This is hilariously awful

ruskin · 23-09-2007 02:16PM

the son really is a mother****er

Plug · 23-09-2007 02:55PM

ruskin wrote:

the son really is a mother****er

How dare you!:mad:

Remember kids, incest in best.

shay_562 · 23-09-2007 04:55PM

Dudess wrote:

I wonder WHY it's illegal though - is it based on how the gene pool will be affected?

I mean, if it's between consenting adults, isn't it their business? But I know that's an oversimplification. And I'd understand if it was obligatory for them not to reproduce.

But that doesn't exactly hold up - I mean, we don't stop people with genetically inheritable diseases (ie, Huntingtons and the like) from having kids, or prevent women from having kids after a certain age because there's an increased chance of their baby having birth defects, so it's logically inconsistent to ban incest because of the mutant children that may result (and as far as I know, it is only "may" - there's a chance of the kids turning out perfectly normal). It's purely the fact that the vast, vast majority of us find it gross. Which isn't to say that it isn't gross, but equally, there's something I find quite wrong with banning two consenting adults from having sex because the majority of us don't want them to...

watna · 23-09-2007 05:07PM

When I read the title I though they'd accidently had sex, in that he didn't grow up with her and didn't actually know she was his mother. How could you suddenly go from seeing someone as your mother to having sex with her. The guy must have been unconscious or incapacitated in some way after his panic attack, i mean COME ON! Also, it says there was some serious abuse in the family, so they must be seriously ****ed up to let that happen. I feel really sick now!

MooseJam · 23-09-2007 06:11PM

shay_562 wrote:

there's something I find quite wrong with banning two consenting adults from having sex because the majority of us don't want them to...

you have your eye on your ma, go on admit it

ejmaztec · 23-09-2007 07:33PM

They probably thought that, if it was good enough for Adam and Eve's kids, it must be ok for them.

Terry · 23-09-2007 07:44PM

ejmaztec wrote:

They probably thought that, if it was good enough for Adam and Eve's kids, it must be ok for them.

Especially as Adam and Eve only had 2 sons.

daniel3982 · 23-09-2007 07:47PM

Terry wrote:

Especially as Adam and Eve only had 2 sons.

The dirty mother******* :eek:

Terry · 23-09-2007 07:50PM

daniel3982 wrote:

The dirty mother******* :eek:

Don't forget that one killed the other.
Eve must have been hot.

daniel3982 · 23-09-2007 08:04PM

Terry wrote:

Don't forget that one killed the other.
Eve must have been hot.

As hot at Lot was after a few drinks perhaps?

Puck · 23-09-2007 08:08PM

I think you're forgetting Seth, after which Adam "had other sons and daughters".

Terry · 23-09-2007 08:11PM

Puck wrote:

I think you're forgetting Seth, after which Adam "had other sons and daughters".

You are correct. I had forgotten about them.

Still, they did a lot of naughty stuff to make a population of 6 billion in under 6,000 years.

ejmaztec · 23-09-2007 08:27PM

Terry wrote:

You are correct. I had forgotten about them.

Still, they did a lot of naughty stuff to make a population of 6 billion in under 6,000 years.

It was a dirty job but somebody had to do it.

You wouldn't Adam and Eve it, but after all these years, some people are still carrying on the FAMILY tradition.

neuro-praxis · 23-09-2007 08:47PM

Re the story about the German brother and sister who fell in love - it is actually a well-documented and disturbing phenomenon that siblings and parents and children who have been separated and then discover one another develop very strong romantic and/or sexual attachment to them. There was a very good article about it in the Atlantic monthly last year.

Personally I feel really sorry for this mum and son. What kind of a mess is their life in if this can happen. And now - well, they'll never live this down. I hope it works out for them in some healthy way - perhaps counseling and good community care would be better than jail...

Reku · 24-09-2007 09:48AM

The-Rigger wrote:

MooseJam wrote:

poor guy lol imagine the stick he is getting off his mates

He should of thought about that before he fúcked his mum.

Better yet before he gave his mum his stick.:D

qwertyface · 24-09-2007 09:53AM

watna wrote:

How could you suddenly go from seeing someone as your mother to having sex with her.

I read somewhere else (yes ive been doing my research..) that until a few months ago they hadn't seen each other for 15 years..so its..well...a little less bad....kind of...

Kimbot · 24-09-2007 09:59AM

IF you can't keep it in your trousers, keep it in the family!

Wacker · 24-09-2007 12:12PM

johnnyskeleton wrote:

No it's not, unless his panic attack caused her to grow a penis.

I strongly disagree with you there; men can be raped by women. 8% or so of reported rape cases are of that nature. Sexual responses are involuntary; while it would be neccessary for the guy to get an erection this does not mean that it cannot be raped. That would be like saying that it is not rape if a girl gets wet.

In this particular instance, it sounds like the mother did take advantage of a situation. Reverse the genders and it would be clear cut and no one would be laughing about it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 24-09-2007 12:14PM

I probably would, but that's neither here nor there.

there was a thread on PI recently enough about a dude who's wife supposedly raped him with a strap on... had it been a dude doing that to a chick the responses the thread got would have been very bloody different.

Reku · 24-09-2007 12:57PM

Wacker wrote:

I strongly disagree with you there; men can be raped by women. 8% or so of reported rape cases are of that nature.

Actually, unless they've changed the wording since last year (when I last looked) the definition of rape in Irish law requires penile penetration and as such makes it impossible for a non-hermaphodite woman to rape anyone, only sexually assualt.
It's incredibly stupid yes, but so is much of the wording in our statutes....

Fratton Fred · 24-09-2007 01:05PM

Mordeth wrote:

I probably would, but that's neither here nor there.

there was a thread on PI recently enough about a dude who's wife supposedly raped him with a strap on... had it been a dude doing that to a chick the responses the thread got would have been very bloody different.

that wasn't the ex aston villa keeper was it

Reku · 24-09-2007 01:24PM

Mordeth wrote:

I probably would, but that's neither here nor there.

there was a thread on PI recently enough about a dude who's wife supposedly raped him with a strap on... had it been a dude doing that to a chick the responses the thread got would have been very bloody different.

Well, again it's supposedly not actually criminal rape, but from what I read in that thread the majority simply treated it as a joke (possibly right to do so), but had a female made a post about being raped I doubt anyone would have joked about it, so yeah, a bit of a double standard there as there is in so many other things in life...

Wacker · 24-09-2007 01:31PM

farohar wrote:

Actually, unless they've changed the wording since last year (when I last looked) the definition of rape in Irish law requires penile penetration and as such makes it impossible for a non-hermaphodite woman to rape anyone, only sexually assualt.
It's incredibly stupid yes, but so is much of the wording in our statutes....

The figure I quoted was from Wickipedia, so it would not have referred to Irish law. That law should probably be changed, to be honest.

This is hilariously awful

Comments