discussion Important question for the Incest Game lovers here.

[longgoneguy46]

do you want me to be honest or what?

 

[Gorion]

Something tells me you'd like The Cement Garden film lol.


I work in psych. I'd say at least 30% of siblings within 5yr age difference, had some kind of sexual encounter with each other. Either known or unknowingly. A lot of guilt out there. Again, natural vs normal is the key thing to remember here.

Never heard of it until now, but from what I just read. Probably. I've watched hentai that's somewhat similar themed lol

 

[Hexborn_Magus]

The thing to remember about natural vs normal is, natural occurs in nature and normal is what we deem acceptable. So, yes you're correct, it was 'natural' but there are VERY good reasons it is not normal the closer in relation you are. Though ~2% 'overall' doesn't seem like much, things like breast cancer, ovarian cancer, alzheimer's/dementia & schizophrenia are substantially higher. Like upwards of 75%. Indian tribes knew this long ago and would come together often to intermix their children.

So, if you're going to bang your sister, you might want to get a genetic test first.

This argument, of course, doesn't hold up for incestuous pairings that cannot result in offspring without proving there is in fact some kind of higher power out there to make it happen.

 

[HandholdDegen]

If my family members earnestly tried to get laid with me (or pregnant), I would be up to that in a heartbeat.

 

[orphan]

maybe a distant cousin

 

[Dummy256]

Hard to say cause it's hard to even imagine such scenario where they're hot and willing.

 

[SloppySqueezer]

Is this the psychologist's corner?
Joke apart no, never .
Fantasy for fap with VN are different from real ones. I wouldn't even be interested in seeing an incest porn movie

I completely agree. I was actually caught off guard by the question.

 

[LewisCarroll]

This argument, of course, doesn't hold up for incestuous pairings that cannot result in offspring without proving there is in fact some kind of higher power out there to make it happen.

I did not intend it to be. It's just one argument of many. Besides the 'Red Queen' hypothesis, the fact that many mammal species avoid this behavior warrants consideration. Most humans don't have an interest in incestuous relationships and this increases the higher our genetic similarities. This gives rise to the theory that this behavior is genetically survival mechanism. Eg. we are programed not to be interested in poor pairing schemas. There is also the theory of time, familiarity and investment (evolutionary biology). The more time and investment we make in others the less inclined we are to want to mate with them (this has been seen in Israel and China family systems).

The thing to remember is 'less' does not mean none. Just because it lessens the chance, does not remove it entirely. There are almost always exceptions to the rule, but even then it is often explainable scientifically/psychologically. Brother/Sister and Parent/Child sexual relationships are almost unanimously frowned upon in most cultures dating back thousands of years, but there are notable exceptions like in the Roman Empire & Persian Empire.

The moral implications are even more complex, but I think they, like most behaviors, stems from a biological one deep within our programing that gives rise to rules and laws.

 

[Gorion]

I did not intend it to be. It's just one argument of many. Besides the 'Red Queen' hypothesis, the fact that many mammal species avoid this behavior warrants consideration. Most humans don't have an interest in incestuous relationships and this increases the higher our genetic similarities. This gives rise to the theory that this behavior is genetically survival mechanism. Eg. we are programed not to be interested in poor pairing schemas. There is also the theory of time, familiarity and investment (evolutionary biology). The more time and investment we make in others the less inclined we are to want to mate with them (this has been seen in Israel and China family systems).

The thing to remember is 'less' does not mean none. Just because it lessens the chance, does not remove it entirely. There are almost always exceptions to the rule, but even then it is often explainable scientifically/psychologically. Brother/Sister and Parent/Child sexual relationships are almost unanimously frowned upon in most cultures dating back thousands of years, but there are notable exceptions like in the Roman Empire & Persian Empire.

The moral implications are even more complex, but I think they, like most behaviors, stems from a biological one deep within our programing that gives rise to rules and laws.

