Whats wrong with incest as long as family members use condoms?

>>17804112 (OP)
Leyley is a demon but I still would

>>17804112 (OP)
don't jack off to your sister anon
it's not healthy

>>17804112 (OP)
Perversion of an otherwise functional relationship.
You can't just fuck your sister/mother/ without fundamentally changing the relationship.
You cannot find or create another relationship like the ones you have with your parents and siblings and you shouldn't destroy them because you were horny.
Fuck other people that you can actually throw out of your life, or marry.

>>17804112 (OP)
The act per se isn't wrong, but It can cause problems in the future

Althought many family members fight and drift apart anyway and said squables doesnt relate to incest at all so I Didn't know

>>17804112 (OP)
The high chance of grooming and/or abuse that is inherent to incestuous relationships.
There are very rare edge cases, like if a brother and sister were separated when they were very young and met each other as adults, or where siblings were conceived via sperm donation and were unaware they were related. In such cases I find it very hard to care, but again, this is quite rare.
"It might cause birth defects" isn't really relevant legally or morally speaking IMO unless you are a eugenicist which most people today are not. If that were actually the main problem we would disallow people who have inheritable diseases from reproducing.
>>17804739
This is also a good point, though I again think a truly consensual incestuous relationship outside of something like an edge case I mentioned above is quite rare.

There is nothing wrong with it. Egyptians used to marry within families and they had a 3000 year empire. Many just don’t like it and see their siblings as people who should be protected not people to have sex with

>>17804112 (OP)
People literally only think its bad because other people told them it was icky. If you look at most online arguments about incest people against it can't come up with a reason for it other than "it's wrong", they can't articulate why. It's just herd mentality where it's wrong because other people around them said it was, even when the same people are okay with cutting kids dicks off because they played with a barbie doll once.

>>17804112 (OP)
>>17804879
>>17804970
Ask me how I know you’ve got a porn addiction

>>17804972
I fucked my cousin if that counts.

>>17804739
Why does sex necessitate the destruction of a relationship?
A lot of relationships that don't work out end up with the couple separating for good, but that's because sex and romance is their whole foundation. This is obviously not the case with a hypothetical sibling couple. Jealousy is an obvious complicating factor, but why assume it's something most wouldn't overcome like they do other relationships? If the vast majority of divorcees are able to move on without figuratively burning everything down and maintain a degree of cordiality if not affection when necessary, such as with split custody of children, so would siblings since they have a much stronger incentive in doing so.

And appeals to the importance of the traditional sibling bond doesn't hit that strong in a social context were a good number of siblings end up drifting apart in early adulthood anyway. A sibling can be the huge and irreplaceable part of one's life you talk about, but a significant amount of time they end up being someone a person meets up a few times a year with but otherwise ignore, because the focus at that point is to find a partner and raise their own family. Most modern societies by and large no longer place strong importance on duty towards kin outside of parents to their children until adulthood, so there's little sense of obligation towards family members that's divorced from affection already felt towards them. Without that buttress underpinning familial relations or devolving to metaphysical assertions about the sacrosanctity of the family, it's really hard to make a convincing argument that a relationship like that is incredibly important, since by actual objective measures they play a very small part in your actual life at that point.

>>17804839
The thing is you could argue its wrong to date childhood friends if just growing up along side someone makes it abusive.

>>17805057
I don't believe that growing up alongside them is what makes it abusive, I just think the majority of time you see incest among siblings it is abusive.

I'm 6 years into a full blown relationship with my first cousin, we both are near 45, have three kids each to other people and she's had a hyst so kids from us are impossible.

We both had a few failed things, both were married to others and always got on as best mates, one day we just started looking at our complimentary things we brought to the table and we fitted better as a couple than we ever did with our spouses,

Yes it's strange, no I don't care. I've heard it all, there are zero risks and our family were baffled, but accepted it when they saw us both complimenting each other.

Memento amoris folks, love is odd and we don't choose where we find it but we can choose to care for it with a level head of course.

I wouldn't approve of incestuous children, genetic risk factors and all but that's where it ends for me.

