Notices
Results 1 to 59 of 59
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By shlunka

Thread: Why is incest considered wrong?

  1. #1 Why is incest considered wrong? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    31
    If there is no inbreeding, what is wrong about it? Why does society perceive incest as bad?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,561
    It is simply one of those obsolete taboos, no longer applicable in the modern world - juust like homosexuality taboos. That is the scientific answer, not what I really think about it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    923
    I find the thought of sex with close family disgusting, and with my nihilistic and rebellious nature i can assure you it has nothing to do with taboos, tradition, ethics or morals.

    Im not sure about the scope that lies under incest. Could someone explain to me how close family must be to be considered incest? Or if i have misunderstood the term? As i know it incest is sex with a person you are related to, simple as that.

    I do for example consider my cousin attractive, and other relatives farther out. But again, any close family sexual relationship - that i find repulsive. Though i dont know if this is biological or because if its something ive been taught.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman CrimsonViper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    67
    Whether it is wrong or not, we should not interbreed as this will give rise to genetic mutations. As the people reproducing will have similar genes, the flaws in the genetic code will be amplified as there will be less variety. Its the same sort of flaws that are associated with asexual reproduction and there is reduced variety in the gene pool. Therefore the species would not be adapted to any major change in the environment.
    Edukayshun haz fayled meh.
    "Let's eat Grandma" or "Let's eat, Grandma". Punctuation saves lives. FACT
    Nerd???I prefer the term "Intellectual Badass"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    I find the thought of sex with close family disgusting, and with my nihilistic and rebellious nature i can assure you it has nothing to do with taboos, tradition, ethics or morals.
    Whether you think it does or not, it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonViper
    Whether it is wrong or not, we should not interbreed
    You missed the part of the question that said "if there is no inbreeding."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    here is a good link on it

    but incest is not hardly harmful if you have less then about 12.5% or less of genetic relation in fact it would probably not be noticeable.
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    For the Americans: Without inbreeding there would be no one living in Arkansas.

    For the British:Without inbreeding there would be no one living in Norfolk.

    For everyone else: Make your own jokes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    For the Americans: Without inbreeding there would be no one living in Arkansas.
    Or Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, and the other states in that immediate vicinity.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    It is very awkward and uncomfortable for two relatives to approach any kind of sexual intimacy. Say for instance if someone was to sleep with their sister then she would no longer be their sister anymore, she would be a lover. Basically the death of her to the brother and the death of the brother to her.

    I can understand why certain people will let it happen though, the kind of love you get in family is more over consummate love. (I studied this once in Psycholgoy; the three types of love). So there is a complete love involved and that can lead to sexual feelings.

    Personally speaking, no one in my family is attractive to me. I do flirt with my sister but that is it, its fun, and naughty but I would never let it go any furthur, no matter how appealing Norfolks countryside looks.... 8)
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan.
    "I'm always relieved when someone is delivering a eulogy and I realize I'm listening to it". - George Carlin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The exception is that in other primates we do generally see an aversion to incestuous relations between siblings, parents and offspring. It also tends to be culturally universal, unlike homophobia.

    Anyway, I care less if consenting adults want to have incestuous relations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,523
    For the Americans: Without inbreeding there would be no one living in Arkansas.

    For the British:Without inbreeding there would be no one living in Norfolk.

    For everyone else: Make your own jokes.
    What's the difference between Mick Jagger and a Scotsman?

    Mick Jagger say's "Hey you, get off my cloud".

    A Scotsman say's "Hey McCloud, get off my ewe".
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    Researchers have shown that living together closely inhibits sexual attraction, if that living together begins at a very young age. It goes way beyond just brother and sisters, or cousins.

    I remember as a child, I went to a small country school, and I saw the same kids day in and day out for 10 years. When I got my hormones and started noticing female figures, I still found the girls I grew up with rather unattractive. When I went to secondary school at 13, and saw lots of girls who were strangers, suddenly my hormones went crazy! In absolute terms, the gals I had seen from childhood every day were, no doubt, just as sexy as the new ones I saw, but not to me!

    So it seems as if natural selection has introduced an inhibition against having sex with gals you grow up with - hence not having sex with sisters. There are heaps of case histories of brothers and sisters being raised apart and ending up as lovers after they meet. Without the daily contact when very young, the inhibition against sex does not exist.

    The problem with the 'logic' in post 1 of this thread is the fact that preventing reproduction is not guaranteed. Hence all the unmarried teenage girls in our society. If a brother and sister were to become lovers, there is still a strong possibility they would have a kid - a genuine little monster.

