>>84153334
Its morally gross.

>>84153342
Isn't morality subjective though? Like obviously having sex with my mom would be morally bad, but if I use a condom I feel like that's fine. I see it as washing my hands with gloves on. I'm not actually washing my hands so it's not wrong. It's all about perspective I think

>>84153351
Yes its subjective but society forms a collective morality based on shared values.
The condom point is retarded and I won't discuss it.

unironically it's just yucky
at least 75% of human morality comes down to "ew yucky!!" so there

>>84153334
Who is stopping you? People can say it's gross all they want, but ultimately if you and your sibling get together in the privacy of your bedroom and go at it, nobody is going to stop you.

>>84153420
Unfathomably based anon, all of human morality is a series of "yuck cause yuck" and its works really fucking well. Another flawless Darwin victory

>>84153334
subsequent relationships feel completely hollow

>>84153334
>Does this happen in other countries?
nah bro, every other country on earth is so developed they decided to just start fucking their relatives.

>>84153334
There is zero rational arguments against incest between consenting adults when you remove the chance of pregnancy, yes. Unfortunately we live in a society built by and for irrational retards. Incest being taboo or outright illegal is the least of the issues arising from that, law books are full of laws with nothing but irrational ick-factor as the driving force.

>>84153446
Speaking from experience shitskin?

>>84153424
I'm not fucking my brother.

>>84153334
There's literally nothing wrong with incest if you are completely sure you're not having children.

>>84153472
oddly defensive for someone who doesnt want to fuck their own brother...

>>84153424
Low IQ take. OP didn't imply desire for incest.

>>84153486
>muh children
if people didn't moralfag so hard, we could completely erase any risk with gene editing, but MUH RACISM AND ETHICS won't allow us to have nice things. either that or they want faulty people to be born so more paypigs are generated for healthcare and insurance companies

>>84153456
Where is "experience shitskin"?

>>84153500
>>84153496
I want to fuck my cousin (who is a woman)

But I'm going to use a condom so it's not wrong. But also it feels like I'm not actually fucking her because of that. (The whole glove thing I mentioned above) So maybe birth control is the way or I get a vasectomy before asking her to fuck

>>84153522
>But I'm going to use a condom so it's not wrong.
cringe. cousin isn't even that much of a risk.

>>84153334
I am an only child. Outside of genetics, I can't really give a good reason why, because I don't know what it is like having siblings and what the bond between them is like. Maybe someone with siblings can explain to me what that bond is like, and how it can discourage incest. Like I understand it at a logical level, but not quite at an emotional one.

>>84153532
>Maybe someone with siblings can explain to me what that bond is like
basically you just aren't very attracted to them by default. I'm saying this as someone with an incest fetish, specifically brother/sister. My sister must be attractive because she has always had dozens of guys chasing her. I just don't see it. My cousin now I have always felt a little attraction towards but still nothing like a random woman. I think basically you are unable to seem them that way usually unless provoked to. maybe something sexual happens between you two.

>>84153532
It's weird. My brother and I always had the urge to look at each other naked but decided to not do anything more than that because we don't want to be gay. But other than that we're just like friends like it's not that different

>>84153529
It's first cousin and is that still bad

File: 1771953356285484.png (110 KB, 329x313)

110 KB PNG

It's annoying how everything is framed as outrage bait or a challenge now. Prove me wrong type shit. Very performative. No one wants a real conversation, they just want an argument and to one up anyone who disagrees. It's so tiresome. Sorry to single your thread out OP, but it's just the one that broke the camel's back and made me mention it. Most threads on /r9k/ are like this. Most posts on any social media are like this. Just wish we could talk like normal people again...

>>84153576
I blame destiny for starting this garbage

>>84153576
I genuinely was not trying to rage bait I was just having a crashout. I do think I could have phrased things better but oh well

>>84153582
I'd rather stop casting blame and start trying to actually understand eachother better. I think the elites made people online so contentious and argumentative on purpose to divide us so that we can't work on real issues together. It wasn't like this before...

