Do you find incest wrong?

[Buccura]

Well, technically it's not wrong if it's consensual, though if it does lead to a child then that can lead to health problems to the child, both physically and mentally.

Otherwise, though, I pretty much take the stance that whatever people do in private is their own business.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Assuming we are talking two consenting adults, I think that's between them.

You can find something morally abhorrent and still think it shouldn't be a crime.

And that's kinda where I fall on the issue. Sorry folks

 

[Hatchet90]

Yes, it's wrong and I'm not going further into the topic. Sometimes I wonder the kind of people who actually visit this site, and I shudder.

 

[Vivi22]

When it comes to procreation it's obviously wrong

Is it? The only arguments I've ever heard for procreation with a relative being objectively wrong is reduced genetic diversity within family lines reducing the possibility for survival, and an increased potential for children with genetic disorders if the parents are carriers.

But the former is negligible from an evolutionary standpoint; nature doesn't care if genetic diversity is reduced, only that something is fit to survive, and social taboo's, combined with the sort of relationships that normally form between family members would be sufficient to prevent this from being a species wide problem. And as for the latter, you can't say it's absolutely wrong unless you're prepared to say that any two people having children if they're carriers of a genetic disorder is wrong. And perhaps it may have been when society didn't have the resources to care for such children, but that's not necessarily the case these days. Point being, we don't lock up people who know they are carriers for a genetic illness and still decide to have children. It's their decision and one they take responsibility for.

So personally, I can't think of a valid reason to be against it if we're talking about consenting adults. It's certainly natural to find it strange since most normal family relationships don't develop to become sexual in nature so most people will find it strange. But I find it hard to see it as being objectively wrong.

 

[Fusioncode9]

Yes I think it's wrong and I'm not even going to bother explaining why.

 

[Nietzschen]

Incest? you must mean Wincest ami rite /b/rothers.

But tbh sex is fine children are not.

 

[CaspianRoach]

People's disgust with incest is based off social norms which are based off years of observation of interbreeding and all that stuff. Since we have the technology/intelligence to prevent mutations and stuff ? be it surrogate mother/father or just adopting a child it should not be a problem at all. Social norms are slow to change but eventually they will.

 

[Yassen]

This one of those those touchy subjects that I comment on when using the words "It's fine under certain conditions." The most obvious of which is that they're both consenting adults.

Procreation is fine but children can lead to problems, however a one-shot incest baby won't necessarily lead to deformities, so I'd discourage it but not say it's outright wrong.

I say this because it's their love-life and why should I decide what they do with it if it doesn't hurt anyone else? Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean it's evil. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of having sex with another man but I'll gladly fight to let people have that opportunity if they wanted it.

In short, just because it's not something you would do doesn't make it wrong. Just makes it different.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

If two hot latina twins consenting adults who happen to be related want to get it on make love I will pay good money for the the privilege of jacking off to it don't see any real problem with that.

edit-

Incest? you must mean Wincest ami rite /b/rothers.

But tbh sex is fine children are not.

Go back to /b/.
Or hell, don't even go back to /b/.
Just keep this sort of shit to yourself.
Shit like this is what ruined /b/.

If I had to sum up my advice to you in two words I'd be torn between "lurk more" and "don't post".

 

[Laser Priest]

If it is just between one pair of relatives, it's uncomfortable, but not flat out wrong.

When it spans generations, though, then it is just genetically damaging.

 

[kickyourass]

I don't think it's wrong, I do however thing that it's gross. Sorta like eating something like soft roe (Look it up I'm not explaining) if people want to eat it they should, I just think it's kind of a gross thing to eat and I do not want to eat soft roe at all.

Make sense?

 

[AngloDoom]

When it comes to procreation it's obviously wrong

Is it? The only arguments I've ever heard for procreation with a relative being objectively wrong is reduced genetic diversity within family lines reducing the possibility for survival, and an increased potential for children with genetic disorders if the parents are carriers.

But the former is negligible from an evolutionary standpoint; nature doesn't care if genetic diversity is reduced, only that something is fit to survive, and social taboo's, combined with the sort of relationships that normally form between family members would be sufficient to prevent this from being a species wide problem. And as for the latter, you can't say it's absolutely wrong unless you're prepared to say that any two people having children if they're carriers of a genetic disorder is wrong. And perhaps it may have been when society didn't have the resources to care for such children, but that's not necessarily the case these days. Point being, we don't lock up people who know they are carriers for a genetic illness and still decide to have children. It's their decision and one they take responsibility for.

So personally, I can't think of a valid reason to be against it if we're talking about consenting adults. It's certainly natural to find it strange since most normal family relationships don't develop to become sexual in nature so most people will find it strange. But I find it hard to see it as being objectively wrong.

I am the type of person who believes who believes that two parents who decide to have a child, knowing there's a good chance that the child will have difficulty in life are quite irresponsible. I'll admit I have no idea how much incest does affect people in terms of deformity or otherwise, but I almost see it as selfishness on the parent's behalf about having a pet baby so much they don't mind how much difficulty it'll have in life.

Also, please excuse me if I seem hostile or distracted...two days without sleep. ><

 

[prince_xedar]

I dunno, never tried.

A related question, though, do you find the idea of sisters (preferably twins) having sex to be less wrong than other forms of incest? Alot of people seem to for some reason.

Its not incest if you do it to your self.(twins share DNA)
Anyways i think people should do what they want...

doesnt that techniqually make it masterbation??
all jokes aside, love is a fickle beast and as long as it isnt for procreation (using condoms, pill etc.) then i think its ok.

 

[AngloDoom]

I dunno, never tried.

A related question, though, do you find the idea of sisters (preferably twins) having sex to be less wrong than other forms of incest? Alot of people seem to for some reason.

I imagine it's the same people who want 'lesbian girlfriends' because, y'know, they'd never cheat on them and they'd be up for a threesome.

Ok, yeah, I understand that, but I heard somewhere that most lesbians have sex with people who aren't members of their family. Seems very odd.

...

No mention of royal families yet?

From my experience, people who say such things as "yeah, but lesbians are girls and all girls like a bit of cock" aren't prone to using logic to dictate their fantasies. Plus, I'd imagine it's harder being a gay guy than women, simply because two men kissing is often 'urgh' while two women kissing is often whooped. To the point that straight girls do it for attention...

I have no idea how incestuous the royal family is, if I'm honest.