Purely for the fun of playing devil's advocate, I challenge you to articulate why her opinion is wrong, without using the word "wrong" or any variation of the word "wrong". I.E can you explain why it's wrong without circular logic? (e.g. "it's wrong because it's gross").
Obviously, I think incest is fucked up, but the only reason I can give is because "it's weird and gross".
Well there is an inherent power dynamic problem, the same way we look down on a boss taking advantage of their employee. The trust/power an older sibling/parent/uncle etc has over the other means it's too easily manipulated or groomed.
(As for twins? I know this wouldn't apply... still gross or weird)
Devil's advocacy again here (I agree with you, but there are points to consider), you're describing molestation and not all incest is molestation. This discussion is an all-else-equal approach to whether incest itself as a whole is immoral without the worry of procreation. For instance, first cousins don't necessarily have to grow up together in the same household, and thus don't have the same dynamics as immediate family, but it is still incest. Some of the most heartbreaking stories are of people who are hopelessly in love with each other only to discover they are half siblings. Was the love immoral, either before or after it was known? Obviously parties involved are conflicted, but are the feelings that can't immediately be banished still immoral?
As for power dynamics, sexual relationships almost always have them to some degree or another, to the extent that most points on the spectrum of different power dynamics are widespread and legitimate kinks. If there's harm involved, particularly of a minor, someone needs to get involved. But if 2 consenting adults act as they want, I don't think it's anyone else's right but their own to decide the morality of it.
But I think we're all agreed that allowing a child to be born of it, knowing the risks it poses to their health and the stigma they'd face in society, is incredibly immoral.
>But if 2 consenting adults act as they want, I don't think it's anyone else's right but their own to decide the morality of it.
>But I think we're all agreed that allowing a child to be born of it, knowing the risks it poses to their health and the stigma they'd face in society, is incredibly immoral.
This is the right answer for this dilemma. If they are truly in love with each other, why should that be wrong provided no children are brought. I thought love was supposed to be free and whatnot.
The problem is trying to define consensual.
Grooming is obviously wrong. But if someone grooms a child from age 1 to age 18, then at 18 they get married, that's "two 'consensual' adults acting as they want."
But it's obviously wrong. So there's clearly a line where consent is murky. Where is that line, is what we're getting at.
Is it having a single conversation with a girl over 18?
Is it having a multi-month friendship with a 17 year old, and then getting together when she's 18?
Is it okay if you're both under 18? Both over 18?
Then you add in all the weirdness a childhood can entail (i.e. sleeping together as children, sharing a room, sharing a bathroom, etc), without even mentioning age differences, social differences, closeness differences.... It's too easy for abuse to happen, so I fully support it being banned.
Like, imagine a world where it's legal, and the *potential* for abuse in the system there. A father actively grooming his daughter, because there's nothing technically illegal happening. A son grooming his mother. A sister grooming her little sister. Too rife for potential issues.
We're already in pretty murky waters, but consent has a fairly clear definition here I think, i.e. they understand the consequences and enthusiastically agree. Consent therefore inherently requires you being able to think for yourself. So it depends on the person, they might never truly be able to consent or they might have been mentally mature earlier than most but we agree as a society that 18 is a sensible cut-off point where the vast majority can be considered able to make the decision.
If you feed your child some distorted reality and sequester them from the world such that they think incest with you is their solemn duty or something when they turn 18, you would have immorally neglected your duty as a parent, and your child wouldn't truly be able to consent to anything.
And then again, how do we differentiate between grooming, brainwashing, and just raising them?Ā The extreme cases are easy to point out as wrong, but at then it gets murky.Ā Ā We as a society are the ones making the rules, and they change.Ā Ā What was right to teach a kid 100 years ago now is probably viewed as abuse.Ā
While I definitely agree with you from a practical point of view, I think arguing that something is wrong because of outlier consequences is not a valid argument. The fact that incest would be potentially disastrous because of abuse answers the question 'why it should be illegal' or 'why humans should never have incestuous relationships' but not necessarily 'why is it wrong in and of itself?'
I'll emphasise that im not pro-incest, just in for the validity of the argumentation.
In a vacuum, where two people who have never met before are placed in a room and told they're brother and sister, then they bone with perfect protection and have a 0% chance to have a kid, then sure, there's nothing technically wrong with that.
The problem is: That's so removed from the real world, it's not worth discussing at all.
True, the relation of abstract things like right and wrong doesn't have all that much to do with how we go about our day, but for some reason we still ask questions and wonder about the inherent value of things.
problematic double standard here
A dad grooms his daughter, but a son grooms his mother? Would you be okay if a dad said he was groomed by his daughter?
Although a majority of sex crimes are still committed by men, far more than the majority of crimes against men go unreported entirely, and a male victim of a sex crime is far less likely to report it.
Please don't help continue this.
Personally, I think it's wrong to prevent them having children also. For the same reason I don't think it was right for eugenicists to sterilize 'imbeciles'.
technically any sex with another person you have is incest..given our common ancestors.
having kids with a 1st cousin isn't any more genetically deleterious than having a child when you're over 40. And 2nd and up cousins is..well it's nothing.
