First  Prev  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  Next  Last
Post Reply Animes Where the boy ends up with sister
3201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 8/23/13
I don't think there's anything inherently immoral with incest, but that there easily could be. I don't think we should shame adults who consent but we should be aware that the circumstances leading to incest could be abusive, coercive, and taking advantage of people. This is especially so when there is a power and age imbalance. I watched Oreimo and was sickened by the panty shots and the h-games featuring underage characters.

But the argument against all incest because of birth defects is ignorant. Reproduction between two family members is not guaranteed and in some cases (same sex family members, for example) may not even be naturally possible.
15778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/23/13 , edited 8/23/13
just browsing through the genetics posts for the lol's. just to be clear, those numbers are based on the progeny from the f1 right?

incest genetics is a touchy subject and there's a shit ton of calculations behind it if you're looking for a particular mutation. maybe someday a kind Dr. ??? (or anyone from the bio dept.) will drop the reality bomb and elaborate for you guys.






now i normally shit on wiki(use scholarly articles), but you are good person for leading them closer to a conclusion
87647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / This Dying World
Offline
Posted 8/23/13 , edited 8/23/13
because society has said to us if you make incest babies

your babies are from Satan, mutated retarded babies with horrible faces...

^^^ not true to a degree

edit: also unnamed hentai >.>
12699 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 8/23/13

bemused_Bohemian wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:


twintiger12 wrote:

I saw a thread on MAL that, I don't know if people are serious or not, support incest with all the reasons as for gay marriage. LOL, that's actually messed up.

Considering I'm old enough to have grown up in a time when it was quite common to use the same terms used for any type of homosexual relationship as I see be used here about incestous ones, how is it "messed up"?

Please explain using logical, non-emotional reasoning why one is acceptable and the other is not, other than that the society you have grown up in has become accepting of one and not the other.


I wonder if the Romans thought along these lines?


Look it up. The historical answers may surprise you. It hasn't been that long ago in human history where children were considered miniature adults rather than just kids as the way we view them today.

As for brother--sister hook-ups in anime I always liked the sensitive portrayal touched upon in Koi Kaze.



Clearly. So is that an argument in defense of anything? "Loving" unconventional people or things isn't new. Whether or not it's appropriate is up to the law of your land. Whether its good for evolution? That is a lot easier to answer. It can be something big like choosing to go out and clog a giraffe's pipes or something small like going to the room next door and ravaging your sister. Nature says is not compatible just to varying degrees. But the interesting bit is humans have evolved past the point of giving a fuck about what nature thinks.
The Wise Wizard
79337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 8/23/13

twintiger12 wrote:
I said it's messed up because the thread give me the impression that they lump gay marriage and incest together, which does not sit right for me; they are different matters. It's like saying if you support gay marriage, you should support incest. It's true that the thread did not specifically define incest.

For me, you can't not speak about incest without involving emotion. IMO, it's morally unacceptable. As human, there are some moral lines that we should not cross.

In the scientists' point of view, as some previous posts have stated, incest greatly increases birth defects and illness, etc. As our technology and medicine advancing, the death rate due to illness become lower; we are no longer subject to natural selection. Many people with illness can live longer and have children, and they pass down all those recessive genes to next generations. In another words, the gene pool of human is very weak compared to other animals.

The entire argument related to genetic issues can be quickly put to rest: What if a couple that decides to engage in a incestous relationship also takes measures to assure they have no children?

Once upon a time, that would be unacceptable for one of the same reasons a homosexual relationship wasn't acceptable; you were not producing children. While that was quite important throughout much of humankind's history on earth, it would be hard to argue that it is now.

So what other reasons were there for the incest taboo?

The other was that if widely practiced, it would lead to families closing in on themselves and forming insular communities. That isn't likely to happen in today's highly mobile society, and one where even many families themselves are fragmented.


Back to the genetics factor, this is overblown in many people's minds. They think that if two closely related people have a child they are rolling the dice on the child having problems, with the odds strongly against them. In fact, two closely related people would have a healthy child more often than not. Is the risk greater? Yes. Frankly, I look forward to the day when genetic screening is so thorough and cheap that it is required for anyone getting married and strongly recommended for anyone that is planning to have children. There are people that are completely unrelated to each other that should never risk having children, just as there are people that are related that would actually be at lower risk than your average unrelated couple.

You are correct about the weakness of the human gene pool vs. many animals. Although I can't say I vetted it with other sources, I once read that the genetic variations of a single tribe of chimpanzees is greater than that between humans living continents apart. Given that there is evidence that at one point in human history our population was reduced to being measured in mere thousands, it is certainly believable.


