# Should Incest between consenting adults be legal?



## Falcon Lord (Aug 8, 2015)

I admit the concept makes me and probably the vast majority of people uncomfortable but in the end all of the arguments against it boil down to "that's icky" and that just isn't good enough basis for forbidding something.


----------



## Cute Anime Girl (Aug 8, 2015)

Nice honey pot dude.


----------



## Hyperion (Aug 8, 2015)

No.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 8, 2015)

Falcon Lord said:


> I admit the concept makes me and probably the vast majority of people uncomfortable but in the end all of the arguments against it boil down to "that's icky" and that just isn't good enough basis for forbidding something.


Your parents clearly were to related for you to get the real reason


----------



## Sanic (Aug 9, 2015)

That's how my parents met


----------



## KatsuKitty (Aug 9, 2015)

Only hot man-on-man brother/brother incest.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 9, 2015)

It's legal in Rhode Island, and civilization does not appear to have collapsed there, except maybe in Providence.  Apparently, only actual marriage is illegal.  If there have been any negative consequences of this, I'm unaware of them, but perhaps there have been nothing but horror stories.  I haven't cared enough about the issue to look into it.


----------



## AnimuGinger (Aug 9, 2015)

Only gay, polyamorous adults. And only with their gay, polyamorous animal lovers. While burning American flags. If they all have autism.

Otherwise, I don't care much.


----------



## SpessCaptain (Aug 9, 2015)

Nope. It will open up the whole "keep it in the family" ideals that pre-Victorian families have and cause a buttfuck of problems in the long run.


----------



## DuskEngine (Aug 9, 2015)

From a strictly ethical perspective sure why not.
Those relationships are unlikely to be very healthy, though. For obvious reasons.

EDIT: I look at it the same way I'd look at a relationship between an 18-year old and a 50-year old, or a relationship where one of the parties is an exceptional individual: not intrinsically bad, but definitely not great.


----------



## Mollybdenum (Aug 9, 2015)

You know what... nevermind.


----------



## Watcher (Aug 9, 2015)

Falcon Lord said:


> I admit the concept makes me and probably the vast majority of people uncomfortable but in the end all of the arguments against it boil down to "that's icky" and that just isn't good enough basis for forbidding something.


Incest is one those things, like pedophilia and beastiality, that not only potentially indicate a harmful mental illness but also can directly harm someone.

In the case of incest it can very easily lead to malformed children being born. There's also the case of people performing incest on mentally challenged members of their family. Incest can completely scar a person for life even if they consented to it upon retrospect.


Valiant said:


> Nope. It will open up the whole "keep it in the family" ideals that pre-Victorian families have and cause a buttfuck of problems in the long run.


No it wouldn't.

During the Victorian era and before that people had the thought that your worth as a person was determined by who you were born from. This is largely why in-breeding was a thing because people thought poorer people were inferior by their very nature. It's why royalty has always been determined through birth and not ability.

Nowadays we have science and genetics and can prove if you reproduce with someone in your family it leads to less genetic diversity. And this is very commonly known. If Incest was legalized today nobody would intentionally do it to avoid soiling their line with "bad blood".


----------



## Queen of Tarts (Aug 9, 2015)

I saw this episode of Steve Wilkos (ew, I know) where a father and daughter, who never met before, ended up starting a relationship when they did.

Needless to say, it was disturbing as fuck.


----------



## Dr. Meme (Aug 9, 2015)

it really depends how hot your cousin is


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 9, 2015)

Watcher said:


> Incest is one those things, like pedophilia and beastiality, that not only potentially indicate a harmful mental illness but also can directly harm someone.
> 
> In the case of incest it can very easily lead to malformed children being born. There's also the case of people performing incest on mentally challenged members of their family. Incest can completely scar a person for life even if they consented to it upon retrospect.
> 
> ...



How did this obvious honeypot thread get so much serious discussion
@Hellblazer


----------



## c-no (Aug 9, 2015)

Watcher said:


> Incest is one those things, like pedophilia and beastiality, that not only potentially indicate a harmful mental illness but also can directly harm someone.
> 
> In the case of incest it can very easily lead to malformed children being born. There's also the case of people performing incest on mentally challenged members of their family. Incest can completely scar a person for life even if they consented to it upon retrospect.