>>84153611
I know you weren't, but it's just proof of how much everyone's tone and method of communicating has soured, that we don't even notice ourselves doing it most of the time.
Anyway, sorry for derailing your thread, just having a bit of a mental break lmao. Carry on

>>84153576
There is not much to talk on this particular subject. Simply put, there is no rational argument against consensual non-reproductive incest.

>>84153334
There's nothing to it other than creating freak babies. The real issue happens when this stuff is normalized, like 'we accept it as long as we don't get pregnant'.
So what's gonna happen? First there's gonna be 'accidental pregnancies', where mothers are being forced into abortion by the state. This will go on for a couple of years, until they can't take it anymore and demand 'inbreeding rights'. Then, after they won by screeching relentlessly, freak babies emerge with all kinds of rare diseases, which are the most expensive to treat, putting a heavy burden on society.
Also don't underestimate the human psyche. There are literal pillars of relationships between you and your family members that are keeping you AND them sane. We can measure the toll it takes because some retards do it regardless. It would be insane to allow it.
You might think 'so just ignore everyone and just keep it private then'. But how long will you last keeping a relationship private, when everyone else around you is openly celebrating theirs? It's fucked. God has decided that inbreeding sucks. At least for now, incest just HAS to be regarded as something bad. Even if it makes you implode. I say you better implode than whatever curse this incest releases.
Keep in mind, there are tons of families out there where some form of sexual contact occurrs between family members. Most of them manage to stop at a certain point. If you are in this situation, deciding together that this shit isn't gonna work out, may be the best thing you could ever do to yourself, your brother AND to society.

>>84153882
This sounds valid. So what should I do? Should I fuck my brother even though I'm not gay or should I try to get a vasectomy and fuck my cousin?

>>84153904
>So what should I do?
Do whatever the fuck you want, I'm just here to defend that moral boundary. Go pass it if you like, I don't care, as long as you won't claim that we are wrong in setting up that boundary in the first place.

>>84153882
As a dude with two sisters, I don't see how incest is even possible without some sort of mental illness or dysfunction. It's jist nasty in general and that's why most people instinctually don't accept it.

It also seems to be a white people thing (I'm Hispanic.)

>>84154044
You got me. I'm white as fuck. But I think it's totally normal for someone to want to fuck their cousin. Especially since I'm nearing 35 and have yet to have sex with a woman and she's so nice to me I can see her saying yes and do me a solid by having sex with me

>>84154044
>brownoid cannot into rational thought free of muh feels
Many such cases

>>84154219
If the shoe fits, wear it buddy. >:)

Even the pregnancy argument is not a very good one, since 1st generation inbreeding has almost no downside and even if it did. If we say incest is immoral because children can have birth defects, how is people with genetic illnesses any different. Is them having children also immoral and should be illegal?

>>84154535
>how is people with genetic illnesses any different
It's about the intent, knowing fully well that there's a much higher risk of creating a genetic disease and doing it anyway. One could even argue that society shouldn't have the obligation to treat these people from their diseases and just leave them to die.
Also check out the degree of the disease. There's a difference between scalpy hair and those horrible birth defects usually seen by inbreds.

>>84155339
>There's a difference between scalpy hair and those horrible birth defects usually seen by inbreds.
remember how those usually take multiple generations pakis literally marry their cousins generation after generation

>>84153334
Because people have an instinctual disgust with incest. Probably an evolved mechanism against in-breeding. And it triggers even when you're perfectly rationally aware that a couple can't produce kids. That's it. If that's not satisfying to you, then consider, that everything you think is right or wrong grounds out in some axiom that's more likely than not some internal sense of right and wrong.

>>84155581
>Because people have an instinctual disgust with incest. Probably an evolved mechanism against in-breeding.
Doesn't actually exist.
It's thought we're just good at picking up the taboo

>>84155641
That's not true. But this disgust doesn't have to do with genetic relations to people, since It develops even with step parents and step siblings. It has to do with who you are around while growing up.

>>84153334
incest is abusive 99% of the time. there are pretty much always strong power dynamics at play between relatives and most people who have been through incest consider it to have been abuse.

even in your example, there is absolutely a high likelihood that one of you has power over the other, for example the older has power over the younger one, or maybe one of them is the "golden child". the fact that incest is so inherently abusive is why it should not be normalised.

you could argue that if there is no real power dynamic there it should be fine and yes, i agree, but the thing is, there basically always is.

>>84155658
>That's not true
It is, there's no direct inherited inbreeding aversion else we would have died out.
We are just good at picking up social taboos. and the incest taboo is one we're very good at picking up, it serves the same purpose of avoiding inbreeding but leaves some flexibility if after your tribe got eaten by lions or bears or some natural disaster where the only girl around is your sister you can still pass on your genes and gamble the next generations will find other humans to mate with

Imagine you wash up on some island with your sister, plenty of animals and plants to eat, after 200 years the island is fully populated and the harsh life meant the weaker offspring died outd

>>84153882
There's no way olden peoples forbade incest because of inbreeding, people used to blame deformities on things like evil spirits. It had to be a real social taboo for some purpose.

>>84153334
Because you destroy the family. Everyone becomes competition within the family, thus tearing it apart. It completely destroys the natural family dynamic.

>>84155660
>incest is abusive 99% of the time.
numbers you clearly pulled out your arse.

>>84155997
But that doesn't seem to happen in countries where incest is legal.

It shouldn't be normalized but the genetic issue is overblown

>t. got a kid

>>84155999
any psychologist worth their shit agrees incest is sexual abuse. this has been the consensus since the 70s.

"Classically, incest has been considered from both a psychological and sociological point of view to have harmful consequences."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6839266/
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/ramifications-incest

>>84156011
I just don't think the state should be able to punish people for consensual sex.

>>84156039
Because the cases they rely on to make their conclusions are self selected for abuse because no one reports consensual incest

>>84155989
Back then it was forbidden because of influence. Tying yourself to other families meant a higher chance of survival. Keeping to yourselves would eventually lead to your family dying out, because they had no ties to anyone else.
But this gets more and more irrelevant now, as we move closer to a society that simply sustains everyone by law, regardless of their influence

>>84156003
It does. And they're more aggressive and less developed because of it.

>>84156011
You're right. It is overblown if it happens every once in a while.

>>84156072
Japan and France are more violent and less advanced because they don't criminalise incest?

>>84154044
I'm black. Every person I've seen have sex with animals and defend incest were all white.

>>84156043
I figure you have to stigmatize it. On an individual basis it *may* not be bad, but you don't want it becoming a thing in society. Easier to just simply outlaw it

>>84155691
>It is, there's no direct inherited inbreeding aversion else we would have died out.
You're arguing about long-established scientific consensus. Look up Westermarck effect.

>>84156116
but the taboo still exists against incest even where it's legal

>>84156102
It's illegal in France, but Japan is a bit of an odd one out. Japs are very autistic peoples who rarely engage in incest and when they do it's first cousin marriage. Which is legal in many places over the world. And also kind of happens in the west with or without legal consent. It remains a taboo, and rarely ever happens. If you make it the norm things get bad real fast.

>>84156184
Social stigma plus legal stigma, just extra measures

>>84156167
You are wrong about that. read fox's social anthropology work

>>84156194
You can legally have sex with your close relative in france.
I don't believe we were talking about marriage.

>>84156225
The legality of sex between relatives is impossible to enforce unless you had constant 24/7 surveilance. It's about the social acceptance and the prominence. Western peoples continue to consider incest to be unacceptable so it will remain rare. We're talking about making it morally right. Not just legal.

>>84156243
I agree it's borderline unenforcable I only want decriminalisation not normalisation.
most of these laws stem from leviticus

>>84156208
If you want to keep being delusional, then you're free to do so. I'm just telling you what the scientific consensus is. Some off-beat theories don't override that consensus. Don't take it from me, you can look it up. The existence of that effect is as established as something can be in the field of evolutionary psychology.

>>84156300
I'm not delusional, I was at one point quite familiar with the research around this point. Which is why I stand by my dispute with the claims made about it.
And Westermark is reduced interest not elimination of it.

>>84156336
Nigga, I don't know why you're so resistant to this fucking idea. Is it that you want to fuck your sister, so it makes you incredulous that that's not the norm for siblings?

>>84156357
No.
You are only choosing to ignore what I said.
There's is no hardcoded mechanism to avoid fucking family, there are social exposure mechanisms and taboos which reduce interest in close relatives.
But people still have sex with their family. It's especially common if they're raised apart.

File: 20260313_224845.jpg (228 KB, 1923x1443)

228 KB JPG

You can get trauma very easily. You don't choose or feel when trauma will happen to you.
Do degenerate things that have been proven for thousands of years that are bad for you and suddenly you won't be able to sleep and become suicidal.
Don't play with trauma.

>>84155581
>If that's not satisfying to you, then consider, that everything you think is right or wrong grounds out in some axiom that's more likely than not some internal sense of right and wrong.
That applies only to irrational low IQ npcs who lack the critical thinking abilities to deconstruct their cultural programming. If what you say truly applies to your thinking then gongrats, you're one of them.

File: Guc21dVboAAMNNJ.jpg (162 KB, 1080x1408)

162 KB JPG

>>84153334
>Obviously I wouldn't fuck my brother because I like women
What if your brother really wanted to fuck you though? Would you close your eyes and let yourself get manhandled by him? Tossed around wherever he wants you? Lay there and let him love you?

>>84156393
I'm not saying there are no cases of incest. I'm saying that it's abnormal to not be repulsed by the idea of fucking one's relatives. Enough for it to be an extensively documented phenomenon that persists cross-culturally. It's like with the fact that the vast majority of people are documented to be straight. Well, guess what? Some people aren't straight. But given how prevalent being straight is, being gay would fall outside of the norm. Me pointing out that the vast majority of people are straight doesn't mean that there are no gay people. It's just an extensively documented norm. Understood?

>>84156414
What do you think your values ground out in, if not something axiomatic? You yourself clearly haven't thought this through, but are quick to judge. No intellectual curiosity whatsoever. A sign of retardation if I've ever seen one.

>>84156109
>I'm black
I'm not surprised. But then again white people with low level of qualitative thinking do exist in depressingly high numbers. It's extremely alienating to live in the world where 100IQ is as far from you as literal clinical retards are from 100IQ.

>>84156444
It's honestly depressing to see you can't even fathom an higher mode of thinking. I must confess I lack the ability to code switch and dumb it down any more.

>>84156488
So you have no actual argument. It just "as if I would tell you, psh". I mean it with sincerity, you're a genuine brain-dead faggot. One who wouldn't be capable of grasping anything about ethics, if it hit you in the face. Kill yourself. The world IQ average will thank you.

>>84156436
But that's a different debate?
Under normal conditions this general social disquiet manifests itself, but it's not a hard barrier. Under the right conditions, in this case I would argue the most extreme survival where you are reduced to a fertile male and female and forced to choose between extinction or survival.
Most people aren't going to be in a position where they need to kill anyone, or even feel squeamish about killing an animal to eat. These are clearly socialised effects. I can kill and butcher a duck, a pig or a deer but I wouldn't fuck my sister I don't even think about her that way.
But if it were just us alone surviving there's no way she wouldn't be pregnant within a couple of months.

I won't bring in GSA because it's such a minefield. But the fact it exists is significant.

>>84153576
If someone asks you to prove them wrong but they are unable to, then they should reconsider their position or work on their argumentation skills, logical reasoning, and knowledge. As long as the original challenger is willing to change their mind if proven wrong then I see no problem.

>>84153334
because of evolutionary psychology, humans find incest abhorrent. Our ancestors learned to not fuck with their siblings, the same way they learned to not eat feces or fuck animals.

On a purely utilitarist standpoint, incest with proper contraception isn't creating human suffering, someone with a purely utilitarian view of morality could argue it's not morally wrong. But it's retarded

But moral isn't purely utilitarian, incest is deontologically wrong, it's "of bad character". You can read the wikipedia pages of ethics philosophy if you find that stuff interesting

>>84156582
If you were in a position of survival where e.g. you're going to have your head blown off unless you suck a dick, then I'm sure you'd suck that dick. Doesn't mean that it's your natural inclination or that you would enjoy it. I thought the contention you raised with my original point was that this anti-incest disposition is not something that's naturally present in people. What I told you that it is prevalent enough to exist cross-culturally, which is as close as you can get to demonstrating that something is a product of humans' biology. Now is it *possible* that all cultures throughout the world, including ones that developed uncontacted in the wilderness, are subject to e.g. some airborne contagion that warps their inclinations? Sure. But that's why I said "as established as something can be" within the field.

File: image_2026-03-16_231006839.png (20 KB, 264x191)

20 KB PNG

from my personal experience(yes my bitchass did it, please dont judge me), it just stains your relationship with the other person and makes it awkward and weird. i was too young and horny at that time and regret doing it here and there.

Most people whom i have talked to who have done the same. said the same thing. It just made their relationship with their kin uncomfortable and even worsen it, Although a minority of people didnt really mind it much but they dont want to do it again in future. And there are also even a smaller minority who dont mind it at all.

So ,if banging your family member wont effect your mental health and wont have any great negative effect on your relationship with them, good for you. But most do end up regretting it.

>>84156790
did you fuck your sister ?
lmfao what the fuck

>>84156790
The only regret I have in life is NOT doing it. lol

>>84156868
nah, i dont have a sister, i committed faggotry
>>84156901
well humans come in all shapes and sizes, this might be just the thing for you, was not for me

>>84157032
>this might be just the thing for you, was not for me
I'm not a fag so it's a different story for me.

>>84157056
its not even a thing about being a fag, if my brother was a girl and we would have banged , i would have still regret it.

its a matter of personal morals, ideals and choices

>>84157088
It changes the dynamic. Two guys is less of a problem in terms of consequences compared to a guy and a girl if you know what I mean.

>>84153334
Because it's wrong. There was a case of twin brothers who had sex with each other and at the time, they would talk about how it's no one's business, and there's nothing wrong with it, etc. Now they don't even talk to each other anymore. It's disgusting. Anyone who tries to pretend something that is objectively wrong is neutral or okay is someone that should be shunned and avoided

>>84157101
fair enough the consequences can be much dire, but the relationship gets worse in both the cases , which is my main point

>>84157209
How does it get worse? I haven't seen her in years, it can't get much worse than this...

>>84156656
Sorry had to nip out for a bit
>If you were in a position of survival where e.g. you're going to have your head blown off unless you suck a dick, then I'm sure you'd suck that dick. Doesn't mean that it's your natural inclination or that you would enjoy it.
If you're in a position of survival you fall back to more basal instincts and less socialised ideas, kill or be killed, eat what you can when you can and breed. Mosstly just establishing a point where westermark effects are voided and working back, did you know that incest avoidance is typically stronger in women?
>I thought the contention you raised with my original point was that this anti-incest disposition is not something that's naturally present in people.
It's not exactly inbuilt, but I feel we're possibly predisposed to pick up the taboo with the right conditioning, though a few studies have demonstrated facial similarity rejection and preference.
>What I told you that it is prevalent enough to exist cross-culturally, which is as close as you can get to demonstrating that something is a product of humans' biology. Now is it *possible* that all cultures throughout the world, including ones that developed uncontacted in the wilderness, are subject to e.g. some airborne contagion that warps their inclinations? Sure. But that's why I said "as established as something can be" within the field.
I would reply that you are ignorant of just how broad human cultures are and really need to read more anthropology texts instead of westermark's wikipedia page.
There have been societies where marrying a sibling was considered quite normal, ~20% of marriges according to what records we retain from roman era egypt make the point quite clearly and that's commoner marriage not elites.
History is a foreign country as they say.
As I think I've been clear I'm not opposed to the idea of incest/inbreeding aversion, only the more absolutist stance you hold which I don't think is properly supported by evidence.

>>84156465
This post just screams midwit

>>84153334
Most people are ugly and therefore its wrong, its only ok if the siblings are hot

>>84158037
You deserved trips, But accept my (You) in consolation.

File: its-just-syndrome-not-the(...).png (81 KB, 640x468)

81 KB PNG

>>84156465
>I'm not surprised. But then again white people with low level of qualitative thinking do exist in depressingly high numbers. It's extremely alienating to live in the world where 100IQ is as far from you as literal clinical retards are from 100IQ.

>>84153875
There's a reason only retards actually do it. It's objectively a retarded decision and the fantasy of people that clearly never had siblings