The Last Taboo

[Henry_Henry2012]

Well I think basing on history, there are some notable people in history who's had sexual relations with their cousins and even to the point of consummating their relationship to marriage, but not really close-kin relations such as brother or sisters or even mother and father (I think there are some people in history but I'm not a fan of remembering names).

 

Society will never propagate such notions of incestuous relations because it goes against our biological nature as men and women to avoid procreation with our own genetic pool. Safe to say, no one wants to imagine having sex with their brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers, let alone acting on their impulses unless their are some rooted issues implied to one's childhood (et al. Freudian, Jungian, Adler school of thought) or the study of one's psyche in being so.

 

I think 3rd cousin relationship are acknowledged by some governments due to the dilution of the genetic coding mapped in the DnA; however, any upper hierarchy to such degree is frowned upon by most of us or any at all.

 

In terms of homosexual relationships applied under the pretext of incest, I perceive that what you're referring to, Sasha, is those in the community who's had experiences probably with their cousins or brothers. But its not indicative that those experiences pertain of a full-blown relationship with their blood relatives that stood through to time into adulthood. I'm not overgeneralising on this fact because some may have that "exact" relationship under private preclusions of secrecy -- of course. 

 

Personally speaking, it doesn't really mean that just because I'm gay doesn't imply that I can LITERALLY sleep with whomever I want so and so, which disregards societal structures or kinship. We're past the dark ages and I'd like to think that humans have evolved to knowing fully the effects of in-breeding. It is probably the one taboo that will never be accepted in society no matter how much free-love-kind-of-70's-thinking one may have, unless our genes have found a way to avoid the subliminal effects of our future genetic timeline in avoiding prenatal effects to an unborn child due to inbreeding, then yes . . . let's love everyone in accordance to our own factions of our definitive stance of what is love.

 

And when gay sex is compared to all things unnatural coupled with the fact that one is having an incestuous relationship then it leads to catastrophe beyond measures upon the perceptions of what people perceive to our community. I'd like to think that morality is vague and that there are some boundaries needed to be crossed but incest . . . ermm . . . the thought of it just creep me to the bone.

 

Sure, kissing my second cousin on a dare, which I found to be exhilarating, was fun and all in good nature, and doing that when I was 17 is all too natural with the whole experimentation phase. But pursuing a relationship with him wherein he now has kids and a wife is just bone tingling and mind numbing. Probably it's my upbringing growing up in a devout Catholic family, despite not going to church anymore since I always cried every Sunday into thinking that God hated me. 

 

Anyhoo, taboo is all relative. Just like eating ice cream in winter. Hang on, I'm getting dumb again. Sorry for that metaphor. I'm shutting up now.

[Slytherin]

I look at tags and warnings before I read stories. Rape, abuse and incest stories I don't want to read and if an author posts a warning   "this chapter contains graphic violence" I am very grateful cause I don't like violence either, so I can skip that story. I read a story once without the rape tag and in the end of the chapter it was quite obvious that one man was gonna be raped by many men and I did not like that at all - please warn the readers so they can choose if they want to read it. I cried when I read that chapter

[Thorn Wilde]

I think 3rd cousin relationship are acknowledged by some governments due to the dilution of the genetic coding mapped in the DnA; however, any upper hierarchy to such degree is frowned upon by most of us or any at all.

 

Actually, it's legal for first cousins to marry in loads of countries. It only harms the gene pool if it happens for generation after generation. If it's just the once, it makes very little difference.

[Zombie]

It only harms the gene pool if it happens for generation after generation. If it's just the once, it makes very little difference.

 

Not according to this

 

Marriage between first cousins doubles the risk of children being born with birth defects, according to a study seeking answers to the higher than expected rates of deaths and congenital abnormalities in the babies of the Pakistani community.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/04/marriage-first-cousins-birth-defects

[Thorn Wilde]

Not according to this

 

Marriage between first cousins doubles the risk of children being born with birth defects, according to a study seeking answers to the higher than expected rates of deaths and congenital abnormalities in the babies of the Pakistani community.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/04/marriage-first-cousins-birth-defects

 

Actually, that article doesn't say anything about for how many generations cousins have been marrying in those families. Since this is a cultural practice, it's probably safe to say that they have ancestors who have also been marrying their cousins. When first cousin inbreeding takes place for generation after generation, even if it skips a generation or two here and there, the result is that first cousins are as genetically close as siblings. It it happens just the once in a bloodline, the risks generally aren't significantly higher than normal.

[Zombie]

Actually, that article doesn't say anything about for how many generations cousins have been marrying in those families ... It it happens just the once in a bloodline, the risks generally aren't significantly higher than normal.

