households are more likely to become abusive as adults. So the point is that sex and sexuality are subject to many cultural/ environmental influences, and can be directed in a positive or negative way.
If these arguments I've presented are correct, then breaking up the sibling love affair would follow from the highly negative risks associated with it. Love in the sense you're using it is unequivocally sexual love, and sexual love left unabated (i.e. accepted) gives rise to sex, hence the problem. This is also the risk run by an exclusively "making out" relationship--as long as it is sexual, consenting adults left alone will tend to go the full extent and have intercourse.
I defined what "right and wrong" mean in my previous comment.
I'd have to see the actual specifics of the study to be sure, so this is just tentative. But I know study findings can easily be twisted, misinterpretted, or misconstrued.
Did the gentlemen in question decide that domestic abuse wasn't a big deal, or did they decide that consentual BDSM -another thing supposed to destroy society- was not a big deal?
I disagree about the human sexual drive being pointable. People are perverts. Tell them they should, and they won't. Tell them they can, and they'll figure why should they. Tell them no and they're all over it.
I really don't think society at large would become incestuous if nondestructive incestuous relationships were acceptable. There are far too many available acceptable perversions for society at large to ever get too hung up on any particular one.
I don't disagree but point out that what is defined as incest in one country or society is considered legal marriage in others. I am referring to marriage of cousins and other relatives outside the immediate family.
My dictionary defines incest as "Sexual union between two persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom." What is illegal or forbidden by custom is not uniform in all countries or societies.
Yeah, there are several marriages between first cousins in my husband's family. It grosses me out to think about it, but so far they don't seem to have run into any genetic problems more serious than an unusually high percentage of blue and green eyes in an ethnicity that's usually brown-eyed.
Otherwise, I think parent-child incest is wrong by definition because there is always going to be a power differential there that makes true consent impossible.
Between siblings, sometimes you'd have that power differential and sometimes you wouldn't, but either way I think you'd have to be awfully f***** up to even consider such a thing. The cases of consensual sibling incest I've heard of (both real life and fictional) have tended to be very "us against the world" - often in response to physical and/or sexual abuse by parents or other caregivers - so the incest starts out as some expression of comfort and mutual solidarity but ends up driving them even farther from normal society and relationships with others. The only exceptions I can think of are political matches between siblings, as happened in ancient Egypt, but those didn't necessarily turn out that well either.
Yeah I agree with that. I tried to express that thought in an earlier post, but you say it so much better.
I also agree with what you said about there generally being abnormal circumstances in the lives of incestuous siblings. It may not be the most healthy thing that the siblings end up clinging to each other in this way, but maybe it's better for them than the alternatives.
At the very least, I'd maintain that it's their right to decide, and they probably won't do too much worse than most of society anyways. Shoot, even if they did reproduce, it's difficult to assume their offspring would be any more detrimental to society than most other peoples' offspring.
Maybe I mean that tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure.
To clarify, my use of "incest" was referring to consensual sexual activity among members of an immediate family. I was focusing on the nuclear family (brother-sister, mother-son, etc), but it could apply to the first cousin/ uncle/ aunt level as well, if not further, depending on what the boundaries of the "family" are designated to be.
It's great to see some intelligent responses here this morning.
Secularist, I'm not real convinced it works the way you suggest. I mean, yes, 1000 years ago, and still today in some of the societies we like to call primitive, but I am not sure 'modern' society can be manipulated by any single idea any more. That'd be an interesting topic.
I mean, yeh, sure I saw half the world standing in line to buy iPads, but the other half firmly hold it in contempt. And you know, your arguments just sound so much like the arguments against inter-racial and/or gay marriage or birth control or cross-dressing or any other newly accepted thing that was formerly taboo. 'But what if everybody starts doing it?'
You're suggesting that if we as a society don't condemn every form of incest, eventually we all -or too many of us- will embrace it. Perhaps so. I won't pretend to be a sociologist or vision seer.
But I gotta say, that the fear of future stupidity isn't going to make me behave stupidly at this point in my life.
Society is made up of hundreds of types and thousands of individuals. I continue to make my own decisions, and to see no reason why others cannot do the same -all stupidity aside.
