Two adult brothers in a relationship

cursai

What are yis all on about. It's wrong full stop. For the people who are justifying or rationalising it. Your telling yourselves that you find yet sisters attractive as well. Ugh.

coffee_cake

Oh, it's wrong full stop because a stranger on the internet said so

I guess that's sorted then

4zn76tysfajdxp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZOMloBF2kY

aaronjumper

I leave Boards alone for a week or two and look what happens.

4zn76tysfajdxp

cursai wrote: »

Your telling yourselves that you find yet sisters attractive as well.

Well.... yeah. Just not mine.

coffee_cake

hey look! somebody's attractive cousin!

Cee-Jay-Cee

OP the question raises more questions about your mindset than it does about the topic. Ok you can see no wrong with it but why are you even thinking like that? You seem like a pretty disturbed person.

Colmustard

Anyone ever hear of this

Genetic sexual Attraction.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=genetic%20sexual%20attraction&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGenetic_sexual_attraction&ei=SV0tUNg7yM6EB8magegP&usg=AFQjCNGfsImvPtShRfiAB4qDuc7KnFa30Q

hooradiation

NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

But I hate the idea of anyone being happy, so this is to be expected.

My name is URL

If it were my brothers then I'd have a problem with it... can't deny that I would. It just wouldn't sit right with me at all and I don't think I could accept it. For one thing, it would have a huge fallout for the entire family, not just those involved. If one of my brothers was gay I certainly wouldn't have an issue with it, but that's not going to affect the family as a whole in the same way that an incestuous relationship of any kind would.

I know people will say that what 2 consenting adults do is their own business and nobody elses, but that's a bit simplistic when you're talking about something like incest. Others would get dragged into it and be forced to make decisions and sacrifices which shouldn't be expected of them just in order to prop up the relationship of another.

cursai

If a person can rationalise this with themselves. They were born sideways. Sicko thinking.

Duiske

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Anyway 99.99% of those vids are just girls who look identical but are of no relation

Bubble bust'in barsteward. :mad:

PC CDROM

None of that would bother me. I have my own morals and everyone else can have theirs.

As long as no one is getting hurt... live and let live. Who am I too judge? And I don't mean that from an "I'm all right Jack" point of view either.

Rocket19

Agree that this is actually a very interesting topic, and does challenge mainstream though processes. I believe most people oppose incest not because it's inherently wrong, but because of deeply ingrained social norms.

The issue of potential children with deformities, of course could be cited as a danger and reason to oppose incest. However, lets assume that one of the parties is infertile in the incestuous relationship (obviously this need not apply to the gay example). Assuming the above, you are therefore left with two people (let's say they're consenting adults) who really should have the right to have sex with each other, if that's what they so desire???

Of course, many people will respond to this with "eww you're disgusting, you must fancy your brother" or whatever. Pretty much everyone is disturbed by incest, but can't really say why. This is because, for generations, it has been widely accepted as fact that incest is inherently wrong, and anyone who engages in it would consequently become a social pariah. Opposition to incest is extremely widespread and the negative opinion of incest is rarely challenged (it is a massive social taboo, after all). Therefore, the nature and morality of incestuous relationships haven't really been examined as much as they probably should have.

Now, another reason I can think of why people would logically oppose incest (lets assume potential kids are not an issue) is the fact that a 'normal', typical family relationship is different from that of a romantic one. While love exists in both cases, it's (in 'normal' circumstances), a very different kind of love. Siblings grow up together, share parents, etc.
I would be interested to know (I have no knowledge on this topic) if we are actually biologically 'programmed' to lack attraction to our close family members? If there was a 'mechanism' that biologically 'stifles' this attraction, surely it's possibly it could be 'faulty' or 'switched off' in some people?? Or is opposition to incest solely societal in nature.

Must note also, that I am actually as "grossed out" by the idea of incest as everyone else, but it is an interesting topic, especially when you remove any elements of 'harm' (kids) from the situation.

paddyandy

OP It's an evil rumour that casts aspersions on all close brothers .Never heard of that
.A new low .

chughes

Op, do these brothers by any chance live in Ballydung Manor?

Sinfonia

ScumLord wrote: »

Incest is biologically repulsive because of the possibility of having children with genetic abnormalities. Two men can't produce children so it's only disgusting but not harmful.

Assuming you consider 'repulsive' & 'disgusting' synonyms, you've contradicted yourself.

