OMFG... just No... OMG...

[justjoinedtopost]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ther-and-grandson-to-have-child-together.html

Well then. Now I'm wondering if I'm on the wrong side of history regarding this issue.

 

[Mila_]

I think unsafe sex leads to the spread of STDs, not homosexuality. The same STDs that affect male homosexuals affect heterosexuals as well. Decades ago, safe sex was much more uncommon. But we've wisened up a bit. I am not sure of the statistics between homosexual and heterosexual incidents of STDs, so I cannot say which community accounts for more STDS. I know that birth-control in the form of condoms between heterosexuals can help prevent the spread STDS, which is something that gay men or women obviously don't need to worry about. Gay men might be more susceptible to certain STDS because of the micro-rips, but that happens amongst heterosexuals as well. The epidemic is global, and effects every community, every sexuality, every race and gender.

The best way to stop STDs from spreading is to always use protection and get tested often, and only sleep with partners who have been tested recently. Whether you are straight or gay. I don't think one's sexual orientation leads to spreading STDS. It's ignorance and the belief in one's own immortality (or rather, "that can't happen to me" kind of naivety").

I know that recently, a camgirl made a post asking men about their last STD testing. It was terrifying to see the numbers of men who had never ever ever been tested, and this was mostly heterosexual men. And amongst men that I know personally... Not one of them have been tested until they think they might already have something. I know that isn't a scientific study by any means, but it was startling to see. I think more people worry about birth control than worry about STDs, unfortunately. And that's what spreads STDs along.

However, this is a complete deviation from the original topic. And I am awful at debating, but I thought I'd dip my toe into the debate waters and give it a try.

Protected sex is safer, that is for sure, but all things being equal (i.e.: both hetero and homo men engaging in protected sex) the chances that you will get infected with a contagious STD are significantly higher if you are gay.

The micro-rips is just the path in which the diseases enter the body. Gay sex makes it so that diseases that are transmitted by blood are significantly easier to catch. There are other diseases that gay men are less prone to get such as lice because there is less of a pubes-pubes contact, or urinary infections caused by PH imbalance from vaginal penetration. But the really bad bugs like syphilis and gonorrhea, or viruses such as HIV that are transmitted through blood or fluid-blood contact are easier to catch if you are gay.

And this isn't "ignorance" on my part, but actually being informed on these matters beyond what is easily accessible. The main problem with gay men is not even the nature of anal sex. The main problem is their attitude towards sex. Gay men as a group are much more promiscuous than straight men. They engage in unprotected sex more often. They have sex with strangers more often as well. All these contribute to the spread of diseases. Even gay men who do not engage in these risky behaviors are at a higher risk simply because their partners might. Straight people are much safer than gay men because their attitudes are safer. And lesbians are the safest group since they hardly ever engage in risky behaviors like these. Lesbians are more likely to be monogamous, have a lower number of sex partners in their lifetime, be faithful to their partners, and have less one time partners and stranger sex overall. Inb4 "that is bullshit christian propaganda" these were all studies conducted by serious groups mostly through surveys on large groups of people, so it was all self-reported. I need to dig up the sources but it might take me a little while.

 

[Guy]

A mother and son from New Mexico are facing some serious jail time since it was revealed that the two were having an incestuous relationship.

Monica Mares, 36, and Caleb Peterson, 19, face up to 18 months behind bars if the couple is found guilty of incest later this year.

The two, who were estranged for almost two decades, are not denying their incestuous relationship. But they want to be allowed to be together and are even asking others to donate to their legal fund.

The couple says they have gone public with their affair in a bid to raise awareness of Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) relationship, which is defined as sexual attraction between close relatives, such as siblings or half-siblings.

“He is the love of my life and I don't want to lose him. My kids love him, my whole family does. Nothing can come between us. Not courts, or jail, nothing,” Mares told the Daily Mail. “I have to be with him. When I get out of prison, I will move out of Clovis to a state that allows us to be together.”

