discussion Important question for the Incest Game lovers here.

[orphan]

absolutely not, unless it's a hot distant cousin

 

[fallfallen]

No. this is purely a gaming thing for me.

 

[Loliholic]

A little test for the "yuck no" fraction:

You meet a fucking hot girl/boy and after talking a bit you discover you share many interests and after some warmup you discover her/his outstanding tongueskills. You plan to go all the way on the weekend...but during the week you learn she is your (half)sister...where are you saturday evening?

Everyone who reconsiders his/her personal no incest rule because of the circumstances, should question why circumstances should matter at all, the blood is the same, if you grew up together, never met her/him before, discover the truth after a one night stand or when you try to marry her/him.
So either you give a fuck or you are fucked

 

[Lelolole]

Morals? What kind of moral forbids love? Okay, guessing you are hetero it could be against the law since it has this inbreeding risk...but thats the only reason this law still exists, most countries give a fuck about homo incest because there is no risk. Considering pills, condoms and stuff its an outdated law, however, its a law and not a moral, so lets ignore this for a moment. Religions try to mess up our sexlife since over 2000 years, only fanatics still care about that part of their preaching or will you wait until your wedding? Leaves society...that stupid grey mass that frowns upon everything individual and uncommon, considering what society igores and allowsto happen on a constant base its not a good example for anything. I really want to understand on what your morals are based in this matter because i cant see anything immoral in following your heart.

Apologies for necrobumping, but I've read your points up until about page 5-6 of this thread and the frustration that I felt overcame my desire to maintain my lurk status. I'd like to address 2 main things and 2 small thing about what you've said up until around page 6.

1. "I cant see anything immoral in following your heart" - This is blatantly wrong, although I might be misunderstanding you, you gave off the impression that you are aware of the concept of moral relativity and while I'd agree that most moral codes are subjective there are some moral codes that are objective from a humanitarian/societal point of view. One such example is incest. If you are in agreement that moral relativity is a thing, you'd agree that there are some people out there for whom "following their heart" would mean something completely different. An easy example that would trigger something in you would be the desire of a stereotypically abusive man that "gets off" in an existential sense by fulfilling his need for superiority when putting his woman "in her place". This would be a dysfunctional man "following his heart". And just to clarify this is both him following his impulse/desire (which can be interpreted as "his heart") and it also represents him following his emotional needs (which is what I believe you are referring to when addressing the idea of a "heart"). An easier example which might resonate with you would be "what if you were a man?" - you'd still be in love with your big sis and you'd still want to be together with her and, with time, chances are you'd want to have your own family and children with her. In this case "following your heart" would be committing the act of inbreeding. If anybody reading this truly believes in the statement "I cant see anything immoral in following your heart" ad absurdum please know that you should revise your principles regarding the responsibilities of an individual as well as the idea of short term gratification over long term fulfillment.

2. "The inbreeding risk is the only reason the hetero incest laws still exist.". - True, this is the main reason and it is a pretty big one as it influences the quality of the next generation which in turn will influence your quality of life as you grow older. There is also a broader topic about generational responsibility here, but that's a bit of a tangent so I'll bite my tongue for now. The part where you're wrong is when talking about same sex incest. Same sex incest should be kept a taboo just like regular incest because of cultural implications. Again, I might be misunderstanding you, but you seem aware of how most people act/think since you addressed them as "grey masses" multiple points in your posts. If you'd have a society where every human being is reasonable, responsible and disciplined same sex incest should be allowed and a no brainer, but we don't live in a fantasy world, we live in the real world where people, men and women, are impulsive, irresponsible, childish, greedy, etc. If same sex incest would be normalized at a global level I'd wager regular incest would be on the rise as well because from a cultural standpoint the idea of incest would be normalized and the possible circumstantial temptations would rise considerably. It's hard for me to condense such a topic in just a few sentences so I'll give an example. If a teenager boy lives in a family with 2-3 girls/women where incest is practiced mother/daughter or sister/sister style he will find out and will experiment with the thought due to hormones and curiosity. If the family members are attractive (not just from a physical standpoint - from your posts about your sister you understand what I mean) he will constantly be faced with temptation of pushing boundaries and most likely he will develop a fetish. Some families might set hard boundaries to prevent the risk of inbreeding while keeping the ones that are into the taboo in a constant state of sexual and emotional frustration while other families might give in a bit and explore sexually and this could lead to more over time which will increase the chance of inbreeding. This would be a lose-lose situation for those involved.