I have a very philosophical mind. I question everything, and even question my questions and try to see from every angle, often even finding some form of justification for something just so I can understand it better. My natural thought process on this goes back to the occam's razor idea. Sure, it could have a genetic component. To me though, if that chance is 1-2% for genetic abnormalities then it wouldn't be something we learned by genetically induced instinct. I also don't think the animal analogy is likely. This same argument is used 90% of the time when referring to how "unnatural" homosexuality is, typically by certain religious types. The fact is, animals rarely avoid both incest and homosexuality. I've witnessed both myself with the neighborhood pets. Animal instinct is to mate, and maybe at the genetic level, mostly to reproduce. But they also don't discriminate, orgasam is orgasm and what feels good, feels good. That's all they know. I can see the point of this being a learned behavior to avoid incest as societies began to form, being more likely. As society began to emerge and we started mingling with other tribes, and eventually leading to cities. Families would undoubtedly want their children exploring the world and meeting new people. Often people in ancient times looked to mythology/religion for guidance, especially of the moral kind. Why? Mainly because that's how the tribes leaders were able to teach them and they listen. That's why some religious doctrin has anti-incest sentiments. But also, looking into other religions and mythology, we see a lot of pro-incest things. Meaning somewhere along the line, it wasn't such a taboo. It's just simply been taught to us not to inbreed by people who would rule us. I'm not saying it's not going to have an effect if you inbreed for generations. But the chances are so low it's negligable. I do wonder though. If it's such a big issue genetically, how'd we get beyond tribes? How are current "lost" or uncontacted tribes still keeping the gene-pool fresh? That's really my take on it though. Simply control scheme to keep people in line and doing that the people in power wanted. Just like religion, really. In my opinion.

 

[IFF01]

If I wasnt married and we got along great sure.

 

[LewisCarroll]

I have a very philosophical mind. I question everything, and even question my questions and try to see from every angle, often even finding some form of justification for something just so I can understand it better. My natural thought process on this goes back to the occam's razor idea. Sure, it could have a genetic component. To me though, if that chance is 1-2% for genetic abnormalities then it wouldn't be something we learned by genetically induced instinct. I also don't think the animal analogy is likely. This same argument is used 90% of the time when referring to how "unnatural" homosexuality is, typically by certain religious types. The fact is, animals rarely avoid both incest and homosexuality. I've witnessed both myself with the neighborhood pets. Animal instinct is to mate, and maybe at the genetic level, mostly to reproduce. But they also don't discriminate, orgasam is orgasm and what feels good, feels good. That's all they know. I can see the point of this being a learned behavior to avoid incest as societies began to form, being more likely. As society began to emerge and we started mingling with other tribes, and eventually leading to cities. Families would undoubtedly want their children exploring the world and meeting new people. Often people in ancient times looked to mythology/religion for guidance, especially of the moral kind. Why? Mainly because that's how the tribes leaders were able to teach them and they listen. That's why some religious doctrin has anti-incest sentiments. But also, looking into other religions and mythology, we see a lot of pro-incest things. Meaning somewhere along the line, it wasn't such a taboo. It's just simply been taught to us not to inbreed by people who would rule us. I'm not saying it's not going to have an effect if you inbreed for generations. But the chances are so low it's negligable. I do wonder though. If it's such a big issue genetically, how'd we get beyond tribes? How are current "lost" or uncontacted tribes still keeping the gene-pool fresh? That's really my take on it though. Simply control scheme to keep people in line and doing that the people in power wanted. Just like religion, really. In my opinion.

You seem to be stuck on the generalized ~2% average. That may seem like a small percentage, but in the world of biology it's pretty big. Populations with that large an error rate can be devastated in only a few generations. And average (mean) isn't the median. Many rare disorders/errors have less than 0.001% rate while fewer very common ones have more than a 25% rate. It's been a while since I've had to do inferential statistics or calculus, but it wouldn't take long before a civilization saw exponentially higher error rates with even >30% participation.

Further, it's well suggested that scent and oral DNA plays a role in mate selection too. Japanese are a good example of this. Also, varied gut bacteria, viral & DNA material in married people(s) has been linked to longer lifespan and better health. Giving rise to the implications of incest not providing enough variation in these biomes. So, we may see higher levels of inflammation in incest partners (though it's very hard to test this).

