MrPin Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 My girlfriend shared a flat 15 years ago with her school friend. The friends brother would often come over and share the single bed of his sister. This freaked out my girlfriend and she moved in with me! Brighton, 1996. I had left Brighton by then! Place of Filth, and I did most of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Round about 1983/84 there was some stuff in the papers about potentially legalising sibling incest (above age of consent). I imagine this was part of the PIE agenda, given what I now know. Anyway, we read about it in the common room at school and my mate Ben thought it was great! We were 13 though, at an all boys boarding school. I think it's socialised out of you, but I genuinely have no desire whatever for my sister. Odd really - she was damn hot, now she's 50! I was placed in many compromising situations with my beautiful first cousin who looked like a young Liz Taylor (mentioned it before - those eyes). Nothing happened, but I did fantasize about getting into the top bunk with her when we we 12 or so and it cost me some sleep. Frankly we were all very horny from about age 11. My first getting off was with my dad's cousin's daughter, at 12 I think. Makes me wonder about the modern preoccupation with suppressing natural human desires - is that a thread closer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearwithasorehead Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 A lot of socialization is learnt rather than verbally taught. We learnt what's wrong by the fact that nobody does it and nobody talks about it. Casual questions are shut down, people are shunned... Children are pretty sensitive and observant P Yeah, that's kinda what I mean. It is too simplistic to talk about socialisation as 'teaching' stuff. An alternative might be 'enculturation' so that lack of sexual attraction to close relatives becomes seen as 'normal'. So the norms of society become internalised in the personal psychology of the individual. Of course there is no biological basis to this. It is perfectly 'normal' in a biological sense to get a boner if your sister is hot. Just that in the UK you might feel uncomfortable about it. 'For Parsons, the incest taboo is part of the system of sexual regulations that draws a boundary beyond which the family may not wander when imparting erotic rewards. Withholding erotic rewards forces the adolescent child to participate in the larger society in order to find greater sexual fulfillment. This ties the society together through marriage and kin relationships.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Unlikely. Off the top of my head, I would guess that if both siblings carry a rare recessive gene then it is more likely to get expressed. EDIT: Indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding I'm not sure that taunts like 'inbred' arise from nothing. Indeed. It took the royal family generations to breed out hemophilia. Diana, and now Kate are being used to try and get rid of baldness, juggy ears and weak chins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solitaire Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Does this mean you're a single lady with a nerdish interest in pandemics Solitaire? Are you.going to DTMarks meet then? , and Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 It is perfectly 'normal' in a biological sense to get a boner if your sister is hot. Just that in the UK you might feel uncomfortable about it. But the men on this thread with hot sisters are not saying that, they're saying they don't feel attracted to them in the slightest. Normally when a straight guy sees a hot girl he gets a physiological response, but these people with hot sisters have some kind of filter in their brains which means the visual image of their hot sister being received from their eyes never connects to the sexual attraction part of their brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 But the men on this thread with hot sisters are not saying that, they're saying they don't feel attracted to them in the slightest. Normally when a straight guy sees a hot girl he gets a physiological response, but these people with hot sisters have some kind of filter in their brains which means the visual image of their hot sister being received from their eyes never connects to the sexual attraction part of their brains. Yes. The most flirty I ever got with my sister was squeezing a balloon she was holding at chest height, like I was approving of her womanliness. She laughed and we left it there. Literally nothing going on there. Can't explain it, there must be some switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I'd say that was more a case of socialisation rather than biological. After all, that's the original meaning of taboo. Hard to distinguish when you've grown up together. Not quite the same when it's a relative you only see once in a blue moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Makes me wonder about the modern preoccupation with suppressing natural human desires - is that a thread closer? Nothing modern about the age-old strictures on sex. Only the form varies. The substance? Well, it may change a little as the taboos take different forms. Today's fashion is to blame men for everything, which might be seen as a historic reaction to unforgiving attitudes to single motherhood a generation or two ago. I don't think even modern contraception was such a big change as is sometimes suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Funny how when it comes to gay marriage everyone says 'love is love, you shouldn't discriminate' but when you ask those same people 'if love is love, shouldn't incestuous marriage also be legal' they generally say ew, that's disgusting. Obviously love isn't love after all. The sheep will simply toe the line as the establishment demands. Same goes for polygamy, etc. Its an entirely mental thing. If siblings were split up at birth and had no knowledge of each other, do you really think they'd have some sixth sense to be repelled by each other, romantically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenpig Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 And to this day you are trying to prove that others are more deviant that you with your cat shagging ways. I know--scarred for life. Tell it to the cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 But the men on this thread with hot sisters are not saying that, they're saying they don't feel attracted to them in the slightest. Normally when a straight guy sees a hot girl he gets a physiological response, but these people with hot sisters have some kind of filter in their brains which means the visual image of their hot sister being received from their eyes never connects to the sexual attraction part of their brains. I think when you grow up with someone you don't see a sex object, you see a person.. It's like dating someone and getting straight into the friend zone. The idea of having sex with you sister is like having sex with you mum or your wife.. Just not appealing ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenpig Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 It's funny how this is a *relatively* common theme in film and literature. I mentioned once before how much more relaxed people seemed about cousin marriage these days, as I remember from an early age being warned against it. Now I think about it, my mum is from a little village where everyone is everyone's cousin, so maybe it was a personal issue. (She married out, but we're all a bit weird anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Funny how when it comes to gay marriage everyone says 'love is love, you shouldn't discriminate' Not in Singapore! That's why I've had to brush up on what I really believe - and incest is a tricky one. But I don't want the antis and homophobes to win with their fear-mongering slippery slope arguments. But for most people, that argument does win; it's compelling. Any ideas how to reconcile? (Perhaps incest is such a minority pursuit that it never becomes a human rights issue as such, like homosexuality, but remains a hidden fact of some people's lives which we can essentially ignore for the most part.