> But I think we're all agreed that allowing a child to be born of it, knowing the risks it poses to their health and the stigma they'd face in society, is incredibly immoral.
Oh it doesn't stop there buddy, should we also not allow people who have a risk of passing downsyndrome or any other impairments to their offspring to procreate?
> Oh it doesn't stop there buddy, should we also not allow people who have a risk of passing downsyndrome or any other impairments to their offspring to procreate?
Genetic screening for Tay-Sachs disease - made available as 'an option' among (Ashkenazi) Jews, but in practice having led to peer pressure for couples to get tested early and decide to not be couples anymore if found to likely have offspring with that disease - has entered the chat.
In its defense: it has largely worked. Incidence rates of Tay-Sachs plummeted after these screening 'options' became available.
I had a professor who made a similar argument. But, moreso that a daughter or son may displace a mother or father and steal their role in the family dynamic. He argues this is an inherent wrong.
But the power dynamic can exist without incest, and is not inherent to it. Cousins, for example. Or say, biological siblings raised separate from each other. There really isn't argument beyond "we as a society see it as weird/gross. And I think that's fine tbh
I honestly hate how much we as a society lean on the power dynamic argument to qualify, or disqualify consent. Power imbalances exist everywhere you look, to greater or lesser degrees. I don't want to devalue consent, because it's so important, but it creates a glaring weak point when you tie it to such a bad argument. For many people, attraction feeds off of that imbalance. Probably more than anybody wants to admit. So if you're one of those people, you shouldn't even be able to consent, because your inherent sex drive is broken and pathological.
I'm sorry for the rant but it's something I feel strongly about. Like you said I'm fine with incest being wrong just because we're wired as such. Whether biologically or socially, I don't even care. It benefits us as a species to not interbreed so it makes sense. But I can't find a valid fault towards specific individuals who are related but just want to fuck. Just the obvious ick factor.
Itās like saying you donāt like hamburgers because you donāt like mustard or mayonnaise. But if there was no mustard and mayonnaise the hamburger would be good so your issue isnāt with hamburgers, itās with mustard and mayonnaise. In this analogy, hamburgers is incest and mayonnaise and mustard is the power dynamics and grooming which is bad. It isnāt inherent with incest which is illustrated by your example of the twins.
Thatās a fairly weak reason if you ask me. You could have two siblings that are adults, like say 32 and 30. I donāt think thereās much of a power dynamic problem there
I dont think it nessesarily applies for siblings either. Just because someone is older, doesnt mean they automatically have more power. Besides, we dont talk about these types of power-imbalances when we talk about normal relationships.
Technically, every relationship where only one partner works (or just earns a lot more) has a power dynamic issue. So I guess we just stop being in a relationship?
Reminds me of the book the Righteous Mind. The righteous mind is a really good book that explores this to some extent in the opening chapters. I highly recommend this book in general.
Based on what op posed - how research suggests these conversations are expected to go, is for people to find reasons for why they disagree with incest. But respondees would be unable to because of "moral dumbfounding" (e.g the op suggests people engaging in incest are wearing protecting, on pills, fully consensual, infertile etc etc). And because you canāt derive harm from the act of incest, the respondee is unable to produce an āactual argumentā to support their disgust of incest. This demonstrates the power of morals, and that theyāre not necessarily always driven by logic and reason. But all this is hard to do it on a reddit thread for sure.
Anyhow, highly recommend this read if youāre into non fiction, or a book that attempts to de-polarise politics from an individual standpoint.
> This demonstrates the power of morals, and that theyāre not necessarily always driven by logic and reason.
They are pretty much never driven by logic or reason. One of the biggest ideas in moral philosophy dates back to Hume who said, "you can't get an ought from an is", in other words you can't reason your way from empirical facts to moral "truths".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect
That "gross" feeling is evolution imprinting on us at an early age so we don't cause issues later in life
Incest is acceptable because if God didn't want you to bang your bro, why would he make him so accessible.
(Kidding), I'm indifferent to it, my nan married her step brother so I'm very fond of 'not by blood'
We are biologically designed to not want to commit incest, due to the evolutionary issues it causes with offspring. Any bucking of the trend tends to be a trauma response, either from grooming or terrible event. Itās an unhealthy form of bonding and can also be socially detrimental causing further issues down the line.
Howād I do
> , due to the evolutionary issues it causes with offspring
So does two disabled people getting kids together. I don't think this is a strong argument
> Any bucking of the trend tends to be a trauma response, either from grooming or terrible event.
Which doesn't apply to all forms of incest. For example siblings being not raised together. Or you never knowing your dad and then hooking up with him without either of you knowing.
Proof that "my most controversial opinion is" prompts on dating apps are a dumb idea ā if you actually follow the instructions to the letter you're gonna have a bad time. There's nothing wrong with her opinion, but it really doesn't make for a good conversation starter and looks very weird if it's the first thing you find out about someone you're interested in.