    Overall, the prohibition of incest is excellent, and should be continued.
    anticorncob28 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,561
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The problem with the 'logic' in post 1 of this thread is the fact that preventing reproduction is not guaranteed. Hence all the unmarried teenage girls in our society. If a brother and sister were to become lovers, there is still a strong possibility they would have a kid - a genuine little monster.

    Overall, the prohibition of incest is excellent, and should be continued.
    Couldn't we use the same logic to reason that prohibitions against homosexual sex were in part due to the spread of sexually transmitted disease, and that preventing such disease is not guaranteed by the wearing of a condom (any more than preventing an inbred child), therefore the prohibition is excellent and should be continued?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    Harold

    The flaw in your logic is the idea that spreading of disease is solely through homosexual contact. Most STD's are mainly spread by heterosexual contact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,561
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Harold

    The flaw in your logic is the idea that spreading of disease is solely through homosexual contact. Most STD's are mainly spread by heterosexual contact.
    I didn't say it was solely through homosexual contact. Heterosexual sex is a risk that is necessary for the propagation of the species. If STDs are mainly spread by heterosexual contact, that's probably because there are more heterosexuals. Besides, it could be the deterrent effect of the taboo which still remains to an extent and prevents rampant promiscuity.

    Now do you really have any evidence that incest would produce a "monster." As far as I know, the kid could turn out perfectly normal, maybe with some additional risk of certain diseases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Researchers have shown that living together closely inhibits sexual attraction, if that living together begins at a very young age. It goes way beyond just brother and sisters, or cousins.
    I have also read about instinct as the basis for this inhibition, and it seems that it allows for a more robust combination of genetic material in the offspring for evolutionary purposes.

    I would guess that various social norms, mores and taboos developed from this instinct. For example, social taboos such as incest, mores such as the traditional Aboriginal marriage system involving classes (aka ‘skin names’), legal statutes on the degree of consanguinity in a marriage, and so on.

    However, exceptions existed in history, such as brothers and sisters marrying and having offspring among the ancient Egyptian royalty.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    Effects of incest according to Wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

    I quote :

    "In many cases incest is also inbreeding. Inbreeding leads to a higher proportion of congenital birth defects through an increase in the frequency of homozygotes.[50] The effects of this can diverge - recessive genes that produce birth defects could become more frequent, resulting in a higher rate potential of these defects while genes that do not code for birth defects can become increased within a population. The overall consequences of this divergence depends in part on the size of the population. In small populations, if children born with heritable birth defects die before they reproduce the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population with an overall decrease in the number of birth defect-causing genes over time. In larger populations it is more likely that large numbers of carriers will survive and mate, leading to more constant rates of birth defects.[51] A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding at the first cousin level of 4.4%.[52] At any rate,the degenerative effects of inbreeding will only be significantly fatal after more than two or more repeated incest cases, and that varies depending on the number and quality of inherited congenital disorders of which the family members may be carriers."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,561
    Okay, I think the parallel between homosexual taboo and incest taboo is still holding up pretty well. Both are based on instinct, for the majority of people. Risk of both can be mitigated with modern medical science. Nobody is talking about generations of inbreeding. In fact, it was specified up front that there would be no inbreeding. How about sterilization, or abortion? Would that overcome your prejudice?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Okay, I think the parallel between homosexual taboo and incest taboo is still holding up pretty well. Both are based on instinct, for the majority of people.
    Harold - This is a specious claim rooted in little more than flawed logic. Considering that every animal we've ever observed in the animal kingdom has been witnessed to engage in homosexual behavior, the suggestion that this behavior's taboo is instinctual falls rather flat.

    I welcome evidence in support of your contention. Should I be holding a misconception on this issue, I'd like to correct it. However, until some sort of reasonable evidence is put forth that the taboo against homosexuality is anything more than taught... based on social learning as put forth by Bandura at Stanford... I will continue to reject your suggestion as not reality based.

    People are taught what to hate... people are taught what is taboo. This is not something we are born with. We do not pop out of the womb calling people faggots and throwing rocks at their heads. If you disagree, then it's time to come with the big guns and put forth some evidence that finding homosexuality taboo is based on our biology more so than (or instead of) our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,561
    Who's throwing rocks and calling people faggots? I said it's based on instinct. The instinctive attraction to the opposite sex for most people. Now, where are you saying it differs from the taboo against incest?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Was I unclear above?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,561
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Was I unclear above?
    It was clear, but pointless. The discussion is about whether there is a fundamental difference between incest taboo and homosexual taboo.

