If no pregnancy occurs and it is consensual, how can there be

>>1918363
>no pregnancy occurs

You can't be sure of that, unless we are talking about homosexual incest, which is thus fine I guess.

>>1918376
sure you can. it's called abortion.

Everything points to incest avoidance to be an innate trait of humans and if it's innate then there's no reason make it a taboo since it's never going to happen on a large scale. And individual cases can be dealt with via birth control and abortions.

>>1918376
>You can't be sure of that

There's plenty of ways to be sure of that. One would be to have yourself sterilized.

>>1918363
there isnt

>>1918363
Incest practitioners are typically sexually abused at an early age. The incest itself is telling of much deeper and troubling mental issues.

>>1918363
>ethical problem with incest
It's 'gross'.

>>1918478
[citation needed]

>>1918396
Isn't the Westermarck effect still debated? It doesn't really seem to be that strong of a thing.

>>1918363
Even if there's pregnancy there's still no problem unless the kid has birth defects, and you can just abort those.

>>1918363
Nope.
>>1918478
That's horrible but not an argument against incest.

File: 1473503286732.jpg (18KB, 395x387px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 395x387px

>>1918495
Anon its the current year you can't just say somethings "gross"
>>1918501
Second gen incest babies have a way higher rate of genetic defects. Also chance they become some sort of fucked up catholic who practices incest.

>>1918508
>Second gen incest babies have a way higher rate of genetic defects
Right but the defects can just get aborted away, or (maybe soon) get edited out.

>>1918508
>Anon its the current year you can't just say somethings "gross"
I was being ironic.

>>1918363
In this case it becomes the exact same as homosexuality
Don't count on hypocrital champions of tolerance (with things already accepted) to admit it though

>>1918508
>Anon its the current year you can't just say somethings "gross"
One could argue (I won't) that ethical positions are nothing more but emotional responses. I believe the meta-ethical position Emotivism do this. So saying "incest is ethical wrong" is literary the same as saying "incest makes me feel uncomfortable".

>>1918523
Personally I'm of the opinion that as long as
1. You keep it behind your bedroom door and
2. You're not incredibly fucking obnoxious about it and
3. Your partner is fine with it
Just about any fetish is okay.

>>1918536
Ethics isn't necessarily nothing but an emotional response but in this case it pretty much is. Any emotional response that a large majority holds can become the basis for an ethical position.

>>1918539
>Just about any fetish is okay.

Yeah pedophilia is alright as long as you keep it in the bedroom

Kill yourself freak

>>1918363
>Ethical
Nice spook. Really though, familial sexual attractions are a big enough issue in developing children already, and it certainly wouldn't help if that sort of thing was socially acceptable. It is not sensible to allow incest for the same reason that it is sensible to have a minimum age of consent: sex fucks with childhood development (pun intended). Study psychology for a bit and you'll see the metric fuckton of issues caused by latent sexual attraction to family members. It's something that objectively needs to be quashed in order for productive social development to occur in a child.

>>1918543
>what is consent

Consensual cannibalism is more interesting case.

>>1918543
Kids can't give consent.

>>1918543
You know that's not what he meant, don't be disingenuous

Your sister doesn't find you attractive OP, sorry

>>1918543
>I didn't even see the last condition
The biggest problem with pedophilia is that the kid has no fucking idea what he/she is getting into.

>>1918554
I should probably add a corollary that it doesn't permanently disable a person since that hurts society as a whole.

>>1918562
Otoutos belong to their oneechans

>>1918363
Because from a purely practical stand point the overwhelming majority of incest cases are predatory, the result of an older male family member like an uncle or brother taking advantage of a younger female family member who can be groomed to accept and normalize the abuse.

and in the rare exceptions where both family members are consenting adults, it usually comes because of a long term separation where the bonds that they forge are short term enough to mimic romantic bonds before they have time to mature into familial bonds. In these cases the psychologically healthy option for both parties is to refrain from sexual contact and allow their bonds to mature, because allowing a sexual union to form would severely warp the relationship into something that humans have a natural aversion towards, and that can only lead to suffering down the road.