Now for the small points:
1s. "Inbreeding was scientifically proven to be a genetic issue only recently" - You don't have to be a scientist to be able to observe thousands of years ago that inbreeding is damaging to your blood line. Back when the average human lifespan would be 30-40 yrs old, people would marry/have children while under 18 yrs old and a family would have 4+ kids it was very apparent how incestuous practices would affect your bloodline. This is further exacerbated by the fact that a lot of "pure noble bloodlines" kept records of things in writing and drawings/paintings. Afaik the family tree was something that people in royal families kept track of to avoid the risks of inbreeding and to keep track of heirs/claims. And with regards to painting examples the Habsburg family is the most notorious and well known. All of this was known before modern science was a thing. Modern people fail to understand that back in the day tradition and culture was the way people progressed - without understanding "why?" they observed and experimented on the direction of humanity through traditions and culture. A much more "raw", "brutish" and natural way to progress than what we have nowadays, but a way to progress nonetheless. You wouldn't need modern science or a PhD to observe that.

2s. "I hate the saying woman are weaker, but i still think there are much more cruel brutes than sadistic bitches out there." - Women are physically and more often than not mentally weaker than men which is why they are considered and should continue to be considered a protected class since they are the only ones that can fulfill the roles of mothers in our world. For the sake of keeping this discussion short let's agree to disagree on the latter part about women being mentally weaker. Again, there is a broader topic here about this and how it ties in with the idea of generational responsibility, but I'll refrain from explaining further since it's a tangent. I've never met a woman or a girl during my high school, university, professional life and personal life that could best me or any of my fit guy friends in any sport related thing. Endurance, sprint, force, etc. Are there exceptions due to genetics or extreme cases? Sure. Can you find me a fat and unhealthy guy that can be beat in endurance by a regular girl that doesn't work out at all? Sure. But in general this is blatantly false if you try to compare "apples to apples" and because of this you have "much more cruel brutes than sadistic bitches out there". There are plenty of women out there that'd be sadistic bitches if they would be enabled and equipped for that lifestyle. On the other hand I'd argue that there are more emotionally manipulative and verbally/psychologically abusive women than men out there.

I know this was an obnoxiously long post, but I just had to vent some of my frustrations because as I grow older I keep getting tired and tired by the self-centered mainstream culture of the western world about how we can all just do whatever we want and we should favor short term gratification over long term fulfillment.

 

[Lelolole]

As for the main topic of this thread - it's only fair I'd participate as well since I posted the above wall of text:

If I were 13-15 yrs old and I had a sister, yes and it would become a long term bittersweet mistake. This is true even if my sister were looking average but she'd be with me through thick and thin as I had a "not so good" upbringing. Right now though, no - worst case if I were very attracted or in love with a family member I'd cut ties completely.

 

[Loliholic]

Apologies for necrobumping, but I've read your points up until about page 5-6 of this thread and the frustration that I felt overcame my desire to maintain my lurk status. I'd like to address 2 main things and 2 small thing about what you've said up until around page 6.

I'd feel flattered if you wouldnt supress common sense.

1. "I cant see anything immoral in following your heart" - This is blatantly wrong, although I might be misunderstanding you, you gave off the impression that you are aware of the concept of moral relativity and while I'd agree that most moral codes are subjective there are some moral codes that are objective from a humanitarian/societal point of view. One such example is incest. If you are in agreement that moral relativity is a thing, you'd agree that there are some people out there for whom "following their heart" would mean something completely different. An easy example that would trigger something in you would be the desire of a stereotypically abusive man that "gets off" in an existential sense by fulfilling his need for superiority when putting his woman "in her place". This would be a dysfunctional man "following his heart". And just to clarify this is both him following his impulse/desire (which can be interpreted as "his heart") and it also represents him following his emotional needs (which is what I believe you are referring to when addressing the idea of a "heart"). An easier example which might resonate with you would be "what if you were a man?" - you'd still be in love with your big sis and you'd still want to be together with her and, with time, chances are you'd want to have your own family and children with her. In this case "following your heart" would be committing the act of inbreeding. If anybody reading this truly believes in the statement "I cant see anything immoral in following your heart" ad absurdum please know that you should revise your principles regarding the responsibilities of an individual as well as the idea of short term gratification over long term fulfillment.