    It was argued above that social norms, mores and taboos against incest developed from an instinctive aversion to sex between persons living together from a young age. I am suggesting that taboos against homosexuality could develop in a similar manner from an aversion to having sex with persons of the same sex.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    It was argued above that social norms, mores and taboos against incest developed from an instinctive aversion to sex between persons living together from a young age. I am suggesting that taboos against homosexuality could develop in a similar manner from an aversion to having sex with persons of the same sex.
    Right, and I'm suggesting that this is wholly unfounded and requesting you provide evidence in support. Are you willing or able to do so? If not, that's fine, but a retraction and some back-peddling would be in order if that's the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,561
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    It was argued above that social norms, mores and taboos against incest developed from an instinctive aversion to sex between persons living together from a young age. I am suggesting that taboos against homosexuality could develop in a similar manner from an aversion to having sex with persons of the same sex.
    Right, and I'm suggesting that this is wholly unfounded and requesting you provide evidence in support. Are you willing or able to do so? If not, that's fine, but a retraction and some back-peddling would be in order if that's the case.
    I am quite willing to retract it. I will also retract the statement that the incest taboo is based on genetics, which you didn't seem to have a problem with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Appreciate it. Thanks.


    Just to recap, no evidence has been offered that hatred and taboos against homosexuality are genetic in nature, and the most likely explanation thus far available is that this is taught and based on the environment in which one is reared.

    Harold also makes a fair criticism that we have yet to see evidence that taboos against incest are genetic in nature. Although, I think it's important to note here that incest very often results in genetic abnormality, and for that reason alone would have tended to be selected against. In short, lower survival rates among those who bred more closely than the survival rates of those who sought diverse sexual partners. This logic extends beyond humans, and across the animal kingdom. As many know, sexual selection itself evolved due to the greater chance at survival offspring are provided when bred in this manner... instead of something like cloning and other asexual selection mechanisms. Sex itself helps to ensure a diverse gene pool which could survive many events, and sex with different partners of different types leads to diversity. Even studies show that we tend to be attracted to people who have immune system qualities which we do not... Attracted to people with traits we lack... So, unlike the claims above that taboos against homosexuality are genetic in nature, there exists at the very least a compelling case that there is a genetic predisposition against breeding with members of the family who have genes too similar to your own.

    But yeah, evidence on that would be nice to see, as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonViper
    Whether it is wrong or not, we should not interbreed as this will give rise to genetic mutations. As the people reproducing will have similar genes, the flaws in the genetic code will be amplified as there will be less variety. Its the same sort of flaws that are associated with asexual reproduction and there is reduced variety in the gene pool. Therefore the species would not be adapted to any major change in the environment.
    As suggested by others, since not all mutations are bad, inbreeding is also not automatically bad for the species.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    iNow

    I mentioned the research that showed lack of sexual attraction between males and females who are raised together. That suggests a genetic mechanism to prevent sex between close relatives. It would be very difficult for evolution to come up with an inhibition between close relatives, since such inhibitions need a triggering stimulus. What stimulus would be specific to a close relative, yet broad enough to affect the whole species? Much simpler to evolve an inhibition to sex with those with whom we are raised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Agreed. Along similar lines, I also found myself thinking of the preference we exhibit for variety in sexual partners. However, I realized that point fell a bit flat since it tends to be more male specific, and also only represents the median male at that.

    The point which caused me to enter this thread... the point I sought to challenge... was that taboos against homosexuality were somehow genetic in nature. That's wrong. That's mistaken. In all honesty, I haven't fully thought through the incest arguments yet, so I'm a bit ill-equipped to present a meaningful argument one way or the other in that particular arena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Biomass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Anyway, I care less if consenting adults want to have incestuous relations.
    Me too, I couldn't care any less either. To each, his/her own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    It would be very difficult for evolution to come up with an inhibition between close relatives, since such inhibitions need a triggering stimulus. What stimulus would be specific to a close relative, yet broad enough to affect the whole species? Much simpler to evolve an inhibition to sex with those with whom we are raised.
    Yeah, I think that's it. So then, if one girl is raised in a household full of males, is she more likely to be lesbian? Because she grew overaccustomed to males generally and finds females interesting?

    Sometimes I've thought we develop our sexual attractions haphazardly, as how goslings follow the first moving object they see. Evolution rarely hard-wires well-defined instincts. It is easier to lay a modest cue, plus capacity of mind to intensify that through feedback. Anecdotally, my early teens seemed more determined to find the attraction in anything than to already know what I found attractive.

    I speculate that gays have this attraction feedback working perfectly well, only they happened not to follow the (subtle) heterosexual cue early on. If so then there is no "gay gene"; rather queers lack the straight wiring and freely deviate in any way, though usually fixing on an ordinary object.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The mechanisms that lead to homosexuality in women and men are likely different from each other.