File: 1466960469991.jpg (145KB, 1600x732px)

145KB, 1600x732px

>>1918581
>midwest

>>1918578
The first part isn't an actual argument against incest, it's an argument against predation.
The second part focuses solely on the case where incestuous lust is a heat of the moment thing and assumes a 'natural aversion' when Westermarck doesn't even apply under the circumstances you've provided
Basically, you've given reasons why the question stated is rarely relevant, but haven't actually answered the question itself.

>>1918589
That's Florida my lad.
The pearl of the union.

>>1918363
source on webm please?

>>1918592
>The first part isn't an actual argument against incest, it's an argument against predation.
Yes it is. It's the recognition that predators can come up with any justification that they want, which might even sound really good on paper, but in concrete reality all they are doing is rationalizing behavior that society rightfully condemns. The numbers don't lie, most cases of incest involve an older male taking advantage of a younger female family member, which by itself is enough reason to punish the act. Purely idealistic arguments divorce the abstract from concrete reality so trying to come up with these "should it be legal if X, Y, and Z conditions are perfectly in alignment" ignores the real repercussions on the public health if such behavior becomes normalized

>>1918606
But that isn't relevant because that isn't an argument against incest, it's noting that incest and abuse are often tied together and attacking the abuse section of it.
From a practical point of view it doesn't make sense to normalize incest (and it isn't possible to anyway) but we're not talking from a practical point of view and we're literally going from a philosophical, 'what if' point of view.
It's like when you say 'is killing people always wrong', people will attempt to come up with circumstances under which it is not and you can't just dismiss them saying 'well that rarely ever happens', because nobody is asking you to legalize manslaughter.

File: image.jpg (15KB, 277x271px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 277x271px

>>1918558

>>1918606
>Purely idealistic arguments divorce the abstract from concrete reality
The concrete reality mixes incest with a plethora of other factors that you then attack, it is like attacking high-end mathematics as a field of study because many famous mathematicians hanged themselves or saying prostitution is wrong on an ethical level because abusive pimps exist.

>>1918635
It's by definition whether you agree or not.

>>1918543
The issue with pedophilia is consent

>>1918558
That's a ridiculously dogmatic view
Kids can most definitly consent, but they can also easily be pressured and dismissed as liars, which is why it's better to ban pedophilia altogether

>>1918578
>it usually comes because of a long term separation where the bonds that they forge are short term enough to mimic romantic bonds before they have time to mature into familial bonds. In these cases the psychologically healthy option for both parties is to refrain from sexual contact and allow their bonds to mature, because allowing a sexual union to form would severely warp the relationship into something that humans have a natural aversion towards, and that can only lead to suffering down the road.

t. degenerate who thinks sex is something trivial
Sexual bond should be the closest bond possible between two humans, which means that a sexual relationship between two siblings would reinforce their bond rather than weaken it
That's how it has always been until sexual "liberation"

>>1918960
Kids can't provide consent for the same reason drunk people can't, it doesn't count for shit.

>>1918983
Not him but that's really not how it works
A sibling's bond and a lover's bond are often separate and/or simply incompatible, like how both sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid are highly corrosive and toxic but mixing them gives you water and table salt.

>>1918606
>The numbers don't lie, most cases of incest involve an older male taking advantage of a younger female family member

What numbers?
In police reports?
Maybe is it simply that sons seduced by their moms/little bros seduced by older sis are less likely to suddenly change their minds because of the pressure of society and decide to report the relationhsip claiming they never consented like younger females seduced by older males often do

>>1918543
What is pedophilia even?
For americans anyone under 18 is a child, meanwhile most civilized places have it as 14.

>>1918988
Long term romantic love actually ressembles sibling love a lot (once the three years or so of pure passion start to calm down)

>>1919015
Yeah it does, but those few years of passion can fuck up the sibling relationship, which then ruins the romantic one too.