In regards to malformed children, the last Hapsburg is a good example of how incest can be bad in a practical sense, especially if one wanted their own offspring to go on.


----------



## Conrix (Aug 9, 2015)




----------



## Bugaboo (Aug 9, 2015)

I'm gonna say no because what if babby happens


----------



## PacSol (Aug 9, 2015)

Meh, as long as everyone's a consenting adult and no one's being hurt without their consent, it's not my business if you literally fuck your family tree.


----------



## HG 400 (Aug 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> How did this obvious honeypot thread get so much serious discussion
> @Hellblazer



Somebody other than @Dynastia or @cat made it, so everyone felt safe.


----------



## KingGeedorah (Aug 9, 2015)

Ew all y'all are brother/sister fuckers and I would not hangout with you guys in real life.


----------



## DrJoshii (Aug 9, 2015)

Falcon Lord said:


> I admit the concept makes me and probably the vast majority of people uncomfortable but in the end all of the arguments against it boil down to "that's icky" and that just isn't good enough basis for forbidding something.


THE ARISTOCRATS!


----------



## OtterParty (Aug 9, 2015)




----------



## AnOminous (Aug 9, 2015)

c-no said:


> In regards to malformed children, the last Hapsburg is a good example of how incest can be bad in a practical sense, especially if one wanted their own offspring to go on.



Incest adds up.  Charles II was the product of hundreds of years of cousin marriages.  He was actually vastly more inbred than the product of a single incestuous pairing even as close as siblings or parent-child.  



Bugaboo said:


> I'm gonna say no because what if babby happens



This is the negative, especially if it recurs over multiple generations.  

Whenever one asks the question of whether something should be legal, an important consideration is whether it is already legal.  It always consumes resources to change an existing regime.  

So there are two issues.  One of them is the usual issue with a law, which is whether the cost of enforcing it is justified by the benefit, or in this case, the avoidance of harm.  Part of that is whether the law actually successfully stops the harm.

The other is how much it would cost to change.  Even if one law, or the lack of that law, is preferable to the status quo, does the benefit of changing it justify the cost of doing it?

I'd say, based on not much, really, that it doesn't seem there's a huge difference in outcomes in having such a law or not having it, just based on Rhode Island having abolished outlawing it without any obvious harm.  But there doesn't seem to be any benefit, either, so why bother changing it?  

It's illegal in all 50 states to some degree, with Rhode Island just not criminalizing the actual sexual behavior.  No state sanctions such marriages, and probably none should.

So even if it doesn't always make sense to criminalize behavior like this, it isn't something that should be encouraged.  It certainly shouldn't be rewarded by extending the benefits of marriage to it.  The incest taboo serves a useful social purpose, and should continue to deter such behavior where the criminal law does not.

(All this sperging about a blatant honeypot topic.  Shoot me.)


----------



## Save Goober (Aug 9, 2015)

If you're gay it's okay


----------



## Watcher (Aug 9, 2015)

Dynastia said:


> Somebody other than @Dynastia or @cat made it, so everyone felt safe.


Why did you refer to yourself in the third person?


----------



## DuskEngine (Aug 9, 2015)

KingGeedorah said:


> Ew all y'all are brother/sister fuckers and I would not hangout with you guys in real life.



tfw no sexy onii-chan


----------



## Philosophy Zombie (Aug 9, 2015)

With cousin incest, the heightened risk of birth defects in the child that is made is actually lower than that of women who get pregnant when they're over 40. The taboo is more of a Western culture thing than science. On the other hand, the condemnation of brother-sister relations is almost universal throughout all of human society.


----------



## Philosophy Zombie (Aug 9, 2015)

Also relevant to this thread is that there is a phenomenon called genetic sexual attraction that can occur when two relatives are raised apart and then meet each other as adults. There are a lot of hypotheses of why this happens; a psychological one is that the bonding that should have occurred when the two people were still babies is missed, and now that both of them are grown up those feelings are misdirected and now the family members want to jump into bed with each other. It's also said to be influenced by the fact that people evolved to choose those genetically similar to them as partners, or the Westermarck effect wearing off. Since adoptive reunions are becoming more common, these situations are starting to unfortunately become more common as well, and we have groups of relatives who want to bump uglies that we don't know what to do with.