Sex is amazing, hanging out is amazing, and we love the same things and activities, the only problems are in others eyes

>>17805091
First cousins is fine in many societies and used to be in even more, it's only direct family members that's icky

>>17805083
>>17804839
Most incest we see is abusive because that's the only circumstance where it makes sense to come out. Those who participate in consensual incest have almost no reason to go public while they have extremely strong incentive to not do so. Furthermore, the taboo and laws guarantee a strong selection effect. The law-abiding and conscientious person will, by definition, be the most likely to abide by the incest prohibition and thus be much more unlikely to involve themselves. The anti-social, the mentally ill, and other forms of maladjusted people on the other hand, are much less concerned by morality and legality of their actions, so they will disproportionately continue to engage in it. You cannot convincingly claim that incest is inherently or mostly abusive in an environment where non-abusive incest is mercilessly suppressed.

>>17805110
Again I never claimed it was inherently abusive, just that most cases are. I am happy to add a caveat of "most VISIBLE cases" if you would like. In the edge case examples I had listed before, I would imagine such couples wouldn't go around telling people "hey, it turns out my girlfriend is actually my long lost sister".

Sisterfucker here.
She's someone I can trust like no one else in the world, and she's helped me through my issues dealing with other people and relationships. We were both repeatedly molested as kids, and it made me have severe issues forming and maintaining romantic relationships. Worst, I had severe abandonment issues.
Having sex with her and having her be my "favorite person" is perhaps not the healthiest thing in the world, but it has helped me live a much more normal and happy life than I otherwise would have.
We've had a sexual relationship for 15 years now, but it was most intense in the first year and a half. We don't use condoms, but she is on birth control.
It feels pathetic to type this, but if I never fucked my sister, I wouldn't be here.

>>17804130
Cohen infiltrated the priesthood of Levi because they prostituted their women to Aaron and Moses before killing them. Judaism is literally based on sexual blackmail, and Epstein was a fundamentalist Jew the same way ISIS is fundamentalist Islamist.

>>17805173
The last Levites perished with the Judahites between AD 70 and AD 120
Agree with you on them using sex as a weapon, but none of them are Israelites. Edomites at best, and I'm being generous. The Pharisees themselves had dubious Judaic credentials. Jesus calls them sons Abraham but not sons of Jacob. Modern Cohens claim descent from those same Pharisees who somehow congregated in Iraq after Hadrian's pacification of Jvdaea.

>>17805158
>Sisterfucker here
Aiiy, Hernando!

>>17805178
I'm being very deliberate on pointing out Aaron and Moses because the Cohenites were the Semitic male family of the desert-women that Moses married into. The Bible describes Moses as being horned-of-light because it was a non-taboo way of saying that Levi = Luwians. The Hittite word for LEVI was the very same as the ethnonym for Luwian, which was "Luwii".
The Cohenites became "Jewish" aka "IUDAIM" because the partially Luwii priesthood of the Egyptian city IUNU (Later Heliopolis) was who integrated the Cohenites into their ranks, and thus giving them the "legitimate" claim to the title "Levi" as well as "Judah". The truth is that the Cohenites and Levites did indeed mix, but only because they had a shared interest in ruling the previous northeastern vassal region of Egypt in Canaan by parading their Heliopolitan/Iudaic ("Of IUNU") authority over whomever tried to deny them their claim of Canaan. the "Northern tribes of Israel" was those mixed previous vassals of Egypt whom sniffed out the lies of this new coop between Levi and "Judah" by calling them out on their bluff of not actually having the traditions and heritage of the Luwians that they had adopted the priestly name of. David was a "Lowly" herder that Saul despised because he was a Luwian-coded herder-priest like figure whereas Saul was decidedly royal-Cohenitic. The battle between Saul & David is nothing more than a portrayal of the schizophrenic roots of Levi-Judah as a tribe that wanted to rule the other tribes of "Israel".

>>17804992
I fucked my aunt who is same age as I am (father's youngest sister)

>>17805211
That is all very interesting, especially the Levi-Luwian which dovetails with Gaul-Galatian-Galilean
However my question is what percentage of this blood escaped Titus and Hadrian
Records indicate over a million (fighting age men) perished between the two, 50 years apart
Judaea was never very populous, like let's say Egypt
Moreover, the Pharisees, who are claimed to be ancestors of modern Jews, are the same ones Jesus rebuked as liars and hypocrites time and again, same with Apostles and Early Christians. These Pharisees appeared after the Babylonian Captivity, and their descendants went back to Babylon where they wrote the Talmud 1000 years later give or take
are they Judaeans?

