The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Incest ^o^ (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=206485)

poopnoodle January 24th, 2010 10:24 PM

Incest ^o^
 
So guys. For some this might seem a bit morbid of a topic, but I am anxious to see everyone's views on incest. Do you think it's okay for Uncle Pete and Nephew Jarred to treat each other to a candle-lit dinner? Do you think the government has the right to control who people share physical intimacy with?

Spill your thoughts. u3u

True Reign January 24th, 2010 10:33 PM

Do you want your child to have three legs and one eye? Me neither.

Shiny January 24th, 2010 10:35 PM

I'm abit curious as to why you even thought of this, but it's not my place to judge.

I personally believe it's extremely creepy o.o

Spearow January 24th, 2010 10:41 PM

It should be legal if it is between consenting adults, bottom line. I understand that the issue becomes muddled morally when you consider the tendency of some incestuous relationships to develop out of pedophilic ones, and whether or not consent is truly consent if it is an attitude that has been cultivated through the psychological influence of another, etc.

BUT as far as legislation goes there's no reason (that I can see) why two independent individuals shouldn't be able to have whatever relations they choose to have with one another.

P.S. i want to treat that smiley in the title to a candle-lit dinner 83

EpsilonE January 25th, 2010 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Accursed (Post 5498282)
Do you want your child to have three legs and one eye? Me neither.

I have three legs and 2 eyes


And I think incest is not the best. Do not put your sister to the test

Miz en Scène January 25th, 2010 2:30 AM

Uhh, I feel sickened by this topic and have the need to spout profanities right now, but I don't.

Incest = Bad, bad, bad

magikarptrainer January 25th, 2010 3:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spearow (Post 5498294)
It should be legal if it is between consenting adults, bottom line. I understand that the issue becomes muddled morally when you consider the tendency of some incestuous relationships to develop out of pedophilic ones, and whether or not consent is truly consent if it is an attitude that has been cultivated through the psychological influence of another, etc.

BUT as far as legislation goes there's no reason (that I can see) why two independent individuals shouldn't be able to have whatever relations they choose to have with one another.

P.S. i want to treat that smiley in the title to a candle-lit dinner 83


What about the shallow gene pool?

Ineffable~ January 25th, 2010 3:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spearow (Post 5498294)
It should be legal if it is between consenting adults, bottom line. I understand that the issue becomes muddled morally when you consider the tendency of some incestuous relationships to develop out of pedophilic ones, and whether or not consent is truly consent if it is an attitude that has been cultivated through the psychological influence of another, etc.

BUT as far as legislation goes there's no reason (that I can see) why two independent individuals shouldn't be able to have whatever relations they choose to have with one another.

P.S. i want to treat that smiley in the title to a candle-lit dinner 83

I agree with all this, especially that last statement. :3
I mean, if you are in love with or just want to seduce your cousin (provided you're both consenting adults), what business of that is the Government's? :/ Or really anybody else's...
Sure, mutation is a risk, but that's something you'll have to think about yourself. (You could always just have protected sex and adopt a baby. :B) Neither the Government, nor anyone else, should be allowed to stop you (on the pretense of caring).

Pædophilia is a no-no, obviously. ;o

Eon-Rider January 25th, 2010 4:54 AM

Although I'd never do it, I think incest should be acceptable in society as long as all participants give mutual consent. Otherwise no.

Zet January 25th, 2010 5:07 AM

If I had a hot attractive sister, then it's fair game with every other guy after her.

Pixels January 25th, 2010 5:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eon-Rider (Post 5498593)
Although I'd never do it, I think incest should be acceptable in society as long as all participants give mutual consent. Otherwise no.

Wow, I didn't expect to see someone pro-incest. o_0 Your opinion though, not judging.

I must agree with the other posters though, there are reasons that it is a taboo subject: shallow gene pools. Incest = no in my opinion.

Takoto January 25th, 2010 6:25 AM

Bro's and Sis', no way.
Son + Mum, or Daughter + Dad, no way.

Cousins? Yeah that's okay, but I would never do it.

iLaxbe! January 25th, 2010 6:50 AM

It is creepy and disgunting, but this kind of thing happens. But as said, if it's mutual, I don't have the right to judge anybody.

