The rise of incest

215 posts

Flag Post

In the last few years, incest has risen. I don’t mean the 19th century cousin marries cousin. i mean in the last few years, the number of people of have had sex with their uncles/aunts or nephews/nieces has greatly risen. I have a friend who admits to having had f*cked their aunt in the past. share your theories
(or stories please) on this page.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jill_north:

In the last few years, incest has risen. I don’t mean the 19th century cousin marries cousin. i mean in the last few years, the number of people of have had sex with their uncles/aunts or nephews/nieces has greatly risen.

Sources would be nice.

And what’s there to discuss here? Do you think this is good/bad, that something should be done about it and if so, why?

 
Flag Post

I guess this works http://www.cwasu.org/page_display.asp?pageid=STATS&pagekey=88&itemkey=92
it just burdens me to see how many people abuse their children. why would you do that? if you need sex, hire a prostitute!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jill_north:

I guess this works http://www.cwasu.org/page_display.asp?pageid=STATS&pagekey=88&itemkey=92
it just burdens me to see how many people abuse their children. why would you do that? if you need sex, hire a prostitute!

You are mixing up incest with paedophilia and child sexual abuse.

 
Flag Post

Yes, if by incestuous sexual relations YOU are meaning between very close family members & are not of a consensual nature,,,
healthy or forced….
then most likely this “increase”—mostly “of late”—is probably due to the openness which it is now treated and the tremendous capabilities of modern media to do it.

Very likely, it has been happening (nearly as much as today?) for a long, looooonnngggg time in the past. Maybe such things just weren’t looked upon (by a particular segment of society) as either being all that bad (at the more “liberal” end of the BC) or either (at the other end of the BC as being it was so horrific that they didn’t want their “dirty laundry” exposed.

BUT, while the OP wasn’t all that clear about the initial purpose of the thread….
and using that ambiguity to sortta expand it to include “inappropriate” sexual relations w/ “children”….
something that has been on my mind for sometime is how severely “pedophiles” are treated in America (as opposed to other nations….of which I know little-2-nothing about).

Here in Wichita, a male school teacher was given 41 years in jail without parole for “sexual activity” w/ (at least 3?) female students of his. Their ages were 13, 15, & 16. Obviously these girls likely knew what sex is and the “unusualness” of it being done w/ an older male.

Yes, I completely understand that such pedo activity w/ children who haven’t a clue about what sexual activity is should be treated quite harshly. But, even that should be given consideration on how coerced it was and how much psychological damage was done….well, at least how much as can be determined.

But, to give a man 41 years w/o parole for having sex w/ girls who may have been very “cooperative” & are at an age w/ a goodly number of them are already sexually active seems a little “harsh” to me. Esp. if one factors in the reality that much more heinous crimes don’t receive such stern punishment.

The only rape that occurred was statutory.

 
Flag Post

When you say the incest movement, are you referring to genetic sexual attraction? This is basically a bunch of the “incesters” or would be incest-committers trying to gain legitimacy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

When you say the incest movement, are you referring to genetic sexual attraction? This is basically a bunch of the “incesters” or would be incest-committers trying to gain legitimacy.

From what I have read about GSA, they actually try to make people aware of this phenomenon and help to cope with it. They actually try to prevent sexual contract between relatives.

 
Flag Post

Yes, you’re right, that’s actually a better way to phrase it. When I said gain legitimacy, I meant that they presented it as a condition that was outside of their control. However, they do couch it as a cautionary tale most of the time, not something to necessarily be celebrated and enjoyed.

 
Flag Post

Jill_North, We can’t really discuss if you don’t show us some good examples. Find some statistics on the internet before we get any real serious discussion. This page seems like a joke.
Oh, LEL_OBSTER_ARMY, I really like your ‘SEND IN THE LOBSTERS!’ I just love random humor!
1

 
Flag Post

Is it a problem? Is it not just another orientation like pedophilia?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Benu01:

Is it a problem? Is it not just another orientation like pedophilia?

you have the worst opinions.

 
Flag Post

According to some people who do Incest, it just Happens, they just are attracted to their uncle/aunt, nephew/niece, Brother/sister. So yes, I do suppose it is just another orientation.

Look at his for an example www.medhelp.org/posts/Sexual-Health/…love-with-my-uncle/…/592955

 
Flag Post

It’s not another orientation. They are not attracted to close family members in general, but to individual ones.
That’s quite different from a sexual orientation. Genetic Sexual Attraction sounds much more reasonable than identifying being attracted to close family members as a sexual orientation.

Besides that, whether it is a sexual orientation or not doesn’t say anything about whether it is problematic or not.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. There is no real problem with it.
According to everything I have read, there is strong evidence that paedophilia is a sexual orientation. There obviously is a problem with that.