    Anyway, Pong you seem to be applying the Oedipal argument of psychosexual development proposed by Freud, which hasn't held up under objective analysis. Although, I agree that there is nothing deterministically hardwired about human sexuality, in the sense that there is a 1:1 correlation between a certain gene and certain sexual behavior. There is clearly a great deal of interaction between environment within the womb and during childhood development that is involved.

    Also, in my early teens I was more than fully aware of homosexual attraction, I can count the erotic dreams about women I had as a teen on one hand. Moreover, I made a deliberate attempt to try and be attracted to women, including dating them throughout high school, and it didn't work.

    To reiterate my opinion on the thread topic, incestuous relations between consenting adults are none of the state's business and people should be free to do whatever they like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Pong you seem to be applying the Oedipal argument of psychosexual development
    I didn't speculate on framework of specific inclinations. I suggested that whatever frameworks individuals have, are vague cues that start the inevitable snowball (puberty) rolling in one direction or another. A "queer" then is a normal snowball (feedback) without guiding framework.

    Maybe some people are specifically homosexual by design, as straights are supposed to be by design? I don't think we can call such people "queer". Since they're following a path, not ploughing their own. I think incest must be in the queer category.

    To my mind, "queer" could even play out straight as a Quaker - a lawless person often finds lawful behaviour most expedient anyway. Personally, I've always been queer. I could get into anything. Puberty drove me to get into something.



    Agreed the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. However IMHO the nation - comprised of families and society - has business in family and social relations. Our business is to see children develop well, see grandpa cared for in his old age, and to "multiply picnics". Society shouldn't reward people for opting out, and might reasonably discourage unions that excuse couples from contribution.

    Can incest benefit family and society?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2
    i have seen sex stories online where some r actually true accounts of incest sexual encounters between two relatives and in fact it brings those family members closer and doesn't change anything about their relationship and btw inbreeding is common in animals so despite the genetic problems it causes there isn't really anything wrong with incest
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by ethemeakai View Post
    i have
    Quote Originally Posted by ethemeakai View Post
    some r actually
    Quote Originally Posted by ethemeakai View Post
    and doesn't change anything about their relationship
    if u say so, dood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,208
    What is wrong people today.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    What is wrong people today.
    Wrong people is people that is not right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,747
    I think incest is beautiful.
    -Shunnka X, shlunkaa X, Shnkla X, Shunkla X, Shlinka X, Shlunka, Correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    I think incest is beautiful.


    It sure is. Look at these hotties, mmm. mmm.. wanna take these muscly armed studs to the basement....
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,747
    I can only hope that my children will look like that someday. I bet they have wonderful hearing.
    -Shunnka X, shlunkaa X, Shnkla X, Shunkla X, Shlinka X, Shlunka, Correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    855
    Well, if we regard the question as applicable to Personality Psychology... The Environmental influences on our personality mostly come from an unshared environment (Environmental influences that are not familial in nature). So your tastes, interests, and preferences are greatly influenced by friends and life outside of your family. I wouldn't be surprised if that had a major impact on the norms of sexuality.

    I'd say aversion has to do with a number of things:

    1) The knowledge that offspring may be developmentally hindered. Bad offspring would suggest that family members are bad mates. Is bad mate selection taboo?

    2) Your personality is predominantly influenced by non-familial bonds and experiences. Compatibility might be affected by this.

    3) Is there a connection to evolution? If attraction is, in part, a question of genetics - the norm would obviously be influenced by what is most successful means of reproduction, as a genetic basis of attraction. Would this not create a majority that is predisposed to an aversion towards incest?

    Just a few thoughts.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,228
    In fact, incest has been considered a reasonable thing in many societies at various times.

    For us, I think the real objection is that, for most cases of incest, there is an age or power differential between the parties that affects what we'd normally expect of a consensual sexual relationship. Most of us would think badly of a busybody who told everyone that he'd discovered that a happily married couple turned out to be closely related. If they're happy, let them be.

    However, as soon as we look at child-parent, child - older child the whole picture changes. The concept of "statutory rape" then becomes the usual attitude. It's rape because "consent" is not possible in much the same way as that same child cannot legally commit themselves to a financial obligation/ relationship. Their immaturity makes their apparent consent irrelevant.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,778
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Hence all the unmarried teenage girls in our society. If a brother and sister were to become lovers, there is still a strong possibility they would have a kid - a genuine little monster.
    Obviously, this incomplete sentence is not what you intended?

