This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Mushir (2389 posts) -

I started thinking about this today. One of the big negatives of incest is the higher probability of birth defects for a child. But what if a brother and sister have strong feelings for each other and they sleep together just once? Why is that considered wrong? The only reason I can think of is that it's been considered wrong for so long. I don't believe it's that uncommon with other animals. It seems to me that the only thing hindering it is that it's a taboo in society.

PS: I'm in no way condoning incest. I'm just curious.

#2 Posted by JasonR86 (9726 posts) -

Because genes. Because society. Because because.

#3 Posted by Pr1mus (3946 posts) -

I'm out of here.

#4 Posted by Nightriff (5337 posts) -

Because it is a fucked up thing, and I'm with Pr1mus, I'm out of here

#5 Posted by natedawg_kz (236 posts) -

Whatever, it's your opinion man but expect everyone to be mad at you because your opinion is different

#6 Posted by JasonR86 (9726 posts) -
#7 Edited by Bleako (13 posts) -
#8 Posted by Daveyo520 (7000 posts) -

Whhhheeeeeeeelllllllllpppp

#9 Edited by Mushir (2389 posts) -

Don't get me wrong, I would never do it, and I get weirded out whenever I read that it's been done. But I just got to thinking why it's considered so taboo in society. Homosexuality was also a taboo before, but it's thankfully getting more and more accepted now. I'm not saying that homosexuality and incest are the same thing, all I'm saying is that it's interesting how taboo it is in society today, considering that it's done by many creatures on this planet.

#10 Edited by TheVeteran13 (1216 posts) -

Cause it's gross

#11 Posted by Daveyo520 (7000 posts) -

I am sure this thread will only go good places and won't be weird at all.

#12 Edited by Nightriff (5337 posts) -
#13 Edited by StarvingGamer (8555 posts) -

Mostly because society. Personally, if two adult siblings want to get it on, whatever. That's their business. But incest also carries the context of pedophilia or underage intercourse as it is generally expected that by the time a child is of-age, they have left home to pursue further education and their own lives.

#14 Edited by SirOptimusPrime (2030 posts) -

Not too long ago we had a guy on here asking why pedophilia was considered wrong, and now this.

It's a website, about Video Games!

#15 Edited by JZ (2125 posts) -

Think

#16 Posted by JasonR86 (9726 posts) -
#17 Edited by mylifeforAiur (3489 posts) -

Please continue. I need this.

#18 Edited by Kidavenger (3628 posts) -

Why does it have to be brother sister, couldn't it be mother and son?

Seriously; besides the birth defect thing; you dont want to take the chance of screwing up one of the few lifelong relationships you are guaranteed to have in your life.

#19 Posted by HerbieBug (4208 posts) -

The greater risk for birth defects is the reason. Also, you will find that most people would recoil in disgust at the very suggestion; not because of socially accepted norms, but natural instinct. It has to be this way for the strength of future offspring.

Are you an only child, Mushir?

#20 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

Incest should not be Illegal, what should be Illegal is having a baby with your relative.

But yes, there is no other reason then the birth defects, and the fact that people are ether turned on by it and don't want to admit it, or are disgusted by it and want to wipe it out.

But honestly those feelings are normal.

#21 Posted by Irvandus (2881 posts) -

I think we need a special version of the Giant Bomb Dating Advice Hotline photo. Someone get on that please.

#22 Posted by Mushir (2389 posts) -

@herbiebug: Nope, I have four siblings. And no, I have never had these kinds of thought about them, incase you were wondering.

#23 Posted by SirOptimusPrime (2030 posts) -

@dagbiker said:

But honestly those feelings are normal.

No, they're not. Evolution should have told you instinctually that the resultant offspring would be more likely not to survive.

#24 Posted by Phatmac (5727 posts) -

YOU'RE ALL GOING TO JAIL I'M AN INTERNET COP!

#25 Edited by mylifeforAiur (3489 posts) -

The only issue I take with incestual relationships is the potential for procreation. It's unfair for the child to be engendered in such a way: it'll undoubtedly affect him later in life given the taboo nature of incest.

#26 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
I believe this is enough reason.

#27 Edited by Oscar__Explosion (2404 posts) -

@mushir:

I started thinking about this today. One of the big negatives of incest is the higher probability of birth defects for a child.

This is pretty much why the whole thing is a problem.

But what if a brother and sister have strong feelings for each other and they sleep together just once? Why is that considered wrong?

I would consider it wrong, but hey that's just me. If a brother and sister want to get it on, sure go ahead I guess. As soon as there is a kid involved that's when things will go horribly wrong.

Online
#28 Edited by thebunnyhunter (1482 posts) -

Seems to be fine with the Lannisters and Zeus so idk. And whatever is good enough for Zeus should be good enough for everyone

also why googling i stumbled upon a riveting answers.yahoo answers

#29 Edited by BeachThunder (12412 posts) -

The greater risk for birth defects is the reason. Also, you will find that most people would recoil in disgust at the very suggestion; not because of socially accepted norms, but natural instinct. It has to be this way for the strength of future offspring.

Ok, well, just to play devil's advocate then, what if it's between two people that physically cannot have children together (same gender, sterility, etc...)? If there is absolutely no possibility of children - and therefore, no possibility of birth defects - is there still a legitimate reason to consider it wrong?

Online
#30 Posted by Daveyo520 (7000 posts) -

It is just silly and nonsexual.

#32 Posted by believer258 (12188 posts) -

Why does it have to be brother sister, couldn't it be mother and son?