a) You mix incest with noncon, i dont. Assholes, violent brutes and controlfreaks never follow their heart or they wouldnt be assholes, violent brutes and controlfreaks. These beasts follow their ego and/or their mental disorder.
b) If i were a guy i had killed myself as soon as possible and if big sis were a guy i would have avoided her like every other guy and never became attached in the first place. But lets ignore the facts and go with a fairy tale version for the sake of an answer, i didnt grew up in the 50's, when i hit puberty i already knew about birth control. Not about every kind of it, but i knew about pills and condoms and both would have been in reach if i had any need for them. So even in this fantasy world there would be no inbreeding.

2. "The inbreeding risk is the only reason the hetero incest laws still exist.". - True, this is the main reason and it is a pretty big one as it influences the quality of the next generation which in turn will influence your quality of life as you grow older. There is also a broader topic about generational responsibility here, but that's a bit of a tangent so I'll bite my tongue for now. The part where you're wrong is when talking about same sex incest. Same sex incest should be kept a taboo just like regular incest because of cultural implications. Again, I might be misunderstanding you, but you seem aware of how most people act/think since you addressed them as "grey masses" multiple points in your posts. If you'd have a society where every human being is reasonable, responsible and disciplined same sex incest should be allowed and a no brainer, but we don't live in a fantasy world, we live in the real world where people, men and women, are impulsive, irresponsible, childish, greedy, etc. If same sex incest would be normalized at a global level I'd wager regular incest would be on the rise as well because from a cultural standpoint the idea of incest would be normalized and the possible circumstantial temptations would rise considerably. It's hard for me to condense such a topic in just a few sentences so I'll give an example. If a teenager boy lives in a family with 2-3 girls/women where incest is practiced mother/daughter or sister/sister style he will find out and will experiment with the thought due to hormones and curiosity. If the family members are attractive (not just from a physical standpoint - from your posts about your sister you understand what I mean) he will constantly be faced with temptation of pushing boundaries and most likely he will develop a fetish. Some families might set hard boundaries to prevent the risk of inbreeding while keeping the ones that are into the taboo in a constant state of sexual and emotional frustration while other families might give in a bit and explore sexually and this could lead to more over time which will increase the chance of inbreeding. This would be a lose-lose situation for those involved.

a) Generational responsibility is an outdated concept, only idiots still enforce/follow unwanted paths.
b) Wrong, incest should generally not be different from any other sex/relationship. Laws are meant to protect people, not to destroy their lifes. Means only forced, drugged, blackmail, rape, etc. in short noncon should be on the blacklist, not consenting sex/relationships.
c) Society is a grey mass because the colorful individuality either drowns in it or needs to stay hidden. If you can be yourself and are accepted by society at the same time, you are fucking boring. If you are different, society will fight you in every way to break your self esteem. Reminds me of the borg in star trek, you know, we are the borg. lower your shields and surrender your ships. we will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. your culture will adapt to service us, resistance is futile...the only difference is the borg tell you about their goals, society assimilates their drones more stealthy and tells them they are free.
d) So much big talk about responsibility, but when it comes to birth control you neglect its very existence. Incest = Inbreed. You dont see anything else. However, i'm not a fan of parent/child stuff. While i really think some of them can share equal love, the age gap can be neglected and the bloodline shit dont matters, there is an undeniable power difference due raising them and grooming is also a thing. But siblings? When kids have responsible parents and learn about sex, birth control and std, it doesnt matter who they fuck. And if they dont have responsible parents and dont learn the basics, they are a(t) risk no matter who they fuck.