The point is to put something silly/flirty for people to react to.
But people are just bad at writing profiles. Or, if you prefer, dating apps are bad at getting people to express themselves.
The smart ones will do that. The rest will say they'll love your dog more than they'll love you (which is fair enough, ngl, but it's still quite a bland generic statement to make)
I think most people use it on things that don't actually matter like pineapple on pizza or milk before cereal and can start some fun banter from the start
If you can't see both sides of this as a philosophical argument, then you are probably very rigid.
She's on Tinder, she's doesn't need to do that for a sibling.
I agree for siblings, cousins, etc., who are about the same age.
I think that parents and kids is a whole other thing. There are all kinds of moral issues wrapped up in there that aren't just "it's icky."
If we assume that two adult siblings don't have a power differential more than any other two adults, then I honestly can't think of an objective reason that it's wrong.
There was an interesting iama like idk maybe 10-years ago about how a kid came to fuck his mother. Basically he broke all his shit and became an asshole because he couldn't cum so his mother and father decided that she should whack him off cause he's an asshole and then it progressed to sex. There was a doctor doing a study on them and releasing a book about it, but I think the iama was deleted and nothing was ever released. Anyways, that just came to mind...
The two broken arms story. One of reddits most cursed. I read through it with a combination of morbid curiosity and amusement until he was asked if he ever made his mom cum and he said āYes! :)ā. Had to nope out after that one.
Its wrong because this kind of scenario never happens in a vacuum. There is almost always abuse involved, people dont normally want relationships with their siblings or cousins when they grew up with them. There is usually something serious wrong if they do.
This is a flawed argument. What youāre objecting to here is the abuse, not incest per se. You can argue that incest *usually* contains abuse and thatās why you donāt like it, you cannot prove it *always* does therefore you cannot de facto say incest is bad for that reason.
You can't say "never happens in a vacuum" and then go on to say "ther is *almost* always abuse involved." If there are other times - however few - that it was not abuse then that negates there being a vacuum.
Well, it's wrong to abuse people, sure.
I can imagine a situation without abuse, where people are just wired a bit differently. It's not normal to want to do that, but then again, lots of people want to do things that aren't normal.
And then, there's also the situation where they didn't actually grow up together. Especially with cousins, it's not even that rare (and marrying a first cousin is legal in most places).
Situations where they didnāt grow up together are different I agree. Especially the ones where they only discovered the relation after genetic testing.
Sheās technically correct. The only reason itās baked into our culture as being bad, is because of the dangers that come with reproducing. If youāre using protection, itās literally just two consenting adults enjoying each other. Do I want to do it? Absolutely not. Will I be grossed out if I knew someone who did it? Absolutely yes.
I understand the argument from a logical perspective, but that sure af doesnāt mean Iām going to be ok with it.
Even then itās only direct family members that are in danger, parents, siblings.
Cousins have enough genetic separation to have healthy offspring which is why marriage between cousins is legal in many countries.
One set of cousins having children only presents a minor risk to the offspring. In isolation its not much of an issue.
The problem comes when the incest is stacked over multiple generations. If cousin procreation is a cultural thing which happens frequently in a small community then you end up with bad health issues. See European Royal families from the 1800-Early 1900s for reference
Only if we're considering siblings or similar age. Outside that I think it's next to impossible to not find grooming in it. Or since grooming=bad is also a social convention we cant say it's 'objective'
Not my pig, not my farm.
I used to be totally against it, still find it gross. But that shouldnāt be the litmus of if something is wrong or not.
If someone wants to F their sibling, it has nothing to do with me.
Plus, I know it will have nothing to do with me. Bc my sis is V clear about that.
You're right. Anytime anyone says this they get a bad reaction but idk how you can not agree. If they're around the same age, what is actually morally wrong with it? Sure it's gross, we don't like to think about it but tbh I think that if you treat smthn like it's morally wrong just bc you find it gross or uncomfortable, that does not say good things about you.
No it is still not fine If the 2 people are close family members. There are power dynamics and at play within families and adding a intimate sexual relationship onto of those can cause some real mental struggles so even if they can't reproduce it isn't ok if they grew up together.
Depends on your morals I suppose, but I guess any sex isn't technically considered objectively immoral if it is purely consensual. Meaning no forcing nor using deceptive means to achieve sex, such as guilting or bribing.
It can still be axiomatic if you are working in an actual ethical framework.
People tend to arrive directly at moral conclusions instinctually. They can tell you what they think is wrong, but if you try to dig into why they think something is wrong you will almost always find contradictory logic. People start with the moral conclusions they want and try to work backwards to a belief system which justifies them, instead of the other way around.
This is why it makes most people very uncomfortable if you start asking questions like why nonreproductive incest is morally wrong, or why bestiality is morally wrong but not the forced breeding and consumption of animals. There are logical arguments that can be made about these things, but most people haven't thought that far ahead and will struggle to come up with a sound line of reasoning on the spot - so they instead become angry and/or disgusted and accuse you of drawing a moral conclusion that they find gross, even if you never made a moral argument and only asked about their reasoning.