>>1919005
It's an attempt at preventing a certain type of abuse because abuse laws are hard to set well and have fuzzy borders while age is a hard border.

>>1918997
That and people who are genuinely riding their brother's dick are unlikely to come out and say so because it has the ability to ruin their public life.

>>1918984
Why not?

>>1918997
>little bros seduced by older sis
This is my fetish

>>1919046
Drunk people or children? Drunk people because they're drunk.
As for children, it's the same reason they have different punishments compared to adults and why juvie is a thing instead of just sending them to prison, and the reason why they're not allowed to do certain things like hold a (formal) paying job or whatever.

From a hedonistic point of view, there is no argument to be had against incest, if there is no conceiving.
If you believe sex is for pleasure and that "as long as it doesn't hurt others there is nothing wrong with it", incest without conceiving is OK.

So, liberalism leads logically to full degeneracy.

>>1919030
Isn't rape a fine criteria?
Just have the jury decide if X person was in a position to consent, no jury would say "this child wae consenting".

>>1919074
>isn't rape a fine criteria
No, it's incredibly fucking vague as to what constitutes rape.

>>1919073
Well you kind of have to explain why it's degenerate even, since with genemapping we could potentially in the near future be able to just edit out the defects.

>>1919080
>Is there a relationship of authority?
>Did blackmail occur?
>Was there violence or provable threat f violence?
>Is the person/victim in question mentally able to comprehend he consequences ot their actions?
It's actually quite easy. Don't get mad at me now.

>>1918363
>and it is consensual

most of is not
read Foucalt ya pervert

>>1919091
>relationship of authority
So if I'm a girl in love with my boss and I really wanted his cock and ride him and he says 'aight', he just raped me?

>blackmail occur
This works.

>violence, provable threat of violence
This works...unless there was something like S&M play or hardsubbing play.

>mentally able to comprehend
How do you even judge this, do you give them a pop quiz?

And what about the condition, ever so popular, that one side suddenly withdraws consent? You also miss out on the whole 'no explicit 'no' does not imply 'yes'' thing which is popular these days, although I get the feeling you don't think it's all that valid.

>>1919100
"Most of it" is not the topic of discussion.

>>1918581
Your conception was a mistake.

>>1919111
>He just raped me
It depends, you are an adult, if you can prove he coerce you with his position of authority, then yes.

ers.


The rest of that post
>shitposting about feminist views
Well feminists think 15 year olds shouldn't have sex with older dudes while also claiming they should be sexually liberated and have sex with anyone they want so I tend to ignore they exist.

Why do you all care? Can you not get grills, so you want to schtupp your sister?

>>1919121
I ate my post:

Cont from first paragraph
For a child it would depend on others to try and find evidece, but it would generally be accepted that if they fall under the 'mentally incapable' but did not get viopently put into that situation then it's an abuse of authority.

>>1918363
So, your sister or your cousin Cletus?

incest is most often acted out by children on their relatives as a form of sexual exploration. its usually scolded, but in that scenario its not considered ethically wrong because the children involved arent culpable.

incest between adults is considered ethically wrong on the basis that almost every case seems to have obvious abuse going on.

>>1918564
>The biggest problem with pedophilia is that the kid has no fucking idea what he/she is getting into.
so tell them?

>>1919050
the rationalizations for limited culpability for drunks and children are 2 different cases.
drunks are aware of the context of an action, it is their impulse control that has been impaired. children are (ostensibly) unaware of the context entirely, in addition to being generally believed to have lesser impulse control than adults.

a drunk person knows its a bad idea to fuck you, its just that knowledge is muffled
a child doesnt know whether its a bad idea to fuck someone because theyve no context for what fucking someone has on their emotional, social, or physical well being. this is also compounded by most people believing that children simply do not have the brains to understand that context whatsoever. i think thats debatable, but i do also believe that theres no good reason to allow it that isnt overwhelmed by a billion bad reasons.