    Otherwise, I have absolutely no problem with all the teenage girls in our society being unmarried, in fact, I applaud it! jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    922
    While it is true a that all societies have an incest taboo, they do not have the same incest taboo. What is considered "incest"is culturally determined. The point about the precieved sexual unattractiveness of persons we have known closely in our household of origen is well taken. But it must not be over valused. There is an evolutionary advantage to a drive to be exogamous and seek a mate outside our family of origen, however it is easily over ridden by the drive to seek a mate. Evolutionarily it is far worse to have no offspring than it is to have offspring with a close relative.

    There is also at least potential damage to the psycological development of the subordinate member of an incestious pairing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    While it is true a that all societies have an incest taboo, they do not have the same incest taboo.
    True, because different cultures have different ideas about what constitutes family and how lineage is determined.
    Evolutionarily it is far worse to have no offspring than it is to have offspring with a close relative.
    Not necessarily. It is evolutionarily better to have healthy nieces and nephews who live long enough to reproduce than children of your own who die in childhood. Evolution is about passing on your DNA, not making babies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    While it is true a that all societies have an incest taboo, they do not have the same incest taboo.
    True, because different cultures have different ideas about what constitutes family and how lineage is determined.
    Evolutionarily it is far worse to have no offspring than it is to have offspring with a close relative.
    Not necessarily. It is evolutionarily better to have healthy nieces and nephews who live long enough to reproduce than children of your own who die in childhood. Evolution is about passing on your DNA, not making babies.
    Who says children of incest die in childhood?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,115
    ok my 4 cents. 4 not 2 cuz I'm awesome and from an area of the country where incest runs rampant. The thing is occasional incest is not likely to cause major genetic defects if any at all. Usually serious problems happen when you have generation after generation after generation marrying and conceiving to the point that someone ends up being their own brother, father grandpa and uncle at the same time. The Fugates of Kentucky are a famous incestuous family that are easily recognized by their blue skin. They weren't just dumb people who got hot for their aunties and their sisters. They were isolated high in the Appalachian mountains and weren't exactly able to mingle with other families very easily. The blue gene is fading in their family these days because they have relocated in recent decades and new blood is being brought into the family.

    Papa Fugate.... omg he looks like my dad, only he's blue!!

    Their family is still in existence and doin their thing, but with less incest. But the birth defect of blue skin obviously isn't killing them.

    I think the aversion to incest is more political. We have an inclination to see safety in numbers, and alliances with other clans. What better way to seal an alliance with another clan than to intermarry with them.

    Western societies not brought up under monarchs are very much into political alliances. Where societies accustomed to monarchies tend to be less trustful of alliances. While they will want alliances, they do not want a new bloodline on the thrown. Kings have a tendency to delude themselves that they can live forever in power so long as their own bloodline doesn't get tainted. So Princes would be wed to their own sisters or cousins in order to keep the thrown under the direct bloodline of the sitting king.

    Many cultures developed in what could be considered mini-monarchies. Each man being the king of his own home. In Pakistan marrying a cousin, even a first cousin, is often preferred over marrying from outside the family. When the parents arrange marriages for their sons or daughters they like to know as much as they can about the prospective spouse. And what better way to know someone and what their personality may be like than if it is a family member they watched grow up from a distance. but a short distance. the parents of the future couple are siblings so they know they share the same values and in that they presume that their children will be able to bond over those shared values and have less conflict. They are also assured, that the parents of the other child will back them up and have a loyalty towards them if their child should go astray in the marriage. Honor killing is somewhat common in Pakistan.

    If a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful he may kill her. However if his wife is also his cousin, he will face the wrath of his Aunt and Uncle if he kills their daughter, and it is likely that his parents rely on that aunt and uncle in many ways. Pakistani families are very cohesive. But if the man is married to some girl outside the family, she goes to be with his family and is then cut off from her own. Her family will no longer have any say in what goes on in their lives.

    So marrying your daughter to her male cousin keeps her safe and close. Though if the families do this for too many consecutive generations, the children run the risk of a particular blood disorder similar to sickle cell anemia. I have googled like crazy trying to find the name of the disorder but can't find it. Last time I read about it was 8 years ago when I was explaining to my then brother in law (Pakistani) why I would not allow my son to marry his daughter. Being the most intelligent man of his family, he listened and concurred. But now I can't find the name of it or the articles.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    I think incest is beautiful.
    To be fair, microcephaly and the attributed mental retardation do not indicate incest.

    As for why incest is wrong, there are moral and scientific explanations. Scientifically, incest limits genetic variations if there is breeding. Morally, we have just applied a taboo to it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    In fact, incest has been considered a reasonable thing in many societies at various times.