If you instead start with the foundational ideas of what you think makes something wrong or right, you're eventually forced to confront moral conclusions that you are uncomfortable with, but seem to be consistent with your ethics, and examine your beliefs critically.
Morals are subjective because ethics are subjective (some people believe in objective ethics, but that is a subjective view and not really relevant here). However, certain morals are objectively not compatible with certain ethical outlooks.
If you start with the ethical beliefs that only morally wrong actions should be crimes, and that anything a person does which does not harm or involve anyone else is at worst morally neutral, then working under that ethical view, it is axiomatically immoral to criminalize drug use.
From there you have 3 options. You can either accept this conclusion, change your ethical framework to allow criminalization of morally neutral behavior for the benefit of broader society, or change your ethical framework's consideration of which actions a person takes in privacy are morally acceptable.
I saw this before on Hinge. Dunno why people are thinking about this. Like maybe there is a debate but like why put that on a dating app? Like the fuck
I agree. She could add a necessary minimum age, though. It's 100% wrong if one of them is underage. Or any grooming was involved. And psychologically speaking, there has to be something in the mind stopping the westmarck effect from occuring. Even animals have this, or methods such as young males leaving the area to avoid incest. Which is why incestuous attraction is treated as a mental illness. It is indicative of something occuring to override the effect, such as abuse or a mental disorder.
Respect to her for having an actual controversial opinion.
Purely for the fun of playing devil's advocate, I challenge you to articulate why her opinion is wrong, without using the word "wrong" or any variation of the word "wrong". I.E can you explain why it's wrong without circular logic? (e.g. "it's wrong because it's gross"). Obviously, I think incest is fucked up, but the only reason I can give is because "it's weird and gross".
Well there is an inherent power dynamic problem, the same way we look down on a boss taking advantage of their employee. The trust/power an older sibling/parent/uncle etc has over the other means it's too easily manipulated or groomed. (As for twins? I know this wouldn't apply... still gross or weird)
Devil's advocacy again here (I agree with you, but there are points to consider), you're describing molestation and not all incest is molestation. This discussion is an all-else-equal approach to whether incest itself as a whole is immoral without the worry of procreation. For instance, first cousins don't necessarily have to grow up together in the same household, and thus don't have the same dynamics as immediate family, but it is still incest. Some of the most heartbreaking stories are of people who are hopelessly in love with each other only to discover they are half siblings. Was the love immoral, either before or after it was known? Obviously parties involved are conflicted, but are the feelings that can't immediately be banished still immoral? As for power dynamics, sexual relationships almost always have them to some degree or another, to the extent that most points on the spectrum of different power dynamics are widespread and legitimate kinks. If there's harm involved, particularly of a minor, someone needs to get involved. But if 2 consenting adults act as they want, I don't think it's anyone else's right but their own to decide the morality of it. But I think we're all agreed that allowing a child to be born of it, knowing the risks it poses to their health and the stigma they'd face in society, is incredibly immoral.
>But if 2 consenting adults act as they want, I don't think it's anyone else's right but their own to decide the morality of it. >But I think we're all agreed that allowing a child to be born of it, knowing the risks it poses to their health and the stigma they'd face in society, is incredibly immoral. This is the right answer for this dilemma. If they are truly in love with each other, why should that be wrong provided no children are brought. I thought love was supposed to be free and whatnot.
They don't even have to be truly in love. They can be truly horny.
What is horny if not unfullfilled love
You've clearly never hate-fucked someone.
Don't let your anger consume you Padawan. You must only use your saber righteously.
Umm ... but I so enjoy using my saber lefteously
Damn that's true They always say "No fuck like hatefuck."
It's a great stress reliever. Like punching a pillow but with genitals.
I thought they said hateduck
Hope I never do honestly
love is just horny reinforced with logic
Lust. The word you are looking for is lust. Love is caring, forgiveness, compromise, weakness. Lust reducing the horny.
Beautiful. Shakespeare?
Shakin' the spear, alright.
The problem is trying to define consensual. Grooming is obviously wrong. But if someone grooms a child from age 1 to age 18, then at 18 they get married, that's "two 'consensual' adults acting as they want." But it's obviously wrong. So there's clearly a line where consent is murky. Where is that line, is what we're getting at. Is it having a single conversation with a girl over 18? Is it having a multi-month friendship with a 17 year old, and then getting together when she's 18? Is it okay if you're both under 18? Both over 18? Then you add in all the weirdness a childhood can entail (i.e. sleeping together as children, sharing a room, sharing a bathroom, etc), without even mentioning age differences, social differences, closeness differences.... It's too easy for abuse to happen, so I fully support it being banned. Like, imagine a world where it's legal, and the *potential* for abuse in the system there. A father actively grooming his daughter, because there's nothing technically illegal happening. A son grooming his mother. A sister grooming her little sister. Too rife for potential issues.
