Why are incest games so popular?

[Hagatagar]

@Jaike
I wrote that post from my memory (except for the nobel prize one, I wanted to get the years right). Therefore, I have to search and find each source from scratch and, well, I'am surly not be the best one for that, since I am not a native English speaker. Listening/reading and comprehension of a foreign language is one thing, but using adequate search terms for scientific material is quite another.

So I went to find something. But the more I searched, the more I felt it was all a waste of time on a topic I'm not interested in. And I don't want to spend my weekend on something like this. At some point I was even completely blanking out.

Nonetheless, here is what I found before I stopped.

If you have a source for that, that would be very strong evidence for the view that Freud was a fraud.

An easy start would be the wiki page about his

You must be registered to see the links

.

You must be registered to see the links

is a short summary of a scientific paper (which one has to buy), with it's references.

You must be registered to see the links

is an aricle about a book about him, at the end of the article you will find something about it.

I think this part is a little too complacent. Yes, people were more misogynist back then, but Freud lived in the imperial, later federal capital and had close connections with all kinds of people involved in women's organisations and socialist and liberal groups. He was constantly exposed to more emancipated views than the average person back then, not like he was a sheltered Carinthian hick in a clericalist echo chamber. Surely the bar should be higher for him.

Living in an modern city of it's time won't protect from ones upbringings.
His

You must be registered to see the links

page has some points about his views.
And

You must be registered to see the links

is an article about that.


I don't know if this will be enough, but like I said, I don't care anymore.

 

[Adabelitoo]

that doesn't mean I think he was a fraud.

Replying 5 days after instead of letting it go? With a looong post? And even quoting things that wasn't directed at you? Yeah, you're clearly "not committed to "that"".

And no, as I've said before, I don't care that much. I don't think Freud was a Fraud and I also don't think he was a genious. I do think he's extremely overrated and usually in a negative way but it's almost as if Freud was NTR. NTR could be "just a fetish" but for a lot of people NTR is "a virus that Japan failed to contain" and Freud could be "just a guy who was proven wrong" but for a lot of people Freud is "a Fraud".

Why people gets sooo mad and upset about their existences when it doesn't pose any danger to them in real life? Because NTR won't steal your bf/gf and Freud won't fuck/force you to fuck your mother/father. Yeah I don't care about Freud that much, I find how people like you overdramatize those things much more interesting. But hey, feel free to ignore this post in the same way you say I'm "ignoring" your corrections.

 

[Jaike]

Hagatar, thanks for the references. That book mentioned in one article seems interesting. I can understand not wanting to spend more time on it.

Replying 5 days after instead of letting it go? With a looong post? And even quoting things that wasn't directed at you? Yeah, you're clearly "not committed to "that"".

And no, as I've said before, I don't care that much. I don't think Freud was a Fraud and I also don't think he was a genious. I do think he's extremely overrated and usually in a negative way but it's almost as if Freud was NTR. NTR could be "just a fetish" but for a lot of people NTR is "a virus that Japan failed to contain" and Freud could be "just a guy who was proven wrong" but for a lot of people Freud is "a Fraud".

Why people gets sooo mad and upset about their existences when it doesn't pose any danger to them in real life? Because NTR won't steal your bf/gf and Freud won't fuck/force you to fuck your mother/father. Yeah I don't care about Freud that much, I find how people like you overdramatize those things much more interesting. But hey, feel free to ignore this post in the same way you say I'm "ignoring" your corrections.

A whole five days? Oh dear, I didn't know Freud turned pungent faster than compost. But congratulations, you are delusional and constantly lying to yourself with circular reasoning and made-up shit to believe what you wanted to believe all along. Next time preface your comments with "I'm a disingenuous troll", it would save the rest of us the effort. Have fun simping for your weenie shrink, totally disinterested person.

 

[Adabelitoo]

Hagatar, thanks for the references. That book mentioned in one article seems interesting. I can understand not wanting to spend more time on it.

A whole five days? Oh dear, I didn't know Freud turned pungent faster than compost. But congratulations, you are delusional and constantly lying to yourself with circular reasoning and made-up shit to believe what you wanted to believe all along. Next time preface your comments with "I'm a disingenuous troll", it would save the rest of us the effort. Have fun simping for your weenie shrink, totally disinterested person.

Instant reply? That's an advance.

Yeah, you're totally not getting mad, you're totally not insulting me, you totally didn't face palmed my comment, you're totally not going in circles, and I'm a troll. Sure .

 

[soiboi6669]

for me its the taboo. Were told all our lives that incest is wrong. When you tell someone not to do something they usually want to do it more, unless its like murder, cause yeah were told not to that, but i also have no interest in murder cause its just awful and anyone with a sense of morality wouldnt want to do that. But when it comes to incest, i dont think theres anything wrong with two consenting adults having sex. Theres the argument that its taboo cause of the risk of genetic defect in offspring, but what about two sisters having sex? Or two brothers? They cant get eachother pregnant so whats the issue? And genetic abnormality odds only really spike after multiple generations of inbreeding. And plus 99.9% of the time people are having sex cause its fun, not cause theyre trying to have kids. I just think this extreme societal aversion to incest is just stupid. But the fact that were so vehemently told not to is what makes it feel so much more naughty and enticing.