'Cause that makes you poke pins in your eyes and causes your offspring to get locked in a cave.

On topic, because it causes birth defects and is therefore unnatural. Yes, there are ways to prevent pregnancy but none of them are foolproof.

Are you the guy who asked why pedophilia is wrong?

#33 Edited by BabyChooChoo (4808 posts) -

It's wrong? ...b-but onee-chan said...

#34 Posted by RazielCuts (2987 posts) -

Flag and move on guys, this is a (semi) respectable gaming website not fucking 4chan.

#35 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@mushir said:

I started thinking about this today. One of the big negatives of incest is the higher probability of birth defects for a child. But what if a brother and sister have strong feelings for each other and they sleep together just once? Why is that considered wrong? The only reason I can think of is that it's been considered wrong for so long. I don't believe it's that uncommon with other animals. It seems to me that the only thing hindering it is that it's a taboo in society.

PS: I'm in no way condoning incest. I'm just curious.

OK, I'm going to give a serious answer here. (Even if I am the one that created the Giant Bomb concept page for it.)

Incestuous pregnancies lead to a high risk of genetic abnormality and and disability in the resulting children. This is why monarchs of the middle ages tended toward being crazy or imbeciles; their gene pool was too shallow due to the nobility only breeding among themselves. Societies around the world eventually put laws in place to put a stop to this once they all began to realize the connection between incest and the bad things that result from it.

#36 Edited by HerbieBug (4208 posts) -

Flag and move on guys, this is a (semi) respectable gaming website not fucking 4chan.

Are you implying that Giant Bomb is too good for wincest? D:

#37 Posted by leinad44 (537 posts) -

Has Game of Thrones taught you nothing!?

#38 Posted by OllyOxenFree (4987 posts) -

It's just like in one of my Japanese animes!

#39 Posted by Mushir (2389 posts) -

@hailinel: Thanks for an intelligent answer.

@herbiebug said:

The greater risk for birth defects is the reason. Also, you will find that most people would recoil in disgust at the very suggestion; not because of socially accepted norms, but natural instinct. It has to be this way for the strength of future offspring.

Ok, well, just to play devil's advocate then, what if it's between two people that physically cannot have children together (same gender, sterility, etc...)? If there is absolutely no possibility of children - and therefore, no possibility of birth defects - is there still a legitimate reason to consider it wrong?

This is kind of the situation I was thinking of. If the possibility of having children is literally non-existent, is there a reason to not allow it?

#40 Edited by FancySoapsMan (5818 posts) -

because eeew.

#41 Edited by ArtelinaRose (1857 posts) -

@mushir said:

@hailinel: Thanks for an intelligent answer.

@beachthunder said:

@herbiebug said:

The greater risk for birth defects is the reason. Also, you will find that most people would recoil in disgust at the very suggestion; not because of socially accepted norms, but natural instinct. It has to be this way for the strength of future offspring.

Ok, well, just to play devil's advocate then, what if it's between two people that physically cannot have children together (same gender, sterility, etc...)? If there is absolutely no possibility of children - and therefore, no possibility of birth defects - is there still a legitimate reason to consider it wrong?

This is kind of the situation I was thinking of. If the possibility of having children is literally non-existent, is there a reason to not allow it?

Socially imposed morality brought on by generations of dogma. I personally don't see a problem with it so long as both parties are consenting, of appropriate age and put a helmet on that soldier. None of my business what other people do, even if it's their family.

#42 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@mushir said:

@hailinel: Thanks for an intelligent answer.

@beachthunder said:

@herbiebug said:

The greater risk for birth defects is the reason. Also, you will find that most people would recoil in disgust at the very suggestion; not because of socially accepted norms, but natural instinct. It has to be this way for the strength of future offspring.

Ok, well, just to play devil's advocate then, what if it's between two people that physically cannot have children together (same gender, sterility, etc...)? If there is absolutely no possibility of children - and therefore, no possibility of birth defects - is there still a legitimate reason to consider it wrong?

This is kind of the situation I was thinking of. If the possibility of having children is literally non-existent, is there a reason to not allow it?

I think in that case, equal rights come into play. If it's wrong for a brother and sister to engage in it, then it's equally wrong for two brothers or sisters to engage in it even if giving birth to a child is an impossibility.

#43 Edited by Jay_Ray (1129 posts) -

I'm all for incest if it's hot twin lesbians..........................................................................................

Okay, I can kick myself out

Online
#44 Edited by FunkasaurasRex (847 posts) -

Don't fuck your relatives, yo.

#45 Posted by ManU_Fan10ne (659 posts) -
#46 Edited by NekuSakuraba (7184 posts) -

Errr... Maybe we should talk about video games or something? This is creepy.

#47 Edited by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

Errr... Maybe we should talk about video games or something? This is creepy.

Well, then. Did you ever play Drakengard?

#48 Edited by TooWalrus (13256 posts) -

So uh, is it appropriate to post the Girl Advice Line ad? This guys obviously got the hots for... somebody.

#49 Edited by Aegon (5831 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@nekusakuraba said:

Errr... Maybe we should talk about video games or something? This is creepy.

Well, then. Did you ever play Drakengard?


I did, when I was a kid. At first I thought it was kind of fun, then it was frustrating. My current impression of it is that it wasn't very good.

#50 Posted by ZombiePie (5753 posts) -

Giant Bomb is first and foremost a website about video games. While the Off-Topic forum is open to a myriad of topics, sexually explicit ones are not permitted as evident on our Forum Rules.

Moderator