From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

Ancient Egypt[edit]

Can a nod be made to the marital practices there (and it was not just the pharaohs). Anna Livia (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


Why was my edit reverted? That link was dead. (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You removed more than the dead link. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Scientific studies[edit]

A lot of science seems based either on theoretical knowledge of genetics (calculating expected rates of birth defects) or the sort of population study where you say a country has a lot of in-breeding and a lot of birth defects. Are there studies which have directly related birth defect rates/occurrences to genetic similarity or degree of relatedness, on an individual level rather than a countrywide basis? I'm wondering if the risks of incest are a bit of a myth, or are scientifically justified beyond people with particular birth defects. --Annanoon (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

So why was that section removed[edit]

I actually don't see a huge logical problem with it even though the subject matter is touchy, and if you bring up ethics concerning procreation, one can counter that that ethics echoes to eugenics (why not bar anyone with a genetic disorder from having sex) as well as how the paragraph strictly deals with nonrecreation. I will challenge you guys, what is wrong with two consenting adult siblings having sex then? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It was removed because nobody wants to debate siblings fucking--"Shut up, Brx." 19:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Wow, super rational take there, Brx. Really helping the wiki to live up to its name, huh? π”–π”­π”―π”¦π”€π”€π”¦π”«π”ž (π”±π”žπ”©π”¨) (π” π”¬π”«π”±π”―π”¦π”Ÿπ”²π”±π”¦π”¬π”«π”°) @ 19:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Appeal to disgust is it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, are we just blanking logically justified content now because we don't like it? I mean, there are definitely still arguments against incest and I don't at all read that section as justifying it or countering the other points made in the article (it's usually nonconsensual, often involves pedophilia and grooming, etc.); it simply creates a more balanced and nuanced overview on what is actually a complex and difficult issue from a rationalist perspective. π”–π”­π”―π”¦π”€π”€π”¦π”«π”ž (π”±π”žπ”©π”¨) (π” π”¬π”«π”±π”―π”¦π”Ÿπ”²π”±π”¦π”¬π”«π”°) @ 19:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Is defending incest missional? Anyways I'll tolerate a brief aside highlighting that anti-incest arguments are largely procreation based, but an entire section dedicated to defending or normalizing incest is just creepy and makes us look bad--"Shut up, Brx." 19:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't defending incest. Just pointing out that if the main objection to incest is the possibility of reproduction then that objection won't work if there is no reproduction.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, a brief aside is fine but it's not worth expounding on--"Shut up, Brx." 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Even within context of procreation I also do think there's a hint of bringing eugenics to the logical conclusion too if we follow that and we can't just dismiss that. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I also support removing the section. It's just not worth the space, and it makes us look gross. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
If you care more about brand image than logical argumentation and informative content, you probably shouldn't be using this wiki. π”–π”­π”―π”¦π”€π”€π”¦π”«π”ž (π”±π”žπ”©π”¨) (π” π”¬π”«π”±π”―π”¦π”Ÿπ”²π”±π”¦π”¬π”«π”°) @ 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, well, isn't it just Argumentum ad fastidium this? Should we remove Leon Kass's quote in that article because it's disgusting? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
And should we remove this section too because it suggests difficult questions about how laws against incest can ruin people like that, therefore, we look gross? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing an article on the virtues of scat, then. Seriously, though. This is mainspace. A modicum of propriety is expected. How much energy is it really worth to defend incest?--"Shut up, Brx." 21:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Scat doesn't involve people or laws fyi. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
