Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

Dades · 11-08-2008 1:09pm

Thank you Tigger for actually taking the time to verbalise your position.
Let's use this and move on.

I do disagree with your notion of "acceptance" however.

I think legalising something only makes it acceptable in the eyes of the law. For example if it was legalised would you then consider it acceptable? No, of course not. You've made it clear that it is unacceptable to you.

Galvasean · 11-08-2008 1:12pm

I must also thank Tigger for finally clarifying your position. Now the debate can finally go somewhere.
Like Dades I don't agree with all of it though.

Goduznt Xzst · 11-08-2008 1:18pm

I voted Yes, but then i'd also be pro consensual cannibalism and euthenasia amongst adults. Heck what other people do that doesn't have an effect on anyone else but themselves is fine with me.

BUT... I do think there should be another option in the poll, differentiating parent/child incest to sibling/sibling incest.

Morally I'd have a problem with parent/child incest on the grounds that it is highly feasible for a parent to indoctrinate their child to want to have a sexual relationship with them when they get to a consensual age.

Tigger · 11-08-2008 1:20pm

Dades wrote: »

Thank you Tigger for actually taking the time to verbalise your position.
Let's use this and move on.

I do disagree with your notion of "acceptance" however.

I think legalising something only makes it acceptable in the eyes of the law. For example if it was legalised would you then consider it acceptable? No, of course not. You've made it clear that it is unacceptable to you.

for the point of my argumnent i'll have to dissagree

in the individual case acceptance in the law will not change behaviour but in the general case on a long time frame things that are legal will become more and more accepted in the general populace

look for example at homosexuall behaviour

years agoyou would never see girls making out but nowadays many girls kiss on the dance floor in that same way they used to make eye contact to attract one when i was in my late teens

so the acceptance of same sex sexual behaviour has made this a way for girls to flirt

another is condoms

when i went to college condoms were only being sold in pharmacies
it was the time of the virgin megastores selling them with tapes and stuff at the counter

it was illegal and the amout i would buy at a time to avoid having to do it for a while would make me look like a very hygenic brothel owner

nowadays you get them in tesco

Tigger · 11-08-2008 1:20pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I voted Yes, but then i'd also be pro consensual cannibalism and euthenasia amongst adults. Heck what other people do that doesn't have an effect on anyone else but themselves is fine with me.

BUT... I do think there should be another option in the poll, differentiating parent/child incest to sibling/sibling incest.

Morally I'd have a problem with parent/child incest on the grounds that it is highly feasible for a parent to indoctrinate their child to want to have a sexual relationship with them when they get to a consensual age.

i agree its a worry

Hivemind187 · 11-08-2008 1:28pm

Tigger wrote: »

i'm an openminded person

i feel that all those fetishes sghould be allowed
i feel that all drugs shouyld be allowed
i tryley believe in the notion that one should be allowed to do what they would as long as it dosenrt hurt others

now the idea that someone will be emotionally hurt is valid and real so it will hurt soceity as a group of humans to allow the practise of incest

arguments about the parents of fellas being chased by gold diggers and men wityh much younger wives are invalid because soceity as a whole will not be damaged by this becoming the norm

incest becoming the norm would contribute the the further decline of the emotional and empathatic state of civilisation as a whole

Emotional and empathic state of civilisation as a whole ...

Tell me, who is capable of judging that particular characterisitc of society properly?

Be objective, that statement its self in nonsense and I am putting it squarely in the "hippy-beads and sandles" box. Lets not start attirubting group consciousness etc in places they do not belong.

you have to accept that your argument is entirely based on your emotional reactions - BUT NOT MINE. Do you see what I'm saying here? Those are YOUR emotions.

I find East Enders and Big Brother make me incredibly angry with their vaccuous characters and systematic undermining of any substance to the art of entertaining people. There are many other people who would agree with me.

These shows however are still there (and increasing in popularity against my feelings) and they will continue to be there for the forseeable future - Regardless of my feelings on the subject.

You are making the same argument. That incest between consenting adults should be illegal because you dont like it. Why are your emotions more important than mine?

My emotional reaction to people who want to beat the drum of authoritarianism is fear, disgust, anger and loathing. Why is it that my feelings are less worthy of consideration than yours with respect to this discussion? Or for that matter, the feelings of people your attitude would persecute? Are their emotions not as valuable in terms of your world view?

If you can show any statisitical evidence to support your claim please do so and we will discuss it. If you can show a scientific basis for the private, consentual actions of two (or more) people behind closed doors being of harm to anyone who is unaware of them then I will show you telepathy.

seamus · 11-08-2008 1:33pm

Tigger wrote: »

for the point of my argumnent i'll have to dissagree

in the individual case acceptance in the law will not change behaviour but in the general case on a long time frame things that are legal will become more and more accepted in the general populace

look for example at homosexuall behaviour

years agoyou would never see girls making out but nowadays many girls kiss on the dance floor in that same way they used to make eye contact to attract one when i was in my late teens

so the acceptance of same sex sexual behaviour has made this a way for girls to flirt

another is condoms

when i went to college condoms were only being sold in pharmacies
it was the time of the virgin megastores selling them with tapes and stuff at the counter

it was illegal and the amout i would buy at a time to avoid having to do it for a while would make me look like a very hygenic brothel owner

nowadays you get them in tesco

Acceptance doesn't correlate however to practise.