Now for the small points:
1s. "Inbreeding was scientifically proven to be a genetic issue only recently" - You don't have to be a scientist to be able to observe thousands of years ago that inbreeding is damaging to your blood line. Back when the average human lifespan would be 30-40 yrs old, people would marry/have children while under 18 yrs old and a family would have 4+ kids it was very apparent how incestuous practices would affect your bloodline. This is further exacerbated by the fact that a lot of "pure noble bloodlines" kept records of things in writing and drawings/paintings. Afaik the family tree was something that people in royal families kept track of to avoid the risks of inbreeding and to keep track of heirs/claims. And with regards to painting examples the Habsburg family is the most notorious and well known. All of this was known before modern science was a thing. Modern people fail to understand that back in the day tradition and culture was the way people progressed - without understanding "why?" they observed and experimented on the direction of humanity through traditions and culture. A much more "raw", "brutish" and natural way to progress than what we have nowadays, but a way to progress nonetheless. You wouldn't need modern science or a PhD to observe that.

You should research a bit more. In the beginning family trees were only about power and status and many of the most powerful royal families considered people from other familys as weakening factor for both. Then they started to bargain their children in the name of diplomacy and still dont cared about incest. You could say "preventing incest" is the newest reason in history to keep/check family trees...aside from nazi idiots who want to be proud about their pure bloodline and similar bullshit.

2s. "I hate the saying woman are weaker, but i still think there are much more cruel brutes than sadistic bitches out there." - Women are physically and more often than not mentally weaker than men which is why they are considered and should continue to be considered a protected class since they are the only ones that can fulfill the roles of mothers in our world. For the sake of keeping this discussion short let's agree to disagree on the latter part about women being mentally weaker. Again, there is a broader topic here about this and how it ties in with the idea of generational responsibility, but I'll refrain from explaining further since it's a tangent. I've never met a woman or a girl during my high school, university, professional life and personal life that could best me or any of my fit guy friends in any sport related thing. Endurance, sprint, force, etc. Are there exceptions due to genetics or extreme cases? Sure. Can you find me a fat and unhealthy guy that can be beat in endurance by a regular girl that doesn't work out at all? Sure. But in general this is blatantly false if you try to compare "apples to apples" and because of this you have "much more cruel brutes than sadistic bitches out there". There are plenty of women out there that'd be sadistic bitches if they would be enabled and equipped for that lifestyle. On the other hand I'd argue that there are more emotionally manipulative and verbally/psychologically abusive women than men out there.

Physical yes, guys are naturally closer to animals and i dont mean the furry factor. I mean the predatory hunting aspect, larger, stronger, higher lung volume, more aggressive and impulsive, etc. (dont argue with insects now, we talk about mammals) but mentally you are wrong. Sure, thousands of years under the almost global patriarchy left deep scars and meek women raised meek girls for millennia, but thats an intentional caused bug that can be fixed. Female brains are superior in many areas while male brains are still primitive with the predatory skillset.
And you confuse running with speed. Longer legs and higher lung volume make guys naturally faster on tracks, but in a fight speed is defined by reflexes and being smaller gives advantage too.
We dont need white knights to protect us, we only need less scum to live in peace.

And where do you think that bitchy behavior comes from? The first time is during the natural rebellion phase and the attention whores keep it to become bee queen during school, but it dies down once they get confronted with real life and work. What do you think is the main reason for most adult women to fall back to this behavior? I give you a hint, it has a dick. As said before, most untrained women are physically no match for abusive guys and we still have some primal instincts, long times of fear and/or repeated suffering turn you meek or passive aggressive.
However, do you think more guys or more girls get send to hospitals/cemeteries by their "beloved" partners?

I know this was an obnoxiously long post, but I just had to vent some of my frustrations because as I grow older I keep getting tired and tired by the self-centered mainstream culture of the western world about how we can all just do whatever we want and we should favor short term gratification over long term fulfillment.

Looks like you are already too old to understand the basic concept of freedom.
I know, oldtimers prefer to be the center of the grey mass and dictate what everyone has to do, think and believe. They lure individuals with life experience and hide all the relevant details. Like missing rights, useless wars, groomed intolerance, etc.
My life is mine. Noone owns me. Its only my decision when or if i allow anyone to share my life and judge/influence my choices and every consequence is mine as well and thats the way it has to be for everyone. I could never find any long term fulfillment without my personal freedom. I'd rather die then be another blob in the grey mass.
My basic morals are simple: Dont harm anyone except to protect yourself and/or others. Nothing more and nothing less, but its still too much for society and far too much for guys in general (with exceptions, but predators, especially the wannabe alpha kind eveb like to "play" with their prey)

 

[Lelolole]

I'd feel flattered if you wouldnt supress common sense.