Unfortunately for Mares, who is the mother of nine and said she would give up rights to see them if it meant she could be with Peterson, incest is a crime in all 50 U.S. states – although the penalties vary greatly from state to state.

The couple – who live separately and are legally banned from having contact – began their relationship about a year ago after the two tracked each other down.....Peterson, whose birth name is Carlos, was put up for adoption soon after the then 16-year-old Mares gave birth to him.

Mares and Peterson say that after they met up they developed feelings for each other and it wasn’t long until the relationship turned sexual.

“It felt like I met somebody new in my life and I fell in love with him,” Mares said. “At first I told him, "I'm sorry I don't know how you are going to react to this. I'm your mom and you're my son, but I'm falling in love with you."

.....

“He was falling in love with his mom and I was falling in love with my son,” she added. “We talked about it and we took off to the park. I said, ‘Would you ever date your mom?’ And he said: ‘Would you ever date your son?’ And I said, ‘Honest truth yes, I would.’”

While the two were able to live in incestuous bliss for a while – staying in Mares’ mobile home with her two youngest children, an argument between the family and some neighbors eventually led to their relationship becoming public knowledge.

“Honestly I never thought we would get into trouble for our relationship. We were both consenting adults – when it comes down to it,” Peterson said. “She's adult. I'm an adult. I can make my own decisions. I never thought it would blow up into something like this.”

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...n-face-jail-time-for-incestuous-relationship/


So anyways, I'm all for keeping the government out of the bedrooms of consenting adults, but just how the fuck can anyone justify subjecting their minor children to an environment such as this. I mean she has the kids calling him dad ffs. And she's willing to give up her parental rights if that means she gets to keep banging her 19 y/o son. This is just wrong on so many levels. And the fact that they're trying to compare their fucked up perversion to being the same as the LGBT community is just insulting. She reminds me of those NAMBLA mother fuckers (no pun intended).

That is sick as fuck.

 

[Mila_]

1) If you choose to defend incest in the same manner, that does not make it the same thing, and I am not required to view them the same way just to satisfy your insistence upon consistency.

2) I disagree on this point as well. I view them differently because they make a little voice in my head say "WTF!?". In this case, the son being a grown man is even more wtf-ish. Technically, sex with a dead person is just masturbation.

3) Wasn't a straw man. Was me lampooning you for resorting to religious tactics. And just because you say we need consistency doesn't mean we do. I can form opinions of what happens between people on a case by case basis. Stop trying to make me conform.

As long as you admit, like you did here, that your opinion is a knee-jerk reaction to the story I won't try to reason with you.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

As long as you admit, like you did here, that your opinion is a knee-jerk reaction to the story I won't try to reason with you.

Very well. There is no denying that is the case. I wish I could change it, but only time and education can do that. And I will probably resist any efforts to educate me about the virtues of having sex with one's mother.

Interestingly, I feel the same wtf feeling when I see gay men kissing or holding hands in public. I also find all male porn revolting. Yet I come down firmly in favor of gay marriage. Go figure.

 

[Mila_]

Very well. There is no denying that is the case. I wish I could change it, but only time and education can do that. And I will probably resist any efforts to educate me about the virtues of having sex with one's mother.

Interestingly, I feel the same wtf feeling when I see gay men kissing or holding hands in public. I also find all male porn revolting. Yet I come down firmly in favor of gay marriage. Go figure.

I am trying to understand how a mind like this works... my motivation to drag this is simple curiosity so please don't feel like I am trying to convert you into anything since I am the last person who would shill for incest and I don't care what your opinion is on the matter since I don't see it as "a struggle" or like I need to attach my banner to your back.