Homosexuality is now accepted, but the incidence of homosexuality hasn't increased. The reasons are obvious on this one - homosexuality isn't a choice, it's an attraction. Even with all the acceptance in the world, it's not going to become the popular way of life any more than bondage would become the majority form of sexual expression.

The spread of condom use is next to impossible to isolate; The factors which have lead to condoms being almost universally available are huge in number and also quite complex. Indeed some of the factors (such as the decline of the Catholic church) are not linked at all to the legalisation of contraception.

To claim that legalisation leads to acceptance which leads to universality is taking one leap too far. People don't do thing because they can, they do things because they want to.

If suicide was legalised, do you think we'd all head off killing ourselves? Or do you think we'd reach a baseline level of suicides which correlates to the number of terminally ill and mentally ill in society?

Equally, do you think that if incest was legalised that suddenly (or even over time) the majority of the population would indulge?

Tigger · 11-08-2008 1:33pm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Emotional and empathic state of civilisation as a whole ...

Tell me, who is capable of judging that particular characterisitc of society properly?

Be objective, that statement its self in nonsense and I am putting it squarely in the "hippy-beads and sandles" box. Lets not start attirubting group consciousness etc in places they do not belong.

you have to accept that your argument is entirely based on your emotional reactions - BUT NOT MINE. Do you see what I'm saying here? Those are YOUR emotions.

I find East Enders and Big Brother make me incredibly angry with their vaccuous characters and systematic undermining of any substance to the art of entertaining people. There are many other people who would agree with me.

These shows however are still there (and increasing in popularity against my feelings) and they will continue to be there for the forseeable future - Regardless of my feelings on the subject.

You are making the same argument. That incest between consenting adults should be illegal because you dont like it. Why are your emotions more important than mine?

My emotional reaction to people who want to beat the drum of authoritarianism is fear, disgust, anger and loathing. Why is it that my feelings are less worthy of consideration than yours with respect to this discussion? Or for that matter, the feelings of people your attitude would persecute? Are their emotions not as valuable in terms of your world view?

If you can show any statisitical evidence to support your claim please do so and we will discuss it. If you can show a scientific basis for the private, consentual actions of two (or more) people behind closed doors being of harm to anyone who is unaware of them then I will show you telepathy.

yeah i've taken a different tack please see subsequent post

aidan24326 · 11-08-2008 1:39pm

It's odd how we (a large majority at least) find it almost impossible to be sexually attracted to a sibling, yet most could or possibly have been attracted to a first cousin at one time or another. I've kissed one of my own cousins, yet ask me to kiss my sister and I couldn't do it. It's like there's a barrier there, an impassable brick wall. For most people anyway. Why is it ok (relatively speaking) to kiss my first cousin but repugnant when it's a sister?

Similiarly the vast majority of lads would find the thought of getting off with their mother abhorrent, yet the hot milf auntie wouldn't always be so out of bounds, even though genetically she's still a very close relative. Why is this? Since abhorrence of parent-child sexual relations (in particular) is so universally abhorred amongst humans, across almost all cultures, religions etc, there must be an evolutionary reason as to why this has come to be.

Tigger · 11-08-2008 1:47pm

seamus wrote: »

Acceptance doesn't correlate however to practise.

Homosexuality is now accepted, but the incidence of homosexuality hasn't increased.

of course it has
female homosexual acts as a form of display and play have increased dramatically

The reasons are obvious on this one - homosexuality isn't a choice, it's an attraction. Even with all the acceptance in the world, it's not going to become the popular way of life any more than bondage would become the majority form of sexual expression.

The spread of condom use is next to impossible to isolate; The factors which have lead to condoms being almost universally available are huge in number and also quite complex. Indeed some of the factors (such as the decline of the Catholic church) are not linked at all to the legalisation of contraception.

no its not the spread of condoms to tesco is only possaible by the legislative change

the change was in legislation was probably linked to the decline of the churches influence

To claim that legalisation leads to acceptance which leads to universality

i never suggested universitally

is taking one leap too far. People don't do thing because they can, they do things because they want to.

why did yopu need to climb that mountain, because its there.