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond - I wasn't expecting you to be so civil. Especially considering your *seemingly* extreme "bias" against men in general. I know it might sound cheesy or over the top or whatever, but considering this day and age I really mean it.

I don't want to continue this discussion since my curiosity has been sated and I feel like the right choice here would be to agree to disagree. There are only a few points that I'd like to clarify because I believe you've misunderstood me. If you want you can just ignore the rest, but if you're interested here they are:

a) You mix incest with noncon, i dont. Assholes, violent brutes and controlfreaks never follow their heart or they wouldnt be assholes, violent brutes and controlfreaks. These beasts follow their ego and/or their mental disorder.

1. When I argued the point "I cant see anything immoral in following your heart". I was talking in the general sense - I gave the noncon example as just that - an absurd example that is an easy exception to the general rule that happens pretty often in real life with varying degrees of severity. This is another case of "I live by this rule and there is nothing wrong with this rule" while ignoring the fact that if most people would follow your rule there would be complete chaos. Also, the "If i were a guy i had killed myself as soon as possible" comment concerns me when considering the integrity of this discussion and your own willingness to see the "other side".

d) So much big talk about responsibility, but when it comes to birth control you neglect its very existence. Incest = Inbreed. You dont see anything else. However, i'm not a fan of parent/child stuff. While i really think some of them can share equal love, the age gap can be neglected and the bloodline shit dont matters, there is an undeniable power difference due raising them and grooming is also a thing. But siblings? When kids have responsible parents and learn about sex, birth control and std, it doesnt matter who they fuck. And if they dont have responsible parents and dont learn the basics, they are a(t) risk no matter who they fuck.

2. I physically cringed when reading this bit because I believe you've taken what I said in bad faith and you literally missed the point. I tried to generalize my point and keep it short and the particular case of BC is included in my general point. To clarify: I might be reasonable and responsible (even if you'd disagree), you might be reasonable and responsible, we both could say "we as human beings should be reasonable and responsible", but that will NEVER change how most people act and "think"... TL;DR BC exists, but teen pregnancies and single motherhood are still a thing and you can't expect teenagers to act like responsible adults, hell nowadays even adults don't act like responsible adults (and I believe you'd agree after explaining the concept of "grey masses"). No matter how much you want to set general rules or moral codes for everyone to follow, those rules and codes will never work on the greater humanity/society because most people are not like that. That was what I was trying to convey. You can have your own set of rules that you follow and not enforcing them on others - believe and follow what you think is right but realize that most people are not like you. Hope that the ones that lived along side you will see you for what you are and the next generation will learn and follow your ideals to some extent, or as some other user beautifully put it:

To summarize, I have a morality that is strict towards my own actions but I don't care about the actions of others (obviously as long as it doesn't affect me).

And where do you think that bitchy behavior comes from? The first time is during the natural rebellion phase and the attention whores keep it to become bee queen during school, but it dies down once they get confronted with real life and work. What do you think is the main reason for most adult women to fall back to this behavior? I give you a hint, it has a dick. As said before, most untrained women are physically no match for abusive guys and we still have some primal instincts, long times of fear and/or repeated suffering turn you meek or passive aggressive.

3. I didn't try to say that women are worse than men or vice versa. What I wanted to say is that both can be abusive and both use the tools at their disposal to be abusive, and whether you'll agree or not, men and women from a *general* perspective are about as equally abusive when it comes to frequency and intensity. The reason why men are the ones that take the shittier side of the stick with regards to this is because what they do is much more direct, easier to detect and, as you said, primal, physical, etc. We also tend to self correct ourselves if we're part of a healthy group community (something that, sadly, I doubt you've met in your real life - a group of reasonable mentally sane men), sometimes taking drastic measures. Abusive women play around legal and moral grey areas with their methods of abuse and due to cultural reasons men are more reluctant to bitch about abuse so they're much harder to detect. Moreover I've never met or heard of a group of non-traditional girls through my entourage that would self correct itself when doing something immoral or abusive. There might be exceptions somewhere, after all I don't know everything. In conclusion imho men and women can be pretty similar in how "evil" they can be, they just use different tools to achieve what they want. That's it. Also,

However, do you think more guys or more girls get send to hospitals/cemeteries by their "beloved" partners?

