Two adult brothers in a relationship

CruelCoin

What is this, i don't even

floggg

gvn wrote: »

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.

The genesis of this thread was on a gay coming out video thread where somebody said something along the lines of "if society is against incest because it's icky than surely its reasonable for homophobes to be homophobic because they think it's icky."

So this whole brother ****ing thing is down to icky.

It then morphed into scanlas trying to get people to agree that if we accept that it's ok to be gay then for reasons of moral consistency we should also accept that it's ok to **** your brother.

So this was very much born of equating gay and gay incest on a moral level, which is what people get offended about.

floggg

Sinfonia wrote: »

pathtohome wrote: »

Both incest and homosexuality are grotesque and unnatural. However, a person desiring a relationship with their sibling has the option of seeking another person of the sex/es they are romantically/sexually attracted to. A homosexual on the other hand has no other options to seek romantic/sexual fulfillment other than with their own gender. This's the real difference in my eyes.

bleepp wrote: »

So you are saying that the only difference from the two is that a gay person has only their own gender to chose from while someone who practices incest can chose from both?

Actually, he/she is saying that someone who practices incest can choose between family or non-family.

pathtohome wrote: »

Outside of social conditioning, they're not all that different. If they truly are, a single person should be able to come up with a half adequate answer as to why. No one has as of yet.

Outside of social conditioning!
Before societies, before civilisations, before language, what you had was everybody ****ing everybody!
The idea that homosexuality and incest are 'wrong' or 'unacceptable' - just like the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' in themselves - are purely societal constructs, invented by people who imagined themselves to be sophisticated.

pathtohome wrote:

What I was implying was, like I said, they're are not very different at all in reality, but on a legal level homosexuality is more acceptable than same-sex incest because banning homosexuality infringes on the freedoms of more individuals than banning same-sex incest.

I think what you're saying is: It is likely that there are more homosexuals in the world than there are practitioners of incest, so it seems sensible that the illegality of homosexuality would be first to be revoked, because more people would call for it, but in terms of the initial ban by society, each are equally ridiculous, as they are each essentially examples of a sexual preference. Is that what you mean?

Really, do you think people were going around ****ing their sister till some civilised up start said stop?

Nature doesn't want you to **** your sister because any children will weaken the species due to birth defects.

So nature devised ways to discourage you ****ing your sister. The Westermarck effect is a hypothesis to this effect.

IMO evolution not society is to blame for the incest taboo. Hence why it's common to all societies (bar royalty).

Homophobia is not common to all societies - its a cultural creation.

The two are different in their origins, reasoning and purposes.

Ardennes1944

"you ruined yosemite sam for me!"

floggg

pathtohome wrote: »

bleepp wrote: »

On the other hand people are born gay

Not true. False propaganda like this undermines the gay rights movement.

Any proof that gay people are not born gay?

it seems to me that one the one hand you have most gay people (who have some knowledge on the whole being gay issue) feel they were born that way, and on the other hand you have "straight" people who "know for act" that people aren't gay, then either:

(a) the straight people really don't have a ****ing clue, because, how would they?; or

(b) the straight people actually aren't really being truthful in their claims on being straight since they have so much insight?

Ps - science seems to agree with the gay people!

Sinfonia

floggg wrote: »

Really, do you think people were going around ****ing their sister till some civilised up start said stop?

Do you think that the human species began with a load of different families?
Each with some sensibility/capacity for reasoning that one should not fornicate within the family?

You might notice that many animal species have no problem with incest; they're not even capable of having a problem with it. The idea that incest is disgusting or wrong is a human invention.

floggg wrote:

Nature doesn't want you to **** your sister because any children will weaken the species due to birth defects.

As has been pointed out earlier, birth defects are not guaranteed. Also, 'nature' does not have an opinion.

floggg wrote:

So nature devised ways to discourage you ****ing your sister. The Westermarck effect is a hypothesis to this effect.

The Westermarck effect is a hypothesis regarding a psychological phenomenon, not a biological one.

floggg wrote:

IMO evolution not society is to blame for the incest taboo. Hence why it's common to all societies (bar royalty).

The very idea of a taboo - of something being somehow 'wrong' - is a societal construct; evolution has no interest in what is right or wrong.

bleepp

Sinfonia wrote: »

You might notice that many animal species have no problem with incest; they're not even capable of having a problem with it. The idea that incest is disgusting or wrong is a human invention.

Yes and some animal species eat their off spring, yet see nothing wrong with it...