 

Fair enough. But I don 't see how meaningful data could be obtained on single occurrences - which begs the question how you could have an informed opinion either way.

[W_L]

Fair enough. But I don 't see how meaningful data could be obtained on single occurrences - which begs the question how you could have an informed opinion either way.

So glad the British monarchy stopped doing that

 

Is there any nature based example of incestuous or close genetic relations in animals?

[Zombie]

So glad the British monarchy stopped doing that

 

Is there any nature based example of incestuous or close genetic relations in animals?

 

Yes, it was nice when they started talking English too

 

Examples: dog breeding by evil humans = genetic problems in various breeds In "nature" it seems to happen with some species such as bonobos, lions, some fish - there's loads on the web like this link if this is your "special interest"

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=4612467&page=1

 

Another point - there are already problems with adopted siblings marrying, unaware, and the development of the sperm donor "industry" over the last 40 years means that more siblings / half siblings are going to marry, unaware, with potentially disastrous results. There are no effective controls in place to prevent this

http://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Zombie

[Henry_Henry2012]

Actually, it's legal for first cousins to marry in loads of countries. It only harms the gene pool if it happens for generation after generation. If it's just the once, it makes very little difference.

 

But given that point, why would you want to marry your first cousin in the first place. For me, I find it too close for comfort. And even if the percentage of having relations to my blood relative is small to have a birth-defected offspring, in quintessence, the risk is imminent and evident. It's the same as saying that, e.g. just because your grandparents were first cousins and none in your family experienced any ailments, without recognising that you and your siblings are prone to heart attacks and diabetes, doesn't mean that another family with the same situation isn't suffering any severe or worst complications with in-breeding. Overgeneralisation can be a brutal bitch sometimes which leads to death in some cases. 

 

I'd imagine that anyone who would want to have any family in the future (gay or straight) wouldn't want their sons or daughters to marry their brothers/sisters/or cousins for that matter if the chances of their grandkids were to suffer from a birth defect associated with such.

 

It's the same as, why play with fire if you know it will burn you. To each their own - yes, it's given - but their are 7 billion people +++ in this planet and you can't find someone other than your brother, sister, mother, father, or cousins to consider as the love of your life? As much as I'm a proponent for free love . . . I just find this too weird. We're not constrained by classes and society anymore than in our victorian counterparts where marrying within the same classes were preferred. No one knew shit then what we know now so why still risk the percentage of having the future of your bloodline contaminated with in-breeding?

 

I don't know but I'm too much of a softie. To think that I would be the sole cause for my great great grandkid to be autistic all because (an example which would never happen in real life cause it's utterly unnerving and puke-inducing thought) I married my sister would break my heart. 

 

 

 

I just read this in wiki and it made me lol. Just wanted to share this. "For hundreds of years, inbreeding was historically unavoidable in Iceland due to its then tiny and isolated population." That's one hell of a family tree. Haha.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Henry_Henry2012

[Thorn Wilde]

I just read this in wiki and it made me lol. Just wanted to share this. "For hundreds of years, inbreeding was historically unavoidable in Iceland due to its then tiny and isolated population." That's one hell of a family tree. Haha.

 

Interestingly, the Icelandic gene pool is remarkably strong, and they're very attractive people, too. My best friend growing up was from Iceland and I've been there. Iceland is directly contradictory to everything we think we know about inbreeding, really...

 

As for the rest of your post, I am completely comfortable with admitting that I had huge crushes on pretty much all my male cousins at one point or another growing up. 

 

A friend of mine was engaged to her cousin. They didn't end up getting married, thank God. I say 'Thank God' not because they were cousins but because he was a humongous douche bag. 

[W_L]

Just found this one, it rewrites Pixar's Finding Nemo in a weird and interesting way:

 

Finding Nemo

Father and mother clownfish are tending to their clutch of eggs at their sea anemone when the mother is eaten by a barracuda. Nemo hatches as an undifferentiated hermaphrodite (as all clownfish are born) while his father transforms into a female now that his female mate is dead. Since Nemo is the only other clownfish around, he becomes a male and mates with his father (who is now a female). Should his father die, Nemo would change into a female and mate with another male. Although a much different storyline, it still sounds like a crazy adventure!

 

 

If incestuous relationships ever get that complicated in human couples, society will be filled with TV talk shows.

[crazyfish]

I don't think worrying about inbreeding is that reasonable.  The chances of your inbred kid bearing another inbred kid is miniscule.  Frankly for all the worries about inbreeding, I'd worry more about the increased risk of bearing a child with down's syndrome or one with severe autism due to bearing children too late in life.   More concerned with psychological issues involved in close sibling incest personally.  