----------



## Conrix (Aug 9, 2015)

Dynastia said:


> Somebody other than @Dynastia or @cat made it, so everyone felt safe.


...or @Conrix.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 9, 2015)

Philosophy Zombie said:


> Also relevant to this thread is that there is a phenomenon called genetic sexual attraction that can occur when two relatives are raised apart and then meet each other as adults. There are a lot of hypotheses of why this happens; a psychological one is that the bonding that should have occurred when the two people were still babies is missed, and now that both of them are grown up those feelings are misdirected and now the family members want to jump into bed with each other. It's also said to be influenced by the fact that people evolved to choose those genetically similar to them as partners, or the Westermarck effect wearing off. Since adoptive reunions are becoming more common, these situations are starting to unfortunately become more common as well, and we have groups of relatives who want to bump uglies that we don't know what to do with.


seems to be a reason to make it more enforced now that there is a more substantial risk of it happening


----------



## kookerpie (Aug 9, 2015)

I say, do what in the fuck you want to do, just dont reproduce.


----------



## ASoulMan (Aug 9, 2015)

Nice thread mate


----------



## Philosophy Zombie (Aug 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> seems to be a reason to make it more enforced now that there is a more substantial risk of it happening


Yeah, but how can you exactly regulate these kinds of things? The only foolproof way to make sure sex never happens is to make sure they never meet at all, which is ridiculously overkill.


----------



## Broseph Stalin (Aug 9, 2015)

I dunno. I guess. Like if it makes them happy, sure, but as long as they take their tard babies to the backwoods. Or Ruckersville, Virginia.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 9, 2015)

Philosophy Zombie said:


> Yeah, but how can you exactly regulate these kinds of things? The only foolproof way to make sure sex never happens is to make sure they never meet at all, which is ridiculously overkill.


The sex isn't the problem, just make it illegal to carry an inbred fetus to term with a punishment being the denial of state services to the fetus as was done in china to second children


----------



## Organic Fapcup (Aug 9, 2015)

I knew a girl who apparently fucked her cousin. She had pretty big tits but was ugly as sin. She also liked honey and pots a lot, IIRC.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 9, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> The sex isn't the problem, just make it illegal to carry an inbred fetus to term with a punishment being the denial of state services to the fetus as was done in china to second children



It's immoral to punish a child for the crimes of the parent.


----------



## DuskEngine (Aug 10, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> as was done in china to second children



How's that working out for them?


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 10, 2015)

DuskEngine said:


> How's that working out for them?


It actually worked quite well at achieving its intended goal. The problem is that china didn't anticipate a change in dependency ratio towards the elderly. None of that would be a problem for a no incest policy


----------



## Philosophy Zombie (Aug 10, 2015)

The one child policy is not something to aspire to emulate. It's why Chinese parents are known to go drown their baby daughters in rivers because they want their one heir to be a son to carry on the family name. This is a surprisingly big problem since now there are many more young men than women in China and women have become something of a commodity.

It did work well in controlling overpopulation, but it also caused many new problems of its own that arguably override it.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 10, 2015)

Philosophy Zombie said:


> The one child policy is not something to aspire to emulate. It's why Chinese parents are known to go drown their baby daughters in rivers because they want their one heir to be a son to carry on the family name. This is a surprisingly big problem since now there are many more young men than women in China and women have become something of a commodity.


What you are ignoring is that the one child policy worked and that the river thing (and resulting skewed gender ratio) was merely a side effect that arose from poor planning and an underestimation of speed of cultural change. China always had a tradition of having more than one child per family but western culture doesn't have a tradition of incest (that is surviving in any form today) so such a policy has much less risk





whether the one child policy was necessary or desireable is not what is being debated here


Philosophy Zombie said:


> It did work well in controlling overpopulation, but it also caused many new problems of its own that arguably override it.


But the point is that such measures will not cause the same problems when applied to incestuous births as opposed to second births


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 10, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> What you are ignoring is that the one child policy worked and that the river thing (and resulting skewed gender ratio) was merely a side effect that arose from poor planning and an underestimation of speed of cultural change.



So it "worked" at the cost of massive human rights violations and treating people like livestock.  I'll pass.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 10, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> So it "worked" at the cost of massive human rights violations and treating people like livestock.  I'll pass.