As far as animals, all we have to do is look at the AKC to see the harm done to many breeds. In nature, they would simply die out. Not so today. We push the boundaries all the time. And there's an argument that domesticated animals have had their instincts harmed or bred out by selective breeding. So, whatever you see them doing isn't actually natural, but aberrant (error) behaviors. Studies of wolves in captivity vs nature have shown modified behaviors.

You're right about families, but you forget one HUGE factor in early civilization. Resources. Marring off your children offered ways of increasing resources (money, property, food, etc). If siblings married they'd have to split an ever shrinking pie of property. This is why we saw more inbreeding of royalty (but much less than portrayed in the media).

How did tribes manage not to have much incest? Pretty easy. They warred with each other and took slaves. Also, the larger tribes like the Lakota would come together every few years so the children could meet and form relationships. Custer kinda interrupted one big gathering in the Battle Of Little Bighorn and paid the price for it.

It's very admirable to question your views and reform new opinions. Wish more people could do that. But, please don't take this as an insult, but logic only really works if you know enough about a topic to truly test your ideas. I have three degrees and have probably read at least a thousand books relating to psychology, biology and anthropology and the one thing I'm absolutly sure of is, I still don't know enough. Conversations like this are very welcome as they force me to think harder and form better and more cogent expliations. All that learning is meaningless if you cannot apply it.

I'll leave theology out for now as it's a whole other can of worms with too much nuance.

 

[Gorion]

You seem to be stuck on the generalized ~2% average. That may seem like a small percentage, but in the world of biology it's pretty big. Populations with that large an error rate can be devastated in only a few generations. And average (mean) isn't the median. Many rare disorders/errors have less than 0.001% rate while fewer very common ones have more than a 25% rate. It's been a while since I've had to do inferential statistics or calculus, but it wouldn't take long before a civilization saw exponentially higher error rates with even >30% participation.

Further, it's well suggested that scent and oral DNA plays a role in mate selection too. Japanese are a good example of this. Also, varied gut bacteria, viral & DNA material in married people(s) has been linked to longer lifespan and better health. Giving rise to the implications of incest not providing enough variation in these biomes. So, we may see higher levels of inflammation in incest partners (though it's very hard to test this).

As far as animals, all we have to do is look at the AKC to see the harm done to many breeds. In nature, they would simply die out. Not so today. We push the boundaries all the time. And there's an argument that domesticated animals have had their instincts harmed or bred out by selective breeding. So, whatever you see them doing isn't actually natural, but aberrant (error) behaviors. Studies of wolves in captivity vs nature have shown modified behaviors.

You're right about families, but you forget one HUGE factor in early civilization. Resources. Marring off your children offered ways of increasing resources (money, property, food, etc). If siblings married they'd have to split an ever shrinking pie of property. This is why we saw more inbreeding of royalty (but much less than portrayed in the media).

How did tribes manage not to have much incest? Pretty easy. They warred with each other and took slaves. Also, the larger tribes like the Lakota would come together every few years so the children could meet and form relationships. Custer kinda interrupted one big gathering in the Battle Of Little Bighorn and paid the price for it.

It's very admirable to question your views and reform new opinions. Wish more people could do that. But, please don't take this as an insult, but logic only really works if you know enough about a topic to truly test your ideas. I have three degrees and have probably read at least a thousand books relating to psychology, biology and anthropology and the one thing I'm absolutly sure of is, I still don't know enough. Conversations like this are very welcome as they force me to think harder and form better and more cogent expliations. All that learning is meaningless if you cannot apply it.

I'll leave theology out for now as it's a whole other can of worms with too much nuance.