Lyaiera wrote: »

There's far too much of a likelihood that their relationship is predicated on some form of abuse or emotional neglect.

cassi wrote: »

It's wrong because If two brothers, that grew up together and formed a bothers bond, started a relationship it would probably point to deep seeded emotional neglect and abuse. While its harming nobody else, it's gonna harm the people involved. They would actually already be harmed. It's well accepted that people who don't form functional adult relationships either physical or not, have been the victims of abuse as children. That's why it would worry me!

First off, there wouldn't necessarily need to be any abuse or neglect, that's pure speculation and generalisation; additionally, if somebody makes poor relationship decisions with people outside of their family as a result of emotional abuse or neglect, does that mean their choices and actions should be thought of as disgusting or wrong in the same way? Abuse/neglect doesn't enter into it.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Sometimes you just know something is wrong. You don't need to articulate reasons why because its so inherently disturbing and depraved that it goes without saying.

Perhaps you're happy to accept all things that are taught to you; many people would rather question everything. It's the kind of thing that leads to a better understanding of our existence. It amazes me how many people have shunned the OP's question without any reasoning or a second of thought.


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but does not the prevailing theory of evolution insist that we are all ultimately the product of incest?
It seems to me that the notion of incest being 'wrong' or repulsive is a purely societal construct, and as always in such matters, I subscribe to Mill's harm principle (although adding consent between two parties).
Realistically, there's no need for anybody to know the private affairs of any other person anyway, and if you did know of such an occurrence, what the hell would you seek to do about it?

Having said all that, I was saying to someone just yesterday that I couldn't even get with someone who had the same name as my sister or mother.. *shudder*

dodderangler

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Do you think it's wrong?

If so why?

I can't think of a legitimate reason why it shouldn't be allowed. So long as they aren't harming anyone good luck to them. Now the thought of it somewhat turns my stomach, but that is hardly justification to forbid two brothers from being together.

Does your brother know you fancy him?

Nonoperational

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Do you think it's wrong?

If so why?

I can't think of a legitimate reason why it shouldn't be allowed. So long as they aren't harming anyone good luck to them. Now the thought of it somewhat turns my stomach, but that is hardly justification to forbid two brothers from being together.

Scanlas the 1st is going to get one hell of a shock...

Morag

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

To see if anyone can justify why it's wrong. I can't.

Cos it's seen as a perversion of family/sibling bonds.

Sinfonia

Sharrow wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote:

To see if anyone can justify why it's wrong. I can't.

Cos it's seen as a perversion of family/sibling bonds.

I think it's obvious that the OP is equating 'wrong' with 'seen as a perversion' - of family/sibling bonds, social mores etc. The question is why.

girl2

I just think that society has become so accepting of things today that weren't so accepted 20 years ago.....that boundaries are so pushed beyond limits nowadays. And the notion of the more taboo the better, it would seem in some instances. I am baffled as to why, why, why......would anyone consider this, or even wonder about it.

mauzo

I kissed my cousin once my friends never let me live that down. I'm not blood related and hadn't seen him in about 9 years.

We were only talking about this a few weeks ago, Im fostered and could marry my dad or brothers. That is just so creepy.

MD1990

Scanlas this is scandalous behaviour

Katgurl

yeah i sometimes wonder about this myself

there are plenty of stories about siblings who meet as adults feeling a very strong attraction to each other. there was that heterosexual couple in britain few years back who were jailed because they refused to give each other up & they just wrote love letters to each other the whole time.


Ok so genetically it can be problematic if they reproduce but outside of that, how are they damaging society or themselves?


IMO its as ridiculous as in not-so-distant past homosexuality being illegal.

TeddyTedson

Back in my time brothers would fight and kick the living **** out of each other.
Now they're just ****ing each other up...the ass!

I guess they wouldn't be hurting anyone...Still messed up though!
I blame the parents, or something.

Madam_X

I'd find it weird but it wouldn't bother me otherwise.

Lyaiera

girl2 wrote: »

I just think that society has become so accepting of things today that weren't so accepted 20 years ago.....that boundaries are so pushed beyond limits nowadays. And the notion of the more taboo the better, it would seem in some instances. I am baffled as to why, why, why......would anyone consider this, or even wonder about it.