>>17805235
>However my question is what percentage of this blood escaped Titus and Hadrian
>are they Judaeans?
Simply put yes, because Judah-Levi was never in reality the "IUDAIM" nor Luwians that they claimed to be. They only inherited the OFFICE of Iunu and the Luwians of Egypt because of a coup, not because of genetic continuity. Jesus' problem with them was that they claimed actual descent from Levi and Omri when the truth is that they were only political heirs of whatever leftovers of Moses and Aarons priesthood still remained among the Cohenites.
It can be compared with how Romans claimed Trojan descent despite being watered out by Etruscan and broad Mediterranean heritage almost immediately. Trojans are THE Luwians btw, as it was their language. The "Luwii" that became LEVI are simply just a troubled exclave that got lost in the wars between Hittites and Egypt, as the Bible correctly TRIES to describe. The Pharisees are pro-persian Cohenites, because Persia was anti-Luwian like themselves. This is why they got preferential treatment over all the other "Northern Tribes" of Israel. Judah-Levi was always an impostor that gaslit itself into forgetting its own heritage as one of the branches of the Babi priesthoods of Egypt. Babi is to Egypt exactly what Ishmael is to Abraham. I'm quite certain Ishmael is just a later retelling of the former to explain the Arabs relation to Jews and Israel by using already known regional terminology/mythology of their own anthropology.

>>17805253
Very interesting and very well put anon
Good info worth pondering over
I won't bother you with more questions bur if you have any links or book titles handy it would be greatly appreciated.

>>17805262
Most of what I said are separate points of verifiable linguistic and anthropological facts. Putting them together to form a coherent picture is best done on your own with things like Google Earth and simple folders of stickers to map out the periodicity of terms and how they change in geography and variation. You could see for yourself how nobody would want to make themselves too much of a target by accidentally breaking the wrong cults head-canon.

>>17805091
what are you doing on 4chan grandpa?

>>17805158
Glad things worked out for you two.

>>17805282
There was an 80 year old on /diy/ awhile back.

>>17805328
what other board would a boomer post on? you expected him to be on /a/ or /vp/?

>>17805158
Did the taboo make it better or worse?

>>17805340
80 wouldn't be boomer, it would be Silent Generation

>>17804739
>Fuck other people that you can actually throw out of your life
Anon you can throw your parents/siblings/offspring out of your life just fine.
blood relation hasn't been some divine chain for a good while now.

>>17805015
>Why does sex necessitate the destruction of a relationship?
Considering all possibilities this is not a guaranteed outcome, however, you cannot unfuck your sister.
The relationship dynamic is forever changed after that point. You could become attached to her while she doesn't, or vice versa. You could see a side of your sister you didn't want to see, or vice versa. You could suddenly want or expect more, or vice versa. etc. etc.
This is why I say fuck people who you can throw out of your life.
You cannot just refuse contact with a sibling without very likely revealing what happened and or ostracizing yourself from the family(and vice versa).
I think you downplay how often siblings interact after they have settled down/ gotten a career job as well
It has never been easier to stay in contact with anyone across any distance. People regularly have conversations weekly or monthly with their parents and siblings. Not to mention family gatherings.
There is a good chance these people are going to be in your life for as long as it lasts and you need to make sure you don't do anything you aren't willing to live with.

>>17806708
I feel like this depends on how serious things get honestly, but people can break up amicably and people fall out with their siblings over much lesser things as well.
I've fucked family (not siblings but extended family) and had no real issue. This was mostly because we went into it understanding it couldn't really be a relationship and was just going to be some fun but that we'd inevitably have to stop. It caused no real issues and we still talk to this day.
I think it's one of those things where you just have to go in and treat as different from normal relationships and sex. For us it was in a weird sense basically just an extension of our familial closeless, not an actual relationship. Just enjoyed the closeness and pleasure in its own familial context.

incest is only weird if you're white

Real "Lot and his daughters" hours here ITT

>>17806733
I thought about including a fact that most (consensual/non grooming) incest occurs between cousins and step-siblings because they are less directly attached to each other.
I know that instances like this occur and can be entirely benign but I'd still argue you are playing with fire.
I don't come from a culture with such a casual relationship with sex that you can just fuck your step sister or cousin and nothing comes of it.
Casual incest is significantly less immoral than romantic incest (aka having kids) in my eyes. I wouldn't call you a bad person per se, I just wouldn't associate with you because that shit is weird.
If some white woman lets their dog knot her it's not technically "harmful". None of this stuff makes you EXPLODE on contact but it is usually waaay outside the social norm, and often occurs with dysfunctional people.
The only places where this stuff is not frowned upon is in cultures that accept or do not discourage it, as obvious as that sounds.