I also love having conversations like this, not just about things that science and logic dictate, but literally anything. It's just the way I am, not many people can really get into deep discussions like this, hence why I don't really get into deep topics often even though I'd love nothing better. You're right, logic doesn't help if you don't know enough about a topic to utilize that logic. There is a caveat there though, logic isn't just about science or facts. It's how you interact with it. Sometimes, we don't even realize we're emotional or drawing upon implicit bias. Very few are capable of being truly neutral. That's why I tend to be so philosophical, no one around me in my life has that ability to keep up with my endless questioning. They always end up getting emotional about something or we hit a topic they can't see past their own bias. Which, to be fair. Those are often SUPER hot take topics like this one. If there's one thing I know. It's that I don't know. There's always something to learn and or something to asses further. But you're proving my point though. Thanks to taboo, politics, and society stigmatizing it. There's not enough data to truly rule one way or the other at the moment. Science is about testing theory to find the facts, but most of our knowledge on this specifically, is based on few facts and are mostly educated guesses based off very specific and small data. We assert these hypotheses in favor of what the majority view is.

How much of that is influenced by inherent bias or influenced by any number of other means? It's easy to draw the conclusion that domesticated animals have had their instincts bred out of them for instance, so inbreeding in these domesticated animals must be because of this. Except, it doesn't prove anything except that humankind has always stuck their nose where we shouldn't lol You could just as easily re-frame that same argument to hurt the LGBT community and use that as "proof" that homosexuality isn't natural. But we know better than that now, because we've studied it. We can't even study something like Incest, or even more taboo things strictly because society won't let us. I mean, think about it. If a government approved entity threw down, idk, a million dollars or something at someone afflicted with such a things feet, told them everyone in their family for all generations here on out could opt into/out of this study contract and that current laws or stigmas wouldn't apply to them.

They'd be given everything they needed, given a place, maybe even a community of sorts all in an attempt to study something like incest that's stigmatized by society. How many would truly take it up? Or even consider it? Societal pressures are way more powerful than people give credit to. Add implicit bias and we have a cocktail for keeping things that make people uncomfortable squarely under foot. I'm not sure what you meant by the families thing though, what you said reinforced my argument? Warring tribes certainly took slaves, I can't say that'd be enough to keep the gene pool fresh though. Especially in more remote areas where there were fewer tribes or larger distances between them.

Edit: Forgot to mention sites like this, and even real porn. How popular do you think the incest tag is? If there wasn't something somewhat natural about it, it wouldn't be as popular as it is. Similarly, most siblings explore as they're growing up. Whether they admit it or not, who do you think they typically explore or learn with?

 

[james223]

Yes a distant cousin may be it

 

[LewisCarroll]

I also love having conversations like this, not just about things that science and logic dictate, but literally anything. It's just the way I am, not many people can really get into deep discussions like this, hence why I don't really get into deep topics often even though I'd love nothing better. You're right, logic doesn't help if you don't know enough about a topic to utilize that logic. There is a caveat there though, logic isn't just about science or facts. It's how you interact with it. Sometimes, we don't even realize we're emotional or drawing upon implicit bias. Very few are capable of being truly neutral. That's why I tend to be so philosophical, no one around me in my life has that ability to keep up with my endless questioning. They always end up getting emotional about something or we hit a topic they can't see past their own bias. Which, to be fair. Those are often SUPER hot take topics like this one. If there's one thing I know. It's that I don't know. There's always something to learn and or something to asses further. But you're proving my point though. Thanks to taboo, politics, and society stigmatizing it. There's not enough data to truly rule one way or the other at the moment. Science is about testing theory to find the facts, but most of our knowledge on this specifically, is based on few facts and are mostly educated guesses based off very specific and small data. We assert these hypotheses in favor of what the majority view is.

How much of that is influenced by inherent bias or influenced by any number of other means? It's easy to draw the conclusion that domesticated animals have had their instincts bred out of them for instance, so inbreeding in these domesticated animals must be because of this. Except, it doesn't prove anything except that humankind has always stuck their nose where we shouldn't lol You could just as easily re-frame that same argument to hurt the LGBT community and use that as "proof" that homosexuality isn't natural. But we know better than that now, because we've studied it. We can't even study something like Incest, or even more taboo things strictly because society won't let us. I mean, think about it. If a government approved entity threw down, idk, a million dollars or something at someones feet, told them everyone in their family for all generations here on out could opt into/out of this study contract and that current laws or stigmas wouldn't apply to them.

They'd be given everything they needed, given a place, maybe even a community of sorts all in an attempt to study something like incest that's stigmatized by society. How many would truly take it up? Or even consider it? Societal pressures are way more powerful than people give credit to. Add implicit bias and we have a cocktail for keeping things that make people uncomfortable squarely under foot. I'm not sure what you meant by the families thing though, what you said reinforced my argument? Warring tribes certainly took slaves, I can't say that'd be enough to keep the gene pool fresh though. Especially in more remote areas where there were fewer tribes or larger distances between them.

Edit: Forgot to mention sites like this, and even real porn. How popular do you think the incest tag is? If there wasn't something somewhat natural about it, it wouldn't be as popular as it is. Similarly, most siblings explore as they're growing up. Whether they admit it or not, who do you think they typically explore or learn with?

To your first paragraph. Couldn't agree more. I disagree on research on the topic, though. There is quite a lot out there, but it often does not take the form of outright 'incest'. I did research papers on Pacific Islanders, !Kung, and South American tribes and delved into family structures, rituals and so on. We can't go back to true tribal times, but by looking at current tribal communities we can make some educated guesses. The lay person probably would gawk at some of the sexual practices of these peoples. Killing babies isn't a topic people like to think about.

I would never say "... must be ..." I just gave some of the reasons. Think of it as a confounding variable. I'd really like to hear a counter or explanation. As far as using it against the LGBTQ+ community, I'm pretty agnostic on the topic. Nature is what it is and whatever I say won't change it. The T's I do have something to say about, though that's off topic. I have direct experience with them as I've worked in mental hospitals and did some research.

Like I said - we've done a lot of research into incest, it just isn't labeled as "incest". It comes in many forms and different names. We can do incest research, but it would be unethical to conduct live studies on people. Plus, the West isn't the only one doing research. I had to translate many research papers from other countries while in college.

As far as letting people have incestual children for research - it isn't ethical. No review board would allow it. We already know the answer - it leads to recessive genetic disease. It's a ponitless endevor. There's a ton of data from isolated communities around the world in inbreeding. Even in the North America. Heck, even Star Trek delved into the topic on an episode.

As far as poplarity of tags. Fantasy should never be conflated with reality. The number one female fantasy is to be dominated [or raped], but they would never truly want it to happen to them. My wife enjoyed it when I would take her in the middle of the night while she was asleep in total darkness. She woke up the kids a few times with the noise. I have siblings/cousins and I had plenty of oportunity freely given. Some were models and nationally known (that's as far as I'll say on that). I toyed with the idea, but never acted on the blatantly open flirting. One wanted me to be her daddy and completely dominate her. She was VERY pretty... but I'm generally lazy and have already had enough sexual encounters... I saw it as too much work. LOL Seriously. Friends told me I was stupid. I said, you should never put your dick in crazy.

Anyway, I'd like to hear some pointed retorts to my points, not necessarily generalizations on the topic. But, if you want to keep it lite, I'm fine with that too.

 

[Gorion]

To your first paragraph. Couldn't agree more. I disagree on research on the topic, though. There is quite a lot out there, but it often does not take the form of outright 'incest'. I did research papers on Pacific Islanders, !Kung, and South American tribes and delved into family structures, rituals and so on. We can't go back to true tribal times, but by looking at current tribal communities we can make some educated guesses. The lay person probably would gawk at some of the sexual practices of these peoples. Killing babies isn't a topic people like to think about.

I agree there's likely research on it through indirect means, but forgive me if I don't take you at your word on there being 'enough' research on it. The point I'm making is there's no definitive and trustworthy research and sources on the topic. Research is often misused both in work and in name. Many times people who don't know how to research (they worded a google search wrong for instance) and found some shady link saying they're right is claimed as 'researching'. Ignoring the many disagreeing or neutral links/research studies. Anyway, to stay on point. I'm not saying you don't have the degrees or haven't done the research you claimed. I just don't have a means to fact-check from trustworthy resources and that stems from the lack of official research. I only have words by a stranger in a very tiny and niche community online. It's too easy for implicit bias to sneak its way in that way. Fact-checking is a necessary part of research and the scientific method. If we have enough evidence through all these studies, they need to be verifiable with sited sources and published by a trustworthy institution. Otherwise, its all hearsay.