So in the interest of understanding your mindset... why do you follow your gut with one thing and not the other? If a gut feeling is sufficient for you why do you go against your instinct when it comes to homosexuality and homosexuality only? Normally I would say that this is a response to peer pressure and groupthink, but I have seen you go against the grain many times on ACF. I see words have a strong effect on you sometimes: "I will resist efforts to educate me about the virtues of having sex with one's mother" so maybe what made homosexuality click with you was the euphemisms? I don't know.

 

[Osmia]

....And this isn't "ignorance" on my part, but actually being informed on these matters beyond what is easily accessible. The main problem with gay men is not even the nature of anal sex. The main problem is their attitude towards sex. Gay men as a group are much more promiscuous than straight men. They engage in unprotected sex more often. They have sex with strangers more often as well. All these contribute to the spread of diseases. Even gay men who do not engage in these risky behaviors are at a higher risk simply because their partners might. Straight people are much safer than gay men because their attitudes are safer. And lesbians are the safest group since they hardly ever engage in risky behaviors like these. Lesbians are more likely to be monogamous, have a lower number of sex partners in their lifetime, be faithful to their partners, and have less one time partners and stranger sex overall. Inb4 "that is bullshit christian propaganda" these were all studies conducted by serious groups mostly through surveys on large groups of people, so it was all self-reported. I need to dig up the sources but it might take me a little while.

I think it's more accurate to say that men (period) tend to be promiscuous by nature (biology), not by attitude. In fact, males of many species are promiscuous, either partially or exclusively. Males of various species tend to let the female carry the burden of caring for offspring. There are evolutionary reasons for this, but basically the driver is that females unavoidably have much more energy invested in raising offspring than males do, because female mammals are the ones who must carry and give birth to offspring and nurse them (or carry and lay eggs in birds, reptiles and amphibians).

So with gay men, what you see is male sexuality unmoderated by having to accommodate themselves to women, who are much less promiscuous.

 

[Mila_]

I think it's more accurate to say that men (period) tend to be promiscuous by nature (biology), not by attitude. In fact, males of many species are promiscuous, either partially or exclusively. Males of various species tend to let the female carry the burden of caring for offspring. There are evolutionary reasons for this, but basically the driver is that females unavoidably have much more energy invested in raising offspring than males do, because female mammals are the ones who must carry and give birth to offspring and nurse them (or carry and lay eggs in birds, reptiles and amphibians).

So with gay men, what you see is male sexuality unmoderated by having to accommodate themselves to women, who are much less promiscuous.

Absolutely. Gay men are the embodiment of male sexual power. They are, as a group, the keepers of male sexuality since they get to express it without restriction or constraint. Which is why the concept of "gay marriage" is such a sham. Gays in the 80s would have denounced the "gay marriage" narrative for what it is: an attempt to white-wash gay culture because they were actually proud of being gay. Unlike gays today who bought into that narrative themselves and love to fantasize about being just like the normies!.

Same thing happens with lesbians. They are the expression of full on female sexuality which is about nurturing and caring more than about sex. Which explains jokes like: "what does a lesbian bring with her on a first date? A U-Haul" and the lesbian dead-bead epidemic.

Women and men have different natures.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Which is why the concept of "gay marriage" is such a sham. Gays in the 80s would have denounced the "gay marriage" narrative for what it is: an attempt to white-wash gay culture because they were actually proud of being gay. Unlike gays today who bought into that narrative themselves and love to fantasize about being just like the normies!.

There are times when I read your posts and I genuinely don't know whether you believe what you're typing or if you're actively trying to be offensive because it amuses you. I kinda hope for the latter.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I am trying to understand how a mind like this works... my motivation to drag this is simple curiosity so please don't feel like I am trying to convert you into anything since I am the last person who would shill for incest and I don't care what your opinion is on the matter since I don't see it as "a struggle" or like I need to attach my banner to your back.