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Not in Singapore! That's why I've had to brush up on what I really believe - and incest is a tricky one. But I don't want the antis and homophobes to win with their fear-mongering slippery slope arguments. But for most people, that argument does win; it's compelling. Any ideas how to reconcile? (Perhaps incest is such a minority pursuit that it never becomes a human rights issue as such, like homosexuality, but remains a hidden fact of some people's lives which we can essentially ignore for the most part.) I do think the "if it's not actually or at risk of hurting anybody it shouldn't be illegal" rule of thumb is a good one. We shouldn't keep laws on the books that we don't intend to prosecute. Maybe the law on incest should be changed so that if you want to bang your close relatives it's up to you (with rules about age and consent of course) but you must not do it in a way that risks conceiving a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I do think the "if it's not actually or at risk of hurting anybody it shouldn't be illegal" rule of thumb is a good one. We shouldn't keep laws on the books that we don't intend to prosecute. Maybe the law on incest should be changed so that if you want to bang your close relatives it's up to you (with rules about age and consent of course) but you must not do it in a way that risks conceiving a child. Consent is like an insurance policy for the weaker party in that it removes from them the burden of proving that they did not consent to something. In that context I think it is right that a 16 year old girl is not legally able to consent to have sex with her father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Consent is like an insurance policy for the weaker party in that it removes from them the burden of proving that they did not consent to something. In that context I think it is right that a 16 year old girl is not legally able to consent to have sex with her father. True, but we already have rules about positions of trust and age limits such as a 25 year old teacher not being allowed to have sex with his 16 year old pupils even though other 25 year olds can. Something similar could apply to incest e.g. both parties must be at least 21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 True, but we already have rules about positions of trust and age limits such as a 25 year old teacher not being allowed to have sex with his 16 year old pupils even though other 25 year olds can. Something similar could apply to incest e.g. both parties must be at least 21. If you're going to go to the trouble of having special laws then what's the compelling reason to change the ones we have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 If you're going to go to the trouble of having special laws then what's the compelling reason to change the ones we have? For 99.999% of the population there is no compelling case for changing the laws on incest, it's an extremely minority issue. But for those 1-in-10 million cases where two close relatives really want that kind of relationship with each other, it must be completely agonising that they can't or that if they do they will be breaking the law. It's the same kind of pain that other sexual minorities like gays were put through in the past. The law shouldn't cause pain for people who aren't hurting anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 For 99.999% of the population there is no compelling case for changing the laws on incest, it's an extremely minority issue. But for those 1-in-10 million cases where two close relatives really want that kind of relationship with each other, it must be completely agonising that they can't or that if they do they will be breaking the law. It's the same kind of pain that other sexual minorities like gays were put through in the past. The law shouldn't cause pain for people who aren't hurting anybody. If you think it's equivalent then why the need for special exceptions in the consent laws? How should the law handle a brother and sister who conceive a child? What about the rights of the child? And emotional pain is neither here nor there. If the prevention of the infliction of emotional pain were the basis of the law then we'd have to start enacting all sorts of strange crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 If you think it's equivalent then why the need for special exceptions in the consent laws? How should the law handle a brother and sister who conceive a child? What about the rights of the child? And emotional pain is neither here nor there. If the prevention of the infliction of emotional pain were the basis of the law then we'd have to start enacting all sorts of strange crimes. Do you think the current UK incest laws are preventing more inbred children from being born than a new incest law which said you can do the deed but you can't conceive a child? It should be possible to figure this out empirically. For example France had no incest law until 2010 and the new law only prohibits sex between relatives where one of them is the legal/de facto guardian of the other i.e. other forms of incest are permitted. Incest between consenting adults is legal in the Netherlands and Portugal. In Germany the law only prevents pen1s-in-vagina intercourse. Are more children born of incestuous couples in these countries than in other similar European countries? If the answer is no then what is the benefit of UK-style incest laws? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Do you think the current UK incest laws are preventing more inbred children from being born than a new incest law which said you can do the deed but you can't conceive a child? So you do think this should be against the law? So what should the punishment for this new crime be? It seems to me that you're advocating complicating the law to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 So you do think this should be against the law? So what should the punishment for this new crime be? It seems to me that you're advocating complicating the law to solve a problem that doesn't exist. True. Maybe the best thing is just to abolish the incest laws as many European countries have done and leave it at that. I doubt that attempted fixes like the German p-in-v law or a 'no conception' law would have any practical impact. I also doubt that a blanket ban like the UK's has any impact on how people actually behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 True. Maybe the best thing is just to abolish the incest laws as many European countries have done and leave it at that. I doubt that attempted fixes like the German p-in-v law or a 'no conception' law would have any practical impact. I also doubt that a blanket ban like the UK's has any impact on how people actually behave. This is probably true in general - laws don't stop people doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattW Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Give it 20 secs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.