I would never say "... must be ..." I just gave some of the reasons. Think of it as a confounding variable. I'd really like to hear a counter or explanation. As far as using it against the LGBTQ+ community, I'm pretty agnostic on the topic. Nature is what it is and whatever I say won't change it. The T's I do have something to say about, though that's off topic. I have direct experience with them as I've worked in mental hospitals and did some research.

I thought the counter explanation was implied, sorry. It's simply that incest in animals is possibly natural, or at the very least unaffected by their domestication rather than the false equivalence that by association, selective breeding has had the effect of creating incest within domesticated animals. In fact, even if we were to assume that there was a rise in animal sexuality. There's no guarantee that its inherently genetic. Domestication has a lot of outside factors to consider, the protection of humans, the fact that they remain consistently fed. All things bettering their quality of life. It's just as likely they're acting more in line with their instincts or they've evolved their instincts, as it could be a genetic trait we've created through domestication. Back to my main point, there's still not enough research and it's all subjective based on research that domesticated animals are more promiscuous than their wild counterparts. But there's multiple facets to consider than just the genetics involved that could account for the changed behaviour.

Like I said - we've done a lot of research into incest, it just isn't labeled as "incest". It comes in many forms and different names. We can do incest research, but it would be unethical to conduct live studies on people. Plus, the West isn't the only one doing research. I had to translate many research papers from other countries while in college.

As I stated above, this supposed research isn't easily available to everyone and hasn't been released under the label incest by reputable sources. It's all hearsay, at least to those who don't see this research, and only leads to pointless back and forth arguments.

As far as letting people have incestual children for research - it isn't ethical. No review board would allow it. We already know the answer - it leads to recessive genetic disease. It's a ponitless endevor. There's a ton of data from isolated communities around the world in inbreeding. Even in the North America. Heck, even Star Trek delved into the topic on an episode.

You missed my point here. This was a hypothetical situation with near to or a perfect setting to get the reader to think. In this scenario, the person would have absolutely no reason to say no if they were interested in actual incest. In fact, their lives would likely be better off in this scenario if they did take up the offer. If you think about it from the perspective of a person who truly wants to be incestual, in this context, with today's societal norms. More than likely most still would refuse out of fear of what other people would think of them. The whole point of this excersise was about the pressures of society and how they affect ones mentality, even at a subconcious level. Whether it's ethical or not is debatable, since we go back to there isn't enough definitive, easily available, trustworthy research to prove the unethicality of it.

As far as poplarity of tags. Fantasy should never be conflated with reality. The number one female fantasy is to be dominated [or raped], but they would never truly want it to happen to them. My wife enjoyed it when I would take her in the middle of the night while she was asleep in total darkness. She woke up the kids a few times with the noise. I have siblings/cousins and I had plenty of oportunity freely given. Some were models and nationally known (that's as far as I'll say on that). I toyed with the idea, but never acted on the blatantly open flirting. One wanted me to be her daddy and completely dominate her. She was VERY pretty... but I'm generally lazy and have already had enough sexual encounters... I saw it as too much work. LOL Seriously. Friends told me I was stupid. I said, you should never put your dick in crazy.

Fantasy should never be conflated with reality, that's true. But we're not talking about strictly fantasy here. We're talking about something that is a fantasy for some, but so was, and sometimes still is, homosexuality. Two things can be true at once, it can be a fantasy, and it can be a natural part of human sexuality. The difference between your anectodote and this, is consent. Rape should never be allowed by any means, save that of a truly consentual BDSM scene between all involved parties. I assume your wife and you had a discussion about this fantasy and both agreed, which makes it okay for the two of you. I get the reason for it, but your anecdote isn't comparable to our topic of Incest. The comparison to the rape fantasy is under the implicit assumption that incest is a fantasy, rather than it may be a natural part of human sexuality. Consensual incest, fantasy or not, hurts no one. Rape hurts people when it's not a concensual fantasy, that's the difference and why rape isn't a part of human sexuality, but incest could in fact be.