    For us, I think the real objection is that, for most cases of incest, there is an age or power differential between the parties that affects what we'd normally expect of a consensual sexual relationship. Most of us would think badly of a busybody who told everyone that he'd discovered that a happily married couple turned out to be closely related. If they're happy, let them be.

    However, as soon as we look at child-parent, child - older child the whole picture changes. The concept of "statutory rape" then becomes the usual attitude. It's rape because "consent" is not possible in much the same way as that same child cannot legally commit themselves to a financial obligation/ relationship. Their immaturity makes their apparent consent irrelevant.
    what if the persons involved in incest are close in age and/or over the age of consent also it is one thing to have certain taboo fantasies because the way i see it the more taboo something is the more it compels some people to want to break said taboos i'm sure everyone in this thread has had at least one fantasy about at least one relative and btw some people feel age matters not
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    what if we didn't continue three old threads.....
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by ethemeakai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    In fact, incest has been considered a reasonable thing in many societies at various times.

    For us, I think the real objection is that, for most cases of incest, there is an age or power differential between the parties that affects what we'd normally expect of a consensual sexual relationship. Most of us would think badly of a busybody who told everyone that he'd discovered that a happily married couple turned out to be closely related. If they're happy, let them be.

    However, as soon as we look at child-parent, child - older child the whole picture changes. The concept of "statutory rape" then becomes the usual attitude. It's rape because "consent" is not possible in much the same way as that same child cannot legally commit themselves to a financial obligation/ relationship. Their immaturity makes their apparent consent irrelevant.
    what if the persons involved in incest are close in age and/or over the age of consent also it is one thing to have certain taboo fantasies because the way i see it the more taboo something is the more it compels some people to want to break said taboos i'm sure everyone in this thread has had at least one fantasy about at least one relative and btw some people feel age matters not
    Only because I am likely distantly related to Johnny Depp will I not challenge you on this. (He is from Owensboro, Kentucky and I am related to almost everyone there.)
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    what if we didn't continue three old threads.....
    There has been quite a bit of necromancy lately. New members fascinated with old threads? Well at least this site isn't a associated most commonly with racist jokes according to google. I notice another forum where it seems to be the primary search that leads to them.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,747
    I see nothing wrong with necro-posting, if nothing else it could possibly bring up interesting topics that have been lost in the sands of useless threads.
    Neverfly likes this.
    -Shunnka X, shlunkaa X, Shnkla X, Shunkla X, Shlinka X, Shlunka, Correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    I see nothing wrong with necro-posting, if nothing else it could possibly bring up interesting topics that have been lost in the sands of useless threads.
    (this is more a site feedback discussion, but I'll explain my view)

    They are much more difficult to moderate, because mods have to read the entire thread once again to get the context and follow the conversation when things start going haywire. In this case even the mods and admin were different and the site was under different guidelines.

    Also, in this case as most necro-treads after years, the author (banned in this case) and original contributors are no longer with the forum. It's not joining a conversation at all and more like a conversation after dark in a cemetery.

    Overall, it's much better to simply start a new thread and if current members are interested start a new conversation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    I see nothing wrong with necro-posting, if nothing else it could possibly bring up interesting topics that have been lost in the sands of useless threads.
    (this is more a site feedback discussion, but I'll explain my view)

    They are much more difficult to moderate, because mods have to read the entire thread once again to get the context and follow the conversation when things start going haywire. In this case even the mods and admin were different and the site was under different guidelines.

    Also, in this case as most necro-treads after years, the author (banned in this case) and original contributors are no longer with the forum. It's not joining a conversation at all and more like a conversation after dark in a cemetery.

    Overall, it's much better to simply start a new thread and if current members are interested start a new conversation.
    is there a way to set up the database to automatically lock threads that have been inactive for more than maybe 6 months with a closing post stating that any further discussion will require that a new thread be started.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Who says children of incest die in childhood?
    If it is true biological incest (the two parties share much of the same DNA) there is a greater chance of the child having pairs of recessive genes for diseases that cause early death.

    However, until very recently, it was natural for many children (regardless of who their parents were) to die in childhood simply because there weren't modern medical techniques to prevent this. Infant death, until recently, was the norm, not the exception. The more adults that can care for a child and provide resources for that child, the greater the chance that child can survive into adulthood. When children are competing with other children for care and resources, their chance of survival decreases.

