By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Swiss government is considering legalizing sex between family members

Reasonable said:

Morally I couldn't care less - genetically it's bad news so I'd actually object on those grounds: bad for the species.


It is not necessarily bad news genetically either.  That would depend on the genetic fitness of adults in question.  For highly fit adults, genetics would actually favor such a union over a randomly selected mate.



Around the Network

@Doobie_wop

Even if you had a hot sister, there is a good chance that you probably wouldn't be sexually attracted to her if you grew up with her (if she was a recently adopted sister or a biological sister that you only met recently, that's another story). Plenty of guys consider my sister to be hot but I never did. For most people, they tend not to develop sexual attraction to people they grew up with as children (there is a lot of literature on this but I'm too lazy to dig up the journals and what not. This is pretty well known anyway no?). There are exceptions to the rule but they are just that, exceptions. Just like how pedophiles (people who are attracted to pre-pubescent children) are exceptions to the rule.

Even if Nancy Botwin from Weeds (one of my favorite MILFs) was my mom, it's unlikely I would have developed a sexual attraction to even her even though she's probably the hottest forty-something babe I've ever seen. Because that instinctual incest aversion is so strong in our human nature.



Chairman-Mao said:
Doobie_wop said:

I sometimes wish I had a really hot sister.


That's the grossest thing I've ever read

Is it? I don't know, I think it'd be pretty damn cool if my life turned into one big hentai fiasco. My talking dog would try and talk me out of my insecurities, I'd get to drive a mech to work every day, I'd randomly unleash powers I never knew I had, I'd always be stuck at the innocent age of 15 and I'd have a super model older sister to sex me up orally. That sounds like a pretty cool life, don't be jealous.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Naraku_Diabolos said:
Farmageddon said:
sapphi_snake said:
rocketpig said:

Mostly, no, it's not considered incest. In some places in the US it's illegal but marrying a first cousin is legal in almost all of Europe. I'm  not sure what the Catholic church's stance is on the subject, though.

Aha, anyways, incest should be legal between consenting adults. And so should adultery (it's illegal in my country).

I suppose if you think of marriage as a contract it makes sense.

Wagram said:

Animals can do it so why can't humans? What-ever floats their boat I suppose.



Sure, good thing animals don't do things like raping or eating each other's babies.

Now, I agree with the whole two consenting adults thing, but even if both are adults, the power dynamic can be pretty screwed when it comes to things like father on daugther. In such cases maybe you should have to get consent from a psychiatrist or something lol.

 


He, did you really miss the irony there?



loves2splooge said:

 (there is a lot of literature on this but I'm too lazy to dig up the journals and what not. This is pretty well known anyway no?)


I would really reallly appreciate the links



Around the Network
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:


Well... that's just messed up.  No offense.

I mean say my girlfriend and I were married, when we both graduated college only one of us was going to be able to go to graduate school for it to work, so she went to graduate school and I've just picked up various jobs I can find to get us through the bills.

If we were to get divorced after she graduated and bought a bunch of stuff, I can't prove I financially helped pay for stuff, but she'd of never gone through college without me.  Furthermore I gave up a definite high paying careerpath to let her go to college so it'd work for her finanically since she cares more about what she does then I do.  (Had connections through a proffessor that would of probably ensured me a very high paying job.)

To not consider the effect the marriage has one the partner is crazy.


I mean, what about people who COULD of gotten education or another job, but stay home because they want to be good parents?  It just seems like an insentive against good parenting.

I was reading more about this, and appearently everything obtaind together withing the marriage is split 50-50 (though you can prove that you financially contributed more, and are entitled to more that 50%).

If you were satying home taking care fo the kids/being a housewife or househusband, that is taken into account also But not the whole "I gave up going to college for..." nonsesnse, after all this is a court of law, not a soap opera set. If you did the part that I bolded, then you sir are an idiot. Also, the fact that you don't have an education is not important. If you can get a job, then you don't get allimony, and the only reason valid for not getting a job is a dissability (I think this is very fair).


For giving up a good job so someone can be happy with what they do in life?  I don't see why.

If I made 6 figuers a year, my general life wouldn't change much at all.  Money generally holds little use for me once I get past the neccesisties and a few creature comforts.

I'd probably buy an extra videogame every month or two, buy the new systems when they come out... and that'd be it.


The rest would just go in the bank... and since I'm never going to have kids and my parents have my Dad's retirement... i'd have no use for it.

I'd probably end up just donating everything over 40K to charity after the first couple years.

I'd rather her get a job she likes more and finds fufilling and be freed up to try and pursue less matieralistic goals myself quite honestly.

Money ain't everything, heck it isn't anything but a tool.  If you are already happy, it's quite useless.

Heck, I'd even call it a burden... you don't want it and you gotta give it away.  People treating you all differently if you give it away to people you know, people resent you if you don't.

Being rich is a burden.  It's better then being poor... but making just enough so you can live a fufilling life, that's where it's at.



Also, that stuff totally should matter, because your life would of took a completely different career path if the person you married didn't turn out to be such a deceptive douche.

I mean take for example the very common example of people changing or leaving a job because their mate lives in another country.  Direct earning potential completely destroyed there... if you didn't move due to their direct deception and false advertising of themselves you'd be way higher up career wise rather then having to start over.

If it was a buisenss they'd be fined by the government like hell for that.



Hephaestos said:
Chairman-Mao said:
Hephaestos said:
Chairman-Mao said:


Yeah I was going through a phase where I really hated China for a while there. Now I've moved on to hating the Islamic religion (not the people, but the religion itself). 