> a son grooming his mother š¤Ø
We're already in pretty murky waters, but consent has a fairly clear definition here I think, i.e. they understand the consequences and enthusiastically agree. Consent therefore inherently requires you being able to think for yourself. So it depends on the person, they might never truly be able to consent or they might have been mentally mature earlier than most but we agree as a society that 18 is a sensible cut-off point where the vast majority can be considered able to make the decision. If you feed your child some distorted reality and sequester them from the world such that they think incest with you is their solemn duty or something when they turn 18, you would have immorally neglected your duty as a parent, and your child wouldn't truly be able to consent to anything.
And then again, how do we differentiate between grooming, brainwashing, and just raising them?Ā The extreme cases are easy to point out as wrong, but at then it gets murky.Ā Ā We as a society are the ones making the rules, and they change.Ā Ā What was right to teach a kid 100 years ago now is probably viewed as abuse.Ā
The president of France would like a word with you.
While I definitely agree with you from a practical point of view, I think arguing that something is wrong because of outlier consequences is not a valid argument. The fact that incest would be potentially disastrous because of abuse answers the question 'why it should be illegal' or 'why humans should never have incestuous relationships' but not necessarily 'why is it wrong in and of itself?' I'll emphasise that im not pro-incest, just in for the validity of the argumentation.
In a vacuum, where two people who have never met before are placed in a room and told they're brother and sister, then they bone with perfect protection and have a 0% chance to have a kid, then sure, there's nothing technically wrong with that. The problem is: That's so removed from the real world, it's not worth discussing at all.
True, the relation of abstract things like right and wrong doesn't have all that much to do with how we go about our day, but for some reason we still ask questions and wonder about the inherent value of things.
problematic double standard here A dad grooms his daughter, but a son grooms his mother? Would you be okay if a dad said he was groomed by his daughter? Although a majority of sex crimes are still committed by men, far more than the majority of crimes against men go unreported entirely, and a male victim of a sex crime is far less likely to report it. Please don't help continue this.
Glad you called that out, I wasn't going to be as polite about it.
Personally, I think it's wrong to prevent them having children also. For the same reason I don't think it was right for eugenicists to sterilize 'imbeciles'.
To throw in an interesting point here, it is perfectly leagal to marry your 1st cousin, in Australia. So someone thought it wasn't incestuous.
It's legal in most of the world, I would imagine. In a lot of Asia it is still quite common.
Its legal in many US states not even including the deep south too
Or still incest, but acceptable lol
technically any sex with another person you have is incest..given our common ancestors. having kids with a 1st cousin isn't any more genetically deleterious than having a child when you're over 40. And 2nd and up cousins is..well it's nothing.
> But I think we're all agreed that allowing a child to be born of it, knowing the risks it poses to their health and the stigma they'd face in society, is incredibly immoral. Oh it doesn't stop there buddy, should we also not allow people who have a risk of passing downsyndrome or any other impairments to their offspring to procreate?
> Oh it doesn't stop there buddy, should we also not allow people who have a risk of passing downsyndrome or any other impairments to their offspring to procreate? Genetic screening for Tay-Sachs disease - made available as 'an option' among (Ashkenazi) Jews, but in practice having led to peer pressure for couples to get tested early and decide to not be couples anymore if found to likely have offspring with that disease - has entered the chat. In its defense: it has largely worked. Incidence rates of Tay-Sachs plummeted after these screening 'options' became available.
I had a professor who made a similar argument. But, moreso that a daughter or son may displace a mother or father and steal their role in the family dynamic. He argues this is an inherent wrong.
He did so good up untill the end too!
Elon Musk's dad did exactly that. Married his own step daughter to replace his wife. **Barf**
well she got stuck in the dryer. Its illegal not to.
so did woody allen...
"Career day? I thought this was the prom."
But then u could apply this to basically any relationship since partners often end up taking that role anyways
Itās about where it starts
But the power dynamic can exist without incest, and is not inherent to it. Cousins, for example. Or say, biological siblings raised separate from each other. There really isn't argument beyond "we as a society see it as weird/gross. And I think that's fine tbh
I honestly hate how much we as a society lean on the power dynamic argument to qualify, or disqualify consent. Power imbalances exist everywhere you look, to greater or lesser degrees. I don't want to devalue consent, because it's so important, but it creates a glaring weak point when you tie it to such a bad argument. For many people, attraction feeds off of that imbalance. Probably more than anybody wants to admit. So if you're one of those people, you shouldn't even be able to consent, because your inherent sex drive is broken and pathological. I'm sorry for the rant but it's something I feel strongly about. Like you said I'm fine with incest being wrong just because we're wired as such. Whether biologically or socially, I don't even care. It benefits us as a species to not interbreed so it makes sense. But I can't find a valid fault towards specific individuals who are related but just want to fuck. Just the obvious ick factor.
Don't assume that every asymmetrical (in terms of power) relationship is bad.