Edited September 28, 2013 by crazyfish

[GrimIsaac]

The only problem I have with incest is the offspring's possible genetic defects, if the two(+) partners are of the same sex, sterile, or making sure no one gets pregnant, I would be ok with it, though it would slightly creep me out only because of society's affect on raising of myself.

[obscene cupcake]

I like how you are forgetting bestiality- which logically has no negatives to it that can't also be found amongst humans. 

 

 

and child "fake" porn like lolita and shota...

 

 

and knife play....

and sadism....

 

foodies... people really hate foodies.....

 

 

 

necrophelia- another thing that logically someone should have no problem with, if the person donates their body do it....

 

 

small scale cannibalism... these are all taboo fetishes. 

 

 

 

[Thorn Wilde]

Well I think basing on history, there are some notable people in history who's had sexual relations with their cousins and even to the point of consummating their relationship to marriage, but not really close-kin relations such as brother or sisters or even mother and father (I think there are some people in history but I'm not a fan of remembering names).

 

The Egyptian pharaohs all married their sisters. They were divine, literally the kin of the gods, and so they could only marry and procreate with other people who were also divine. 

 

I like how you are forgetting bestiality- which logically has no negatives to it that can't also be found amongst humans. 

 

An animal is unable to give consent. I see this as a fairly 'logical negative', to be honest. A lot of us have this weird barrier that you do not shag something that cannot give consent, strange and illogical as that may seem to you... As soon as we're in a fantasy universe in which animals can talk and flirt, you can have your character shag as many lions and tigers and bears, oh my, as you could possibly want and I couldn't give less of a shit.

[obscene cupcake]

The Egyptian pharaohs all married their sisters. They were divine, literally the kin of the gods, and so they could only marry and procreate with other people who were also divine. 

 

 

An animal is unable to give consent. I see this as a fairly 'logical negative', to be honest. A lot of us have this weird barrier that you do not shag something that cannot give consent, strange and illogical as that may seem to you... As soon as we're in a fantasy universe in which animals can talk and flirt, you can have your character shag as many lions and tigers and bears, oh my, as you could possibly want and I couldn't give less of a shit.

Certain animals, such as Dolphin's, can clearly give consent. 

 

Dolphin's also rape people. Fun fact.

 

My point was that there are a lot of things out there that are taboo (In N. America at least), incest is not the last of them.

 

 

Poly. had poly to the list. Poly is frowned upon too. 

[Thorn Wilde]

Certain animals, such as Dolphin's, can clearly give consent. 

 

Dolphin's also rape people. Fun fact.

 

My point was that there are a lot of things out there that are taboo (In N. America at least), incest is not the last of them.

 

 

Poly. had poly to the list. Poly is frowned upon too. 

 

You do not speak the same language as a dolphin. You cannot actually understand what a dolphin says. A dolphin is unable to give consent, legal or otherwise. 

[obscene cupcake]

You do not speak the same language as a dolphin. You cannot actually understand what a dolphin says. A dolphin is unable to give consent, legal or otherwise. 

Apparently you did not hear me that dolphin's have raped humans. They can do more than give consent, they can take sex without it. 

 

Unless EVERY SINGLE TIME you have sex with your partner you stop and ask "So just to be sure, this body language of a hard dick thrusting in my hand with your hand  over it trying to get more frictionmeans that you want us to fuck, right? Verbalize your answer, please" and you NEVER USE body language, you really can't talk.There are few arguments that infuriate me more than the "people cannot give consent with their actions" argument. It basically claims that sign language is not a language at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

 

I really don't want to get into that debate though. 

Edited October 16, 2013 by obscene cupcake

[Stellar]

Apparently you did not hear me that dolphin's have raped humans. They can do more than give consent, they can take sex without it. 

 

Unless EVERY SINGLE TIME you have sex with your partner you stop and ask "So just to be sure, this body language of a hard dick thrusting in my hand with your hand  over it trying to get more frictionmeans that you want us to fuck, right? Verbalize your answer, please" and you NEVER USE body language, you really can't talk.There are few arguments that infuriate me more than the "people cannot give consent with their actions" argument. It basically claims that sign language is not a language at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

 

I really don't want to get into that debate though. 

 

The problem with that whole concept is you are equating a human mentality with an animal's perception. Humans share these concepts with one another because we are engaged in a mutual social construct and we have easily communicable thought processes. Sign language is essentially a straw man, in this instance, that has nothing to do with an animal 'giving consent' because sex, accessibility to sex and social attitudes to sex being translated interspecies can be a hugely different can of worms.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Stellar

[obscene cupcake]

The problem with that whole concept is you are equating a human mentality with an animal's perception. Humans share these concepts with one another because we are engaged in a mutual social construct and we have easily communicable thought processes. Sign language is essentially a straw man, in this instance, that has nothing to do with an animal 'giving consent' because sex, accessibility to sex and social attitudes to sex being translated interspecies can be a hugely different can of worms.