>>17804112 (OP)
it's wrong because it harms people by damaging their family relationships which are very important for their wellbeing because human beings evolved with psychology to need healthy family relationships and they also evolved with the psychology that having sex with their family members damages those family relationships

>but what if there was a mutated pair of siblings who did not have that evolved psychology and instead happened to have psychology closer to say insects

In that case it would still be morally wrong to commit incest because even though they would not be harmed by committing incest with each other, they would still harm other people because by having an incestuous relationship they would normalise incest for other humans and cause them to be more likely to engage in incest and so cause more people to come to harm.
It's the exact same as if there was a man who by his unusual constitution or discipline was able to do heroin regularly without becoming addicted or injuring himself and that man and that man did heroin in public or encouraged others to try heroin, that man's actions would still be wrong because he would influence other peop;e to engage in the harmful behaviour of trying heroion and most of those people who were influenced to try heroin would be harmed.

>but what if they were born with mutated psychology like an insect's and they also did their incest with a condom in secret
then virtually all the harm would eliminated

However this still means that our norms and laws should be to stigmatise and punish incest in order to limit people being harmed unnecessarily.

>>17804112 (OP)
my only sister is on the spectrum and ended up becoming a lesbian so I never once felt attraction to her growing up so I will never relate to incestfags

>>17806708
Threat of ostracism is very real but that's the product of the very idea that incest is wrong in the first place, so it turns into circular reasoning if it's intended as an answer OP's question. And no one doubts the existence of base passions and emotional attachment; what I'm saying is that the great majority would be able to get a handle on them without dynamiting their relationship in a context where it wasn't considered the behavior of freaks and scoundrels. There's risk in any sexual relationship. Involving your family raises the stakes in some ways, that's impossible to deny, but also decreases risk in others. For example, both parties have a much better understanding of their sibling and what to expect from them, so consequently there's much less of a chance in getting accidentally involved with a deadbeat, a BPD basket case, or even worse types.

>I think you downplay how often siblings interact after they have settled down/ gotten a career job as well
No downplaying intended. I didn't mean to imply that's the average sibling experience, but a decent minority certainly ends up as that, if not completely estranged. That's not really important, though. The important thing is that defensiveness over the integrity of siblinghood in the face of incest rings hollow when that same concern is nowhere to be found in other cases. You cannot deny that at present, beyond parents' responsibility to raise their children until they're adults, our post-Christian society as reflected by laws, social attitudes, and traditions, is rather indifferent towards whether families remain intact or fall apart. Granted, this doesn't invalidate the argument on its own terms, but it certainly makes it difficult to take seriously as a defense of our present consensus.

Read the thread and stop using a condom, dumbfuck.

>>17805158
>It feels pathetic to type this, but if I never fucked my sister, I wouldn't be here.
it would be better if you were not here. please both of you kys at your earliest convenience.

>>17807328
Quintessential normie response of being mad because other people told you you're supposed to be mad about it.

>>17807333
its instinctually disgusting.
>We were both repeatedly molested as kids
this is why. id hang the fucker(s) who did this too. turning you into this.

>>17807337
>its instinctually disgusting.
You just have an ugly sister

>>17807348
please kys (srs)

>>17807348
you're probably a pedo too.

>>17807379
I'm sorry your sister is ugly bro, better luck on the reroll.

>>17807348
SAAR

>>17807382
Are you one of those "OMG you can't date a 25 year old thats basically paedophillia!" people from xitter?

>>17804112 (OP)
vile. this opens the door to pedophilia.

>>17804112 (OP)
Well I don't live in a liberal democracy, so I don't actually have to explain why your taboo behavior is harmful, YOU have to explain why we shouldn't rip your teeth out one at a time until you confess to worshipping Satan and then burn you at the stake for attempting to normalize taboo behavior.

This is also why we don't have homosexuality, divorce, or transgenderism.

>>17807514
Least violent and savage muslim

>>17804767
There's no guarantee that incest WILL lead to problems, it only increases the possibility and even then it takes generations upon generations of inbreeding for those problems to potentially show up. You're not going to produce mutants by fucking your cousin or your sister but if your offspring then fucks their cousin and their offspring does and etc. then like 6 generations down the line, yeah.

I'm not into incest or anything but I'm of the opinion that what consenting adults do is up to them. If cousins or siblings want to fuck then there shouldn't be a law against it. Societal norms being against it is one thing but it shouldn't be codified into law.

