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)

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.