Sinfonia wrote: »

As has been pointed out earlier, birth defects are not guaranteed. Also, 'nature' does not have an opinion.

Nature has the ultimate opinion. The reason anything exists is because nature allowed it to come into being in the first place. We exist because our parent came together and created us, and we give life to the next generation by repeating the same process.
Sexual relations between siblings is wrong in every since of the word most notably because the off spring of incest relationships have a wrong genetic make up that would ultimately have a negative effect on the human race if allowed, and this is proven.
Also the very set of events that would lead a brother and sister to be romantically involved is highly questionable and would only occur due to adverse social conditions. We do not naturally become involved with siblings Incest is not a natural occurrence.

Sinfonia wrote: »

The very idea of a taboo - of something being somehow 'wrong' - is a societal construct; evolution has no interest in what is right or wrong.

Did you ever think that it is wrong because it actually is wrong? Just because it's a societal construction does not make it ultimately right. Pedophilia is also a "societal construction" but is still accepted to be very much wrong and evil.
The world of nature allows anything to happen in the name of evolution, rape, killings and yes incest are all common in nature but are still regarded as morally wrong by humans, and rightly so.
Humans don't equate to the creatures of the land and sea and their rules for living aren't our rules.

Sinfonia

bleepp wrote: »

Yes and some animal species eat their off spring, yet see nothing wrong with it...

Your point being..?

bleepp wrote:

Nature has the ultimate opinion. The reason anything exists is because nature allowed it to come into being in the first place. We exist because our parent came together and created us, and we give life to the next generation by repeating the same process.
Sexual relations between siblings is wrong in every since of the word most notably because the off spring of incest relationships have a wrong genetic make up that would ultimately have a negative effect on the human race if allowed, and this is proven.
Also the very set of events that would lead a brother and sister to be romantically involved is highly questionable and would only occur due to adverse social conditions. We do not naturally become involved with siblings Incest is not a natural occurrence.

Do you really understand the words that you are using? 'Nature', 'natural', 'right', 'wrong'? You are completely missing the point that these are concepts that you and I only understand by their creation by humans.
Also, if you're going to claim that something is proven, direct me to the 'proof'.

bleepp wrote:

Did you ever think that it is wrong because it actually is wrong? Just because it's a societal construction does not make it ultimately right.

Once again, 'right' and 'wrong' - morality in itself - is a societal construction. There are no laws or moral codes beyond those that were created by humans.

bleepp wrote:

Pedophilia is also a "societal construction" but is still accepted to be very much wrong and evil.

That's exactly the point. Paedophilia is essentially a sexual preference for children, which, by the way, is not illegal; however, acting upon it is illegal because it is considered that a child is not capable of providing consent. Therefore sexual acts are non-consensual (incest of course could be consensual).
The fact that not everyone in the world considers it to be 'wrong' or 'evil', is immediately telling of the relativity of morality.

In other words, morality is not absolute (and never has been, and never will be). This is entirely due to the fact that any and all of these concepts have, at some point, been invented by a human being. As long as that person is agreed with by a majority, the theory will stand. The majority may rule, but this does not necessarily mean the majority is right.
And just to be clear, that is not to suggest that the minority is right either: There is no one 'right'; there is only opinion - and while the prevailing opinion of the majority may become the law of the land, that does not mean it should not be questioned at every turn. Remember that everything you know and believe has been taught to you by a person, and that person was taught by another. If you want to talk about social conditioning, remember that the status quo is a product of exactly that.

bleepp wrote:

The world of nature allows anything to happen in the name of evolution, rape, killings and yes incest are all common in nature but are still regarded as morally wrong by humans, and rightly so.
Humans don't equate to the creatures of the land and sea and their rules for living aren't our rules.

Humans are creatures of the land, evolved from creatures of the sea(!)
There are no rules to living, apart from those imposed by law, and socially ingrained as 'morals' and 'ethics' - all of which are inventions of the human mind.

later12

Just in relation to the above post; while that would be my own view on morality & ethics, there is something of a difference of opinion in relation to the degree to which morality is 'invented'. Some people prefer to view (or are inclined to understand) morality as an interpretation of the natural, implied laws that govern human relationships, not some whimsical invention.

The current Pope, in his crusade against moral relativism, would be an example of the latter.

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.

What is the possibility of having children with genetic abnormalities?