And though the cousin/cousin incest is 12.5% chance of children being born with bad formation, like blindness, I don't think it's as incestuous as other relations. Specially when you have a cousin like mine... STOP, DIRTY THOUGHTS, STOP!

Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty January 25th, 2010 7:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takoto (Post 5498687)
Bro's and Sis', no way.
Son + Mum, or Daughter + Dad, no way.

Cousins? Yeah that's okay, but I would never do it.

This is pretty much my response. And lets not forget that if incest was legalised in all of its capacity (I'm pretty sure cousins are allowed to date/marry in the UK, but I could be wrong), there would be people who would then abuse that law to get away with whatever they pleased with whoever they pleased.

Esper January 25th, 2010 7:16 AM

People can have relationships without having children, you know. So any argument against incest based on the "shallow gene pool" is kind of not relevant, except perhaps to the people who are personally considering having a relation with a biological relative, but that's their choice to make, not others'. Besides, I'm sure we'd agree that it would be wrong to say that people with a genetic disease couldn't have children just because of a potential for it to be passed on.

Incest gets into bad territory when one of the people is underage (which is bad even without the incest factor) or there is some kind of psychological factor involved (like a parent's authority over a child even if that child is of age legally) which blurs whether or not it is a consensual relationship. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with each other.

Alakazam17 January 25th, 2010 7:27 AM

Well, my answer to this would be the same as the answer I would give to a variety of moral topics like this:

1) Human beings should be allowed to do whatever they want.
2) Point 1) is void if violating the rights of another human being(ie. both must be consenting).
3) I don't want any part in it personally.

So basically, to echo what others have already said, it should be allowed assuming both parties consent. Though that said, I'd hope they'd realize not to bring another life into the world as a result, knowing what effects that could have on the child biologically.

I remember hearing something about one man finally finding his long lost sister(who had been given up for adoption as a baby). Thing is, his 'sister' actually turned out to be the woman he was married to for the past year or so. That situation, although extreme, makes we wonder if some couples may already be related without knowing it. O_o

Legobricks January 25th, 2010 7:35 AM

As long as they don't reproduce, there's no reason not to.

Anxiety. January 25th, 2010 7:55 AM

I'm pretty much against it.
Purely because of the whole shallow gene pool thing.

But in this situation I wouldn't split them up:
Brother/Sister and Brother/Sister get split at birth. They meet again and don't know they're related, they fall in love.
I'd tell them, and if they choose to stay together thats up to them.

But I don't support it when both people are fully aware when they start having sex or whatever.

ÇyänïdëÉX January 25th, 2010 8:45 AM

The government prohibits it? if yes then its for a reason. That reason is to avoid genetic malformations and such ahaha.

Jordan January 25th, 2010 8:47 AM

Err, I don't support anything between closer relationships than first-cousins. @[email protected];

Quite frankly, I could care less about the shallow gene pool since it's something they consciously brought upon themselves. However, I would be against it because of the increased chances of diseases in their offspring as a result of such a shallow gene pool.

Rogue planet January 25th, 2010 9:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassino (Post 5498786)
As long as they don't reproduce, there's no reason not to.

This.
If both people consent to it, then they can do what they want. I don't care.

magikarptrainer January 25th, 2010 3:39 PM

Also, consent can be compromised with incest.

I'm sure it happens often when they both consent, but the younger one was probably groomed/conditioned for that. So consent is a very gray area.

Jolene January 25th, 2010 3:40 PM

I don't see why people would even want to have an incest with each other. I have a big brother and I know him too well to be in love with him.

.Gamer January 25th, 2010 4:01 PM

By incest, don't you mean, wincest?

Lets be real here.

Neko January 25th, 2010 4:13 PM

Um, hello? Is everyone here forgetting that most famous authors/artists out there have had at least ONE relationship that could be considered incest? xD Poe! Wells! Even Darwin!

Back on topic, I see no reason to care about what other relationships people would want to have. It's kind of like gay/lesbian marriage; you want to marry a chick? So what. Go right ahead; no skin off my back. Though as stated before, as long as it's MUTUAL consent, then it's all good and I don't see why not? Not me; not my problem. As long as they don't go spewing out three eyed little monsters, I have no worries. xD As for me personally though, I would never do it. To me it just seems like a creepy subject to even think about, let alone consider or even to go through with it. o__O;

Luck January 25th, 2010 4:13 PM

I don't think I have the right to judge other people as long as they actually love each other and are of age. At least with incest you don't get a mother-in-law :D

Oh, and I think I remember hearing somewhere that people back then marrying close relatives for financial gain.