It worked because parents did not want to have to pay for the services for a second child that would have been provided for free by the state to the first child, likewise incestuous couples would be able to raise their inbred children but they would need to pay for all the medical and educational costs themselves and they won't get childcare tax benefits


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 10, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> It worked because parents did not want to have to pay for the services for a second child that would have been provided for free by the state to the first child



That's far from all they did.  They'd invade homes and administer forced abortions at gunpoint.


----------



## tomgirl4life (Aug 10, 2015)

It's also caused an issue with children born with birth defects being given up/left for adoption by couple who don't want an "inferior" child.  One of my relatives has adopted at least 10 children (maybe more?) from China that were born with a club foot, cleft palate, midgetitis, retarded, etc.  It's not just an isolated orphanage either, but rather most abandoned children in China now are  disabled.


----------



## Null (Aug 10, 2015)

tomgirl4life said:


> It's not just an isolated orphanage either, but rather most abandoned children in China now are disabled.


The Chinese have taken after the Romans and are now throwing their disabled off cliffs. This will benefit them in the long run.


----------



## tomgirl4life (Aug 10, 2015)

Null said:


> The Chinese have taken after the Romans and are now throwing their disabled off cliffs. This will benefit them in the long run.



If I've learned anything from 300, it's that you never abandon an ugly retarded hunchback.  When our inevitable war with China breaks out, America will be led through a goat pass by one of their forgotten children and our effeminate leader will personally confront the enemy before we slaughter them.


----------



## Null (Aug 10, 2015)

tomgirl4life said:


> If I've learned anything from 300, it's that you never abandon an ugly retarded hunchback.  When our inevitable war with China breaks out, America will be led through a goat pass by one of their forgotten children and our effeminate leader will personally confront the enemy before we slaughter them.


The difference between 300 and now is that we would not outnumber the Chinese.


----------



## tomgirl4life (Aug 10, 2015)

Null said:


> The difference between 300 and now is that we would not outnumber the Chinese.



But once their population dwindles due to the one-child policy...

Besides, they're mostly rice farmers and factory workers.  America vs Chinese would be just like 300, but with a reverse ending where we whoop their asses with a couple hundred thousand trained killers.


----------



## SolidusChris (Aug 10, 2015)

It wouldn't work because then parents could brainwash their children to have sex with them when they turn 18, the power dynamics in play within the relationship make it open to abuse/manipulation of the older partner.


----------



## Inquisitor_BadAss (Aug 10, 2015)

I've seen this on a few forums now and each time my answer is the same. How much of a loser do you have to be where you can only fuck a member of your family.


----------



## *Asterisk* (Aug 12, 2015)

Fucking Christ, incest.

Even discounting children, incest should always be a crime and forbidden. Sex isn't just about sticking pegs into holes. The psychological factor will always be there, and there's no way to disentangle the damage caused by mixing sexual acts with the psychology and dynamics of family, not just for yourself, but for everyone around you. Even in cases where those involved aren't related biologically, it's horrible. Remember Soon-Yi? Think of the horrific trauma Woody Allen inflicted not just on a woman who by all rights is his daughter, but upon Mia Farrow and every member of her family in turn.

This is about more than the law. Incest is a sin and outright evil no matter how it's dressed up and walked around.

That said, I'm not talking about cousins and shit like that. I think it's clannish and backwards, but it really shouldn't be illegal or seen on the level of what Woody Allen did.



autisticdragonkin said:


> It worked because parents did not want to have to pay for the services for a second child that would have been provided for free by the state to the first child, likewise incestuous couples would be able to raise their inbred children but they would need to pay for all the medical and educational costs themselves and they won't get childcare tax benefits


China's One Child Policy -- in addition to being a horrendous assault upon human rights -- was not needed to cause a decline in population growth. You'll find just as low population growth figures in Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, pretty much every country in Europe, and now it's even being seen in the US and certain Mid-East countries.

It's a part of biology. When areas get overcrowded, childrearing becomes difficult, and infant mortality rates are low, people just stop having kids. Hell, maybe this is the reason why there's been a rise in people who exclusively engage in homosexuality. Living in a world at capacity might be triggering people's subconscious to avoid the rat race and seek sexual release via other avenues.