I understand that you were doing exactly what I asked -trying to find good, legitimate reasons for perpetuating the taboo. I agree, I suppose, that the taboo should remain, just as should many other 'taboos', because widespread acceptance of it indeed may still prove detrimental to society. Frankly I'd approve of almost any taboo that reduced the number of stupid people in the world.
But honestly speaking, so much is detrimental to society which is NOT taboo, and should be, that in this day and age singling out something like nondestructive incest seems petty. Take the shock and abhorance and apply it to the teenaged mothers, the multiple babies multiple daddies, the men growing up fatherless and without a clue what being a father means, or the mass stupidity perpetuated by religion.
Yes, on a societal basis, incest should certainly not be encouraged. But on an individual level, it's none of my business, and unless shown otherwise, I will assume that the couple has and is making the best decisions they know how to, just like every other screwed up human couple in the world, and I wouldn't dream of judging or devaluing their love for each other and commitment to each other on the grounds of their incestuous relationship.
Of course, as you said, this is just an intellectual exercise, and I'm sure you wouldn't either.
"And you know, your arguments just sound so much like the arguments against inter-racial and/or gay marriage or birth control or cross-dressing or any other newly accepted thing that was formerly taboo. 'But what if everybody starts doing it?'"
Let me clarify. I indicated several times above that the arguments made do NOT apply to homosexual sex or casual heterosexual sex, etc.
The difference is that with incest, there really is a serious danger being run (it could be argued). If everyone has gay sex, nothing bad results. If everyone has casual sex, nothing bad happens. If everyone has polygamous kinky sex, nothing bad happens.
But if everyone has incestual sex, then a lot of bad stuff will happen. Even if a relatively small portion of society--say, 10 or 20%--has incest, because of a more accepting culture toward it, it may still result in some big problems.
"But honestly speaking, so much is detrimental to society which is NOT taboo, and should be, that in this day and age singling out something like nondestructive incest seems petty."
I agree that there are much bigger problems in the world. But this page is about discussing incest, so there you go.
I honestly have to disagree about it ever becoming a problem. I understand you showed how some of your points didn't apply, but the overall theory does. Plus, if everyone turned gay, it could be argued the population would die out, despite that science could probably overcome that.
Science can also overcome the problem you predict with nondestructive incestuous relationships.
I'm just not convinced what you postulate is reasonable to expect. I don't believe everyone would start doing it, or even large numbers would, I'll grant perhaps in thousands and thousands of years some small but possibly significant percentage of the population may take it up if we openly allowed them to, and I think that modern science can provide adequate birth control that would keep this small percentage from ever becoming a real problem for or threat to society.
I'm just not convinced. It's just speculation, on both of our parts. So I gotta go with what I know is right. As long as they're not hurting anyone, beyond what most of us do, it's none of my business.
If you can prove a likelihood for your scenario, I'd reconsider, of course.
The thing is, if you define it as "nondestructive" then you have already assumed it is not destructive. The question (from a humanist standpoint) is if it is in fact destructive or not.
Now, I didn't say "if everyone turned gay," I said "if everyone had gay sex." Of course people can have gay sex without actually being of that persuasion.
This reminds me also of something I neglected to mention earlier: whereas homosexuality is an inherent sexual orientation, incest is a behavior (no one is born attracted to members of their family). So that necessarily justifies more scrutiny placed on incestual activity than on homosexuality as a state of being.
In any case, given the choice between incest with a condom and incest without, of course I would recommend the former. But the fact remains that as people are having sex, there will be pregnancies. The more sex they have, the more pregnancies there will be, other things equal. As culture becomes more accepting toward incest, there will necessarily be more incest.
100 years ago, the culture was hostile toward casual sex, and there was very little of it. Today, the culture (in the US, that is) is more accepting of casual sex, and so there is more of it in society.
Of course, if two people have incest somewhere, the world will not fall apart. Similarly, if two people get murdered, the world will not fall apart.
But the question is, as a rule, what should be the default preference? That, it seems to me, is the major question asked by morality.
The only difference between physical harm inflicted on a person and incest, as far as morality is concerned, is that in the former case, the suffering is produced immediately to a specific person, whereas in the latter case, the suffering (if any suffering is produced) is borne much later, to a future person or persons. But there is suffering nonetheless. I would not say that incest causes as much TOTAL suffering as murder, but still it potentially causes some level of suffering.