 

[Joshua Tree]

for me its the taboo. Were told all our lives that incest is wrong. When you tell someone not to do something they usually want to do it more, unless its like murder, cause yeah were told not to that, but i also have no interest in murder cause its just awful and anyone with a sense of morality wouldnt want to do that. But when it comes to incest, i dont think theres anything wrong with two consenting adults having sex. Theres the argument that its taboo cause of the risk of genetic defect in offspring, but what about two sisters having sex? Or two brothers? They cant get eachother pregnant so whats the issue? And genetic abnormality odds only really spike after multiple generations of inbreeding. And plus 99.9% of the time people are having sex cause its fun, not cause theyre trying to have kids. I just think this extreme societal aversion to incest is just stupid. But the fact that were so vehemently told not to is what makes it feel so much more naughty and enticing.

In regard of the defects thing. Should we demand sterilization of people that have defects/garbage in their dna they can pass on to a new generation? Don't think anyone would dispute doing inbreeding over generations not a good thing though.

If you have a random couple that both carry some chance of defects in theri baggage, vs a "incestous" couple that healthy with no such, I would bet on the later.

 

[Cooling Prob]

I like the ones that have the long burn hate to love relationships as in Alternate Existence. I really don't like fast moving games and also I would rather it be steps instead of blood relations you're more likely to get the pure hatred at first that way and the thought of two headed babies weirds me out

 

[Joshua Tree]

I like the ones that have the long burn hate to love relationships as in Alternate Existence. I really don't like fast moving games and also I would rather it be steps instead of blood relations you're more likely to get the pure hatred at first that way and the thought of two headed babies weirds me out

I don't think you need a step relationship to bring forth some sort of hatred or conflict though. My cousin stabbed her brother in the nose with a fork across the dinner table once. They where 14-15 or so at the time.

Fast moving games that doesn't bring any context and background is bad.

If you look at one of the worst forced cases of incest in recent history. That Fritzel dude that held his daughther captive in the basement and knocked her up 7 times. No two headed babies there afaik. But social trauma and a solid dose of ptsd for whole other reasons...

 

[woody554]

In regard of the defects thing. Should we demand sterilization of people that have defects/garbage in their dna they can pass on to a new generation? Don't think anyone would dispute doing inbreeding over generations not a good thing though.

If you have a random couple that both carry some chance of defects in theri baggage, vs a "incestous" couple that healthy with no such, I would bet on the later.

we've actually had a top level politician publically making the same exact point a couple of years ago. and while I doubt it's gonna get backed by legislation anytime soon, the funny thing is there wasn't a SINGLE politician nor trash media making any scandal headlines about it. not even the religious nutters. (also obviously she's still heavily against child abuse, but we already have legislation against that.)

also regarding your second point, it's almost never brought up in these discussions that hereditary defects aren't mysteriously spawned from thin air because mommy & daddy were siblings. you either have it or you don't, and if you don't your children can't get it. and if you happen to be the patient 0 for a completely new random mutation in the world, that could've happened to anyone. so a simple screening should be enough.

 

[Joshua Tree]

we've actually had a top level politician publically making the same exact point a couple of years ago. and while I doubt it's gonna get backed by legislation anytime soon, the funny thing is there wasn't a SINGLE politician nor trash media making any scandal headlines about it. not even the religious nutters. (also obviously she's still heavily against child abuse, but we already have legislation against that.)

also regarding your second point, it's almost never brought up in these discussions that hereditary defects aren't mysteriously spawned from thin air because mommy & daddy were siblings. you either have it or you don't, and if you don't your children can't get it. and if you happen to be the patient 0 for a completely new random mutation in the world, that could've happened to anyone. so a simple screening should be enough.

There been a lot of headlines over the years in my part of the world, where "christian talking heads" been very much against screening of unborn because they didn't want the society to turn into a selective one where children with unwatned defects would get aborted. So far such is regarded a private matter and left to the decission of the involved.

Watch other parts of the world where women forced to give birth regardless of how it was conceived is far more disturbing than the idea of some concensual couple that happen to be related have a offspring.

 

[BABPEEG]

Always wanted my dad's dick oh yes.

 

[Joshua Tree]

Always wanted my dad's dick oh yes.

So what kept you from it?

 

[Zorlond]

In regard of the defects thing. Should we demand sterilization of people that have defects/garbage in their dna they can pass on to a new generation?

I think a far better solution would be to repair/replace the defective/garbage DNA, focusing first on the 'backup strands' that aren't active because they're recessive and the matching strand (because all our DNA is paired) has a good copy that's taken over production of that protein.