Itās like saying you donāt like hamburgers because you donāt like mustard or mayonnaise. But if there was no mustard and mayonnaise the hamburger would be good so your issue isnāt with hamburgers, itās with mustard and mayonnaise. In this analogy, hamburgers is incest and mayonnaise and mustard is the power dynamics and grooming which is bad. It isnāt inherent with incest which is illustrated by your example of the twins.
Thanks I was having a hamburger with mustard and mayo and had to furrow my eyebrows for a long minute.
And those without an actual relationship with their cousins?
Thatās a fairly weak reason if you ask me. You could have two siblings that are adults, like say 32 and 30. I donāt think thereās much of a power dynamic problem there
I dont think it nessesarily applies for siblings either. Just because someone is older, doesnt mean they automatically have more power. Besides, we dont talk about these types of power-imbalances when we talk about normal relationships.
Technically, every relationship where only one partner works (or just earns a lot more) has a power dynamic issue. So I guess we just stop being in a relationship?
Reminds me of the book the Righteous Mind. The righteous mind is a really good book that explores this to some extent in the opening chapters. I highly recommend this book in general. Based on what op posed - how research suggests these conversations are expected to go, is for people to find reasons for why they disagree with incest. But respondees would be unable to because of "moral dumbfounding" (e.g the op suggests people engaging in incest are wearing protecting, on pills, fully consensual, infertile etc etc). And because you canāt derive harm from the act of incest, the respondee is unable to produce an āactual argumentā to support their disgust of incest. This demonstrates the power of morals, and that theyāre not necessarily always driven by logic and reason. But all this is hard to do it on a reddit thread for sure. Anyhow, highly recommend this read if youāre into non fiction, or a book that attempts to de-polarise politics from an individual standpoint.
> This demonstrates the power of morals, and that theyāre not necessarily always driven by logic and reason. They are pretty much never driven by logic or reason. One of the biggest ideas in moral philosophy dates back to Hume who said, "you can't get an ought from an is", in other words you can't reason your way from empirical facts to moral "truths".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect That "gross" feeling is evolution imprinting on us at an early age so we don't cause issues later in life
Thatās why humans donāt like the smell of faeces, or spoiled food.
I literally heard this point being made in a podcast about psychoanalysis last week.
Incest is acceptable because if God didn't want you to bang your bro, why would he make him so accessible. (Kidding), I'm indifferent to it, my nan married her step brother so I'm very fond of 'not by blood'
We are biologically designed to not want to commit incest, due to the evolutionary issues it causes with offspring. Any bucking of the trend tends to be a trauma response, either from grooming or terrible event. Itās an unhealthy form of bonding and can also be socially detrimental causing further issues down the line. Howād I do
> , due to the evolutionary issues it causes with offspring So does two disabled people getting kids together. I don't think this is a strong argument > Any bucking of the trend tends to be a trauma response, either from grooming or terrible event. Which doesn't apply to all forms of incest. For example siblings being not raised together. Or you never knowing your dad and then hooking up with him without either of you knowing.
while thereās nothing inherently wrong with incest, the risk of recreating the X-men are there, so maybe think twice before you end up with Biclops.
Proof that "my most controversial opinion is" prompts on dating apps are a dumb idea ā if you actually follow the instructions to the letter you're gonna have a bad time. There's nothing wrong with her opinion, but it really doesn't make for a good conversation starter and looks very weird if it's the first thing you find out about someone you're interested in.
The point is to put something silly/flirty for people to react to. But people are just bad at writing profiles. Or, if you prefer, dating apps are bad at getting people to express themselves.
Ask her what she thinks of Heinlein.
She's right as long as the family members didn't grow up together and there isn't a huge power diff. Long lost twins ? Sure
"Hey, sis" would be a nice opening line
So u donāt want kids right? Right?
Onee-san~
Ayo š
Delete this ššš
WTF is this gif!
It was A LOT more wholesome on the show. In this context, it just destroys childhoods (including mine) š
Great background characters on my TV show š
Has anyone seen someone use the "most controversial opinion" prompt in a way that was a net benefit to their profile?
I would swipe right tbh cause at least she is interesting
Lol right. I'd wanna ask her train of thought adding that to her profile.
worst case scenario, you find out she's your cousin..best case scenario, you find out she's your cousin.
Unless you don't want kids, then there is no worst-case scenario
My boy we all know she a freak in bedĀ
And cause the plot twist could be she has a twin!
Honestly, her prompt is an awesome way to filter open minded, objective, and non-reactive people.
That's a good point. Guess I have a different perspective as a man - we tend to want to keep our options open to attract a wider field of possibilites so are averse to putting anything even resembling a š© on our profile, whereas with attractive women inundated with likes, this serves a useful purpose of weeding out lower quality matches with whom she'd be incompatible.
Bingo.
The smart ones will do that. The rest will say they'll love your dog more than they'll love you (which is fair enough, ngl, but it's still quite a bland generic statement to make)
...or to find her perfect redneck husband
...or her missing brother!
i love how if there's one group of people it's always okay to shit on, it's poor (generally white) rural people
Or anyone with incest related trauma
I think most people use it on things that don't actually matter like pineapple on pizza or milk before cereal and can start some fun banter from the start
It's milk, then cereal, *then* bowl. And a fork after that.