>>1919121
Fair enough
>shitposting
I was just parroting the current views which make rape a fuzzy thing instead of something like age, which is a hard line.

>>1919123
What if your sister wanted your dick at one point and you were wondering if it would've been bad to say yes
And yes, older sisters can be incredibly fucking thirsty.
And nah I'm not OP.

>>1919129
Yeah but the problem is 'mentally incapable' is the reason people say they can't give consent. How are you judging if they are mentally capable, do you give them a quiz? At what point does a person 'understand' what (s)he's getting into? Is it just the textbook answer of what sex is? Is it just knowing that and what an intimate relationship is?

>>1919144
>incest between adults is considered ethically wrong on the basis that almost every case seems to have obvious abuse going on.
Isn't that considering the abuse that goes on with it ethically wrong, and not the act of incest itself?
>sexual exploration...usually scolded
Not if your mom never found out :^)

>>1919158
Just called your mom with this information

>>1919111
>"Most of it" is not the topic of discussion.
When something is bad often enough you can reasonably write the whole thing off as bad in general.

>>1919148
>How to define it
Good question. You'd need a lot of time to debate among jurists and experts from medical fields and others to come up with a half decent definition.
In my idealism I still have hope we'd end with a more sensible system.

>>1919175
He specified the unique case in which your generalization doesn't apply at all, and more to the point, abuse isn't a characteristic of incest and incest isn't a characteristic of abuse and neither directly causes the other. It's like saying, again, that prostitution is bad because of pimps - you might argue it's bad, but this isn't a relevant reason.

>>1919190
>jurists
>experts from medical fields
As I understand WHO recently announced that not having a living cocksleeve (as a guy) or a boytoy (as a girl) counts as a disability - specifically, infertility. I don't know why you expect anything.

>>1919158
>Isn't that considering the abuse that goes on with it ethically wrong, and not the act of incest itself?
It is totally irrelevant if it's bad often enough, it can be reasonably attributed to the act itself.

>but it wasn't bad in this one specific case!
Everyone's an empiricist when it suits them.

>>1919091
>Is there a relationship of authority?

This one should apply only if it's a real unbypassable authority
Tired of hearing that dumb argument about teachers, most students dont respect their authority anyway, doubt anyone would submit to sex in its name

>>1919175
Explain why havent the West banned Islam yet then

>>1919202
I didn't find anything about that on the WHO site and their definition there hasn't changed either. So until I find the study I'm not sure.

>Implying being an incel isn't a mental disability
Just jokes.

>>1919221
I meant more "guard in a prison with provable coercion" or "blackmail" types.

>>1919230
Because the terrorists are heavily outweighed by the other muslims

>>1919214
>it can reasonably be attributed to the act itself
But it can't be. Correlation isn't causation and causation doesn't imply correlation, this is literally the first day of stat 101 material. Everyone who eats meat ends up dead ergo eating meat kills you? Or, say, 99.9% of people who die drank water at some point ergo drinking water is deadly? Can you actually finish senior high before coming on 4chan?

>Everyone is an empiricist
Considering OP specifies the exact case where 0% will be abuse?

>>1919221
It might be possible if the headmaster threatened to expel you and in the heat of the moment you didn't realize that he can't just kick you out for no reason, or if he had a reason but offered to let it go if you gave succ.

>>1919193
And I specified that unique cases are irrelevant when something is bad often enough.

> abuse isn't a characteristic of incest
When it's a component of enough cases of incest, you can reasonably say that yes abuse is indeed a characteristic of incest, even if it isn't absolutely true.

>that prostitution is bad because of pimps - you might argue it's bad, but this isn't a relevant reason.
Pimps are completely relevant to the discussion of prostitution being bad or not.

Let me put this bluntly:
You may not be willing to accept convenient generalizations, but this rest of the world is more than willing to fight you on it.