>>17807514
Incest is way more common in muslim societies lmao

>>17804130
Joanna Angel is good. But for me, it’s Arabelle Raphael.

>>17804112 (OP)
Second degree cousins are the ideal

>>17807395
>>17807382
Incest is nowhere near on the same level as pedophillia, what the fuck are you smoking man?

>>17804112 (OP)
everyone who likes this piece of shit videogame deserves to be hanged

>>17808120
I liked the puzzles

>>17804112 (OP)
You have some serious mental issues if you are aroused by your own sister.
It is a very hot fantasy when it is between people other than your own family. Fictional or not.

Nothing if you're black or Mexican.

>>17804112 (OP)
Desensitization away from productive and generative actions.

People will say incest is bad for genetic reasons but then will defend Warrick Davis' right to produce multiple gnome children. I feel incest is the ultimate barometer for independent thinking in this regard.

I see it's white people hours

>>17809227
Based and eugenics pilled

>>17804112 (OP)
>this fucking thread up for days unmolested by jannies and mods
Dead board

>>17809227
It's very hard to square progressive acceptance of all sorts of sexual deviancy while maintaining opposition to consensual incest.

Only people who don't have siblings think incest is fine.

>>17805282
What are you doing in the house I built kid?

>>17804112 (OP)
I see you've consumed too much entertainment of Japanese origin. Or Finnish, in your case.

>>17805091
Least degenerate 4chan oldfag. A true pioner. Openly fucking his cousin and there isn't a single thing anyone can do to stop him.

>>17806434
What taboo? Have you read this fucking thread. Half of the posters are admitting to it. I knew this board was brown, but I didn't know it was *that* brown.

>>17806824
Someone had to say it.

>>17806824
>>17812948
What does this mean

>>17806824
>>17809146
Cousin incest has been accepted for marriage arrangement since forever in Western Europe until the very recent liberalization of sex. Now women are free to fuck and marry whoever they want (sadly).
Nothing to do with race or even religion no matter how many people appeal to the latter when dismissing it.

>>17812987
Cousin marriage is banned in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Dispensations were typically granted mostly to royals like King Philip II fuvking his niece Anna of Austria.

It was the Protestant reformation that relegalised cousin marriage in Britain, north Germany, Netherlands and Scandinavia.

Otherwise cousin marriage is banned for ordinary Catholics.

>>17812987
Cousin marriage is banned in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Dispensations were typically granted mostly to royals like King Philip II fucking his niece Anna of Austria, not to ordinary Catholics.

And the Pope had to be blackmailed by King Philip II, who threatened to withhold aid from the Holy League against the Turks. The Pope said the Bible forbade it.

It was the Protestant reformation that relegalised cousin marriage in Britain, north Germany, Netherlands and Scandinavia.

Otherwise cousin marriage is banned for ordinary Catholics.

Its Jews who practiced first degree cousin marriage while Catholics did not.

>>17804112 (OP)
Incest isn't intrinsically immoral, but the vast majority of actual instances of incest are either immoral, highly inadvisable, or both.

I dont see anything wrong with brother sister sex (then again, I dont have sister)
I think incestism is preferable to homosexualism if I had choose

>>17813281
>Cousin marriage is banned in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
>Dispensations were typically granted mostly to royals like King Philip II fucking his niece Anna of Austria, not to ordinary Catholics.
A niece isn't a cousin, and it's ironic that you brought up Philip II, because he previously did marry his cousin Mary of England, AND his double first cousin Maria Manuella of Portugal (daughter of his mother's brother and his father's sister.) These previous marriages didn't cause the same scandal as the uncle-niece marriage, which proves that first cousin marriage was quite tolerated.

>>17804112 (OP)
Familial love/loyalty/obligation is not the same as sexual love. Don't cross those streams. Romantic/sexual love is infamous for burning hot at first but not lasting a lifetime. No one needs the bitter ex routine with their sister or brother, let alone parents.

>>17804879
I believe the ancient egyptian practice is overrated. It just so happens that the most famous Pharaohs everyone knows existed in periods where it was practiced. Outside of 2 infamous perv dynasties, the 18th (King Tut, Hatshepsut, Akhnaten) and the Ptolemies (Cleopatra, last of the Pharaohs) the records of incest are much less prominent - if not non-existent.