Spearow January 25th, 2010 4:34 PM

Who knew that PC was such a hub for casual eugenists? :o

I kind of really wish this thread was in Other Chat so we could have a for real debate, but whatever.

donavannj January 25th, 2010 8:46 PM

Laws against this exist primarily to protect children... at least, that's the way I see it. Though laws should be modified to be similar to statutory rape laws, since incest wasn't considered to include first- and second- cousins until the last 100 years.

♣Gawain♣ January 25th, 2010 9:16 PM

It's not good. Especially the chances of having a genetic disease, dominant or recessive, will rise.

Butterfly Tears January 25th, 2010 9:27 PM

You know, just a thought. But don't we all technically come from extremely limited gene pools?

Say you're religious, and you believe that Adam and Eve were the first two humans. We then all descended from them, so early on there had to have been some sort of incestuous breeding going on. Same thing if you subscribe to evolution. Early on there would have to have been a lot of inbreeding. I could be completely wrong though... So do correct me if that's the case.

As for me... It's not something I'm into. But I'm not going to judge others for what they want to do. I'm bisexual myself, so I understand what it's like to be a minority and have laws made to prohibit who you are... Now, it's one thing if anything is done without permission, but consenting adults... come on now.

I do, however, think there should be some sort of law regarding conception. I'm not quite sure how that would work, but it would be best to try and prevent children from that sort of relationship because of the potential mutations.

True Reign January 25th, 2010 9:33 PM

Let's all be honest - 150 years ago, you wouldn't care if your best friend started _____ his sister.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Drágunôv (Post 5500514)
It's not good. Especially the chances of having a genetic disease, dominant or recessive, will rise.

I think someone just learned what dominant and recessive genes were.

Spearow January 25th, 2010 9:36 PM

Quote:

Same thing if you subscribe to evolution. Early on there would have to have been a lot of inbreeding. I could be completely wrong though... So do correct me if that's the case ^^'
There are multiple ways for new species to arise, the most common of which (I believe) is something along the lines of a group/colony migrating to a new environment, and then eventually producing surviving children that are so radically different from their predecessors that they are unable to reproduce with them, thereby constituting a new species. So it's not like all "new" animals descend from the same ancestral couple - evolution is probably a good deal more gradual and subtle than that. I could be giving you the wrong picture here, but think of the new gene pool being formed from the trickling runoff of the old pool, not just a single drop.

Haven't read the Old Testament so I can't provide the fundamentalist view, but I think most believers just hold that God actually created more people after Adam and Eve in order to populate the world. It's all very vague and open to interpretation anyway.

True Reign January 25th, 2010 9:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spearow (Post 5500542)
There are multiple ways for new species to arise, the most common of which (I believe) is something along the lines of a group/colony migrating to a new environment, and then eventually producing surviving children that are so radically different from their predecessors that they are unable to reproduce with them, thereby constituting a new species. But it's not like a new animal pops out one day and has to make babies with its children to propagate its race. o_O

Haven't read the Old Testament so I can't provide the fundamentalist Christian view, but I think most believers just hold that God actually created more people after Adam and Eve in order to populate the world. It's all very vague and open to interpretation anyway.

**** sapiens survived European winter because of game. When we first got to Europe, I would imagine we could probably only get lucky in getting the food we needed. Eventually, over thousands of years, every generation would be slightly thinner, with more movement for the legs. This helped in running a lot. This evolutionized human branched off from our brothers and created the humans you know today.

If you didn't understand that;
Our brothers, the Neanderthals, were very accustomed to Europe. They were very strong, and they had a larger ribcage (along with small pelvic bone). This larger ribcage helped them breath during the winter and helped preserve heat. Humans on the other hand were considerably weaker and had smaller ribcages, but we had a larger pelvic bone which enabled us to run. Our running is what branced us off from the other Homos, our brothers, and helped our species survive.

mr. ck January 26th, 2010 2:38 AM

But isn't like incesisn totally against the idea of evolution... That is a reason enough imo, coupled with genetic diseases, I see no point.

Even the idea of a relationship b/w cousins is sick, but then its still better than brother and sister.