Anyway, I'd like to hear some pointed retorts to my points, not necessarily generalizations on the topic. But, if you want to keep it lite, I'm fine with that too.

Honestly, it seems like we're going in circles at this point. I think we should call the debate here. It's clear to me, that there's not enough evidence to sway my thinking on it and your minds made up. So I will agree to disagree for now. If you have those credible resources I noted above that are missing and you've read over, I'd be interested in them if you can and want to message them to me. Otherwise, we agree to disagree. It's funny seeing this deep conversation broken up by a few one liners answering the thread topic lol but I think we'll just be going round and round in a pointless endevour.

 

[LewisCarroll]

I agree there's likely research on it through indirect means, but forgive me if I don't take you at your word on there being 'enough' research on it. The point I'm making is there's no definitive and trustworthy research and sources on the topic. Research is often misused both in work and in name. Many times people who don't know how to research (they worded a google search wrong for instance) and found some shady link saying they're right is claimed as 'researching'. Ignoring the many disagreeing or neutral links/research studies. Anyway, to stay on point. I'm not saying you don't have the degrees or haven't done the research you claimed. I just don't have a means to fact-check from trustworthy resources and that stems from the lack of official research. I only have words by a stranger in a very tiny and niche community online. It's too easy for implicit bias to sneak its way in that way. Fact-checking is a necessary part of research and the scientific method. If we have enough evidence through all these studies, they need to be verifiable with sited sources and published by a trustworthy institution. Otherwise, its all hearsay.

Let's clarify, I'm speaking mostly to parent/child and sibling encounters not cousin, second-cousin, etc....

As I've said before, I never say things like 'must be' or 'enough'. I use words like 'suggest' instead. It confuses me when you put quotes that I never made. I've participated in about a dozen research projects, three of which were published, so I have a little experience with the methodology. I'm curious to why you take issue or question autosomal recessive disorder or other ailments covered in the most prestigious medical journals. Or do you speak of psychological or sociological or anthropological research? I do agree that researchers in the last decade have run amuck or afoul of standards, but you're generalizing again. Which peer reviewed research do you think is not "definitive" and is "untrustworthy"? Leave the unpublished (non-peer reviewed) stuff for the tabloids.

I thought the counter explanation was implied, sorry. It's simply that incest in animals is possibly natural, or at the very least unaffected by their domestication rather than the false equivalence that by association, selective breeding has had the effect of creating incest within domesticated animals. In fact, even if we were to assume that there was a rise in animal sexuality. There's no guarantee that its inherently genetic. Domestication has a lot of outside factors to consider, the protection of humans, the fact that they remain consistently fed. All things bettering their quality of life. It's just as likely they're acting more in line with their instincts or they've evolved their instincts, as it could be a genetic trait we've created through domestication. Back to my main point, there's still not enough research and it's all subjective based on research that domesticated animals are more promiscuous than their wild counterparts. But there's multiple facets to consider than just the genetics involved that could account for the changed behaviour.

Many behaviors are noted in species, especially in great apes, our closest biological relative. Chimpanzees, for example, try to avoid incest even to the point of females being beaten by thier own male children. Mice, who have many similarities to human brains, can sniff out relatives and avoid mating with them if there are other choices (they will mate if given no other choice). Wolves have mating pairs and also avoid inbreeding unless their enviornment becomes so isolated that they are forced to. I could go on. Incest is not the default in most higher mammal behavior. It is the exception, almost always brought about by isolation. Are there exceptions? Of course.

As I stated above, this supposed research isn't easily available to everyone and hasn't been released under the label incest by reputable sources. It's all hearsay, at least to those who don't see this research, and only leads to pointless back and forth arguments.

Yeah, I hate the fact that there is a paywall around so much research. There is still plenty available though. Nature and Scientific American are two good publications for example. Peer reviewd research and cultural studies like that done by Margaret Mead are not considered "hearsay".