What? Is this some kind of comment that men can't be as affectionate as women or grief as much as women? We are affectionate in different ways and grieve in different ways. Whether that's due to biological, cultural, upbringing reasons is besides the point.

a) Generational responsibility is an outdated concept, only idiots still enforce/follow unwanted paths.

Looks like you are already too old to understand the basic concept of freedom.

My basic morals are simple: Dont harm anyone except to protect yourself and/or others. Nothing more and nothing less, but its still too much for society and far too much for guys in general

4. Statement 2 and 3 are in direct contradiction and it ties into the idea of generational responsibility. Generational responsibility has nothing to do with enforcing/following unwanted paths for the next generation. The concept is simple. Do you think that the time that we live in nowadays is overall better than it was thousands of years ago? Do you enjoy the benefits of the infrastructure, utilities, easy access to food, information, education, entertainment, human rights, etc? Then you can be fair, reasonable and thankful, and in the worst case stagnate the quality of the status quo and in the best case improve it, never make it actively worse. Nobody is telling you in which direction you should take your community or is forcing anything down your throat. That is for the next generation to figure out, the old generation and the dead generation can only hope that the next generation will continue the legacy of humanity with its best interests in mind. Communities will diverge, some will prosper, others will self destruct and some won't even have a future due to their self imposed ideals. I, personally, am tired of hearing about the ideals and cultures of communities that self destruct and/or have no future.

All in all that's about everything that I wanted to clarify, there are some things that I agree with you in your post, there are some things that I believe you've maliciously misinterpreted (although I don't believe you did it intentionally) due to your biases and there are a few things that I believe you lack understanding about. This is not to say that I believe I know everything and that I can't be wrong, but I don't think that this discussion will have a constructive conclusion. Apologies if I wasted your time, due to a personal reason I really wanted to respond to you since I have some frustration with the current cultural status quo and I figured this would be a great opportunity try to better understand your side of things. Maybe one day I'll be proficient enough to breach the gap, but today this doesn't seem to be the case.

I know, oldtimers prefer to be the center of the grey mass and dictate what everyone has to do, think and believe.

Ouch, I'll let you know that I'm not that old even though I sound old when I'm being serious Q_Q. I'm not even in my 30s dammit!!!!

 

[Loliholic]

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond - I wasn't expecting you to be so civil. Especially considering your *seemingly* extreme "bias" against men in general. I know it might sound cheesy or over the top or whatever, but considering this day and age I really mean it.

Well, i tend to answer everyone...except they want money ^^
Sorry, i was literally born with this "bias" and no experience i made since then made me doubt my instinct.

1. When I argued the point "I cant see anything immoral in following your heart". I was talking in the general sense - I gave the noncon example as just that - an absurd example that is an easy exception to the general rule that happens pretty often in real life with varying degrees of severity. This is another case of "I live by this rule and there is nothing wrong with this rule" while ignoring the fact that if most people would follow your rule there would be complete chaos. Also, the "If i were a guy i had killed myself as soon as possible" comment concerns me when considering the integrity of this discussion and your own willingness to see the "other side".

Maybe the confusing part is the "heart" which i used in the common metaphorical way and i never believed anyone who said "i love my partner" and still abused them. Imho love and abuse exclude each other.
Why would there be chaos if people were allowed to love whoever they want? If it goes both ways and both want it there is nothing wrong. Govs, laws, religions and society should never have the right to control/dictate the most basic feelings and choices. Its the same bullshit as laws against homosexuality. If you love someone, the only one who has the right to say yes or no is the one you love, noone else. Its even the same if you just want sex, its only up to the potential sexpartner to say yes or no. And there may be a little oversight on your end, because removing all these restrictions, taboos and laws wouldnt mean everyone starts doing it. Most people are not even attracted to their family members and those who are will not be stopped by the laws. Weed laws also didnt stop or reduce the consume and here we talk about love and/or lust...
Uff, short version: Multiple sources confirmed i always hated guys. As baby i always screamed when a guy was in the room, as soon as i learnt to crawl i always had two direction, away from guys and towards big sis. Aside from learning to walk its still the same. I always tried to avoid guys. Do you think i would had the slightest chance of surviving my own hate if i were born as guy? I dont and i'm absolutely sure i would have killed myself as soon as i was able to hold a knife.