 
Flag Post

Genetic Sexual Attraction Actually sounds alot like it.
So in ‘Star wars’, When Luke falls in love with leia, It was not incest, But rather Genetic Sexual attraction this whole time.
After all, Incest would be when you know that you are related from the start, but purposely do it anyway cause it is what turns you on.
Genetic sexual attraction is where You are sexually attracted, without the knowledge to stop you, Making it more innocent, Interesting.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Bobneson:

Genetic Sexual Attraction Actually sounds alot like it.
So in ‘Star wars’, When Luke falls in love with leia, It was not incest, But rather Genetic Sexual attraction this whole time.

Incest can be a consequence of Genetic Sexual Attraction if those people decide to go all the way.
Incest is intercourse with a close family member (genetically related).
At what point did Luke and Leia get it on? I think you are getting your terms mixed up.

 
Flag Post

Guess I am, Sorry.
Let me get this strait, Incest Is sexual intercourse with a close family member. Genetic sexual attraction is Simply Sexual Interest to a close family member.

 
Flag Post

Perhaps some general data on incest is in order so that we might have some concurrence-of-concept to aid us in discussing this topic.

Incest is sexual intercourse between family members and close relatives.12 The term may apply to sexual intercourse between people in a consangueous relationship (“blood relations”), or related by affinity, such as members of the same household, step relatives, those related by adoption or marriage, or members of the same clan or lineage.3

The incest taboo is and has been one of the most widespread of all cultural taboos, both in present and in many past societies.4 Most modern societies have laws regarding incest or social restrictions on closely consanguineous marriages.5 In societies where it is illegal, consensual adult incest is seen by some as a victimless crime.67

The justification often given for the incest taboo is the impact of inbreeding on the children of incestuous sex. Children whose biological parents have a close genetic relationship have a greatly increased risk of congenital disorders, death and disability at least in part due to genetic diseases caused by the inbreeding.

On the other hand, most prohibitions on incest extend the categories of prohibited relationships to affinity relationships such as in-law relations, step relations, relations through adoption, among others.

So, it would appear that:
1)…the incest “taboo” is largely an very strong issue that is the result of enough sexual activity of close “blood relatives” to have produced a great enough negatives that a “trend” was so very equally strongly generated?

I am a little puzzled by this since the much more generally accepted paring of ppl ALSO results in quite a lot of negative births. I can’t help but wonder if the taboo isn’t more associated w/ the concept of aggravated pedophilia…an adult taking advantage of the naivete or the “power dynamics” of the parent-child relationship. In other words—and I mean OTHER WORDS—child sexual abuse by close relative. I don’t think I have ever heard such a situation referred to as: incestuous child abuse. Instead, sexual abuse by XXXXXX.

Maybe incest is such a taboo that even the word itself is too “scary” to use?

2)…since we no longer need to have any where near the concern about abnormal offspring because we have excellent birth control methods, is the taboo—sans the obvious “abuse” of it—still as necessary…esp. at the extreme level it currently is?

3)…esp. since that taboo extends to: (weirdly enough?) _ affinity relationships such as in-law relations, step relations, relations through adoption, among others_? Obviously there is NO “blood relative” involved here. So, there is equally NO chance of the “odd child” being produced. Is the taboo actually that STRONG to be extended so far?

My 3 sisters were very attractive during my “hormonal-crazy” days as a teen. And they were well beyond that. However, while I sexually desired females that very closely resembled them, I had nearly zip interest in pursuing such a relationship w/ them.

Where I am going w/ that is: why wouldn’t I? What about such early developed relationships w/in the family can cause this? I don’t particularly remember any strongly expressed “teachings” by my parents….or even the small community in which I was raised.

I think in this discussion about incest, we are leaving out the Freudian concepts of Oedipus & Electra Complexes. These certainly don’t appear to be what the “Genetic Sexual Attraction” explanation (of only a limited number?) of incest situations. Instead, Freud felt this was universal. I wonder how homosexuality would have fit into it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
At what point did Luke and Leia get it on? I think you are getting your terms mixed up.

The Luke/Leia getting on it thing is kind of a misnomer, and a running joke among Star Wars fans now. Basically, some of the (very) older books had alluded to a possible attraction between them, and this was before George Lucas had decided that Luke was going to have a twin sister. Of course, in the movie, when Leia kissed Luke, it was more to make Han Solo jealous than to exhibit any actual attraction to Luke. I think George Lucas later specified that any “closeness” they might have felt was a familiarity from being twins (before they knew they were twins), rather than an actual romantic attraction.

 
Flag Post

Can’t this cause genetic mutations?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by KingZeldar3:

Can’t this cause genetic mutations?

No.
High radiation can cause genetic mutations. Copy errors during the multiplication of cells can also cause them. This is actually the main reason for the genetic variety in populations.