You missed my point here. This was a hypothetical situation with near to or a perfect setting to get the reader to think. In this scenario, the person would have absolutely no reason to say no if they were interested in actual incest. In fact, their lives would likely be better off in this scenario if they did take up the offer. If you think about it from the perspective of a person who truly wants to be incestual, in this context, with today's societal norms. More than likely most still would refuse out of fear of what other people would think of them. The whole point of this excersise was about the pressures of society and how they affect ones mentality, even at a subconcious level. Whether it's ethical or not is debatable, since we go back to there isn't enough definitive, easily available, trustworthy research to prove the unethicality of it.

Oh, OK. Thought experiments are fine. I like them. I'd not into sociology (I see it as a bastardization of anthropology and psychology), but yes, you're correct. There is a lot of social stigma around it. So much so that there are tons of jokes about American Southerners. The anthropologist in me would argue that these sterotypes arose from truths though.

Fantasy should never be conflated with reality, that's true. But we're not talking about strictly fantasy here. We're talking about something that is a fantasy for some, but so was, and sometimes still is, homosexuality. Two things can be true at once, it can be a fantasy, and it can be a natural part of human sexuality. The difference between your anectodote and this, is consent. Rape should never be allowed by any means, save that of a truly consentual BDSM scene between all involved parties. I assume your wife and you had a discussion about this fantasy and both agreed, which makes it okay for the two of you. I get the reason for it, but your anecdote isn't comparable to our topic of Incest. The comparison to the rape fantasy is under the implicit assumption that incest is a fantasy, rather than it may be a natural part of human sexuality. Consensual incest, fantasy or not, hurts no one. Rape hurts people when it's not a concensual fantasy, that's the difference and why rape isn't a part of human sexuality, but incest could in fact be.

Well, by your own admission of 'not strictly fantasy', leaves the door open to fantasy & reality. People DO fantasize about incest and fantasies can remain purely hypothetical and never enter the realm of reality. So, what you're saying is that you personally want to keep this as purly non-fantasy related. That's fine. However, be aware that I see very little distinction between fantasy and desire unless there is no choice in the matter (at gun point or in isolation for example). So, when you try to remove fantasy from the equation all we are left with is quantative measures like science and mathmatics. In which case, incest must remain taboo between siblings and parent/children do to a host of medical and in the case of parents, grooming.

Honestly, it seems like we're going in circles at this point. I think we should call the debate here. It's clear to me, that there's not enough evidence to sway my thinking on it and your minds made up. So I will agree to disagree for now. If you have those credible resources I noted above that are missing and you've read over, I'd be interested in them if you can and want to message them to me. Otherwise, we agree to disagree. It's funny seeing this deep conversation broken up by a few one liners answering the thread topic lol but I think we'll just be going round and round in a pointless endevour.

D'oh! I should have read the whole thing before ansering lol....

Well, that's up to you. We're going in circles mainly because you're generalizing a lot instead of pointing out specific instances, research or counterpoints that I can debate head-to-head with. I'm pretty well versed in research methodology and keep abreast of scientific topics. I also have to do CE's (continuing education) to retain my license’s. If you'd point to an article or research paper that better conceptualizes your views that would be helpful too. Anyway, if ou want to call it here that's fine too.

 

[fthegovernment]

You must be registered to see attachments

 

[Yelena]

If I were in this situation, the relationship I had at the time would be a completely different one. So it's hard to say, but I would say yes.

 

[keni]

Si terminaras en una situación similar a una de tu juego de incesto favorito, ¿serías lo suficientemente hombre/mujer para aceptarlo?

(En esta situación, crees que todos los miembros de tu familia son atractivos. ¡Aquí no hay excusas del tipo "mi familia es feaaaaaaa"!

If you ended up in a situation similar to one in your favorite incest game, would you be man/woman enough to go for it?

(in this situation, you think all your family members are hot. No "my family is uuuugly" excuses here!

For good luck it already happened to me but it went downhill when my sister almost got pregnant but it was just a delay in her period and I was younger although there is still some tension between the two when we see each other

 

[BS3DX]

If I was 20 years younger, I had a hot cousin, and I would have tapped her so hard. My sister was cute in high school, but not so much nowadays.