Anyways what I said was wrong and so is wishing you had a hot sister that you could do it with.


you're aware the girls in your pic are sisters? (and prevent me from nonchalently opening vgc at work ^^)

lol that's kinda funny, didn't know that. I originally put it up to counter one user that had a couple cartoon guys kissing with no shirts on. 

oh that was a joke, you didn't have to change it =D (new one is christmassy though)


hahaha that's cool it had run its course anyways :) and thanks!



Doobie_wop said:
Chairman-Mao said:
Doobie_wop said:

I sometimes wish I had a really hot sister.


That's the grossest thing I've ever read

Is it? I don't know, I think it'd be pretty damn cool if my life turned into one big hentai fiasco. My talking dog would try and talk me out of my insecurities, I'd get to drive a mech to work every day, I'd randomly unleash powers I never knew I had, I'd always be stuck at the innocent age of 15 and I'd have a super model older sister to sex me up orally. That sounds like a pretty cool life, don't be jealous.


I'm going to spend the next 30 minutes or so trying to erase my memory. Maybe if I stick this pen far enough up my nose I'll forget what I just read.



Kasz216 said:
Reasonable said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Reasonable said:
Kasz216 said:
Reasonable said:

Morally I couldn't care less - genetically it's bad news so I'd actually object on those grounds: bad for the species.


Doesn't it take like... dozens of generations of inbreeding to show effects?

The only real issue is genetic diseases becuase your basically guranteeing it will strike

Yeah but so what?  It's still going to happen.  It's not like people will say "well, we'll just have a couple of generations of incest then stop'.  The risk will be there.  Also, a lot of evolution theory indicates that changes can be pretty quick.  Certainly if we're talking people with genetic diseases you're going to see very quick effects, as you say.

Note I'm not talking about sex that's protected but reproduction.  You're basically increasing the odds per generation of weaker, more disease prone children.  I know I wouldn't feel too happy if I was a tenth generation incest child with a lot of physical issues.

It's just not a good idea from any genetic perspective.

Why not, if your extended family or whatever has *good* genes, lacking any particular recessive traits, though that veers dangerously close to the old arguments for eugenics (which then bound into racism, state racism, holocaust, etc etc)

Does it veer anymore near eugentics then banning incest because of fear of inferior genes? 

Plus it's a lopsided law since it ignores the fact that there are a lot of people with negative recessive genes who marry each other that doesn't qualify as incest.

The real "logical" version of a law that prevents incest on genetic means would be...

"Before reporoducing (or I guess having sex in general) you must be tested for genetic diseases, and if you have these you can not have sex with anyone else who has one of those recessive genes."


Would such a law be benefical to the human race?  I could see it being so, but it's awfully damn restrictive.

You see it happen all the time with non-related families, people who keep having kids they know are gentically likely to have mental disorders.  You can't just tell them to NOT have kids.  Then again, you may be for such a thing, what with the afore mentioned authortarian liberal stance and in such a thing does cost the state. (Much like the healthcare arguement for the personal mandate.)


Ah Gattaca...

It's an interesting debate, because, removing religious/moral views, it's really about where a society draws the line in terms of the species wellfare vs desired freedoms.

My view is simple enough - allowing direct incest probably stands to raise the probability of long term genetic disorders too high, hence why it should be avoided.  Telling people not to have children is always iffy, even though sometimes technically it would make more sense.

As the ability to test for disorders and genetic traits increases this is sure to become more and more of a hot topic - I mean in general, not specific to incest!

I don't actually know but would presume that current laws stem more from religious roots, which themselves, in a common sense fashion, probably stem from smaller settlements and tribes seeking to curb incest to enrich the gene pool - not that it would have been understood in quite those terms historically.


That tends to be how most religious based laws are made... at first anyway.  I mean, hypothetically speaking, it doesn't take a genius to see why Jewish dietary laws might of been made, mixed fibers may have had to do with trade disputes etc.

 

As you can guess, I'm of the belief that personal freedoms should reign supreme.  Hence why I am less bullish on social welfare.  People should be able to make any stupid decision they want, but the rest of the country shouldn't have to pay for it.

Some sort of economic incentive against incest and other genetic breeding issues I can see... but I can't see outright laws banning it.

Well, that's the tough bit, isn't it?  I mean I believe absolutely in personal freedoms, but because one person's freedom can encroach upon another's you need some sort of check otherwise there is some form of conflict.

Being in Europe, with a lot of medical/social support, I feel that there has to be something to check people overly burdening the system - and by extension me - due to their own stupidity.

This particular angle interestes me because I find it interesting to consider how we will adapt as we discover more about ourselves as a species, as evolution becomes better understood - because TBH most people don't have the faintest clue about it really - and the question of personal freedom in the now vs the long term interests of the species arise.

Incest clearly falls into that bracket, in terms of currently we know it's a bad idea genetically, therefore while it may not directly affect two consenting adults who are siblings, it does stand to affect their decendants and not in a good way.  It also potenially crosses the boundary into placing burdens on welfare if it increases the number of children with disabilities needing care.  If you extend the point, it also crosses into the parent/child personal freedom boundary which is also a tough one - should a child have to tolerate higher chance of illness, etc. or potentially be seen as a bit of a social outcast because of poor decisions by its parents?

It's interesting in Switzerland as well as the country is fairly introverted and has a relatively small population - not the best scenario for allowing incest.  If you were going to allow incest ideally you want a big, travelling population that is much more likely to balance any incest with other couplings.

No easy answers - there never are in reality.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...