>>1919247
>terrorism is the only thing wrong with islam

>>1919248
A better example is that a majority of people who have sex eat meat, so eating meat lets you have sex.

>>1919248
>It might be possible if the headmaster threatened to expel you and in the heat of the moment you didn't realize that he can't just kick you out for no reason, or if he had a reason but offered to let it go if you gave succ.

Then it's blackmail
The authority argument is bullshit when it's consensual and blackmail isnt involved

>>1918363
sauce?

>>1919248
>But it can't be.
Yes, it can.

> Everyone who eats meat ends up dead ergo eating meat kills you?
Everyone dies regardless, but everyone can avoid problems relevant to meat eating by abstaining from meat.

You may not be willing to admit that abuse is heavily relevant to incest, but that's okay, because your admission is itself irrelevant.

>>1919256
>When it's a component of enough cases of incest, you can reasonably say that yes abuse is indeed a characteristic of incest, even if it isn't absolutely true.
>even if it isn't true
>I'm allowed to say it
We are discussing incest on its own. You are not attacking incest. You are attacking abuse and saying that incest and abuse often come hand in hand so, lacking the bureaucracy and 1984 capacity to shuffle out the few cases of non-abusive incest, it's easier to just ban incest and be done with it. That is right. I agree fully. That isn't, however, the topic of discussion. You can't simply tie in an unrelated property that tends to show up in tandem and say they cause each other, or worse, that they don't cause each other but make each other bad anyway. If 90% of apples have worms in them, that doesn't make APPLES bad, it's just that they tend to have fucking worms in them and we don't want the worms.

>Pimps are completely relevant to the discussion of prostitution being bad or not.
You can't pimp without a ho.

>>1919283
>yes, it can
Causation isn't correlation, correlation isn't causation.

>>1919256
You're a cretin
The reason why many documented cases of incest come with abuse is because said abuse is the reason why these people expose their incest to begin with (by reporting to cops or in psycho websites)
People who have a happy consensual incestuous relationship have no reason to expose it to the world and thus aren't part of your statistics

>>1919248
>>1919256
>>1919283
>>1919289
The reason abuse and incest come hand in hand a lot is because of 1. availability and 2. ease of leverage
Your little sister / niece is right next to you all the time and often doesn't want to leave so it's easier to coerce her into taking your dick than someone who will just say 'no fuck off' and leave. They're also around ever since they're kids so it's easier to trick them into doing it (as they supposedly trust you - family) when they don't fully understand the ramifications of fucking you.
Ease of leverage is because you're family, so they tend to trust you, the potential for blackmail if you're older / 'have dirt' that they value more highly at the moment (if you don't I'll tell mom you swiped her credit card to buy X), or because they're afraid of pulling the family apart.
There's also reporter bias - nobody is going to tell you about the happy cases because it ruins their public image and they really would like to keep it a secret, but it's much more common for people to report these cases of abuse even considering that rape victims tend not to talk, since they can possibly benefit from the care and pity they receive and get removed from the abuser as opposed to literally nothing for a happy incest couple where it's shunned.
In short, it's not really that they're properties of each other, but that the prerequisite conditions for incest (being family) also tend to make abuse that much easier. Arguing that incest is itself abusive is imbecilic.

>>1919289
I'm no attacking anything. I'm not making any moral statements.
I'm saying society's ability to exclaim "truths" is a more powerful force than your ability to contradict them.

>>1919341
What about slavery and ban on homosex until recently?
Le soiciety is always right after all

File: latest[1].png (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>1919319
Ahh yes, the "silent majority".

>>1918363
sauce OP

We're all part of one family, human race. It's natural to love your brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers,...

>>1919351
Yes actually those are perfect examples, I'm glad you brought them up.

It took a fratricidal war that nearly rent the nation apart in order to topple even a relatively tenuous "truth" of society.

>>1919352
It's called reporter or volunteer bias.