Well, truthfully, I'm using the term nondestructive to differentiate between consentual adult incest between responsible individuals and obviously wrong incest which keeps popping into everyone's mind.
However, as long as it isn't shown to be destructive, I see nothing wrong in me assuming it innocent until proven guilty.
I agree with you, in principle, but I'm still not convinced your scenario is the way it would play out. Yeah we all got on board the casual sex bus, cuz that is something most people want to be able to pursue, from time to time, at least when they're younger. Most people don't want to marry their brother. Most people don't want to have gay sex, most people don't want to cross-dress, fool around with a granny or gramps, or participate in BDSM. Well, maybe the BDSM, it's such a broad area, but not the rest of that stuff.
I don't know, but I think we basically agree. I just like to argue!
It shouldn't be encouraged on a societal level, or even approved of exactly, but on an individual basis it's not our business.
Is it wrong? Can it harm society? I don't believe so.
Can the societal embracing of it harm society, very possibly. I just don't see it happening. We're too diverse, there's too many options.
So I can hardly condemn consenting, adult-formed, nonmolestatious or parent/child incestuous couples for living their own lives as they best see fit, just like the rest of us are doing.
"I don't know, but I think we basically agree. I just like to argue!"
Correct, on both counts. That's why I haven't called you a Nazi Fascist god-hater closet lesbo!
"Yeah we all got on board the casual sex bus, cuz that is something most people want to be able to pursue, from time to time, at least when they're younger."
Today we do, yes. But once upon a time the attitudes of society were such that casual sex was looked down upon as dirty, uncouth, the domain of prostitutes and other "untouchables." I think culture is more powerful than you think.
Just some food for thought.
You always give me that.
Nah. What history passes down to us is never representative of the masses. The desire for promiscuity always lay hidden just beneath the surface. In your 'good homes' only the men acted on such desires, but in the lower classes people weren't such sticklers.
Shoot they even did it in the Bible.
Well, insofar as there were severe punishments for "fornicating" and "sodomy" and the like, chances are there was less of it done in the middle ages, ancient times, etc than today. And those punishments were a function of the culture.
In the 19th century, the punishments might have been less severe, but the cultural and social implications were still heavy in many parts of the US and UK. There are more out-of-wedlock births today than in times past, for example.
I do agree that there was more shall we say "alternative" sexual activity in centuries past than we typically admit today.
But still, culture plays a big role in how people think and behave, and their moral values. Look at the Islamic world today, which is much more conservative about sex, and sure enough, young women often do everything but have intercourse, to preserve their hymen until marriage. Or look at the greater amount of sex in Europe relative to the US.
Well I have no argument against what you say, other than to note that this was all religious related. The good people bowed to the priest as required, and went on with their pagan rituals and impulses behind his back. But sure as time progressed and heads rolled they eventually became more in line.
At any rate, I still think we're comparing apples to oranges. You can suppress peoples' urges, no doubt, oppress them and regulate them. Can you point them in the direction of a particular sexual fetish.
Yes, if you have total control over them. Otherwise, if the fetish is just one more thing on the buffet table, people will pick and choose as they like.
For some, I guess it's a fetish. For others, I guess it's based on their circumstances. Even the fetish likely grows from some specific circumstances.
Circumstances are on an individual basis. Exposure alone doesn't do it. If it did, we'd all likely be into all kinds of questionable things.
Just doesn't work out that way. People pick and choose.
Speaking of the growth of casual sex and unwed mothers. The casual sex is I'm sure alot more apparent than it used to be when we were under the church's control. I'm even sure it's more common.
I'm not convinced that there's anything wrong with that in itself. When not under christian control, or religious control, societies are much more relaxed and natural. We are animals. Women do not belong to men, anymore than men belong to women. It's okay to have casual sex, unless you're in a willingly committed relationship.
That's my honest opinion. To suppress that can be unhealthy. We do not choose lifetime mates because we're better than animals, more evolved, have a higher consciousness or any of that bull, imho.