    For example, if you and your brother each have a child, you have two children competing for resources. In addition, you only have time to care for your one child. In a time of famine, it is possible that either or both children will die. On the other hand, if you have a child and your brother doesn't, your brother can help you raise your child. Your child can get twice as much food. Your brother can care for your child if anything happens to you. This means your child is much more likely to survive. Your brother also benefits evolutionarily, since his niece or nephew carries 1/4 of his genes. ( Google"kin selection"). Better to pass on 1/4 of your genes than no genes because your children, nieces and nephews don't survive - Of course, you and your brother can each have spouses or partners to help you raise your children; I was simplifying - two caregivers are better than one; four are better than two.

    This concept has been used as a possible explanation for homosexuality and the fact that women lose the ability to reproduce at the end of their lives, the idea being that since they no longer have to care for children of their own, they can care for their children's children. (Google "grandmother effect").

    Edit: Sorry for reposting on an old thread, but I thought I should respond to a post directed at something that I had posted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Who says children of incest die in childhood?
    If it is true biological incest (the two parties share much of the same DNA) there is a greater chance of the child having pairs of recessive genes for diseases that cause early death.

    However, until very recently, it was natural for many children (regardless of who their parents were) to die in childhood simply because there weren't modern medical techniques to prevent this. Infant death, until recently, was the norm, not the exception. The more adults that can care for a child and provide resources for that child, the greater the chance that child can survive into adulthood. When children are competing with other children for care and resources, their chance of survival decreases.

    For example, if you and your brother each have a child, you have two children competing for resources. In addition, you only have time to care for your one child. In a time of famine, it is possible that either or both children will die. On the other hand, if you have a child and your brother doesn't, your brother can help you raise your child. Your child can get twice as much food. Your brother can care for your child if anything happens to you. This means your child is much more likely to survive. Your brother also benefits evolutionarily, since his niece or nephew carries 1/4 of his genes. ( Google"kin selection"). Better to pass on 1/4 of your genes than no genes because your children, nieces and nephews don't survive - Of course, you and your brother can each have spouses or partners to help you raise your children; I was simplifying - two caregivers are better than one; four are better than two.

    This concept has been used as a possible explanation for homosexuality and the fact that women lose the ability to reproduce at the end of their lives, the idea being that since they no longer have to care for children of their own, they can care for their children's children. (Google "grandmother effect").

    Edit: Sorry for reposting on an old thread, but I thought I should respond to a post directed at something that I had posted.
    Did I miss something? This thread, as old as it may be, is about incest. Your arguments seem to be about population control and parenting. I don't see any direct connection between your statements here and the consequences vs benefits (right or wrong) of incest.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,208
    Well I think it's wrong, it's a perversion, to me no different from necrophilia, bestiality, paedophillia or Rape. It is illegal and it should be. Forgetting any possible physical deformities that may result in children from such unions, there is the psychological damage it does. Not only does it fundementally change the nature of what should be close and loving but platonic relationships but also places exponents at the mercy of societies attitudes resulting in either disgust and ridicule from the public at large or in the exponents having to live lives of shame and secrecy. Most societies have spent hundreds if not thousands of years trying to refine moral and legal systems that deal with human sexuality in order to protect people from practices that are dangerous or have the propensity to cause harm, but it seems that whilst the morality and legality may very well be in place the education seems somewhat lacking if people can't really understand why things like this are wrong and dangerous.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Well I think it's wrong, it's a perversion, to me no different from necrophilia, bestiality, paedophillia or Rape. It is illegal and it should be. Forgetting any possible physical deformities that may result in children from such unions, there is the psychological damage it does. Not only does it fundementally change the nature of what should be close and loving but platonic relationships but also places exponents at the mercy of societies attitudes resulting in either disgust and ridicule from the public at large or in the exponents having to live lives of shame and secrecy. Most societies have spent hundreds if not thousands of years trying to refine moral and legal systems that deal with human sexuality in order to protect people from practices that are dangerous or have the propensity to cause harm, but it seems that whilst the morality and legality may very well be in place the education seems somewhat lacking if people can't really understand why things like this are wrong and dangerous.
    I wonder what the ratio of cultures that embrace incest to cultures that disapprove of it is. I always find it strange when I learn about a new culture and find out that marrying cousins is a normal practice. Now parents with their own children isn't usually heard of but first cousins or uncles/aunts or even siblings seem to be more common than I think many westerners would realize. I am not promoting it. The only cousin of mine I'd ever touch would be johnny depp but he is so distantly related that I don't think he counts anymore. I wouldn't recommend any of my other relatives to anyone under any circumstances. We are all a bit screwed in the head. Tried to warn NF but he didn't listen.