----------



## Mollybdenum (Aug 12, 2015)

*Asterisk* said:


> Hell, maybe this is the reason why there's been a rise in people who exclusively engage in homosexuality. Living in a world at capacity might be triggering people's subconscious to avoid the rat race and seek sexual release via other avenues.


By that logic, incest is on the rise too?  I mean, if we're avoiding the rat race and all and seek sexual release via other avenues, doesn't non-reproductive incest count?


----------



## Fareal (Aug 12, 2015)

The issue of meaningful consent in incestuous relationships - especially those between parent/caregiver and adult child - is so fundamentally undermined by family power dynamics as mentioned upthread as to make the entire question moot. If you have ever had the misfortune to encounter and observe such a relationship, the power dynamics in it are inherently abusive.

There are different arguments around relationships between people of the same family generation who have never had a caregiving role for each other - siblings, first cousins (purported incest with first cousins is legal in most developed jurisdictions; something of a legal hangover but there is limited pressure to change it). However, particularly if they were raised together, there are still serious issues are around abuse, coercion and consent.

It's worth bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of childhood sexual abuse takes place within the family and is perpetrated by a first degree relative (parent or sibling). The elements that make that conduct abusive do not magically disappear once all parties reach the age of consent.

The reason for such relationships not to produce children is not principally the increased risk of birth defects and hereditary illnesses. The major concern is that families which practice incest - without exception - normalise incestuous relations and this places this children at phenomenally high risk for childhood (and later) sexual abuse and coercion. If your father is also your grandfather, and your mother has normalised this to help herself cope with her own abuse, she is a person with very little ability to protect you when 'Papa' decides it's your turn. Incest overwhelmingly happens in family groups - rather than individual aberrative instances - for exactly this reason - the children are normalised into a culture of silence and acceptance, and go on to inflict this abuse on their own children in turn. 

This is more common that most people realise; I have worked with a surprisingly high number of cases where incest was a feature of the family dynamics, and the most striking thing in all of them is the normalisation of the behaviour. (Some of these families required court-ordered DNA testing of the children in an attempt to determine how they were biologically related. This is not a behaviour that any society would be well-advised to deregulate.)


----------



## ZehnBoat (Aug 12, 2015)

tomgirl4life said:


> But once their population dwindles due to the one-child policy...


sausage fest


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Aug 12, 2015)

Meh. I guess I'm sorta split on this. On the one hand I don't like the idea of close relatives inbreeding but on the other I don't like the idea of the government barging into people's bedrooms when both parties are consenting adults. 

Marriage between close relatives should be illegal. No question there. I suppose you could make the argument that keeping incest illegal works as a deterrent, but I'd wanna see some proof of that before I came to a decision. Incest is bad and if you do it you deserve public shame.


----------



## Trombonista (Aug 12, 2015)

Only if they're hot.


----------



## Phil Ken Sebben (Aug 15, 2015)

In one word: Ick! Even though I have a couple really hot cousins that if we weren't related I'd totally hit on them.

But between consenting adults I really feel you can and should be able to do what you want with each other. The only caveat I'd put on this particular situation is if the bloodline is too close (brother / sister, father / daughter, mother / son, grandparent / grandchild) then maybe they ought to get themselves checked out first to make sure they're not carrying any undesireable recessives genes and they plan on having children. First cousins is a little iffy as is doing it with your uncle or aunt assuming they're of the same blood as you. 

But beyond that, if that's your thing, then I say go for it. Provided nobody gets hurt in the process and you're careful not to have kids then really it's nobody's business who you bang.


----------



## The Knife's Husbando (Aug 15, 2015)

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## Van Darkholme (Aug 15, 2015)

As long as they don't poison the earth with their retard offspring I don't care.
Also hot people only please.


----------



## LikeicareKF (Aug 16, 2015)

everyone brings up the 'deformed baby' subject but i think that comes in time due to generations of inbreeding, not a one off thing

making it illegal/legal is irrelevant because if the thought of having sex with your family members comes up i don't think you're going to be worrying about the law anyway


my adopted cousin gave me a couple of blowjobs back in the day but i don't think that qualifies


----------



## ☻ (Aug 16, 2015)

LikeicareKF said:


> everyone brings up the 'deformed baby' subject but i think that comes in time due to generations of inbreeding, not a one off thing
> 
> making it illegal/legal is irrelevant because if the thought of having sex with your family members comes up i don't think you're going to be worrying about the law anyway
> 
> ...