This is exactly why I think this thread is ****ing disgusting. It's all predicated on the idea that homosexual relationships are "icky" but society is ok with them, so why aren't incestuous relationships that are "icky" not ok too. It's mudslinging at it's purest about the supposed degradation of society and what allowing rights for gay people will lead to.

For anyone even a little versed in the topic of gay rights it's blatantly obvious what this thread is. To make it even more obvious it even started out of a thread about gay rights.

There have been multiple comparisons between gay people and incestuous people and while there has never been a valid reason for oppressing homosexuals there have been valid reasons given for not allowing some incestuous relationships. Still, the conversation keeps going back to the idea of it simply being "icky" reinforcing the idea that gay relationships are wrong because they're "icky" too.

This is literally the most disgusting thread I have ever seen in After Hours.

Sinfonia wrote: »

First off, there wouldn't necessarily need to be any abuse or neglect, that's pure speculation and generalisation; additionally, if somebody makes poor relationship decisions with people outside of their family as a result of emotional abuse or neglect, does that mean their choices and actions should be thought of as disgusting or wrong in the same way? Abuse/neglect doesn't enter into it.

Of course abuse and neglect comes into it. Let's take it a step further beyond sibling relationships. Let's say a parent and their child enter a relationship when they're both adults (and in this case I'm not talking about long-lost situations.) Would that hint of a normal early relationship between the two people, or would it be indicative of abuse or neglect?

And to say you can't stop what is extremely likely to be the result of a damaged upbringing because you can't stop it with non-incestuous relationships is ridiculous. There are a lot of things that should not be legal but simply can't be legislated against because of the impact such legislation would have on broader liberties. This is a very specific scenario where the positive effect is so obvious anf legislating against it is so insignificant in regards to the negative effect that it would be stupid not to do so.

The law is never perfect and has never made claims to do so. The idea that the law isn't perfect is one of the foundations our entire legal system is based on. It is all a balancing act, and on balance legislating against incest is the correct thing.

Madam_X

cursai wrote: »

Your telling yourselves that you find yet sisters attractive as well. Ugh.

paddyandy wrote: »

OP It's an evil rumour that casts aspersions on all close brothers .Never heard of that
.A new low .

Where did anyone even imply the above?

It's not something I'd wish for for my brothers, because it's not something they'd wish for either - one hardly wants to be in the position of being deeply in love with one's sibling. Life would not be easy, to say the least. However, otherwise, while it's weird, what's the issue? Apart from being sick to many, what really is the problem? Some people feel it's best to accept these things and get on with life - not much more they can do. That can't be difficult to grasp surely.

Lyaiera

Lyaiera wrote: »

This is exactly why I think this thread is ****ing disgusting. It's all predicated on the idea that homosexual relationships are "icky" but society is ok with them, so why aren't incestuous relationships that are "icky" not ok too. It's mudslinging at it's purest about the supposed degradation of society and what allowing rights for gay people will lead to.

For anyone even a little versed in the topic of gay rights it's blatantly obvious what this thread is. To make it even more obvious it even started out of a thread about gay rights.

There have been multiple comparisons between gay people and incestuous people and while there has never been a valid reason for oppressing homosexuals there have been valid reasons given for not allowing some incestuous relationships. Still, the conversation keeps going back to the idea of it simply being "icky" reinforcing the idea that gay relationships are wrong because they're "icky" too.

This is literally the most disgusting thread I have ever seen in After Hours.

You're seeing what you want to see.

It's quite possible to compare certain aspects of two things without equating them. In this case homosexuality and an incestuous homosexual relationship. You can analyse, compare and contrast how society views each without equating one to the other. That's quite easy to understand, I think. Nobody here, that I've seen, is saying that an incestuous homosexual relationship is in any regard the same as a normal homosexual relationship. People are merely comparing how society has generally viewed two different taboos (well, in the case of homosexuality, what was considered a taboo and is, by most people, no longer considered so).

The arguments aren't predicated on the idea that homosexual relationships are "icky". They're predicated on the idea that incestuous relationships are "icky". Can you not see that? Nobody here, not one single person, has said that homosexual relationships are disgusting or revolting or anything of the sort. They've said that incestuous relationships are these things. Nobody is "slinging mud" at homosexuals. You need to stop looking for a reason to get offended and objectively read what people are saying.

I'm saying all of this as a heterosexual who believes completely in homosexual equality in all regards: in marriage, adoption, everything, so don't try to accuse me of somehow being anti-homosexual.