>>1919341
Yeah I'm sure, like nevermind that human society isn't static, or that we're on a board for discussion.

>>1919352
Imagine it's the 50s in the US and 80% of time you hear of a sexual interraction between a black male and a white female it's rape

Does that mean that interracial sex is linked with rape or is it because there's a heavy taboo around it which prevents non-abuse cases from being revealed?

>>1919362

I'm prepared to kill my brothers so people could love their brothers

>>1919362
>there was a war for homosexuality being allowed

>>1919362
Why the fuck did you come into a discussion thread about the existence or nonexistence of an ethical problem if you're not interested in discussion? Can't you just go to a history thread?

>>1919382
Humanities was a mistake

>>1919363
>Yeah I'm sure, like nevermind that human society isn't static, or that we're on a board for discussion.
You almost sound like you don't like the way the discussion is going.

>>1919368
Imagine how very hard it would be to spot a teapot orbiting the moon. Does that mean it's not there or is it because there's a serious lack of funding going towards detecting small porcelain satellites?

If you're upset over a bias, then your work should go towards mitigating the bias, not bemoaning that it's there.

>>1919392
>If you're upset over a bias, then your work should go towards mitigating the bias, not bemoaning that it's there.
See >>1919323.

>>1918621
but you can't have an ethical argument without discussing the societal ramifications of normalization.

In the real world people don't live in desert islands where their actions only affect anyone else who happens to share that desert island with them, so trying to construct ethical theories around the behavior of people in a vacuum is coming up with an ethical system which doesn't jive with the lifestyles of the overwhelming majority of individuals.

If your attitude is "incest should be ok as long as nobody is getting physically injured" then you're completely ignoring not only the psychological consequences of the actions but the wider societal ramifications as well.

>>1918638
It's more like being ok with most drugs but being opposed to Heroin on grounds that yes, in a perfect vacuum if someone wants to destroy their body with hard drugs that's their right to do so, but in an imperfect real world Heroin pushers will try all manner of underhanded tactics to hook vulnerable people who otherwise wouldn't touch the substance, so legalizing and normalizing Heroin would only make their jobs easier.

>>1918983
Ha! Says the degenerate hillbilly trying to justify incest. If what you said was really true then you must be one hell of a bad son for not plugging your mom's cooter every night that dad can't get it up. What's that? the thought of having sex with your mom seems gross and unnatural and in your relationship with her you've never felt it lacking despite the absence of sex? Welcome to the world of normal human feelings and instincts, where romantic bonds and family bonds are too completely different things

>>1918997
Not only police reports but there's also a huge body of research which suggests that humans have a natural aversion to incest, so by extension any coupling of its nature is going to be predatory and abusive. You can't divorce the two because it's built in human behavior.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/emotional_dog_and_rational_tail.pdf

>>1919392
>your work should go towards mitigating the bias
As opposed to using clearly and obviously biased data?

>>1919374
If you were to take the homosexuals word for it, there still is.

>>1919382
Tell us who commonly defines ethics, and who commonly enforces those ethics?

>>1919386
thats the usual response for these sorts of threads existing on his at all

>>1919401
>but there's also a huge body of research which suggests that humans have a natural aversion to incest

Top fucking kek
Homosex, cuckold fetish, scat, swinging...etc also aren't natural to humans
That's why they're deviancies

>>1919403
>As opposed to using what I believe is biased data.