In fact, the time between Ptolemy II pulling blood sister banging out of his ass as a practice and the infamous singlingcest 18th is over 1,000 years. Maybe you could shorten it to ~450 years if you count the Kushite 25th dynasty as an incest practicing dynasty, which they might have been.

>>17804112 (OP)
chatgpt told me that the incest genetic risk factors come from doubling up of "bad" genes, so if all these "bad" genes were fixed/removed, then there'd be no problem. I stopped having an issue with incest after that.
Not that I'd even touch my own sister, I don't really care for her.

>>17813638
What makes Egypt stand out is less the royal practice (which could be found in many cultures across the globe), but more that sibling incest was practiced among the commoners too, and that it reached very high rates during the Greco-Roman period (around 1 out of 5 of all marriages in the entire Egyptian population during the first three centuries of Roman rule were between blood related siblings).

>>17813852
Egypt truly set the standard for Islam and Abrahamism as a whole with their dick chopping and keeping it in the family.

Inbred line rat

>>17813281
>Cousin marriage is banned in Catholicism
>The Pope said the Bible forbade it.
So, it's a question of a hidden doctrine, somewhere in Scripture. It follows then that Catholics would not pay attention to this esoteric law knowing they give more importance to what the Church says and not literal interpretation.
>Its Jews who practiced first degree cousin marriage while Catholics did not.
From where do you draw this belief? Just because it's "somewhere in Scripture" doesn't mean the masses didn't do that in spades. You'd be surprised to know even staunch believers didn't and do not consult the Bible to follow any action with piety, more considering cousin marriages were arrangements to keep inheritance law within families or secure the wealth or prosperity of the couple.
n Balzac, in one of his novels, the female protagonist falls in love with her first cousin, and there is no mention of any objection appealing to the supposed moral evils of incest. I don't believe any mention of sin is ever said, which is surprising, and it's not a novel of adultery or anything scandalous; Balzac was a notorious conservative. It just leads me to believe incest was normalized in lower and bourgeouis society.
I think you suffer from the common fallacy of believing that, because some sector professes a certain belief now, it must have been true retrospectively. Believe it or not religion adapts to cultural conditions as much as the latter does to the former. Germanic barbarians continued to sack villages despite conversion, to just name an example.
>inb4 a novel isn't history.
The author is a walking document of bourgeouis France during the 19th century.

>>17810442
I mean pretty much, either you have to accept that it's no worse than many other tolerated things in society, or be consistent and support controlled breeding. If you're the sort of person who is fine with people with genetic disorders crapping out kids but thing incest is "bad" you're literally just cattle conditioned to hate it because other people do.

>>17810926
It's more interesting than religion thread #42352523

>>17814072
>bourgeouis France during the 19th century.

You mean post-revolution France after the Catholic Church was openly attacked and the cult of the supreme being was instated?

>>17807888
they're related moron. inces largely happens during childhood, aka abuse. and if its ok for siblings to do it, you'll see the normalization of parent-child too. you're a fool if you think with 18+ years of proximity, incestuous parents and siblings will wait until age of consent. its better to have it all be prohibited.

>>17815052
That's just the ones that come to light, because obviously consensual adult siblings aren't exactly going to be open about it. You're inherently filtering for abusive cases on that basis.

>>17813642
There's always a baseline percentage of damage to any one indivuduals genome, so having atleast a 2nd cousin separation between all mates serves to protect genepools from accidentally "selecting for" mutations that were randomly occurring recent detrimentals instead of ones that were conciously selected-for through several generations. By refusing to have a standard aside from nepotism, you noncritically gobble up all the random mutations like an idiot who only cares about having offspring with funtional self (clise kin), and not with a selected partner. Incest is hubris.

>>17816571
Incest doesn't "damage" the genome. If two siblings have no recessive negative traits the child will come out fine. The reason long term incest tends to cause issues is that a family might slowly over many years develop negative recessive gene traits that become expressed in greater and greater numbers when both partners have them.

>>17807310
>Alpine Imperialist
of course it's a mountain jew behind it

>>17814954
I'm for generalized incest AND controlled breeding as we're on the verge of being able to suppress the birth of dysgenic children through abortion and genetic scanning. Sibling incest (or at least the acceptance of it) would also create a closer-knit society with a more stable middle class, at least with our current laws of inheritance, and overall help to alleviate this hyper individualist mess we live in where people expect the intimacy and the full commitment of relationships without being able to relate to other human beings.
So yeah, I'm a schizo.