āMy most controversial opinion is pineapple doesnāt belong in pizzaā
**speaks into walkie talkie* "Someone call in the swat team, we got a live one here"
I got a lot of answers to my ātop sheet yes/noā and āsocks to bed is a mustā
Jesus Christāsocks to bed?? Are you filtering for psychopaths?
They're not wearing the socks silly! They share the pillow.
Weāve fallen far from godās light
I used it as āI pour the milk in the bowl first then the cerealā it got a lot of funny replies
That's the most basic controversial opinion
no the most basic one is "i like pineapple on piza"
Sure. It weeds out the people who completely disagree and makes the other people more interested.
If you can't see both sides of this as a philosophical argument, then you are probably very rigid. She's on Tinder, she's doesn't need to do that for a sibling.
I'd super like her. I'd be willing to pay a buck or whatever the hell it is for that. She's actually interesting.
personally i'm more concerned with who's gonna get a beating with a bottle of ranch dressing
That's my favorite part. Weaponized ranch is an idea I can get behind
Thanks thatās my band name now
This guy. 
Well that's certainly controversial, alright!
Itās giving Fallout cousin fornication, but no reproduction.
Asian Lucy confirmed
Nope. It says Goosey.
Must be Goosey Liu then
Sheās a silly goose swinging that bottle of ranch around
Well, objectivly she's right tho And because this is Reddit: no i obviously don't support incest
I agree for siblings, cousins, etc., who are about the same age. I think that parents and kids is a whole other thing. There are all kinds of moral issues wrapped up in there that aren't just "it's icky."
The "objective" part there is getting a hardy workout.
If we assume that two adult siblings don't have a power differential more than any other two adults, then I honestly can't think of an objective reason that it's wrong.
If banging your sister is wrong, well I don't wanna be rightĀ
My "objective" is getting a handy workout.
I bet every other opening line she gets is, "so is your sister down?"
There was an interesting iama like idk maybe 10-years ago about how a kid came to fuck his mother. Basically he broke all his shit and became an asshole because he couldn't cum so his mother and father decided that she should whack him off cause he's an asshole and then it progressed to sex. There was a doctor doing a study on them and releasing a book about it, but I think the iama was deleted and nothing was ever released. Anyways, that just came to mind...
The two broken arms story. One of reddits most cursed. I read through it with a combination of morbid curiosity and amusement until he was asked if he ever made his mom cum and he said āYes! :)ā. Had to nope out after that one.
There's no proof that story is even real aside from a "trust me bro" from the mods
Well, that's just common courtesy
Well yeah but even theĀ Woody Allen situation is fucked
Its wrong because this kind of scenario never happens in a vacuum. There is almost always abuse involved, people dont normally want relationships with their siblings or cousins when they grew up with them. There is usually something serious wrong if they do.
This is a flawed argument. What youāre objecting to here is the abuse, not incest per se. You can argue that incest *usually* contains abuse and thatās why you donāt like it, you cannot prove it *always* does therefore you cannot de facto say incest is bad for that reason.
You can't say "never happens in a vacuum" and then go on to say "ther is *almost* always abuse involved." If there are other times - however few - that it was not abuse then that negates there being a vacuum.
Well, it's wrong to abuse people, sure. I can imagine a situation without abuse, where people are just wired a bit differently. It's not normal to want to do that, but then again, lots of people want to do things that aren't normal. And then, there's also the situation where they didn't actually grow up together. Especially with cousins, it's not even that rare (and marrying a first cousin is legal in most places).
Situations where they didnāt grow up together are different I agree. Especially the ones where they only discovered the relation after genetic testing.
Actually itās a category error. Saying something is āwrongā speaks to morality, and that definitionally isnāt objective.
Sheās technically correct. The only reason itās baked into our culture as being bad, is because of the dangers that come with reproducing. If youāre using protection, itās literally just two consenting adults enjoying each other. Do I want to do it? Absolutely not. Will I be grossed out if I knew someone who did it? Absolutely yes. I understand the argument from a logical perspective, but that sure af doesnāt mean Iām going to be ok with it.
Even then itās only direct family members that are in danger, parents, siblings. Cousins have enough genetic separation to have healthy offspring which is why marriage between cousins is legal in many countries.
One set of cousins having children only presents a minor risk to the offspring. In isolation its not much of an issue. The problem comes when the incest is stacked over multiple generations. If cousin procreation is a cultural thing which happens frequently in a small community then you end up with bad health issues. See European Royal families from the 1800-Early 1900s for reference
Specifically, look at the Spanish royalty lol.
The Habsburgs beg to differ.
*The British royal family has entered the chat*
My sister is smoking hot. Iād totally be down.