>>1919401
>
It's more like being ok with most drugs but being opposed to Heroin on grounds that yes, in a perfect vacuum if someone wants to destroy their body with hard drugs that's their right to do so, but in an imperfect real world Heroin pushers will try all manner of underhanded tactics to hook vulnerable people who otherwise wouldn't touch the substance, so legalizing and normalizing Heroin would only make their jobs easier.
Right but you see, in this case it's not that we're okay with drugs but not with heroin on an ethical level, but that we understand we don't have the governing / regulatory ability to STOP people from dealing Heroin from baiting poor shmucks. If we accept that a person has the right to destroy their body, it follows they can destroy it however they like.
Similarly, your argument isn't that incest itself is bad but that we're unable to normalize it safely, not because of any inherent issue with incest itself, but because we lack the regulatory ability to stop abuse - which is a big problem, with or without incest coming into the picture, and something we need to focus on eradicating, hillybilly or no.
I'm not arguing in favor of normalization, but you can certainly have an ethical argument without bringing in normalization as society currently exists. I mean, is there anything wrong ethically with giving people gourmet 3 star meals every day? Probably not, but it simply doesn't work out.

>so by extension any coupling of its nature is going to be predatory and abusive
>two homosexuals having sex is abusive because homosexuality isn't generally normal

File: thread of the day.gif (997KB, 600x603px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 600x603px

>>1918363
>nothing wrong with incest

how's it going Cletus?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest

>>1919392
>You almost sound like you don't like the way the discussion is going.
You're not discussing though, you're simply telling us that 'most people would think this'. I've already told you that incest and abuse aren't the same thing and can't be said to cause each other, someone else even said it way more clearly than I did. You're also ignoring that the discussion isn't about 'incest', it's about 'nonabusive, consensual incest that doesn't result in children'. You're not even on topic, and even on your own topic your argument isn't cohesive.

>>1919442
>why is it wrong
>it causes defects
Can you read the OP

Obviously incest ~can~ be ethically wrong because ethics are totally subjective. Most people seem to agree that risky behavior is ethically right or wrong to some degree in proportion to the risks and benefits involved.

If you don't get into a car crash, is it ethically wrong to not buckle your child up when you go on a drive?
Benefit of not buckling your kid in: you save like 5 seconds of your day.
Risk: your kid dies in an accident when they would have survived.

Even if you try your hardest to have 'safe' incest, however you define that, you can't control everything and there will always be a real risk of one or both of you being harmed by the ordeal. So there's a lot of risk, and not a lot of benefit that you couldn't get from fucking literally anyone else on the planet who isn't your relative.

>>1919443
>you're simply telling us that 'most people would think this'
that's literally ethics

the rest of your post is delusional "i dont like your post so therefor it doesnt count" butthurt accusations with no support.

>>1919521
The entire point of this thread is presumably asking if people <should> think this way, otherwise OP's question, let alone having a point, doesn't make sense.

>>1919500
>If you don't get into a car crash, is it ethically wrong to not buckle your child up when you go on a drive?
Your comparison cannot apply to gay incest

>Even if you try your hardest to have 'safe' incest, however you define that, you can't control everything and there will always be a real risk of one or both of you being harmed by the ordeal.
If by "harmed" you're talking about what can happen in case of break up, that applies to any relationship
Better remain single just in case, amirite?

>>1918363
>Incest
What the fuck does this have to do with history?

>>1918578
>Predatory
Who cares, all sexual intent is predatory.

>>1919553
>humanities

>>1919570
>was a mistake

>>1919546
>Your comparison cannot apply to gay incest
What in the crazy fuck are you talking about?

>If by "harmed" you're talking about what can happen in case of break up, that applies to any relationship
So in any relationship you lose your lover as well as your relationship with a family member in case of a breakup?

I'm also talking about what happens if you get found out. Even if you believe you're justified, you'll still get in trouble. You could go to jail, and even if you don't you'll still face a lot of backlash that you'll have to deal with. It's also stupid that you keep pushing this "non-abusive" thing when abuse is always a risk. Maybe you become abusive later, maybe your partner becomes abusive to you, people change, it could always happen, you don't get to say the risk isn't there.

Also what if you have your incest relationship and it works out, but then someone else finds out and tries to have their own incest relationship and it doesn't work out and they get hurt? They're mostly responsible, but you're also responsible for putting the idea in their head. What if you get found out and then everyone starts making fun of a relative of yours and hassling them? They shouldn't be bullying, but it's still a risk you have to consider.