Those recessive backups are the primary reason why inbreeding is dangerous, families are more likely to have matching faulty backups. They're also why I believe exclusive outbreeding is dangerous in the long-term, as more and more people acquire faulty backups, leading to an increasing risk that the random stranger you're hooking up has a matching faulty backup. The thing about repeated inbreeding is that in the short-term (2-4 generations down the line), you do get a lot of bad genetics coming up. But, if you follow 'Mother Nature Rules', those kids don't survive to reach breeding age (Mother Nature is a cold-hearted bitch). Anyone who doesn't have those faulty backup DNA simply has more surviving children and grandchildren than those who do. It actually cleans out the genetics of bad genes if you keep it going, and don't interfere with the rules. In the cases of pharaohs and Habsburgs, you have a ton of human interference causing the problems to just keep getting worse. ("I don't care if he can't bend his neck or chew his food properly! I am your KING and he is perfect! Get his sister in here! I want grandkids!")

So, if people don't want dying/gelding/etc happening, then the alternative is to fix the crap DNA. That solves a lot of short and long term problems for everyone, and as a bonus, the taboo against incest would fade away.

 

[Joshua Tree]

I think a far better solution would be to repair/replace the defective/garbage DNA, focusing first on the 'backup strands' that aren't active because they're recessive and the matching strand (because all our DNA is paired) has a good copy that's taken over production of that protein.

Those recessive backups are the primary reason why inbreeding is dangerous, families are more likely to have matching faulty backups. They're also why I believe exclusive outbreeding is dangerous in the long-term, as more and more people acquire faulty backups, leading to an increasing risk that the random stranger you're hooking up has a matching faulty backup. The thing about repeated inbreeding is that in the short-term (2-4 generations down the line), you do get a lot of bad genetics coming up. But, if you follow 'Mother Nature Rules', those kids don't survive to reach breeding age (Mother Nature is a cold-hearted bitch). Anyone who doesn't have those faulty backup DNA simply has more surviving children and grandchildren than those who do. It actually cleans out the genetics of bad genes if you keep it going, and don't interfere with the rules. In the cases of pharaohs and Habsburgs, you have a ton of human interference causing the problems to just keep getting worse. ("I don't care if he can't bend his neck or chew his food properly! I am your KING and he is perfect! Get his sister in here! I want grandkids!")

So, if people don't want dying/gelding/etc happening, then the alternative is to fix the crap DNA. That solves a lot of short and long term problems for everyone, and as a bonus, the taboo against incest would fade away.

I don't really see that happening unless the entire world is resorting to test tube babies.... Or we start put unwanted ones out in the forest for the wolves... which is also very unlikely would happen..

Looking at the new "force women to give birth" laws in some states in the US... I don't think those law givers that bothered with defective genes...

 

[Zorlond]

I don't really see that happening unless the entire world is resorting to test tube babies.... Or we start put unwanted ones out in the forest for the wolves... which is also very unlikely would happen..

There's a little thing called CRISPR. It's basically a molecular device that reads DNA sequences, and can remove, edit, and/or replace whatever DNA it's 'programmed' to look for. Discovered in '87, it's already in use in medical treatments, crop yields, and probiotics (yogurt culturing). It just needs more development and a practical method for large-scale use, then it could be used to repair bad DNA.

All you'd need to do is get it into a female's ovaries (at any age), where all her immature egg cells reside (they're there long before birth), and fix whatever bad DNA they find. For males, it'd have to get into the testes and do the same to the sperm manufacturers. And boom, kids guaranteed to never have the bad DNA their parents have, not even hiding among the recessive strands.

 

[Joshua Tree]

There's a little thing called CRISPR. It's basically a molecular device that reads DNA sequences, and can remove, edit, and/or replace whatever DNA it's 'programmed' to look for. Discovered in '87, it's already in use in medical treatments, crop yields, and probiotics (yogurt culturing). It just needs more development and a practical method for large-scale use, then it could be used to repair bad DNA.

All you'd need to do is get it into a female's ovaries (at any age), where all her immature egg cells reside (they're there long before birth), and fix whatever bad DNA they find. For males, it'd have to get into the testes and do the same to the sperm manufacturers. And boom, kids guaranteed to never have the bad DNA their parents have, not even hiding among the recessive strands.

all you need to do hu? Yeah I don't think that will be a solution anytime soon..

 

[Zero1994]

Easy, I like it because it's not my family

Greetings

 

[Zorlond]

all you need to do hu? Yeah I don't think that will be a solution anytime soon..

*shrug* Technology can move faster than expected. But in any case, I'm pretty sure it'll happen eventually, whether it's 'soon' or not.

 

[Joshua Tree]

*shrug* Technology can move faster than expected. But in any case, I'm pretty sure it'll happen eventually, whether it's 'soon' or not.

It will be a "rich people" thing... just as it is today in some way.

 

[Zorlond]

It will be a "rich people" thing... just as it is today in some way.

So were cars, and trains, and computers, and books. That's how all technology starts out.