So in the interest of understanding your mindset... why do you follow your gut with one thing and not the other? If a gut feeling is sufficient for you why do you go against your instinct when it comes to homosexuality and homosexuality only? Normally I would say that this is a response to peer pressure and groupthink, but I have seen you go against the grain many times on ACF. I see words have a strong effect on you sometimes: "I will resist efforts to educate me about the virtues of having sex with one's mother" so maybe what made homosexuality click with you was the euphemisms? I don't know.

I think it's probably because for about 5, maybe 6 years, I had a best friend who was gay. Lot of similarities in our upbringings. His dad was a pastor who taught him to hate his gayness, mine taught me to hate my straightness. I could relate.

I got pretty close to the guy. This was in the heart of the Bible Belt, and this garbage of associating homosexuality with incest/bestiality/child molestation was everywhere. There is never a shortage of small minds who are willing to talk about the slippery slope, or how gays are purveyors of disease. I got to hear his side of how that felt. I empathized.

Guess that opened my mind up. Now, letting homosexual couples have the same legal rights as hetero couples is a no brainer.

 

[Osmia]

Absolutely. Gay men are the embodiment of male sexual power. They are, as a group, the keepers of male sexuality since they get to express it without restriction or constraint. Which is why the concept of "gay marriage" is such a sham. Gays in the 80s would have denounced the "gay marriage" narrative for what it is: an attempt to white-wash gay culture because they were actually proud of being gay. Unlike gays today who bought into that narrative themselves and love to fantasize about being just like the normies!.

Same thing happens with lesbians. They are the expression of full on female sexuality which is about nurturing and caring more than about sex. Which explains jokes like: "what does a lesbian bring with her on a first date? A U-Haul" and the lesbian dead-bead epidemic.

Women and men have different natures.

They do have different natures, and sometimes it seems amazing that opposite sex pairings can work as well as they do.

I'm in favor of gay marriage (only within the last few years did I reach that point). Still, it seems like male-male marriages have some serious biological disadvantages to overcome. The male-male pairing tends toward disunity. That's just a generalization, of course. These things fall on a spectrum.

Female-female pairings are interesting... the conventional understanding is that they would tend toward unity, closeness. But I wonder if that's an oversimplification too. Are there some non-obvious biologically-based forces against unity..

 

[Osmia]

....His dad was a pastor who taught him to hate his gayness, mine taught me to hate my straightness. I could relate.....

Hate your straightness... what was that about? Do you mean he was against sexuality in general (repressed, etc) ?

 

[Mila_]

There are times when I read your posts and I genuinely don't know whether you believe what you're typing or if you're actively trying to be offensive because it amuses you. I kinda hope for the latter.

A lot of people think that those who don't think like them or who go against the mainstream opinion are trolling simply because the other side of the story doesn't get any air time. So when someone says these things it shocks you, and you think it is offensive. But "offensive" is such a broad term. Almost anyone can get offended at anything these days and if we wanted to keep everyone from finding offense we would have to ban the english language altogether.

All I have said in this thread is supported by facts. And my personal opinions are usually related to feeling pride in what you are and loyalty towards your group. But in this day and age the only thing you can take pride in without crossing any PC boundaries is your professional accomplishments and/or your individual snowflake identity. If you take pride in what you actually are or in your traditions, your nation, your history, or your ancestry, then you are seen as... well... a troll. As someone who is out there trying to offend others. Even if what you are saying is others should take pride in what they are as well.

Nothing shows lack of empathy and incapacity to put yourselves in another person shoes more than labeling them as a troll simply because you don't understand their values.

Edit: I am not the only person who feels this way about gay pride and normies white-washing them. There are a lot of gay people on that side of the fence as well, and important academics like Camille Paglia whom I admire and respect.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Hate your straightness... what was that about? Do you mean he was against sexuality in general (repressed, etc) ?

Very much so. Even thinking about it.

All I have said in this thread is supported by facts.

Which is why the concept of "gay marriage" is such a sham. Gays in the 80s would have denounced the "gay marriage" narrative for what it is: an attempt to white-wash gay culture because they were actually proud of being gay.