I see this is a thread for you to get kiwis to accept your fetish.

Just kidding of course, but the genes thing can be in one generation, it just depends on the gene. It's only more likely if the parents have passed those genes on in the first place.


----------



## *Asterisk* (Aug 16, 2015)

LikeicareKF said:


> everyone brings up the 'deformed baby' subject but i think that comes in time due to generations of inbreeding, not a one off thing
> 
> making it illegal/legal is irrelevant because if the thought of having sex with your family members comes up i don't think you're going to be worrying about the law anyway
> 
> ...


My kingdom for this post to receive a "Powerlevel" rating.


----------



## LikeicareKF (Aug 16, 2015)

*Asterisk* said:


> My kingdom for this post to receive a "Powerlevel" rating.


lol


----------



## HG 400 (Aug 16, 2015)

LikeicareKF said:


> my adopted cousin gave me a couple of blowjobs back in the day but i don't think that qualifies



Does it get awkward when you meet him at family get-togethers now?


----------



## LikeicareKF (Aug 16, 2015)

Dynastia said:


> Does it get awkward when you meet him at family get-togethers now?


lolled irl

nah she's hot and she was adopted when i was 8 and she was 9 (yeah i know thats pretty unusual )so i barely even count her as a family member


----------



## Bungleboy (Aug 17, 2015)

This thread is going places.

Like Alabama.


----------



## GS 281 (Aug 17, 2015)

Yes. Law should protect the rights of the individual. Limiting a person's freedom of choice does not seem to be a protective activity. If there is sexual abuse or statutory rape happening, then those things can be prosecuted under statutes for those acts. Incest however, if it happens between two cousins, siblings, parent-child, and both are of age and both want it to happen, go for it. I am not progressive-minded enough to endorse or support the behavior, but it isn't the duty of the government to punish the behavior, either.


----------



## Kirby (Aug 22, 2015)

I'd just like to point out that this is the best thread ever posted in this entire forum.


----------



## GS 281 (Aug 22, 2015)

Kirby said:


> I'd just like to point out that this is the best thread ever posted in this entire forum.


We're just trying to figure out if Shaner's parents should go to jail or not.


----------



## *Asterisk* (Aug 22, 2015)

yawning sneasel said:


> We're just trying to figure out if Shaner's parents should go to jail or not.


Hasn't that poor woman suffered enough?


----------



## GS 281 (Aug 22, 2015)

*Asterisk* said:


> Hasn't that poor woman suffered enough?


She unleashed that horrific creature on an unsuspecting public. She should have to pay for her crimes.


----------



## grilledcheesesandwich (Aug 22, 2015)

@LikeicareKF  you know you don't have to tell us these things if you don't want to


----------



## KatsuKitty (Aug 22, 2015)

I dunno, I guess I'll give a serious answer to this. As a consequence of my libertarian leanings, I don't think the government has a role in regulating the sex lives of consenting birth-control-using adults. But that's really as far as my endorsement goes on this one. Shit's nasty.


----------



## exball (Aug 22, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> The sex isn't the problem, just make it illegal to carry an inbred fetus to term with a punishment being the denial of state services to the fetus as was done in china to second children





autisticdragonkin said:


> The sex isn't the problem


----------



## Sable (Aug 22, 2015)

I dunno. Maybe? They're not hurting anyone with it even though it's weird. Unless one of the parties groomed the other, but that wouldn't be proper consent in the end.

If it persists too long though they'll end up forming some sort of axemurdering brotherson who chases lost tourists, at least if films have taught me correctly. Or maybe just a higher number of Autistics/ Charles II of Spain.

On an interesting note it pops up every now again with siblings that are adopted into different families and aren't aware of their actual relationship- there might be a genetic reason, but I forget. 

I think most of them break up in the end because, well, incest.


----------



## Wilkins (Aug 26, 2015)

No because it's a precursor for retarded babies.

Watch the X-Files episode "Home"


----------



## Strelok (Aug 26, 2015)

Ok ok ok. Uncle Strelok is gonna powerlevel here for a moment, also probably sound a teensy bit racist.