But then again, there is a high possibility that the one you are marrying is your cousin anyway, especially if your parents (there are countries where orthodox beliefs still exist) want to get you married in the same race (and same caste as in india)
And nowadays since there isn't really anyone from a pure race or caste, it is likely you might be marrying your cousin anyway :P

And if you have studied high school biology, we all do have a common ancestor, and so do monkeys... So we all are in fact cousins O.o

Façade January 26th, 2010 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Candy Cane Forest Elf. (Post 5500464)
Laws against this exist primarily to protect children... at least, that's the way I see it.

You could even extend this reasoning beyond the typical child molestation case to actually protecting an un-born child from a potential birth defect.

If they signed an agreement to commit to not having children then as long as the two were also consenting then I'd be fine with it.
However you couldn't truly enforce a no-conception policy without requiring the partners to have a vasectomy/tubal ligation, and forcing them to do this would be highly questionable.

ShinjisLover January 26th, 2010 7:25 AM

If wanting to sleep with your best friend's (whom you consider a sister) brother is incest, then I think it's wonderful. =3


I not, ewww! >< Seriously, WTF? =/ I can't believe anyone could find any of their relatives sexually attractive. X.x Thinking they're handsome/pretty is one thing, but being aroused by them is another.

Bianca Paragon January 26th, 2010 7:36 AM

Incest? Moar liek Wincest amirite? If its like..cute...twin girls of legal consensual age? I'm okay with this ;D

¡No Hablo Inglés! January 27th, 2010 2:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alakazam17 (Post 5498773)
1) Human beings should be allowed to do whatever they want.
2) Point 1) is void if violating the rights of another human being(ie. both must be consenting).
3) I don't want any part in it personally.

So basically, to echo what others have already said, it should be allowed assuming both parties consent. Though that said, I'd hope they'd realize not to bring another life into the world as a result, knowing what effects that could have on the child biologically.

This.

Seriously couldn't have put it better myself, 'Zam. xD

Yeah, I think everyone's entitled to their own views and choices in life as long as they're not violating basic human rights. I, personally, would never want to be involved in any kind of incest, but with that said, a topic like this is extremely subjective and controversial; everyone you ask will probably give a different opinion on it.

Idiot! January 27th, 2010 2:40 AM

You don't need to be the product of incest to get four toes, six fingers and half an eye. If people wanted their offsprings to have shallower gene pools, I can't do anything about that anyway, so why bother?

s0nido January 27th, 2010 5:00 AM

I think it's wrong for several reasons, many of which are obvious. >< Any relationship closer than first cousins is just plain wrong.

LightEspeon ♥! January 27th, 2010 5:37 AM

Gross!
I think pedophilia is less grosser than this!

Legobricks January 27th, 2010 5:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neko64 (Post 5499814)
Um, hello? Is everyone here forgetting that most famous authors/artists out there have had at least ONE relationship that could be considered incest? xD Poe! Wells! Even Darwin!

That has no bearing to our own opinions. As they say: you wouldn't jump off a cliff just because someone else did.

True Reign January 27th, 2010 2:13 PM

More than half of you in this thread wouldn't think twice about it if we were in the nineteenth century.

Neko January 27th, 2010 3:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassino (Post 5503216)
That has no bearing to our own opinions. As they say: you wouldn't jump off a cliff just because someone else did.

Oh, I wasn't trying to change anyone's opinions with that statement. :) I know it has no affect on them; it shouldn't. I was just surprised at the number of replies that were saying "Ewww omg gross!!!11" (well, not really, but along those lines somewhere~). It was just a thought like, 'Hey, are we all forgetting that this was once viewed as normal? Some of your favorite authors could have very well been married to his or her cousin!'. Again, just a thought. xP
Quote:

Originally posted by Accursed
More than half of you in this thread wouldn't think twice about it if we were in the nineteenth century.
*This I like*.

Ninja Caterpie January 27th, 2010 3:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassino (Post 5503216)
That has no bearing to our own opinions. As they say: you wouldn't jump off a cliff just because someone else did.

Oooh, you'd be so surprised.

If we were in the age of those people, half of your friends would be having incestuous relationships and you'd dive straight into anything.

It's frowned upon now, so you wouldn't.

Honest January 27th, 2010 3:17 PM

Creepy. And I don't want my relatices to be deformed. : \


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:02 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.