You do bring a lot of facts. But this is a lie. "Gay marriage" is not a sham. Gays in the 80's are irrelevant.

 

[SexySteph]

I saw something the other day explaining that sometimes when a child (or adult child, w/e) is reunited with an estranged parent they never knew that sometimes this kind of thing happens. It was on something on A&E or something I don't remember and I don't really want to google it and end up on a list. lol

But basically it's not like a predatory thing but the chemicals related to familial love aren't that different from those related to romantic love and it can cause them to confuse what they're feeling for each other as something else? I didn't really grasp the whole scientific breakdown but apparently this isn't entirely unheard of (but taking it to the level of a relationship instead of 'that's a weird feeling I'm having, let's ignore it' is definitely reeeeeally uncommon).

Not defending it or condemning it. More like "here's a random fact that sort of explains this weird thing!"

I found an article that explains it!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...t-parents-risk-genetic-sexual-attraction.html

 

[JoleneBrody]

This is possibly one of the most interesting threads we've had in a while!
What a ponder pot!

 

[JickyJuly]

I don't think comparing incest and homosexuality is making sense here past comparing the "ew" factor. Homosexuality is just two consenting adults with the same parts. The worst it could do for the whole of society is make less babies and, perhaps, spread more disease. Really though with the access to condoms and screening, that could be boiled down to human laziness or lack of education anyway. Accepting homosexuality in our society has benefit.

Conversely, incest could certainly create issues. On top of genetic problems, it would break down families. If my sister tried to date one of my kids, we definitely wouldn't be seeing her or anyone who supported her, for Christmas dinner. Even if we all accepted it, what happens when Uncle Roy and little Suzie break up? They tear the whole family with their drama. And any children made, should they sidestep genetic issue, will have a smaller family. That means a smaller support system. It's a dream for manipulative predators who want to groom their victims. It's pretty much all bad. I'm not sure what the benefit of accepting it would be?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I don't think comparing incest and homosexuality is making sense here past comparing the "ew" factor. Homosexuality is just two consenting adults with the same parts. The worst it could do for the whole of society is make less babies and, perhaps, spread more disease. Really though with the access to condoms and screening, that could be boiled down to human laziness or lack of education anyway. Accepting homosexuality in our society has benefit.

Conversely, incest could certainly create issues. On top of genetic problems, it would break down families. If my sister tried to date one of my kids, we definitely wouldn't be seeing her or anyone who supported her, for Christmas dinner. Even if we all accepted it, what happens when Uncle Roy and little Suzie break up? They tear the whole family with their drama. And any children made, should they sidestep genetic issue, will have a smaller family. That means a smaller support system. It's a dream for manipulative predators who want to groom their victims. It's pretty much all bad. I'm not sure what the benefit of accepting it would be?

Jicky you are one my favorites on ACF but..

I absolutely could substitute homosexuality for incest in your 2nd paragraph and could find your sentiment expressed by millions just a few years ago in this country, in fact, I suspect that a solid majority of the 7.1 billion people on earth it is still the dominant view. Homosexuality has caused a lot of trauma for families. The father who becomes estranged from his gay son, or mom from her lesbian daughter. The stress of when Bill leaves Becky to marry Bob, leaving Becky to explain that to her young children. The dinner issue was certainly huge 20 years ago, in the US not so much anymore. There is no reason to suspect that Americans couldn't learn to become accepting of incestual relationships, in the same way, we have become accepting of interracial or same-sex relationships, and many societies accept bigamist relationships today.
As far as smaller families, same-sex families raise far few kids than opposite-sex families, I don't know why at age 36, Monica isn't capable of having plenty more children.
I think the answer on why is also the same as accepting homosexuality. Is the trauma imposed on society more important, than that the happiness of this couple and other MHC people? I don't think there is an easy answer to this question.

 

[JickyJuly]

Maybe, but I think there's one pretty big difference. Unless you believe all those romantic comedy movies (and I'm not that mushy), we don't have one soul mate. So, someone who knows they will shunned socially for marrying their brother can move on and choose someone else's brother. They can have a satisfying sex life and avoid scrutiny. The same can't really be said for the homosexual community. So, even if the damage to society were equal, the necessity for acceptance is not.

 

[Ms_Diane]

I was totally going to join the discussion on incest but then all this weird shit about queer people started popping up! So...

The best way to stop STDs from spreading in a society is by having heterosexual monogamous couples.

The best way to stop STIs is education and access to health care.

Homosexuality has caused a lot of trauma for families.

I don't disagree with what you said in your post in general, but this is just not true. Maybe it is a case of not so great wording. Homosexuality has not caused trauma for families. Pressure to conform, fear of being ostracized or fear of violence and the general oppression of people who are gay is what may have caused trauma in some families. Sorry if this seems nitpicky but it's a pretty important distinction.

As for gay marriage being a sham, um, nope. Some gay people want to get married and some don't think it is that important. Either way everyone should have the right to get married if they want. And that's the end of that story. The rest of the gay rights movement carries on. Maybe gay marriage being a sham is being confused with some queer people in the community feeling like there are other more important issue than marriage. I definitely know a lot of people in my community do not feel like gay marriage was a major win because there's other issues higher up on their agenda and they are not interested in conforming to heteronormative lifestyles, but some gay people do wanna get married and could give a fuck about heternormative shit and just want to live their lives the way they want without gay or straight people telling them how to do it. There are gay and straight people alike who think marriage is a sham, but again that has nothing to do with who should be allowed to do it. The end.


Now that that's out of the way, I was going to say that incest is one of the last taboos for sure. It's something that came up in a class I took on family therapy. I had to do a role play as a therapist who had a family with an incestuous relationship in it and boy was that interesting. So. Many. Levels.

I find the consenting adults argument very difficult to argue against. But, and lots of people have already said this, there are other family members to consider, especially underage children. The very basic rule of when the state can intervene and remove children from a home is based on if a child is being harmed in any way. It would be a big shift in the mindset of the public to come to an understanding that having incestuous relationships on their family was not harmful to any minors in the family unit.

On a completely different note, I was thinking maybe we need things to be taboo or something to be taboo and seems like so little is taboo anymore. I don't know if I really think that personally but just as a way to explain or understand the place of "the taboo" in our world.

I like the scientific argument, that inbreeding is bad for the health of future generations seems like that should be a nice rational explanation but there is a visceral reaction that a lot of people have, which I guess someone was saying that is built into our makeup as a way to prevent inbreeding. So some people override that negative reaction to incest for various reasons. This makes sense to me, but still I want to know why do we need laws to enforce this?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Logically there may be something to the "consenting adults" angle, but...

Spoiler

DUDE, YOU'RE FUCKING YOUR MOM!!!

 

[VeronicaChaos]

Regardless of your personal opinions and reactions, maybe we should stop throwing everyone in jail just because we can't handle how they want to live their life.

And bringing up minors/child abuse in this context (where there is none) is kind of like banning pornography to avoid child porn.

We spend so much money keeping people behind bars and destroying their lives. Personally I find that far more offensive than grown sexual deviants.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Major Ick factor aside, there is a free will issue going on here that really gets my brain floppy flippy.

What say y'all about the idea of a sterilization requirement IF relatives were allowed to be married? (That feels so icky even typing but thinking something is icky doesn't make it go away)

 

[Dani Picas]

Something that crosses my mind.. I dunno if someone else has brought it up, but if the ruling is they cannot procreate together, because of the possible genetic problems, doesn´t that also mean that other people who have genetic disorders, such as Down Syndrome should also be punished for procreating?

 

[JoleneBrody]

Something that crosses my mind.. I dunno if someone else has brought it up, but if the ruling is they cannot procreate together, because of the possible genetic problems, doesn´t that also mean that other people who have genetic disorders, such as Down Syndrome should also be punished for procreating?

This has been the major conundrum I've been pondering since yesterday.

 

[Worship Jaclyn]

Sterilizing people with Down Syndrome is still very common. I think a law requiring sterilization is wrong no matter what the case. It's one of those things where we can't allow the law to even take an inch. So many people have a high probability of passing on both physical and mental genetic conditions, it isn't up to anyone to decide which of those conditions or probabilities is bad enough to warrant something like that.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Regardless of your personal opinions and reactions, maybe we should stop throwing everyone in jail just because we can't handle how they want to live their life.

And bringing up minors/child abuse in this context (where there is none) is kind of like banning pornography to avoid child porn.

We spend so much money keeping people behind bars and destroying their lives. Personally I find that far more offensive than grown sexual deviants.

The voice of reason. You are making perfect sense to me. Thank you.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Regardless of your personal opinions and reactions, maybe we should stop throwing everyone in jail just because we can't handle how they want to live their life.

The voice of reason. You are making perfect sense to me. Thank you.

Yup.

Has me wondering...
Do I want an Incest Task Force? People who aid incest sent to Guantanamo? Shall we invade other countries to root out incest?

 

[LioraVox]

Major Ick factor aside, there is a free will issue going on here that really gets my brain floppy flippy.

What say y'all about the idea of a sterilization requirement IF relatives were allowed to be married? (That feels so icky even typing but thinking something is icky doesn't make it go away)

This is interesting, and my first reaction was "Yeah. Because then it doesn't give the child a higher chance of disease that the parents are holding traits to" - which has been a big argument against incestual relationships.

But would this only be a law for incestual relationships or would it be a law to "prevent hereditary diseases"? I kinda ended up lol'ing to myself because if it were to "prevent hereditary disease" I wouldn't be here, nor my older sister (we have sickle cell disease).. or my younger sisters because by then my dad would've been sterile. So I kinda agreed to my own non-existence for a few minutes- even though somehow I'm still okay with the idea of required sterilization.

Also, how do you think this could be implemented? Because as long as the couple remains low-key about their relationship the government wouldn't know, right? So wouldn't it be unenforceable?

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Wow, interesting topic...

I really don't see being gay as being on this level. Like I get peoples points that freedom is good and people used to hate gay people and now we accept it as a normal part of life. So maybe the same will be said for incest.

But past that this is completely different.

Reason's I'd say this situation isn't a simple matter of consenting adults-

Attraction often comes from meeting someone who can resolve childhood issues. So for the mother she could be seeing her young self in her son and is subconsciously using him to deal with whatever unfinished business or issues she had. For him it's pretty obvious that he's never met his real mother and was looking to make that connection.
I would say in this situation he was vulnerable. I'm not much of a believer that because the law says you're consenting it automatically means certain things are ok. All situations are different.

If they had got to know eachother for years, not living together but having more of a distant friend relationship and he got older and they still wanted eachother I'd be more ok with it. But he's still very much young enough to not be completely in control of his decisions. I mean we all do random things throughout life, but most people do way more things as teens they'd regret as adults.

What @SexySteph posted about family members sometimes meeting later and dating is actually a weird phenomenon. I actually feel really bad for the people who didn't realise it was their sibling/parent/child.
When it's relationships where no knowledge is there of a relationship I feel on a moral level there's no real issue. It's more when you know someones a parent and are looking for a parent figure and the parent takes advantage that I have an issue.
I mean yes the birth things are an issue, but I'm not sure how bad it is for it to happen just once.

Someone mentioned cousins- reason it tends to be legal is the genetics are very diluted by then and there tends bit to be a power issue.

I just feel with siblings, parents, uncles etc there is always a power balance which other than it seeming icky makes it potentially mentally damaging.