I'm gonna regret this...
But why the mix of finger-pointing, outrage and hilarity?

Suppose A sleeps with B. Assuming it was consensual, why on Earth is it important that they're closely related?

And, no: I don't have a sister.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:30, 185 replies, latest was 10 years ago)

But if you *did* have a sister, you'd be balls deep in her right now, right?

( Theoban What of it, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:33, Reply)

Whooosh!
That's the sound of the point of the question going right over your head.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:36, Reply)

Sorry can't talk, boning my sister

( Theoban What of it, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:38, Reply)

Is she the family roast for tomorrow?

( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:42, Reply)

Yeah
It's a pain in the arse though when the parsnips roll off her back
( Theoban What of it, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:43, Reply)

Very interesting.
I assume it is because if one comes on here and attack other people for some aspect of their existence, then reveal a massive flaw in your own, that is worthy of a bit of a kicking.

It is all very wasteful of time and effort. Except the drawings, which are ace.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:41, Reply)

You're still buying into the idea that there's something wrong about it though -
otherwise why use the phrase "massive flaw"?

I'm also willing to bet that there wouldn't be nearly so much (mock) outrage, finger-pointing and hilarity if it'd been anything else. So the question stands: what's so special about siblings sleeping together.

I'm genuinely puzzled about why siblings A and B sleeping together is any different from non-siblings C and D doing so.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:46, Reply)

There wouldn't be so much (mock) outrage, finger-pointing and hilarity if it'd been anyone else
The user in question is one that's made quite a name for himself for being generally unpleasant to folks, so the community bit back.
( Theoban What of it, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:49, Reply)

^This too^

( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:55, Reply)

=

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:53, Reply)

?

( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:54, Reply)

Mornin Roota. Good day planned?

( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:56, Reply)

Nowt special, just the first Saturday at home to myself in a while.
Oh and my uncle Terry's coming round to fix my shower.
You?
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:57, Reply)

Pre holiday shopping
Walking boots, maps, wine. Pack tomorrow, and down to New Forest to pick up GF then off to Devon for a week. I need it.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:03, Reply)

Ha! I was just reading that when the cat ran across the keyboard!
He is evidently anti-incest.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:56, Reply)

Ok, Now we are talking about incest.
If you buy into the gene theory (Dawkins etc) then it says that most animals don't do incest if they can help it because it does the genes no good. The genes "tell" us this by making our brains react negativly to incest. Hence the reaction to the idea in this forum.

You know this stuff Mr Enzyme, don't you?
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:54, Reply)

That won't wash, for several reasons.
I don't think that your claim about "most animals" stands scrutiny. I don't think that tigers carry photographs of their siblings about the place; and incest is frequent among bonobos and many other pack animals.

Even if we allow that "it does the genes no good", that won't explain the putative wrongness. There're a lot of things that're biologically counterproductive, but that don't attract anything like the same outrage. Moreover, a claim about the facts of biology is value-free: it still remains to be seen where the moral aspect gets imported.

More importantly, we're talking about sleeping with B, not having a child with them. You can presumably tell the difference.

But suppose there was a child conceived: so what? For the first generation, the risks to the child are still quite low; and, anyway, the chances are that, whatever its genetic inheritance, the child would still have a life worth living - so it would be unable to claim that it would have been better off never having come to exist. It is neither harmed nor wronged by being brought to birth.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:06, Reply)

The outrage has been programmed into us, by our genes.
The possibility of conception always follows sex so we judge it badly irrespecive of the result.

The genes act long term, and "know" that self replication in the body they inhabit is not the best way for strong genes to survive. It is a possible, but not desirable.

You may be able to observe the animal kingdom from outside of it Mr E, but most animals cannot. This is not really a thought experiment, the reaction of people is what they feel, not what they reason.

I think your first points are explored, if not answered, by knowing that many animals have a scent memory of each other, and bonobos use intercourse for other purposes, such as communication and pack order, rather than just for sexual intercourse.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:19, Reply)

If your first claim is correct, though - and you've produced no evidence for it -
it doesn't explain why (or if) that outrage is justified. And suppose someone feels no outrage - someone like me, for example: is that a sign of faulty genes? What then?

Genes don't know anything. Genes don't care about the strong surviving long-term. Genes "care" about replication to the next generation, and they have better or worse strategies for that. Still, though, there's nothing going on morally there - we're in the realm of bare facts.