Should relationships between potential carriers of CF be held to be equally (or, presumably, even more) disgusting?

bleepp

Sinfonia wrote: »

Do you really understand the words that you are using? 'Nature', 'natural', 'right', 'wrong'? You are completely missing the point that these are concepts that you and I only understand by their creation by humans.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Humans are creatures of the land, evolved from creatures of the sea(!)
There are no rules to living, apart from those imposed by law, and socially ingrained as 'morals' and 'ethics' - all of which are inventions of the human mind.

Sinfonia wrote: »

In other words, morality is not absolute (and never has been, and never will be). This is entirely due to the fact that any and all of these concepts have, at some point, been invented by a human being. As long as that person is agreed with by a majority, the theory will stand. The majority may rule, but this does not necessarily mean the majority is right.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Remember that everything you know and believe has been taught to you by a person, and that person was taught by another. If you want to talk about social conditioning, remember that the status quo is a product of exactly that.

I understand what you're saying, that the concept of morality is made by man and can be altered by man and what is considered right or wrong in society is only considered so because mankind has dictated this, but that still doesn't allow for your argument that what is considered morally wrong today in essence can ultimately be shown to be lawful in the future because it's immortality has been cemented by a human race that can and does get things wrong. So we may say incest is wrong because the majority says so but in nature it's perfectly acceptable by the logical fact that it actually occurs.

But where does the book stop? Going by your logic we should all be able to do as we please because the immoral things in life (we'll say incest because it is the topic of discussion) are only branded immoral because the fallible human mind has said so, but there may not be actual natural laws governed by evolution that say it is immoral, nothing except the mind.

But why stop at incest? Why not say that pedophilia is acceptable because it naturally occurs in the mind, what about rape, murder, forced marriages, all these things that mankind has said to be wrong surly can in some way be okay if the only reason why they are said to be wrong in the first place is because they fly in the face of human living?

do you see my point? You must give the mind more credit and realize that what a human considers immoral, may actually be immoral based on our human existence. Yes in nature it can happen but in the natural world there is no right and wrong when you think about it, anything goes. The concept of right and wrong is man made and has its foundations rooted in various religious beliefs. But just because we have said it is wrong doesn't mean it can be right based solely on the fact that our moral compass may shift and allow for it in the future.
The human mind rules society, not nature. If we let nature rule our lives anything would happen and everyday would be a fight for survival.
We are the ultimate species and have in forced moral rules and laws to govern society so that in some way we can all live happily together.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Humans are creatures of the land, evolved from creatures of the sea(!)
There are no rules to living, apart from those imposed by law, and socially ingrained as 'morals' and 'ethics' - all of which are inventions of the human mind.

Humans have evolved from creatures but to say we are on par with them today is ludacris. So we should treat every creature on earth the same and return to living in the jungle?

Of course the only rules to living are imposed by humans but that should't give reason to undermine them. There would be no rules to anything if humans did not use their moral conscience and say okay killing is wrong, so is stealing. so is rape etc etc and then set up laws that disallowed the various acts that damage our humanity.
Incest falls into this, yes in the natural world where anything happens incest is allowed, but in proper functioning societies where mankind has Precedence over all other creatures (i.e. our world today) incest is accepted as wrong. That is the world we live in, not the world of sea creatures and four legged animals.

irishconvert

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.

What about a man and a dog? Is that ok in your book also? As long as they are both enjoying themselves and not harming anyone?

Undiscovered

bleepp wrote: »

But where does the book stop? Going by your logic we should all be able to do as we please because the immoral things in life (we'll say incest because it is the topic of discussion) are only branded immoral because the fallible human mind has said so, but there may not be actual natural laws governed by evolution that say it is immoral, nothing except the mind.

But why stop at incest? Why not say that pedophilia is acceptable because it naturally occurs in the mind, what about rape, murder, forced marriages, all these things that mankind has said to be wrong surly can in some way be okay if the only reason why they are said to be wrong in the first place is because they fly in the face of human living?

Stop when something is causing harm to another person. Incest does not inherently cause harm to another person therefore it is not inherently wrong.

bleepp wrote: »

do you see my point? You must give the mind more credit and realize that what a human considers immoral, may actually be immoral based on our human existence. Yes in nature it can happen but in the natural world there is no right and wrong when you think about it, anything goes. The concept of right and wrong is man made and has its foundations rooted in various religious beliefs. But just because we have said it is wrong doesn't mean it can be right based solely on the fact that our moral compass may shift and allow for it in the future.
The human mind rules society, not nature. If we let nature rule our lives anything would happen and everyday would be a fight for survival.
We are the ultimate species and have in forced moral rules and laws to govern society so that in some way we can all live happily together.