If many people were proposing making all scat play illegal even when consensual and done safely, then yeah, maybe explaining counterarguments to that for a paragraph would be warranted. π”–π”­π”―π”¦π”€π”€π”¦π”«π”ž (π”±π”žπ”©π”¨) (π” π”¬π”«π”±π”―π”¦π”Ÿπ”²π”±π”¦π”¬π”«π”°) @ 22:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Also curious, Brxbrx: for your previous appeals about open dialogue and free speech, I'm not seeing it from you in this particular topic. Why? Also, you've automatically assumed this wiki "turned to crap" though that passage was there for a long time. Why do your posts have a lot of argumentative holes you consistently fail to address, not even a small concession on any of the weak arguments that have been blown apart? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This is mainspace, not talkspace. As far as holes and weak arguments I don't really feel like reading and addressing every post in this section so I guess you can have that victory-"Shut up, Brx." 01:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, silly me for worrying about this wiki’s image. It’s bizarre to me how many people are throwing down in favor of defending siblings and parents fucking each other. What the actual fuck? Defending incest isn’t worth putting in the article. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem with that section to me is that genetics is not the only moral argument with incest. As this old Slate article points out, quite a bit of the problem with incest lies in the power dynamics. At minimum, it adds sexual tension to family relationships (which are different in many ways than romantic ones). More typically the power dynamic is in some way abusive or ugly. These days, relationships are strongly discouraged when a power dynamic of any sort is involved (eg teacher/student, boss/employee, etc.) They may not have the pre-disposed "ick" factor of incest (which probably reflects the gene-mixing side) but they have the same power dynamic abuse potential. So, there are more reasons than genetics to not care for incest. I have no problems with keeping the paragraph removed because I feel it was placed under a false assumption. Soundwave106 (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The power dynamics is a serious issue which can be an argument against incest though there has to be a bit more explaining to do when it comes to between siblings, who have arguably less of a power difference than student-teacher or a 20 year old-40 year old. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, the paragraph that was removed doesn't contradict this or say incest is okay. It points out flaws in the genetic argument and that's all. I'd be totally fine with adding a more explicit caveat at the end of it saying that the power dynamics-based argument is stronger and often, albeit perhaps not universally, true. π”–π”­π”―π”¦π”€π”€π”¦π”«π”ž (π”±π”žπ”©π”¨) (π” π”¬π”«π”±π”―π”¦π”Ÿπ”²π”±π”¦π”¬π”«π”°) @ 13:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜I don't think that it should have been a top-level heading. Deconstructing a badly made argument is fine, but in this case it makes it incredibly easy to read as if RW supports incest, which yeah that illicits a massive nope from me. And in order to provide a counter to the removed argument specifically: while there are obvious reasons why a gay relationship wouldn't have the same procreative issues, we don't have perfect birth control that isn't abstinence or neutering someone. Condoms break, the pill can get interfered with due to antibiotics, I could continue on. Bewond a structural issue with the page and the counterargument I offered, there are other logical flaws. The power dynamics argument is without a doubt the strongest, but even barring that one, there is always the Westermarck effect (the idea that if kids are raised together, they'll essentially not be able to find each other attractive). Secondly, and this might just be me, but the idea of "compulsory sterlizitaion" always to me seems like a not too far jump to an eugenics argument, and that's also not really something I think we ever ought to be pushing.

Finally, I personally (bi guy here) take major issues with the tone and reasoning of last paragraph of the segment that Brx removed. Associating gay people with "incest should be ok between them" is giving homophobes a cheap out to say "gay people support incest", which like... out of all stereotypes that's a really awful one to be pushing (especially since incest is already often connected to cases of pedophilia, which is an even older stereotype that homophobes like to claim). And yes, it is pushing it, since it's essentially a dunk on religious people by using gay people to justify incest that doesn't add anything to the paragraph since it just rephrases the first paragraph. If the section as a whole should ever be reincluded, leave out the last section. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

^More or less this-"Shut up, Brx." 01:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


In this section... where is the information gotten that "although with boys, it is more likely to be male on male." Not only does it seem rather out of place in this section of the article... I'm not entirely sure if it's true. It's Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

its a clunky way of saying the abusers are usually male for by or girl victims. see the reference given. ive made it clearer for the reader AMassiveGay (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what YOU said, but okay. It's Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)