Opinions on Incest

Definitely not platonic.
Also what do you mean by change? Like how we acted towards eachother? Or in terms of personality?
Personality wise we remained mostly the same, our personalities are part of why we were attracted to eachother after all.
In terms of how we acted towards eachother I will admit for a while it felt quite awkward but eventually we started spending time together a LOT more. When I wasn't hanging out with my friends I was hanging out with her. During the awkward phase we really just spent time alone smiling at eachother but as we eased in we began to talk the future and how we're going to make everything work.
I guess if there's anything that changed about me it's that I seriously started considering what to do in the future of my life. Things were no longer all about me, it was about her as well. I wanted to be with her for as long as possible and make her happy every step of the way; so I put more focus into my studies(found out I was actually GOOD at math), looked up universities and all that teenage junk. I did it all so that one day me and her could live together, just the two of us and not have to worry about society and all that.

In her case she was already doing well enough in school, she could probably get into any university she wanted to. But she had ditched her initial plans of leaving the province and maybe even the country for university. I'll admit that I felt like **** as I thought I had forced her to give up on her dreams but she told me that her dreams were still perfectly intact and that there was nothing to worry about. She also told me that despite how important her dreams are to her in comparison to our relationship it's trivial. I told her not to think like that but I doubt she listened.

tl;dr: If anything it made the both of us a lot more serious about the life ahead of us.

 

As most of people nowdays I have bad visions against incest...
And yet I should recongnize that all this is just a fabrication of the catholic church, Saint Augstine mostly. The idea was to force people to get married with people that are at least 5 "levels" of parantege away.. the problem is that almost no one nearby was this much no related as people lived in feuds in medieval times... If the church should consider your marridge "incestous" all your children would be *******s and would have no claim to whatever lands you possesed so the church could take it back after you've died and the children would have to buy it back (if they could).
But incest was very present in many cultures, the egiptians married betwen brothers and sisters, all the royal families in europ are related, the russian's royal family had a mutation that runned in the family and it is easy to identify if a body is a true romanov or not by genetics... Back to europ we can see here how Hemophilia runned in the royal families because they were deaply related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalty

Even though that was a plot done by the church we were luky that they did it, as we know now of the problems of having incetous children (mutations) but they are not that commom as the tv makes us belive.. but if everybody started to have children whithin their familys all their recessive gens whould stock up and a lot of genetics conditions would apear in the next generation.

With that in mind be free to do what you like, but think twice before having children.

 

Yeah, I meant how your status and perception of each other would've changed and you answered it well enough on it.
Since you said you both don't see each other as siblings anymore, physical acts such as hugging and kissing in a passionate way you weren't avert to? I mean, was it like other relationships where you may feel nervous about it, but was it easier since you two had such a history with each other?

 

Asami, have you told your parents about your relationship with your sister?

 

Please read the thread before posting. If you have a reason for asking this, then say what you want to say, because this question has already been answered.

 

Alright, so after reading this thread and giving it some thought, I have a question for you guys. Why is it that gay relationships are accepted in most of the modern world, not including the states, while incest between siblings, or even cousins, is not in any way? I always figured it was because of the defects your children can get, but with a gay relationships, you can't even get children in any way. At least not with your partner. So why is it that gay relationships are more accepted? Is it because it's unnatural? But with incest you can still get kids, with a small chance of defects. Anyone want to share their thoughts?

Oh, and just to clarify, I am not against either gay relationships or incest with consent. As long as they know what they are doing, everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want to.

 

This has already been addressed in multiple posts if you had an eye for it.

There is a strong instinctual aversion to having sexual relations with someone from your immediate family because it can bring bad genes into the gene pool. With homosexuality, those genes will not actually be added to the gene pool through procreation but will instead die out, so they present no threat to the evolution of the species. From an evolutionary perspective, incest is more dangerous for the species than a couple that will never have kids.

 

I read most of the posts, but at some point they just became too long and I was wondering about this, which I assumed would not come up in the conversation, considering where it was going.

But doesn't it only get truly dangerous after a lot of inbreeding? Just having one kid shouldn't be that bad, should it? Tons of inbreeding should obviously be frowned upon, since that can get dangerous, but having one isn't that bad? Or am I completely wrong? Either way, if it is that bad, then they could always just not have children with one another. But even that would be frowned upon by society most everywhere. So why is it that a relationship between a man and his sister is a lot worse than a relationship between a man and a man? They are both fairly unnatural, yet one is a lot more socially accepted than the other.