I don't understand your final point. Even if we assume that just about no nonhuman actually does ever mate with a sibling - which I find very hard to believe - so what? It doesn't tell us the first thing about those rare occasions when something like that does happen. And your point about bonobos is one I can't fathom - you seem to be saying that bonobos have sex for reasons other than sex. Well, what's the difference here with A and B? Couldn't exactly the same apply - even assuming that the reasons for having sex matter much?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:29, Reply)

In no particular order,
I know I have produced no evidence, I thought you had read The selfish Gene, and such books. Maybe you should.

I put Know in quotes, I know they don't have a brain. See above.

See above. I understood that proper scientists and medical people have done research which shows that having sex with a sibling can lead to higher risk of deformities.

As for bonobos they do have sex as a form of greeting and generally communicate by shagging. This is well known, and has been on BBC2 and channel 5.

Now, I'm off out. Stop being a thicky, it suits you not.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:38, Reply)

OK - so it leads to a higher risk of deformities.
So what? Unless you think that we're obliged to have the healthiest possible children - in which case, just about all sex is wrong when IVF could be used to screen embryos - it's neither here nor there. Almost all children will lead a worthwhile life.

And, as I said before, the question here is in respect to sex, not procreation, so you're shifting the debate anyway.

As for the bonobos - yes: they have sex for all kinds of reasons. So do humans. I can't see why you think this important.

This isn't me being thick: it's just me refusing to give in to the yuck-reaction, which seems to be all you have.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:44, Reply)

is there anything wrong with just having that yuck reaction though?

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:49, Reply)

No -
But that's because I don't think it has any moral value whatsoever; nor does it indicate anything that does. So when it comes to moral debates, if all you've got is the yuck reaction, you ain't got much.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:03, Reply)

it's taken me a while
having not really woken up properly yet, but now I see where you are coming from.

I'm not one for moral judgements, and can fully state my reaction to the news was entirely "ewww", but then that wouldn't be much different from my reaction to anyone shagging Bert.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:10, Reply)

I'm not so sure it's our genes
controlling the fundamental distaste, but there is a reason for it. I think it's called Westermark Syndrome (no doubt spelt wrong) that prevents us from feeling sexual attraction to close relatives, though the effects are not found amongst siblings both full and half who were brought up away from each other (who sometimes experience the opposite- strong attraction when they finally meet) which would argue it is a socialisation aspect.

Regardless of morality, the main reason people find it tasteless in the extreme is a) the possibility of children and b) because the question inevitably is 'if someone else has fucked their sibling, does that mean inside me is the potential to do the same' which thanks to our conditioning and prior Westermark syndrome inspires revulsion. I mean even thinking about it makes me feel pretty sick
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:38, Reply)

But in this case, the prevention clearly didn't hold.
And more generally, suppose it doesn't hold in any other case: well, so what? (Think of it this way: most people are biologically disposed against doing all kinds of things - drinking paint, for example. But suppose one day I did drink paint. It's hard to see why that's morally interesting; it seems rather simply to be that I am not averse to something that you are. Anthropologically interesting, maybe; psychologically too. But morally? I don't see it.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:47, Reply)

As far as I know
Bert continually referred to her as his long lost sister. He also mentioned that they first met as grownups. i.e. genetic sexual attraction could have played a part. As I mentioned Westermark syndrome does not hold true if the children are seperated on growing up.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:49, Reply)

Yeah.
But that leaves the question of whether "normal" patterns of attraction and revulsion are morally important. The biology of it is just that - bare biology.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:50, Reply)

Well my own position
is the incest between siblings while undesirable and repulsive to me personally is their own business *as long as* they don't have children. If they want children it becomes morally objectionable.

I also think regardless of siblings, that intergenerational incest is just wrong. Morally wrong, and that covers consent, coercion, and whole number of other factors
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:59, Reply)

reading between the lines here
you are telling us you want to shag your siblings?

given that you thrive on the undesirable and repulsive
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:14, Reply)

Thanks for the vote of confidence Vipros
I'd never want to shag a sibling, especially not when I saw that video of you and your brother. Did you really have to stop 10 seconds in, and go 'shall I go get dad as well?'
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:16, Reply)

I'm leaving now
you have spoiled the internet for me forever.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:17, Reply)

click 'I like this'
before you leave, so everyone can know the sordid truth
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:20, Reply)

"regardless of siblings, that intergenerational incest is just wrong. Morally wrong, and that covers consent, coercion, and whole number of other factors"

Why is that distinct from sibling incest? If the parent is in their 60s and ane and healthy, the 'child' is in their 30s and to all intents and purposes, sane and healthy, why shouldn't they get oiled up and pornfuck?

