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, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

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)