BC exists, but teen pregnancies and single motherhood are still a thing and you can't expect teenagers to act like responsible adults, hell nowadays even adults don't act like responsible adults (and I believe you'd agree after explaining the concept of "grey masses").

Erm, the main reasons for teen pregnancy are insufficient sex education and failed parenting (preaching "dont do it", avoiding the topic or become furious/overprotective instead of talking about sex and providing BC). And sorry if you consider it biasd again, but another main problem are the guys. Teens and party/alcohol/first drug experiences are a common combination and many guys use this factor. And manipulation/coercion are not only female traits. I dont deny some girls just mess up because they think with their pussy, but its a fact teen boys are worse in that aspect and many parents fail to educate them properly, which brings us back to the patriarchal stuff.
Single mothers were mostly dumped by their guys, so i dont know why they should matter here.
Correct, i dont expect them to act as adults - but birth control is a basic responsibility for everyone who has hetero sex. Thats easy to learn and easy to follow, except the parents fail or wait until schools teach sex ed when many teens already had sex.

No matter how much you want to set general rules or moral codes for everyone to follow, those rules and codes will never work on the greater humanity/society because most people are not like that. That was what I was trying to convey. You can have your own set of rules that you follow and not enforcing them on others - believe and follow what you think is right but realize that most people are not like you. Hope that the ones that lived along side you will see you for what you are and the next generation will learn and follow your ideals to some extent

You got me wrong here, i dont want to set rules for anyone except for myself. Sure, i think if everyone would share my moral codex we could make global peace...at least until the cum banks run dry and humans go extinct or make female only reproduction possible ^^
What i meant was everyone should be allowed to make their own rules as long as they dont cause harm and incest dont causes harm. At least when its consenting, personally i'd wish there was a global death penality for noncon, no matter if incest or not.
Thx, but dont worry, my girls know and understand me well enough...at least those i know long enough.

I didn't try to say that women are worse than men or vice versa. What I wanted to say is that both can be abusive and both use the tools at their disposal to be abusive, and whether you'll agree or not, men and women from a *general* perspective are about as equally abusive when it comes to frequency and intensity. The reason why men are the ones that take the shittier side of the stick with regards to this is because what they do is much more direct, easier to detect and, as you said, primal, physical, etc. We also tend to self correct ourselves if we're part of a healthy group community (something that, sadly, I doubt you've met in your real life - a group of reasonable mentally sane men), sometimes taking drastic measures. Abusive women play around legal and moral grey areas with their methods of abuse and due to cultural reasons men are more reluctant to bitch about abuse so they're much harder to detect. Moreover I've never met or heard of a group of non-traditional girls through my entourage that would self correct itself when doing something immoral or abusive. There might be exceptions somewhere, after all I don't know everything. In conclusion imho men and women can be pretty similar in how "evil" they can be, they just use different tools to achieve what they want.

In theory that sounds about possible, but in practice it looks differently because every abuse has two sides, the abusive person and the victim. Many women were raised in the meek/semi-submissive role because their mothers were raised the same way, and theirs as well, etc. while the fathers were the dominant/controling factor in most families and affirmed this role further...on top of that they also demonstrated these roles to their sons and bolstered them. Okay, over the last 50 years it became slightly better, but its still far from equal. What i mean to say is, women are more often the victims, not only because they are physically weaker, but also because both genders were raised differently and guys are more aggressive and impulsive by nature. So even if women lash out verbally first, they risk a fast physical answer from the wrong guys and since most girls make some bad experiences with wrong guys, they dont take this risk lightly. On the other hand, guys mostly have and keep the upper hand and rarely face any consequences, which makes things even worse for the next poor girl. Sure, in theory this works both ways, a girl with an annoying whimp may use the rare chance to exert power/control or get back on guys in general, but the next guy may be way different...

What? Is this some kind of comment that men can't be as affectionate as women or grief as much as women? We are affectionate in different ways and grieve in different ways. Whether that's due to biological, cultural, upbringing reasons is besides the point.

No, this was the kind of comment that aked if bitching breaks bones or kills people. Violence does and we both agree guys use more physical abusive methods.