The same moral objections apply to sibling incest as to intergenerational in this example.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:16, Reply)

I don't think they do
there is far less liklihood amongst siblings that one exercises undue control over the other, while in a parent-child relationship there is of necessity a relationship of power-submission that makes it morally far worse, since the line between consent and coercion is so close
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:19, Reply)

Because in this case A is a massive cunt.

( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:48, Reply)

You may not have noticed,
but there's no shortage of them in these parts.

Moreover, being a massive cunt (irrespective of who A is in any given case) doesn't normally provoke such a response. It's this particular circumstance that's attracted all the attention- and that's what prompts the question. Why this, in particular?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:58, Reply)

Maybe not the circumstance so much as the person.
I am sure if Monty had admitted such with much hand-wringing and angst the reaction would have been different. It wasn't though, it was Bert and thereby hangs the tail.*

*not a typo
(porkylips looks better as the sun goes down., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:00, Reply)

You are right Porky, but then we know Monty is prone to do unusual things.
Monty also freely admits his flaws.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:05, Reply)

Irritating cunt hands loaded gun to audience.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? FIND OUT AFTER THE BREAK.

We all take the piss out of each other here. If you say you like mayonaise you'll get insulted. If you say you're a Christian you'll get insulted. If you say hello you'll get insulted.

Why should it be any different if you say you fucked your sister?
( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:02, Reply)

Bollocks, I've just had my salad cream blessed by the Pope.
I'm for it now.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:07, Reply)

That's my point.
I don't see why it should be any different. Someone admitting to being a Christian won't provoke several new threads and an entry into AB's archive, though.

Clearly, /OT thinks that this is different. I don't see why.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:12, Reply)

You really can't see why someone admitting to having sex with their sister isn't worthy of attention?
Are you from Shelbyville?
( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:21, Reply)

Really.
And no.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:23, Reply)

What are your personal and moral limits?
For life in general.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:26, Reply)

That's an impossibly broad question.

( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:49, Reply)

Your mum is impossibly broad.
Oh yeah.
ZING!
*high fives*
( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:55, Reply)

DR P ADMITS LOVE OF CHRISTIANITY AND MAYONNAISE
MORE ON PAGE 7, IRISH DAILY MAIL
( Theoban What of it, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:17, Reply)

Do you geuninely not understand all the fuss?
Do you think people seeing their siblings as viable sexual partners is truly ok?
Or are you just trying to inspire an interesting debate?
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:08, Reply)

No, I genuinely do not understand the fuss.
As I said in the OP, if two people perfectly consensually want to have sex, then it's hard to see why it's anyone else's business.

That's not the same as endorsing it: I just don't see why it should create such a stir.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:11, Reply)

Fortunately you don't have any siblings,
so it won't be an issue for you.
I do think that might be one of the reasons you're finding it hard to grasp.
I am also an only child and really love the film Close My Eyes. My friends with siblings find it a bit disturbing.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:16, Reply)

I'd just like to say here that if anyone has any sisters they're not sexing, I'll happily take them

( Theoban What of it, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:21, Reply)

You can have one of mine.
In fact, I'll pay you.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:24, Reply)

Hooray!
It's all coming up Theoban
( Theoban What of it, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:25, Reply)

Careful, she is a massive bitch.

( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:27, Reply)

YES
SCORE
( Theoban What of it, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:31, Reply)

I thought Enzyme had a brother.
Hang on... Enzyme, tell me you haven't...
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:28, Reply)

Ewwww.
Noooooo!
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:39, Reply)

And there you go.
I have just made a tongue in cheek allusion to you having carnal knowledge of your brother, but it's clear that I'm not being serious and simply trying to get a cheap laugh at your expense, but in a non-threatening way. Plus, I have the added bonus of being (and correct me if I'm wrong here, fellow O/Ters) not generally known around these parts as being a massive cunt, so I can get away with it.

The person on the receiving end of all the flak over the last few hours, whether he means to or not, comes across as being vindictive and specifically targetting certain individuals for nothing but personal satisfaction. And I think that's the difference in this case.

The stuff going on may be immature, but I can understand why.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:59, Reply)

you massive cunt Davros ;)

( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:01, Reply)

Ta very much.

( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:02, Reply)

I do have a brother.
I don't see why having siblings makes it easier to grasp, though. Things could just as easily go the either way: if it's possible that those without siblings are too far removed, isn't it just as possible that those with them are too close?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:41, Reply)

I do believe that anyone who came here and admitted sleeping with their sister would be given a very hard time

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:02, Reply)

Yes. Exactly.
So the question is, why?