Incest can increase the probability of recessive traits occurring in the offspring and it can in the long run lead to other disadvantages due to the gene pool not becoming as diverse as it could be with “random” assets becoming a part of the mix.

That being said, it is perfectly possible to get “normal” relationships (am I overusing quotation marks yet?) that have even higher chances of resulting in birth defects, hereditary diseases and disabilities, but these relationships would be perfectly alright legally; even if it was absolutely certain that any child from such a relationship would be heavily disabled.
The whole genetics argument against relationships with close family members is a huge display of double standards. The real reason for incest being outlawed is that it is a social taboo. It probably originated from these hereditary risks, but today they can be gauged and in the future probably even potentially fixed.

I see no reason for incest being illegal in this day and age.

 
Flag Post

There is surprisingly LOTS of pro-incest or “eh, I don’t really care if they do it” people on DeviantArt.. I’m really shocked.

http://www.deviantart.com/art/INCEST-193845981
http://www.deviantart.com/art/Incest-210310513
http://www.deviantart.com/art/Stamp-You-Ignorant-Shits-206883314
http://www.deviantart.com/art/Incest-Stamp-170920792

I’m just … I don’t understand why one could be in love with one of their family members. I mean, it’s basic psychology that if you spend enough time with a person you’ll eventually love them like family and have NO “eros” love directed towards them. Which explains why someone could possibly have a crush on their cousin if they rarely see them or this one episode in Law and Order SVU where the girl got pregnant by her father like, twice (and got rid of the babies after she had them) because she was in love with him because I THINK (if I remember) she was either adopted or he left the picture and she never knew who her father was. Well, she found him and fell in love while going to college in NYC and… yeah.

I think it’s fine to marry a cousin that’s like, once or twice removed since that is technical shit no one likes to explain or understand, LOL. Second cousins is pushing it since to me they’re basically first cousins with just a little nudge here or there on the family tree. Third cousins and on are perfectly fine.

I think if there HAD to be incest, it should only be between cousins since you have enough chemical variation that it would be a longshot if something crazy were to happen to their genes.

The whole “anti-incest” thing was propagated post Civil War in America because these scientists proposed that some “variation” was necessary in order to birth stronger children. And since this is the 1800s, strong babies are important. I’m still iffy about incest, but pushing my own beliefs aside, if the family hasn’t committed incest for a few generations, then I would assume genetically it’s “safe”. If the family’s been doing it for a few generations then they should get a few people outside of the family to have kids with so they can “refresh” their gene pool. Otherwise you’ll have everyone bleeding all over the place from hemophilia and whatnot.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MissMarionette:

I’m just … I don’t understand why one could be in love with one of their family members. I mean, it’s basic psychology that if you spend enough time with a person you’ll eventually love them like family and have NO “eros” love directed towards them.

So when you are in a relationship with someone your eros love towards them will vanish over time?
What’s the timespan?
Is there a formula to calculate the point in time when you don’t want to have sex with your girlfriend/wife anymore?

I think if there HAD to be incest, it should only be between cousins since you have enough chemical variation that it would be a longshot if something crazy were to happen to their genes.

Chemical variation… Anyway, do you also want to make sexual relationships between people illegal who have a genetic makeup that puts them at a massive risk to produce offspring with disabilities?

Will people have to get their DNA checked and compared before they are allowed to have unprotected sex?

 
Flag Post

Well, feel free to practice incest for a few generations, and then when can get some beeyootiful Elephant-Man Contest mugshots.

(and lots of expert hillbilly banjo players as a bonus)

;)

 
Flag Post

Is this that whole: “If everyone was gay humanity would die out,” slippery slope argument all over again, only this time used on incest?

I would just like to repeat something I have said earlier: today the risks can be gauged and in the future probably even potentially fixed.
Knowing the risks, it would be absolutely no problem to lead a responsible relationship with a close family member. If a child would very likely be born with a severe disability or even dead they could try not to get children. And if they still wish to, they will be able to prepare and deal with however healthy or unhealthy their children may be, just like any other couple with similar risks who are not banned from procreating.

Where is the problem?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

Is this that whole: “If everyone was gay humanity would die out,” slippery slope argument all over again, only this time used on incest?

I would just like to repeat something I have said earlier: today the risks can be gauged and in the future probably even potentially fixed.
Knowing the risks, it would be absolutely no problem to lead a responsible relationship with a close family member. If a child would very likely be born with a severe disability or even dead they could try not to get children. And if they still wish to, they will be able to prepare and deal with however healthy or unhealthy their children may be, just like any other couple with similar risks who are not banned from procreating.

Where is the problem?

1. Risks aren’t gauged these days, they’re ignored, for the “greater good”, and “fairness”.

2. A baby is more and more likely to be born with defects after every generation of incest. Simple genetics.

3. Which is why it’s banned in so many places.

Yes, it’s not for “Teh Evuhls”. Surprise.