some things shouldn't be touched

[radiocerk]

Back to the same old...

Men can't help it. They're hardwired that way!

If I had a dime for every time I've heard that excuse.

Women shouldn't be given the freedom to go about topless, even though men do. -- Men look, and they can help it.

Hyper sexualized teenyboppers in the media. Well, they're just responding to ages of evolutionary programming.

I've even heard this excuse to forgive men for the most extreme and disgusting forms of porn (rape, pedophilia, etc. ) Well, men are visual creatures, just the way they are.

We've had 6000 years of civilization. City-dwelling, merchant-running, and all that. In that span of time, MANY things have changed. We no longer stone adulterers, our food choices have changed, no one considers me a spinster for being over 25 and unmarried. WHY do we continue to excuse this sociological throwback as a rationale? I've heard this comment from otherwise normal civilized guys to excuse their immature inability to keep from being pervs in an obvious manner.

You want to ogle the teenagers, don't do it obviously, and for heaven's sake, don't ogle your daughter. That's gross. And you don't get excused because she's a girl, and "that's what guys do. It's natural."

No, it's not.

[Nyoibo]

[I]
We've had 6000 years of civilization. City-dwelling, merchant-running, and all that. In that span of time, MANY things have changed. We no longer stone adulterers, our food choices have changed, no one considers me a spinster for being over 25 and unmarried. WHY do we continue to excuse this sociological throwback as a rationale? I've heard this comment from otherwise normal civilized guys to excuse their immature inability to keep from being pervs in an obvious manner.

Getting slightly off topic, what you are talking about are sociological changes, not biological, males are to an extent hardwired to look at all females as potential mates, until there is no longer a need for procreation that won't change.

[radiocerk]

Biology

Women are biologically hardwired to give birth as close to every 9 months as they can manage. Women have gotten over this. It's a question of mind over hormones. I like to believe that the average guy's mind actually can outthink his other head.

[BroomJockey]

Women are biologically hardwired to give birth as close to every 9 months as they can manage.

*laughs* No, they're REALLY not. They're biologically hardwired to give birth to as many children as their resources can support. Yes, they'll do it in as short a time as possible, but once they're at that limit, they stop. "Every 9 months" was a sociological imperative, not biological, and the resources thing is why so many women wait so long to have children now. They wanna have the solid marriage, the steady job, and the home to raise children, and a cushion to fall back on, all before they have that first kid. *That* is the biology kicking in. So even women haven't overcome it yet. And 6000 years? That's less than nothing in terms of evolution of instincts. Cats have been domesticated about that long, and they're still more than willing to eat you if they're starving, when dogs will lay down and die on their owner's grave. Come back in another 4k or so.

[Mr Slugger]

Women are biologically hardwired to give birth as close to every 9 months as they can manage. Women have gotten over this. It's a question of mind over hormones. I like to believe that the average guy's mind actually can outthink his other head.

But part of the thing that helps women get over their hardwiring issue is birth control of any kind. I mean like with my wife she got her tubes tied last year, but I can still tell every month when her most fertile time is. Yes she wants sex, but she wants sex because she's hardwire to want to get pregnant. Doesn't mean she ever will.

In the case of this guy he obviously knows it's a problem. In hardwire terms this guy's wife isn't giving him sex, which means he's not able to procreate, and here's another attractive female that is showing him some attention (granted in a father /daughter way) But at least he understands that it's wrong. But I think that in reality if there was a female say at work that was attractive to him and showed him some attention he'd be all over her instead. It's just that was what he saw first I guess.

Which is still disgusting by the way.

[gremcint]

I'm not really sure where I stand on this to be honest and I'm not really going to offer an opinion.

But this discussion reminded me of a blog post by someone I follow and I think some of you may find it interesting, it's related to the age thing not the incest thing.

http://theferrett.livejournal.com/12471.html

[Flyndaran]

...
In the case of this guy he obviously knows it's a problem. In hardwire terms this guy's wife isn't giving him sex, which means he's not able to procreate, and here's another attractive female that is showing him some attention (granted in a father /daughter way) But at least he understands that it's wrong. But I think that in reality if there was a female say at work that was attractive to him and showed him some attention he'd be all over her instead. It's just that was what he saw first I guess.

Which is still disgusting by the way.

Wanting is not taking!

Biology is impulses, but adult humans have the choice to indulge or not to indulge.

Say I am attracted to person X, it doesn't matter why, how, who, or what I want to do. I choose to avoid causing trouble for me and person X by not pursuing her.

Also, 16 is legal in a bunch of U.S. states.

As to incest, I find it icky as well. But I don't like laws being based on icky. As long as all parties are adults when the groovin' occurs, it's no one else's business.

[BroomJockey]

As to incest, I find it icky as well. But I don't like laws being based on icky. As long as all parties are adults when the groovin' occurs, it's no one else's business.

Incest isn't based on "icky," it's based on potential genetic errors and severe birth defects from not having enough diversity.