Why is sleeping with a sibling any different from sleeping with anyone else?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:07, Reply)

Oh, I dunno, because it will upset Mum
And who wants a fuss from her when she gets a bee in her bonnet?
It's not worth the tantrums and the week-long silence.
Best to sleep with one's siblings in secret says I.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:11, Reply)

Try it out and see for yourself.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:24, Reply)

Poor Enzyme.
OK, I will admit to seeing your point. If we are honest it is only a hangover fron days of yore when religious control was absolute. It is really only a moral\ethical issue and as such meaningless in real terms. The only relevance now is the biological and genetic one with birth defects and mental issues being the problem, which isn't really a problem what with the improvements in healthcare and eugenics.

I suspect Bert's mother and father were probably first cousins.
(porkylips looks better as the sun goes down., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 9:58, Reply)

I'd dispute the idea that ethics implies meaninglessness
and I deal with the biology above; I don't see that there has to be so big a problem there.

(BTW: At least as far as the law is concerned, cousins are perfectly OK.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:08, Reply)

Enzyme- you're an intelligent chap
Is this just some civilized trolling? You must see that incest is taboo throughout human societies (obviously there are exceptions through human history, but it's more or less a universal taboo) and that there are many reasons that feed into this.

Biological- covered already
Religious- covered already
Moral- touched on (excude the pun).

Also, if you've grown up with a person as your sibling, seen them grow, and all that, then it's distasteful in the extreme to view them as a sex object (though I see in this case that this isn't the situation with Bert/ Cat Hater).

Can you genuinely not understand why it's taboo?

And it's also just urgh.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:15, Reply)

Not trolling.
An observation about taboo isn't going to tell us the first thing about why that taboo exists, or about its justification.

To whom is it distasteful? Clearly not to the people involved. To the observer? Perhaps - but then that somewhat takes the action itself out of the equation, and doesn't explain the grounds or justification for the distaste. Besides: to look at anyone as a sex object is arguably pretty morally shoddy anyway, so the A and B situation doesn't seem to be all that different.

No, I genuinely do not understand.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:32, Reply)

we get that enzyme, you keep saying it.
Bert is a mentallist and the more 'normal' his actions are the better. Shagging his sister will lead to Nuclear Armageddon. I know, I dreamt it.

Plus have you got a sister?
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:37, Reply)

Plus
though I'm not entirely agreeing with Enzyme, read any anthropological book- especially the seminal work by Levi-Strauss, and the excellent collection of anthropological exploration 'The Golden Bough' and inside are excellent dissections a) of taboo and b) of the cultures and societies in which incest as a taboo is breakable. It's certainly not a universal
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:42, Reply)

I suppose there is a certain amount of social conditioning involved
But the Ancient Greeks and the Romans were big on pederasty. It was viewed as healthy, normal acceptable behaviour back then. Do you see no real objection to pederasty too?

And of course merely observing a taboo does not explain its nature. I was about to suggest that a part of the reason you don't get it is because you don't have a sister, but that would be doing you and I a disservice. Where do you stand on cannibalism then?
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:48, Reply)

Pederasty
though the right name, was not practiced below a certain age. I believe it was generally 14-15 which while still a bit dodgy, is hardly a 7 year old
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:51, Reply)

I didn't mention 7 year olds
I'm well aware of what pederasty means and how it was practised in those societies. I'm not asking Enzyme to justify paedophilia, just exploring his views on other 'yuck' based taboos, like pederasty and cannibalism.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:54, Reply)

Ooh, slight mindpiss
See below
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:55, Reply)

I haven't tried to justify anything in this thread.
I've raised a question about why people think it wrong, but that's not the same as attempting a justification.

I don't think you can justify paedophilia. I don't see what that has to do with it, though. (Your strategy seems here to be that, when I say I don't understand the problem with x, you respond by saying, "Ah, but what about y?" - and that's either missing the point, or poisoning the well.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:59, Reply)

No dude
I take the view that just because something is distasteful, it shouldn't be proscribed, abortion for instance, is distasteful to many people but is clearly something that should be available in society. Similarly homosexuality, viewed with distaste by some people but no justification for proscribing it. I do see, however, that there are some things that in (western) society are very much frowned on, legally and morally. Incest is one of these things. There are reasons why this is so. You are an intelligent guy, I can't fathom why you can't see incest as being wrong in any way at all.

Surely if sibling incest isn't automatically wrong, then neither is child/ parent incest? And if not, why not?
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:05, Reply)

Hyar hyar.