If nature doesn't apply the rules then why are you so concerned about whether incest is natural or not in decided whether it is morally right or wrong? I agree with you btw, nature doesn't apply the rules. There is no way to determine what is "natural" for us. For example: is the internet natural? Is modern medicine natural? Is sending a man to the moon natural?

bleepp wrote: »

Humans have evolved from creatures but to say we are on par with them today is ludacris. So we should treat every creature on earth the same and return to living in the jungle?

Of course the only rules to living are imposed by humans but that should't give reason to undermine them. There would be no rules to anything if humans did not use their moral conscience and say okay killing is wrong, so is stealing. so is rape etc etc and then set up laws that disallowed the various acts that damage our humanity.
Incest falls into this, yes in the natural world where anything happens incest is allowed, but in proper functioning societies where mankind has Precedence over all other creatures (i.e. our world today) incest is accepted as wrong. That is the world we live in, not the world of sea creatures and four legged animals.

It's all relative based on what the current society/majority/culture decides is acceptable and what isn't. For example, pedophilia was condoned and promoted in ancient Greece. In Thailand transvestites are greatly respected, it is desirable to have one in the family. Quite a different case in Africa for example.

Undiscovered

irishconvert wrote: »

What about a man and a dog? Is that ok in your book also? As long as they are both enjoying themselves and not harming anyone?

A dog cannot give consent. Therefore by having sex with a dog you are violating it. Therefore it is not ok.

bleepp

Undiscovered wrote: »

In Thailand transvestites are greatly respected, it is desirable to have one in the family

ya serious?

Sinfonia

I'm glad that you see my point.

Just to address some of the finer points:

bleepp wrote: »

But why stop at incest? Why not say that pedophilia is acceptable because it naturally occurs in the mind, what about rape, murder, forced marriages, all these things that mankind has said to be wrong surly can in some way be okay if the only reason why they are said to be wrong in the first place is because they fly in the face of human living?

Well this is essentially my point; however, the difference between rape/murder/forced marriages and incest is that the former are non-consensual, and the latter may well be consensual.
Acting upon paedophilia is a grey area because it assumes that people under the age of <this varies, could be 18, 16, 13 etc.> are incapable of giving their consent.

bleepp wrote:

But just because we have said it is wrong doesn't mean it can be right based solely on the fact that our moral compass may shift and allow for it in the future.

Many things have been said to be wrong in the past that are now considered right based upon a shift in the collective moral compass of society. This is why enlightened revision is so important. Not just accepting the governing rles of the past, but questioning and challenging them.

bleepp wrote:

The human mind rules society, not nature. If we let nature rule our lives anything would happen and everyday would be a fight for survival.
We are the ultimate species and have in forced moral rules and laws to govern society so that in some way we can all live happily together.

Absolutely. The human mind rules society, not nature. However, you earlier said that nature had the ultimate opinion. So which do you choose? That 'nature' decides what is right and wrong? Or that the human mind decides what is right and wrong?
And if you choose the latter, then why leave the decision-making up to other human minds? Yours is just as developed, so why not challenge and question the authority of other human minds that have handed down rules of living to you?

bleepp wrote:

Humans have evolved from creatures but to say we are on par with them today is ludacris. So we should treat every creature on earth the same and return to living in the jungle?

Again, *some* people would argue for equal rights for all creatures; some would argue for ethical treatment of animals (non-human); some couldn't give a flying **** - that animals are there to be killed and eaten, in order to feed humans. None are right, none are wrong - they just have differing opinions.
Why would we return to living in the jungle? What has that got to do with anything?
(Also, I love that you spelled it 'ludacris'

dd972

How the fcuk did this thread get five pages of responses :eek:

Undiscovered

bleepp wrote: »

ya serious?

Dead serious :pac: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey

bleepp

dd972 wrote: »

How the fcuk did this thread get five pages of responses :eek:

I think some people in this thread are f****ng their brother..






JK

dd972

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp2qcCrdBLA

bleepp

Sinfonia wrote: »

I'm glad that you see my point.

Just to address some of the finer points:

Well this is essentially my point; however, the difference between rape/murder/forced marriages and incest is that the former are non-consensual, and the latter may well be consensual.
Acting upon paedophilia is a grey area because it assumes that people under the age of <this varies, could be 18, 16, 13 etc.> are incapable of giving their consent.


Many things have been said to be wrong in the past that are now considered right based upon a shift in the collective moral compass of society. This is why enlightened revision is so important. Not just accepting the governing rles of the past, but questioning and challenging them.