    Since I don't believe in right or wrong, I will just say i think its gross. With the exception of johnny depp.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Who says children of incest die in childhood?
    If it is true biological incest (the two parties share much of the same DNA) there is a greater chance of the child having pairs of recessive genes for diseases that cause early death.

    However, until very recently, it was natural for many children (regardless of who their parents were) to die in childhood simply because there weren't modern medical techniques to prevent this. Infant death, until recently, was the norm, not the exception. The more adults that can care for a child and provide resources for that child, the greater the chance that child can survive into adulthood. When children are competing with other children for care and resources, their chance of survival decreases.

    For example, if you and your brother each have a child, you have two children competing for resources. In addition, you only have time to care for your one child. In a time of famine, it is possible that either or both children will die. On the other hand, if you have a child and your brother doesn't, your brother can help you raise your child. Your child can get twice as much food. Your brother can care for your child if anything happens to you. This means your child is much more likely to survive. Your brother also benefits evolutionarily, since his niece or nephew carries 1/4 of his genes. ( Google"kin selection"). Better to pass on 1/4 of your genes than no genes because your children, nieces and nephews don't survive - Of course, you and your brother can each have spouses or partners to help you raise your children; I was simplifying - two caregivers are better than one; four are better than two.

    This concept has been used as a possible explanation for homosexuality and the fact that women lose the ability to reproduce at the end of their lives, the idea being that since they no longer have to care for children of their own, they can care for their children's children. (Google "grandmother effect").

    Edit: Sorry for reposting on an old thread, but I thought I should respond to a post directed at something that I had posted.
    Did I miss something? This thread, as old as it may be, is about incest. Your arguments seem to be about population control and parenting. I don't see any direct connection between your statements here and the consequences vs benefits (right or wrong) of incest.
    I was responding to someone who said that it was better, from an evolutionary standpoint, to have a child through incest than no child at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I wonder what the ratio of cultures that embrace incest to cultures that disapprove of it is. I always find it strange when I learn about a new culture and find out that marrying cousins is a normal practice.
    They wouldn't define cousin marriage as incest though.

    Similarly, a culture that only recognises family relations through the female line wouldn't define sex with your father's brother as incest. (I am talking about non-Western cultures here.)
    Last edited by Alec Bing; March 24th, 2013 at 05:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Who says children of incest die in childhood?
    If it is true biological incest (the two parties share much of the same DNA) there is a greater chance of the child having pairs of recessive genes for diseases that cause early death.

    However, until very recently, it was natural for many children (regardless of who their parents were) to die in childhood simply because there weren't modern medical techniques to prevent this. Infant death, until recently, was the norm, not the exception. The more adults that can care for a child and provide resources for that child, the greater the chance that child can survive into adulthood. When children are competing with other children for care and resources, their chance of survival decreases.

    For example, if you and your brother each have a child, you have two children competing for resources. In addition, you only have time to care for your one child. In a time of famine, it is possible that either or both children will die. On the other hand, if you have a child and your brother doesn't, your brother can help you raise your child. Your child can get twice as much food. Your brother can care for your child if anything happens to you. This means your child is much more likely to survive. Your brother also benefits evolutionarily, since his niece or nephew carries 1/4 of his genes. ( Google"kin selection"). Better to pass on 1/4 of your genes than no genes because your children, nieces and nephews don't survive - Of course, you and your brother can each have spouses or partners to help you raise your children; I was simplifying - two caregivers are better than one; four are better than two.

    This concept has been used as a possible explanation for homosexuality and the fact that women lose the ability to reproduce at the end of their lives, the idea being that since they no longer have to care for children of their own, they can care for their children's children. (Google "grandmother effect").

    Edit: Sorry for reposting on an old thread, but I thought I should respond to a post directed at something that I had posted.
    Did I miss something? This thread, as old as it may be, is about incest. Your arguments seem to be about population control and parenting. I don't see any direct connection between your statements here and the consequences vs benefits (right or wrong) of incest.
    I was responding to someone who said that it was better, from an evolutionary standpoint, to have a child through incest than no child at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I wonder what the ratio of cultures that embrace incest to cultures that disapprove of it is. I always find it strange when I learn about a new culture and find out that marrying cousins is a normal practice.
    They wouldn't define cousin marriage as incest though.

    Similarly, a culture that only recognises family relations through the female line wouldn't define sex with your father's brother as incest. (I am talking about non-Western cultures here.)
    I definitely missed that. I thought you were just responding to Harold asking who said all children of incest die. His implication that they do not necessarily die is accurate. Though I doubt there are any accurate statistics out there considering, as you pointed out, how one culture defines incest can vary greatly from how another one defines it.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •