Comic Genesis Forums

LindaH wrote:

kingofthemorlocks wrote:What if you travel back through time and have sex with your younger self?

hmm that could be interesting, to have my own penis in my pussy...

At least in your case, Linda, you won't run the risk of impregnating yourself

As someone who has actiualy been hit on by their hot cousin I find myself thinking, "curse you social taboos!", but yeah providing the guidlines suggested are followed I can comfortably fit it into the no harm no foul catagory.

In relation to the whole psycho/sociological argument I feel I may as well act as a case study, we only see each other about three times a year and she lives in a different country for most of the rest of the time. Now don't get me wrong I strongly suspect societal mores had an influence on the extent of our oppinions on this subject but I feel there is something that limits the degree to which incest between closer relatives.

(I shouldn't type at these hours.)

alter alias wrote:As someone who has actually been hit on by their hot cousin I find myself thinking, "curse you social taboos!"

You shoulda gone with the flow, I daresay.

Heh, well the 'rents walked in asking if we were going to join them for lunch about a minute after that so I can't say I entirely regret my decision. Bad enough they once walked in on me with someone I wasn't related to, "uhh hi mom yeah this is dan oh but don't worry I like women as well so you might still get granchildren"

(looking back on it that was the best coming out ever though.)

alter alias wrote:..."uhh hi mom yeah this is dan oh but don't worry I like women as well so you might still get granchildren"

(looking back on it that was the best coming out ever though.)

I'd be awfully tempted to second that nomination.

I still recall my father talking to me... Very quietly, calmly. We're each having a beer, the back yard is dark enough that nobody has to make direct eye contact, but I'm not looking at his face anyway.

Him: "So... This isn't 'experimenting', is it?"
Me: "No... Not... *shakes head* No."
Him: "...o... k. Let's not talk to the others (siblings) about this."
Me: "They know."
Him: "...o... k."

To his credit, we had lots of good conversations about sex with women later... Even "fatherly advice" about women, and loving them, and what they thought/felt/did. He tried. He was a good dad.

Aww, sweet, those of us whos parents accept it realy are the lucky ones.
Topic hijacking aside its realy quite strange how something that began as a purely practical attempt to prevent genetic defects so quickly became a battle between good and evil. I guess some people just cannot deal with a world not put in black and white terms.

alter alias wrote:Aww, sweet, those of us whos parents accept it realy are the lucky ones.

I agree entirely... Although, the fact that he had very little excuse to be surprised by the time it came up probably helped.

alter alias wrote:Topic hijacking aside its realy quite strange how something that began as a purely practical attempt to prevent genetic defects so quickly became a battle between good and evil. I guess some people just cannot deal with a world not put in black and white terms.

Wouldn't reducing the complexity from "Look... If you bone your sister, there is a slight chance you might make icky babies, increasing over time along an irregular probability curve, then flattening out to a reduced probability, but probably not worth it because you'd almost inevitably have monsterous mis-creations to do away with along the way." being reduced to "Bone your sister, go to hell!" a matter of putting things, artificially, more into black and white?

Monstrous mis-creations have feelings too!

It's not entirely incomprehensible that someone made that connection - as a method of social and genetic control. Let's face it, many people are stupid and back in the day, they were uninformed, as well. How could you explain to a Dark Ages farmer that shagging his daughter would cause her to have a baby with serious genetic defects? Would he even care? These were not nice times - and the further back you go, often how less nice the times become. And another point, if a baby with defects was born, what would its fate be? If it wasn't just murdered out of hand, it could end up as a sideshow freak, or a second-class citizen, basically an indentured servant without even the flimsy legal recourse that real indentured servants had.
Would someone from ancient times care that he'd be conceiving a child with such a terrible fate? Possibly not. But in more religious times, would he care about the threat of eternal torment if he dragged his daughters or sisters into the bushes? Possibly yes.
I'm not saying that is the sole reason why people did it - intolerance towards genetic defects is another good one - but it'd be an effective way of keeping the inbreeding down. Which is all for the good.
In closing, a question; how old is the connection of inbreeding with the direct family with doing something wrong?

alter alias wrote:Aww, sweet, those of us whos parents accept it realy are the lucky ones.

*nods* it is so good to have parents that accept you for who you are and not what you do with whom or to yourself to be happy

My parents have a hard enough time accepting how I act in public.

So what if I'm slightly effeminate in some of my actions? The only reason I appear to have a "limp wrist" is because I type a LOT. Also, I wiggle my hips when I walk because I'm trying to fix my feet so they don't waddle as much. Also, I only sit cross-legged like a gal because it's more comfy that way. And, my girlish voice happens to be soothing.

Ok it is well known in the archeological world currently that anyone from the "civilized world" or Christian world as it was also called for over a millenia, 1900 turn-of-the-century professionals in the archeological/cultural antropological fields had a slightly patriarical, christian mindset.

This now delves into the world of cultural conditioning.

We are all culturally conditioned. I am, you are, Squiddy, Honor, Awkward, Unca G - everyone. It's how much of the bullshit we can handle from "those in the know". They want everyone to think they know all, that they've got the answers, when in fact - anthropologically speaking - we keep having to go back and reevaluate the theories and conclusions made by the scientist of the last 200 years. As carbondating equipment becomes more advanced, as we shed the conditioning of our personal culture and go in with eyes wide open to any eventuality - instead of what is expected according to mindset we were raised in. New answers are found which make more since than they did 100 years ago.

There are plenty of philosophers, anthropologists and scientists who did studies and found a new way to look at religion within their own culture. Religion is important because it is the singularly most important topic to much of the world. Religion is what gives people hope, morals, ethics, faith, belief in a greater good - because religion provides these things which we believe to make up the fiber of a good life - most who follow a religion have a double conditioning with the cultural ones. This increases exponentially when the culture is steeped into a singular religion. (Church of England, The Vatican, Israel, The Middle East in general, India, Japan, the aborigines of Australia are some big examples of this. Hell - our country was founded because of the need to escape from a country which was culturally and religiously tied up and conditioned)

If you look at history along side your singular studies - the answers will be right in front of you. I just got home from working and playing in the desert for 5 days and driving for 16 hours to get home. So I'll give you citations once I get settled back home and have all of my personal life back in order.

Do not go off of books alone. Someone who quotes me citations and books constantly without their own opinions is a bookjocky and not a thinker, IMHO. Look at all the info available to you, think on it and tell me what YOU think, Not Westermarck or any other studies. I've mixed philosophy with anthropology since college - drove my professors crazy, but I get results that haven't been found before and I see things may have missed. Just my personal idiosyncracy.

aeridus wrote:My parents have a hard enough time accepting how I act in public.

So what if I'm slightly effeminate in some of my actions? The only reason I appear to have a "limp wrist" is because I type a LOT. Also, I wiggle my hips when I walk because I'm trying to fix my feet so they don't waddle as much. Also, I only sit cross-legged like a gal because it's more comfy that way. And, my girlish voice happens to be soothing.

I laughed very hard at this. I am pidgeon toed, swing my arms awkwardly, sit like a girl, and numerous other things that bother my parents in public too. If I'm really excited, I shake my hand. I used to start hopping up and down, but I've gained a little control over that. You know that thing that cats do when they get scared and their fur goes up and down again? Sometimes I look like I do that, like a wave goes through my body, if a get grossed out.

My voice is certainly not girly by any stretch.

It's interesting to read threads like this, because my mom basically is disappointed that I'm not gay...though all the time she makes commentary to my family (sis= 9 bro=13) when we are out to dinner or such things when I do queer (in the original sense of the word) stuff, like shivering when I touch a A1 bottle that had sauce on the bottle that got on my hand.

You know, I don't think people would perceive me as so fruity if I wasn't skin and bones (120 lbs, 6 feet)

swordsman3003 wrote: I laughed very hard at this. I am pidgeon toed, swing my arms awkwardly, sit like a girl, and numerous other things that bother my parents in public too. If I'm really excited, I shake my hand. I used to start hopping up and down, but I've gained a little control over that. You know that thing that cats do when they get scared and their fur goes up and down again? Sometimes I look like I do that, like a wave goes through my body, if a get grossed out.

My voice is certainly not girly by any stretch.

It's interesting to read threads like this, because my mom basically is disappointed that I'm not gay...though all the time she makes commentary to my family (sis= 9 bro=13) when we are out to dinner or such things when I do queer (in the original sense of the word) stuff, like shivering when I touch a A1 bottle that had sauce on the bottle that got on my hand.

you just act like a spaz (which is fine, no offense intended), I used to act similarly; queer (read: "odd") behavior tends to make people uncomfortable, regardless of sexual orientation.

swordsman3003 wrote:
You know, I don't think people would perceive me as so fruity if I wasn't skin and bones (120 lbs, 6 feet)

not for those that actually know some gay people... if you've ever been to a gay bar, it's like a gym afterparty.

all the gay guys want are hot bodies (interpret as you wish, you're probably right)

I dunno...Bears are pretty big (pun retroactively intended!) around these parts...

I don't know, but I noticed that gay guys at school check me out once I realize what that was.

gealachtine wrote:Ok it is well known in the archeological world currently that anyone from the "civilized world" or Christian world as it was also called for over a millenia, 1900 turn-of-the-century professionals in the archeological/cultural antropological fields had a slightly patriarical, christian mindset.

To which my response is that this argument can't be used to attack Westermarck's credibility because, as an agnostic, he cannot be said to have a Christian mindset. (Of course, this defense does not address the matter of cultural conditioning, as you mention next. However, since it seems that at least one prong of your argument is to question the religious preconceptions that might have fed into his research, on the basis that such preconceptions were arguably held by a majority of researchers at the time, I must point out that your assumed preconceptions are probably incorrect, due to his stated religion, as evidenced by his later writings.)

gealachtine wrote: This now delves into the world of cultural conditioning.

We are all culturally conditioned. I am, you are, Squiddy, Honor, Awkward, Unca G - everyone. It's how much of the bullshit we can handle from "those in the know". They want everyone to think they know all, that they've got the answers, when in fact - anthropologically speaking - we keep having to go back and reevaluate the theories and conclusions made by the scientist of the last 200 years. As carbondating equipment becomes more advanced, as we shed the conditioning of our personal culture and go in with eyes wide open to any eventuality - instead of what is expected according to mindset we were raised in. New answers are found which make more since than they did 100 years ago.

To me, this line of reasoning smells of an "Appeal to Novelty" fallacy. It is true that we have made much progress in the last hundred years, but that fact alone does not mean that theories formed 100 years ago are necessarily wrong. This is especially the case in "with eyes wide open to any eventuality"; while it is true that broadening the universe of discourse makes finding the "correct" answer more likely, one must be careful not to neglect that part of the universe that has already been covered: it is entirely possible, absent any solid evidence to the contrary, that the "correct" answer is already there.

gealachtine wrote: There are plenty of philosophers, anthropologists and scientists who did studies and found a new way to look at religion within their own culture. Religion is important because it is the singularly most important topic to much of the world. Religion is what gives people hope, morals, ethics, faith, belief in a greater good - because religion provides these things which we believe to make up the fiber of a good life - most who follow a religion have a double conditioning with the cultural ones. This increases exponentially when the culture is steeped into a singular religion. (Church of England, The Vatican, Israel, The Middle East in general, India, Japan, the aborigines of Australia are some big examples of this. Hell - our country was founded because of the need to escape from a country which was culturally and religiously tied up and conditioned)

Then fulfilling my previous request for an anthropological argument that taboos are derived mostly (if not solely) from religion should not be difficult. (Note: This was written before I read the next paragraph, so please do not take offense; I assure you I mean none.)

gealachtine wrote: If you look at history along side your singular studies - the answers will be right in front of you. I just got home from working and playing in the desert for 5 days and driving for 16 hours to get home. So I'll give you citations once I get settled back home and have all of my personal life back in order.

Ok, fair enough. I look forward to it.

gealachtine wrote: Do not go off of books alone. Someone who quotes me citations and books constantly without their own opinions is a bookjocky and not a thinker, IMHO. Look at all the info available to you, think on it and tell me what YOU think, Not Westermarck or any other studies. I've mixed philosophy with anthropology since college - drove my professors crazy, but I get results that haven't been found before and I see things may have missed. Just my personal idiosyncracy.

How can you say that? Perhaps if one only quotes passages from books, one can make that argument, but even paraphrasing would indicate some thought on the subject. Furthermore, it takes thought to combine different works into one cohesive memeplex. Finally, the fact is there is a lot of world out there to experience, and while it is true that not having any practical experience in life will make for some rather warped views, one cannot experience everything. That is why books are important, because it allows you to study others' experience. I do not have the time or resources to conduct my own study of mating habits of relatives or other close relations in various cultures; so I must rely on others who do, and who have.

But in the case of my opinion, my opinion is this:

I think Westermarck is probably right, or at least more right then wrong. I think the existence of the Incest Taboo in virtually all cultures suggests that there is a basis beyond some common religious meme.

swordsman3003 wrote:I don't know, but I noticed that gay guys at school check me out once I realize what that was.

difrent strokes for difrent folks, hehe

see, i made a mistake, generalizations are wrong.


maybe you're just overwhelmingly manly?

also, perhaps your mannerisms are sending wrong signals?

or, maybe they just like your delicate features.

It could be that the Nerd-love is all-encompassing...

queenhank wrote:It could be that the Nerd-love is all-encompassing...

its true!