Many of the species of the animal kingdom choose lifetime mates with brains no bigger than a few cells. Zebra danios, a type of fish no bigger than an inch and a half choose lifetime mates.
We're no better than them, or any other beast of the wild. But under church control we suppress.
Unwed mothers. And fathers. Can no longer be forced to marry their mates. Bastard babies are no longer shipped off to live with far away relatives or paid caretakers, or dumped in the cities' orphanages as a matter of course.
But sure I'll grant that as free people we do engage more freely in these our natural instincts. Good? Bad? Neither.
Still, we're not all doing it the same way! So I'm still not convinced that overlooking the incestuous affairs of the few will result in widespread incest.
I gotta go be productive for awhile. Don't know why I'm listening to a sleeping dog anyway.
I was wondering when that would come out!
A culture is constructed by many things depending on the time and place, including the authorities, religious beliefs, randomness, geography, neighboring cultures, etc. And it has consequences.
For example, in the South Pacific before Europeans came in the 18th century, attitudes toward sex were markedly different from the traditional Christian position. Casual promiscuous sex was not just accepted but encouraged, and children were raised communally. After Christianity came, traditional western marriage and monogamy eventually became the norm. So as the culture changed people's behavior changed.
"Otherwise, if the fetish is just one more thing on the buffet table, people will pick and choose as they like."
That's precisely my point; if casual sex (which I am very much in favor of, BTW) is on the buffet table, then more people will select it than if it was off the table. The same goes for incest and the others. If a culture sees rape as necessarily acceptable (like some obscure tribes in South America), then more people will be open to it and tolerant of it than if it was shunned.
Yes, people pick and choose. But what they choose is determined by what is seen as a reasonable choice. And the set of all reasonable choices is determined, in large part, by the time and place they live in. It's determined by a number of factors including the legal system they live under, the culture in which they were raised, their own personal choices, their friends and peers, etc.
"So I'm still not convinced that overlooking the incestuous affairs of the few will result in widespread incest. "
I'm just saying it's a slippery slope. Once incest is viewed as morally acceptable on some level, the door has been opened. The door can then be opened further and further, over the decades and the generations. I don't think a huge number of people would ever do it even if it was totally accepted in the culture, but enough would to cause problems.
So it seems if we want to discourage incest, we need to label it as morally not acceptable by default, even if one or two instances is no big deal in the grand scheme of things.
You go and be productive. I'm just glad I'm done discussing sex with someone named "Pandora's Box." yuk, yuk, yuk
Well if you are talking about two adults, then have both of them get fixed so they produce no off springs, it will not be fair to the child that they bring into the world, there is to much of a chance that something will be wrong with it.
My grandparents were ist cousins and, thank god I married far out from my community but some of my other cousins kids have major problems.
Looking at most of the Avatars in use on HP maybe we should be debating bestiality!
Should it be Ok for a small kitten to have a relationship with a stuffed monkey? At least this way if there are offspring they will be fairly diverse!
As to the incest problem, it is a big no-no as far as I am concerned.. Simple as that! Hell have you seen my sister????
Good post - the thread needed a splash of humour !
No Offense PG, but humor would be best served where humor is warranted. This particular subject matter isn't best served by humor.
OK. Remind me to tell Shakespeare to cut the gravediggers scene.
I don't know Cags. Humor is always warranted imo.
LOL!...i've been staying away from this thread...i like your comments the best!
You bring up a very good point which is why I wouldn't worry much about incest becoming the hot, new trend in sex.
Sure, once we're good and married and in love we can find it in ourselves to overlook their many shortcomings. But our immediate family we know way too well ahead of time to ever fall for in the first place.
LeanMan - the stuffed monkey and the kitten are at least not related - nohow noway! and the images of them doing it are very very funny. I have seem some mates, humans all the way, who appeared to have a very loving, lovely relationship who seemed quite unsuited - you know, very small man with very large woman, very old woman with very young man, redheads with blackheads, and on and on - and it makes no never mind - not immoral or wrong or nothin'
but bro and sis - if they can't do any better for themselves and are consenting adults who won't reproduce - what's wrong with it? nothing. I like to think that we are large minded enough to live and let live. Society can be a pretty rough place. I don't care if they want to stay together. Think they're probably missing a lot, but never mind.
aside from the fact that they could end up hating each other for being so similar and they won't have "married up" - - - hehehe!
a lot of people have a natural aversion to sex with siblings or cousins - and it appears a lot of people don't
I don't care about the morality of it - I wonder why some people are attracted and others just aren't! But is it society's business to moralize about it? I think not.
Most people would be surprised to know that animal breeders, especially purebred pet breeders, often mate sisters to brothers and parents to siblings.
The reason being you try to keep top genetic traits in the breeding population. However that also breeds and highlights genetic flaws you don't want.
Which is why more and more purebred animals have so many aliments like sore hips, deafness and many other flaws.
We are breeding genetically inferior animals that suffer much pain just for how they look, which is what wins the prizes.
However more and more I think that is what humans are doing also, without even the looks!
I think people are forgetting that the tradition of marriage and mating with someone else involved property and the increasing of property was often the goal of a marriage - if people stayed "wed" to their siblings then there was no increasing of property that would come with the bride or a joining of two family's property. So, even now, we expect our sons and daughters to "marry up" in social class and property that comes with it.
I am sure that there are a lot of kids fooling around with their siblings while they are growing up - making out, sex, etc. but they usually grow out of it. Again, I say, it is less a morality issue of right or wrong and more a social issue of furthering the community. The taboos we have in our social systems are there for the reason of property and community and sometimes climate. If you look at your relatives and are attracted sexually, maybe you just haven't been exposed to enough "outsiders" and don't feel comfortable in social situations, which can be a problem in oh so many ways!
I'm not sure I have an opinion, but I find this thread really interesting because it seems like the original reason for it being immoral, as well as the reason I would assume that 99% of people are genetically programmed to find it repulsive - the genetic defects associated with in-breeding - has been removed.
That makes it a really challenging question. Logically I can't see anything wrong with it. I like to think of myself as a logical person, but I'm not confident I could be friends with an incestuous couple and just accept it.
At least you're honest.
I'll tell you all something, that will sound bad. I couldn't be sexually attracted to a really fat person. Couldn't do it. Grosses me out big time.
I could try and justify this, and speak on at length about the unhealthiness of fat people, the concern about mating with fat people genes, and the detrimental effect fat people have on society, but the darned truth of it all is just that personally speaking, based on my past experiences, current needs and what is important to me, fat people just don't make the cut.
There- honesty for honesty. Now we're getting somewhere. And for the record, based solely on my western upbringing, I couldn't be sexually attracted to any family members either. It's just important for us all to recognize that our preferences and indoctrinations may not always be right. Or wrong.
There -but for the grace of (god/fate/random accident)- go I. Or you. Or any one of us.
This thread reminds me of an old joke.
You can divorce your wife but she,s still your sister
what I dont get, is take molesetation out of it. Clearly that is never ok. Why was incest fine in Bible times, but not now?
Like first cousin incest, I guess you mean, (which honestly I think is a whole different beast than immediate family incest). Immediate family incest is forbidden in the bible. (Which means people were doing it.)
First cousin incest was rampant in western society up until about a hundred years ago or so I'd guess. It was 'good breeding', they thought. Then I guess science came along and now we think it's icky. Nobody -I would think- plans to have mentally challenged children.
I thought God told some people here and there to take thier sisters or maybe once a girl was supposed to lay with her father. Im sure I got it mixed up as its been awhile since i read it. Sorry about that.
Yes, exactly. Hence the "inspired" reliability of much of scripture. Most of it is based in culture, not what any God said.
Oh there is some speculation about Sarah and Abraham being actual brother and sister, since you mention it. Nothing concrete. It's mostly just a way to explain Abraham's otherwise lie. He was either incestuous, or a liar. Some christians prefer to say he was one, some christians seem to think the other would be a more acceptable sin.
hmmm......and I thought sin was sin. Like..jay walking is akin to murder, and all that..
I really should brush up on my knowledge of beliefes, maybe learn some new ones. thanks.
Bible scholars are locking horns as to whether Abraham and Sarah were actually incestuous or whether he lied to save her life. Either way, it's obviously based on a necessity due to cultural beliefs, not necessarily the word of God.
Also, therein lies another flaw in scripture. Do not lie. However, under certain conditions, it's okay to lie, and in others, it's certainly okay to murder, plunder and kill. Very, very, very strange book. It's cultural, not God-based. It would take more than a mental-ward-super-power to create a universe and hold it together.
Ahh, but that's the whole point:
We were led to believe in a completely DIFFERENT world than what really is, and THAT is supposed to be normal. However, our experience is different than our beliefs, whether by experience or whether adopted by others well-meaning intentions.
Hence, the rub. We should trust our own senses, experiences and develop our own beliefs, as long as we have no reason to doubt our intellectual and perceptual abilities.
Accepting what is—that's the big ticket item. Nonacceptance is suffering. Acceptance is being at peace. It's a very difficult thing for me to feel emotionally, but I get it intellectually. Now if I could just bring the two together....
Yer not the type to post a false picture, I'd bet money on that. Hope I look as good as you do when I'm 54.
You have such a good understanding of people, Daniel. I hope I'm as wise as you when I grow up.
Agreed... I don't know why but despite seeing the hard, stark reality of life... I still keep holding onto to some values that feel right, even if all the religions or laws of society tell me otherwise.
And likewise, while I've seen human beings capable of the lowest darkest thoughts and actions, I still see something inherently 'good' in people.... a sort of trust in all that is positive in life and human nature - An almost primitive, naive way of going through life, I know... yet it keeps my heart from hardening... and makes me go on believing in some dreams at least...
I think your perceptions are completely accurate. No one is all bad, and no one is all good. And the world is a complicated mix of the same.
But I think you're right MOW. I've probably become a bit jaded with all 5 decades under my belt. I think it's healthy to look for the good and positive in life and in people. It seems so self destructive otherwise.
I do think that my own views have become more healthy overall. I used to suffer terribly about the world not being safe or fair and I was a complete victim for such a long time. I do think that our natural state is to be positive and loving. In fact, the spiritualists say that's all we are: love. It's our thoughts and beliefs that begin to shift us away from love, away from loving each other. But when we return to natural selves, we love and accept ourself, and then are able to do the same for others. When this happens, the world is right and good and perfect, not matter what other circumstances are going on around us.
I'm trying to rectify all this from within, but I'm learning I can't force it. It all has to happen as it will. Hence, the journey to discovery of self, others, world, universe continues.
That's what I love about you Daniel, besides those biceps that is. You understand the journey, and don't castigate people for not being as far along as you or on the same path as you.
I can relate to the stage of deep despair over the hopelessness of the world. I think people who think too much have to go through that stage. We have to admit to ourselves that things are god-awful in this world. We can't deny it, it's almost like a civic duty to just acknowledge it, for goodness' sake.
I think crazy people or chronically depressed people are often just people who feel too much, and ended up getting caught in that stage for whatever reason, circumstances. It's the dark place. Or for me it was.
We have to acknowledge the dark, and sort through it in our minds. But what horrors await when we forget to equally acknowledge and embrace the light.
MOW's got it right.
Get over here, MOW.
Wait. This isn't polygamy is it?
Is it? Maybe, 'society' tells us so, but it feels right though....
And Daniel, you and jaded? you're much harder on yourself than you ought to.. and I doubt if you realize how much warmth and hope always flows through your words... it's quite inspiring actually..
"We have to acknowledge the dark, and sort through it in our minds. But what horrors await when we forget to equally acknowledge and embrace the light. " - yes, that's what I meant to convey; you just put it perfectly. Stay strong and brave...
Um wait. Then where are the rest of the guys? So far it's just you and me, Misha.
Adding MOW and DM we build a classic Swedish family. Others will join down the road
hey, this was meant to be a perfectly platonic hug... brotherly almost! But wait now... could that mean incest? Oh no...
Wait. Who's DM? And how did I get kicked out of the circle of love?
Can't be, I don't condone polygamy. It's detrimental to society.
I think it's just free love.
I don't think that's naive at all, just indicative of understanding, compassion and charity in the biblical sense. All good things.
Father... I want to kill you. Mother?... I want to_______ you
See above. The world is what it is. It's up to us individually to construe meaning, peace, etc., despite whatever circumstances we may encounter.
You know Freud was messed up himself. And so was Jim Morrison. One shouldn't pigeonhole people, or take things too literally.
Stuff society...you can probably just imagine those people in the early whatever century making up the rules. The poor men in high places wishing for polygamy and their wives casting severe glares and poised mouths to make sure the decision was always the right or more bible favoured one.
But you have to ask yourself here :Is this statement going against society...or the monstrous mother nature?
Men didn’t make pheromones nor incorporate genetics into their moral code. We didn’t found the simplifying of the gene pool or infertility...that was all the big mama.
If she doesn’t want you to do that and you do it...you will eventually pay severe natural penalties if you go against her. As mentioned above infertility and deformed children if you do produce "by accident”. Or sever depression as a consequence of not being able to produce(ask a women who cannot have children or whose partner doesn’t want to...serious effects).I could go on and on...
I wouldn’t mess with Mother nature she makes super SIZED tornado's!
Yes, noone is bone incest, it just develops as you grow in life, but really if somebody asks why cannot one have a STOP on one's instigation especially to somebody who cousins or some kind of a blood relation? My answer would be YES to the interviewer coz i firmly believe INCEST should not exist. However, at the same point in time, i am a little auxiliary/ancilary to those who have had incest or developing a one or looking to develop coz the attraction just can happen at any point in time or develops gradual way but it certainly can happen with anyone, no body can control it, if an incestor tries to control how long will he??
I just wonder what when two families know of their incests. Two partners agree however two families, would they?? Although this depends on society on society but will they still accept the relations??? i just kind of pushing your limits over boundaries......I am averse however at the same time unresponsive to this FORBIDDEN sex
Yeah I think we all are. And another good way to put it. Adverse to it, but nonjudgmental at the individual level.
I am not saying it's unavoidable, I think we do have the ability to turn away from some desires, but I'm not about to judge another couple's love for each other either or their right to make their own decisions and mistakes, just like the rest of us. They also have the right to commit to each other and go forth and be happy, just like the rest of us.
If a dumbass can marry a dumbass and they can produce a brood of dumbasses, divorce and marry other dumbasses and have even more dumbasses, why can't a cousin marry a cousin if they do so responsibly.
I like the term default preference for morals. That's a good way of looking at it, I think. Thou shalt not kill unless it's self-defense, thou shalt not steal unless you're really hungry, thou shalt not dishonor thine parents unless you must to uphold your own.
I do like that. Morals aren't always black or white, or right or wrong, they're just default preferences.
Gotta remember that one.
Incest among close family members just rates too high on the "ick" scale for me. Cousins aren't quite as "icky," but still not palatable. You know in the Old South, 1st cousins of well-to-do families often married to keep the plantations in the family.
There is nothing wrong with bestiality except that it leads to very high grooming bills.
by Credence2 6 years ago
Do you think that the ‘pledge" taken by GOP presidential candidates Santorum and Gingrich to support a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions even in cases of rape and incest is a sell out to women and constitutes a dire threat to the principle of Women’s Reproductive...
by haj3396 8 years ago
What will happen if christians are wrong? nothing, we will just continuos the same until we die. What will happen if christian are right? The everyone that don't trust in God will be lost. look at what the Bible states:2 Thessalonians 2-8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall...
by Amber Musselman 9 years ago
OKAY... SO I WROTE A HUB ON ABORTION AND TIMOTHY LEFT A COMMENT (BELOW)AFTER THAT COMMENT IS MY RESPONSE----- TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK AND WHO DO YOU AGREE WITH!! timothy Carpenter says:I don't really think that abortion should be able to be done. I come from a...
by Ian Hudson 7 years ago
DO you think it is right to post your own art on Hubpages or should you celebrate other peoples work?I have posted my own and a few of Picasso's pieces.
by RichusFridum 6 years ago
I meet a lot of women who consider this insulting or at least an outdated way of thinking but why is it so wrong?
by FelineFrance 7 years ago
I am curious as to why it is wrong. I do agree that is there is much more to a relationship than looks. What if you are 5 ft 11 woman and do not feel comfortable dating a 5 ft 2 man? Why is it shallow? Isn't a waste of time going out with a guy who honestly do not find attractive?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|