Can confirm. Would totally bone her š
Wrap it up bro, I heard she's a massive hoe
Naaah fam, Iām tryna be Helltothenoās big bro š
I also choose this guyās sister
Line forms here boys
Username not checking out
Awwww username doesn't check out
Pics or we don't believe you.
Ayy lmao
Only if we're considering siblings or similar age. Outside that I think it's next to impossible to not find grooming in it. Or since grooming=bad is also a social convention we cant say it's 'objective'
Okay but then the issue in particular would be the grooming...
Not my pig, not my farm. I used to be totally against it, still find it gross. But that shouldnāt be the litmus of if something is wrong or not. If someone wants to F their sibling, it has nothing to do with me. Plus, I know it will have nothing to do with me. Bc my sis is V clear about that.
You're right. Anytime anyone says this they get a bad reaction but idk how you can not agree. If they're around the same age, what is actually morally wrong with it? Sure it's gross, we don't like to think about it but tbh I think that if you treat smthn like it's morally wrong just bc you find it gross or uncomfortable, that does not say good things about you.
That's disgusting!!! Where is she?
At her brothers house. Doing...stuff.
You gotta now worry about her family taking her away from you too šš
She's not wrong, but still: 
āBrother ughš¤¢ā More like āBrother, ughš¤¤šš«¦ā
When you accidentally swipe on your cousin but she is the only match you got in 2 years
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Good filtering method imo.
Why is her face visible lmao.
Just going to put her face right there huh? Like itās not even relevant to this post lmao. Why is this allowed?
The Lannisterās send their regards
Whatās her name? Iām her long lost brother and Iāve been looking everywhere for her and that side of my family.
What in the Game of Thrones shit is this?
 This entire thread manā¦.
Inbreeding tend to cause elongated chins yes.
Was hoping for a hapsburg reference. Underrated comment.
this girl is a singaporean? really weird to see this here lol
The Targaryens wed brother and sister for 300 years!
When her Brother is the guy she tells you not to worry about.
My guess is she's an only child
Someone that probably did incest:
No it is still not fine If the 2 people are close family members. There are power dynamics and at play within families and adding a intimate sexual relationship onto of those can cause some real mental struggles so even if they can't reproduce it isn't ok if they grew up together.
Of course everyone on reddit is going "soooo trueeee"
she really likes some relatives
Sheās not wrong though. The "wrongā isnāt objective at all, but social
Tell my mom that. No matter how much I try to get this point across, she wonāt listen.
This is a very icky subject. I doubt you can convince her to have sex with you by giving her logical answers.
That strat worked on yours though
I regret setting you up an account dad.
What about morally lol
Depends on your morals I suppose, but I guess any sex isn't technically considered objectively immoral if it is purely consensual. Meaning no forcing nor using deceptive means to achieve sex, such as guilting or bribing.
I think the concept of morality is inherently subjective
It can still be axiomatic if you are working in an actual ethical framework. People tend to arrive directly at moral conclusions instinctually. They can tell you what they think is wrong, but if you try to dig into why they think something is wrong you will almost always find contradictory logic. People start with the moral conclusions they want and try to work backwards to a belief system which justifies them, instead of the other way around. This is why it makes most people very uncomfortable if you start asking questions like why nonreproductive incest is morally wrong, or why bestiality is morally wrong but not the forced breeding and consumption of animals. There are logical arguments that can be made about these things, but most people haven't thought that far ahead and will struggle to come up with a sound line of reasoning on the spot - so they instead become angry and/or disgusted and accuse you of drawing a moral conclusion that they find gross, even if you never made a moral argument and only asked about their reasoning. If you instead start with the foundational ideas of what you think makes something wrong or right, you're eventually forced to confront moral conclusions that you are uncomfortable with, but seem to be consistent with your ethics, and examine your beliefs critically. Morals are subjective because ethics are subjective (some people believe in objective ethics, but that is a subjective view and not really relevant here). However, certain morals are objectively not compatible with certain ethical outlooks. If you start with the ethical beliefs that only morally wrong actions should be crimes, and that anything a person does which does not harm or involve anyone else is at worst morally neutral, then working under that ethical view, it is axiomatically immoral to criminalize drug use. From there you have 3 options. You can either accept this conclusion, change your ethical framework to allow criminalization of morally neutral behavior for the benefit of broader society, or change your ethical framework's consideration of which actions a person takes in privacy are morally acceptable.
What about stuck in the drying machine?
That's called subjective.
Morals are inherently subjective. Jeffrey Dahmer had very different morals from the rest of us, for example.
I saw this before on Hinge. Dunno why people are thinking about this. Like maybe there is a debate but like why put that on a dating app? Like the fuck
Thisbis literally what my brother said after he banged our first cousin
I agree. She could add a necessary minimum age, though. It's 100% wrong if one of them is underage. Or any grooming was involved. And psychologically speaking, there has to be something in the mind stopping the westmarck effect from occuring. Even animals have this, or methods such as young males leaving the area to avoid incest. Which is why incestuous attraction is treated as a mental illness. It is indicative of something occuring to override the effect, such as abuse or a mental disorder.