I have pages and pages of sources [edit: actually, I don't. Computer crashed and did a system wipe awhile ago. Forgot.] and could go on about this forever, but like I said I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO A DEBATE RIGHT NOW. So believe what you want, it's no skin off my back, and it is unlikely to matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

Is that okay with everyone? 

 

I mean I guess if people really wanted to, I could drag out all my sources, say how I came to that conclusion, ect. ect. But to be honest.... bleh. That's too much work.

 

So can we just drop it? Ppppllleeeaaase? I want to be lazy. 

 

My point was that there are other taboos out there. 

Edited October 16, 2013 by obscene cupcake

[Stellar]

I have pages and pages of sources and could go on about this forever, but like I said I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO A DEBATE RIGHT NOW. So believe what you want, it's no skin off my back, and it is unlikely to matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

Is that okay with everyone? 

 

I mean I guess if people really wanted to, I could drag out all my sources, say how I came to that conclusion, ect. ect. But to be honest.... bleh. That's too much work.

 

So can we just drop it? Ppppllleeeaaase? I want to be lazy. 

 

My point was that there are other taboos out there. 

 

Then why are you engaging in this discussion if you want to make a point but don't intend to provide any supporting proof when a deconstruction of your logic is given?

 

Why keep responding if you'd rather this end?

 

There are other taboos out there, sure. That I would not question. Yet this thread is (mostly, it seems) about the significance of incest as a historical/cultural/social 'forbidden behaviour' and the reasons surrounding it.

[Thorn Wilde]

Apparently you did not hear me that dolphin's have raped humans. They can do more than give consent, they can take sex without it. 

 

Unless EVERY SINGLE TIME you have sex with your partner you stop and ask "So just to be sure, this body language of a hard dick thrusting in my hand with your hand  over it trying to get more frictionmeans that you want us to fuck, right? Verbalize your answer, please" and you NEVER USE body language, you really can't talk.There are few arguments that infuriate me more than the "people cannot give consent with their actions" argument. It basically claims that sign language is not a language at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

 

I really don't want to get into that debate though. 

 

Actually, I did note that you mentioned that dolphins have been known to try and rape humans. I am entirely aware of that fact, as well as the fact that they rape each other, both for reproduction and dominance. Many animals do. Does that mean that it's all right for us to rape them?

 

I never stated that body language is not a language. People have consensual sex in spite of spoken language barriers all the time. There are many ways to communicate. But you don't share body language with a dolphin either. You haven't even got most of the same body parts, how could your body language even begin to be similar? Your facial expressions, your movements and the sounds you make are all so very different. So without a doctorate in marine biology with focus on dolphin communication, I don't really see how you could even begin to fairly interpret a dolphin's language, verbal or otherwise, well enough for it to be able to give consent in any way at all.

[Sasha Distan]

Thank you Thorn and Stellar for getting us back on track.

 

I actually had a really weird debate about this at school today. i sort of ended up in an ethics lesson where a kid was discussing that if you were separated at birth from a sibling, or adopted and thus never never your real family, you wouldn't necessarily be recognised by law as being related and this if you met and fell in love with a person from your family and found out later, would this still be classed as incest?

there was a rather lively debate and i discovered that top set year 11's are witty little sods.

[Zombie]

I actually had a really weird debate about this at school today. i sort of ended up in an ethics lesson where a kid was discussing that if you were separated at birth from a sibling, or adopted and thus never never your real family, you wouldn't necessarily be recognised by law as being related and this if you met and fell in love with a person from your family and found out later, would this still be classed as incest?

there was a rather lively debate and i discovered that top set year 11's are witty little sods.

 

I made reference to this earlier in the thread [#58]. There is a serious black hole in the UK's adoption and sperm donor processes. The law on incest is not the issue - it is the emotional trauma and avoidable human tragedy of the wrecked lives of the couple plus potential genetic damage to their children that will be caused when this happens. And it has already happened and no-one is doing anything, no-one is taking ownership and responsibility for sorting out this mess. Frankly, every agency and govt dept involved in getting us where we are today has behaved delinquently. It is absolutely disgraceful. I don't know what the position is in other countries, but this is a real and pressing problem that's getting bigger every day.

 

Another point - there are already problems with adopted siblings marrying, unaware, and the development of the sperm donor "industry" over the last 40 years means that more siblings / half siblings are going to marry, unaware, with potentially disastrous results. There are no effective controls in place to prevent this

http://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html

[Sasha Distan]

ah yes, i remember. honestly it wasn't something i'd really thought about until a fifteen year old brought it up.