 

To put it bluntly incest degrades the available genetic pool whereas homosexuality, like celibacy or sterility, only prevents the available genetic pool to grow. One messes with quality, the other with quantity. Our available gene pool is so vast that neither homosexuality, celibacy nor sterility imperil it. Trying to establish which degree of incest would imperil the species or become a clear cut handicap for the resulting children is much more difficult and leaves room for subjective standards.

Er ... what makes you think it is unnatural ? This behavior has been consistently observed throughout the ages regardless of social norms, and is consistently observed in many other species.

 

Oh geez, I assumed it would be clear what I meant here. I just meant that it's unnatural in terms of not being able to reproduce and that it is different from what is normal in our society. Aka a relationship between a man and a woman. I meant nothing else, not that only freaks are gay, just that it is not the norm in current society.

 

Ah ok, I think "marginal" is the word you were looking for. ^^

 

Read what Patman said about subjective standards. Most people feel uncomfortable with it for genetic reasons. The lower your IQ, the more you condemn that which makes you uncomfortable, and so the greater your aversion to it. I made a thread about a study that relates to bigotry and IQ if you care to read it.

Both occur with or without "sentient" thought, so they are both natural—that is, homosexuality and incest. Do not confuse "fewer instances" with "less natural".

 

Yeah, that was kinda poor choice of word on my part, apologies for the confusion. I blame all the drinking I've done lately.

Ah, now this is more along the lines of what I was looking for. Thank you for the link, I will be sure to read through it. And yeah, I didn't mean that it was actually unnatural, that was just poor choice of words on my behalf.

 

what exactly prompted you to bring this kind of topic up?

 

Does it matter?

 

Is this spam?

Read the thread and you might find your answer.

 

...and see how open-minded y'all still are.

Since the gay marriage thread has not had a heated discussion since who-knows-when, I assume you're all reasonably open-minded people and that even if you oppose gay marriage, you're at least a few evolutionary steps ahead of rednecks that still think that the Westboro Baptist Church is a pretty neat idea. Good, good.




I want to marry my sister though.




There, I said it. (Of course I don't ever want to get married, and I don't even have a sister, but this is all hypothetically speaking and trying to make a point.)
Brothers and sisters, however, cannot get married even if their relationship is consensual, and even though fruitcakes and lesbos can walk up to the altar nowadays. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Am I the only one who sees more than a hint of hypocrisy in this? My country supports gay marriage (our prime minister is openly gay) but not incestuous marriage. I'm assuming the same is true in many American states.
Incest is hardly ever even discussed, let alone considered for legalisation. I know that incestuous relationships aren't as common as same-sex relationships, but I don't think that the prevalence of a relationship pairing should matter for legal grounds. I know all about genetic aversion and whatnot, but I see this as an anachronism rather than a valid reason.

Enlighten me, KHV. Why is supporting gay marriage "cool" and banging your sister taboo? What is your opinion?

 

I' ve already expressed my opinion on the subject at length, here :
http://www.kh-vids.net/threads/opinions-on-incest.124786/

That discussion led Peace and War to create this thread :
http://www.kh-vids.net/threads/opinions-on-bestiality.124801/

Edit : wait, you posted in both of those threads ...
Oh well, I don' t feel like repeating myself.

 

Yes, thank you and merged!

@Styx
My reasoning is still the same, it's an unfair play on the power of relationships, one way or the other the elder sibling has at some point caused the 'seduction' of the younger sibling. Even if the younger sibling is to make the first move, the acceptance of the older sibling still makes me feel like it is an art of manipulation on part of the elder sibling. It isn't a very independent choice.

But read my other posts, they get my point across clearer.

 

That's a pretty lame argument. When is a relationship, any relationship, not an interplay of manipulation and being manipulated? Being in love means you don't care much about being manipulated. I can understand why coercion is easier in an incestuous context, given the subject's taboo status, but this is not relevant. Coercion is a poor basis for a relationship and not one I'm willing to support, regardless of context.

I don't see the problem with one partner seducing the other (I've seen plenty of healthy relationships develop from it), nor do I acknowledge that the difference between seducer and "seducee" is necessarily larger in siblings. Dominance usually fades over time and by the time serious relationships may develop, it isn't much of a factor anymore. Even people who got used as a kickboxing training dummy by their sibling don't often hold grudges after puberty has passed for both of them.