As I stated earlier, however, if take steps to assure no children will be born, then any argument regarding genetics gets completely tossed out the window.

15778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/23/13
how did you guys feel about the ending of the aki-sora manga?
10576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / ninja mode
Offline
Posted 8/23/13
japan seems to have a odd interest in incest. I also noticed first cousins are allowed to marry in a lot of places.
6577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/23/13
Incest is bad. Romantic relationships are supposed to grow families, not confine them.
10576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / ninja mode
Offline
Posted 8/23/13

SakataGintoki wrote:

unnatural, aberrant, abnormal, disgusting


I'm surprised your username wasn't taken:)
24041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/23/13

RolexKid wrote:

how did you guys feel about the ending of the aki-sora manga?


I don't feel a thing. No matter what you look, that manga is a h-manga with a plot.

That guy (Sora) puts Makoto from School Days to shame.
3201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 8/24/13

Angerudusto wrote:

Incest is bad. Romantic relationships are supposed to grow families, not confine them.


By your logic, couples who do not reproduce have a bad relationship. Are you willing to say that?
16959 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 8/24/13
I feel the same way about this topic as I do spiders. Nope nope nope nope nope nope.
6577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/24/13

justapersonwatchinganime wrote:


Angerudusto wrote:

Incest is bad. Romantic relationships are supposed to grow families, not confine them.


By your logic, couples who do not reproduce have a bad relationship. Are you willing to say that?


Where do I talk about reproduction? Don't put words in my mouth. Or text in my comments.
26209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/24/13

Angerudusto wrote:


justapersonwatchinganime wrote:


Angerudusto wrote:

Incest is bad. Romantic relationships are supposed to grow families, not confine them.


By your logic, couples who do not reproduce have a bad relationship. Are you willing to say that?


Where do I talk about reproduction? Don't put words in my mouth. Or text in my comments.


Well when you say GROW families it definitely, unquestionably, 100% implies reproduction. Just saying as an unbiased observer.
26209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/24/13

TheAncientOne wrote:


twintiger12 wrote:
I said it's messed up because the thread give me the impression that they lump gay marriage and incest together, which does not sit right for me; they are different matters. It's like saying if you support gay marriage, you should support incest. It's true that the thread did not specifically define incest.

For me, you can't not speak about incest without involving emotion. IMO, it's morally unacceptable. As human, there are some moral lines that we should not cross.

In the scientists' point of view, as some previous posts have stated, incest greatly increases birth defects and illness, etc. As our technology and medicine advancing, the death rate due to illness become lower; we are no longer subject to natural selection. Many people with illness can live longer and have children, and they pass down all those recessive genes to next generations. In another words, the gene pool of human is very weak compared to other animals.

The entire argument related to genetic issues can be quickly put to rest: What if a couple that decides to engage in a incestous relationship also takes measures to assure they have no children?

Once upon a time, that would be unacceptable for one of the same reasons a homosexual relationship wasn't acceptable; you were not producing children. While that was quite important throughout much of humankind's history on earth, it would be hard to argue that it is now.

So what other reasons were there for the incest taboo?

The other was that if widely practiced, it would lead to families closing in on themselves and forming insular communities. That isn't likely to happen in today's highly mobile society, and one where even many families themselves are fragmented.


Back to the genetics factor, this is overblown in many people's minds. They think that if two closely related people have a child they are rolling the dice on the child having problems, with the odds strongly against them. In fact, two closely related people would have a healthy child more often than not. Is the risk greater? Yes. Frankly, I look forward to the day when genetic screening is so thorough and cheap that it is required for anyone getting married and strongly recommended for anyone that is planning to have children. There are people that are completely unrelated to each other that should never risk having children, just as there are people that are related that would actually be at lower risk than your average unrelated couple.

You are correct about the weakness of the human gene pool vs. many animals. Although I can't say I vetted it with other sources, I once read that the genetic variations of a single tribe of chimpanzees is greater than that between humans living continents apart. Given that there is evidence that at one point in human history our population was reduced to being measured in mere thousands, it is certainly believable.


As I stated earlier, however, if take steps to assure no children will be born, then any argument regarding genetics gets completely tossed out the window.



I am so surprised that anyone on here actually made this point. I read a few passages, and while not putting in my own opinion I do say kudos to asking the correct and morally prevalent question .
First  Prev  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.