Near me is a town consisting almost entirely of Ultraorthodox Hasidic Jews (You may have heard me remarking on their attempts to segregate sidewalks by gender a few months ago). If you picture the steroetypical Jew who wears a black overcaot, black shirt, black hat, a yamika, and has curly hair, same cookie cutter outfit literally everywhere, you get the picture. Now, as an ultra-orthodox sect, much like fundamentalist christians, they are an extraordinarily insular society. This extends to many things like enforcement of the legal system, but also to their society as a whole. As such, they only will marry within their sect. The problem occurs when this happens over many, many, many generations. Although their marriages are not incestuous per sey, they have essentially caused their gene pool to shrink and shrink and shrink even as their population gets larger and larger. because of this their incidents of developmentally disabled children is several times about the norm per capita. This of course has nothing to do with them being jewish, and happens in many other religious sects, but I'm using them as an example because they are near me.

So banning inbreeding has nothing to do with the morals of banging your sister or cousin of whatever like you're Luke Skywalker, but to do with preventing shitty recessive traits from becoming more and more common. There are some scary, scary defects hiding dormant in the genes of the common man.

Also I mean comeon, it's fuckin gross.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 26, 2015)

Strelok said:


> So banning inbreeding has nothing to do with the morals of banging your sister or cousin of whatever like you're Luke Skywalker, but to do with preventing shitty recessive traits from becoming more and more common. There are some scary, scary defects hiding dormant in the genes of the common man.



I don't like calling these sects ultra-Orthodox, because it implies there is some spectrum ordinary Orthodox Jews are on, and that these groups are taking it further.  Really, the worst of these groups are just personality cults usually centered around some crazy person.  They're also a real problem in Israel, as they refuse to obey the law or pay taxes.  Plus, despite being a small part of the population, elections are often close enough that coalition governments have to be formed including them, so they have vastly disproportionate influence in politics.

The Ashkenazi Jewish population already has serious problems with recessive genes and specific genetic illnesses, like Tay-Sachs disease, Canavan syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc.  In Israel, it is actually pretty common to do genetic screening before marriage specifically to avoid pairings that would increase the likelihood of these recessives pairing up.  

These crazy cults do the exact opposite.


----------



## ulsterscotsman (Aug 26, 2015)

Nope!


----------



## GS 281 (Aug 29, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> I don't like calling these sects ultra-Orthodox, because it implies there is some spectrum ordinary Orthodox Jews are on, and that these groups are taking it further.  Really, the worst of these groups are just personality cults usually centered around some crazy person.  They're also a real problem in Israel, as they refuse to obey the law or pay taxes.  Plus, despite being a small part of the population, elections are often close enough that coalition governments have to be formed including them, so they have vastly disproportionate influence in politics.
> 
> The Ashkenazi Jewish population already has serious problems with recessive genes and specific genetic illnesses, like Tay-Sachs disease, Canavan syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc.  In Israel, it is actually pretty common to do genetic screening before marriage specifically to avoid pairings that would increase the likelihood of these recessives pairing up.
> 
> These crazy cults do the exact opposite.


Aren't Ashkenazis the ones who are really good at math and reading tests?


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 29, 2015)

yawning sneasel said:


> Aren't Ashkenazis the ones who are really good at math and reading tests?


Moral of the story: Incest will make you get lots of diseases but will also give you super intelligence which will make up for the diseases


Spoiler: real moral



having a culture that values intellectual pursuits causes you to epigenetically become smarter


----------



## Holdek (Aug 29, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Spoiler: real moral
> 
> 
> 
> having a culture that values intellectual pursuits causes you to epigenetically become smarter


Also having to adapt to survive through millennia of pogroms and genocide selects for intelligent traits.


----------



## kuniqs (Sep 1, 2015)

1) Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ scores that rest of the population, which is believed to come from the tradition of not breeding outside the Ashkenazi circle. Kinda interesting, don't you think?
2) Westermark effect prevents inbreeding. At the same time, genetic sexual attraction encourages inbreeding. Kinda ironic.
3) Incest destroys trust between family members, so unless we'll create a randian society where children grow up totally alone, incest will never be approved by society.


----------



## Takayuki Yagami (Sep 4, 2015)

Null said:


> The difference between 300 and now is that we would not outnumber the Chinese.


And we still have far bigger guns.


----------