Statement 2 and 3 are in direct contradiction and it ties into the idea of generational responsibility. Generational responsibility has nothing to do with enforcing/following unwanted paths for the next generation. The concept is simple. Do you think that the time that we live in nowadays is overall better than it was thousands of years ago? Do you enjoy the benefits of the infrastructure, utilities, easy access to food, information, education, entertainment, human rights, etc? Then you can be fair, reasonable and thankful, and in the worst case stagnate the quality of the status quo and in the best case improve it, never make it actively worse. Nobody is telling you in which direction you should take your community or is forcing anything down your throat. That is for the next generation to figure out, the old generation and the dead generation can only hope that the next generation will continue the legacy of humanity with its best interests in mind. Communities will diverge, some will prosper, others will self destruct and some won't even have a future due to their self imposed ideals. I, personally, am tired of hearing about the ideals and cultures of communities that self destruct and/or have no future.

How? Okay, if you define your personal freedom by harming others you are right.
The past had pros and cons as well, okay, my line of work wouldnt even exist and i had more time to life, but the hygiene standards would be pure torture for my hyperosmia. However, i live today and the past dont matters much for me. Everything is how it is, no matter if i know or care why, how or by whom, it doesnt change anything. We can only change the little bit of the present surrounding us and slightly influence the future. I'm not a fan of status quo, so i focus on the things i can do in my lifetime to change things for the better, not what was done before or what will happen after i turned into ashes...even if its pointless because the human species will not survive without global cooperation, but hey, at least i will die knowing i helped.
Well, if we never fled from home big sis, myself and lil sis would be forced married housewifes and if we didnt fought our constant indoctrination, we would follow the holy path and/or became nazis, depending if mothers or fathers teaching sticked more. Instead they ended with 3 free spirits, 2 of them lesbian and together. Just to explain why i thought you meant the generational responsibility on a personal level instead of a history lection. We got tortured with this family legacy nonsense on a daily base and i'm only proud about the fact we will end it.
On a sidenote, i dont consider myself part of any community, sure, i'm surrounded by humans but i worked too hard for my personal freedom to follow anyone. Sames goes for my sisters.

Ouch, I'll let you know that I'm not that old even though I sound old when I'm being serious Q_Q. I'm not even in my 30s dammit!!!!

lol, sorry, but in my defence, you are right, you really sound like some grandpa talking about good old times ^^

 

[Gorden]

What are you doing man

 

[runebutt]

Think it depends mainly on what people think about cousin relationships. Immediate family? No, I prefer the kink stay fantasy/fictional but I do have some cousins I always had a crush on though

 

[lcarrow]

Hell nah, that kink exists only in fantasy

 

[Impulse 9]

Definite no but if you have a hot cousin, fucking go for it. Shit, if your aunt is hot and isn't directly related to your parents, go for it. Just don't forget to film it and put it online

 

[nobodyv31]

I'm not an incest, but incest games interest me.

 

[Provision_333]

My family is uuuuuugly, and in most games I find the family members ugly as well, I usually go for the smallest one, cause she will probably be the closer to an actual human being. There is some exceptions where The mother or other memeber of the family looks good, but I believe there are very very few games, maybe there is one that I remember that I really liked and even willingly pursued.

So I didnt look into this genre because of wanting to flick my familly

 

[Ant28jsp]

in the game yes but not in my real life

 

[BAXON]

only as a fantasy, abstracting from reality, imagining that the main character is engaged in incest. In reality, it is impossible to even imagine sex with a family member

 

[Gamer X]

For me its only interesting when others are committing incest. The thought of doing it myself - no thats just not something i would ever want. I'll have to think longer about just why that is ...............

 

[herelooking027]

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!

Games and reality are totally different. Incest in reality almost always ends up messy and bad between people. Less goes wrong the more distant the relationship is but incest games are about close relationships.

Someone I talked to in a game group for two years found out she was her boyfriend's half sister through a genetics test. Her mom used a sperm donation from an unknown donor. It didn't change the relationship.

If it was a weird situation like that where I was a couple with someone for 3 years before we found out we were siblings, I wouldn't change the relationship. If we have no connection that made us realize we were related then the normal incest problems don't apply. Well, except for genetics but genetics is a crap roll anyway and I don't want biological kids anyway either.

 

[wintercoat]

Yes. One of my sisters is fucking hot.

 

[bigboi2damax]

Young me would definitely go for it, but nah.