[Flyndaran]

Incest isn't based on "icky," it's based on potential genetic errors and severe birth defects from not having enough diversity.

That must be why we don't allow those with genetic defects marry each other. Oh wait, we don't do that at all.
If we give genetic dwarfs the pass when we know with absolute certainty that 1 in four of their children will suffer horrific defects, half will suffer the same problems as the parents, and only 1 in four will be born "normal", then why should the slight increase in risk for close relatives be singled out?

It all falls back on the "well it's icky" mentality. We shouldn't have those kind of laws in my secular opinion.

[BroomJockey]

If we give genetic dwarfs the pass when we know with absolute certainty that 1 in four of their children will suffer horrific defects, half will suffer the same problems as the parents, and only 1 in four will be born "normal", then why should the slight increase in risk for close relatives be singled out?

Because being a dwarf isn't a horrific defect. They're short, and have some specific health issues. Not a huge issue. Even more, it's possible for a "normal" couple to have a dwarf baby anyways, so dwarfism wouldn't be eliminated by refusing them procreation rights.

I ask with no venom or ridicule, do you have a single clue about any of this? Do you know the kind of shit that can show up in a limited genetic pool? We're not talking "extra toes" or anything like that. We're talking hearts on outside of ribcage, mental defects here-to-fore unknown, and worse. And the more insular the line, the worse everything gets. We're talking children who won't live to see double-digit ages, if they even manage to make it to term. And we're talking something that can be easily avoided simply by you not fucking your mother, or your sister, or your daughter. This is stuff animals learned not to do centuries ago. So I'm sorry, but to keep babies with half their brains missing from being conceived, you can live with your "ick" laws. They've actually got a reason beyond "morality," you simply can't fathom them due to barnacle syndrome.

[Nyoibo]

I ask with no venom or ridicule, do you have a single clue about any of this? Do you know the kind of shit that can show up in a limited genetic pool? We're not talking "extra toes" or anything like that. We're talking hearts on outside of ribcage, mental defects here-to-fore unknown, and worse. And the more insular the line, the worse everything gets. We're talking children who won't live to see double-digit ages, if they even manage to make it to term. And we're talking something that can be easily avoided simply by you not fucking your mother, or your sister, or your daughter. This is stuff animals learned not to do centuries ago. So I'm sorry, but to keep babies with half their brains missing from being conceived, you can live with your "ick" laws. They've actually got a reason beyond "morality," you simply can't fathom them due to barnacle syndrome.

I do and by the way, animals have not learned not to do it and a lot of breeders also use selective inbreeding without ill effects it usually takes a couple of generations for the defects to appear if it's between 1st step relations.

[BroomJockey]

I do and by the way, animals have not learned not to do it

As much as I hate to use it as a source, the fastest is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Results

Particularly the line

in species such as horses, animals in wild or feral conditions often drive off the young of both genders, thought to be a mechanism by which the species instinctively avoids some of the genetic consequences of inbreeding.

Many prey animals and insects engage in similar behaviour. Also, there's theories that part of the reason for killing mates in insects like the Preying Mantis, or in certain types of fish is to help promote genetic diversity. I'd say they learned pretty damned well.

As for the breeding that humans do with animals, there's a reason purebred cats and dogs have such shitty health problems, which kinda proves my point. Especially your "couple generations" comment. Animals are capable of breeding much more quickly than people. Your "couple generations" takes a decade or LESS to reach in most breeder animals. That's nothing.

[Flyndaran]

As much as I hate to use it as a source, the fastest is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Results

Particularly the line

Many prey animals and insects engage in similar behaviour. Also, there's theories that part of the reason for killing mates in insects like the Preying Mantis, or in certain types of fish is to help promote genetic diversity. I'd say they learned pretty damned well.

As for the breeding that humans do with animals, there's a reason purebred cats and dogs have such shitty health problems, which kinda proves my point. Especially your "couple generations" comment. Animals are capable of breeding much more quickly than people. Your "couple generations" takes a decade or LESS to reach in most breeder animals. That's nothing.

You can't compare constant restrained inbreeding with single cases of close relatives breeding.

And besides, why do you think every sex act must result in children?

I still say the science is on the side of incest not being that big of a deal.
That still leads to the ick factor as the only real reason it's illegal.
Eugenics is normally considered a bad word. We let severely retarded deformed people breed, why not those with only a slightly increased risk of defects?

[Kalli]

Flyn is right - it's an icky thing, and not a genetic defect thing.

He used a bad example with the dwarfism, but if it was simply a matter of avoiding genetic defects, people with say muscular dystrophy in their family wouldn't be allowed to marry each other either, seeing as they could have a child with muscular dystrophy.

So pretty much Flyn's exact point, with a slightly better example.

[Lace Neil Singer]

It's one of the rules you have to abide by if you live in a civilised society. Like not murdering each other and not eating the bodies. Cannibalism is rife in a lot of uncivilised societies; why not allow it in the Western world? You want to allow incest; so that means I should have the right to kill you and eat you if I so wish.