If suicide was legalised, do you think we'd all head off killing ourselves? Or do you think we'd reach a baseline level of suicides which correlates to the number of terminally ill and mentally ill in society?

sexual fetish is different to sexual attraction

suicide dosent sound like it would be fun and for the headonistic generation would carry its own punishmnent

Hivemind187 · 11-08-2008 1:47pm

Tigger wrote: »

this is wandering off topic but here goes

i never said icky
i feel that there are certain taboos that soceity must retain to remain what it is

i agree that the romans probably had their sisters but they did loads of things that are now taboo

legalising decriminalising and ignoring are three very different methods of dealing with a situation

if you said "if no one is hurt then should adult siblings be hounded and hunted down for practising incest" then i would say no , no they shouldn't

if you said "should provision be made in law for the protection of their right to do this?" i would say no

so which point would you like me to explain to you

i'll assume that its the latter

here is my reasoning:

making something legal is a route to making it acceptable, i believe that a soceity that has incest as an acceptable practise would be lacking some thing .

here is my reasoning

i still believe in the family unit if we take it as read for my point that the unit has advantages i can continue if not i will be happy to debate the pors of the family unit

the family unit is atb the moment undergoing much pressure from the sexuality of the children involved, myspace and bebo have groups with very young girls pimping themselves out young girls are acting like the women from sex and the city and it seems that unless the parents are very vigalant that their children will become very sexual and more outgoing about it than ever before, (i will debate this point and provide clarity on any part of this you wish to discuss/deny etc) sure i agree that we we up to stuff when we were their age but the flagerancy makes it acceptable to the peer group.
if incest remained taboo then it would not becopme flagerant but if it becomes protected in law then children will try it
why wouldn't they?

sex between two adults very very often leads to feelings of jealousy and of posession(will debate this as a single point if you like) and if siblings start to have sexaul behaviour (not nessiciarly penatrative perhaps mstrabuatory and oral) then aside from the affect on their poor parents if this was as flagarant and blatant as other forms of teen sexuality , there would be issues when they started to form " regular" relationships

This sounds very much like the panicky parent stuff leadiing to "stranger danger" and "Mini-skirts lead to rape".

Both are patently rubbish.

You're attitude to teen sexuality is disturbing. The over all tone is one of "Young people are too interested in dirty things like having sex!" - which, you have no choice but to admit, is because they are teenagers.

Frankly, you still havent provided any supporting evidence or reasonable argument against the protection of individual peoples rights to indulge their passions and sexual tendencies wherein those tendecies and proclivities cause no harm to others.

The argument that the parents are hurt by the bahvior or that anyone who finds out may be wounded emotionally is also a crock.

Many homosexuals deal with a period of ostracisation from their familes, friends and even colleagues when they "come out". You could use your argument to say that they should not do this and continue to live in shame, ignimony and cognitive dissonance because to reveal themselves or to indulge themselves with another consenting adult may hurt someones feelings.

What, exactly, would society be lacking if consentual sex between siblings were to become acceptable? Please don't claim "something" because that is inspecific and too nebulous and constitutes an argument from emtional disgust rather than rational comprehension.

Regarding the family unit - you are straying from the argument somewhat but ok - there is the potential that a family unit could be damaged by such a thing. I'll grant you. However, it could be perceived as similarly devestating should a family member desire a sex change, or reveal they are homosexual or are secretly a practicing Muslim. It is all a matter of reletivity (no pun intended). The families ability to cope, their reactions and the subsequent fall out depend entirely on how they adjust to the situation. some families have no problems with someone being gay but might take offense that they changed religion. Other families might not care what you believe so long as you arent a guy with a hankering for tube-steak. It is a matter of individualism and is something that the likes of governments and justice systems need to stay the hell out of (in my opinion).

Lastly, a word on "protected in law".

What is being argued here is a persons right to conduct themselves and the use of their bodies as they see fit. Whether that be to have sex with men, women, siblings or not at all. The right of people to do so, where this causes no tangible harm, should be protected. Whether you feel it should be acceptable is another matter. The law and the authorities should not concern themselves with whether someone thing is "acceptable" only whether someone is being unduly harmed, that their rights are being infringed or that it is not conducive to a civilised society (ie theft, rape, murder - incest where consentual is none of these things).

robindch · 11-08-2008 1:48pm

aidan24326 wrote: »

there must be an evolutionary reason as to why this has come to be.

Yes, it seems there is -- kin selection, or at least, a corollary to kin selection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

Hivemind187 · 11-08-2008 1:49pm

Tigger wrote: »

yeah i've taken a different tack please see subsequent post

I replied to your post, I'm sorry if I didnt see you having a conversation with someone else while I was responding to you.

Oh, and thats not an answer.

Tigger · 11-08-2008 1:49pm

aidan24326 wrote: »

It's odd how we (a large majority at least) find it almost impossible to be sexually attracted to a sibling, yet most could or possibly have been attracted to a first cousin at one time or another. I've kissed one of my own cousins, yet ask me to kiss my sister and I couldn't do it. It's like there's a barrier there, an impassable brick wall. For most people anyway. Why is it ok (relatively speaking) to kiss my first cousin but repugnant when it's a sister?

Similiarly the vast majority of lads would find the thought of getting off with their mother abhorrent, yet the hot milf auntie wouldn't always be so out of bounds, even though genetically she's still a very close relative. Why is this? Since abhorrence of parent-child sexual relations (in particular) is so universally abhorred amongst humans, across almost all cultures, religions etc, there must be an evolutionary reason as to why this has come to be.

whether thats nature or nurture is hard to know

many seperated siblings feel attraction upon meeting (apparantly)

robindch · 11-08-2008 1:49pm

Tigger wrote: »

female homosexual acts as a form of display and play have increased dramatically

...something that many people would thoroughly applaud

Hivemind187 · 11-08-2008 1:51pm

robindch wrote: »

...something that many people would thoroughly applaud

Here here

seamus · 11-08-2008 1:52pm

It's undoubtably some sort of evolutionary response which compels us to go find mates outside of our immediate social circle.

You'll find people who've spent a long time in eachother's company (such as adopted siblings) will also share the same revulsion at the thought of havign sex with eachother, even though in genetic terms it's not an issue.

The beauty of meiosis means that while a person isn't an exact replica of either their mother or their father, the genes they share are quite close. Just the same, two siblings don't have identical DNA, but the characteristics are relatively similar.

Particularly for men, the sex-linked genes mean that there are a certain number of characteristics which they have no backup, so the possibility of these characteristics coming to the surface changes from nil to 1/4 when reproduction occurs between a man and his mother or a man and his sister.

It's the small changes which make the difference in evolutionary terms, so while the above is a tiny risk, it the cumulative effect of this which causes problems in nature. Without our conditioning preventing us from becoming attracted to member of our own family, it's likely that evolutionary progress would be far slower.

We're more easily attracted to our cousins because we haven't spent any significant amount of time with them.

seamus · 11-08-2008 2:00pm

Tigger wrote: »

of course it has
female homosexual acts as a form of display and play have increased dramatically

Are you suggesting that more women are actually homosexual, or are are actually attracted to their peers? Do you not think that perhaps women have realised the power of these actions to get what they want - no worse than wearing a short skirt.
Do you have any evidence which suggests that the actual number of female homosexuals has increased?

There's a distinct difference between being a homosexual and "putting on" a homosexual act - such as straight men kissing in a movie, for example.

no its not the spread of condoms to tesco is only possaible by the legislative change

the change was in legislation was probably linked to the decline of the churches influence

Even with the legislative change, you can't say that they became acceptable because of it. As I say, the reasons were complex. Not least because suddenly people were being educated and were being *told* to use condoms. Using a condom is a purely logical "should I or shouldn't I" choice. It requires no emotion or sexual preference (in the way that incest does) to make the choice.
Condom use can be and is increased through education. You couldn't say the same for homosexuality or incest.

Acceptance of condoms cannot be compared to legalising incest because it's not a sexual preference (unless you have some sort of rubber fetish).

i never suggested universitally

OK. So then if legalisation is not going to increase the incidence of incest, what's the issue?

Galvasean · 11-08-2008 2:01pm

seamus wrote: »

You'll find people who've spent a long time in eachother's company (such as adopted siblings) will also share the same revulsion at the thought of havign sex with eachother, even though in genetic terms it's not an issue.

So thats where the "I just want to stay friends" thing came from..

Burial · 11-08-2008 2:19pm

Tigger wrote: »

i never said icky
i feel that there are certain taboos that soceity must retain to remain what it is

You claim certain taboos, which implys more then one. What is the other(s)? Society evolves. Different things become accepted and different things become unaccepted.

Tigger wrote: »

i agree that the romans probably had their sisters but they did loads of things that are now taboo

Yes, they did. However it was ok at the time and they still functioned as a society. So did many others after them who practised it.

Tigger wrote: »

legalising decriminalising and ignoring are three very different methods of dealing with a situation

if you said "if no one is hurt then should adult siblings be hounded and hunted down for practising incest" then i would say no , no they shouldn't

if you said "should provision be made in law for the protection of their right to do this?" i would say no

so which point would you like me to explain to you

i'll assume that its the latter

here is my reasoning:

making something legal is a route to making it acceptable, i believe that a soceity that has incest as an acceptable practise would be lacking some thing .

What is that some thing? In some cases making it illegal makes it more acceptable. (Prohibition) What did the Romans and other civilisations lack?? Just because it's taboo for now, doesn't mean society is better.

Tigger wrote: »

here is my reasoning

i still believe in the family unit if we take it as read for my point that the unit has advantages i can continue if not i will be happy to debate the pors of the family unit

the family unit is atb the moment undergoing much pressure from the sexuality of the children involved, myspace and bebo have groups with very young girls pimping themselves out young girls are acting like the women from sex and the city and it seems that unless the parents are very vigalant that their children will become very sexual and more outgoing about it than ever before, (i will debate this point and provide clarity on any part of this you wish to discuss/deny etc) sure i agree that we we up to stuff when we were their age but the flagerancy makes it acceptable to the peer group.
if incest remained taboo then it would not becopme flagerant but if it becomes protected in law then children will try it
why wouldn't they?

If they'd try it because the law says they can then why are there pioneers who've never drank alcohol? Granted, there is a possiblity of a rise in incest cases, but it's down to two consenting adults. The law shouldn't have a say. The law isn't concerned about family values.

Tigger wrote: »

sex between two adults very very often leads to feelings of jealousy and of posession(will debate this as a single point if you like) and if siblings start to have sexaul behaviour (not nessiciarly penatrative perhaps mstrabuatory and oral) then aside from the affect on their poor parents if this was as flagarant and blatant as other forms of teen sexuality , there would be issues when they started to form " regular" relationships

I understand sex between two adults sometimes leads to jealousy and possesive behavious however, not all the time. A hypothetical situation/scenario doesn't mean it'll apply all the time for everyone.

Tigger wrote:

in the individual case acceptance in the law will not change behaviour but in the general case on a long time frame things that are legal will become more and more accepted in the general populace

I don't know if there will be a rise in incest or a decline. It might be accepted more by the population, so people would employ and treat those who practise incest as equals. Incest is a two person game.

Hivemind187 wrote:

You are making the same argument. That incest between consenting adults should be illegal because you dont like it. Why are your emotions more important than mine?

Democracy. A large enough crowd don't want it then thats the way it is. It doesn't even have to be 50% supporting your case!

aidan24326 wrote:

Why is it ok (relatively speaking) to kiss my first cousin but repugnant when it's a sister?

This is due to social accptance of the issue. (Thats what I figure.) historically cousins marrying each other were ALOT more common than brother and sister. I think thats a reason to it. Though I'm just guesssing as to if that's why.

Tigger · 11-08-2008 2:49pm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

This sounds very much like the panicky parent stuff leadiing to "stranger danger" and "Mini-skirts lead to rape".

mini skirts can cause rapists to fix their attention on the wearer and so can increase the odd of a sexual preadator latching on

Both are patently rubbish.

again with the platatudes p[lease state wgy you feel something is without merit don't just sya thats rubbish

You're attitude to teen sexuality is disturbing. The over all tone is one of "Young people are too interested in dirty things like having sex!" - which, you have no choice but to admit, is because they are teenagers.

how is it disturbing? stick to the facts . i have no issue with teens having sex

Frankly, you still havent provided any supporting evidence or reasonable argument against the protection of individual peoples rights to indulge their passions and sexual tendencies wherein those tendecies and proclivities cause no harm to others.

The argument that the parents are hurt by the bahvior or that anyone who finds out may be wounded emotionally is also a crock.

Many homosexuals deal with a period of ostracisation from their familes, friends and even colleagues when they "come out".

yes so therefor the more rights that homosexuals get and the more that equality law protects them the quicker that peoples attitudes will come round
then there will be no issue with them answering "acually da i l;ike boys better than girls"

Regarding the family unit - you are straying from the argument somewhat but ok - there is the potential that a family unit could be damaged by such a thing. I'll grant you. However, it could be perceived as similarly devestating should a family member desire a sex change, or reveal they are homosexual or are secretly a practicing Muslim. It is all a matter of reletivity (no pun intended). The families ability to cope, their reactions and the subsequent fall out depend entirely on how they adjust to the situation. some families have no problems with someone being gay but might take offense that they changed religion. Other families might not care what you believe so long as you arent a guy with a hankering for tube-steak. It is a matter of individualism and is something that the likes of governments and justice systems need to stay the hell out of (in my opinion).

more worried about the jealousy and side taking that goes hand in hand with realationships

not that the children do something wierd but that they do it with each other

Lastly, a word on "protected in law".

What is being argued here is a persons right to conduct themselves and the use of their bodies as they see fit. Whether that be to have sex with men, women, siblings or not at all. The right of people to do so, where this causes no tangible harm, should be protected. Whether you feel it should be acceptable is another matter. The law and the authorities should not concern themselves with whether someone thing is "acceptable" only whether someone is being unduly harmed, that their rights are being infringed or that it is not conducive to a civilised society (ie theft, rape, murder - incest where consentual is none of these things).

why?

Hivemind187 · 11-08-2008 4:35pm

Tigger wrote: »

mini skirts can cause rapists to fix their attention on the wearer and so can increase the odd of a sexual preadator latching on

You're taking the piss right?

Newsflash! rape is a crime of power and opportunity and has little if anything to do with the physical attractiveness of the victim - infact, if you look at the issue of rape as a whole, judging by the statistics, the victim is largely irrelevant simply being in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Frankly, you have just said "They are asking for it".

Tigger wrote: »

again with the platatudes p[lease state wgy you feel something is without merit don't just sya thats rubbish

I will if you will.

Actually, I'll go first.

"Stranger danger" - the pathological fear we attempt to instill in children is patently bull**** because, put simply, the 1 in 1.5million chance of being picked up and killed by a random nutter is slightly less likely than the 1 and 750,000 chance (approximately) of being struck by lightning.

Mini-skirts for the reason stated above.

Quite obvious I would have thought, your's are a little more obscure.

Your turn.

Tigger wrote: »

how is it disturbing? stick to the facts . i have no issue with teens having sex

Apparently you do. Read back over what you have said. remember: I said it was the over all tone of your statements.

From reading you seem preoccupied with the behaviouor of teen girls on the internet and in night clubs and painfully unaware of the facts about things like rape (blaming the victim). The fact is that teenagers want to have sex, thats because their bodies and instincts are driving them to do so. You were moaning about the way they are doing it on the internet and in clubs and you seem to think that this is because we have made it less taboo - rather than it being a natural expression of lust which moral-mobsters have done their level best to repress in western culture for the last few hundred years.

Tigger wrote: »

yes so therefor the more rights that homosexuals get and the more that equality law protects them the quicker that peoples attitudes will come round
then there will be no issue with them answering "acually da i l;ike boys better than girls"

Again, sounds good but makes very little sense. You are assuming that the attitudes were naturally one way (anti-homosexual) and that the change in the law resulted in a growth in the number of people engaging in homosexuality. This, like a lot of your argument, is unsupportable in light of the evidence.

Consider that homosexuality is a biological condition as much as it is an environmental one. It is a matter of physical attraction based on a multitude of external and psychological stimuli.

Most straight men are not particularly attracted to other males (barring phazes of curiosity) just as most siblings are not attracted to one another sexually.

However, some males are attracted to other males even while being attracted to females. This is due to a different chemical and biological make up.

The same can be said of people who engage in incestuous behavior. They are physically attracted to one another.

If you do not descrimintate against consenting homosexuals why should you (and how do you justify) descriminating agaisnt those engaged in incest?

Further, how can you say that the relaxation of the law, which is an intellectual product of society, is going to be directly responsible for an increase in incest when there is the biological and psychological barriers in place? Even if it did, so long as no one was tangibly injured and there were no offspring - why would it be such a danger?

Tigger wrote: »

more worried about the jealousy and side taking that goes hand in hand with realationships

Um, what?

All relationships between people who are close to one another will involve feelings of jealousy, envy, suspicion etc at some point. It's human nature and depends on the mood and disposition of the individuals involved. The fact that two people may be closely related may cause more difficulty - or it may cause less, can you say for sure in every case?

You also assume that all people engaging in incestuous acts are "children" rather than consenting adults.

Tigger wrote: »

not that the children do something wierd but that they do it with each other

Uh-huh. Sure.

In all of this the thing I have noticed most is that you seem to be preoccupied with what other people are doing. Again, I ask you the same question, if two people who are consenting choose to do something with their bodies without harming or damaging anyone else in any tangible manner - what the hell does it matter to you or anyone else?

Tigger wrote: »

why?

Yeah, you're going to have to be a little more specific than that mate before I can give you an answer.

Why should people have rights? Or why should we only be concerned with beiing dictatorial and suppressing those who interfere or harm others?

That one is easy - because everything else is none of your business! if you want to tied to a cactus and flogged with a length of piano wire - thats what you want and no one else should be able to tell you otherwise. Unfortunately the people with attitudes very similar to you (gays, trannys, slap & tickle etc will lead to society crumbling and nazi's riding dinosaurs through the streets - types) have decided that a lot of these things (depending on the country you are in) should be illegal.

I'm not saying you have a problem with the lifestyles depicted here but I am asking you why there is a difference between those lifestyle choices, which are between two consenting human beings (usually adults) are any more protection than those engaging in incest?

Gay, straight, tranny, rubber, incest, thinking you are a cartoon rabbit - whatever, these are all expressions of human beings indulging themselves in whatever way they feel inclined to by either their psychology or their biology. What gives you - or anyone else - the right to say that they should not do it if no one gets hurt in the process?

Zombrex · 11-08-2008 4:37pm

Burial wrote: »

Yes, but you can't argue that consent laws, does allow for the other way around. In fact wasn't there a case where a guy had sex with a minor but got away because she said I'm older and gave consent? It's more of the issue of consent. Like 17 and 18 or 17 and 82. It doesn't matter. In the law they are both adults and are treated as such.

Sorry, I'm not following that at all. What are you asking?

Zombrex · 11-08-2008 4:43pm

Tiggar you are making the mistake that a lot of people used to make (and some still do) with homosexuality.

You are confusing something that you personally find disgusting with something is morally wrong. The idea of it repulses you so you assume that it is must be some how wrong, even if you don't really know what or can't articulate why you think it is wrong.

The point you are missing is that obviously the two people who want to engage in the sexual activity don't find it repulsing or wrong.

Burial · 12-08-2008 9:29am

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not following that at all. What are you asking?

I'm not asking anything. You were complaining to Tigger that we shouldn't take 15 as the age of consent, even though that's what it is in France (Assuming trigger is right). Tigger was making the point that you wouldn't agree with father daughter if she was 15. However, we're talking it from the Irish view which is 17.

Anyway, your saying consent laws are only there so 16 year olds who sleep with other 16 year olds won't be charged with rape. However, in the eyes of the law if an 18 year old or an 82 year old slept with a 16 year old they're still sleeping with a minor and in the case I just mentioned, he got off because she gave him consent and lied about her age. So consent laws work both ways. Its not exculsive to just 16 year olds sleeping with each other.

Hivemind187 wrote:

"Stranger danger" - the pathological fear we attempt to instill in children is patently bull**** because, put simply, the 1 in 1.5million chance of being picked up and killed by a random nutter is slightly less likely than the 1 and 750,000 chance (approximately) of being struck by lightning.

You might think this, but it happens more area's then others. I was walking home 4 months ago after a night out and a guy stopped and asked me, "Do I want a lift home?" I didn't know him, nor did I tell him were I lived. I told him no and a car came down his side of the road, so he went off, but I doubt his intentions were just to give me a free lift anywhere. (Before anyone says any smart comments, he wasn't a taxi

) Probabilty is alot different to actuallity. Generally though, teaching children about NOT doing things strangers tell us to do is a good thing. It's like the "Duck and cover" method that was thaught to "protect" people from a nuclear war. It was only there so people would be prepared to accept the possibility of a nuclear war. The same goes for the stranger danger method. It's there to teach kids not to jump into random people's car or go with random people they don't know. I'd imagine the figure might be higher if children weren't thaught that.

Hivemind187 wrote:

Newsflash! rape is a crime of power and opportunity and has little if anything to do with the physical attractiveness of the victim - infact, if you look at the issue of rape as a whole, judging by the statistics, the victim is largely irrelevant simply being in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Care to provide proof? I just think Tigger is right. I'd try to find some proof against your statement, but I can't google words like rape or incest at work...

seamus · 12-08-2008 10:00am

Burial wrote: »

Care to provide proof? I just think Tigger is right. I'd try to find some proof against your statement, but I can't google words like rape or incest at work...

I doubt there are any specifics on what rape victims were wearing at the time of the incident.

The motivations behind rape are more likely a psychological exercise than a scientific one, but here's a decent start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape

Wikipedia, I know is not an authority, but it provides a starting point for research.

Much like murder and other forms of assault, a person is far more likely to be raped by a member of their family or a close friend than randomly by some stranger on the street.

For every "random" rape that the papers report on a Monday morning, you can guarantee there are about 100 women who've suffered similar at the hands of someone they trusted.

This is why the concept of "stranger danger" is fundamentally flawed - it teaches people that they're safest within the confines of their own family, when the evidence shows that the complete opposite is true.

It's probably an extension of the natural xenophobia that we experience as a species, which causes us to be wary of the unknown.

Hivemind187 · 12-08-2008 10:51am

Burial wrote: »

You might think this, but it happens more area's then others. I was walking home 4 months ago after a night out and a guy stopped and asked me, "Do I want a lift home?" I didn't know him, nor did I tell him were I lived. I told him no and a car came down his side of the road, so he went off, but I doubt his intentions were just to give me a free lift anywhere. (Before anyone says any smart comments, he wasn't a taxi ) Probabilty is alot different to actuallity. Generally though, teaching children about NOT doing things strangers tell us to do is a good thing. It's like the "Duck and cover" method that was thaught to "protect" people from a nuclear war. It was only there so people would be prepared to accept the possibility of a nuclear war. The same goes for the stranger danger method. It's there to teach kids not to jump into random people's car or go with random people they don't know. I'd imagine the figure might be higher if children weren't thaught that.

Um ... what?

You completely missed my point which is that it is statistically complete bull**** to scare the living hell out of kids by filling their minds with the terror of pedo's lurking in every bush. In fact, if you ask any competent clinical or child spychologist they will tell you that it is likely to cause more harm than good by making children fearful and paranoid when they should be out learning the actual boundaries of their world through experimentation and exploration - as is the natural inclination of children everywhere.

It would be different if I had said it doesnt happen at all.

Burial wrote: »

Care to provide proof? I just think Tigger is right. I'd try to find some proof against your statement, but I can't google words like rape or incest at work...

Pick up any book on criminal psychology or the forensics of crime and you will be able to get the same information I got. I came across while doing research for a short story.

Rape is a crime of power not sex.
Rape is a crime of opportunity (in most cases - date rape, child molestation and marital rape being slightly different in that the opportunity is ever present at not a drive factor).

You wont find "proof" against my statement, you may find spurious evidence from womens-interest groups or christian-pressure groups but any psychological research always shows the same thing. Rape is committed by men who wish to exert dominance or power over another person - who that person is, what they look like etc is largely irrelevant in the overall numbers.

josephlee · 12-08-2008 11:28am

Nay to handing over more control to government.

We all carry genetic defects. Most defects don't show up unless an individual carries two copies of the same defective gene; one copy from each parent. The probability of getting two copies of the same defect is high for kids from incestuous relationships, so those kids are more prone to disease. The parents are doing a disservice to their kids. If the kids are ill, they probably wont have kids of their own. On the other hand, if the kids aren't ill, then they must have a great set of genes, but chances are against them.

These problems get sorted out naturally. This law doesn't directly affect me one way or another, but I still don't think we should ever give government more ammo against us.

Tar.Aldarion · 12-08-2008 11:52am

The main issue with incest is that it leads to offspring being homozygous for some genes - that is, having a pair of genes (one maternal and one paternal) coming from the same ancestor.

This isn't a good or a bad thing in itself, however, many genetic disorders are only manifest if both the maternal and paternal genes are the type that contribute to the disease. Because each time inbreeding occurs, the genetic variables in the potential offspring lessen, you're moving closer and closer to homozygosity. It is not likely that incest will keep passing down through generations if it was lawful though. Now, if you have a child with your sister, there may be a 1/1 chance that your child will have a defect or 1/100,000,000 or more. It depends on the two people. The same could apply to two unrelated people.
There are separate genes or combinations of genes for a multitude of disorders. Depending on the actual individuals it could be any odds.

I have read that incest in royal families occured thoughout history for this reason (the flipside), elders may have noticed introducing foreign genotypes into the bloodline caused some desirable reccessive traits to diminish, so kept the bloodline shallow in order to preserve these traits.

Burial · 12-08-2008 12:10pm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Um ... what?

You completely missed my point which is that it is statistically complete bull**** to scare the living hell out of kids by filling their minds with the terror of pedo's lurking in every bush. In fact, if you ask any competent clinical or child spychologist they will tell you that it is likely to cause more harm than good by making children fearful and paranoid when they should be out learning the actual boundaries of their world through experimentation and exploration - as is the natural inclination of children everywhere.

It would be different if I had said it doesnt happen at all.

So any clinical or child pychologist who disagree's with what you say is incompetent? I fully got your point, (you clearly didn't get mine), but by telling children to not follow strangers is a bad thing is quite shocking. You have no proof that letting a child do as they please will reduce or increase the number of child abductions or even stay the same. I was giving you an example of what happened with me. The guy mighn't have wanted to abduct me, however I'm very certain he didn't want to drive me home and leave me at that. I was tired and if I was thought to say no, I might say yes and who knows what would have happened then? He mightn't have gotten his way with me but he mightve robbed my house or some other act. besides why would I take a risk like that for an 8 euro ride home?

I also gave the duck and cover methods as an example of the way it wouldn't protect you or help you, but was a method of making people accept that something was likely. By telling kids of stranger danger, you make them aware that this situation can occur and the best response is no, as you don't know the outcome of the result. It'll help quench parents fears on what there child would do, and make the child grow without the watchful eye of the parent all the time. As you get older you can understand differences, (and defend yourself) but as a child if someone said "here is the latest action man/barbie doll that your parents won't get yoou, all you have to do is get it from the back of my car". I'd honestly think alot more would be more willing to get the present, if not for stranger danger. Also, presents to children are used as a means of gaining their trust. So maybe they mighn't do whatever with them straight away, however, just say no.

The problem with experimentation, is it can lead to bad results. It can lead to good results too. Exploration and expermentation is grand for a child but you have to draw a line somewhere.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Pick up any book on criminal psychology or the forensics of crime and you will be able to get the same information I got. I came across while doing research for a short story.

Rape is a crime of power not sex.
Rape is a crime of opportunity (in most cases - date rape, child molestation and marital rape being slightly different in that the opportunity is ever present at not a drive factor).

You wont find "proof" against my statement, you may find spurious evidence from womens-interest groups or christian-pressure groups but any psychological research always shows the same thing. Rape is committed by men who wish to exert dominance or power over another person - who that person is, what they look like etc is largely irrelevant in the overall numbers.

The problem with any book you read on rape cases, is that some aren't reported. So reading a book about the criminal psycology and the forensics only apply to reported cases. (Still good info to use) You'll never get the full picture, but these are good places to look for information on why rape is done.

Wikipedia wrote:

POWER RAPE:::

focus is on male-female rape with no explanations offered for male-male or female-perpetrated forms of rape

Wikipedia wrote:

Warren Farrell took issue with the feminist idea that rape has nothing to do with sex by noting that (male-female) rape statistics show young and sexually attractive females are raped far more often than older, less sexually attractive females.

If it was only just about power then why aren't men going after older women more often? And how the hell can he judge sexually attractive females as it'll differ for everyone, but the point still stands.

Seamus wrote:

I doubt there are any specifics on what rape victims were wearing at the time of the incident.

Yes, you won't know if the rapist would've raped the victim if her skirt was cm longer or her hair was what way. Though you'd have to agree by wearing more sexually pleasing clothing more men would be focused on her. She more of a target. I'm not saying wearing short skirts guarantees rape.

Seamus wrote:

The motivations behind rape are more likely a psychological exercise than a scientific one, but here's a decent start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape

Wikipedia, I know is not an authority, but it provides a starting point for research.

Yes, wikipedia is fine in my books as a source.

Seamus wrote:

Much like murder and other forms of assault, a person is far more likely to be raped by a member of their family or a close friend than randomly by some stranger on the street.

I don't know if that's true or not, care to provide a link for proof?

*Never mind found it on wikipedia*

Seamus wrote:

For every "random" rape that the papers report on a Monday morning, you can guarantee there are about 100 women who've suffered similar at the hands of someone they trusted.

This is why the concept of "stranger danger" is fundamentally flawed - it teaches people that they're safest within the confines of their own family, when the evidence shows that the complete opposite is true.

Please show this evidence.
*Never mind found it on wikipedia*

I feel my point still stands.

Wearing more sexually pleasing clothing more men would be more focused on her. She is more of a target. I'm not saying wearing short skirts guarantees rape but she is getting more attention then normal.

From incest to rape... What a thread!

Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

Comments