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:07, Reply)

"There are reasons why this is so"
And I want to know what they are. I've not heard anything convincing yet. Noone has offered an explanation of its wrongness here. The most that's been offered is a claim that we're disposed against it. But that's a bare fact of biology, not a moral claim; it won't tell us anything about how we should think about someone who doesn't share the aversion that most putatively have, or whether that's a moral problem or simply an interesting personality quirk.

See my reply to Roota below about the parent thing.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:20, Reply)

well, what did Noone say?

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:23, Reply)

One of those reasons is the point about growing up with that person

(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:24, Reply)

*bangs head on desk*
*grits teeth*
But that's not a moral reason!
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:35, Reply)

Pederasty is potentially different
because of the consent issue. That is to say: in principle, there ought to be nothing wrong with sex with children if the children give valid consent. But it also seems reasonable to assume that they will never give valid consent, because they're incapable of doing so. That, it seems to me, has to be where the most powerful objection lies.

Cannibalism, too, seems to fit into the same sort of analysis: if a person can give consent to be eaten, then the problem seems to be lessened. It's just hard to see how anyone who would give such consent is sane - and so we have a prima facie reason to assume that any such "consent" would be, in fact, no such thing.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:56, Reply)

I reckon I'd allow someone to eat me once I'd died of natural causes
if they felt so inclined.

I like to think I am sane.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:59, Reply)

I think Enzyme might have been thinking
more of the German cannibal man, whose victim gave his consent and wanted to be eaten.

I think there is little morally dodgy about cannabalism of someone who died of natural causes
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:02, Reply)

yeah, I think you are right
had never thought much about it though
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:05, Reply)

Even if it's non-natural, it's potentially OK
as long as the consent is valid. And it might be valid. It's just that I think that a reasonable starting point is the assumption that it isn't.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:09, Reply)

It would save your family a fortune in funeral costs.
You'd have to shave your silly beard off first though.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:05, Reply)

I suspect that they wouldn't be eating my chin

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:06, Reply)

Depends
on how fat it's got by the time you've karked it, dunnit?
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:08, Reply)

it's dwindling away
I'm going the unusual route of getting more hair on my head and getting thinner as I age.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:12, Reply)

Freak.

( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:14, Reply)

What if they give consent to be eaten after they have died, that is, not consent to be murdered then eaten.
How do you see that event? And as Greek and Roman pederasty was accepted, then their consent becomes a moot point.

It surely comes down to moral objections, which you know are somewhat fluid in societies. I don't think that 14 is acceptable as an age to get married at, there are countries where 14 year old girls are married off. Consent is more or less a legal construct.

But to reiterate, the incest thing, is a 'yuck' reaction for many reasons. I do get the impression you're playing devil's advocate here.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:01, Reply)

If there are reasons for the yuck reaction,
then let's hear them. The yuck reaction would then not be where the action is after all.

As for consent about the post-mortal use of a body: well, why not? Actually, I don't think that would matter so much, because - frankly - you're dead and it's a bit late. It's for similar reasons that I don't think you should have to give consent for your organs to be taken for transplantation: you're not using them any more, so it's nothing to do with you.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:08, Reply)

They've already been aired, I don't need to go back through them.
Isn't a 'yuck' reaction to some things a healthy reaction?
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:12, Reply)

I say yuck to shit smells

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:12, Reply)

"Healthy" by what standard?
Healthy doesn't mean morally justified.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:17, Reply)

I know
But I meant 'healthy' as in, if you eat bad meat, you'll get ill. You get a 'yuck' reaction there. If you smell that your milk's off, you don't drink it.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:21, Reply)

But it wouldn't be *wrong* to do so.
It'd just be daft. f you really wanted to, though... well, why not?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:33, Reply)

yeah
organ harvesting is how it should be. Opt out by all means, but it should be the norm.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:13, Reply)

People who 'consent' to sex with their brother, especially if he's Bert, are not 'sane'.
They're evidently tapped.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:05, Reply)

I think you and Roota might have a point
and as you say it might not apply in this case, but most people having grown up siblings would find the idea absolutely repulsive, hence the reaction.

The biology of it is irrelevant; as Enzyme points out, your genes don't make you think or feel anything really.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:36, Reply)

Morning BFF

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:38, Reply)

morning
how's you?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:39, Reply)

I'm coooool
Except my shower's leaking and I wanted today to be free from human contact.
Mind you, with no shower, people might steer clear anyway...
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:42, Reply)

uh oh!
I'm planning to do fuck all today. Within bounds of things I'd already agreed to. Got to get my barnet altered, and help some friends with some packing for their house move
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:44, Reply)

'altered'
I like this.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:45, Reply)

well I'm not really getting it cut shorter
but it gets really thick and looks like Luke Skywalker.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:48, Reply)

Well, that's that then.
We've been wrong all these years. Incest is ok.
Now we have carte blanche.
I officially declare this Official Fuck a Sibling Day.
Oh shit, no, America owns 11th September...

I officially declare tomorrow Official Fuck a Sibling Day!
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:37, Reply)

Can we include 1st cousins
I have an adopted brother and don't fancy it much.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:38, Reply)

No way.
Sibling or the highway.
My cousins ming. I have one due to be born on 6th of October so if he's fit I might change my mind.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:43, Reply)

oh man
my brothers are ugly and annoying
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:39, Reply)

trade?

( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:40, Reply)

naa, I'm good
I'll just have to pretend that my mrs is my sister. I'll make her wear a vipros mask (again)
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:41, Reply)

Do you mind if I don't.
T'raa for now.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:39, Reply)

*hand up*
Can I be excused miss?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:44, Reply)

But you have the most choice!

( Lampito rise with the moon, go to bed with the sun, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:23, Reply)

:(
yeuch. I'm going to be typically middleclass and say 'it's alright for other people, but not for me' :D
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:33, Reply)

yeaaaaaah sorry nah I'm gonna pass on participating in that one.
it's just not my cup of tea.
(Poppet some assembly required., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:09, Reply)

I don't have any siblings
Can I borrow someone else's?
( Theoban What of it, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:44, Reply)

Is that Age of Criminal Responsibility thing 10 years?

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:45, Reply)

yes
doli incapax 'incapable of evil' under the age of 10
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:46, Reply)

Because Enzyme said that if incest is consensual it's ok
So if some child wants to have sex with me, and they're older than 10, it's ok right, and society is stupid for making it illegal.
What's the worst that can happen?
If they're related to me all the better.

OMG ENZYME YOU PEEEDIOTRICIAN!
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:54, Reply)

Because you can't make the decision
to have sex until you are 13. You cannot give consent below the age of 13- it's technically rape. Sex between the ages of 13-16 with someone over 18 are still a criminal offence as well I believe.

Doli incapax has to do with the mental capacity to commit a crime.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:57, Reply)

Oh man the law is an ass
Why does a ten year old get the responsibility to commit one crime with me but not another?
I'm with Enzyme, the law is bollocks.
Can I fuck this kid or not and do I have more of a right to if it's my sister?
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:00, Reply)

The reason for doli incapax
is it allows children over the age of 10 to be charged with crimes that they have committed themselves. However a 10 year old having sex with a thirty year old is not a crime *on the 10 year olds part* they are the object and victim of a crime, therefore their age and capacity to recognise evil is irrelevant
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:04, Reply)

CAN I OR NOT???

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:06, Reply)

Sorry Roota
wait a few years however and you can have carnal knowledge of your cousin all you want, provided they are well fit
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:07, Reply)

Phew.

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:07, Reply)

Can't believe I typed the above sentence :(

( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:08, Reply)

I love the way you ended it "provided they are well fit"

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:15, Reply)

It amused me
because I've never said well fit in my life.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:17, Reply)

I can imagine the sentence in your normal voice
with an Ali G style "well fit" on the end.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:19, Reply)

I don't see what the age has to do with it.
The younger someone is, the lower the chance that they could consensually have sex. There are also some adults who could probably not give consent.

I haven't said, and wouldn't say, that it's OK to have sex with an 11-year-old: that's absurd. All I've said is that if an action is consensual, and allowing that no third party is harmed, that removes at least some of the potential objection.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:01, Reply)

Yeah well if they can consensually commit murder, they can consensually git it awwwn with me, yeeah

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:03, Reply)

Well, because, EEEEEEEEWWWW.

( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:00, Reply)

Well having siblings
I can safely say that there's no way in hell I'd go there. I'm realy sorry I'm not able to find some of the studies I'm referring to at short notice on the internet while I'm actualy supposed to be doing work but there was a theory pretty prevelent in psychology that it's not so much being related to someone that creates the "yuck" reaction, more the familiarity of growing up with someone. I do remember reading a study into Kibbutz's (Basicaly large communes where childeren where often raised together more or less all the time) that found that the childeren raised together showed significantly less romantic interest in those that had shared their childhood. I guess I can sort of undersand that. I've a couple of close female friends I more or less went through school with, and the thought of any romantic attachment to them is.. well a bit weird realy.

So yeah, I'd argue that it's more the familiarity with the sibling, growing up with them and such that means we just do not see them in a romantic light. And yeah, you could probably replace "sibling" with childhood friend of the opposite (or same) sex. Now BMS had never realy seen his half sister untill adulthood (if I recall). Therefore I guess that familiarity with her just didn't exist making it much less of an issue for the two of them to cop off.
(Fredz A graveyard of hopes, a dump of ambition, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:08, Reply)

Yes. I raised this point.

(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:09, Reply)

Sorry
I did read the thread but I must have missed it. Can you remember the name of that damn Kibbutz study?
(Fredz A graveyard of hopes, a dump of ambition, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:13, Reply)

I meant that I'd said that if you've grown up with someone then it's bizarre to view them as a sex object.
It's gone a bit Wuthering Heights in here.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:14, Reply)

Yeah, I agree.
I get where Enzyme is coming from, in that if there's no harm and it's all consensual then where's the problem? But yes, I agree - veiwing someone you've grown up with as a sex object is a bit fucking weird. Which is why I don't realy see the problem in the case of BMS. The only real issue is the psychological damage they might both have from going against what is a pretty fucking strong tabboo in most societies.
(Fredz A graveyard of hopes, a dump of ambition, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:20, Reply)

As I said before
viewing anyone as (simply) a sex object might well be morally shoddy - it's not obvious what being a sibling adds.

And the psychological harm, if there is any, seems to come from the reaction; hence the reaction can't be explained or justified by appealing to that harm.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:27, Reply)

Parent-child incest where the child is way over 16
What say you, Enzyme?
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:12, Reply)

Same as above
If it's genuinely consensual, and no third party is harmed, then the moral problem isn't obvious.

This isn't to endorse it, or say it's a good idea, or anything like that. It might be foolish for all kinds of reasons - it might well be better that it doesn't happen because both parties will regret it afterwards, for example. But people regretting having sex with someone, or regretting any other action that seemed like a good idea at the time, is hardly unusual.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:16, Reply)

Which is exactly the position with over 18 sibling incest.
It's better that it doesn't happen, as it is of course foolish 'for all kinds of reasons'. Replace 'foolish' with 'objectionable' or 'wrong' and that is the reaction to sibling incest.

You seem to have got there in the end.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:19, Reply)

No, because replacing "foolish" with "objectionable" or "wrong" is begging the question.
There's no justification for replacing the predicate "foolish" with the predicate "wrong" - they don't mean even similar things. Smoking is foolish; riding a motorbike without a helmet is foolish; attempting to clean your upstairs windows without ensuring your ladders are secure is foolish. None of them is objectionable or wrong.

Lots of people do lots of foolish things all the time. That's not a moral objection.

(Edited slightly for clarity.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:23, Reply)

Riding a bike without a helmet is objectionable due to the knock on effects on other peopple should teh rider crash.
It's irresponsible.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:26, Reply)

I think you might be nitpicking a bit here

( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:27, Reply)

Right. So, when there's third-party harm, that does alter things.
But merely being foolish isn't harmful, and - besides - it's not clear what third-party harm there has been when A shags B. Even if there were some harm, you'd still need a separate argument to show that it's sufficiently great to warrant curbing A and B's liberty.

The point stands that "foolish" per se does not imply "wrong".
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:30, Reply)

I'm in very late here, but
the third party harm is that self-loathing over the whole thing is a good chunk of what's turned Bert into such a deranged wankstain and lead to his treating some of my friends in a frankly appalling manner.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Sun 12 Sep 2010, 12:12, Reply)

Suddenly everything you have said makes sense.
Bert only got lambasted for what he did because he's Bert.
You will probably not end up on Amorous Badger's page because you are Enzyme.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:22, Reply)

I have a feeling that this thread may well end up on AB's archive.
I've been very careful up until now not to say anything remotely interesting archivable... but I think that that duck may have been broken.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:24, Reply)

the trouble may be
that at a casual glance you are saying there's nothing wrong with it, which is different to their being anything morally wrong with the concept.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:27, Reply)

Well, I kind of am suggesting that.
I think that whatever has not been shown to be morally impermissible is therefore morally permissible.

I'm not sure that incest has been shown to be morally impermissible. Therefore, modus tollens, that's a reason to think that it is morally permissible.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:32, Reply)

I can see why they're shutting down philosophy departments left, right and centre.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:34, Reply)

Because they are full of people who can justify, albeit logically, fucking your sister?
Or because they are full of Enzyme?
(Bazongaloid, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:16, Reply)

Incest, in this society, is most definitely morally impermissible
AND IT'S ILLEGAL.
OMG won't anyone think of the children????
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:02, Reply)

My child is sucking on my tit right now!
OMG, etc. Filth.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:08, Reply)

Lucky bastard

(Bazongaloid, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:16, Reply)

Technically correct with both words, yes.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:17, Reply)

Is she in a sling, or are you typing one handed?