>Better remain single just in case, amirite?
No, you're being ridiculous, there's a ton of problems that even "consensual non reproducing" incest relationships have to deal with that regular ones don't have to at all.

Why are you so invested in this? You're posting like you have a personal stake.

>>1918536
>So saying "incest is ethical wrong" is literary the same as saying "incest makes me feel uncomfortable".
Not really. 2 girls 1 cup makes me feel uncomfortable, but it isn't ethically wrong.

>>1919535
ops question was this, verbatim:
>If no pregnancy occurs and it is consensual, how can there be any ethical problem with incest?
that is a direct quotation of the op in its entirety

that question can be completely paraphrased as "how could anyone have a personal objection to this scenario?" ethics dont have to be founded on anything, they can be totally arbitrary. i can have an ethical objection to incest, 'just cuz'.

so op's question had an extremely obvious answer, and thats what ive been saying since my first post. "yes, because society does have an ethical problem with it." you literally cant refute that, because thats the explicit meaning of ethics.

>>1919632
>What in the crazy fuck are you talking about?

Your comparison with the car crash implies that impregnation can still accidentally happen even when being cautious and using birth control
But with gay sex there's no way it can happen

>>1919632
>No, you're being ridiculous, there's a ton of problems that even "consensual non reproducing" incest relationships have to deal with that regular ones don't have to at all.

Caused by the taboo around it
Using this as an argument in a debate about whether the taboo is justified or not is full retard

>>1919633
being uncomfortable with someone is just as valid of a reason to being ethically opposed to something as anything else.

your ethics could be "anything that makes you uncomfortable is wrong"
tadah, 2girls1cup is now ethically wrong.

>>1919632
>Also what if you have your incest relationship and it works out, but then someone else finds out and tries to have their own incest relationship and it doesn't work out and they get hurt? They're mostly responsible, but you're also responsible for putting the idea in their head.

Most retarded argyment I've ever seen

What if you ask a girl out, some dude sees you and try the same but gets rejected and commit suicide?
What if you decide to climb the Everest, some guy hears what you did and tries the same but die?
What if you decide to get a degree in medicine, some guy hears about it and try the same but fails?
What if you (George W) decide to become president and your little brother (Jeb) seeing that decides to try the same but fails?

>>1919653
I have no clue how you got that out of my post. I was just using car crash as a totally self-contained example.

If you want to talk about gay incest, it's probably considered even more taboo than regular incest.
What if you're in an incestuous relationship with your uncle, and even though you're an adult and its consensual, someone finds out and think that your uncle is a gay molester and beats him up or kills him? its wrong for the other person to do that, but its still a risk that you have to consider.

>Caused by the taboo around it
Sure, but it's still there. The full retard argument is saying "it's not my fault someone T-boned me, so it's not my fault that my kid died because I didn't buckle them in." Yea the person is responsible for t-boning you, but you're still responsible for getting your kid killed by your negligence, because if you had buckled them in they would have lived. In the same way yea it's society's fault for having certain taboos, but it's still your fault for knowing what those taboos are and still choosing to engage in them knowing what could happen to you.

>>1919687
>Most retarded argyment I've ever seen
hurr

>What if you ask a girl out, some dude sees you and try the same but gets rejected and commit suicide?
Most people seem to agree that risky behavior is ethically right or wrong to some degree in proportion to the risks and benefits involved.
The risk you present in your scenario is extremely low, in comparison to the benefit that you could gain. Compare this to all the risks involved with incest.

No, you are the one with the pathetically retarded "argyments". I ask you again, why are you so heavily invested in this? I mean you're literally trying to compare me saying "why don't you just have sex with literally any person on this planet besides your sister" to you saying "lolol just be single" Are you literally saying you can't consider anyone but a relative for a a relationship?

And before you try to complain about me bringing up your typo, when you throw around accusations of something being retarded, you should make sure that you don't make any retarded mistakes in your post!