Absolutely. The human mind rules society, not nature. However, you earlier said that nature had the ultimate opinion. So which do you choose? That 'nature' decides what is right and wrong? Or that the human mind decides what is right and wrong?
And if you choose the latter, then why leave the decision-making up to other human minds? Yours is just as developed, so why not challenge and question the authority of other human minds that have handed down rules of living to you?



Again, *some* people would argue for equal rights for all creatures; some would argue for ethical treatment of animals (non-human); some couldn't give a flying **** - that animals are there to be killed and eaten, in order to feed humans. None are right, none are wrong - they just have differing opinions.
Why would we return to living in the jungle? What has that got to do with anything?
(Also, I love that you spelled it 'ludacris'

I understand perfectly all you said. We are both equally right and equally wrong, we only have opinions to offer and nothing except what we imagine to be morally correct can say our opinions are correct or otherwise.
This edges into philosophy and what is right or wrong in the first place, in reality nothing is acceptable or unacceptable except what we conceive to be so.
Maybe in some future age incest will be accepted as perfectly normal.
Many years ago homosexuality was seen in the same disgusting light and look where we are today.

Who knows what will be accepted in the future, we have to wait and find out.

Feisar

Interesting thread.

I had thoughts of starting a similar one when reading the gay son thread. Now, I have to say I don't equate homosexuality with incest or pedophilia.

In the other thread people were talking about how being gay wasn't effecting anyone and each to their own etc. In the same thread no one championed incest as being OK. So if two brothers or a man and a woman, one being sterile decide to have an incestuous reletionship who am I to say it's wrong? As in the gay thread I admitted that while I know it's not logical I find "gayness" "icky" why should I decide incest is wrong just because I think it's "icky"

Now, on to consent, it's as low as 12 in some countries. In Columbia it's 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy. As per http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

Also we must distinguish between pedophilia, which is sexual desire for a sexually undeveloped person and statuary rape, which is having sex with a person society deems cannot give consent.

So if someone in their 20's/30's/40's has a sexual relationship with a 13/14 year old who is sexually developed, what's the problem? While I may find it... "icky"!!! What is morally wrong with that? We can argue the person is starting their life and can't make these decisions and shouldn't be influenced by a much older person who may control them or whatever. But at the end of the day the older person is having sex with a fertile mate, a pretty natural thing to do.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Has the perceived sexual line been totally eroded? With so many oddities screaming for equality these days, I'm sure modern society would not condem two male siblings engaging in sexual relations.

Personally I find it repulsive.

Scanlas The 2nd

irishconvert wrote: »

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.

What about a man and a dog? Is that ok in your book also? As long as they are both enjoying themselves and not harming anyone?

I'd have to say yes, that is ok, so long as both parties are willing.

I could try to come up with a reason why it's wrong with a desperate attempt to avoid that unpleasant feeling of cognitive dissonance, but no doubt there would be holes in my logic comparing what I accept as right or wrong.

Jay D

It's weird, still not as weird as when I found out two fellas I used to go to school with, their ma and da were brother and sister!

Two words - fúck that!

I remember telling my my mother about the news and she said that it was common knowledge, naturally I thought it was a wind up at first.

No it wasn't and there's no punchline here.

Toby Take a Bow

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'd have to say yes, that is ok, so long as both parties are willing.

I'm not sure if dogs can give their consent to having sex with a human.

later12

bleepp wrote: »

ya serious?

Why is it so confusing that someone might not be repulsed by the idea of being related to a transgender person?

Indeed, why is it so confusing that someone might be proud of that relationship?

With respect, I think your astonishment that someone might be proud of being related to a transgendered person is characteristic of a wider societal bewilderment as to why anyone would enjoy or pursue any activity which does not appeal to oneself, which one may personally perceive to be abhorrent.

Feisar wrote: »

So if someone in their 20's/30's/40's has a sexual relationship with a 13/14 year old who is sexually developed, what's the problem? While I may find it... "icky"!!! What is morally wrong with that?

I don't know what is morally wrong with that, except that there would be a widespread acknowledgement that the younger party ought to be mature enough to understand the consequence of his or her actions.

There are a few problems with this, however.

• The age at which one reaches emotional maturity may vary
• Emotional maturity is an entirely absract, immeasurable concept
• Some people may never reach emotional maturity all of their lives. What if you are an immature 25 year old who behaves irresponsibly when having sex and could be described as 'easily led' by older partners... is intercourse with that individual morally wrong?