(Bazongaloid, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:17, Reply)

onehanded.
I'm in bed with her. That's how sick I am.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:21, Reply)

Down with this sort of thing!

( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:24, Reply)

EEEEEEEEEEEEEW!
There's another thing - I couldn't breast feed Sweary Jr because of all the lolwaki pain meds I needed to take for my spastic spine. Which was a huge relief, as I found the concept yucky - that's just me though.
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:22, Reply)

I find it incredible that women breast feeding in public sometimes get abuse shouted at them
sure, it's not for everyone, but to actually shout at someone for feeding their child. If that ever happens to mrs al when I'm around there are gonna be some seriously punched faces.
(Bazongaloid, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:27, Reply)

Yes, but to be fair al...
You're in your 30s for fuck's sake. You should have grown out of this by now. No wonder people point and stare when you're out and about with your mum.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:43, Reply)

DON'T JUDGE ME!
Also thank you for the offer of a place to stay in january.
(Bazongaloid, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:47, Reply)

You're welcome.
You'd have to sleep in the shed, of course, just in case we get contaminated with southerness.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 13:01, Reply)

You are a hero to all lactating women!

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:44, Reply)

b3ta.com/questions/offtopic/post861959
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 13:03, Reply)

AB's archive is not somewhere you want to be dude.
Anyways, I gotta go for a double S.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:27, Reply)

I'm in there
for telling a shit joke
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:28, Reply)

I was almost in there
'Amberl in 'almost in archive' shocker'
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:28, Reply)

pointless post is pointless

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:29, Reply)

exactly
TLDR: I said don't fuck the mentally ill
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:30, Reply)

Oh man I did a Psychochomp
I went searching.
You love incest, you've quoted studies in the past and everything.
Incest is a subject close to your heart, man!
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:29, Reply)

You should totally become a sleuth.

( girlinthehole, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 18:52, Reply)

There's only one way to settle this debate
Daddy or chips?
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:25, Reply)

And the moral is connected to the physical and the physical is connected to the whimsical
dem bones dem bones dem, dry bones.

In Islamic countries of old people ate with their left hand. The reason why they ate with their left hand is that they wiped their arse with their right and they didn't want to get poisoned and die. Since this is entirely a straw man argument I have got absolutely no proof of this but I think it's probably a reasonable logical leap to assume that should one of these people see me munching away on a sandwich held in my right hand they'd "bleeurgh" and call me names.

There's an observable phenomenon pointed out above that generally speaking, children that grow up together imprint on each other and do not then develop sexual attraction for each other. This happens regardless of whether they're actually related or not. The reason for this is to stop family groups fucking each other into extinction. Therefore incest is biologically discouraged.

As Enzyme says, this is not a moral reason. We know, or we think we know, that it's morally wrong. But that's because morality is a human construct and not a biological imperative. What has happened is that a moral construct has grown up around an observable biological imperative. Incest is wrong, we just don't consciously know why.
( Kroney, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:50, Reply)

For clarification
we see it as wrong because it's unusual. It's unusual because biology discourages it.
( Kroney, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:52, Reply)

I've totally tried to jump
onto a train that's already left the station.
( Kroney, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 12:53, Reply)

you've gone it quite well though

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 18:38, Reply)

wow.
Stumbled on this because Amerous Badger has included it in his hall of shame thing... Though personally I don't think it should be in there.

That does not mean that I am endorsing or justifying incest.

I've just read the whole thing and think it's been a fascinating debate. The arguments of simply saying "well if you think that's OK, what about..." have been handled expertly.

Inter-relationships have not been brought up and the subject of consentual (that means over the age of consent for those mentioning children) vast age gap not touched on (outside of the same gene pool). Perhaps someone would like to argue against a 50 year old dating a 25 old, or a black man Fucking a white guy. Maybe the reason Enzyme hasn't lept into bed to have sex with his brother is that neither, or one, of them is not gay? What about scenarios where there is an unrelated couple but one partner is less dominant, mentally/physically etc?

It's certainly not something that I've really thought about, but it's definitely interesting. Taking away the being related.

Oh and for what it's worth, Bert the Hater, you're a cock.
( @><|= w0nu!) or cunt to my friends, Wed 15 Sep 2010, 6:08, Reply)

^^^^WOULD FUCK HIS OWN SISTER

( Amorous Badger NAKED BEA ARTHUR PHOTOS 4U, Wed 15 Jan 2014, 18:30, Reply)